Strategy & Politics in the King-Byng Crisis

Strategy & Politics in the King-Byng Crisis Sources: Duffy, John. Fights of our lives : elections, leadership, and the making of Canada. (ON RESERVE) Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1924-32: The Lonely Heights, Ch. 7-9 Graham, The King-Byng Affair; A Question of Responsible Government

A House Divided: Background • An indecisive election outcome:

A House Divided: Background • King continues in office on basis of Progressive support (Majority of 3) • Both parties opposed to Tory’s tariff policy, in favour of Old Age pensions • Price for cooperation is agricultural subsidies and natural resource transfer to Alberta • A customs scandal in Quebec places the alliance under stress • But parliament demands an investigation • Committee struck: 4 Liberals, 4 Conservatives, 1 Progressive

The King Government’s Fate • The fallout begins with the committee report (16 June 1925): • The Liberal’s Case: • Minister (Bureau) had been replaced • New minister (Boivin) “cleaning up” the dept. • But Liberals are in a bind: too much re-organization by Boivin is a tacit admission of Bureau’s complicity / laxity • Another customs scandal! The Aziz case & ministerial (Boivin’s) interference in judicial process • Tories demand Boivin be censured.

The King Government’s Fate • Government can’t withstand censure • Kennedy (Prog.) votes to defeat Tory committee motion • Kennedy: Boivin’s conduct “unjustifiable” not censurable • …motion also blames 3 Liberal & 1 Tory MP for asking such favours • Tory back down, but will amend final report in House to include censure

The King Government’s Fate • Internal Liberal caucus tensions: “The French Canadian Liberals were ready to defend Bureau and Boivin even if it meant forcing an election. They were rebellious in caucus next morning. Much was said of not sacrificing Boivin & there was a damning of Progressives & Kennedy in particular” (Neatby, 1963, 135)

The King Government’s Fate • King tries to calm / cow his MPs: “I gave caucus to understand that if we were defeated in the House the Govr. General wd probably not grant me a dissolut’n, but wd call on Meighen & me to see that sufficient supply was voted to enable him to form a govt. & have an election. I explained they wd have to agree to vote supply. I also stated we had no funds & that the Tory party had mffrs. assoc’n at their back. (Neatby, 1963, 135)

The King Government’s Fate • Tories try to amend committee report • Stevens amendment: • Admin of Customs Dept. “wholly indefensible” • Boivin’s conduct “utterly unjustifiable” (Kennedy’s words) • Deplored (w/o naming MPs) practice of appealing to Ministers

The King Government’s Fate • J.S. Woodsworth (Lab) speaks: “We cannot vote on this question absolutely on its merits… If the amendment carries, presumably the Liberals go out of office and the Conservatives come into office.” (Neatby 1963, 137) • Woodsworth offers amendment: • No reference to Boivin • Royal Commission • Meighen challenges this as separate amendment to main motion (why?) • Uproar & adjournment

The King Government’s Fate • Next day: • King: Tories playing politics to grab power • Meighen: Government avoiding responsibility for its Minister’s conduct • Progressives divided • Kennedy: agrees with Woodsworth’s view, but can’t support it • 5 Progressive vote with Tories • Woodsworth amendment fails: 122 to 120

The Election of 1926 Censure Government Dimension Left- Right Dimension

The King Government’s Fate Censure (Clean out) Government 116 2 On the “Clean Gov’t” dimension, the median voter is a Progressive 24 On the Left-Right dimension, the median voter is a Liberal 101 Current (Dirty?) Government Left-Right Dimension

The King Government’s Fate • King wants new amendment watering down Govt’s culpability • Wants Neill (Ind) to introduce it • Fansher (Prog.) recognized • Meighen convinced Fansher: • Use Stevens’ amendment criticism (‘utterly indefensible’) • Add Woodsworth enquiry • Speaker: Fansher amndt. out of order

The King Government’s Fate • Speaker’s ruling overturned by 2 votes! • King desperate for adjournment, but defeated by 1 vote • Can’t have 2 consecutive adjournment motions… • Damaging Stevens’ amendment remains on table • Recall that all that’s happened is the House has wrangled on if / how to amend Stevens’ amendment • What’s King to do?

The King Government’s Fate • King accepts Fansher amendment while reserving right to: “to reject the amendment as amended, or to amend the amendment as amended, as the rules of the House may permit.” Quoted in (Graham, 1967, 3) • House adjourns. Note: Stevens amndt. still on the table.

King-Byng Crisis: Summary • King reliant on Progressive support • Scandal erupts at Customs Department • Battle over committee’s report to Parliament • Kennedy Amendment: unjustifiable not censurable • Steven’ Amendment: “utterly” unjustiable • Woodsworth Amendment: public enquiry • Fansher Amendment: Steven’s wording + enquiry • Government secures adjournment only by agreeing to Fansher amend. • Stevens Amendment still on the table…

The Dissolution Crisis • King thinks he can still pass Neill amndt. – but starts to worry about Progressive support & optics: “Better not take chance on Progs agreeing to amendt passing, they might not do so – then cndn worse – they might do so – then wd not vote for dissolution but to carry on. (Neatby, 144) • King decides to seek dissolution preemptively: “I believed it to be the last vote I wd cast as Prime Minister in this prlt my thought being we should demand dissolut’n and resign.”(Neatby, 144)

The Dissolution Crisis • King’s pleased to find his decision to seek dissolution has snookered the Progs. • Meeting with Gardiner (Prog) & Spencer (Prog): “I did not say what I wd recommend to the Govr. Genl…. They clearly did not expect dissolution, but Mr. Meighen following on in a manner which wld avoid an election—they don’t want an election & will go with any & every party to avoid it, tho’ they are the party of “principles” themselves & these 2 men the best of them (Neatby, 145).

The Dissolution Crisis • King asks Byng for dissolution, 28 June 1926 • Byng refuses! • Notes how recent the last election was • And further that King has not actually lost a substantive vote • King suggests Byng cable Britain for advice! That’s rich! • King always played on his great-grandfather’s role in the Rebellions & fight for Responsible Government • Byng again refuses!! • King tenders resignation, i.e., abandons office

The Dissolution Crisis • Byng asks Meighen to form government • Meighen cannot refuse: • Yes: plays into King’s hands • No: repudiates Byng & validates King’s resignation • The “Double Shuffle” dilemma revisited: • Meighen resigns to seek by-election • Appoints six ministers w/o portfolio • Privy Councillors • Do not draw minister’s salary • Not administering departments… technically

The Dissolution Crisis • King launches attack on two fronts: • The Threat to Responsible Government: “If at the instance of one individual a prime minister can be put into office and with a ministry which is not yet formed be permitted to vote all the supplies necessary to carry on the Government of Canada for a year, we have reached a condition in this country which threatens constitutional liberty, freedom and rights in all parts of the world” (Neatby, 154).

The Dissolution Crisis • King launches attack on two fronts: • The Legality of the Ministry: • The Robb Motion: • If Ministers are legally administering departments, they should have vacated their seats; • If Ministers do not legally hold office, they had no right to govern

The Dissolution Crisis • Meighen’s government falls by one vote! • King expects Byng to invite him to be PM again, but if not, that’s OK: “I cannot but believe Lord Byng will now send for me—constitutionally it is his only course… If another mistake were made on the Gov’s part we would wish for no finer election issue…” (Neatby, 156).

The Election of 1926 • King’s election strategy is two-dimensional: • Policy – pensions, low tariff • Co-ordination with Progressives • Responsible Government • Paint Tories as party to dictatorship • Provides King with a niche to differentiate Liberals from Progs.

The Election of 1926 Responsible Government Dimension Left- Right Dimension

The Election of 1926 Declares this Issue Overshadows Everything Else; That Present Premier “Has Made the Crown a Party to a Series of Unconstitutional Acts Without Parallel in Parliamentary Institutions” (Globe & Mail, 24 July 1926)

The Election of 1926 • King defends his (questionable) role in affairs: “The first question I should like to ask is, Was I right or was I wrong in the advice I tendered his Excellency – in saying that dissolution was necessary & inevitable. If I was wrong on Monday in advising dissolution as the only solution of the existing situation, why was the same advice considered sound when coming from Mr. Meighen on Friday of the same week?”

The Election of 1926 • Meighen’s initial reaction is to focus on corruption: “The late ministers of Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Mackenzie King himself, defeated by the people, censured by the representatives of the nation, these men surely have no title to be restored to office now” (Graham 1968, 68).

The Election of 1926 • … but eventually he has to respond to the constitutional issue: “Whenever Mr. King is out of power, the constitution is in danger” (Neatby 161). • …and eventually try to redefine it: “…to raise the spirit which actuated in his old grandfather, William Lyon Mackenzie King – that of rebellion. His motive is to stir up feelings against the British and Lord Byng, and we are determined to let the people know where he will lead them… into the hands of the United States” (Duffy 2002, 144).

Strategy & Politics in the King-Byng Crisis