New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-12-22
CANADA.
THE MINISTERIAL DEFEAT.

v,,u Our Own Correspondent
QUEBEC, Friday, Dec I5 1854.
Last night, or rather this morning, the Admin
strsfioa suffered one OF those pee lsr defeats
which all Governments, under our 'ystem, are
1t any time liable TO encounter. They we're MOI
LEFT in minority; but, somehow, they are held
- have sustained certain species OF defeat
The explanation ia this: Toe Legislative Council
made some most important amendments In the
FeudslTenure abolition bill and It was sen tback last
pirht in its amended shape 10 the Legislative As
sembly. where it originated. As this bill provides
an indemnity to the Segniors for the loss Of those
RIGHTS of which it depriyes them, it comes under
The designation Of money bill; and as the
House OF Lords cannot alter q money bill, al
though they may reject it altogether,
10 the Legislative Council here cannot
exercise, in this respect, power denied
to its supposed prototype. II is obvious,
however, that the rule was made to protect
the representatives, of the people in the exclusive
right OF controlling all money matters, not TO bind
them and fetter their actiOn that it does not pro-
tect them against themselves, by preventing them
frcm waving their right for the sake of conve-
nence The result of the privilege question raised
on this point was triumph for Ministers whose
majority was twentyone But it was on the
question of the second reading of the amendments,
made by the Council, that the Government diff
Guilty occurred. The question was no longer one
OF privilege, but went TO the merits Of the amend
nents. The Rangers and their allies had
determined to use the occasion to de-
feat the Government. They did not care
for the merits Of the question; and although the
amendments were consOnant with the views they
had repeatedly expressed on the question, they
resolved to vote against them. The oensitaire in
terest, which is strong in the Representative AZ
sembly, was ready with its objections to the
amendments. II objected to leaving the definition
Of seignoria rights to the Judges of the Court of
Queens Bench, alleging that they were prejudiced
IN favor of the seigOrs. 1t demanded legisla-
tive definition of seignoria rights, and would hold
no parley with the Courts. 1t also demanded that
the water-power should be handed over 70 it with
out compensation to the Seignors. The cen
sitaires, when land was conceded to them, did not
stipulate to get the water power; but, as the ex-
elusive rights of the segnlOrs to the Water-p0weT
are TO be taken away the oensitaire demands that
wherever his lot is bounded by q river he shall be
at liberty to use the hydraulic power which it
affords without paying for it, although his farm
might have cost not over one fifth of the value Of
the water-power which be never purchased. The
Montreal interest objected that the bill did not
apply to land in this city; and perhaps the objec-
ton is well. founded. Then local difficulties pre-
scented themselves as to the mode in which the
indemnity provided by the Legislature was pro-
posed TO be distributed. The censitaire interest
of the Quebec District thought the lions share of
tbeindemnity would go to the District of Montreal
The effect of these various motives, objections and
difficulties was to place against ministers major
ity of the Lower Canada representatives that
section of the Province being exclusively inter
ested in the question. The vote stood 80 for
Ministers, and 80 agaiDstSthem; but the majority
consisted exclusively Upper Canadians, major
ity Of six of the Lower Canada representatives
being against them. Mr.. Baldwin, when Attorney
General for Upper Canada, resigned on pre-
cisely such sectional defeat when the sectional
majority was only one against him, and the whole
majority in his favor was large. Mr.. Molir may
not follow that example; and suspect he will not,
for there seems strong impression of the ultimate
safety of the measure. If, at the final reading,
there be majority Of Lower Canadians in opposi-
ton, then the question of resigning will become
q serious one for ministers.
p. S.-Past acknowledgements have re-
covered their Lower Canada majority on an
amendment that went to the whole principle of
the amended bill. The amendment proposed to
substitute another bill for that of the Government,
and was lost by majority of 81, majority of 6
Lower Canadians voting with Ministers. The
threatened Ministerial crisis is, therefore, over,
and nobody is hurt.