Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Kerr,
Killam,

Laflamme,
Laird,

Landerkin,

Appleby,
Archibald,

relation to the payment made by the Jones (Leeds),
Legislature of Ontario to the estate of
JOHN MONTGOMERY. The grounds on
which he was prepared to vote for the
item now before this House were that after
long consideration the payment had been
recommended to be made by a committee
of the House, and there was a wide dis-
tinction between this case and that of
MONTGOMERY.
The payment to MONT-
GOMERY'S estate was not based on a report
made thirty years ago, but the report re-
commended payment to be made to Mr.
MONTGOMERY for provisions, fodder for
horses and other articles for the use of the
troops, and for the destruction of property
which ought to have been destroyed under

Bain,
Blackburn,
Blake,
Bowman,

Brown,
Burk,
Burpee (Sunbury),
Davies,
De Veber,
Farrow,

[blocks in formation]

the circumstances.

Ferris,

The item was concurred in on the fol

Fleming,

Forbes,

lowing division :—

Gibson,

Gillies,

[blocks in formation]

Blain,

Borron,

Bourassa,

Bowell,

Brouse,

Burpee (St. John),

Laurier,

Macdonald (Kingston),
McDonald (Cape Breton),
MacDonnell (Inverness),
McDougall(Three Rivers)
Mackenzie (Lambton),
Mackenzie (Montreal),
Maclennan,

McIntyre,

Cartwright,

Casey,

Masson,

Casgrain,

Metcalfe,

[blocks in formation]

McDougall (Renfrew),
MacKay (Cape Breton),
McKay (Colchester),

Ryan,

Rymal,

Scatcherd,

Schultz,

Skinner,

[blocks in formation]

Items 224 to 227 inclusive were passed without discussion.

On 228, $3,562.50 to pay to the Hon. D. A. SMITH, M.P., the sum of £600,

Mr. WHITE (East Hastings) moved, seconded by Mr. BowELL "that this item providing for $3,562.50 to be paid to the Hon. D. A. SMITH, M.P., in settlement of the amount advanced by him on the 6th February, 1872,-£600 together with interest thereon, be not concurred in, the said sum of £600 having been applied to a purpose of which this House cannot approve." He said that if what they had read lately in the newspapers of the action taken by the Hudson's Bay Company, was true, it was certain that this sum of money ought not to be paid to that Company. He knew there were many parties in this House, and in the country, who maintained that the hon. member for Kingston when in office should not have advanced $1,000 to get troublesome parties out of the territory, but on this occasion he (Mr. WHITE) had nothing to do with that question. He did not approve of that advance at the time, nor did he approve of it now. But though that had been done,

it afforded no reason for this amount of $3,500 being paid. The Hudson's Bay

Company received from this country, ast payment for its rights in the North West Territories, one and a half million of dollars, besides getting one-twentieth of all the land, and having the benefit of all the improvements that were effected, and which put so much money into the Company's pocket. Nothing could be done in that country but it must enrich the Company. Even the annuities given to the Indians had to be paid in the Company's stores, so that it might reap any advantage that might accrue therefrom. When they came to observe the action of the hon. member for Selkirk in the matter of the North-West difficulties, they must feel satisfied that there was some truth in the letters written by Sergeant MULLIGAN and O'DONOGHUE. He hoped hon. members who condemned the act of the hon. member for Kingston in sending the $1,000 would be equally ready to stand up and condemn the payment of the money which was advanced by the hon. member for Selkirk under the circumstances stated. He sincerely hoped that the item would not be concurred in by the House.

Mr. ROSS (Prince Edward) remarked that the major part of the money would be paid to M. BoUCHETTE'S Son, who had been in the employ of the Government for many years, and was well paid for his services. He understood he had been wounded during the rebellion of 1837.

M. CIMON: Je voterai pour que la somme dont se compose cet item, soit payée au membre pour Selkirk, pour la seule raison que c'est à la demande de Mgr. TACHÉ que cette somme a été mise dans les estimés, et non pas parce que je sympathise avec la position de l'hon. membre. Si Mgr. TACHÉ n'avait pas demandé que ce remboursement fût fait, je croirais devoir voter contre.

Mr. ROCHESTER hoped the House would adopt the amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings. The question had been before the House on a previous. occasion, and he regretted that it should have again been introduced. Subsequent revelations had shown he was correct in the criticisms he had offered during last session in respect to the course that the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company had pursued in the North-West troubles. If Mr. ROSS (Prince Edward) said that there was any reliance to be placed on the to be consistent he must vote against the reports and letters published in the newsitem as he had done on a previous occa- papers, they were now likely to get at the sion. Adverting to the sum proposed to bottom of the difficulties, and that power be paid to the BOUCHETTE family, it had behind the Throne, of which he had been stated that Mr. BOUCHETTE was a spoken last session, was about to be unrebel in 1837. [Cries of No.] veiled. Sergeant MULLIGAN, it would be Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-That is the seen by his statement, was ready to swear the truth of everything case I believe. and if that was he had written ; the case, it right or proper on the part of the House to give this money to parties who were plotting against the Dominion, and endeavoring in every way they possibly could to injure the country, and who were, he believed, the instigators of all the troubles in the North-West ? Those persons who had recently been amnestied for the murder of Scott were not so much to blame as other parties, for they were simply tools in the hands of those individuals who held the their reins of power, and controlled actions. That was fully shown both of O'DONOGHUE and by the letters Sergeant MULLIGAN. Under those circumstances he hoped the House would not for one moment think of sanctioning the expenditure of money as was proposed in this vote. In respect to the hon. member

Mr. ROSS said he felt it his duty to vote against that item also as he had done against the other, and he hoped the hon. member for East Hastings would pursue the same course. He felt he could not be a party to the payment of any money to one who had been in rebellion against his country.

Mr. BOWELL said the hon. member for Prince Edward had evidently misunderstood the statement of the hon. member for Kingston, for he had reversed the order of facts. The Mr. BOUCHETTE, of the product of whose labors the Government now proposed to show their appreciation, was one of the old Loyalists of Lower Canada, and not a rebel. It was one of his sons who was a rebel, but not the Mr. BOUCHETTE to whom the debt was due, which was an important distinction to draw.

Mr. White

was

not

satisfied

was Mr. BROUSE at having to pay the price of disloyalty, and he would, therefore, vote for the amendment.

for Kingston having sent $1,000 to the North West to be paid to some of the leaders of the rebellion in order to induce them to leave the country, it was an act which he could not justify, although he Hon. Mr. BLAKE said he had no thought it was done was done with the best doubt this was a very unpopular vote, but intention, as was supposed, in the interest it was also just, and he would vote for it. of the country. He hoped the Govern- What the hon. member for South Leeds had ment would withdraw the item, or that said was strictly true. Mr. ARCHIBALD, as the House would vote it down. GOVERNOR of that territory had apprehenMr. CASEY said the question before sion for the safety of the country and those the House was simply whether the Gov-apprehensions were shared by others qualiernment were under obligations to reim-fied to judge of the danger. It was deemed burse a gentleman who, acting for the proper in the public interest that this money Hudson's Bay Company, advanced money should be advanced and it was procured to a former Government, for what was said from the hon. member for Selkirk. The to be in public use, to assist the Govern- right hon. member for Kingston took the ment in acting in what they considered to same view when the circumstances were be for the interest of the country. It was stated to him, as would be seen by the ungenerous for any supporter of the late evidence of that hon. gentleman before the Government to endeavor to break faith North-West Committee. The right hon. when their leaders had pledged themselves member deposed :for the money advanced, and the then leader of the Government stated on one occasion to the hon. member for Selkirk that it would be quite sufficient to put in a vote, stating the money had been advanced to Lieut. Governor ARCHIBALD for the purpose referred to, and he would receive the money next morning. Although this promise of repayment was never carried out, the leader of the Government had pledged the faith of the country to it. If the question of the policy of giving this money were open for discussion, he could say something about it as strong as what had been said by the hon. member for Cardwell. The question was now whether Mr. SMITH should be paid or not. He would most heartly support the Government. The amendment would only create an impression that the Opposition were endeavoring to obtain cheap popularity, but it would also be seen that it placed their chieftain in a delicate position. He hoped the hon. member for Kingston would exercise his influence with his supporters to induce in the

them to vote for the item estimates.

Mr. PLUMB said facts had recently been brought to light which forced him to vote for the amendment.

Mr. JONES (Leeds) said he would vote for this appropriation because he believed the Government were in honor bound to redeem the promise of the Lieut. Governor of Manitoba.

Mr. Rochester.

"The largeness of the sum rather staggered me, especially as I had not heard the result of the previous payment; but I did not hesitate to at once tell Mr. SMITH that if the Lieut. Governor, in the presence of such an exigency, had pledged the faith of the Dominion Government, and the money was advanced on that pledge, that he, Mr. SMITH, or the Company, should not be losers, and should be repaid. I stated that there might be a difficulty as to the means or fund out of which he would be repaid; that it would be very embarrassing, if not impossible, to go to Parliament at that time for the money, and I asked him to allow the matter to stand over, repeating the assurance for myself that it must be repaid him in some way or other. I cannot remember any interview or conversation with Governor ARCHIBALD about it, although I have taxed my memory on the subject. I of course accepted Mr. SMITH'S statement. It I took no other steps for ascertaining how the then became simply a question of when and how. matter stood. I remember reference being made by Mr. SMITH to a sum of £500 sterling which it was desired to pay to the loyal French. The GOVERNOR may have spoken of this and of the £600 also, but I cannot remember. I have never had any doubt in my mind that this money should be paid. I intended that it should be paid. The subject was not formally brought up in Council because I was exceedingly unwilling to bring up the discussion of the RIEL affair at all, in consequence of the embarrassment I felt as to the position of my Lower Canadian colleagues. I was anxious to avoid discussion lest the result might be a claim for amnesty, and, in the event of the Cabinet not agreeing upon action, resignation. The consideration of the payment was therefore postponed, as I thought it made little difference to a Company like the Mr. SMITH was very urgent, and I asked him to Hudson's Bay Company. Early last November write me a letter stating the particulars (as he had done before) of the claim, that I might bring

up

before Council. He wrote such letter, but this being a few days before resignation no action was taken upon it."

That was the statement made by the hon. member for Kingston after having communication with Governor ARCHIBALD, as appeared further on in the evidence. The hon. gentleman was recalled and after having his evidence read over to him, had nothing to add to it. No doubt Governor ARCHIBALD intimated to Mr. SMITH that he had no authority to pay this money, but there was equally little doubt that he pledged the faith of the country as far as he could to its repayment to the hon. member for Selkirk. This House should respect that pledge and vote the money. The hon. member for Kingston would have been unworthy of his position it he had failed to respect that pledge, and this House would be equally unworthy if it refused to repay this money.

[ocr errors]

to take notice of. The hon. member for Selkirk had promised to make some explanations to the House, but he had not yet done so, and before one cent of this money was paid there should be a thorough investigation of the charges made against him. If the hon. gentleman cleared himself, then he should be recouped this money, either by this Government or the Manitoba Government. The hon. gentleman could without suffering any hardship wait for this money till an investigation was had, which might take place in a week, if the House sat that long, or next session—especially as the money would be drawing interest all the time. He did not approve of this way of spending the public money, as he had not approved of the payment of the $1,000. The passage of this vote would forever stop the mouths of gentlemen opposite from saying anything if the payment now proposed is right, the against the payment of the $1,000, because first payment is equally right.

Mr. SCATCHERD thought if any pay ment was wrong it was the first one of $1,000 and not the second amount advanced by the hon. member for Selkirk. ment which the hon. gentleman was so Mr. SMITH (Selkirk) said the stateThe claims of every one else had been set-anxious for would be made in due time. tled. This Parliament had voted large amounts of land to parties implicated in the rebellion, yet no one objected to it. The claim of the hon. member for Lisgar had been settled, and why should this one be opposed? There might have been a mistake as to the necessity of this pay; ment, but the money was paid in good

faith, and it would be most unfair to refuse to refund it to the hon. member be

cause it was asserted by some one that he had been implicated in the rebellion. There was no evidence to prove that assertion, and the money should be paid.

Mr. ROCHESTER observed that the $1,000 was sent up for the purpose, as was believed, of preserving the peace of the country during the winter season when it was impossible to send up troops.

Mr. LANDERKIN said it was quite clear that the hon. member for Selkirk

had paid this money on the understand ing that he would be repaid by the Government of Canada, and we should not shrink from discharging a debt of honor of that kind through fear that political capital would be made out of it.

He, however, wished to say that if in the opinion of any member of the late Govwhich ought to be paid, he would be perernment this was not a debt owing to him fectly satisfied if the House refused to pay it.

to the hon. member for Selkirk that he Mr. BOWELL wished to say in justice had expressed the most earnest desire

before the North-West Committee to

assist him (Mr. BOWELL) in entering into

a full examination of the connection of

the Hudson Bay Company with the troubles of the North-West, but the Committee had refused to go into that investigation.

the leader of the Opposition, said he felt Hon. Mr. TUPPER, in the absence of bound to state that if that hon. gentleman

was in the House he would at once declare

that the Government were bound to dis-
charge this debt, and the late Government
were prepared to do so as soon as it could
be done.

The House then divided on the amend-
ment, which was lost; yeas, 27; nays, 89.
YEAS:
Messieurs

Mr. FARROW said he could see no hurry for paying this money, especially in view of certain very curious revelations that had been recently made—revelations Brouse, which he thought it the duty of this House Brown,

Bain,
Bowell,

McQuade,

Moffat,
Monteith,
Orton,

Hon. Mr. Blake.

[blocks in formation]

Hon. Mr. HOLTON-Who makes this charge? Do you?

Mr. FARROW-The charge is circulated throughout the country.

Mr. SPEAKER-I think this has gone almost too far. My impression is that it is not fair to speak of charges made against any hon. gentleman which are not made in this House. Mere newspaper report or rumors afford no justification for such a course. If any hon. gentleman is prepared to make a charge let him lay it upon the table and the action of the House could then properly be taken on it. But where there is nothing of that kind I do not think it is fair to constantly speak of an hon. gentleman as lying under charges.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-I

quite agree with the opinion you have now expressed, but remember that these charges were distinctly brought before this House by the member for Selkirk himself, who said he was going to reply to them.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-They were referred to by a gentleman opposite in the first place, and it was quite naturally that the hon. member for Selkirk should reply to the accusation, although if I was in his place I would pay no attention to Sergeant MULLIGAN'S charges.

Mr. BOWELL-If I recollect rightly the first time the name of Sergeant MULLIGAN was mentioned in the House was by the hon. member for Selkirk himself. He mentioned the name, and afterwards I rose and asked him if it was the same Sergeant MULLIGAN who had written a certain letter.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-It may be quite competent for an hon. gentleman to take notice of charges made against him in a newspaper, but until some hon. gentleman chooses to adopt these charges and assume the responsibility of preferring them in this House I quite agree with you, Mr. SPEAKER, that they should not be made the ground of any action by the House, I call the attention of the House to an observation of the hon. member for North Huron, which I was not surprised at coming from him, that this money should not be paid till the hon. gentleman from Selkirk provel his innocence. That is his notion of the rights of a British subject. How would the hon. gentleman like to be assumed guilty of any charge that might be

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »