4th of January, Mr. Speaker McLean announced that the
time limited for W. L. Mackenzie, the petitioning candidate for the
representation of the Second Riding of York, to proceed upon his
petition, had expired. Mr. Boulton, one of the members for Durham, then
moved that the further consideration of the petition be discharged. Dr.
Morrison sought to obtain additional time for the furnishing of the
statutory recognizance, but the House was under no obligation to grant
any indulgence, and after a long debate declined to do so. Mr. Boulton's
motion was carried; whereupon Dr. Morrison moved that Mr. Mackenzie have
leave to present a new petition. The House negatived this motion, and
Mr. Thomson was confirmed in his seat. The matter was again brought
before the notice of the House a few days afterwards by Dr. Morrison,
who moved that Mr. Mackenzie be allowed further time to enter into the
requisite security. The motion was made in order to give Dr. Rolph--who
had not been present during the former discussion--an opportunity of
speaking on the subject. The member for Norfolk delivered himself of a
vigorous and subtle argument, in the course of which he reviewed the
English practice, as well as the practice which had generally prevailed
in similar cases in Upper Canada. The fourteen days, he argued, should
be computed from the time when the petition was read to the House, not
from the date when it was handed in. The presentation referred to in the
statute, he alleged, was not complete until the reading of the petition,
which could not take place until it had lain on the table two days.
Still further, the petitioner's delay had been in part due to the Clerk
of the House, who had led Mr. Mackenzie to believe that the fourteen
days would not begin to run against him until two days after the
delivery of the petition. The argument throughout was plausible and
powerful, but it shared the fate of many other powerful appeals in those
days. The motion was lost. There seems to have been a strong
determination on the part of the Government to burke the investigation.
This was suggestive of a fear of the result, and was so regarded by
many wholly disinterested persons. Some of the charges were of the
gravest nature, and, if the Government had felt that their skirts were
clean, it is incomprehensible that they should not have availed
themselves of such an opportunity of establishing the fact by official
record. There seems but too good reason