William Barton NORTHRUP

NORTHRUP, William Barton, K.C., B.A., M.A.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Hastings East (Ontario)
Birth Date
October 19, 1856
Deceased Date
October 22, 1925
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barton_Northrup
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=87c17501-d622-40a8-b54a-e744773295dc&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

February 20, 1892 - April 24, 1896
CON
  Hastings East (Ontario)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
CON
  Hastings East (Ontario)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
CON
  Hastings East (Ontario)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  Hastings East (Ontario)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Hastings East (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 134)


September 17, 1917

Mr. NORTHRUP:

The hon. gentleman has-re-stated his position. He says that the man should go back to the judge and get him to cut down the woman's alimony, if it could be shown that she had committed wrong. As a matter of fact, the judge found that she was guilty, and he pointed out that he had no authority under the laws of Ontario to grant a divorce. The amount which she was being paid, $100 p month, was being paid to her under an agreement with her husband, which agree-men is printed in the evidence before the House. Under that agreement she was to receive $100 a month unless she should be guilty of some act entitling him to a divorce. The learned judge found that she was guilty; he did not feel that he could deprive her of the whole of the $100 a month, so he cut the amount down to $800 a year. Inasmuch as the motion before the Chair is that we go into committee, perhaps it would be out of place for me now to occupy the time of the House in going into evidence. May I point out, however, that this case has been before our Ontario courts; a judge has made a certain finding. The evidence has gone before a committee of the Senate and the committee has found in the same way; the evidence has gone before a committee of this House, and they have made a similar finding.

When we find all these' bodies deciding that the petitioner has a case and when we find the rule of procedure laid down 88 is in Bourinot Third Edition, page 787, it should be only an exceptional case in which the House should depart from the general principles that guide them in the consideration of Private Bills and it should interfere as little as possible with the decision of a committee that has fully studied the question. Under all these circumstances, I think this House might well allow this Bill to pass into the committee stage, where, if necessary it can be dis-

cussed. I sincerely hope that hon. gentlemen, who are opposing this divorce, will appreciate the situation in the Senate when they at first decided not to print the evidence, which is most painful, most humiliating to one of the parties, evidence which any hon. member cannot discuss in this House without loss of self respect and evidence which I would be exceedingly sorry to see placed upon the pages of Hansard, I hope, when the matter comes to a vote, the Bill will be allowed to carry. When it goes into the committee stage, I hope those hon, gentlemen in the committee who, under no circumstances, would vote for a divorce, will abstain from voting. If those hon. gentlemen who have not read the evidence will abstain from voting, and if only those hon. gentlemen who have read the evidence will vote, either for or against the divorce as they think the evidence justifies, then I have no hesitation in saying that the divorce will be granted.

Topic:   GORDON DIVORCE BILL NOT REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE.
Full View Permalink

September 17, 1917

Mr. NORTHRUP:

Not at all.

Topic:   GORDON DIVORCE BILL NOT REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE.
Full View Permalink

September 17, 1917

Mr. NORTHRUP:

How long does she swear she was there?

Topic:   GORDON DIVORCE BILL NOT REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE.
Full View Permalink

September 17, 1917

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings):

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with a previous speaker who called attention to the pitiable state of the law in this country, when a body such as this has shown itself to he is asked to grant or to refuse a divorce. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. J. A. Currie) is opposed to this divorce on certain grounds which he has stated. He is going to oppose this divorce and expects others 'who have listened to the chanting strains of his voice to vote in the same way upon the grounds that he has put forward. The only possible objection to be taken to the grounds that he put forward is that there is not the slightest shadow of foundation in fact, good, bad or indifferent, for practically -anything that he said. The hon. gentleman said that the wife brought action for alimony; that the action was heard before a learned judge, and that alimony was granted. I hold in my hand the judgment of the court in the case which was tried, and I may point out that the good lady did not bring -action for alimo-ny; therefore the judge did not grant her alimony. My hon. friend wonders wiry the petitioner did not- go to the judge and get his divorce from him. Perhaps no better reason could be given than the fact that the judge in an Ontario court ha-s no mor-e authority to grant a divorce than the doorkeeper of the House of Commons has., The hon. gentleman speaking against the sec-

ond reading of this Bill, seeks to prevent a man from obtaining what, if the evidence entitles him to it, is this right, not a favour. He opposes the granting of the divorce upon grounds which are absolutely and wholly without foundation.

Topic:   GORDON DIVORCE BILL NOT REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE.
Full View Permalink

September 17, 1917

Mr. NORTHRUP:

Mr. Chairman

Topic:   GORDON DIVORCE BILL NOT REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE.
Full View Permalink