men honoring his name, was JOSEPH peace. This was not a time for making STURGE; the other was less known to free-trade speeches; this was not a fame but these men went there on their own time for discussing anything like the responsibility alone. They went there to details of treaties with foreign coundeliver what they believed to be a message tries; but this at least he would say, from on high, and it ill became his hon. that whilst it was the duty of the House friend, ignorant as he was of the circum- to consider all that had been said with stances of the case, to cast aslur on them. The regard to the benefits that certain interhon. gentleman, he was sure, had not many ests would derive from free trade with the Quakers in his constituency. With re- United States, the great boon to be obgard to the remark of the hon. member tained by that treaty after all was not the for South Ontario that there never was a growth of manufactures or additional progood war, he (Mr. DYMOND) supposed fits in the pockets of our agriculturists, there never was a good enemy of man- but the establishment of that community kind. But there was one war within the of interests between the two countries memory of all us that no human sagacity which would preserve peace to this conticould have prevented. He alluded to the nent forever. We were favorably situated war in the United States of America. There here for setting an example to Europe of was in the condition ofsociety there that in- what can be done in that respect, just as sidious poison which could not be driven Great Britain and France set an example out of the constitution but by that terri- in 1860. He desired that the time might ble remedy, and whilst he for one come when all those fiscal barriers might regretted as much as any man to see a be swept away which were originally great civilized community torn by civil established by the perverse ingenuity of commotion, there was the finger of Provi- statesmen to gratify the ambition and dence even in that war, until at last amid avarice of kings. When he heard, as he the crash of arms and the thunder of con- had on the floor of that House, flict the dark cloud rolled away from the that he was a member of the Manchester face of America, and left her a home for school, he was proud to think that in adfreedom forever more. But if war was vocating the principles of free trade so bad, why had men rushed into it? and peace, which was but but another Because it was the result of men's evil name for free trade, on the floor of this passions no sentimental influences, no Parliament, he was following the footsteps peace resolutions would keep them out of of the great apostle of free trade and it. There must be something more than peace, who, reviled as he was and as. mere resolutions, something which England men were in this day by hostile politicians. had felt to be better than peace resolutions and ambitious, or jealous, or envious. to avert from Christian communities the opponents, died at last to be mourned horrors of war. In 1851 we saw the by a whole country, while statesmen, the great peace gathering in Hyde Park, and proudest in the land, wept around the bier fondly believed that peace was perpetual, of one whose life's mission it had been and then ensued the terrible Crimean war. to bring peace to nations and COBDEN saw it was by practical means bread to a hungry people. He moved that all alone that war was to be averted. He the words after 'ithat" in the motion he left. had already carried the blessings of free out, and the following inserted :— "This trade into the homes of his own country- House, will at all times be ready to give men, but it was by the negotiations with its best consideration to any practical France in 1860 which resulted in the legislation that may tend to promote interestablishment of free trade with that country national intercourse, and thus, by establishthat England secured her freedom from war ing a community of interests between panics. When he heard these mere Canada and foreign states secure the mainabstract resolutions proposed, he turned tainance of peace.' from them to the splendid effort they had heard that afternoon of the hon. member for North Norfolk, and felt it was from his teachings, and not from those of his venerable friend from South Ontario we were likely to receive the blesssings of Mr. Dymond. Mr. PLUMB had no doubt the nations: of Europe would manifest deep interest. when the news was flashed to them across the Atlantic cable that this great dicussion had taken place, and the wisdom of this House had settled the question of international arbitration. He had no the House had a right to expect to hear from the head of the Government what their policy was. If the motion of the hon. member for South Ontario should be carried, this House would be pledged to address HER MAJESTY on a matter of very great importance. Now, these addresses should only go on subjects of great importance, and should go with all the weight, when they went at all, that the predominance of Parliament could give them, and if possible should go sanctioned by the Ministry of the day who, in great measures, directed the opinion of the House. doubt that France who had only been waiting for her revenge, who had been nursing her wrath, would wait to see whether the resolution of the hon. member for South Ontario would pass this House, before deciding whether some kind of international arbitration would not heal the differences between that country and Germany. He had no doubt Russia would pause for a moment and perhaps again invite some peace commissioners to take a peaceful cup of tea, and then go on with her designs as if this motion had never been discussed. It seemed to him that this discussion at the end of the session when there was business to be done, was out of place. He had heard once before that wars were to be no more and that the spirit of the age was such that international conflicts were almost impossible, and yet within the last fifteen years the bloodiest, the most severe, and he might almost say, the most unprovoked wars that had happened within his reading had occurred, and all this since the time when the peace apostles of whom they had heard just now, were proclaiming the principles of free trade and pronouncing that universal brotherhood should prevail. Those apostles proclaimed that nothing was necessary except arbitrations and money awards for those things that money cannot buy, and pay for national honor and national questions which were beyond the reach of anything like the rule of three or arithmetic. believed that until the arrival of the millenium, when men would cease to be swayed by the same passions as ourselves, all these discussions were a harmless way of ventilating eloquence, and would not make any difference in the price of guns or lower the cost of gunpowder. He thought it would be a perfectly safe speculation to buy anything of that sort, no matter what might be the result of this discussion this evening. At the same time he believed this House was out of order in discussing as a colony, questions which might come very well before the Imperial Parliament, but which could have no weight, whatever way they might be decided in this House. He would therefore vote against the amend ment and the original motion. He Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said this was an important question and Mr. Plumb. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said so far as the sentiments propounded by the hon. member for South Ontario were concerned, he entirely concurred in them so far as it was possible to carry them practically into effect. He had no hesitation at all in saying that he believed a great many wars that broke out in the world might be prevented by judicious arbitration, if it were possible to have any sort of an international arbitration court established. The great nations of the earth were jealous of each other, and be feared that a great court of arbitration through their selfishness would practically fail in effect and negotiations for peace would sometimes be provocative of war. He had no doubt, for instance, that if either Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, France or Great Britain, those great powers of Europe that practically controlled the continent were to be subject to the arbitrament of the others, something would occurr in the affairs or domestic relatious of the other five which would seriously affect the justice of the verdict about to be rendered. England felt this with regard to the recent propositions of Russia, and declined to become a party to the negotiations, not that public opinion in England was hostile to international arbitration, but from the inherent difficulties of that system of settling disputes between nations. At the same time he was not prepared to say that it was not competent for this House to raise their voice in favor of any system which would put an end to the fearful sacrifice of human life that took place in great wars. To that extent he sympathized with the hon. member for South Ontario. He (Mr. MACKENZIE) was only sceptical as to the ultimate result of such a court, because the difficulties which national selfishness and order to give his own views as to national disputes and national arbitration and to place his views permanently on record. The country would understand that the hon. gentleman's views were not dictated from a spirit of meagre selfishness, or from any mere desire to save money, but rather to divert money into a better channel than an expenditure for warlike purposes. He hoped the hon. member would withdraw his motion, and that the amendment would also be dropped. In accordance with this suggestion, the motion and the amendment to it were withdrawn. DIVORCE COURT. pride would place in the way of its accom-mates, he had brought up this resolution in plishment. As he had heard an hon. gentleman say privately to-night, suppose two or three nations were appointed to arbitrate in the case of one, and that one were unwilling to accede to the verdict, how would that nation be forced to submit? Would the three nations pound that one into submission? That would be something like war itself. The hon. member for South Ontario had not quoted anything from the discussion in the House of Commons, of England, where a resolution almost similar to his own was carried with the approval of Mr. GLADSTONE, although Mr. GLADSTONE expressed himself as doubtful of any results being accomplished by it. Now, he did not think it would do Mr. DECOSMOS moved the following any great harın supposing this House were to adopt this resolution :—“That the practice of grantresolution in favor of establishing a court ing divorces by Act of Parliament is, for of that kind. It would not indicate many reasons objectionable, and that relief anything else than a desire, so far as an ex- in all matters matrimonial would be best pression of the opinion of this House was secured by creating a Court in each of the concerned to obtain some other mode for the Provinces, with exclusive juris liction in settlement of national difficulties than an matters matrimonial, and with authority, appeal to the sword. He did not suppose in certain cases, to decree a dissolution of it would have had any very serious effect marriage.' He said that he was aware upon national affairs were this House even that a large portion of the members of the to pass this resolution. He recollected having House entertained conscientious objections been very much impressed with the state- to divorce; and other members held the ment put into the GOVERNOR'S Speech by opinion that marriage was but a legal the right hon. gentleman opposite a few relation, and that we had the right to years ago, that peaceful relations existed sever that relation if need be. His opinion with the nations around us, but the pacific was that the mariage relation was of a policy of the Dominion and the assurance sacred character, and that it should be that Canada was at peace with the neigh-interfered with by a court, such as the boring nations had no effect in Europe, high court of Parliament, except so far as for in the course of a few months war broke to establish a law which might be adminisout between France and Germany. He tered by the Judges. During the Parwas afraid that any resolutions passed by liamentary sessions he had seen hon. this Parliament would have practically as members canvassed to vote for and little effect in the great council of nations, against a Divorce Bill, and in nine cases but at the same time it might not be at all out of ten, the members when they made wrong for this House to give expression to promises had never read over the evidence, their opinion upon the subject. Although but merely formed their opinion on the we are comparatively small as to popula- report to the House. With respect to the tion, we have a large area of country that right of divorce, it was acknowledged that we expect will be settled by a very power- the Canadian Parliament had granted ful coummunity at no distant day, and divorces during former sessions, and was that we will be able to exercise more influ- about to grant a divorce during the preence than we can at present. He did not sent session. In Nova Scotia, New Brunssuppose the hon. memberfor South Ontario wick and Prince Edward Island they had desired to do anything more than to bring divorce laws and divorce courts. British up this subject for discussion, and that he Columbia had a divorce law, but he was had no desire to press his motion to a not aware that there was any machinery division, but having been taunted with to carry it out, and he thought that the reference to his speech on the militia esti- Provincial Legislatures had the right to Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, create a divorce court, having a law on their statute book, The Provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba had no divorce laws or courts, and the same would apply to the North-West Territories. There being already, as he had pointed out, divorce courts in the Eastern Provinces of the Dominion, and Parliament having the right to pass a divorce law and grant divorces, he held that Parliament should enact a law to establish divorce courts for those Provinces where they did not exist. Up to 1857 there was no divorce law in England. In that year the law was enacted creating a court for matrimonial causes and divorce, since which time the law had been amended session after ses sion, and there were no serious complaints as to the operation of the law. He would be perfectly satisfied if the Imperial statute, modified to meet our necessities, were adopted. He thought the cost of working the courts would not be very heavy, if the system adopted in Nova Scotia and P. E. Island were followed. Hon. Mr. HOLTON thought the motion was out of order, because it might involve the expenditure of money. Mr. SPEAKER ruled that the motion was in order, because it only sought to assert an abstract principle. Mr. BECHARD moved in amendment that all divorce courts existing in the Dominion be abolished. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE hoped the hon. member would not move that motion, because we had no power to abolish courts within the different Provinces. He would ask the hon. member for Victoria whether under the circumstances it would be desirable to ask the House to express its opinion on the resolution. It might be that the resolution only sought to lay down an abstract proposition; but it also proposed to establish a court which a large number of persons were opposed to; and although he had personally no objection to the establishment of such courts, he at the same time did not desire to afford additional facilities for obtaining divorces. But the question at the present time was as to whether any useful purpose would be served by moving a motion of this kind as the House was not discussing any subject cognate to it, and as the hon. gentleman would not ob tain an expression of opinion in favor of Mr. DeCosmos. the establishment of such a court he hoped the resolution would be withdrawn. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said the motion was quite in order as it asked the House to express its opinion on a grave question of public policy. If the resolutions were adopted, the Government would have to consider what was the effect of the motion when carried. This was one of the many subjects which Parliament was authorized to discuss. So far as his own personal opinion was concerned, he would vote against the resolution, for there was no reason why we should establish courts of divorce in Canada. While he would not go as far as the hon. members from Lower Canada, and declare that divorces should not be granted under any circumstances, he thought there should be no encouragement given their procurement. The present law was sufficient for all purposes. If a party established in a court of law, in a manner that was satisfactory to the court, that he had been wronged, he had a right to apply to Parliament. Happily, as yet we had very few of those applications, and the time spent in legislating for the relief of these applicants was well spent if we could avoid the creation of a divorce court. Amongst the moral triumphs which Mr. GLADSTONE had achieved there was none so great as his defeat when he protested against the establishment of a divorce court in England, which had not been productive of any beneficial effects. It was well known that cases of almost collusion occurred every day; and arrangements were made between husband and wife so as to permit a separation or a termination of the marriage But in England there was a reason for the establishment of a court which did not exist here, and that was the enormous expense of obtaining a Private Bill for divorce, and getting it through Parliament. In this country, however, the expense of going through the courts was simply the cost of a suit before an ordinary tribunal, which involved no very large expense; and they all knew how small the expense was of passing a Bill through the Canadian Parliament. While divorce was not prohibited in Canada, and while parties to domestic misery and unhappiness might obtain relief, nevertheless under the present system no encouragement was given to those cases, and he would be very sorry to see any tribunal established which might be the means of inviting other dissatisfied couples to apply for a divorce. should vote against the motion as at pres ent unneccessary. The question being put,-a point of order was raised and discussed as to whether the motion should not be declared lost on division, and as to the calling yeas and nays, Mr. SPEAKER said that upon division the yeas and nays need not be taken unless demanded by five members. The question being put, a brief discussion took place on the point of order as to whether the five members who called for a division should not be held to vote nay. The House divided as follows Borron, Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said that divorce was now a social disease, but if we established a Divorce Court, as they had in England and the United States, it would prove a social epidemic. There was nothing so inviting as a court of that kind for people, first, to marry without any consideration or reflection, and, second, to procure a divorce at leisure. There was divorce in the Roman Law, but it was not in accord with the feelings of the people, and was not during a long period carried into effect; but after the first case, it spread like an epidemic, and the consequences in Italy, the United States and England were very well known. He did not consider the subject from a religious but from a social point of view. | When BONAPARTE established the Code DeCosmos, Napoleon, he pronounced, after a long discussion, in favor of divorce. But in 1816 CHATEAUBRIAND, the eminent writer, who was at that time Minister of the Crown, succeeded in abolishing divorce and establishing the old law, not on religious but on purely social considerations, and after that the question was tried in the legislative body of France under LOUIS PHILIPPE On the two first occasions a three times. proposition to reverse the law was carried in the Lower House by an overwhelming majority, but it was rejected by the House of Peers, simply on social considerations. In 1843 or 1844 the question was again brought up before the legislative Lody, and upon the simple considerations he had mentioned was rejected by an overwhelming majority, and was never tried again. Its adoption now would result in a greater evil than the social evil, and he hoped the question would never be brought up again. Mr. DECOSMOS said he thought it ought to be the duty of the Government to take the necessary steps on the establishment of a Divorce Court, and not have questions coming before this House so often in the shape of applications for diannoyance ofall. thought there was a real feeling in the country that there divorce law, as the present was very expensive. the vorce to the Barthe, Aylmer, Jodoin, Landerkin, Blackburn, Langlois, Blake, Lanthier, Borden, Macdonald (Kingston), MacDonnell (Inverness), McGregor, McIsaac, Mills, Cauchon, Mousseau, He Cunningham, Norris, Cushing, Oliver, should be a Delorme, Cuthbert, Orton, Ouimet, Desjardins, Paterson, De St. Georges. Pelletier, Donahue, Perry, Pettes, Plumb, Pouliot, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said so far as public opinion was concerned it was not demanding anything of the kind; and he Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. |