a case. DeCosmos, De Veber, tainly something very mysterious about this | Davies, Jetté, Pickard, Platt, Pozer, Rochester, Ross (Durham), Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Prince Edward), Schultz, Scriver, Smith (Peel), Smith (Westmoreland), Stephenson, Taschereau, Thompson (Cariboo), Thompson (Haldimand) Thomson (Welland) Hurteau, Trow, the upon Yeas 10, Kirk, Killam, Vail, Laflamme, Wright (Ottawa), Laird, Young-123. Yeas : Messieurs *Blain, McCallum, Bunster, McQuade, Costigan, Monteith, Farrow, Irving, Nays; Messieurs. Archibald, Landerkin, Baby, Langlois, Bain, Lanthier, Macmillan, McCraney, McIntyre, Masson, Metcalfe, Mills, Mr. IRVING moved, seconded by Mr. LAFLAMME, that the Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole, with instructions to insert the following section: "The judgment of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and conclusive, and no error or appeal shall be brought from any judgment or order of the Supreme Court to any Court of Court of Appeal established by the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, to which appeals or petitions to HER MATESTY in Council may be ordered to be heard, saving any right which HER MAJESTY may be graciously pleased to exercise as her royal prerogative.' Hon. Mr. FOURNIER said he was willing to adopt this amendment. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said this amendment was the first step towards the severance of the Dominion from the Mother Country. He might add that it almost, if not quite insured the disallowance of the Bill in England. The Minister of Justice by assenting to this amendment defeated his measure. He would find that within six months it would be thrown aside in disgrace. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the House would hardly submit to be menaced by the hon. member for Kingston. The rights of the Colonies had been sufficiently lost sight of by the hon. member while he was in power. The reason which the hon. member gave why the Colonial Minister in England would advise the disallowance of a measure conceived in the interests of the people of this country was a very strong reason for our ascertaining where we stood with regard to our local legislation. No man in this House would go further than he (Mr. HOLTON) would to maintain the proper constitutional connection between this Dominion and the Mother Country, but no man would go further in the assertion of the rights of British freemen on this floor. The hon. The hon. member for Kingston, true to his old Tory instincts-he figured occasionally as a Liberal when it suited his purposewhenever a truly liberal measure was proposed threatened the House with the contumely of the Tory Ministry in England. He (Mr. HOLTON) had no fear that even the Conservative Ministry in England would pursue the course which the hon. gentleman had indicated. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD rose to reply to a remark which referred to him personally. The hon. member for Chateauguay asserted that he (Sir JOHN) had threatened the House. He had done nothing of the kind and the hon. gentleman knew very well how unjust such a charge was. He (Sir JOHN) had merely stated what he thought would be the inevitable consequences of adopting this amendment. If there was one thing which we should preserve more than another it was the right to appeal for final judgment to the foot of the Throne. This was a mere brutum fulmen and had no effect save to show disrespect to HER MAJESTY. The hon. member for Chateauguay was pleased in the most unparliamentary style to refer to him (Sir JOHN) as holding Tory principles. It was not very long ago since the sweet sound of the hon. gentleman's voice rang in his ears when that hon. gentleman said that the member for Kingston was not only a Liberal but an excessive Liberal, the least Conservative of men, a Communist, and an Agrarian. And now the hon. member held him (Sir JOHN) up as a Tory. He was not ashamed of being a Tory or a Conservative. It was an honest and respectable name, in the ascendaney on the other side of the water; and, thanks to the policy of Hon. Mr. Holton. the hon. gentleman it would soon be in the ascendency again in Canada. Hon. Mr. ČAUCHON observed that the law in Quebec limited appeals to the Privy Council to cases of £500 and in Ontario to cases of £1,000, so that it appeared according to the argument of the hon. member for Kingston that the question of preserving the tie with the Mother Country was one of money. That was a poor tie, but the connection with the Mother Country rested upon something much stronger. We had received too many despatches, as if we were only children and did not know how to deal with our own affairs. our own affairs. There must be an end to that, though we were determined to maintain the connection. The appeal to the Privy Council afforded the rich man the means of oppressing the poor man and it should be abolished. Of course there would still remain the appeal for any amount by way of address to HER MAJESTY, and he did not wish to disturb that, as that was the true tie between us and the Mother Country. Mr. MILLS said the argument of the hon. member for Kingston was somewhat surprising because if it was worth anything it was good against the Bill. The hon. gentleman supported this Bill which would prevent a large number of appeals going to the Privy Council that are now taken there. He was therefore according to his own argument seeking to weaken the connection between this country and Great Britain. Mr. KIRKPATRICK considered the amendment most objectionable and, if adopted, it would very seriously impair the usefulness of this court. This amendment would prohibit appeals to the Privy Council from the Supreme Court, but permitted them from the Provincial Courts. The result would be that appeals would be taken direct from the Provincial Courts to the Privy Council, and the Supreme Courts would be passed by. For this reason and also for the reason that it would tend to weaken the tie between this country and England, he would vote against the amendment. Mr. YOUNG hoped the House would not be diverted from the merits of the amendment by these references to the weakening of the tie that binds us to Great Britain. The reason why he would support the amendment was that he believed that our own Judges were in a better position to administer justice to our people than men three thousand miles away. The appeal to England had been used again and again by wealthy corporations and individuals to prevent others who were less favoured from getting justice. He hoped the House would not be led away by the cuckoo cry that this amendment would weaken our connection with the Mother Country. Mr. CARON said that, in view of the position of Quebec and the manner in which this court was to be organized-in view of the fact that cases would be decided by it that had been decided by nine Quebec Judges he considered it would be increasing the danger of their position in Quebec to abolish the last appeal to the highest tribunal of the Empire. For this reason he would vote against the amendment. Mr. PALMER said he would like to see the decisions of questions of law in this country made final if it could be properly brought about. The proposition now made was one which should have been brought forward at an early stage so that hon. members could have had an opportunity of considering the questions it involved. It was an attempt made to go entirely beyond the power of legislation possessed by this Parliament. It was improper that the House should be called on to decide on the question raised in the amendment at that late hour and late period of the session, and such a proposal should have been made a part of the policy of the Government. If its object was to prevent the necessity of going with Civil appeals to England, he would do everything within his power to bring that about. But hon. members were attempting something which they could not achieve. By the law of the Imperial Parliament appeals in each Province could be carried through the Court of Appeal direct to the Privy Council, and he could not imagine how it was possible for the Dominion Parliament, although it might create an intermediate Court of Appeal by the British North America Act, to deprive suitors of the right of appeal to HER MAJESTY. He had endeavored to discover any way by which that difficulty could be overcome, but failed to ascertain any. But if the proposed provision were embodied in the Bill, it would, for the reason Mr. Young. he had stated, utterly defeat the Bill.. ¡He apprehended that so long as Great Britain occupied its present position towards Canada that the Imperial authorities must decide with respect to legislation between an attempt of the Federal Parliament to breach upon the rights secured to the people of the respective Provinces, and also when the Local Legislatures sought to exercise powers that belonged to the Federal Parliament. The power of allowance and disallowance of Acts therefore belonged to the Imperial authorities, and if the measure now before the House was shown to deal with questions which were beyond its province, it would be disallowed. If an attempt were made to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in the manner indicated in the amendment, suitors would step over that Government and go direct to the QUEEN in Council. The effect of that would necessarily be to reduce the amount of business taken before our Supreme Court, and a large expense would thus unnecessarily have been imposed on the people. All thinking men were desirous of having a court common to all, in which justice would be fairly, justly and ably administered by Canadian Judges, and then the laws might be compared, and the time might come when the whole laws of the Dominion would be assimilated by selecting either the Civil Law or Common Law system, whichever might appear best suited to our wants. He entertained a strong opinion that while he was willing and anxious to see the Supreme Court constituted—and hon. ministers would admit that the Opposition had endeavored to make it a correct Bill-he held that the Government should submit a separate Bill to carry out the design of the amendment, if it were to be attempted to be carried out. He, therefore, submitted two points for the consideration of the House: first, that it was improper to submit an important subject of that character to the tail-end of the discussion, when no hon. members would be able to give it full and proper consideration; and second, that it was questionable whether it was expedient to endanger the Bill by submitting the amendment. Mr. MOSS said that no one woulddoubt that this was a serious question-to be considered especially serious in view of the declaration made in reference to its effect upon the Bill. But he ventured to think between England and this country. No hon. member would desire that for one moment, and the mere fact that the hon. member for St. John had given expression to that idea would not influence any person's mind either in voting for or against the amendment. It should be voted upon on its merits. He (Mr. MACKENZIE) had heard several members of the bar in the course of the debate express their opinion that appeals to the Imperial Court at present were of comparatively little use from the want of knowledge on the part of the Judges, particularly in reference to the laws of Lower Canada. He had heard the opinion expressed by the highest legal authorities in the House that suitors presenting such appeals would have a much better chance of justice in our own Supreme Court than in an English one; and if this was the case the only object the amendment would have would be to lessen the amount of litigation that at present took place in the form of appeals to the Privy Council in England. As stated by the hon. member for West Toronto there would still remain as a when the true position of the matter was | weakening the political connection existing considered, that this clause might be adopted without any danger to the Bill. The effect of the law, if this law was passed, he took it would be that any person who was aggrieved by the decision of the highest court in any Province could go directly to the Privy Council. That right would not be taken away if the proposed clause was passed. The suitor would still possess the right which he prized so much of going to the foot of the Throne. The whole effect of the clause which the House was asked to pass was this-that if the suitor chose to avail himself of the right to go to the court which was now being constituted, he would not thereafter have the right to go to the Privy Council, except HER MAJESTY exercises the prerogative upon special application being made. He quite agreed with this. He thought that this was an object to be desired. There were certainly appeals enough. There would be one too many if after an appeal had been taken from the highest court of the Province to the Supreme Court, there still remained an appeal to the Privy Council. If it could be done consistently with principle, and he believed it could be, a valuable object would be attained by preventing suitors carrying appeals any further than to the Supreme Court. In a word: if the suitor chose, he could go to the Privy Council, because he had the right of appeal from the highest court in the Province; but if he did not chose to go to the Privy Council, but preferred to go before the Judges of our own Supreme Court, he could not complain that by an Act of Parliament he was prevented from going further. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE desired to say a word before the amendment was put to the vote. He thought the hon. gentleman for St. John took an exaggerated view of the effect of the passage of the amendment, and if he thought the hon. member was at all correct in his statement he would not assuredly be a party to the adoption of any such principle in the Bill. He was unable, however, to see the matter in the same light as the hon. gentleman. He could not conceive that any person would imagine that because they desired to make the Supreme Court a final court of resort that it could be fairly or reasonably inferred that the Government was desirous, or that it could possibly have the effect of Mr. Moss. final resort the Privy Council, by petitioning in the usual way if any one should desire to go there.. He could not imagine that the passing of the amendment would have the effect some hon. members anticipated, and he did not himself at all fear that it would have that political infiuence that some appeared to dread. He had no doubt the hon. member for St. John was sincerely desirous of maintaining the connection which exists between England and Canada, but he was not more sincere in that desire than hon. members on the Government side of the House, and indeed, hon. gentlemen all over the House. In a question of that kind we must now be prepared to judge for ourselves what would suit our people best, so long as we do not trespass on any Imperial right, or deprive HER MAJESTY'S subjects in this country of a final resort to HER MAJESTY'S highest court. This would not be done by the amendment, and it would have the effect beyond all doubt, if the representations of legal gentlemen in the House were to be believed, of lessening the number of appeals, of reducing the cost of litigation, and preventing a great deal of trouble and difficulty incident to appeals to England at the present time. Little, Tupper, Bernier, Bertram, Biggar, Blackburn, Laurier, Macdonald (Glengarry), Blake, Borden, Borron, Bourassa, Bowman, Brouse, McIntyre, Stephenson, Thomson(Welland), Wallace (Norfolk), Macdonald (Kingston), Wilkes, McDonald( Cape Breton), Wright (Ottawa)—40. The House went into committee, and having made the amendment, rose and reported the Bill. On the motion for concurrence in the amendment. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD rose to enter once more his solemn protest against the incorporation of such an unhappy and essentially unfortunate principle in this Bill. He might be right and. he might be wrong in that idea. He had given some time and labor to endeavor, in his humble way, to perfect this measure and he regretted to see its defeat insured by this amendment. Believing, as he did, that it involved far higher questions, he entered his solemn protest against it. He believed it would be hailed as a great triumph by the enemies of the Colonial connection. The Premier had stated, and stated truly, that he was as strongly in. favor of the maintenance of that connection. as any one in Canada. He (Sir JOHN) gave the hon. member credit for that, and if he believed differently he would have. pursued a different course towards the hon. gentleman after he (Mr. MACKENZIE) came into power. One of the safeguards that we possessed for our connection with the Mother Country was having such an hon. gentleman as Premier in our country. He (Sir JOHN) believed the hon. member was as much taken by surprise by this amendment as himself (Sir JOHN) and only yielded to the suasion of the Minister of Justice. The amendment was a surprise to the House, and forced upon it with indecent haste. What was the object of having so many stages for every measure if at the last moment such an amendment could be sprung upon the House without debate when its importance was admitted by the Premier? He (Sir JOHN) might be. mistaken in his feelings and in his prognostications, but he believed it would be Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. |