Parliamentary Proceedings.

Legislative Council.

Friday, 26th July.

 .. 

Second reading of bills.

On the order of the day for the second reading of the Toronto and Lake Huron Railroad Bill, being called, the Speaker explained that the object of the Bill was merely to extend the time for carrying out the work. The last Act of incorporation granted them having expired in March 1849.

Hon. Mr. Gordon wished to know whether the order of the House with regard to local measures had been complied with. He alluded to the 49th rule, which required that notice should be given in the Canada Gazette of the intention to apply to Parliament for a Bill of this nature. He was under the impression that this rule had not been complied with, and he should wish the fact to be ascertained, possibly the hon. gentleman would have no objection to refer it to a select committee for that purpose.

Hon. Mr. [Peter Boyle] de Blaquière was quite unable to say, whether the rule had or had not been complied with, as it was brought up from the lower House and he knew nothing of it till he was requested two days ago to take charge of it. He would not consent for his part to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as the citizens of Toronto are deeply interested in it, and it was desirable that the discussion respecting it should take place in broad day light. However he had no objection to delay its consideration until the House were satisfied that the rules had been complied with, if not, he would say that the House was not treated with proper respect, at the same time he felt very unwilling at this late period of the Session to endanger the safety of the Bill, by making any delay as to mere forms.

Hon. Mr. Gordon had no desire whatever to discuss any measure secretly, but he repeated that there was a strong necessity for ascertaining that the rules were complied with.

Hon. Mr. [John] Ross suggest that a message might be sent down to the House for the purpose of inquiring.

The Hon. Speaker said that when a Bill came up from the Lower House, the presumption always was, that the rules had been complied with; but if any hon. gentleman had reason to believe that was not the case, as in the present instance, then it became their duty to enter into an investigation, and he did not know of any better mode than to refer it to a Select Committee.

Hon. Mr. [Thomas] McKay regretted that he could not concur in the views of the hon. gentleman who had charge of the Bill. If the measure were an important one, it appeared to him especially necessary that all the forms should be observed, and as the Speaker said, the best way to ascertain the fact would be to refer it to a Select Committee.

Hon. Mr. de Blaquière would move for the second reading, and at the same time give some explanation of the circumstances of this Company. In April, 1836, the charter was first granted to it for ten years, subsequently the time was extended for two years longer. On the 2nd of February, 1849, that is to say, almost the expiration of the second charter, the petition of the Toronto, Simcoe and Huron Railroad Company was presented, praying for an Act of Incorporation. In that Act of Incorporation, a clause was inserted, reserving to the Legislature the right of chartering any other railroad in the same direction. Thus the Legislature clearly marked its determination not to grant any exclusive right; and if the hon. chairman (Hon. Mr. Ross) of the Committee to which that Bill had been referred, had not been obliged to leave Toronto, he would have seen that the Committee were determined to adhere to the spirit of that Act. Now the petition and Bill introduced by that hon. gentleman were for the purpose of effecting a change in the terminus of the Toronto, Simcoe and Lake Huron Railroad, whilst the Bill he now proposed for a second reading was intended to fix a terminus at Toronto, and then the rival Companies were brought face to face. If any railroad were constructed, the citizens of Toronto were deeply interested in having the terminus fixed at their city, but by the Bill introduced by his hon. friend, the terminus of one of the companies is to be removed from Toronto, and the company, contrary to the spirit of the original Act is to have the power of fixing it at some other place. On that point the Committee had taken evidence, and they found that there was a strong objection to granting the Company this power. Now the question arises as to whether the Legislature would act wisely in altering a Bill, which was framed with a particular object in view, and permitting the company to remove the terminus from Toronto as at first intended, and remove it thirty of forty miles east or west. It was a question whether such a Bill would deserve any consideration. The Bill he held in his hand, on the contrary was framed to carry out the original intention, and he would here call attention to the fact that there were only two petitions against it, one from the Directors, the other from the Shareholders of the rival railway, and both opposed it on the ground that an Act of Incorporation had been already granted to their Company. Therefore when the House took these petitions into consideration, it should remember what he had already mentioned, that the Legislature had distinctly marked its determination to grant no exclusive privileges. Beside, these petitions were not at all applicable, for the simple reason, that the Bill praying for power to change the terminus from Toronto, if concurred in, would entirely change the Bill proposed last year, and no injustice could be done to the petitioners by passing the Bill of which he had charge. Under these circumstances he hope the House would consent to the second reading, for the purpose of renewing the charter of the Toronto and Huron Railroad Company, and even if that Company should not revive, it would at least mark the sense of the Legislature, and their appreciation of the clause which empowered them to incorporate other companies when application was made for that purpose.

Hon. Mr. Ross thought it was matter of regret that no one was able to say whether the rules of the House had been observed previous to the introduction of the Bill, and he would take the liberty of moving the appointment of a select committee to which the question might be referred. He could not understand what objection the hon. gentleman could have to this course, more particularly if it were a question of so great importance to the citizens of Toronto as he represented.

Hon. Mr. de Blaquière explained. He was induced to believe it was a question of great interest to the citizens of Toronto, from the evidence given before the committee, by these highly respectable gentlemen, Messrs. Strachan, Ewart, and Arnold, who objected strongly to the removal of the terminus on behalf of the citizens of Toronto, urging the [illegible] of [illegible illegible] to the demands of the Toronto, Simcoe and Huron Railroad Company as they originated altogether with one man who has a large personal interest in its constructionReference is almost certainly to Frederick C. Capreol..

Hon. Mr. Ross said that the petition presented to him last year, praying for the incorporation of that Company had not emanated from one individual, but from the citizens of Toronto and was signed by bankers, merchants and clergymen; and on that petition he had got the House to assent to the Bill—not for the benefit of one man—but because the citizens of Toronto saw that the Company which had received a Charter did not intend to advance with the work, and because they were anxious to have a railroad completed and for that purpose were disposed to avail themselves of the energy and talent of a man capable of effecting it. In his [opinion] the mere fact of exchanging the terminus was not a very good reason for their opposition now. [illegible] in the [illegible] like, they exerted themselves to effect the refusal of a loan by the City of Toronto, and having succeeded they now want to destroy the Bill altogether.

Hon. Mr. [Jacob] Irving said it appeared to be admitted on all sides, that the rules of the House had not been complied with, and he should therefore support the reference to the Select Committee to have the matter investigated.

Hon. Mr. Ross's motion in amendment, was then carried, and the Bill referred to a Committee of three members.

 .. 

Saturday, July. 27th.

 .. 

First reading of bills.

 ..  Hon. Mr. Ross reported from the committee on the Huron and Toronto Railroad Bill. The House would, no doubt, remember that bill was referred yesterday to a select committee, to inquire whether the rules of the House had been complied with. The committee had made the necessary inquiries, and finding that the orders had not been observed, recommended that the bill should be no farther proceeded with.

Hon. Mr. de Blaquière hoped the report would not be adopted, as it would inflict particular hardship on the shareholders. He protested against non-compliance with the rule of the House being used as an argument to throw out a bill which, so far from being got up hastily, had already received the sanction of the Legislature, and would, no doubt, have been passed last Session, if the House had not been prorogued within nine days after the committee had reported. He trusted the hon. gentleman would not persist in moving the adoption of his report. It would be a most extraordinary course to pursue with reference to a measure that had passed the other branch of the Legislature, and he would recommend the hon. gentleman to inquire of the other House on what evident they had passed the bill. It would be a great deal more courteous, and a great deal more just, to the parties directly interested.

Hon. Mr. McKay as one of the Committee would support the report. He was anxious to see a Railroad constructed and did not care what company did it. But since 1840 they had been constantly engaged in passing Railway Bills, quarrelling about Railways that were to start from one point and strike another point, and yet after ten years legislation not a single rail had been laid. Was that the case in the United States? No! It was impossible to cross the country there in any direction without crossing their Railroads. If such things can be done in a country inferior to our own in every respect, let some means be adopted to encourage some one to begin here, that we may have Railroads also.

Hon. Mr. Ross said, the House would remember that he had stated yesterday that he had presented a petition last session with 4000 names attached to it, praying that the Bill to incorporate the Simcoe, Toronto and Huron Railroad Company should pass. It received the sanction of the Legislature, and he believed the reason why the other Bill was not passed, in the nine days which elapsed between the presentation of the Report of the Committee and the prorogation, was because a majority of the original shareholders were convinced that if a Railroad were made it would be by the Company incorporated last session. Now, if it were generally desired to revive this other company—he was of opinion that they would have had petitions on the table of the House requesting them to do so. But there was not a single petition before the House. The Bill was suddenly brought unsupported before the House, and he could not help thinking, merely for the purpose of injuring the company now in existence. But the effect would be, not merely to injure that Company, but it would also injure Toronto and the country around it. Now, as to the Act introduced by him a few days since to change the terminus of the Simcoe and Huron Railway, he should have thought the object was perfectly transparent. If the people of Toronto were opposed to that Railway, and would not respond to the call made on them, the company was justified in accepting the offer of another Municipality which would take stock, although there was not the slightest doubt the Directors would much rather bring the Railway out at a shipping port with a population of 25,000, than at another point of the lake, where there was scarcely any population.

Hon. Dr. [Christopher] Widmer at this stage of the proceedings remarked that there was not a quorum present. The House consequently adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday.

Results