216 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART II
think that this is proper and desirable and contributes to
continuity of Government. As to the accessibility of such
papers to successive cabinets, it must be borne in mind that,
whether specifically so described or not, all such papers are
essentially confidential. Their contents are made known only
to those who are bound by oath of secrecy, and they cannot
be laid before Parliament except with the consent of the
Governor-General. I fail, therefore, to see that there has
lately been any departure from precedent or from practice
in this matter.
These observations will indicate to you in the meantime
the result of such consideration as I have so far been able
to give to the business now before me.
Sir Charles Tupper replied on July 8. He explained the
motives which had led to the suggested appointments, &e.
He adduced the case of Mr. Mackenzie, who made several
appointments between his defeat on September 17, 1878,
and his resignation on October 16 following. The failure to
grant supply was due to the unparalleled obstruction of the
Opposition taking advantage of the fact that Parliament
would expire on April 25.1 He proceeded to add —
I should fail in my duty to your Excellency as well as to
the principles which govern the administration of public
affairs in Canada, where Parliamentary Government is carried
on precisely as it is in England, if I did not draw your atten-
tion to the very serious consequences of the views which you
have indicated as guiding your action on the present occasion.
The recognized authorities on Parliamentary Law, and the
practice both in England and in Canada have, I contend,
settled these questions beyond dispute. Todd, in his Parlia-
mentary Government in England, vol. ii, p. 512, says :—
‘The verdict of the country having been pronounced against
Ministers at a general election, it is nevertheless competent
for them to remain in office until the new Parliament has
* It was debated whether, as the writ for Algoma was only returned
thirty-nine days after the writs were due, the House need be dissolved until
thirty-nine days after April 25, 1896, but the Government decided to adhere
to the strict letter of the law; see Bourinot, Constitutional H istory of Canada,
p. 61, note 4. An Ontario Act of 1901 met a similar difficulty by allowing ten
days’ grace after prorogation if the House was sitting when it was due to
oxpire by efflux of time. But this provision was only temporary and does
not appear in Act 1908, ¢. 5. See Canadian Annual Register, 1901, 1. 429,
