protract discussion on a matter of this kind. If hon. gentlemen opposite are disposed to leave the matter where it stood before the declaration of the Speaker, then I will withdraw my amendment and await his decision on Monday, as to whether he can go on with the order as proposed or not. MR. PLUMB: I hope, at the same time this decision is made, you will tell us by what sign we shall know whether the hon. gentlemen who seem to control the parliamentary business of this House in such an arbitrary manner, hear your decisions. MR. KIRKPATRICK: You have not considered this a vote of want of confidence, because you stopped the hon. member for Terrebonne when discussing matters outside the motion before the House. MR. SPEAKER: But the hon. member objected, and said he had a right to discuss those matters. cations according to the support which that motion receives from large portions of the House; and, finally, let me add, qualifications according to the bearings of the motion upon the public interests at the time. Because it is perfectly conceivable that a vote might be moved, not like that of my noble friend, to which he disclaims attaching the character of a vote of censure, but one intentionally carrying the character of a vote of censure, and which might receive considerable support, but for the immediate discussion of which, nevertheless, it might be contrary to the duty of the Government to give extraordinary means, if, in their conviction and knowledge, it was likely to be injurious to great public interests." So that it will be seen that it is for the Government to determine whether this vote now before the House possesses all the qualities essential to a vote of want of confidence, and whether it is desirable that all other business should be suspended in order to discuss it. I believe, with Mr. Gladstone, that, in a vote of this kind, the intention of the mover should form one of the essential MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes; but he think it must be for the Government points in deciding the question. I bowed to the Chair. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: It would be advisable, and more satisfactory, to allow the question to stand over till Tuesday. MR. SPEAKER: It is very evident, from what Mr. Gladstone says, and it seemed to be the opinion of the English House of Commons at the time, that a motion of want of confidence' should motion of want of confidence should interrupt and intercept all other business until discussed to the end; and I think, as far as I can judge, it is for the Government to say whether they will consent to such adjournment of the matter, in order to afford facilities for bringing forward private business. But Mr. Gladstone lays down that a vote of want of confidence may, properly speaking, take priority of all business. He says: "I do not wish to be held bound, even by silence, to the doctrine that every motion to be made in this House, which the Government may regard as involving a vote of censure is, therefore, to exercise precedence of all other business, and is to be made the sub Ject of immediate discussion. There are various qualifications to be attached to that doctrine qualifications according to the cir cumstances of the case, qualifications according, also, to the intention of the member by whom the motion was made; qualifi to say whether or not this motion must be considered as a vote of want of confidence. MR. MASSON: Then I would sugshould yield gracefully to our proposal, gest to the Government that they to allow the debate to come up again for discussion on Tuesday, and then the question may be tested, and the Speaker, by that time, will be fully prepared to decide it. MR. MACKENZIE: I am quite willing, as has been suggested, that it should be left with the Speaker to decide on Monday whether we can proceed with the ordinary business or not on that day. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: I would not agree to that. MR. HOLTON: The hon. gentleman is quite aware that amendments germade, and as often put, without notice. mane to the motion are constantly During the Administration under the leadership of the hon. gentleman, such a motion was made very frequently; but the hon. gentleman, having changed sides in the House, has entirely changed his own views upon this question. I venture to say that he would not have consented to regard such a motion in amendment in any other light than as a vote of want of confidence. I hold that, according to the rules of the English Government, it is the substance of the motion, and not the order in which it is put, that makes a vote one of want of confidence. But, whether it is a vote of want of confidence or not, I think the suggestion I made, that the Speaker on Monday should determine, in accordance with an understanding on both sides, whether it is competent for the Government to go on with the motion as a vote of non-condence, to the interruption of the ordinary business of the House, should be adopted, and that both sides should agree to be governed by the Speaker. If this is done, I will not press my motion. MR. SPEAKER: I have been looking into this matter, and Mr. Gladstone's doctrine on the subject so fully agrees with what I always felt myself, that I feel myself compelled to decide that the debate is upon a vote of want of confidence. I know that the position I took last year was in opposition to this view; but then I had not seen either of those speeches which I have just read, and how they escaped my observation I do not know. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: We must submit to the decision of the Chair, of course. At the same time, I say that the decision strikes vitally at the independence of Parliament and the privileges of the minority. MR. COSTIGAN: I want to call the attention of the House to this point, that the motion to adjourn the debate was not carried at the time it was declared by you. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: The adjournment was declared carried by inadvertence. MR. COSTIGAN: If the motion to adjourn the debate was not carried at that time, has it been carried since; and is the House to be adjourned with out adjourning the debate? MR. SPEAKER: We are now considering the question whether this debate be now adjourned. MR. MASSON: No; it is the adjournment of the House we are discussing now. MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Palmer moved, seconded by Mr. Farrow, that this debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to, and Debate adjourned. House adjourned at Ten minutes before HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, 11th March., 1878. The Speaker took the Chair at Three o'clock. PRAYERS. MOTIONS OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE. SPEAKER'S RULING. MR. SPEAKER: I have the honour to state to the House that I have made it my business to look as carefully as I could into the important question that arose at an early hour on Saturday morning, and with which I felt then unprepared to deal finally, though I was forced at the time to make a deci sion. I am satisfied, from the declara tion of the hon. the First Minister in respect to the resolution moved by the right hon. member for Kingston, that it has all the character of a motion of want of confidence, and is therefore entitled to whatever precedence a direct motion of want of confidence may be entitled to. Then the question arises as to what that right is. The statement of Mr. Gladstone, which I read here on Saturday morning, and which I had previously seen, was to the effect that it was "the usage of Parliament" that a direct motion of want of confidence should precede all other business of the House, and especially of the Government. That seemed, as I read it then, to be a very distinct declaration that a motion of want of confidence of right took precedence of all other questions and of all other business; but, on further examination, I see strong reasons to more than doubt that that is what the right hon. gentleman meant. As I have stated more than once, my difficulties are in- | postponement to some subsequent date; creased in this matter, because I cannot so here was a direct motion of want of find any case precisely analogous to confidence where the debate was actuthat which is now before the House; ally continued from day to day, as far nor are there many instances, of late as I can judge; but it was so continued years, when direct motions of want of rather by consent of the House and of confidence have been moved at at the parties interested than because all. However, the last direct such a motion absolutely took premotion of want of confidence cedence of right. Coming down to a which I find, was moved, in 1841, by later period, the year 1859, the ConSir Robert Peel, and this was a direct servative Government of that day inand express motion declaring that the troduced a Reform Bill, to which an House had no confidence in the then an amendment was moved which Ministers. At the end of the first traversed quite as completely the evening's debate, it was moved that the policy of the Government of the day debate be adjourned, and subsequently with respect to that reform measure the adjournment of the House was as the notice now before the House moved by Lord John Russell, when traversed the policy of the present Sir Robert Peel said: Government It was moved that there be left out from the motion all after the word "that," and that the following words be added: Supposing the debate not to be concluded this night, and the House to adjourn till Wednesday, will the debate then take prece dence of all other business? I know it has been said that I have brought forward this motion for the purpose of interfering with the debate on the Corn Law question-a motive which I beg entirely to diaclaim. If the noble Lord had proposed that the House should meet on Monday or Tuesday, I should have offered no objection whatever; but, if the usual recess be allowed, I shall expect that the debate will, on Wednesday, take precedence of all other business." He evidently there spoke as if it were the custom and usage of the House, and yet it is not put as if, by right, these questions should take precedence. Lord John Russell, in reply, said: "I think there will be no difficulty in the House understanding that the debate shall be resumed on Wednesday next in preference to any other business.” There again Lord John Russell did "This House is of opinion that it is neither just nor politic to interfere in the manner proposed in this Bill with the Freehold Franchise as hitherto exercised in the counties of England and Wales; and that no readjustment of the franchise will satisfy this House and the country which does not provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs than is contemplated in the present measure." This resolution was subsequently carried, and upon the carrying of that resolution the Government resigned; but, after the debate had continued for some time, Mr. Wilson moved the adjournment of the debate, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said : "He thought that it would be convenient that the debate should proceed continuously and,therefore, he would suggest that it should be adjourned until the next day. Of course, it was in the hands of hon. members who had notices of motion for that day. He had looked through the paper and thought these notices were of an interesting, yet he did not think that they were of an urgent character. He hoped the hon. members would accede to the course which he suggested." Hon. members did all accede, with the exception of Sir John Trevelyan. On his objecting to the loss of his day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded the hon. baronet that the gentlemen whose notices of motion had precedence of his had given way for the discussion on the Reform Bill; and he was sure, from the well-known courtesy of the hon. baronet, he would not stand between the House and the subject. If he allowed the debate to proceed, he should be happy on some future day, as he had already done, to afford him facilities for proceeding with his Bill. And, therefore, Sir John Trevelyan accepted the proposal made to him, and allowed the matter in which he was interested to stand over. Coming down then to 1872, we find that Mr. Gladstone made that declara could towards bringing the debate to a conclusion. He therefore proposed, in the event of those hon. members consenting to postpone their motions to-morrow, and with the hope that the debate would terminate on that night, that the Government would give up Thursday to them for the disposal of their business. He would, therefore, in the first place, appeal to his hon. friend the member for London (Mr. Crawford), whose notice stood first on the paper, whether he was willing to concur in such an arrangement." These are the fullest, and some of them most recent, announcements tion, which I will read again, to show regarding this question, if I may so call how ambiguous it is at first sight. At them, that I can find anywhere. That the Speaker was ever called upon to all events, he declared what the usage give a decision on this question at all, of the House was; and "usage" in the I can discover nothing of that kind for parliamentary sense, as I understand, my guidance. As I have shown, leadis equivalent to law. Again, a Bill ing members on both sides of the regarding the establishment of a Catholic University in Ireland, alter-House, the Chancellors of the Excheing the law with regard to University education in Ireland, was brought up in 1873, and an amendment was moved, very simple in its character, merely requir ing that the Government should insert in the Bill the names of a certain number of gentlemen who should be the managers or controllers of the Senate or governing body of the proposed University. To that Mr. Gladstone objected, and declared distinctly that it was a vote of censure the Government; and further said: on Although in terms the resolution expressed regret, it is really a vote of censure on the Government, as hon. gentlemen are well aware. It would be impossible for Government to insert the names in the Bill without tampering with the free action of the House, and forgetting the respect which we owe to its authority and opinion." Subsequently it was proposed that the debate on this measure should also proceed from day to day; and Mr. Gladstone then said: "It might be for the convenience of the House to know beforehand, as far as they could know, the probable course of the debate they were now about to resume. As far as he could obtain information about the number of gentlemen who wished to address the House, it was improbable that the debate would conclude that evening. If then it should be adjourned again, it would be most convenient that the debate should be resumed to-morrow without any further interval of time. Such an arrangement, however, could only be effected by the consent of those private members who had notices on the paper for to-morrow. The Government were willing to do what they Under quer, Mr. Disraeli at one time, and Mr. MR. MACKENZIE: I was not aware, Sir, that you were looking into the matter; but,of course, I have considered the course which it would be desirable for the Government to take to-day. It would be a very easy matter, as you are aware, by well-known parliamentary practice, for the Government to intercept all other business and pass to a specific Order of the Day, that Order being one in which we particularly interested in connection with the motion moved by the hon. member for Kingston. At the same time, I am bound to consider, as representing a very large majority of the House, what will most facilitate the business, both in the hands of the Government and in the hands of private members. There was a good deal of are feeling manifested on the Opposition side of the House on Friday evening, when the Government were, in short, accused of endeavouring to trample on what hon. gentlemen were pleased to call the rights of the minority, and by taking their day to deprive them of certain privileges which, by ordinary parliamentary courtesy, at all events, as well as by specific rules, are usually conceded to the minority in the House. I, therefore, came to the conclusion that, although it would be quite possible for me to act upon the notice I gave when this motion was made, that I should consider it as a motion of want of confidence, and insist upon its being disposed of before proceeding with other business, I have come to the conclusion that, while this is perfectly open to me, it would, no doubt, occasion a good deal of the debate, and a renewal of that kind of debate which it is not desirable to have, if it can be avoided, as it was in the interests, both of the Government and of the Opposition, that we should waive all right that we may have in the matter for the present, and allow the ordinary business of Monday to be proceeded with in the usual way. I say that, however, I think I am fairly entitled to ask hon. gentlemen opposite to facilitate the early conclusion of the debate, in order that we may be enabled to proceed with the more active business of the House. A year ago we had the Estimates very nearly half disposed of at this time. The debate which has been proceeding has only been in substance, and almost the exact terms, a continuation of the debate on the Address, and it does seem as if there could be no necessity for so much debate upon points which have been already spoken of so fully in the House. I do not, of course, presume, Sir, to lecture any hon.gentleman for his speeches. I merely ask the consideration which the state of the business of the House requires from hon. gentlemen opposite, who, I am quite well aware, have the power to retard as well as to facilitate business; and I hope that what I have said will, at all events, show that the Government are disposed to consider the matters which have been discussed in as liberal a spirit as possible. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: I can assure the hon. the Premier that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have every disposition to close the debate as soon as possible. Of course with regard to an important matter of this kind, especially during the last Session of Parliament, every member, or a great many members, desire to express their opinions upon the great questions which are involved in the discussion that has been going on for some time. Therefore it is impossible to come to any positive engagement as to the time when this debate will close; but the hon. gentleman will remember that, when I made my motion, I said I did it sincerely with the desire of limiting to some extent the discursive nature of the debate. The debate was a very general one on the Address, as the hon. gentleman has truly said, regarding the policy of the Government both legislative and administrative, and a debate somewhat of the same nature was going on respecting the motion to go into Committee of Supply, when I moved a resolution for the purpose of confining the limits of the discussion to the economical question. In that, however, I have been to some degree defeated by the statement of the hon. the Premier-which he had a right to make, I admit—that he considered it was a motion of want of confidence, which, if carried, would involve of necessity the resignation of the Government. Therefore, of course, the object for which I made the motion as to limiting the discussion is gone, because it becomes now a general discussion on the policy of the Government. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that every effort will be made by myself and those who act with me to bring the debate to an end as soon as possible, to enable the Government to bring down the remainder of the measures which the hon. gentleman, I think, promised us this week, and I trust he will endeavour to do so as soon as possible. I would call the attention of the head of the Government, Sir, to the fact that this decision which has been given by you is an important one, and it would be well, it seems to me, that it should appear in the Journals, and for this reason: at some future |