/ 
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 HON. EDWARD BLAKE 
 
 TEE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY 
 
 AND A 8YX0PBI8 OF THB 
 
 DEBATE ON THE H05IE IIULE RESOLUTIONS 
 
 iH ran 
 
 HiOTJSE OIF con^ivcoisrs 
 
 HOME RULE FOR IRELAND - • 1880 
 
 no ME RULE RESOLUTIONS - - - 1882 
 
 THE ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL - 1884 
 
 EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL - - - 1886 
 
 HOME RULE DEBATE - - - -» - ll886 
 
 TORONTO : 
 PRINTED BY C. BLACKETT ROBINSON, 5 JORDAN STREET. 
 
 1886. 
 
^ ^w^ 
 
 » :» 
 
 THE PROPHETIC UTTERANCES OF 1880. 
 
 In the Se«,ion of 1S80, Mr. Blake's solemn conviction in the justice of the agitation for Home 
 Rule for Ireland, and his abiding faith m the great Liberal Party of England regarding with 
 favor such a measure, found Mpression in the foUowin- laniuaire :— 
 
 "I hope for great things for Ireland and the Empire from the events of the last few days I 
 hope and trust that the advent to power of the Liberal Party, supported by a great lioriy J 
 dec.ded L,beral. a.d ft,dicals, wiU result in fresh measures of relief and justice ZZCiH 
 W.U tend std further to weaken her old feelings of hostility and disaSbction, J"o m^kl^^ 
 
 zzz hI: B 1 7 ^"'f r^"^^- ' -^^ -- *^' -^ ^^-^ °"'« «■-«- -'-^ 
 
 Ind mlf f ] ' """* "'"^ "'■ "■' ■">?'"="'»" °' ""'^ «"=-"« 'ha creation 
 
THE IRISH QUESTION 
 
 IN THE 
 
 CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 HOME EULE RESOLUTIONS, 1882: HON. MR. BLAKE'S 
 
 SPEECH (CONDENSED). 
 
 On Thursday, the 20th of April, 1882, a 
 motion "sras made in the House of Commons 
 for an Address to the Queen on the subject 
 of Irish affairs. Hon. Edward Blake, leader 
 of the Liberal party in Canada, delivered the 
 following speech in the course of debate : 
 
 Mr. Blake — If no other hon. member pro- 
 poses to address the House on the subject, I do 
 not, for my part, feel disposed to give a silent 
 vote upon it. It is now two years ago since, in 
 the course of a very important discussion 
 here, I ventured to suggest in my place in 
 Parliament that the accession to power, which 
 had then recently taken place, of the Liberal 
 Administration in England, would lead very 
 shortly to the concession of some measure of 
 Home Kule to the Irish people. I believe, 
 as I said, that such a solution as could be 
 obtained of the land question, such a solution 
 as had been from time to time reached of 
 other political questions, would, after all, not 
 settle the Irish question, and that unless the 
 dictates of prudence and of justice alike were 
 observed and fulfilled by the granting to the 
 Irish people of some measure of control over 
 their local affairs, we would see that which hcs 
 been the disgrace and the humiliation of the 
 British Empire for many years still con- 
 tinued. I also stated, as the hon. gentleman 
 in his speech and in his motion has observed, 
 that we had one amongst many material 
 interests here, in Canada, in the solution of 
 that question, in the change which might be 
 expected from it in the attitude of the great 
 bulk of the Irish people towards the Empire, 
 that we had a material — although I regard it 
 as a much lesser interest than the interest 
 which has been mainly discussed — we had a 
 roateiial interest of a serious character with 
 
 reference to the chances and the opportunity 
 of immigration to our soil, which will be im- 
 paired so long as the present state of feeling 
 shall continue. Now, I propose to justify the 
 attitude which I took upon that occasion, and 
 which did not then meet with any very ani- 
 mated response in the House or in the 
 country ; I propose to justify it by a refer- 
 ence to gome obvious historical facts which 
 it appears to me can lead to only one inevi- 
 table conclusion. In order that we may 
 understand the ground upon which, as I con- 
 ceive, some action in this direction is demon- 
 strably necessary, it is by no means needful 
 to go further back than to the time of the 
 Union. 
 
 THE MISRULE OF IRELAND. 
 
 It is not needful here to recur in detail to 
 the more ancient events in connection with 
 Irish history, to the history of the conquest, 
 to the history of the confiscations, to the 
 history of the proscriptions, to the history of 
 the penal laws — directed at one time against 
 Protestants, aadjat one time against Catho- 
 lics — to the history of those penal laws, and 
 of those events of the most serious and terrible 
 description, laws and events to which I have 
 briefly alluded, but which ought to make us 
 all, when we recur to them, blush with shame, 
 which have left marks of human error and of 
 human crime almost indelible, and enhancing, 
 there can be no doubt, even to-day, the diffi- 
 culties of the situation. I say it is needless 
 for the purposes of this discussion that we 
 should revert to these matters in detail, for I 
 am willing that this question should be tried 
 not upon the previous events, but upon the 
 history of the past eighty years, upon the 
 
MR. BLAKE'S SPET5CH ON THB 
 
 history of the government of Ireland under 
 the present constitution of the Uoited King- 
 dom. That history begins with the Union 
 Act — an Act secured, aa we all know, by 
 lueans of the basest bribery and corruption. 
 However beneficial the public men who car- 
 ried that measure may have believed it to be, 
 I do not suppose it will be urged to-day that 
 the end justified the m<^ans, and I have 
 myself a strong l^liof that the nefarious 
 means by which that measure was carried 
 operated veiy largely to increase the dilli- 
 cultiesof its working, and produced a state of 
 feeling which gave it but a poor chance of 
 being satisfactory to the people of the coun- 
 try which was by such means brought into 
 more intimate connection with Great Britain. 
 But, Sir, since that period, for a little more 
 than eijjhty years has Ireland been managed 
 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom ; 
 and 1 do not hesitate to say that * 
 
 THE RESULT OP THAT MANAGEMENT 
 
 has been a dreadful failure. There has been 
 time enough m try the question out. Eighty 
 years in the history of a country, and such 
 an eighty years as Ireland has experienced, 
 is sur^-ly time enough to try the question out. 
 Now, let us apply some obvious, plain and 
 palpal)le tests as to whether there has been 
 a good and successful admitiistration of Irish 
 affairs under the existin«» system. The popu- 
 lation of Ireland in 1726 was 2,300,000 ; in 
 180"», a few years after the Union, it was 
 5,400.000 ; and that increase, more than 
 doubling, occurred during a time of difficulty, 
 of religious proscription, and of emigration. 
 In 1841 the population had abnormally 
 increased under circumstances which it is not 
 necessary to discusF, but it had increased to 
 the number of 8,200,000. But since 1841 
 the history of Ireland has been a history of 
 periodical distress, of famine, of eviction, and 
 of emigration, and the result is that the popu- 
 lation, which in 1841 stood at 8,?C0,000, 
 stands tc-day at 5,160,000 only, or 240,000 
 less than eighty years ago, at the time of the 
 Union, and 3,000,000 less than it was forty 
 years ago. Jn the last thirty years, from 
 1851 to 1881, there has been an emigration 
 from that country of no less than 2,750,000 
 souls I Now, 
 
 IT MAY BE SAID THAT IRELAND 18 OTBB- 
 CROWDED. 
 
 I deny that Ireland, as a whole, is over- 
 crowded. There are parts of Ireland in 
 -which the distribution of the population is 
 
 probably too dense ; bat I maintain that, 
 judging by all the tests which we can reason- 
 ably apply to it, Ireland, as a country, is not 
 an over-crowded country. The number of 
 inhabitants to the square mile in Frano? i» 
 180; Italy, 225; Belgium, 421; Handen^ 
 718 ; England and Wales, 442 ; in the wholo 
 of Great Britain, 333 ; in Ireland, only 161. 
 The area of Ireland is 20,325,000 acres, of 
 which there are at present arable 13,465,000 
 acres, and there is an additional area easily 
 made available for tillage of 4,000,000 acres- 
 more, making a total of land actually arable 
 and available for tillage of 17,465,000 acrea 
 How many acres are actually cultivated at 
 this time? .Only 5,200,000! And this i» 
 the case with respect to a country of which 
 the soil is indubitably very fertile, which has 
 raised in times past enormous crops, compar- 
 ing favourably with the crops at the same 
 time raised in England, of wheat, rye, barley, 
 peas, l)eans, potatoes, and turnips ; and no one 
 doubts the capacity of Ireland for raising- 
 cattle. That country has very great natural 
 advantages. It has great quantities of bog 
 land from which is produced a very cheap 
 fuel, and which lands, when reclaimed, are 
 inferior to none in the world, whether as 
 wheat or as pasture lands. It has splendid 
 coal fields, although these are hardly used at 
 all. It has magnificent, perhaps unequalled 
 fisheries in regard to the quantities of fish 
 caught, and the harbour and other facilities- 
 in connection with the industry. It is pos- 
 sessed of valuable mines of gypsum, gold,, 
 silver, lead, copper, and zinc It has,, 
 besides, great facilities for manufacturii 
 both as regards facilities for the transpci . 
 of manufactured goods, for the supply 
 of raw material, and for the cheapness 
 of the labour to be employed. It has, more- 
 over, great abundance of splendid water- 
 power, facilitating the manufacture of the 
 raw matciia! into the perfected article. It 
 is inhabited by a people confessedly very free 
 from crime of the ordinary kind ; a people 
 which, whatever their prospects anil chances 
 and capacities may have been demonstrated 
 to be in their own country, have shown in 
 every other country than Ireland that they 
 possess the capacity to rise, and, by their 
 industry, their ability, and their force of 
 character, to take their own place and rank 
 in the world, wherever their lot may be c&st.^ 
 ITiey are also a people confessedly of a natare 
 kindly, affectionate, gentle, and grateful ; and 
 po»s<issing, in a large degree, the organ of 
 veneration, they are easily impressed by any 
 act of kindness shown towards th«B. 
 
HOMK KULB RBSOLOTfONS, 18tt. 
 
 » 
 
 VHT DAS POPULATION DIMINISHKD 1 
 
 With fuch a people, with such » soil, with 
 «ach natural advantages, how does itcomethat 
 we have such a result, with respect to popu- 
 lation as I have mentioned] How does it come 
 to pass that the population of Ireland should 
 have diminished instead of increased, that 
 the emigration should have been so great, and 
 that the condition of the country should be 
 auch as we know it to be 1 To what is due 
 the chronically wretched state of Ireland — 
 its miseries, social, material and politicalt 
 Although there may be, although there has 
 been, as we all rejoice to know, some improve- 
 ment in the physical condition of some por- 
 tion of the population during the last few 
 years, that remains to-day a pressing ques- 
 tion, and no man holds that the condition of 
 Ireland is satisfactory when viewed in any of 
 those aspects to which I have referred. The 
 condition of the people materially, as well as 
 in other respects, is one which ought to create 
 in all of us who call ourselves British subjects 
 « feeling of shame. I say that the condition 
 of Ireland to-day is due largely to the want 
 of security and contentment, to the want of 
 identification with the soil and of attachment 
 to the Constitution, to the want of that hope 
 of improvement and of bettering their condi- 
 tion, which is really the most essential thing 
 to induce men to labour, I say that it is due 
 to a feeling that their grievances are not 
 redressed, to the lack of a belief that their 
 government is conducted according to their 
 needs aud wishes, and to the want of any 
 machinery for the local management of their 
 local affairs. There can be no doubt that 
 Ireland, at and before the time of the 
 Union, was subject to some great political 
 grievances. There can be no doubt that 
 those grievances were not of a sentimental 
 character, but were such as are to-day 
 acknowledged tc be wrongs which demanded 
 the attention of legislators, and should have 
 been redressed by legislation 
 
 THB PARLIAMENTARY OOYKRNIIENT OP 
 IRELAND. 
 
 If you go back to the history of the parlia- 
 mentary government of Ireland for the last 
 eighty years, and if you begin your enquiry 
 by reference to those great and important 
 landmarks or grievances, and proceed to 
 enquire as to the time when, and the circum- 
 stances under which, those grievances have 
 been, so far as they have been, redressed, you 
 will find a very good reasoa there, if you seek 
 no farther, for a deep-seated and justitiable 
 
 dissatisfaction as to the parliamentary gov- 
 ernment of Ireland by the Parliament of the 
 United Kingdom. There was the great 
 question — at that time as much as at any 
 later time a question of justice and of right 
 — of Roman Catholic emancipation. There 
 was the question — at that time as much a 
 question of justice and of right as at iiny later 
 time — of the disastablishment and disendow- 
 ment of the State or dominant Church of the 
 minority. There was the question — a ques- 
 tion which we should here, in a happier land, 
 call a lamentable question, but" still in the 
 condition of the country none the less a 
 pressing question — of a proper measure for 
 the relief of the poor, roquiretl because of the 
 unnatural conditions that ruled the distribu- 
 tion of the land. There was the question of 
 
 REFORM OF THE LAND LAWS, 
 
 by the creation of a proper interest in the 
 soil by those who occupied the soil. There 
 was the question of creating local institutions 
 to manage local affairs, rendered all the more 
 important because of the abrogation of the 
 rights of the Parliament of Ireland and the 
 transfer to Westminster of the management 
 of those minor affairs which, up to that time, 
 were under the control of the Legislature 
 which sat in the capital city of Ireland. 
 These leading questions, to which I have 
 referred, have been in part — all but the last 
 one, which has never been substantially dealt 
 with — disposed of, and it may be asked, since 
 such is the fact. Why do I refer to them I 
 I refer to them because I see that the circum- 
 stances under which, and the time at which 
 those qtiestions were dealt with, dem'^nstrate 
 more clearly than anything else can do the 
 unsatisfactory character of the government 
 of Ireland by the Parliament of the United 
 Kingdom. When was the question of Roman 
 Catholic emancipation dealt with '{ It was 
 not dealt with until nearly thirty years after 
 the time of the Union. Thirty years is about 
 a generation, and it required about a genera- 
 tion for the Parliament of the United King- 
 dom to nerve itself to the task of dealing 
 with that question. And how was it even 
 then granted ? Was it granted then as the 
 boon of a cheerful giver f No, Sir. It was 
 granted grudgingly and of necessity. It was 
 granted, avowedly granted by the Ministry, 
 because 
 
 THEY WERE FORCED TO DO IT, 
 
 not because it was just; for they had been 
 proclaiming to the ends of the earth that it 
 
6 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 was not just. Not because it was right, for 
 they had been proclaiming that it was wrong. 
 It was granted because, Jis they themselves 
 stated in Parliament, the question was be- 
 tween granting that concession and civil war. 
 Things had come to such a pass that there 
 was to be an immediate outbreak, a civil 
 war, unless Koman Catholic emancipation 
 was granted. Well, Sir, did that do good ? 
 Of course you could not remove, even under 
 such circumstances, a monstrous injustice of 
 thut description without soma good being 
 done ; but I say the good was minimized by 
 the delay which took place, and by the atti- 
 tude assumed by those who received and by 
 those who gave that concession. The Irish 
 people were taught that dreadful lesson, so 
 far as the administration of the Parliament 
 of the United Kingdom could teach it to 
 them, that England's difficulty was Ireland's 
 opportunity. They were taught this by the 
 delay, and by the disposition with, and the 
 compulsion on which those Ministers acceded 
 to the grant. They were taught to rely not 
 upon that constitutional agitation which is 
 the proud basis of our system, and in which 
 every one is free to engage, but upon other 
 and worse methods of accomplishing reforms, 
 upon unconstitutional proceedings approach- 
 ing to revolt. I say that no doubt something 
 was done by the removal, even under those 
 circumstances, of 
 
 THAT GREAT BLEMISH, 
 
 yet nothing was done toward improving or 
 conciliating the feeling of th^ Irish people, 
 towards leading them to believe that they 
 had a right to expect from the unconstrained 
 sense of justice of the British Parliament the 
 relief to which they had a right ; or towards 
 obtaining those golden fruits which might 
 have been reaped from a great act of justice 
 cheerfully performed, in good season. The 
 next measures of relief for Ireland — and I 
 am dealing now only with the remedial legis- 
 lation — I am dealing only with those meas- 
 ures to which the English Parliament may 
 point with the greatest pride as monuments 
 of its parliamentary government of Ireland — 
 the next great measures of remedial legisla- 
 tion occurred, how long after 1 Nearly 
 twenty years after. It was not until nearly 
 twenty years had elapsed that we had the 
 measure for the relief of the poor to which I 
 have referred, followed shortly by, and in- 
 tended at the time to be followed as soon as 
 possible by, the Act for the sale of encum- 
 bered estates. The years 1846 and 1849 
 are, I think, the years in whirih those two 
 
 measures were passed ; one nearly twenty 
 years after the Emancipation Bill, and the 
 other a few years later. These Acts, as I 
 have said, did not deal with matters of a late 
 date, they were not the offspring of fresh 
 occurrences recently developed. They were 
 the attempt by the Parliament of the United 
 Kingdom to deal with old and long-standing 
 diificulties, and how again was it that they 
 were brought about ? How was it that the 
 public opinion of the British people and the 
 opinion of the Parliament of tlie United 
 Kingdom was aroused to action, such action 
 as was then taken in these two particulars 1 
 Sir, it was not the hand of the insurgent 
 upon that occasion, it was not the hand of 
 the agitator, so much as 
 
 THE HAND OF SUFFERING OF FAMIME, 
 
 and of pestilence. It was not until the direst 
 calamity which has beset the modem Christian 
 world came upon us, and until a famine took 
 place in which more human lives were lost 
 than in all the wars with which England has 
 reddened the soil of Europe and the world, it 
 was not until that had happened, that the 
 public opinion to which I have referred was 
 sufficiently aroused to deal with this que.stion. 
 Such was the unhappy condition of Ireland 
 at that time, and the measure passed for the 
 relief of the poor was a great boon to them, 
 though productive later on- of some uuf orseen 
 and unfortunate results. The Encumbered 
 Estates Act, too, was greatly needed for the 
 relief of landlords, mortgagees, and creditors. 
 It was hoped, however, that that Act would 
 have had an indirect effect very beneficial to 
 the tenants, but that hope failed. The con- 
 ditions of tenants on the whole was not 
 mitigated by the practical operation of the 
 Act, because it happened that the sales of 
 many of the lands under the Encumbered 
 Estates Act were made to persons entirely 
 new to the country, and who, in a great many 
 instances, were wholly neglectful and defiant 
 of those customary — I cannot call them 
 rights — but those customary favours which 
 were granted by the former proprietors to 
 the tenants ; and thus the system of rack- 
 renting, and the other difficulties which 
 might naturally be expected to grow from 
 such an unnatural system as existed, were 
 aggravated and intensified by the new pro- 
 prietary ; and so it happened that ;he 
 demand for tenant right became — pressing as 
 it was before — became still more pressing 'V 
 reason of the practical operation of thr 
 Encumbered Estates Act, Well, Sir, about 
 twenty vears more elapsed before the next 
 
HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, 1882. 
 
 grent remedial mf-asurefor Ireland wastaixied 
 thioagh the> British Farliament. It was, I 
 think, in 1869 that the law for the disc^stab- 
 lishraent and disendowment of the Irish 
 Chnrch jeas paaeed, nearly fifty yeara after 
 the Union took place. Now, who can pre- 
 tend that that act of justice was not as much 
 an act ">f justice at the time of the Union 
 as it was at the date at which it became law 1 
 The principles on which the disestablishment 
 was carried are immutable and eternal, and 
 the question had been raised, as we all know, 
 generations before. Public men in advance 
 of the public opinion of the United Kinfj- 
 d(»i and of Parliament — intelligent men, 
 8tatesraen,had raised it,bad pointed out that it 
 was impossible that that establishment could 
 be defended and maintained — had proposed 
 that an act of justice should be performed, 
 but it was utterly impossible to make progress 
 in that direction. An old, old grievance, a 
 grievance so old as to be almost out of date, a 
 grievance of the most pressing character — 
 how. I ask, was the redress of that grievance 
 obtained ? Now, Sir, I shall give you an au- 
 thentic account of how it came that Parlia- 
 ment and the people of the United Kingdom 
 at length decided to 
 
 REMOVE THAT ANCIENT GRIEVANCE. 
 
 I shall give you the account which the author 
 of that great measure for Ireland himself 
 gave in 1878, in the Mid Lothian campaign. 
 These are the words Mr. Gladstone used in 
 explaining how it came about that the Irish 
 Church was in 1869 disestablished and dis- 
 endowed : 
 
 ' ' Down to the year 1865, and the dissolution of 
 that year, the whole question of the Irish Church 
 was dead. Nobody cared for it. Nobody paid any 
 attention to it in England. Then circumstances 
 occurred which drew the attention of the people to 
 the Irish Church. I said myself in 1865, and I 
 believed, that it was out of the range of practical 
 politics — that iB, the politics of the eoming 
 elecwcrs." 
 
 Now, what was it that brought it within the 
 range of practical politics? What was it made 
 it possible to carry that measure of reform 1 
 Some new events, some new chain of reason- 
 ing that led to conviction on the part of the 
 people that it was a just measure 1 I will read 
 yon what it was : 
 
 "When it came to this, that a great gaol in the 
 heart of the metropolis was broken open under cir- 
 cnmstanees which dvew the attention of the Enghsh 
 people to the state of Ireland; and when in Maij 
 Chester policemen were murdered in the execution 
 of their dnty, at once the whole country became 
 alive to Irish questions, and the qiestion of the 
 Irish Churoli revived. It came within the range of 
 
 That — that is the reason by which tlio people 
 and politicians of the United Kingdom were 
 led to Uie belief that this great question had 
 come within the range of practical politics, 
 and were led to see what was their duty to 
 the people of Ireland. Once again there 
 was the same moving cause of the remedy ; 
 once again there was the same long, heart- 
 breaking delay ; and once again English and 
 Scotch opinion would not act until compelled 
 to do so. Once again, therefore, there was 
 no meed of grace in the measure so obtained. 
 It was forced from the British ■ Parliament 
 and was so acknowledged, and therefore 
 while it did remove the grievance, it did not 
 — as timely and cheerful legislation would 
 have done — as action based on considerations 
 of justice would have done — contain the 
 element of grace, and so it did not excite a 
 feeling of gratitude in the hearts of those to 
 whom the benefit was granted. Sir, that 
 measure was a great measure in two distinct 
 aspects. First of all, it destroyed the pre- 
 eminence of the Church of the minority. It 
 removed a crying injustice ; it changed a con- 
 dition which had combined the religion of 
 the majority with their patriotism — a patrio- 
 tism which, so long as it was the policy of 
 the Parliament and people of the United 
 Kingdom to maintain the dominance of the 
 Church of the minority, was necessarily an 
 anti-national patriotism. Besides that, there 
 was the material gain that Irish funds, to 
 the amount of many millions, were set free 
 for legitimate and proper Irish purposes, not 
 denominational, not sectarian, not for the 
 minority, not for the majority, but for the 
 whole people. Besides all these direct results 
 of the 
 
 DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT 
 
 of the Irish Church, it had an indirect effect 
 hardly less important. It was the first prac- 
 tical measure for giving to the occupiers of 
 the soil a real and tangible interest in the 
 soil, and for increasing the number of Irish 
 prcprietors. The just provision which gave 
 to the tenants on Church lands the pre-emp- 
 tive right to purchase those lands on moderate 
 terms, a very snjall sum being payable down, 
 and the residue being spread over instalments 
 for thirty-two years, compounding principal 
 and interest at % low rate, which made the 
 annual payment not materially more than 
 the accustomed rent, gave the tenants of 
 Church lands an opportunity, of which they 
 gladly availed themselves, to become the 
 owners of the lands they occupied. And thus 
 it added no less than 5,000 to the nnrober 
 
8 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPKECH ON THE 
 
 of Irish proprietors of the soil. With our 
 notions, having regard to the figures I havo 
 given as to the population, you may say that 
 5,000 Irish proprietors is a trifle. What is 
 the use of saying so much about 5,000 more 
 Irish proprietorii 1 I admit that it is a drop 
 in the buclcet, but then the buclcet had very 
 little more than a drop or two in it at the 
 time. The 
 
 TOTAL NUMBER OF IRISH PROPRIETORS 
 
 at that time was about 16,000; so that this 
 act in its operation added no less than 5,000, 
 or very nearly one-third, to the number of 
 Irish proprietors ; and a measure which had 
 such an eifect cannot but be regarded as 
 a very importaai measure of relief. This 
 touches the core of the Irish que.stion — ifie 
 land. Now, Sir, Ireland is a country of 
 small agricultural holdings, and in consider- 
 ing this question we miSfet not forget that 
 circumstance. There are in Ireland no less 
 than 533,000 dibtinct farm tenancies, cf 
 which no less than 450,000 are under 50 
 acres, and no less than 50,000 more are be- 
 tween 50 and 100 acres, showing that the 
 great bulk are under fifty acres, and as many 
 as 500,000 out of the total 533,000 are under 
 100 acres. Although there are exceptions, 
 as we know, principally in one of the pro- 
 vinces of Ireland, but also in the case of 
 many estates scattered through other parts 
 of that country, yet the bulk of these 533,000 
 holdings are yearly, and they are yearly in a 
 country in which the custom has been that 
 the tenant shall make the improvements, a 
 custom which is wholly incompatible with 
 the conditioas of yearly tenancy. Now, Sir, 
 while that is 
 
 THE NUMBER OP IRISH FARM TENANCIES, 
 
 let us see to what extent the separate owner- 
 ship of farm lands prevails. In Ireland, one 
 in every 257 persons owns farm lands, while 
 in France one in every eight persons owns 
 farm lands. In Central and Northern Europe 
 the tenure of land is widely diffused ; and 
 while we have seen a very gradual growth 
 and a very imperfect development, in the 
 continental countries of Europe of the prin- 
 ciples of popular and responsible government 
 — while in that reg;«rd they are far behind 
 the United Kingdom, yet we have seen, since 
 the days of the French Revolution and the 
 Napoleonic age, large advances made — much 
 larger advances than have been ever dreamed 
 of in England towards the diffusion of the 
 tenure of land, and the abolition of that most 
 objectionable portion of the feudal system. 
 
 In the Rhine Provinces, including West- 
 phalia, there are 11,000,000 acres of cul- 
 tivable land — and how many proprietors 1 
 1,157,000 proprietors, or one to every ten 
 acres of land ; and if you read the history of 
 the contentment and comfort, the work and 
 labour, the energy and industry — the indo- 
 mitable industry — that is displayed in muiiy 
 of these countries by the proprietors of these 
 small areas, you must be convinced that the 
 only thing that enaVjles the Government of 
 these countries to be carried on at all, bur- 
 dened as they are with heavy taxes and 
 enormous expenses, with an imperfect devel- 
 opment of constitutional government, with 
 great military armaments, and with an op- 
 pressive system of conscription and military 
 service — the only thing that gives the people 
 heart and hope, and enables them to struggle 
 on at all, is that wide diffusion of the owner- 
 ship of land than which there is nothing 
 better calculated to promote the stability of 
 the people to whom the land belongs. Take 
 the State of New York, in which there are 
 22,200,000 acres of farm lands, and in which 
 the holelings are large, as is natural in a new 
 country, where there is so much land undis- 
 posed of as there is on this continent. There 
 the owners of the land, in 1870, were 216,- 
 000, against 21,000 in Ireland, including 
 the owners of Church lands. Look at two 
 portions of Ireland, which may be selected 
 as examples : take the agricultural counties 
 of Meath, Westmeath and Cavan, which 
 comprise 1,300,000 acres, and in which there 
 are only 612 owners of less than 50 acres 
 each in the whole <?'■ strict. Take again the 
 mountainous districts of Galway and Mayo, 
 containing 2,760,000 acres, and there are 
 only 225 owners of less than 50 acres each. 
 
 THE NUMBER OF SMALL OWNERS 
 
 is insignificant in England, but that number 
 is computed to be about ten times as large in 
 proportion as the number is in Ireland, and 
 that in a country of which I believe the 
 greatest practical blemish to-day is its bad 
 land laws. I believe there can be no doubt 
 that the greatest practical blemish in England 
 and Scotland to-day is the condition of the 
 ownership of land ; but even in England that 
 difficulty is insignificant relatively to the con- 
 dition of things in Ireland. Now, Sir, there 
 can be no doubt that the old penal laws, 
 which, among other relics of barbarity, pro- 
 hibited for a long time Roman Catholics 
 either from owning or inheriting lands, had 
 much to do with the creation of the present 
 state of things as to land-holding in Ireland, 
 
HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS. 1882. 
 
 Had that Rtate of things being once created 
 and marked deeply upon the country, it be- 
 comes of course proportionably difficult to 
 obliterate it 
 
 THB RESULT WAS A PRACTICAL SERFDOM ; 
 
 the people who cultivatt'd the lands were only 
 left enough to subsist on in a uiiserable man- 
 ner. All concede that there were many land- 
 lords in Ireland who granted proper leases, 
 and behaved with propriety towards their 
 tenantry ; yet in the main, and subject to 
 these exceptions, the practical result was that 
 the whole profit of the lands, with the ex- 
 <5eption of a poor, miserable subsistence to the 
 tenant who worked them, went to the land- 
 lord ; and the further result was, that where 
 improvements were made an early opportun- 
 ity was taken to increase the rental of the 
 lauds to the extent to which they had become 
 capable of increased production, by virtue of 
 the improvements which the tenant and his 
 family had made. This was a state of things 
 which of course did not merel}' diminish, but 
 destroyed, that hope of bettering himself 
 which is the spur by wliich you can expect 
 to urge men to rise, and under the influence 
 of which you can expect happiness and con- 
 tentment to be diffused. The first or one of 
 the earliest writers on the subject of land- 
 holding — Young, I think — says: " Oive a 
 man a nine years' lease of a garden, and he 
 will turn it into a desert ; give him a free- 
 hold of the naked rock, and in nine years he 
 will turn it into a garden ; " and I believe 
 that not untruly represents, in a general sense, 
 the relative condition of things between the 
 short holder under the customs that prevail 
 in Ireland, and the proprietor who occupies 
 the land. Now, that situation would have 
 been bad enough if the rents so exacted from 
 the tenantry were rents in any proper sense 
 of the term ; but the 
 
 WHOLK PKODUCE OP THE SOIL WENT E3LE- 
 WUERB 
 
 beyond a sum enough, not to enable the un- 
 fortunate people to clothe themselves, but to 
 live in rags — not to feed themselves, but to 
 keep starvation from them. Beyond that 
 «um, the whole of the produce of the soil was 
 taken by the landlords, and, worse again, by 
 landlords who, as a rule, did not live in the 
 country, because a certain measure of im-. 
 provement and prosperity would necessarily 
 have arisen from the expenditure on the 
 soil of those enormous rents. But to make 
 a condition miserable enough, God knows, 
 without it, still more miserable, the bulk 
 
 of those who received these rents were ab- 
 sentee landlords ; and so it happened that 
 speaking once again in the main, not merely 
 a fair share and proportion of the produce 
 of the soil, but the whole produce of the soil 
 of Ireland, with but wretched livings for 
 those who raised it, went away from Ireland 
 — was rather a tribute paid by Ireland to 
 foreign countries, than legitimately applied 
 within the land itself — an application which 
 would have occasioned the development of 
 trade and manufactures, which would have 
 given more employment, agriculturally as well 
 as otherwise, and produced some mitigating 
 circumstances at any rate to relieve the dark- 
 ness of the picture to which I referred. I say 
 it happened there was 
 
 LUXURY FOR THE ABSENTEE LANDLORD, 
 
 misery for the resident tenant, as the rule, 
 and that too in a country of which it has 
 been said, not that I believe rhetorically, but 
 in a sober truth, that if you wiped out the 
 tenants' improvements you would convert 
 nine- tenths of Ireland into a desert again. 
 I have said enough to show that the question 
 of the land is the core of the Irish question, 
 and to show how great was the importance of 
 any measure, such as the Irish Church Act, 
 which should have tended even in a moderate 
 degree to unite the diverse interests of the 
 occupant and of the land he occupied, and to 
 create a landed proprietary in Ireland. That 
 measure was followed within a year or two 
 by the Land Act of 1870, an Act which was 
 no doubt, a useful Act, and which was, pro- 
 bably, in eflect I have no doubt, quite as 
 strong and sweeping a measure as the public 
 opinion to which I have referred of the peo- 
 ple of the United Kingdom would suffer to 
 be passed at that day, but which, in conse- 
 quence of that public opinion not being suffi- 
 ciently appreciative of the situation, was far 
 behind what the necessities of the situation 
 called for. Now, both 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE LAND ACT 
 
 were brought about, not from a sense of the 
 justice of either or both measures — were 
 brought within the domain of practical poli- 
 tics, not because interested or seltish land- 
 lords or wealthy men had come to the con- 
 clusion, from some new turn of reasoning, 
 that the condition of Ireland was one of in- 
 justice, and of misery that required ameliora- 
 tion, but because a great gaol in the heart of 
 London was broken open, and some policemen 
 in Manchester were killed. That it was this 
 that aroused England's attention to Irish af- 
 
10 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 fains, and rendered possible those measures of 
 reform, is beyond doubt. Once again the same 
 fatal error — once againjustice and measures of 
 propriety and prudence were too long delayed, 
 and once again were those lessons taught the 
 Irish people which bore for so many years 
 such fatal fruits. That Land Act was useful 
 in its way, but it was not wide enough ; the 
 land clauses known as Bright's, most hopeful 
 m theory, which struck directly at the root of 
 the question, turned out in practice not so 
 useful as the land clauses with reference to 
 the Irish Church, owing to differences of con- 
 dition. The truth was, that in other respects 
 
 THE LAND LAWS OF IRELAND 
 
 as of England and Scotland, were grievously 
 defective. And the expense of a voluntary 
 transfer of land in small parcels was almost 
 prohibitory. The search for titles, and copies 
 and conveyances, and conveyancing itself, 
 were so costly that whatever price you might 
 rix for those moderate portions of land, which 
 were the utmost aspiration of the occupant, 
 would in many cases fail to meet the ex- 
 penses of conveyancing. That was one diffi- 
 culty with which the legislation was unable 
 to grapple. There was another, in the want 
 of sympathy on the part of the Treasury and 
 other Departments of the Government with 
 those clauses which savoured a little too 
 much, in the then public opinion of the 
 country, of interference with the sacred pro- 
 perty in land — which looked a little too much 
 towards a denial of the 
 
 DIVINE RIGHT OF LANDLORDISM, 
 
 which looked a little too much like a practi- 
 cal recognition of the motto that property has 
 its duties as well as its rights ; and so it 
 happened in practice that there were but 100 
 sales a year on the average, or a total of 800, 
 hy the last return I have been able to obtain, 
 under the provisions of the land clauses of 
 the Act of 1870. So, therefoie, you will 
 observe that the Act was defective as a 
 remedy for the evils complained of, and, by 
 experience, was proved to be wholly inade- 
 quate. Then, in 1880, the last Land Act was 
 passed, under continual pressure — under 
 similar pressure, increased and aggravated by 
 events ; a great measure, but by itself not 
 likely, finally, to settle the great question. 
 I will not discuss the complicated details of 
 that measure ; but I will say that a measure 
 which is based upon the ground and founded 
 upon the reason upon which that measure 
 depends, and which makes no provision at all 
 for dealing with cases of arrears of rents, 
 
 cannot be regarded as a final or satisfactory 
 measure, if there were no other defect. If 
 you look at the history of the ills which pre- 
 ceded that measure, and at the circumstances 
 of the country, as stated by its authors, you 
 will see that such a measure must be to a 
 large extent wholly inadequate, and entirely 
 beyond practical application towards many of 
 the most grievous cases that can be supposed 
 to exist under it, unless it deals with arrears 
 for some time back. The most grievous cases 
 will be those of parties unable to pay their 
 rents. However, no one can doubt but that 
 that measure was 
 
 AN IMMENSE ACT OF RELIEF, 
 
 that it was a measure that gave more than 
 was expected by many, or was thought pos- 
 sible to be obtained from the Parliament of 
 the United Kingdom, and nobody can doubt 
 either that it was obtained from that Parlia- 
 ment only by continued difficiilties. The 
 state of Ireland, as it had been, was becoming 
 more aggravated still. Things were growing 
 worse and worse before the adoption of the 
 last remedial measure, and the conviction at 
 length impressed itself on the United King- 
 dom that something more must be done to 
 remedy those evils. But the same fatal 
 errors which attended the agitation for tht; 
 introduction of the previous remedial meas- 
 ures attended this. It came so late that a 
 large portion of the benefit was lost, so far as 
 feeling was concerned, and so far as the con- 
 viction might have been created that Ireland 
 could depend on the justice of the Parliament 
 of the United Kingdom for any prospect of 
 an eliding to its sufferings. In these respects 
 this last remedial measure had wholly lost its 
 grace. I say it is as plain as the day that 
 true statesmanship pointed to earlier action 
 — to action under other and different circum- 
 stances, when a measure, even less thorough- 
 going than this one, would have produced an 
 amelioration in the condition and temper of 
 the people of that country much greater than 
 could be expected from the measure brought 
 in and carried at the time, under the circum- 
 stances and under the pressure which attended 
 its becoming law. That is 
 
 THE RECORD OF EIGHTY YEARS 
 
 of remedial legislation for Ireland, These 
 are the important landmarks — the great acts 
 for the remedy of wrongs, and the chief 
 grants of justice that have distinguished 
 British legislation for Ireland in the past 
 eighty years. There are others, no doubt,, 
 subsidiary acts. It did not take quite so 
 
T^OME EULE RESOLUTIONS. 18S2. 
 
 11 
 
 long — I forget whether more than a couple 
 of Parliaments — to induce the Parliament of 
 the United Kingdom to pass a Sunday Closing 
 Act, which was demanded by the unanimous 
 voice of the Irish population, and was applic- 
 able to them only, but which did not agree 
 with the sentiments of the British publican, 
 and which, therefore, it was thought wrong 
 to give to the Irish people. But it came at 
 last, and minor measures of this description 
 have come to Ireland from time to time ; but 
 the large and important measures of states- 
 manship which have agitated the public mind 
 are those to^ which I have referred, and these 
 have been accomplished only after tLe delays 
 and under the circumstances I have briefly 
 stated. Can anybody wonder then that there 
 should have grown up early, and that there 
 should continue with an ever-increasing vol- 
 ume and urgency, 
 
 A CRY FOE A MEASURE OF HOME RULE ? 
 
 Put the question to ourselves. If we h£id 
 been for eighty years in the position that 
 these people have been in for that time ; if 
 we had had to agitate for a whole generation 
 for one measure of justice, for three-quarters 
 of a generation for the next measure, and 
 two-thirds of a generation for the third ; if 
 as each of these measures had been obtained, 
 it was seen to be due, not to the recognition 
 of the justice of our cause, but to the recog- 
 nition of the danger of further delay, what 
 would have been our feelings, and how 
 earnestly would we have demanded some 
 portion of control over our affairs ? But 
 there is a darker side to the picture than 
 this. While remedies were refused, force 
 was at the same time constantly applied. 
 While you have the miserable record of 
 remedial Acts to which 1 have referred, you 
 have the still more miserable record of Arms 
 Acts, Coercion Acts, Restraint of the Press 
 Acts, Suspension of Habeas Corpus Acts, 
 and all those legislative means of restraining 
 the people passed from time to time with the 
 utmost freedom by the same Parliament 
 which was denying and delaying what is now 
 admitted to have been only justice to that 
 people. I do not mean to say that the con- 
 duct of the Irish people — a large portion «f 
 it — under these circumstances was justifiable. 
 Far from it. I do not mean to say that it 
 may not have been necessary sometimes to 
 pass these Acts. 
 
 TRUE FRIENDS OF IRELAND 
 
 have from time to time concurred in their 
 passage. But I do mean to say that the 
 
 condition of things enduring for eighty years, 
 with such a record on its briglit^r side of 
 remedial legislation and such a record on its 
 darker side of coercive legislation, affords 
 absolute proof that the experiment of local 
 government for Ireland by the Parliament of 
 the United Kingdom has been a disastrous 
 failure. Besides legislative coercion, there 
 were other methods of coercion employed. 
 There is an army, under the guise of a con- 
 stabulary, of 12,000 or 13,000 of, I suppose, 
 the best troops in the world, the Irish con- 
 stabulary ; and we have had from time to 
 time large portions of the military forces of 
 the Empire quartered in Ireland. From 
 time to time not less than 50,000 men — I 
 believe to-day not less than 50,000 men of 
 the British array — are stationed in Ireland 
 to keep the people down, and large detach- 
 ments of the British fleet frequent Irish 
 harbours for the same purpose. Whether 
 right or wrong in this controversy, it cannot 
 be contended that the government of Ireland 
 for eighty years has been a government by 
 constitutional means, but it must be admitted 
 that it has been a government by force. 
 That is, in the large, the result of *,he whole 
 business. Now at length it is acknowledged 
 — as the hon. member for Victoria has said, 
 freely and frankly acknowledged — that Ire- 
 land was being misgoverned all those years» 
 
 WHAT A HUMILIATING POSITION 
 
 is that which the mother of Parliaments, the 
 mother of constitutional freedom throushout 
 the world, occupies on this question ! Which 
 of us did not feel with a pang of humiliation 
 the keen shaft of the satirist who not long 
 since forged, so to speak, the letter from the 
 Sultan of Turkey, calling, in response to 
 some calls that had been made bv England 
 on him to remedy some grievances of hi** 
 subjects — calling on the British Governmeni. 
 to remedy the condition of the Irish people ? 
 Who did not feel that such a letter might 
 have been fairly written, that such a com- 
 plaint might have been fairly made, and that 
 the argument so often urged in this House of 
 tu qvxique might have been fairly used ? Of 
 the dreadful results^ of all this it is needless 
 to speak. No doubt Ireland is largely in a 
 state of anarchy, ruled, as far as the United 
 Kingdom is concerned, mainly by force, and 
 so far as a large portion of the people is con- 
 cerned, mainly by organizations without and 
 beyond the control of the law ;'and I main- 
 tain that it is the delays which have taken 
 place in their passage, and the circumstances 
 
12 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 under which these measures of pressing 
 justice and importance have been at length 
 granted, which are largely responsible for the 
 distressed condition of that country. 
 
 THERE WERE TWO REASONS FOR THESE DELAYS : 
 
 Keformers — and I do not use the word in a 
 party sense, or as defining wholesale the Re- 
 form party of Britain, as compared with the 
 Conservative party, though I might so use 
 it ; but still there have been honourable 
 exceptions in the Conservative party — Re- 
 formers, in the larger sense of the term, have 
 from time to time pressed upon the public 
 and upon Parliament, long before these 
 reforms were granted, their justice and neces- 
 sity ; but the great body of public opinion 
 was unquestionably hostile to Irish reform. 
 In a Parliament of the United Kingdom, in 
 v,'hich, under our constitutional system, the 
 opinion of the majority must rule, it was 
 impossible that considerations of justice or 
 expediency to which the majority were not 
 alive could be recognized in time. I believe 
 that long ago many of these measures would 
 have been attempted by far-sighted states- 
 men, except that they felt it was impossible 
 to carry them, except that they were, as Mr. 
 Gladstone has put it, beyond the realm of 
 practical politics, because the aristocratic 
 interest, the large land-holding interest, the 
 Conservative interest, and many other inter- 
 ests were hostile and entirely too strong to 
 allow the relatively small band of advanced 
 Reformers to carry them into effect in due 
 season. In a word, the public opinion of the 
 United Kingdom did not recognize the im- 
 portance of the subject, and was not suffi- 
 ciently advanced to discharge the duty of 
 efficiently managing Irish affairs. The second 
 difficulty was the want of time. Parliament 
 has been overweighted with its multitudinous 
 concerns ; it has had to deal with 
 
 LARQB IMPERIAL CONCERNS, 
 
 it has had to deal with local concerns which 
 were supposed to be more pressing, and it 
 has been unequal to its task. We know 
 that for a great many years Parliament has 
 been unequal to its task in this regard. We 
 know that measures have been brought in by 
 strong Governments session after session, 
 and have been just crushed out by the pres- 
 sure of other affairs — have not even reached 
 the stage o( effective discussion. It takes 
 years, as a rule, before that which is deemed 
 sufficiently ripe for legislation to be actually 
 ^brought into Parliament by a Government 
 
 on its responsibility can reach that sts^ of 
 discussion unless there be some extraordinarv 
 reason of urgency such as has lately attended 
 the Irish question. It has thus happened 
 that men have been too apt to say with refer- 
 ence to the large questions to which I have 
 referred, and which have come up for settle- 
 ment : " Oh, that question is not yet within 
 the range of practical politics," just as Mr. 
 Gladstone said on the Irish question in 1865; 
 and so they say of these questions until gun- 
 powder, murder, assassination, explosions, a 
 condition of chronic disaffection breaking out 
 with peculiar violence in some particular 
 manner, bring them to the conclusion forth- 
 with that the question is 
 
 WITHIN THE RANGK OP PRACTICAL POLITICS, 
 
 and has got to be dealt with. Now, I say 
 that even if Parliament would even now take 
 up what it ought long ago to have taken up, 
 the question of local government for Ireland, 
 we might hope it would be dealt with in time 
 to do good ; but it also may, and I fear will, 
 be dealt with so late as to obviate all chance 
 of its settlement being productive of better 
 feeling between tl e people of the two coun- 
 tries, and thus it ii; that I am brought to the 
 conclusion that it is the duty of every man 
 who entertains a strong feeling for the em- 
 pire, who entertains a feeling of pride in its 
 glories and of shame in its failures and its 
 faults, to do what he can in his sphf^re to- 
 wards pressing forward this Irish question to 
 a solution while there yet be time. Now, so 
 long ago as 1878 the statesman to whom I 
 referred a while ago, Mr. Gladstone, spoke 
 in this manner prior to the general electioti 
 which took place at that time : 
 
 '' In the matter of Local Governmout there may 
 be a solution of some national and even imperial 
 difHudties. ... I am friendly to local govern- 
 ment, I am friendly to large local privileges and 
 power, and I desire— I may almost say, I intensely 
 desire — to see Parliament relieved of some portion 
 of its duties. We have got an overweighted Parlia- 
 ment, and if Ireland or any other ^portion of the 
 country is desirous and abie to arrange its aflairg, 
 that by taking the local part or part o.' its tiani-ac- 
 tions c^ the hands of Parliament it can liberate and 
 strengthen Parhament for Imperial concerns, I say 
 I will not only accord a reluctant assent, but I will 
 give a generous support to any such scheme." 
 
 I think, Sir, having regard to that speech, I 
 was justitied in hailing the accession to power 
 of the Liberal , party, as I did in the year 
 1880, as being an omen of some measure of 
 redress for Ireland in this particular. But, 
 Sir, another speech was delivered by that 
 
HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, 1882, 
 
 13^ 
 
 fiame statestnmi, under the responsibility of 
 otiice, in the Imperial House of Commons, 
 not very long ago, in which he once again 
 recurred to this subject, and said : 
 
 ••We attach great valne." said Mr. Gladstonfl, 
 •• to the extensioii — perhaps I should eay to tiie 
 ertabli.shment — (liear, bear) — of the principles of 
 local government in Ireland. We believe that one 
 of the great evils under which Ireland laboars in the 
 want of local adifliDistration. and a more central 
 system of authority. We believe that the state of 
 Ireland never can be satisfactory until the people 
 have acquired and learned by tradition and practice 
 to exercise those powers of local govtrnment which 
 were so beneficial in other portions of the Empire. 
 Moreover, w^ believe that where the Irish people 
 had the opportunity within a limited range of giving 
 proof of their powers ard qualities and capabilitits 
 for local government, as they have done under tlie 
 Poor Law Actt«, and throujih some other channtls, 
 they hrtve administered w^-ll. Indeed no one can 
 doubt that, or their perfect capacity for such a duty. 
 But this is speaking on the question of purely 
 local administration. The motion of my honour- 
 able friend embraces matters of wider scope. I wish 
 to point out to those hononr-.ble gemlempn that 
 neither they, nor so far as I know Mr. Butt before 
 them, nor bo far as I know Mr. O'Connell before 
 him, ever distinctly explained in an intelligent and 
 practical form the manner in which the real knot of 
 this question was to be untied. The principle on 
 which they profess to proceed is, that purely Irish 
 matters to be dealt with by a purely Irish authority, 
 Imperial matters to be left to the Imperial anthoiity 
 of a Chamber in which Ireland is to be represented. 
 But they have not told us by what authority it is to 
 be (determined which matters, taken one by one, are 
 Irish, and which matters are Imperial." 
 
 Sir, in that speech, while announcing once 
 again his adhesion to the principle of local 
 government, that great statesman endeavoured 
 to shift from the shoulders of the responsible 
 Government of the Empire to the shoulders 
 of those who are in a hopeless minority a 
 question which it belongs to that Government 
 to solve. I say that it belongs to those who 
 are responsible for the good government of 
 the Empire, who have the majority, who 
 have the power, who can initiate legislation 
 themselves, 
 
 TO GRAPPLE WITH THB DIFFICULTY. 
 
 I say to those who admit that the present 
 system is unjust, who admit that the present 
 condition of Ireland cannot be satisfactory 
 without some change, who acknowledge that 
 a change can and ought to be made, are in an 
 untenable position when they tell the minor- 
 ity : " Gentlemen, come forward, propound 
 some plan, solve every difficulty, tell us how 
 you would settle this question, and until you 
 do that we are not called upon to act." That 
 is not, in my opinion, language worthy of any 
 statesman, be he Conservative or Reformer. 
 
 It is not upon such a syst^'m that the Irish 
 question can be settled. It would be folly to 
 blink the consideration that any measur*» that 
 Mr. Gladstone may propose on this question 
 might be unsatisfactory to many, and at any 
 rate would not be accepted by all the Irish- 
 people as a final settlement of the question. 
 But I maintain that the longer you delay ,. 
 the greater the difficulties ; and I assert that 
 though the proposition you are able to pro- 
 pose may not be satisfactory to allj that is no- 
 ground whatever for declining to do that 
 which you yourself acknowledge it is just 
 should be done. True justice will be that 
 which is right, and will give that measure of 
 relief which it knows is proper, and thus will 
 result tliat added measure of safety and 
 security which should flow from the changed 
 state of affairs, when many reasonable men, 
 now complaining, shall be enlisted by the 
 concession on the side of order. What is the 
 present state of affiiirsi The Prime Minister 
 of England says the condition of Ireland i» 
 unsatisfactory, because the Irish people have 
 not the measure of local government which 
 they ought to have, and he says : " I will 
 not give that measure of local government ta 
 you ; I will not stir hand or foot in the mat- 
 ter until the Irish members in the House ot 
 Commons, who are in the minority, and are 
 powerless to do anything, shall propose a 
 measure which shall be patisfactory to them- 
 selves and to me, and I call on them to under- 
 take to deal with this complicated and exac- 
 erbated question, so full of difficulties grow- 
 ing out of all the errors and circumstances of 
 the past." I will not engage in a discussion 
 of the various hypothetical cases and some- 
 what strained difficulties which it seems to 
 me are suggested in Mr. Gladstone's speech. 
 I frankly admit that the division of power 
 between the local and federal authorities is 
 one of them, and a very serious one ; but how 
 there can be a difficulty in deciding the mode 
 by which that is to be regulated, in deter- 
 mining that it is to bo regulated by the Act 
 of Parliament which creates the new system^ 
 I cannot at all see. There can be no doubt 
 whatever that the real difficulty wliicL 
 occurred to the Prime Minister on this occa- 
 sion was the same which he has entertained, 
 and expressed so freely — was that same diffi- 
 culty which has prevented justice being done 
 to Ireland in former years and under other 
 circumstances ; it was the difficulty of having 
 to deal with a recalcitrant and inert masa 
 of public opinion, not sufficiently advanced 
 to enable him to grapple with the subject. 
 To him I believe the words of the great poet 
 
14 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 of the adjoining Republic apply when he 
 says : 
 
 " Hia statecraft was the golden rule, 
 His right of vote a sacred trust ; 
 Clear above threat and ridicule. 
 
 All heard his challenge, ' Is it jaet ? ' '* 
 
 I believe that a love of justice and or gener- 
 ous and libera) treatment ia an in«tiact, I 
 might say, of that statesman's nature ; but he 
 must be sustained, his hands must be held 
 up, in order to give him the power to accom- 
 plish the task which, though advanced in 
 years, it remains for him to do in order to 
 crowu i\ nobxe life spent in the service of his 
 country. The hon. gentleman who moved 
 the resolution (Mr. Costigan) said that 
 
 SCOTLAND WAS ALrfO MOVING ; 
 
 on the subject. Within the last few days a 
 very important meeting has been held, which 
 came to the conclusion to ask for a Local 
 Legislature for Scotland, with triennial elec- 
 tive Parliaments ; and there can be no doubt 
 that, notwithstanding the remarkable busi- 
 ness tact and talent by which the Scotch 
 business has been managed in Parliament, 
 ihere have been great and injurious defects 
 and delays in the management of that busi- 
 ness. What has been accomplished by a sort 
 of imperfect federation in that regard 1 We 
 know that, in regard to all Scotch parlia- 
 mentary measures, the Scotch members have 
 met together and agreed as to what was 
 wanted for their countrj', and what was 
 agreed upon has generally been passed through 
 Parliament, unless it trenched upon the 
 prejudices and views of others, almost with- 
 out debate. They have not succeeded in all 
 things ; they have not succeeded in many im- 
 portant things. They have had strong fights 
 when questions came up which involved, by 
 analogy, interests in other parts of the United 
 Kingdom; but they have done much, and this 
 agitation in Scotland, where they have so 
 much less to complain of than in Ireland, 
 cannot fail to have an important influence in 
 maturing public opinion on the Irish ques- 
 tion. I maintain that the English Parlia- 
 ment cannot deal eflficiently with these ques- . 
 tions ; that as well from lack of knowledge 
 and sympathy, as in consequence of being, as 
 Mr. Gladstone has said, wholly overweighted 
 with work, it is not competent, and its incom- 
 petency has been proved and confessed by the 
 present Premier, to deal satisfactorily with 
 these questions. Let the British people then 
 .give to the Irish people. 
 
 THIS LEGITIMATE VENT , 
 
 for their somewhat restless energies, and 
 utilize them in the legitimate occupation of 
 dealing with their own concerns. I have once 
 again to trouble the House with another 
 extract from a still later speech b_^ Mr. Glad- 
 stone. Speaking in Parlian.ent, that gentle- 
 man said oniy the other day : 
 
 "Sir, this is a subject on which I have vo-y distinct 
 and clear opinions, which I have Mover scrupled to 
 declare. They are not shared by many gentlemen; 
 probably in this House they may be considered of a 
 speculative character, and it is highly unlikely that 
 I shall evr be called upon to take a practical part 
 in any matter relating to these opinions ; but I have 
 the very strongest opinions upon the advantages of 
 local government, and I have the strongest objections 
 to the tendency which I see constantly prevailing to 
 ,3ntralization. Not for Ireland merely, but for 
 England, I would take and profess it at all points a 
 cardioal rule of policy, so far as I can with safety to 
 the general structure of the Empire, to decentralize 
 Parliament." 
 
 Now, Sir, I have read that speech for two or 
 three reasons. First of all, because you will 
 observe that the Prime Minister, after an 
 interval of reflection, comment and criticism, 
 reiterates the demand, as an essential con- 
 dition preliminary to any action on this sub- 
 ject, that a satisfactory solution of all these 
 difficulties should be propounded by those 
 who ask for it on the Home Rule benches. 
 Therefore we find the suggestion that it 
 should stand until a day which may never 
 come. Secondly, there is the repetition of a 
 declaration which he says he has made for 
 ten years, and therefore we find no advance 
 in his views upon this question. Lastly and 
 most important, we find him using those 
 same fatal words under colour of which Irish 
 questions, as I have proved, have been always 
 postponed until the day of grace and greatest 
 utility has passed. " This is not a practical 
 question. I do not expect to be called upon 
 to deal with it." I cannot agree with this 
 view. I say it is a practical, a burning 
 question. It is the most practical and burn- 
 ing question we can conceive ; and when the 
 Minister has stated that the results t*re not 
 satisfactory as they stand, that there ought 
 to be a change, that there ought to be a grant 
 of local rights and privileges, that justice 
 demands it, and that it cannot be expected 
 that the Irish people will be satisfied unless 
 the Parliament of the United Kingdom dis- 
 charges that duty, then, I say, justice de- 
 mands that those who have the power and 
 the responsibility should propound that legis- 
 lation. Now, Sir, I come to the consideration 
 of 
 
HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, 1882. 
 
 15 
 
 ANOTHER BRANCH OP THI8 QUESTION. 
 
 and that is whether we have any interest in 
 this question calling upon us to interfere in 
 it ; and I deal with that branch of the ques- 
 tion now, partly because the hon. gentleman 
 has alluded to it, and partly because it is not 
 the first occasion on which a great Irish 
 question has come under the consideration of 
 this House and has been treated by this 
 House in one way or another. I alluded a 
 while ago to the question of the disestablish- 
 ment of the Irish Church as one of vast 
 importance both in its direct and indirect 
 relations to the condition of Ireland, and it 
 happened while that question was under 
 debate in the old land a late respected mem- 
 ber of this House, the Hon. Mr. Holton, 
 seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, moved on the 
 31 St of May, 1869, an Address to the Queen 
 stating the opinion of this House. To tl.is 
 the hon. gentleman, the present Prime Min- 
 ister moved, seconded by Sir George Cartier, 
 the previous question, and the previous ques- 
 tion was upon that occasion carried by the 
 hon. gentleman with the assistance of his 
 supporters, against the vote of the Liberal 
 party. The hon. gentleman supported his 
 motion for the previous question by a speech, 
 in which he objected to the proposed action, 
 to which speech I refer. Now, Sir, I main- 
 tain that the hon. gentleman was on that 
 occasion mistaken as to the real feelings 
 and sentiments of the great majority of the 
 Canadian people. I believe that so far 
 from that motion being, as the hon. gentle- 
 man said, calculated to excite discord, heart- 
 burnings and religious difficulties, we would 
 have all agreed — had he himself but seen 
 the question in another light — in favour 
 of the proposed solution of that question, 
 just as we had agreed in the old Province 
 of Canada, however lively were the feel- 
 ings of religious difference in that old Pro- 
 vince, when we settled a somewhat similar 
 question. I refer, Sir, to this statement 
 because I wish to express the hope that, in 
 the interval between 1869 and 1882, the hon. 
 gentleman has advanced in his views, has 
 observed the current of events, and will now 
 be disposed to take a different line, and in- 
 stead of acting on the precedent which ho him- 
 self then created by moving the previous ques- 
 tion, in order, as he stated, that there should 
 be an effectual barrier t6 similar resolutions 
 in the future, he may be disposed to admit 
 
 OUR RIGHT TO TENDER SOME ADVICE 
 
 on this occasion, and give his support to the 
 motion before che House. I say we have an 
 
 interest, as a part of the great Empire — as 
 sharers in its prosperity, as sharers in its 
 shame ; we have an interest in everything 
 which will tend to^develop the strength and 
 the unity of that Empire ; we have an inter- 
 est in every great and important question 
 affecting the general constitution and organi- 
 zation of the Empire at large. Nobody can 
 doubt that, through chaos and without any 
 formal system, the gradual tendency of the 
 constitution of the Empire has been more and 
 more — mainly through drift, sometimes of 
 design — towards the adoption of the federa- 
 tive form. We ourselves in Canada are the 
 outcrop of that idea. Our present posiciou 
 is due to its partial, unsym metrical, unrea- 
 soned, but practical development; and I say. 
 Sir, we must conclude that, without power 
 effectually to interfere, without power of 
 legislation, we yet have a right, 
 
 AS MEMBERS OP THE EMPIRE, 
 
 to express an opinion upon this subject. As 
 a part of the Empire largely peopled by old 
 countrymen — by Englishmen, Irishmen and 
 Scotchmen — we have a deep interest in a 
 question which must materially affect the 
 prosperity and happiness of our countrymen 
 and kinsmen in the old land. As a country 
 wanting immigrants, as the hon. gentleman 
 has said, we have a material interest to a verv 
 great degree. We all know where the Irish 
 emigration goes ; we all know that those who 
 cross the sea and land upon the shores of 
 America go almost wholly, particularly those 
 of the Roman Catholic faith, to the United 
 States instead of to Canada ; we know that 
 our share of the Irish emigration is insignifi- 
 cant, and that our share of the Irish Roman 
 Catholic emigration is but a very small pro- 
 portion in these latter days of even our share 
 of the total Irish emigration. We know, on 
 the other hand, that enormous numbers of 
 that people have gone to the United States. 
 When I said two years ago that that was due 
 largely to the difficulties to which I referr<^d, 
 and expressed the hope that a better feeling 
 might be engendered by remedial measures 
 applied to the state of Iceland, hon. gentle- 
 men opposite did not seem to sympathize with 
 that remark. I was glad to hear the hon. 
 gentleman repeat it to-day, and I hope it haa 
 become, to a large extent, the accepted senti- 
 ment of the people of this country. We are 
 interested materially in another sense in this 
 question. 
 
 WE AND OUR NEIGHBOURS 
 
 have a common frontier 3,000 miles in length. 
 The Republic is, and must always be, a 
 
le 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 country in our cordial and friendly relations 
 with which must lie a great part of our own 
 prosperity ; and no man can doubt that the 
 existence of the Irish question is a main 
 feature of the difBcnlties^between the United 
 Kingdom and the United States, and that it 
 cannot but react most unfavourably upon us. 
 We recollect what has happened in former 
 days ; we recollect when our peace was 
 broken, our territory more than once in- 
 vaded, when expense was incurred and blood 
 was shed ; we recollect that such a state of 
 things existed in the United States that 
 redress, whether by expression of regret or 
 by pecuniary compensation, was absolutely 
 denied, on the score, I presume, that the 
 state of feeling in that country rendered it 
 impossible for any such concession to be 
 made. If you look at some of the figares of 
 the recent census you will see how, directly 
 and indirectly — directly, as wanting immi- 
 grants ourselves ; indirectly, as men with 
 whom the people of the United States should 
 be on friendly terms — we are interested in 
 this question. Take the State of Massa- 
 chusetts, in which, out of a population of 
 1,G25,0C0, the foreign-born people, if I 
 remember rightly, number some 420,000 
 souls, and of these no less than about 240,- 
 000 were born in Ireland; so that more than 
 one-half of the foreign born population of 
 the State of Massachusetts is of Irish birth, 
 while if you add to those the number who 
 are the descendants of Irishmen in that 
 State, you will see what a powerful factor in 
 the prosperity and progress of that country 
 is the Irish immigration. Of that immi- 
 gration 
 
 WE WANT A SHARE FOR OURSELVES, 
 
 and we want still more earnestly that those 
 who choose the Republic instead of the 
 Dominion shall not choose the Kepublic with 
 feelings of animosity and dissatisfaction to- 
 wards the Empire of which we form a part, 
 but with those friendly feelings which ani- 
 mate the Englishmen and ♦ Scotchmen who 
 also happen to prefer, for material reasons, 
 the Republic to the Dominion. Now, Sir, 
 there is another reason why we should inter- 
 fere. We can speak with authority on this 
 subject ; we are Federalists ourselves ; we 
 are experienced in the benefits of Home 
 Rule ; we know what it means ; we know 
 that it is our most precious possession ; we 
 know that there is nothing that we would 
 part with with greater reluctance or more 
 difficulty than 
 
 OUR PORTION OF HOME RULB ; 
 
 we know that there is nothing that we would 
 sacrifice more to retain than our portion of 
 Home Rule, whether you refer to that por- 
 tion which the Dominion has in relation to 
 the Empire, or that portion which the Pro- 
 vinces have in relation to the Dominion. In 
 reference to either the imperfect federation 
 which exists between Canada and the United 
 Kingdom, or the more perfect form of federa- 
 tion which exists between the Dominion and 
 the Provinces, if any people in the wide 
 world can speak of the difficulties engendered 
 from the want of Home Rule, and the bene- 
 fits to be secured by the grant of Home 
 Rule, it is the people in whose name and for 
 whose interests we sit and deliberate in thi* 
 hall this night. Now, Sir, the descendant of 
 Irishmen myself — my grandfather by the 
 father's side a rector of the church to which 
 I have referred, and siteping in his parish 
 churchyard, and my ancestor by my mother's 
 side slain in conflict with insurgents — while 
 it mijiht have been my misfortune, had I 
 been born and bred in the old land, to adopt 
 from prejudice views very dilFerent from 
 those I have expressed this night, yet, it 
 being my good fortune to have been bom 
 and bred in the free air of Canada, and to 
 have learned those better, those wisrr, those 
 more Christian and just notions, which here 
 prevail upon the subjects of civil and religious 
 liberty, class legislation, and Homo Ruld it- 
 self, I have always entertained, ever since I 
 have had the opportunity of thinking on this 
 subject, the sentiments to which I have given 
 feeble utterance, this evening. I l>elieve that 
 these are the sentiments native to 
 
 OUR OWN SENSE OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICK, 
 
 of forbearance and toleration, and that we 
 wish to deal on this subject, as the hon- 
 gentleman said who moved it, in that 
 spirit which says, *' Do unto others as you 
 would they should do unto yOu." 1 had been 
 anxious that this discussion should be raised, 
 and had myself prepared a motion on th<j 
 subject when private circumstances called me 
 from my desk here. On my return I learnt 
 that the gentlejian to whom the hon. mem- 
 ber for Victoria had alluded had taken the 
 matter in hand, and it was thought better 
 not to meddle with them, or with the course 
 that they, under bis leadership, might pro- 
 pose. But, although I remained silent, I 
 must say that I think that it would be doing 
 but scant justice to the feeling of Canadians, 
 French, Scotch, English or Irish, to suppose 
 
HOME BULE RESOLUTIONS, 1882. 
 
 IT 
 
 that there is any material diflference in their 
 feeling on this subject from that of those 
 whom the hon. gentleman who brought for- 
 ward the motion more particularly seems to 
 represent. I believe our sentiments are 
 based on the general principles of political 
 action to which we have been educated, and 
 which have advanced our prosperity and our 
 intellectual and moral standing in the world. 
 "No V, I heard the hon. gentleman's resolution 
 with some regret — for one reason, that I find 
 it emasculated. I find it very much weaker 
 than the resolution which he put on the paper 
 in the first instance. In some particulars it 
 does not suit my view. He has fallen into 
 something like the error ascribed to Mr. 
 Gladstone, but, not willinc. to repeat that 
 error, I myself prefer to vote for the best 
 resolution we can get. Yet 
 
 I WILL VOTE WITH RELUCTANCE 
 
 for the motion, which only hypothetically 
 refers to the grant of a measure of self- 
 government to Ireland. The hon. gentleman 
 says in the altered resolution : 
 
 '' And we would ventare to expreas a hope that, if 
 consistent with the integrity and well-being of the 
 Empire, and if the rights and status of the minority 
 are folly protected and secured, some means may 
 be found of meeting the expressed desire of so many 
 of your Irish subjects in that regard. 
 
 ' ' We would further express a hope that the time 
 has come when your Majesty's clemency may, with- 
 out injury to the interest of the United Kingdom, 
 be extended to those persons who are now imprisoned 
 in Ireland charged with political offences only, and 
 the inestimable blessing of personal liberty be re- 
 stored to them." 
 
 We have no idea that the rights and interests 
 of the minority will be other than fully pro- 
 tected and secured. I believe that their best 
 security is to be found in a united Irish 
 people, managing their own affairs. I say 
 that the passage cf such a measure is essen- 
 tial to the integrity of the Empire. There 
 ought to be no " ifs " or "ands" in the 
 expression of the views of the Canadian 
 people upon this most important subject. It 
 is only upon the theory, only upon the strong 
 view, that the passage of such a law is essen- 
 tial to the integrity of the ^Empire that we 
 can agitate or act with eflfect in dealing with 
 this matter. I am not disposed to speak 
 hypothetically. I am not disposed to deal 
 with this question with "ifs " and "ands. " 
 I am willing to advise absolutely conciliatory 
 measures and ample justice to Ireland. 1 
 should like the Canadian people, through 
 their representatives in Parliament, to say to 
 the Imperial Government respectfully, but 
 
 tirmly and plainly, that as 4,000,000 of 
 British subjects, they believe that the in- 
 tegrity of the Empire demands 
 
 SEIF-GOVERNilBNT FOB IRELAND. 
 
 So with reference to the clause that speaks 
 of those men deprived of the constitutional 
 right of trial by jury. I do not under- 
 stend them to invite the clemency of 
 he Crown. I do not understand them 
 to be charged with political oflences. I 
 underatand them to be iraprisoried under a 
 law which does not call on the Government 
 to charge them with any crime whatever. 
 What we ought to have asked for those men 
 is the restoration of the habeas corjnis, and a 
 trial by their peers on any charge which the 
 Government of England may think fit to 
 make against them. It is not an application 
 for clemency and mercy that they make, or 
 that we should express, but a hopi- that the 
 ordinary constitutional right of every British 
 subject may be extended to these purticular 
 British subjects — namely, the right of habeas 
 corpus and of trial by their peers for any 
 offence with which they may be charged 
 against the law of the land to which they 
 belong. I hope that the resolution, weak as 
 it is, unsatisfactory as it is ; failing, as in my 
 opinion it does, in those two points ; framed 
 as it is in a manner which I do not myself 
 admire, will yet pass ; because it is not 
 amendable, and it is infinitely better that it 
 should pass than than that it should be 
 rejected because some may think it too weak 
 and others too strong. In this question I 
 have shown we are interested in many ways, 
 and that, although we have no direct voice in 
 the legislation of Great Britain, we have, 
 notwithstanding, a right to venture our 
 counsel and express our views. We have a 
 right respectfully to approach our Sovereign 
 and strengthen the hands of her Prime Min- 
 ister, whose sentiments are not hostile, but 
 are favourable to reform. We are entitled to 
 give the influence of 4,000,000 of British 
 subjects to the redress of grievances too long 
 maintained, to the attainment of rights too 
 long denied, and so to enlarge the strength 
 and increase the unity of the mighty Empire 
 of which we form a part. 
 
 The following is the resolution, to which 
 Mr. Blake spoke : 
 
 That an humble Address be presented to the 
 Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, in the following 
 words : 
 
 Most Gracious Sovereign : 
 
 We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal sub- 
 jects, the Commons of Canada, in ParUament 
 
18 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH 
 
 assembled, desire most earaeBtlf, in oar own uanie, 
 and on behalf of the people whom we represent, to 
 renew the expression of our answerring loyalty and 
 devotion to lour Majesty's person and Government. 
 
 1. We have observed, may it please Your Majesty, 
 with feelings of profound regret and concern, the 
 distress and discontent which has prevailed for some 
 time among Your Majesty'^ subjects in Ireland. 
 
 2. We would respectfully represent to Your 
 Majesty that your Irish subjects in the Dominion 
 of Canada are among the most loyal, most prosper- 
 ous, and most contented of Your Majesty's subjects. 
 
 3. We would further respectfully represent to Your 
 Majesty that the Dominion of Canada, while offering 
 the greatest advantages and attractions for those of 
 our fellow-subjects who may desire to make their 
 homes amongst us, does not receive that proportion 
 of emigrants from Ireland which might reasonably 
 be expected, and that this is due, in a great measure, 
 in the case of many of our Irish fellow- subjects 
 who have sought foreign homes, to their feelings of 
 estrangement towards the Imperial Government. 
 
 4. We would further most respectfully represent 
 -to Your Majesty that, in the interests of this your 
 loyal Dominion and of the entire Empire, it is 
 exttemely to be desired that Your Majesty may not 
 be deprived, in the development of Your Majesty's 
 possessions on this continent, of the yalnable aid of 
 those of Your Majesty's Irish subjects who may feel 
 
 uiaposed to leave their native land to seek more 
 prosperous homes. 
 
 6. We desire respectfully to suggest to Your 
 Majesty that Canada 'ind its inhabitantn have pros- 
 pered exceedingly under a Federal system, allowing 
 to each Province of the Dominion considerable 
 power of sell-government, and would venture to 
 exp' a hope that, if consistent with the integrity 
 and well-being of the Empire, and if the rights and 
 status of the minority are fall> protected and secured, 
 some means may b: found of meeting the expressed 
 desire of so many of your Irish subjects in that 
 regar<^,. so that Ireland may become a source of 
 strength to Your Majcbty's Empire, and that Your 
 Majesty s Irish subjects at home and abroad may 
 feel the same pride in the greatness of Your Majesty's 
 Empire, the same veneration for the ju tice of Your 
 Majesty's rule, and the same devotion to and affec- 
 tion for our common flag, as are now felt by all 
 classes of Your Majesty s loyal subjects in this 
 Dominion. 
 
 6. We would further express a hope that the time 
 has come when Your Majesty's clemency may, with- 
 out injury to the interests of the United Kingdom, 
 be extended to those persons who are now imprieoiied 
 in Ireland charged with political offences only, and 
 the inestimable blessing of personal liberty restored 
 to them. 
 
 We pray that the blessings of Your Majesty's 
 reign may, for your people's Mke, b« long continued. 
 
HON. EDWARD BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR THE 
 
 SECOND READING OF THE INCORPORATION OF 
 
 THE ORANGE ORDER, MARCH 17th. 1884 
 
 (CONDENSED). 
 
 Mr. Blake said : — Mr. Speaker : Upon 
 this question parties are divided. It is well 
 known that the ranks of hon. gentlemen 
 opposite are divided ; and it is known that 
 the Liberal party does not think, or speak, 
 or act, as a unit on this question. I aji 
 not speaking, I do not propose to speak, 
 this evening, in any shape or sense in the 
 capacity which I hold as leader for the time 
 being of the Liberal party, but do speak only 
 in my individual capacity as a member of 
 Parliament. I am not speaking for any one 
 but myself. Although I gave a silent vote 
 on the last occasion when this question was 
 before us, and although but for what has 
 occurred since then I should have repeated 
 that silent vote, I feel bound, on this occa- 
 sion to express my views upon the Bill before 
 the House. 
 
 I am about to state my own views frankly 
 on this question. I dare say they will not 
 please extreme men on either side, but I hope 
 that to some moderate men those views may 
 be acceptable. In the first place, the hon. 
 member for Cardwell (Mr. White) alleges 
 that this Bill is similar, upon the constitu- 
 tional ground, to other Bills which we have 
 dealt with. 1 think there is a very marked 
 distinction, on the constitutional ground, be- 
 tween this Bill and the other Bills. 
 
 Now, with reference to the particular 
 measure before the House, there can be no 
 doubt whatever that the general question of 
 the incorporation of the society for the pur- 
 pose for which its promoters ask its incorpo- 
 ration — which, as they say, is merely in order 
 that they may have a corpr tte entity ena- 
 bling them to hold real property — is one of 
 civil rights and property. It is perfectly 
 clear, therefore, that this is within the con- 
 trol and the exclusive control of the Local 
 Legislatures. The report of the Minister of. 
 Justice (Sir John A. Macdonald) upon the 
 Orange Bill of 1873, passed by the Ontario 
 Legislature, which was reserved, reads thus : 
 
 " If the Acts should again be passed, the Liea- 
 tenant-Governor should consider himself bound to 
 
 deal with them at once, and uot ask your Exoelleuoy 
 to interfere in matters of Provincial concern and 
 solely and entirely within the jurisdiction and com- 
 peteuoe of the legislature of the Province." 
 
 That was a perfectly correct statement. It 
 is true it applied to Provincial incorporation ; 
 but it was a perfectly correct statement that 
 this proposed incorporation was not merely 
 within, V)ut solely and exclusively within, 
 the competence of the Province. There 
 have been Acts passed, as we know, in 
 several of the Legislatures, granting the 
 Orange Order incorporation. The Order has 
 been incorporated in Manitoba, in Nova 
 Scotia, in New Brunswick — in three at least 
 of the Provincea And we know also that it 
 is not because these incorporations are defi- 
 cient for the purpose for which they were 
 made, that the applicants come here. They 
 do not come because they want more power 
 in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, or New Bruns- 
 wick ; not at all. The present incorporation 
 is adequate for all the purposes they want, 
 only they cannot get incorporation in enough 
 Provinces — that is the question. This case 
 is quite different from the class of cases in 
 which I am willing that Dominion Legisla- 
 tion should intervene, to clear up any doubts 
 arising from the decision to which I have 
 alluded ; it is not to implement such legis- 
 lation, but it is because legislation cannot be 
 obtained in some Provinces that the parties 
 come here. It is not to confirm, not to com- 
 plete the legislation of any Province in regard 
 to which difficulty had arisen under our com- 
 plex system ; but it is to coerce Provinces 
 into accepting legislation which the Provin- 
 ces would not otherwise pass. I wish bo 
 make good the propositions I advance as I 
 proceed, and I shall do this by quoting ex- 
 tracts. I find that the Grand Secretary of 
 the Order (Mr. Keyes) said this : 
 
 *' Bills have been passed by five of the Provincial 
 Legislatures incorporating our association ; bat 
 throagh no fault of ours, in three of thebe Provinces, 
 Ontario, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island the 
 Bills have never become law. Under these circum- 
 stances, and in order to settle the question, we have 
 
20 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THB 
 
 Hppealed to tbe Parliament of Canada for the pa8« 
 sage of a general Act of incorporation for our Bociety 
 in the Dominion." 
 
 There you see it is n .t to supplement, to make 
 good and perfect local legislation, but be- 
 cause local legislation cannot be obtained, 
 that they come here to obtain that which 
 they cannot get in the proper quarter. 
 
 Thfn, I have a report from the Secretaiy 
 of a county lodge, as late as February, 1884. 
 He says : 
 
 ■• We must not permit any political feeling in this 
 matter, as it is very important to our institution to 
 Lave a Dominion Act of incorporation. 
 
 " Without such Act, our noble brethren in tbe 
 Province of Quebec will be without one, as you all 
 know it is no use for them to ask for incorporation 
 in their Provincial Legislature, where Protestants 
 are in tbe minority." 
 
 There you see, Mr. Speaker, once again, that 
 it is because incorporation cannot be obtained 
 in a particular Province or in particular Pro- 
 vinces, that they come here, and not because 
 there is some dilhculty or defect in the power 
 of Provincial Legislation, which they want 
 us here to heal. This view is not a view 
 which is held by those v/ho oppose the mea- 
 sure alone ; it was held by leading Orange- 
 men. Leading members of the order, up to 
 a comparatively recent period, held the view 
 that the measure should not be brought^here ; 
 that it was a matter of Provincial concern 
 and should be discussed elsewhere. The 
 hou. member for East Hastings (Mr. White) 
 •who introduced the Bill last Session, and 
 who has occupied a very high position in the 
 Order, and who still holds a high position, 
 speaking in Winnipeg after the defeat of the 
 Bill of last Session, said : 
 
 " He, along with Brother MarshjUl and other 
 members of the Order, had asked that the Incorpo- 
 ration Bill be not sent to the House of Commons, as 
 he thought it should be fought out in tbe Ontario 
 Legislature ; and if defeated there, they should wait 
 till their friends gained power ; but in spite of all 
 argument on his part, he had bean forced to take 
 the Bill into the House." 
 
 Again, the hon. gentleman said, in a speech 
 at Brock vilie, after the Session of Parliament: 
 
 " At the Session of Parliament he found himself 
 needing more assistance than ever before in his life. 
 
 "Many of his friends were adverse to the Bill 
 being given a second reading : they were divided as 
 to its effect ; and in this way he found himself 
 assailed on ail sides." 
 
 ♦ * ♦ ♦ * * 
 
 " Prominent Conserratives advised him to with- 
 draw the Bill." 
 
 Once again at Hamilton, he said : 
 
 " He was willing to admit that the Orangemen 
 themselves were not as united in asking for the Bill 
 
 M they might bar* been. They did not act as 
 nnanimou8-y as they aboula have done ^ and there 
 was no use in denying the fact that a certain portion 
 of their own organization did not want the Bill to 
 come to a second reading," 
 
 Mr. Marshall, a gentleman holding high 
 office at Winnipeg, said : 
 
 "He had been opposed to sending the Incorpo- 
 ration Bill to the Dominion House. The battle had 
 been commenced in Ontario, and should be fought 
 out there." 
 
 These are statements all made since the 
 defeat of the Bill last Session, and they seem 
 to indicate that, on the part of leading 
 members of the Order itself, there was a 
 strong feeling adverse to the propriety of 
 introducing this Bill here, and favourable to 
 the view which I have ventured to take in 
 this House, that substantially and essentially 
 this is an attempt to make use of the power 
 of this Parliament under the pretence that 
 Dominion incorporation is really wanted and 
 is really needed, when the reality of tbe case 
 is, that Provincial ipcorporatiou i£ itll that is 
 really wanted and is. reallj needf sd, And it 
 is because the Provinces caanot be indoced to 
 grant that incorporation, or, at all events, 
 because such is the case in some of them, 
 that it is proposed to use alleged Dominion 
 power to force the measure on those localities 
 that object to it. By the Bill itself and as 
 much of the constitution of the Ord:>r as we 
 are acquainted with, it is a divided organi- 
 zation, with Provincial, county, district and 
 private lodges ; and the local branches are to 
 have the right to hold property. 
 
 I say that the essence of this Bill is alleged 
 by the promoters to be the right to hold real 
 property. I say that the right to hold real 
 property is, if anything be such, a Provincial 
 right — a dealing with property and civil 
 rights. I say that we should not strain our 
 jurisdiction to grasp that right in any case. 
 I say, that we are to use our jurisdiction 
 where we have it, for we may have it in 
 some cases, as incidental to some classes of 
 Dominion incorporations. For instance, I 
 have supported, in this House, as a necessary 
 incident of railway companies incorporated 
 by us, the power of expropriati) g land. It 
 is a necessary incident of our power to incor- 
 porate certain classes of railways, that we 
 should have that power of expropriation, and 
 we use that power because it belongs to us. 
 But I say that we should watch jealously, 
 and when it is proposed to go beyond the 
 necessary incidents of corporate rights, and 
 when the whole essence of the corporation is, 
 as it is claimed, the right to hold real pro- 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1881. 
 
 21 
 
 perty. il should be a very strong <»se which 
 should lead us to interfere with it. And 
 when we are told that the real reason why 
 the promoters come here is not because the 
 Provincial incorporation would rot be 
 adequate, but becausa they cannot get enough 
 Provinces to agree to incorporate them, that 
 should end the question of the propriety of 
 our interference. I maintain that thoy 
 should go to the Legislature of Quebec for 
 incorporation in Quebec, and to the Legisla- 
 ture of Ontario for incorporation in Ontario, 
 and as Mr. Marshall and the hon. member 
 for East Hastings (Mr. White) have said, 
 tight their battle there ; and if popular feel- 
 ing is ultimately with them, they will get 
 their incorporation, and if it should remain 
 against them, they must content themselvea 
 without it. 
 
 MR. BLAKE OPPOSED TO STATE RECOGNITION 
 OP SECRET SOCIETIES. 
 
 But it is not only upon this ground that I 
 personally am opposed to this Act of incor- 
 poration. I entertain views on the point to 
 which I am about to address myself, which, I 
 dare say, are shared only by a small minority 
 in this House, but none the less do I enter- 
 tain them. I am opposed to State recognition 
 of secret societies. I do not care how good 
 their purposes, or what their objects may be ; 
 I believe it is a mistake to lay down the 
 principle that any secret society should be 
 recognized by the State. I think secret, 
 oath-bound societies are, so far as that point 
 may be brought fairly into question in this 
 case — though I agree that we are to decide it 
 upoix our own notions of what is right — I say 
 that such societies are contrary to the spirit 
 of English law as to recognized societies. I 
 know they are contrary to the Quebec 
 criminal law. Now, the Quebec criminal 
 law is not to be modified by a private Bill in 
 this House. 
 
 Your law should be amended first on 
 general principles ; and then if you find that 
 the institution is one which you can legally 
 incorporate, you may proceed to give it incor- 
 poration. Now, as I have said, I am not in 
 favour of State recognition of any secret 
 societies. I have never joined one, though 
 many of ray best friends are members of 
 secret societies which are, as this professes to 
 be, benevolent — secret societies which do not 
 meddle at all with political topics — secret 
 societies whose real action, so far as one of 
 the public can know, is not inconsistent with, 
 and does not go beyond, the avowed purposes 
 of their association. But I believe the 
 
 tendency of secrecy itself to be injurious. I 
 believe that it brings with it the possibility 
 of evil ; I believe that it involves a certain 
 amount of sacrifice of individuality and 
 independence and gives very great facilities 
 for the misleading of members by designing 
 leaders — very gnat and mischievous facilihes 
 for that purpo'-.e. That is my general propo- 
 sition with reference to secret, oath-bound 
 societies, a point on which, I dare say, as I 
 said before, I am in a small minority ; for I 
 suppose the vast bulk of at least the Protest- 
 ant members of this House belong to one or 
 other of those societies ; and I do not wish 
 to be understood as saying that these 
 mischievous tendencies are carried out in 
 many of those societies, the operations of 
 which, so far as 1 know, are beneficial. But 
 these things are to be dealt with on general 
 principles ; and I maintain that secrecy is in 
 itself a bad thing, and if societies are bene- 
 ficial they are beneficial in spite of, and not 
 because of this element of secrecy. Now 
 there are, of course, three attitudes which the 
 State can take towards these societies, that 
 is, suppression, recognition and neutrality. 
 And I maintain that, unless a society {>& one 
 for an obviously bad purpose, in this age and 
 under our circumstances, the only course to 
 take is not to suppress, not to recognize, but 
 to 
 
 OCCUPY A NEUTRAL POSITION 
 
 with reference to it ; not to interfere one 
 way or the other, not to give State recognition, 
 not to attempt — what is in most cases a fruit- 
 less attempt — suppression. Those who talk 
 of the benefits of secret societies have, I think, 
 read the history of early and of lattr periods, 
 and of very late periods especially, on the 
 continent of Europe, in the IJnited Kingdom 
 and in the United States, after a fashion in 
 which I have not read it. I believe that a 
 great deal of the trouble, social and political, 
 that has occured in those countries is due to 
 secret societies; and I think that we who 
 hail from one or other of the quarters of the 
 United Kingdom, we who are doubly inte- 
 rested in the peace, prosperity and content- 
 ment of each one of the three United King- 
 doms, must have marked from early days what 
 a baneful influence secret societies have had 
 upon that part of the United Kingdom which, 
 unfortunately has given so much cause for 
 trouble, and humiliation and difliculty, to the 
 Parliament of England, and to the English 
 people throughout the world. When you 
 remember the Ribbon Society, the Phoenix 
 Society, the Fenian Society, all the other 
 
n 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 societies of this class to which I have referred, 
 you will see very easily what immense possi- 
 bilities of evil there are in the attribute of 
 secrecy. Now, Sir, this is a view which is 
 shared by many who have thought on this 
 subject. I met, the other day, in a book 
 which Mr. A. M. Sullivan has not long since 
 written, an observation which struck me as 
 being so pregnant that I shall trouble the 
 House with it. He says : 
 
 " I had not studied in vain the hietory of eecret 
 oath-bonnd aseociations. I regarded tbem with 
 horror. I knew all that conld be said as to their 
 advantages in revolutionizing a country, hut even in 
 the firmest and best of hands they had a direct ten- 
 dency to demoralization, and were often, on the 
 whole, more perilous to society than open tyranny." 
 
 That is the statement of a very eminent man 
 who was actively engaged in an agitation for 
 what he believes, and what many of us be- 
 lieve, would be the amelioration of the con- 
 dition of the Irish people. He saw what an 
 important agency these societies would be j 
 but he saw also from a sad personal experi- 
 ence, and from his own observation, what 
 evil and demoralizing tendencies they have. 
 The difficulty as to State recognition is this — 
 it is essential ; you cannot get rid of it, it is 
 in the circumstance that the society is secret 
 — you cannot determine how far, being secret 
 it may depart from its professed and avowed 
 objects ; how far, being secret, it may go, in 
 what direction it may travel; how far, being 
 ostensibly a religious and benevolent, it may 
 become a political society and not benevolent 
 or religious ; how far, being loyal, it may go 
 in the opposite direction, as we know pro- 
 fessedly loyal societies have gone in days 
 gone by — how far this may be the case, you 
 cannot determine ; and, therefore, I say that 
 State recognition ought not to be given to 
 secret, oathbound societies. You cannot tell 
 what sort of tyranny may not be exercised 
 by them. It is in the nature of these societies 
 to become tyrannical and despotic. 
 
 FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND ACTION STIFLED. 
 
 Openness and public discussion are the 
 great guarantees of order, freedom, fairness 
 and moderation. It is in private gatherings 
 of men, all of one turn of thought, all of one 
 opinion, that bitterness and misrepresentation 
 and malignity revel and hold high carnival. 
 It is just there that you are sure to have the 
 very worst of that description of difficulty 
 which exists too commonly even in all our 
 public life, and which is tempered only in so 
 far as our discussions are open, in the pres- 
 ence of the world, and of men of different 
 opinions. It may be that in oppressed coun- 
 
 tries, despotically governed, secret societies 
 are a melancholy necessity. It is possible. 
 I do not admit it ; but it may be so. They 
 may be the only recourse of those countrie.«» 
 which are aspiring to freedom. But that is 
 not the condition of the people of this coun- 
 try. There is nothing here that we want, 
 there is no amel oration of our condition that 
 we desire, which we are not free to propose 
 in public gathering, upon which we are not 
 free to engage in public discussion. If we 
 believe that those of a particular creed 
 amongst us entertain sentiments not merely 
 erroneous in point of dogmatic religion (which 
 has nothing to do with the question) but sen- 
 timents hostile to the Constitution or danger- 
 ous to social order, we have a right to say so, 
 a right to resist them, a right to challenge 
 their opinicxis, and to challenge them to ex- 
 press their opinions. But we have no right, 
 because we have no necessity, to engage for 
 these purposes in secret societies, which, as 
 I have indicated, have often been the fruitful 
 mothers of malignity, misrepresentation and 
 bigotry. The Bill, however, goes much 
 further than simply giving the right to hold 
 property. As I have said ; it gives State 
 recognition ; it gives a corporate existence. 
 For this purpose it invokes the Interpretation 
 Act ; and the last clause gives this society 
 power to carry on its work. 
 
 THE ORANGE SOCIETY ALMOST WHOLLY POLITI- 
 CAL IN ONTARIO. 
 
 Now, my hon. friend from Huron alluded to 
 a point which met with some cries of denial 
 at hrst ; but I did not observe, when he came 
 to be answered, that his proposition was 
 seriously challenged. He alluded to the pro- 
 position that the purposes of this society 
 were almost wholly political. I am not go- 
 ing to discuss how the Orange society works 
 in the other Provinces of the Dominion j I 
 do not know how it works in the other 
 Provinces; I do not know how far it is true 
 to the professed objects of the institution, or 
 how far it goes beyond them; t do not know 
 whether it attempts objects peculiarly politi- 
 cal or not; but, I think I speak of what I do 
 know, when I say that my hon. friend's ob- 
 servation as to Ontario is perfectly correct ; 
 and I think the circumstance that, after be- 
 ing met with those cries of denial, when an 
 answer was attempted to be made to his ar- 
 gument, this statement was not denied, is 
 sufficient proof of that. 
 
 Mi. White (Hastings). He said that 
 Orangemen were expelled for voting for the 
 Reform party. I deny that. 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 23 
 
 Mr. Blakb. I do not know how that that my father was the man who shot Col. 
 
 njay be ; but I f-hall furnish the hon. gentle- Moodie, in 1837; the other was a personal 
 
 man some information on that point before I cry that I myself was a Roman CathoJic. 
 
 am done. I maintain that the Order is politi- Mr. VVhitk. (Hastings). That must have 
 
 cal in Ontario, and I say that the objettions been a Grit Orangeman. 
 
 to State recognition of secret societies are Mr. Blake. Having been informed beyond 
 
 doubly strong — in point of fact, they refeive a particle of doubt, that theee statements 
 
 their chief vitality, when they are applit d to were being circulated in the South Riding on 
 
 secret political organizations. In foliiics, if behalf of t ho Orange organization, at the last 
 
 anywhere, it is in open discussion only that meeting there, knowing there were men in 
 
 there is safety, in open attack and defence, the room who were circulating these stories, 
 
 in public charges and public answers. Why, I, without repeating them, called upon those 
 
 many of us believe, and, I am sure, most of who had made them, called upon anybody to 
 
 us would gladly agree — if it were practicable, come forward and state anything derogatory 
 
 1 do not think it is — many of us believe that either to my father or myself, and 1 would 
 
 the greatest boon would be conferred upon answer then and there. But none of them 
 
 the public if you could abolish private can- would come forward. I called on them three 
 
 vassing, if you could arrange that the only times at a public meeting ; but although the 
 
 mode of canvassing would be to meet the circulators of these calumnies were present, 
 
 electorsof both sides openly at public meetings they would not come forward. In the West 
 
 and there avow your pi inciple.s and detine Riding of Durham, the same private canvass 
 
 your positions. Why ] Because we know was going on, the same course was taken, the 
 
 that a private canvass gives opportunities for same precise calumnies were being circulated ; 
 
 statements which suit the political complexion and, when I came to that Riding I was asked 
 
 of the person addressed ; because we know how about this and how about that ; but I 
 
 that it gives opportunities for private state- declined to deny things which no roan would 
 
 mentsof the political faith of the candidate and venture publicly to state. That is the evil 
 
 for private assaults upon the political faith of a private canvass, and especially of a pri- 
 
 and standing of an opponent, and that it is in vate canvass conducted through the medium 
 
 every way objectionable. I believe myself of a secret society. Do I object to this society 
 
 that publicity is the very breath of freedom because it is a political organization 1 Not 
 
 in politics ; and I have not hesitated to de- at all. I approve of political organizations, 
 
 clare that, though I voted for the ballot as I believe in political organizations which are 
 
 essential to freedom, I was never able to re- public, which are avowedly political organiza- 
 
 concile myself to the idea that we should tions, and are not afraid to declare themselves 
 
 always be obliged to poll our votes secretly ; as such ; but I do not believe in secret politi- 
 
 because I believe it would be a very great cal organizations, or in political organizations 
 
 advance if the day should come, when we secret or otherwise, which act under the guise 
 
 coulu believe that to all our people an open of religion and philanthropy. I do not ob- 
 
 vote would be a free vote. It is only because ject to this society because the majority of itg 
 
 there are cases where an open vote is not a members are opposed to me in political opin- 
 
 free vote, that I yielded to the ballot as a ion. That is no reason for objecting to it. 
 
 necessity, and in order that the vote might be They have as good a right to their opinions 
 
 free. Apart from that, I believe the effect of as I have to mine, and their right to hold 
 
 the ballot itself to be injurious rather than theirs is as dear to me as is mine to hold 
 
 advantageous. To bear out what I have said, mine. As I hold mine by the same tenure 
 
 with reference to political organizations, I as they hold theirs, and as I would net part, 
 
 shall give you an instance in my own career, for any consideration, with the free right to 
 
 The first time I entered public life, 1867, I hold mine, I hold their right equally dear, 
 
 was contesting two counties, one for the Local But if that political organization is opposed 
 
 and one for this House. They were from 200 to me, I want to meet its members as such, 
 
 to 250 miles apart, and I had to run from and not as members of a religious and charit- 
 
 one to the other in the course of my canvass, able society. Our religious opinions should 
 
 At a certain point, shortly before I left the be held entirely separate from our political 
 
 South Riding of Bruce, to go down to West leanings. No greater calamity can befall a 
 
 Durham, I found that a secret canvass was community than when the cleavage of politi- 
 
 being made against me, promoted by this cal parties is coincident with the vleavage of* 
 
 religious and benevolent association. One religious bodies. That is a great calamity 
 
 form of this canv? ss was a cry to the effect and misfortune. I am anxious that, what- 
 
24 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 ever our creeds or religious opinions may be, 
 we should feel that they have nothing what- 
 ever to do with our political opinions, and 
 that we should agree or differ on political 
 questions entirely irrespective of the faith we 
 may happen to hold on religious questions. 
 
 RELIGIOUS PREJUDICES IN POLITICAL DISCUS- 
 SIONS DEPRECATED. 
 
 The more you set up, as a combination, a 
 great P" testant society, which is also a great 
 politic^ association, the more you make coin- 
 cident, or strive to make coincident, the lines 
 of division for the religious and the politi^^al 
 convictions of the people, and act directly in 
 the teeth of what I believe to be for the bene- 
 fitof the State. Our political differencesare bit- 
 ter enough without introducing into them religi- 
 ous differences, and if the odium theoligicuWy 
 which is known to be so bitter, is to be ac- 
 centuated by political differences, it will be- 
 come intolerable. Let us endeavour then not 
 to make coincident the lines of division for 
 political and religious opinions. Yet ^ this 
 society, which under the guise of religion and 
 benevolence, is in Ontario largely and chiefly 
 political in its power and efficacy, is doing 
 this very thing, which I believe to be for the 
 public evil and not for the public good. I do 
 not propose to refer, in support of my views, 
 as to the political complexion of this society 
 in Ontario, to anything very ancient. I do 
 not propose to refer even to such things so 
 ancient as those to which the hon. member for 
 the West Riding ot Huron (Mr. Cameron) 
 referred. It is enough for me to refer to 
 quite recent transactions. The hon. member 
 for Hastings (Mr. White), made a speech in 
 the town of Woodstock on the 1 2 th of July 
 last ; and in that speech he made some very 
 amusing allusions to the secret history of the 
 conduct of this Bill. In the course of these 
 statements, he took a line which I want to 
 point out, and proved what I have declared 
 with reference to this society being really and 
 substantially a political organization. He 
 said : 
 
 " The Bill and its requirements were pat before 
 the people of the Dominion, but, before the second 
 reading oame on, unfortunately mistakes were made. 
 He was not going to find a great deal of fault with 
 the Boman Catholics, or with the Beformers; but, 
 BO far as oar own people were concerned, as Conser- 
 Tstives and Orangemen, they were not as anxious as 
 tiiey should have been. He would say to them, bo 
 far as the Beformers of Canada were concerned, 
 they should not forget the fact that nine-tenths of 
 the members of the Orange society in the Province 
 of Ontario belonged to the Conservative party." 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). Suppose they do. 
 
 Mr. Blake. Well, suppose they do. I 
 am sorry for it, but I do suppose it. I am 
 merely showing that this is a political organ- 
 ization. 
 
 Mr. Farrow. That does not prove it. 
 
 Mr. Blake. If that does not prove it to 
 the hon. member for Huron, I despair oH 
 proving it to him. I do not address tk« 
 remainder of these remarks to the hon. gm- 
 tleman, 
 
 " Ed thought, in justice, according to Bf form 
 principles, they should have passed over any 1ittl« 
 wrongs which they might have suffered in the past, 
 and have voted for the Orange Incorporation Bill. 
 He wished it bad been so, and, if they liad done it, 
 he was satisfied that at the next election the Orange- 
 men would have divided, and have gone in more for 
 men and meaFures, and not ^o strongly for party." 
 
 " And not so strongly for party." T'\at is 
 the hon. gentleman's description of the char- 
 acter of the Orange organization in Ontario, 
 that they had in the past gone very strong 
 for party, and that in the future they might 
 have mended their ways and gone more for 
 men and measures. And that is not a party 
 organization ! 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). Those are good 
 words. 
 
 Mr. Blake, They are very good words. 
 I wish they would be made good : 
 
 " Mr. Banting went to Ottawa ; he worked day 
 and night for the Bill ; he told the Frenchmen that 
 if they did not pass the measure they would be doing 
 an act of great injustice. He spoke to Sir Hector 
 Langerin, to Sir John A. Macdonald, and other 
 members of the Cabinet, on the subject. He referred 
 them to the general support which the Conservative 
 party had always received at the hands of the Orange- 
 men." 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. Blake. Oh ! it is not a political 
 association ; but it gives a general support 
 to the Conservative party. 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). Those are very 
 good words ; I am not ashamed of them. 
 
 Mr. Blake : 
 
 "He (Mr. White) thanked Mr. Bunting for the 
 noble assistance he gave them daring that time of 
 trial, assistance which they hoped would yet result 
 in triumph. In conversation, along with twenty 
 other gentlemen, with Sir Hector Langevin, Mr. 
 Buntiug said : ' Sir Hector, we must have incorpora- 
 tion.' What was the reply ? Sir Hector said : ' So 
 far as incorporation is concerned, I personally wish 
 you to have it, but I am opposed to all secret socie- 
 ties because my Church is opposed to them. I like 
 to see the Conservative party prosperous, but I like 
 the prosperity of my Church better than that of the 
 Conservative party. My bishops and priests tell us, 
 the members of the Church, not to vote for and sup- 
 port any such societies.' Ilir. Bunting, in reply, 
 said : ' That is a great mietake, for there are no men 
 on earth more anxious to do justice to all partieo, 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 18»1. 
 
 25 
 
 and to give your Church any incorporation it may 
 require for ita benefit, than the Orangemen.' In his 
 (Mr. White's) opinion, Sir Hector Langevin would 
 find out that he had committed a great mistake ; for, 
 if ever he obtained the leadership of any Government 
 in this country, it would be impossible for him to 
 hold it without the assistance and oo-operation of 
 the Orange society." 
 
 " Theirs," paid the hon. gentleman, warming 
 into enthusiasm towards the peroration, 
 
 " Theirs was a great organize . u ; let it be good, 
 prudent and cautious , and he said as a Co iserva- 
 tive, remember the next general election, if we do 
 not succeed in getting justice before that time, judge 
 •ach man by his deeds. They should tak9 a leaf out 
 of Archbishop Lynch's book. The Oiange society 
 were in a poeition to rule the ■whole country if they 
 were only true to themselves." 
 
 Then, sir, the hon. gentleman also delivered 
 an oration at Hamilton. Three cheers were 
 given for ■' Sir John " at a particular period 
 of the meeting, and the hon. gentleman fol- 
 lowed up the cheers by saying : 
 
 "He (Sir John) was as true and as consistent a 
 friend to the Orange Bill as any member in the 
 House. There was a proposition made that the Bill 
 should be withdrawn, or at least a Bill granted to all 
 the different Provinces with the exception of the 
 Province of Quebec. Sir John said to him : ' Mr. 
 White don't accept that, for if you do it will only 
 bring disgrace on your society. Better have the Bill 
 carried for the whole Domirion, but don't disgrace 
 yourselvcb by deserting the worthy members of your 
 Order in the Province of Quebec' Those were good 
 woids, and he was satisfied that nothing in the world 
 would have given Sir John Macdonald greater pleasure 
 than handing the Incorporation Bill to the Governor 
 for his sanction, because Sir John was satisfied in 
 his own mind that nine-tenths of the Orange mem- 
 bers belonged to the Conservative party." 
 
 Why, I see the hon. member is amused. I 
 thought 1 would amuse him. 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). That speech of 
 mine, which he is reading, is the best part of 
 the hon. gentleman's speech. 
 
 Mr. Blake. My proofs are always the 
 best pare of my speeches, and this is my 
 proof : 
 
 " Supposing Sir Hector Langevin were the leader 
 of a great party, and in his ranks there was a society 
 which was as true to him as the Orange society had 
 been to Sir John Macdonald, he would go to Sir John 
 and say : ' It is necessary, in the interests of our 
 party, that this society, which is loyal to the Queen, 
 to the constitution, and to the country, should have 
 an Act of Incorporation.' Sir John would have 
 answered : ' Yes, with all my heart, you shall have 
 it. The Prime Minis-ter was leading a party that 
 was fair and just, while Sir Hector Langevin was 
 leading a party that was bound hand and foot ^o the 
 Church of Borne, which possessed a grasping dispo- 
 sition, taking everything and giving nothing." 
 
 Well, then, the hon. gentleman had occasion 
 to speak of the Minister of Customs, and, 
 
 after giving him a very great laudation for 
 the mode in which he executed his otiice, h^ 
 said : 
 
 "Orangeman had looked forward and expected 
 him to speak on the second reading of the Bill, and 
 in not doing so he (Mr. White) thought he had made 
 a great mistake. Tbey were proud of him when he 
 stood up in the Commons Chamber and got Riel 
 expelled from it ; when he took the step of bringing 
 the first Commoner, Mr. Speaker Anghn, to the Bar 
 of the House to answer for his violation of the law 
 which he helped to pass — the Independence of Far- 
 Uament Act. He (Mr. White) did not know why the 
 Minister of Customs did not address the House on 
 the second reading of the Bill, bat he was confident 
 that Mr. Bowell would yet retrieve the lost ground, 
 and stand before them as he had in the past, a worthy 
 and an honoured member of the society. If he had 
 made a mistake, they must bear patiently with him, 
 and he was confident that, if the time came again, 
 and the privilege was allowed to Mr. Boweil, he would 
 stand up and speak for the Orange Incorporation 
 Bill, even if he lost his seat in the Cabinet." 
 
 Well, Sir, so far for the hon. gentleman, the 
 member for Hastings. But there are some 
 other recent proofs of the political character 
 of this religious and benevolent organization, 
 so far as it is managed in Ontario. Brother 
 Marshall, to whom I already alluded, who 
 occupied a high position in the Order, aiid 
 who was with the hon. gentleman at Winni- 
 peg, says : 
 
 " The question was asked how they always voted 
 Tory ; and the answer was beoanse that party had 
 befriended them." 
 
 You see the statement is " they always voted 
 Tory ; " but they are not a political organiza- 
 tion ! At the Grand Lodge meeting at St. 
 Catharines, the Grand Master, Mr. Merrick, 
 who is also a member of the Local Legisla- 
 ture, said : 
 
 "I hope it will teach ns a lesson for our future 
 oonduct not to trnat to a mere political party a<4 such, 
 but to support and work with our best energies for 
 those who mil support and work for us ; and then, 
 no doubt, we will be able to say, with the Grand 
 Master of New South Wales : 
 
 "'In connection with the recent Parliamentary 
 elections we find that in every locality throughout the 
 electorates when a lodge was in operation the chosen 
 candidate of the lodge received the greater number 
 of votes."' 
 
 But it is not a political organization ! Then 
 Mr. Johnson, at the same meeting, said : 
 
 "The Brethren should endeavour to make the 
 association less of a political organization, and more 
 of a religious and benevolent association." 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). How would that 
 suit you 1 
 
 Mr. Blake. That would suit me very 
 well ; but I do not perceive that the hon. 
 gentleman is '* a doing of it," Sir. Then 
 
26 
 
 MIL BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THB 
 
 there was a grand meeting of the Triennial 
 Council in England, at which Canadian dele- 
 gates were prefajnt, including Mr. Marshall 
 and Mr. Bennett. Speeches were made by 
 Mr. Bennett and others ; and some of them 
 indicated the condition of the Order in an- 
 other colony, and so far are not uninterest- 
 ing. Mr. Neale, who represented New Zea- 
 land, South Australia and Queensland, spoke 
 and said : 
 
 " The last general election was the grandest tri- 
 nmph for Orangeism ever witnessed in New South 
 Wales. We gained no less than twenty-eight seats 
 in the Colonial Parliament ; and a very large num- 
 ber of the other members were returned through the 
 Orange vote, and only eight Bomani&ts succeeded in 
 gaining admission. " 
 
 That was the statement which these Cana- 
 dian delegates heard, and which shows the 
 condition of things, and the way the Order 
 is worked in New South Wales. At that 
 meeting Mr. Bennett was present represent- 
 ing Ontario, and he made this statement : 
 
 ' ' I may also tell you that we have in our country 
 an Orange paper, and we have found it to have a 
 beneficial and magical effect, because divided as 
 the Protestants are in the country into two political 
 parties, each of these parties bidding for the Eoman- 
 ist vote, so that the organs of these political parties 
 dare not, for fear of offendmg the Eoman Catholics, 
 say anything in favour of Orangeism — having a paper 
 of our own, we not only got aU the Orange news 
 from all parts of the world, but have an organ not 
 only to put forth our views to the country, but to 
 repel all attacks that may be made on us by the 
 Roman Catholic and Jesuit press of the country." 
 
 So that you find, Sir, that the Order is a poli- 
 tical organization, and that in Ontario at the 
 present day, by the confession of its leading 
 men, though it comes here claiming incorpo- 
 ration as a religious and benevolent associa- 
 tion, the guise in which it appeals to its 
 friends, and the voice with which it speaks to 
 those whom it asks to support it, are political. 
 
 A TORY TRAINING SCHOOL. 
 
 They say they are a political organization. 
 They vote almost unitedly one way ; they are 
 a party political organization. Nor, Sir, is it 
 to be wondered at, for we all know that in 
 both the great branches from which the order 
 springs, the Irish Grand Lodge and the Eng- 
 lish Grand Lodge, the Order was for a great 
 many years, and I believe is still, political. 
 I do not intend myself to attempt any ac- 
 count of the origin, and still less of the pro- 
 gress and work of the Irish lodges, but I 
 intend to read a brief extract from a letter 
 written by Sir Francis Hincks a few years 
 ago, in which he says : 
 
 *' I have read in many newspapers, as well as in 
 the sermon of Bev. Mr. Dondiet, a similar expression 
 
 of opinion; that the causes of offence to Irish 
 Roman Catholics is the oelebration of the anniver- 
 sary of the Battle of the Boyne. I believe that thoEe 
 who entertain this opinion are labouring under a 
 complete delusion from which it is most desirable 
 that they should be freed. Irish Roman Catholics 
 would never have resented the celebration of an 
 ordinary victory, but the Baitle cf the Boyne was 
 the first of a series of victories which led to the 
 complete subjugation of Catholic Ireland to Protest- 
 ant Great Britain, and the effect of that subjugation 
 was that a Protestant minority, settled chiefly in 
 one of the four Provinces of Ireland, was enabled to 
 rule a Roman Catholic majority in the three other 
 Provinces, with a rod of iron, during the eighteenth 
 century. 
 
 ' ' The motto of the Protestant minority for years 
 before the Orange lodges came into existence, was 
 ' Protestant Ascendancy,' and this was maintained 
 by penal laws, every amelioration of which laws was 
 resisted by Orangemen with all the rigour for which 
 they have ever been distinguished. When it is 
 borne in mind that for nearly a century after the 
 Battle of the Boyne, no Roman Catholic could either 
 be elected or vote for a member of Parliament, that 
 no Roman Catholic could be a lawyer or solicitor, 
 that no Roman Catholic could keep arms, that his 
 children could not be educated, and that his clergy 
 were proscribed, that no Roman Catholic could own 
 a horse worth over £5 ; when it is further borne in 
 mind that every amelioration of those penal laws 
 was gradually extorted from the Protestant minority, 
 which was alone represented in the English Parlia- 
 ment by the influence of English statesmen who, 
 differing upon other questions, were nearly all 
 favorable to the gradual repeal of the penal stat- 
 utes ; when, I say, all this is considered, it is not 
 difficult to understand the haired that is felt by 
 Irish Catholics i>o an institution whose distinguish- 
 ing principle is ' Protestant ascendency,' and whose 
 members habitually proclaim their adherence to this 
 principle by their flags and party tunes — ' Protestant 
 Boys,' and 'Croppies lie down.' " 
 
 Sir Francis Hincks goes on to point out the 
 continued political operations of the Irish 
 Orangemen with reference to Catholic eman- 
 cipation, and with reference to Church dises- 
 tablishment, as showing their active operation 
 as a political body, up to a comparatively 
 recent period. He proceeds to point out 
 that the Orange organization has existed in 
 the Province of Upper Canada, that there 
 they were opposed to certain reforms, the 
 promoters of which they were pleased to call 
 disloyal ; and he shows that ihey there also 
 were a political organization. So, sir, with 
 reference to the English lodges ; you will 
 find that at a very early day in the enquiry 
 that was made as to the Orange Institution 
 in Great Britain and Ireland, not very long 
 after the Order had been instituted in Eng- 
 land, the Deputy Grand Secretary was asked 
 some questions, and, speaking of its true 
 character, he answered as follows : 
 
 "I should not hesitate to say it had reference to 
 Conservative Associations more than Orange, bat I 
 consider the one as interwoven with the other." 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 
 
 27 
 
 ''By 'it,' do yoa mean the Loyal Orange Institn- 
 tion ? I shoaid rather say, taken by surprise as I 
 am, that it mast mean the ConservatiTe Institution ; 
 I have always considered the two to be so interwoven, 
 with a difference of name, that it is of little conse- 
 quence." 
 
 " Are you to be understood to say, that you believe 
 the Carlton Club and the Orange Institution are 
 generally interwoven in their views, but you consider 
 the Carlton ( lab more political and the Orange 
 Institution more religious? — Yes." 
 
 Then I think, Sir, that pretty eflfectually 
 proves that in the opinion of the Deputy 
 Grand Secretary, THE ORANGE INSTI- 
 TUTION AND THE CARLTO.^ CLUB 
 were institutions of different names indeed, 
 but having pretty much the same object. 
 That is also proved, practically, by the papers 
 which were produced at that time. Amongst 
 others was the report of the Grand Secretary, 
 in 1835, in which be says : 
 
 " Perhaps the way of all others, in which Orange- 
 ism can be turned to the best account, or can be 
 rendered available to beneficial objects, is by a 
 pmctical observance of its fundamental principles, 
 when the executive feels a necessity for making an 
 appeal to the sense of the nation. Hence it may 
 not be superfluous to add, from representation to 
 the D.G.S., both orally and in writing, that, in dis- 
 regard of the ' obligation ' which is so much their 
 proud but empty boast, a number of Orangemen 
 have bestowed their suffrages on persons well known 
 to be opposed to the establishments of the land, and 
 unfavorable to the existence of their own body. So 
 at variance in such conduct, not merely with the 
 spirit but wiih the letters of the laws by which their 
 movements ought to be guided — so contrary was it 
 to the votes, no less from feeling than from honour, 
 which they are bound to have given — as to call for 
 and demand their dismissal from a society, whose 
 interest they had betrayed and whose safety they 
 had endangered. As men, their indisputable right 
 to exercise the freedom of election would never be 
 questioned ; but as members of an institution who 
 associate for the purpose of lojalty and for the 
 repudiation of such a liberalism of sentiment, they 
 ought to be restrained in so anomalous a course, 
 which is calculated to cast a suspicion on the 
 integrity of, to the entailment of a degradation with 
 a mixture of contempt on, all belonging to it. 
 
 "In illustration of the above, the D.G.S. has to 
 offer an extract of a letter that he received from the 
 D.G.M. of Rochdale soon afttn the election, than 
 which nothing can more strongly show the justness 
 of the remarks he had previously put forth, in con- 
 demnation of so vile a departure from the pure 
 essence of sound Orangeism, as therein is reported 
 to him thus officially by that functionary, viz. : 
 
 "'No doubt you have heard of the triumph,' 
 says the writer, ' we have gained over the Whig 
 candidate, by the election of .Tohn Entwistle, Esq., 
 of Foxholes, as the representative of this borough. 
 Yet after obtaining the victory, I am not altogether 
 satisfied, as three of our members voted for the 
 Whig party, contrary to the principles of our loyal 
 institution. The names of the persons who have 
 gone against us are Richard Simpson, of warrant 
 68 ; James Whittles, 266 ; and John Crossley, 802. 
 The brethren of my district call aloud for the 
 expulsion of these offenders. For Crossley I feel 
 
 strongly, as he was compell^, by his master, to vote 
 contrary to iiis wishes. I hope, therefore, you will 
 take his casa into your kind consideration, as I 
 believe him to be really a true Orangeman. I shall 
 feel obUged by your advice in what manner I am to 
 act under these circumstances. At the ensuing 
 meeting of the Grand Lodge, I hope you will lay 
 this case before its dignitaries. In the mean time I 
 shall await your answer with impatience. ' 
 
 " Much credit is due to the D. G, M. of Roch- 
 dale for his prompt report of these delinquents, as 
 well as to the brethren of the district for their just 
 reprehension of characters so unworthy of their fellow- 
 ship. Other accounts of a similar though of a lef s 
 specific colour, have been transmitted to the D. G. S., 
 whose best attention to them shall be especially given 
 on his approaching tour of general inspection. With 
 the names of the districts most disaffected he is well 
 acquainted, and those Masters who shall appear to 
 have connived at, nay, not to have used strong efforts 
 to prevent these offences, may expect soon to be 
 superceded in their command. Such a desertion 
 from principle on the part of the brotherhood, and 
 such a dereliction of duty on the part of their cffi- 
 cers, at a conjuncture of peril too like the present, 
 when the altar and the sceptre are alike in danger, 
 can no longer be suffered to pass with impunity. As 
 an example, then, to deter, rather than to punish, 
 let the two chief transgressors stand expelled, and 
 the one so unduly influenced be suspended. 
 
 " Hence while their cordial support was due to 
 candidates cherishing sentiments congenial with 
 conservative doctrines, they were bound to withhold 
 it from aspirants entertaining ideas unfavourable to 
 legitimate designs. Indeed it was absolutely im- 
 perative on them as Orangemen to uphold persons 
 who were resolved on repairing, instead of destroy- 
 ing our venerable monuments of antiquity by un- 
 righteous attempts to level them with the dust." 
 
 Such was the course of conduct pursued in 
 1835 by the Loyal Orange Association of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLICS AT PIK8T BLAMED FOB 
 DEFEATING THE BILL. 
 
 With respect to this measure now before the 
 House : after its defeat last Session, at tirst 
 there was a disposition on the part of the 
 promoters to blame the Roman Catholic 
 Conservative members who opposed the Bill 
 and to deal rather lightly with Protestant 
 Reformers. I might refer to a speech which 
 the hon. member for East Hastings (iTr. 
 White) delivered in Ottawa, which the hon. 
 member for Montmagny (Mr. Landry) read 
 in this House, and which is reported in the 
 Hansard of 1883. I refer also to a speech 
 delivered by the hon. member for East Hast- 
 ings at Winnipeg, when he said : 
 
 " At the first reading, the Roman Catholic section 
 of the House had expressed considerable sympathy, 
 bnt had been compelled to oppose it, owing no 
 doubt to instructions received from the bishops and 
 priests. No country couM afford to submit to the 
 dictates of bishops, priests or ministers of any de- 
 nomination. The Reformers said very little in the 
 matter. The three Reform representatives from 
 
28 
 
 MR. BLAKE S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 Manitoba acted nobly, but the rest were undecided 
 as to the action they would take. He was advised 
 to consult Mr. Blake, but refused, as that gentleman 
 was an Ultramontane Protestant. 
 
 " Many of the friends of the Order did not act as 
 they Khould have done. They forgot that they owed 
 their seats to Orangemen and were afraid they would 
 be killed if they supported it, and he told them that 
 they would die anyway. 
 
 " The Conservative party had not been as true to 
 the cause as they might, but his advice would be to 
 test them again ; and if the Bill was defeated three 
 times he would advocate the ballot-box. " 
 
 There you see, Mr. Speaker, the disposition 
 to which I refer, to blame those Roman 
 Catholic members who voted against the Bill, 
 and to deal rather lightly, as the hon. gentle- 
 man did at Ottawa, with Protestant Re- 
 formers. Then Major White said at 
 Winnipeg : 
 
 '' The Association has not the influence it ought 
 to have beoause the members were not true to each 
 other. The brethren should see to it that in all 
 municipal and legislative bodies they had men who 
 would truly represent them. In the past they had 
 taken the broad view that a man's religion should 
 not be a bar to his political preferment : but the 
 conduct of the Bom an Catholic members of the 
 House demonstrated that they could not represent 
 Protestants, much less Orangemen.'* 
 
 There again, you see the same disposition — 
 a disposition to blame the Roman Catholic 
 Conservative members for not voting for the 
 Bill, to declare that it was a measure that 
 they should have supported, and to threaten 
 them with genfral ostracism in parlia- 
 mentary and municipal matters. 
 
 Mr. White. We will grant them absolu- 
 tion before next election. 
 
 Mr. Blake. I am glad the hon. gentle- 
 man has the frankness and manliness to 
 avow it. The official organ of the Orange 
 body says: 
 
 "The bigotry displayed on Monday by every 
 French and Irish Roman Catholic member of the 
 House of Commons has, however, opened our eyes, 
 and in future we shpll know how to act. A.s we 
 said, although the Beformers acted foolishly and 
 illiberally, still we think, under the present state of 
 Canadian politics, an excuse may be found for their 
 action, but none whatever can be offtred for the 
 course pursued by the Conservative Boman Catho- 
 lics, and upon their shoulders, in the greatest 
 measure, must rest the onus of our defeat." 
 
 There again, you see the first line taken by 
 the promoters of the Bill — they were pre- 
 pared to charge the Roman Catholics, whether 
 Conservatives, or Reformers, and particularly 
 Conservatives, with the onus of the defeat of 
 the Bill. The Sentinel says : 
 
 " For years past the Orangemen of the Do- 
 minion have under varioas political pretext", and to 
 meet the exigencies of political parties, been induced 
 
 to support Boman Catholics at the polls ; but the 
 measure of bigoted intolerance with which our 
 liberality was met in the vote upon our Bill precludes 
 any possibility of this mistake afain occurring." 
 
 The Sentinel goes on to say, with respect to 
 the leader of the Conservative party : 
 
 " The leader of the Conservative party has been 
 ehftrged with it sincerity in bis efforts to have the 
 Bill passed, and while we believe that personally he 
 baa acted with the greatest sincerity towards us, and 
 has uged all his influence to obtain for us the 
 redress we sought, still we cannot close oar eyes to 
 the fact that it is the first measure introduced since 
 1878, with his appioval and sympathy, which has 
 received such a weak support." 
 
 THREATENING REFORMERS AND CATHOLICS. 
 
 Now, Sir, that was the first start. That 
 was the way the promoters of this Bill began 
 to conduct tho political campaign towards pro- 
 curing a s< cond reading this Session of the 
 Orange Bill. After the defeat, they were 
 honest enough to say that they had not much 
 to expect from the Reformers. They did say 
 that they had a right to expect from the Con- 
 servative Roman Catholics their support of 
 the Bill, and they showed the true principles 
 of iheir le; dintr men, in the observations I 
 have just now read, as to ostracism they pro- 
 pcsed to pronounce on Koman Catholics gen- 
 erally, in consrquence of the course 
 of the R< man Cat! olic Corservatives with 
 r. fennce to the Bill. I have said that 
 in Ont&rio the Orange Si ciety is mainly a 
 political organization ; and I say that it sub- 
 ordirates all other considerations — its leaders 
 cause it to subordinate all other considerations 
 — to the political and party consideration. 
 That is proved by the cr urse which was pur- 
 sued shortly afterwards. Their tactics were 
 changed, and they seemed to think it would 
 not do to continue blaming the Roman Cath- 
 olic .Tories for opposing the Bill; that this 
 might disturb the political alliances ; and, 
 that they must throw the odium on the Pro- 
 testant Liberals, and on me particularly, as 
 what they call an Ultramontane Protestant. 
 It would not do to go on saying that the 
 Roman Catholic Conservatives had done 
 wrong, and that they must not return Roman 
 Catholics to Parliament, and the hon. gentle- 
 man did not wait until the next election to 
 grant absolution. He granted absolution at 
 once, and he turned the condemnation upon 
 us, from whom, for a little space of time, he 
 was just < nough to say he had no right to ex- 
 pect much. And why was this done t 
 
 Mr. White (Ht stings.) Read what I have 
 said. 
 
 Mr. Blakb. I have read what the hon. 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 
 
 29 
 
 gentleman said — is lie not satisfied 1 I cannot 
 read all his speeches, but I shall gratify him. 
 There was a meeting to which I have already 
 referred held in Ottawa immediately after 
 the defeat of the Bill, at which an address 
 was presented to him, and the address con- 
 tained the following paragraph : — 
 
 " From the proceedings in Parliament oa the 
 Orange Incorporation Bill, we have learned a bitter, 
 bat salutary lesfion, and one that will bear frnit in 
 due reason. While we disclaim an intolerant spirit, 
 we declare that henceforth the Roman Catholics 
 must be prepared to reap a? they have sown, and 
 that if we are such disturbers of the peace as they 
 declare us to be, we will for the future abstain from 
 voting for them, and so deprive them of the power 
 to moitify us by refusing to grant to us the same 
 rights that we have always cheerfully accorded to 
 them." 
 
 The hon. gentleman's answer was as 
 follows : 
 
 "Many Conservative members had asked and 
 begged of him not to ruin them, but he told them 
 that he would stand by the Order first. Another 
 mistake was that of assisting to elect a Frenchman 
 in RnsseU and an Irish Roman Catholic (Mr. 
 Baskerville) in Ottawa city, and he said he was now 
 ashamed of his actions ; he hoped the Orangemen 
 would forgive him for asking them to vote for 
 Baskerville. There are very few Hawkinses. One 
 Roman Catholic member of the House whose name 
 ue did not like to mention, sail to him privately : 
 ' How can we vote for this Bill when the priest says 
 he has power from the Pope to damn those of his 
 constituencies who dare vote for a candidate for 
 parliamentary honours who would support such a 
 measure.' If the Conservrtives would not stand 
 true to us, then let us be Reformers. He likened 
 them, at the present day, as being between the 
 devil and the deep sea — the Roman Catholics and 
 the Reformers." 
 
 Mr. White (Renfrew). One word ; I be- 
 lieve the hon. gentleman is reading from the 
 Ottawa Free Press. 
 
 Mr. Blake. I am reading from Hansard. 
 I do not know where the report was taken 
 from, but it was read in the House and hon. 
 gentleman did not repudiate it. 
 
 "He kindly praised the Reformers who sup- 
 ported the Bill. He believed Mr. Blake had made 
 a mistake in voting against the second reading. It 
 was, at that time, within his grasp to have the 
 united Orange vote of Ontario." 
 
 THE LIBERALS BLAMED IN THE END. 
 
 Now, Sir, as 1 have said, the Tory politicians 
 who lead and direct, and control the bulk of 
 the Orangemen of Ontario, believed it would 
 not do to continue the battle with their own 
 allies, and, as politics are the main ingredient 
 in their view o he Order, as it is for the pro- 
 pagation of their own party politics that they 
 work the Order, they decided on taking 
 another course ; and the fight which existed 
 
 against the Roman Catholic Conservatives 
 was put to one side, and the guns were turned 
 against us. Sir, it reminds me of the story 
 of the Irish duel. The First Minister with 
 the hon. Minister of Customs on one side, and 
 the hon. Minister of Public Works with the 
 hon. Minister of Inland Revenue on the 
 other, met in a coffee-room with hostile intent. 
 They met to fight the battle to the bitter end; 
 and the poor innocent fellow who was taking 
 his breakfast up stairs, away by himself, was 
 astonisiied by a bullet coming through the 
 floor and striking him in the leg.' lie asks 
 the waiter what is going on, and he replies ; 
 *' Sure it is only Mr. Moriarty and Captain 
 O'Toole fighting a duel, but thanks be to God 
 they both fired in the air." The gentleman 
 up stairs with the bullet in his leg did not 
 thank Providence at all. This duel between 
 the First Minister and the Minister of Cus- 
 toms on the one hand, and the Minister of 
 Public Works and Minister of Inland Rev- 
 enue on the other; this great demonstration 
 of ho.stility, of voting squarely against one 
 another ; all this fire and fury and blood and 
 thunder ; all this threatening of slaughter 
 ended by both combatants tiring in the air, 
 and hitting the poor fellow up stairs who had 
 nothing to do with the row. Now, Sir, I do 
 not propose to be hit without protest. As I 
 have said, they have changed their ground. 
 They have determined that they will not 
 fight with one another but will attack us ; and 
 whatisthepresentargumenfiTiie present argu- 
 ment is, that thf contest over this Bill is a 
 contest between the Roman Catholics and the 
 Protestants,and that all true Protestants must 
 unite in supporting the Bill against the 
 Roman Catholics. That is the argument ; 
 that is the proposition. You cannot get out 
 of it. And if we do not agree to that pro- 
 position, we are to be told — in our religious 
 associations among those with whom w«; con- 
 fer, and oo-operate in religious work — that 
 we are not true Protestants, because we have 
 not gone against the Roman Catholics by 
 voting for carrying this measure. I have 
 made that statement ; and with reference to 
 that statement as with reference to the others, 
 I shall produce the proof. But, before doing 
 so, let me give you two short extracts from 
 recent utterances evidencing the same spirit. 
 In November, 1882, a lodge meeting was 
 held at Clover Hall, and an address was de- 
 livered by a great man in the order, the late 
 local member for South Simcoe (Mr. Park- 
 hill). He spoke as follows : 
 
 "If he observed the signs of the times correctly, 
 there is as much need of Orangeism, both in Ireland 
 
30 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 and Canada, at the preEent moment, as there ever 
 was. True, we may not have to fight, as our fore- 
 fathers fought, but we must all, whether Grits or 
 Torie?, bury our political feeling and go united to 
 the polls in defence of Our Protestant principles." 
 
 APPEAL FOR UNITY. 
 
 What is the proposition ? I am to be told, 
 being a Reformer, that I must bury my poli- 
 tical feelings and join with my friend, Mr. 
 Parkhill, whom I have the pleasure of know- 
 ing, and whom I should not sutspect, from 
 hia appearance, of holding such bloodthirsty 
 principles — that we are to unite against the 
 Roman Catholics. At Rosemont, the hon. 
 member for South Simcoe spoke at a lodge 
 meeting. We are told that : 
 
 " Col. Tyrwhitt, M.P., was warmly received, and 
 made a good, practical, Protestant speech, in the 
 course of which he referred to the utter want of 
 political principle in the Roman Catholic electorate. 
 The only principle that they held was allegiance to 
 their Church, and to its interests. On such matters 
 Roman Catholic repretsentatives were a unit in the 
 House of Commons. They even had an Irish 
 Catholic party in the House of Commons last 
 Session who met daily to consider their interests. 
 While all this was going on, he was sorry to admit 
 that Orange and Protestant representatives were 
 divided. He counselled organization and unity on 
 the part of all Protestants, irrespective of politics, 
 in order to stem the aggressive march of the Papacy 
 in this our beloved Dominion." 
 
 Now this is not old. I am not reviving the 
 buried fires of old days. This is reported on 
 the 4th of January, 1883, and the speech was 
 delivered on the 29th of December 1882. 
 Then, in the Sentinel of 12th July, 1883, 
 these remarks are made : 
 
 " Mr. Blake is the most prominent man in the 
 House who voted against the Bill. He is, at least 
 by profession, the Protestant of Protestants, from 
 whom such a vote was not expected. * * * • 
 He is, above all, by virtue of his leadership of the 
 Opposition, the member of the Federal Parliament 
 whose vote against incorporation influenced the 
 largest nnmber of his colleagues to vote as they did 
 in violation of the just rights of large numbers of 
 their constituents. • » • » 
 
 " But Mr. Blake, by his vote, threw his great 
 influence in the House against the Bill, and, 
 undoubtedly, thereby secured its defeat. He stulti- 
 fied his advocacy of Ontario's rights, and he made 
 plain the hollow insincerity of his Protestant prin- 
 ciples. His position in the House, his professions 
 of Protestantism, his advocacy of Ontario's rights, 
 made him a prominent target for the censure of 
 Orangemen, because of a vote, which, if he were 
 true to his principles and professions he would 
 certainly have never given." 
 
 ANTI-ORANGE PROTESTANTS CONDEMNED. 
 
 Once again you see the assertion that this is 
 A question between Protestant and Catholic, 
 and that a man tJhiat professes Protestant 
 
 princip^s is insincere, if he votes against thia 
 Bill. There was also a lodge resolution re- 
 ported in the Sentinel : 
 
 ' ' We are not sarprised at Roman Catholio mem- 
 bers who put religion before party ; bat we strongly 
 condemn those Protestant memberb who preferred 
 party before reUgion." 
 
 There again this is made a religious question. 
 We are told that we voted for our political 
 party and against our religious principles. 
 Then Churchill lodge passed a resolution 
 which was particularly directed against the 
 humble individual who now addresses you : 
 
 ' ' We particularly condemn the action of the hon. 
 Edward Blake, who, by voting for the Bill at one 
 reading and against It at the next, showed that he 
 was more anxious to embarrass his political oppo- 
 nents than to do justice to a large body of his fellow- 
 Protestants; and that we consider such a trifling 
 with the question an insult to our Order, and that in 
 being guilty of it, the said hon. Edward Blake has 
 proved himself unworthy of the name he bears as an 
 ultra-Protestant, and also of the high position he 
 occupies as leader of one of the so-called great 
 political parties of his country." 
 
 Once again, you observe that my innocent 
 
 conduct, for which I did not think 1 was to 
 
 be blamed, in giving to this Bill what I have 
 
 given to every Bill brought into this House 
 
 since I have been in Parliament, and what I 
 
 propose to give to almost every conceivable 
 
 Bill, the courtesy of a first reading, and the 
 
 opportunity for fair discussion on the second 
 
 reading, is called trifling. Hon. gentlemen 
 
 opposite, members of the Order, called upon 
 
 us not to be so unjust as to vote against the 
 
 first reading. They pointed oat that the first 
 
 reading was not on the merits of the Bill, but 
 
 that it gave an opportunity for discussion. I 
 
 thought they were right, and I accepted their 
 
 views ; but Churchill lodge blames me, and 
 
 various members of the Order say that I was 
 
 wrong. Then, Sir, the hon. member for 
 
 Brockville (Mr. Wood) is reported to have 
 
 said : 
 
 ' ' No doubt there is danger in the air, and the 
 Orangemen of Ontario should become the Ultra- 
 montane Protestant party in Ontario, in con- 
 tradistinction to the Roman Catholio Ultramontanes 
 of Quebec." 
 
 Then the hon. member for East Hastings 
 (Mr. White), himself, at Woodstock, said : 
 
 <• The day was not far distant, if we did not show 
 more pluck and courage in opposing the growing 
 influence of the Papacy in this Province, when we 
 should be obliged to flght, not as Conservatives or 
 Reformers, but as Protestants, to free ourselves from 
 the trammels which Rome's agents sought to place 
 on us and our institutions. 
 
 Mr. Marshall, at Winnipeg, said : 
 
 " The Bill of incorporation was not defeated by 
 Roman Catholics, but by Protestants, who were 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL. 1884. 
 
 31 
 
 pandermg to the Roman Catholic vote. He hoped 
 Brother White woald never ask a Catholic member 
 to enpport the BiLl, as be oonld expect no aapport 
 (rom them ; and if he did, he gave them credit for 
 more honesty than politicians generally possessed." 
 
 And I perceive that, only the other day, on 
 the eleventh of March, a special meeting of 
 the Middlesex County lodge was held, at 
 which it was resolved : 
 
 " That the county lodge of the County of Middle- 
 sex of the Loyal Orange Association is of opinion 
 that while tho^^e who last year voted for our 
 incorporation did but their duty in having shown 
 their willingness to accord us those, rights which we 
 as Orangemen are ever ready to extend to all sec- 
 tions of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, we have no 
 words to sufficiently express our strong condemna- 
 tion of the course of those Protestant representa- 
 tives, especially from Protestant Ontario, who from 
 political spleen voted to deny us (their Protestant 
 fellow-citizens) those rights which they are always 
 willing sycophantly to grant to Roman Catholics ; 
 Resolved, further, that we, the representatives of the 
 Orangemen of the County of Middlesex, will not be 
 satisfied until our full rights in the matter of 
 incorporation are properly accorded to us, our motto 
 being ' No surrender anl no compromise,' and that 
 a copy of this resolution be sent to the public 
 press. ' ' 
 
 A RELIGIOUS WAR DECLARED. 
 
 Now, Sir, 1 think I have shown to you that, 
 as I have said, the line of attack was altered 
 — ^that the line of attack upon their party 
 friends, and their religious opponents, who, 
 they at first said, ought to support the mea- 
 sure, and who should be ostracised for not 
 supporting it, they were obliged to abandon, 
 in order to strike at their opponents by repre- 
 senting this as a case in which all Protestants 
 ought to combine, and in which no man of 
 true Protestant principles could have given, 
 or could repeat a vote against the second 
 reading of this Bill. Well, that may be true ; 
 but if it be true, I ask this House, without 
 distinction of creed or party, if it be not a 
 serious state of things. I ask if it be not a 
 serious state of things that a religious war is 
 to be raised in this country ; because that is 
 what it is. If it be the case that, as a matter 
 of fact, this is an issue raised between us, in 
 which all Protestants are to be on one side, 
 and all Roman Catholics on the other, and 
 in which I, a firm Protestant, am to be told 
 that I am untrue to my profession of religion, 
 to my Protestant principles, if I do not vote 
 with the Orangemen and against the Catho- 
 lics for that Bill, is not that a serious state 
 of things 1 If this be true, I say that every 
 true lover of this country must deplore such 
 a circumstance and must forbode the greatest 
 evil to his country from its existence. 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). You are drawing 
 
 it pretty strong ; you are drawing on your 
 imagination. 
 
 Mr. Blake. I have given the text, and I 
 will guarantee that the comments are justified 
 by the text. Now, Sir, I deny entirely that 
 there is any such necessity. I deny that 
 there ought to exist such an issue ; and I 
 tell the hon. gentleman opposite that no mat- 
 ter what his threats may be, no matter 
 whether he may say that my speech dotjp me 
 harm or good, he will neither seduce, nor 
 threaten, nor drive me on any such 
 issue into any such line or any such profes- 
 sions. In furtherance of this same plan, this 
 attempt to produce a religious prejudice 
 against those who oppose this Bill, the hon. 
 gentleman and others are declaring that I am 
 controlled by the Archbishop of Toronto. 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). So you are. 
 
 Mr. Blakb, I tell the hon. gentleman that 
 he states that which is not the fact. Not- 
 withstanding that I am relieved from the 
 necessity of proving my case as to his state- 
 ment, by his own declaration in this House, 
 I proceed to give the evidence of that as I 
 have given the evidence of other things. He 
 said : 
 
 " Mr. Mowat was controlled by Archbishop Lynch 
 and they must come to the conclusion that he, too, 
 controlled Mr. Blake. No doubt orders went from 
 the Palace at Toronto, and the great Reform states- 
 men had to obey." 
 
 I determined, as soon as I saw this statement 
 of the hon. gentleman, that I would meet 
 him here, face to face, and have this out with 
 him, and have it out with him I will. 1 his 
 is not all. The Rev. Brother Wright, at a 
 meeting in Leeds, said : 
 
 •' They (the Orangemen) were not defeated in Par- 
 liament solely by the Roman Catholics, but through 
 the instrumentality of Ontario politicians, who con- 
 sidered the smiles of Rome of greater value than the 
 approbation of their fellow Protestants. The Bill 
 was defeated because Archbishop Lynch said no, 
 Christopher Fraser repeated no, and Edward Blake 
 bowed his head and whispered no. " 
 
 He voted "no," the last time; but I trust 
 that the hon. gentleman will admit that his 
 negative this night is not given in a whisper. 
 
 Mr. W^hitk (Hastings). I drove you to 
 it. 
 
 Mr. Blake. You drove me to it ! Man- 
 age your own drove. At Winnipeg, again, 
 the hon. gentleman said : 
 
 " Unfortunately Archbishop Lynch had Mr. Mowat 
 bound hand and foot, and it was even hinted he was 
 getting a hard hold on Mr. Blake, and let us hope 
 our own leader will keep his skirts clear." 
 
 An hon. gentleman. He has "no confi- 
 dence in the breed." 
 
32 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 Mr. Blake. My hon. friend says he has 
 " no confidence in the breed." Now, I have 
 had the honour of the acquaintance, for a 
 considerable time, of His Grace the Arch- 
 bishop of Toronto, and I hope, being both of 
 us Irishtien, I may even call myself his 
 friend ; but I have n*^ver, either directly or 
 indirectly, through others or myself, by 
 speech or writing, or in any way, had the 
 slightest communication with Archbishop 
 Lynch on any one political topic, of any de- 
 scription whatever — not this one only, but 
 any political topic of any dcscriptioa. For 
 aught 1 know, unless he hass given public 
 utterance to the contrary, that prelate may 
 entertain the same view with reference to the 
 Orange Bill as I observe the hon. member 
 for Hastings has said Archbishop Tache does, 
 namely, that he is in favour of its being pass- 
 ed. But I say that in this, as in all other 
 particulars, I have acted entirely upon my 
 own judgment, and wholly free from every — 
 I will not say dictation or control — but 
 attempt at dictation or control, hint or sug- 
 gf^stioa, knowledge or information, as to what 
 the opinions of that pielate or of any other 
 prelate or dignitary or persons of the Roman 
 Catholic faith might be on the subject. I 
 have acted on convictions which I have enter 
 tained ever since I came into public life, on 
 convictions which I was known to have 
 entertained in the Local Legislature, and to 
 have expressed, not on the floor of the Legis- 
 lature, but to leading members, when the 
 question was likely to come up in the Local 
 House, with reference to another secret 
 organization — convictions hostile to the incor- 
 poration of secret associations, hostile to the 
 incorporation of the Orange society. It is 
 perfectly true that I am, as the hon. gentle- 
 man says, a Protestant, and it is also true — 
 1 suppose that is the meaning of his phrase 
 ultramontane — that I am of that school of 
 thought which is most opposed to what 1 be- 
 lieve to be the dogmatic errors of the Church 
 of Kome. That is perfectly true. I protest 
 against what 1 deem her errors ; but I am 
 also an earnest advocate of religious freedom 
 and equality and the full rights of conscience. 
 
 THK LATE POLITICO-RELIGIOUS DIFFICULTIES 
 IN QLEBEC. 
 
 As the Ontario leaders of the Orange society 
 declare that that Province is ruled politically, 
 by the Roman Catholic clergy, and that it 
 must be freed from the domination of the 
 Roman Catholic clergy by subverting Mr. 
 Mowac, I notice they have sometimes said a 
 word with reference to the conduct of the 
 
 'Province of Quebec, and as to its rule ; and I 
 desire here to advert to this question, -speak- 
 ing with the same plainness of speech which 
 1 have used this evening, though I may per- 
 haps offend some of those who may have 
 listened with approval to some things I have 
 hitherto said. I say I do not find thia 
 pretention to be the exclusive standard 
 bearers of Protestant principles and to lay 
 down a rule and measure, with which unless 
 all Protestants comply, they are to be held 
 untrue to their principles, to be a proper 
 attribute of this association, judged by its 
 leaders in Ontario. I have spoken of Quebec. 
 Now, in that Province there have been, for 
 a long time, some persons — some persons 
 only, I am glad to say — who have striven to 
 create that regime in favour of their own 
 party, who have insisted on extreme preten- 
 sions as to the rights of the clergy to 
 use their influence in elections ; who have 
 sought to drag the clergy into the political 
 arena ; who ha\'e sought to pervert certain 
 general language, which was used by the 
 authorities of the Church, from its true sense 
 and to turn it to the condemnation of one 
 political party ; wlio have sought to maintain 
 the view that the clergy should refuse the 
 rites of the Church to persons on account of 
 their votes ; who have sought to repeal the 
 law as to undue influence, as far as it aflVcted 
 the clergy ; and there can be no doubt that 
 these eflbrts on the part of some persons in 
 Quebec met, in the past, with a measure of 
 success. Pressure was used in several coun- 
 ties against the candidate of one political 
 party, as Liberal Catholics ; and the struggle 
 was .severe, and resulted in a great weaken- 
 ing of that party, from which it has not even 
 yet recovered. The members of that party 
 appealed, under these circumstances to three 
 tribunals ; they appealed to public opinion, 
 to the highest courts of the land, and to the 
 highest authorities in their own church. 
 They fought a long arid arduous fight, which 
 reached its climax, perhaps, in the period 
 from 1875 to 188L Public opinion, one of 
 the tribunals to which they appealed, was 
 aroused to a considerable degree in the Prov- 
 ince of Quebec ; and many Protestants there 
 even changed their political views and left 
 the party with which they had usually acted, 
 because they felt this pressure was a pressure 
 foreign to the proper sphere of religion and 
 the proper sphere of the Church. The mem- 
 bers of that party appealed also to the law ; 
 and the law was vindicated in several cases. 
 They appealed also to the highest authorities 
 in the Church, .and those authorities also 
 
 ■t 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 
 
 33 
 
 interfpred. We know well, for it is public to 
 us. what W8W done. We know that, in 1876, 
 an instruction was sent out from the Supreme 
 Congregation of the Holy Office in these 
 words : 
 
 '• The Bi'ihops of Canada must be made to under- 
 Btand tliat the Holy See fully acknowledges the ex- 
 treme gravity of the facts reported by tbem; >mA 
 the injury caused by these facts to the authority of 
 the clergy and the holy ministry is particularly to be 
 deplore" I. 
 
 *■ Wherefore, in order to make up for these great 
 injuries, it in eppecially neoessaary to root out the 
 evil. Now, the cause of puch great inconveniences 
 lies in the fact that these Bishopii are divided among 
 themselves, both as regards the political question 
 and as regards other questions which are now agi- 
 tated in Cwnada. Therefore, with a view to putting 
 an en 1 to these much to be regrev,ted dissensions, it 
 will be necessary that the Bishops, together with His 
 Lordship the Apostolic Delegate who has been sent 
 to Canada, concert with each otliier to determine a 
 uniform policy to be followed by all and each of thsm 
 with rogard to political parties. 
 
 " Another cause of these same iioonveniences lies 
 in their too great interference in political affairg, 
 without enough of heed for pastoral prndencu. The 
 proper remedy for this excess of :!eal is to remind 
 the.-ie Bibhops of that which has already been recom- 
 mended to them by this Supreme Congregation on 
 Wednesday, the 29 ih of July, 1874. to the eff.ict tlmt 
 on the occa«*ion of political elections they should 
 conform in their advice to electors to what hjid been 
 enacted in the Provincial Council of 1868. 
 
 " It must be adde 1 that the Church, while con- 
 demning Liberalism, does not intend to striire each 
 and every political party which might chanca to be 
 Oitled Liberal, since the decisions of the Church 
 only apply to errors which are opposed to Catholic 
 doctrine, and not to any specified political party 
 whatever, and that consequently whoever vithout 
 any othur foundation declares that one of tbo politi- 
 cal parties of Canada, namely, the party called the 
 Reform party, a party heretofore strongly supported 
 by some Bishops, is condemned by the Chart h, who- 
 ever makes such a statment acts wrongfully. 
 
 "Finallv, as to what concerns the main subject 
 of the doubts propounded ; in order to determine 
 what measures should be taken as regards Cf.tholics, 
 who, by reason of a pretended undue interferencf of 
 the clergy in political elections, appeal to the civil 
 courts, it is impossible to lay down a general rule 
 for the Bishops on this subject, and therefore it will 
 be the duty of whoever is in charge to provide in 
 each case, with respect to the consciences of persons 
 making such appeals. Therefore, let the Bishops 
 take the necessary measures to guard the honour of 
 the clergy, taking special care to prevent aa much as 
 possible clergymen from being obliged to appear 
 before lay Judges. 
 
 " Lastly, Bishops must be exhorted to observe the 
 greatest reserve with regard to political affairs, by 
 reason, especially, of the danger there would be of 
 provoking a violent war against the Church on tho 
 part of Protestants, who are already restless and ir- 
 ritated against the clergy under pretence of undue 
 interference in political elections. Besides the clergy 
 must be brought to always avoid naming persons from 
 the pulpit, still much more so if it is to discredit 
 them on the occasion of elections, and neyer to make 
 the influence of the eoolesia&tioal ministry subservient 
 c 
 
 to private purposes, except when candidate.** might 
 become antagonistic to the true interests of the 
 church.'* ' 
 
 Now, Sir, that was followed up by the 
 pastoral letter and circular which were issued 
 after the arrival of the Delegate Apostolic, 
 and after an understanding had Wn reached 
 with him in 1877, The pastoral letter of 
 1877 contains the following passages : 
 
 " The gravity of the events which have taken place 
 since the last general election, and the numerous and 
 various diflBculties to which they have given occasion, 
 make it Our duty to remind vou briefly. Our Most 
 Dear Brethren, of the principles and the rales of 
 policy which were expounded to yon before now, in 
 Our Councils, Our Circulars, and Our Pastorals, and 
 particularly in that of the 22nd of September 1875." 
 
 •• The Ninth Decree of the Fourth Council, held 
 m 1868, expounds your duties as electors in the 
 following terms : — ' Let the pastors instruct with 
 great care the faithful ou their duties in election 
 times ; let them strongly impress on their minds 
 that the same law which confers on citizens the right 
 of suffrage imposes on them at the same time the 
 very serious obligation to give their vote^ whenever 
 it is necessary, and always to vote according to their 
 consciences, under the eye of God, and for the best 
 interests of religion and of their country ; that con- 
 sequently the electors are always bound in con- 
 science, before God, to give their suffraj-'es to wliat« 
 ever candidate they believe to be truly honest and 
 able to fulfil well and faithfully the important dutiea 
 which devolve upon him, to be ever attentive to the- 
 welfare of the Church and State and to work taith- 
 fuUy to promote and guard the welfare of the Churchy 
 and State.' " 
 
 Then, after pointing out what had been 
 done in 1873 and 1875, and giving a warning 
 ag.ainst the doctrines Catholico-LiheraleSy th^ 
 pastoral goes on to say : 
 
 "Unfortunately, and against our iritention, some 
 persons were inclinded to see in this document an 
 abandonment of principle, to come down to persons 
 and political parties. Our wish has been to expound 
 to you the true doctrine on the constitution and the 
 rights of the Church, on the rights and the duties of 
 the clergy in society, on the obligations of the Cath- 
 olic pres-s, and on the sanctity of an oath ; such has 
 been our only aim, and such is still our intention. 
 In this we have followed the example of the Holy 
 See who, in condemning Liberal Catholicism has 
 refrained from naming persons and political parties. 
 In fact there does not exist any Pontifical Act con- 
 demning any political party whatever ; all the con- 
 demnations which have up to the present time 
 emanated from this venerable source are only ap- 
 plicable to Liberal Catholics and to their principles, 
 and the brief addressed to one of ns in September, 
 1876, must be interpreted in that sense. Following 
 the example of the Sovereign Pontiff, and in accord, 
 ance with the wise precoription of our Fourth Council, 
 we l;)ave to each one of you to judge.^under the eye 
 of Ciod, which are the men to whom these oondem- 
 nati ms apply, whatever may be the political party to 
 whi< h they belong." 
 
 JTow, Sir, at the same time, as I have 
 said, a circular letter was issued to the 
 
34 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 clergy, from which I will read an extract or 
 two : 
 
 " In analysing the ninth decree of the Fourth 
 Coanoil, and the eighteenth of the Fifth, we find 
 that the clergy mast confine themselves to instruct- 
 ing the people as to their duties in election time ; 
 which duties are the following : — 1. To give their 
 votes when sufficient reasons call for it. 2. To vote 
 according to their consciences, and under the eye of 
 God, and to give their support to the candidates 
 whom they may prudently judge to be truly honest 
 and able to discharge the duties of a representative, 
 which are to watch over and procure faithfully the 
 welfare of rehgion and of the state. 3. Not to sell 
 their votes. 4. To avoid intemperance, slander, and 
 perjury." 
 
 Another passage reads thus : 
 
 •' When you shall have so explained to your peo- 
 ple the principles which ought to guide them in their 
 choice, leave to the conscience of each of them the 
 option of applying them to persons and to parties. 
 And whenever a penitent shall tell yon that he has 
 voted ia all conscience and under the eye of God, 
 never call in question his good faith, and put into 
 practice the well-known axim : +" e ame belief must 
 be given to what the penitent says un his own be- 
 half as to what he says against himself." 
 
 Then again, Sir, the letter says : 
 
 *' The decree of the Fourth Council forbids you to 
 -teach from the pulpit, or otherwise, that it is a sin 
 to vote for such and such a candidate, or for such 
 and such a political party. With much more reason 
 is it forbidden to you to announce that you will re- 
 fuse the Sacraments for that cause. 
 
 ' ' Never give your individual political opinion from 
 the pulpit. 
 
 •' Never attend any poUtical meeting, and never 
 ^ake a public speech on such matters without the 
 permission of your ordinary. 
 
 •'If you have a right to vote you may avail your- 
 self of it ; but let it be with a prudence and without 
 ostentation. It is proper that you should choose the 
 most favourable opportunity for voting and not wait 
 till last the moment, when the excitement is always 
 greater, and that you should not remain near the 
 place where the election is taking place. 
 
 '• To those who may come to consult you privately, 
 answer with prudence and calmly, without entering 
 into discussions, which would be compromising to 
 your character; for you know well that language 
 the most innocent and the most true is exposed to be 
 at such times misunderstood, misinterpreted and 
 misreported. And even if you see that people are 
 greatly excited, it will be prudent on your part to 
 state simply that what you have said from the pulpit 
 must be sufficient to guide them." 
 
 Well, Sir, these doc amenta to which I have 
 referred contain, I may say, some observa- 
 tions in which I think the pastors of the 
 Roman Catholic Church set an admirable 
 example to the pastors of the other churches ; 
 I mean particularly those injunctions against 
 selling the suffrage, against bribery, against 
 corruption, against intemperance, against 
 calumny and against perjury. Then we go 
 further. I do not confine myself wholly to 
 
 the statements made by these ecclesiastical 
 dignitaries. About the same time, a discus 
 sion was raised in this Parliament ; and I 
 wish to show that the views which are repre- 
 hended by these documents are views which 
 were not held by all the Roman Catholics 
 even of the Conservative party. On the 1 1th 
 February, I think, in the year 1877, Senator 
 Masson, then a member of this House, used 
 these expressions : 
 
 " Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman says in his letter 
 that the party with which I act was controlled by a 
 power which declared that free thought was a car- 
 dinal sin. Well, Sir, I say that this is no more nor 
 less than a slander on the Conservative party, and 
 as a Conservative and an Ultramontane, as I am 
 called by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the 
 House, from the Province of Quebec, as the leader 
 of the Ultramontanes, I say that the Conservatives 
 of the Province of Quebec, and I speak advisedly, 
 are ready to give the clergy of the IProvince, on re- 
 ligious questions, that submission and that confi- 
 dence which, according to our creed, we are obliged 
 to give them ; and regarding questions relating to 
 the material progress of tL country, and the poh- 
 tical affairs of the country, we are ready, and shall 
 always be ready, to give to the opinions of these 
 gentlemen that respect to which they ere entitled, 
 owing to their high intelligence, tueir great virtue 
 a!lfl their disinterestedness, but we are not ready to 
 give any more. " 
 
 Well, the matter was not finally settled. 
 Notwithstanding what had been said, the 
 discussion went on. Still the question was 
 raised, and raised in pretty influential 
 quarters, 
 
 ON THE PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY 
 
 in Quebec, with reference to the law as to 
 undue influence ; and I felt it my duty — 
 thinking the question might become a serious 
 one, and desiring to place myself on record, 
 and as I might by my voice in some degree 
 influence my fellow-countrymen — to speak 
 upon the subject myself ; and I did so at the 
 village of Teeswater, in the year 1877. From 
 that speech I may be permitted to quote : 
 
 " Another demand of a very different character 
 has been made from very high quarters, namely, 
 that we should alter the law as to undue influence. 
 Now, the basis of our representative institirtions is 
 that our elections shall be free. Each of us is called 
 on to surrender his share of control over* the com- 
 mon affairs to the majority, upon the ground that 
 this surrender is necessary, ifor so only can we reach 
 a decision ; but also on the hypothesis, without which 
 the demand would be quite unjustifiable, that, all 
 having a common interest, and each man speaking 
 freely for himself, the view of the majority is more 
 • hkely to be sound — is more likely accurately to re- 
 present what would be beneficial to the community 
 than the view of the minority. This is the ground- 
 work. 
 
 "Now, that ground- work wholly fails if the vote 
 be not the expression of the voter's own opinion, but 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 
 
 s& 
 
 the expression of somebody else's opinion different 
 from hip. If, instead of its being his opinion, it be 
 the opinion of his employer, his landlord, his credi- 
 tor, or hid minister, wby it is not his vote at all, it 
 la Bumebody else's, and we have not submitted oor- 
 selves to the free voice of oar fellow-countrymen, bat 
 possibly to the voice of a very small minority, who 
 Lave determined what the voice of the larger number 
 is to be. Thas the whole basis of our representative 
 institutions would be destroyed if we permitted the 
 opinions of our employers, creditors, landlords or 
 ministers to be forcibly substituted for our own. For 
 this reason, besides the penalties which are enacted 
 against the exercise of undue influence, we have 
 declared that the vote of any man so unduly in- 
 fluenced shall be null and void, and that elections 
 carried by sucli andue influences shall be annulled. 
 I earnot, if a landlord, say to my tenant: 'Now, 
 tenant, I shall turn you out at the end of your term 
 if you do not vote for my candidate. ' Though I may 
 have a legal right to turn him out at the end of the 
 term, yet I cannot give the intimation that I will, on 
 this ground, exercise this right. If I do, the vote is 
 Annulled as not f'ee. I cannot, if a creditor, say to 
 my debtor : ' I will exact that debt at ouce if you do 
 not vote an I wish, ' though I may have a legal right 
 to exact my debt. I cannot, if an employer, say to 
 an employee : ' You shall leave my employment at 
 the end of the current term unless you vote with me,' 
 though the law may not oblige me to retain him in 
 my service. It ha'? been found necesi-ftry iu all these 
 ca^es to prevent the relations to which I have referred 
 from being made the means of unduly influencing 
 the vote, in order that this great cardinal principle 
 of our Constitution — the freedom of each man to 
 -vote according to his own opinion— may be preserved 
 intact. True, the landlord, and the creditor, ^nd 
 the employer, have each the right to speak and per- 
 suade by arguments ; and the confldence placed in 
 them may be such that the voter's opinion may be 
 changed ; but between the argument, the persuasion, 
 the confidence which may conduce to a change in 
 the mind and opinion of the voter, and that coercion 
 which compels him to vote contrary to his mind on 
 the threat of some loss or penalty, there is a broad 
 and palpable distinction, and that is the distinction 
 which the law lays down. Now, if there be a form 
 of religion under which the minister is supposed to 
 have the power, by granting or refusing certain rites, 
 or by making certain declarations, to affect the state 
 of the voter after death, is it not perfectly obvious 
 that the threat of such results to the voter unless he 
 votes in accordance with the opinion of the minister, 
 might be infinitely more potent than any of the other 
 threats I have named— of the exaction of a debt, the 
 ejection of a tenant, or the discharge of an employee ? 
 And would not such a threat be obnoxious to just 
 the same objection? 
 
 "I am far, indeed, from implying that politics 
 shonld not be handled on Christian principles. 
 Whatever difficulties and differences there may be 
 as to Christian dogma, there is, fortunately, very 
 little difference concerning Christian morals. We 
 are, fortunately, all united in this country in the 
 theoretical recognition — however far we may fail in 
 practical observance — of the great doctrines of 
 Christian morality which are handed down to us in 
 "the Gospels ; and I believe it is on the basis of those 
 doctrines that the politics of the country should be 
 carried on. Dim indeed would be our hopes, and 
 dark our expectations for the future, if they did not 
 fmvirace the coming of that glorious day when those 
 principles shall be truly, fully and practically recog- 
 
 nized ; if we did not look forward to the fulfilment 
 of promises that the ' kingdom of this world shall 
 become the kingdom of the Lord ; ' and that 
 ' nation shall not make war againet nation, neither 
 shall they learn war any more ; ' if we did not watch 
 for the time when the human law of self-interest nnU 
 hate shall be superseded by the Divine law of self- 
 sacrifice and love. But while we hope and strive for 
 the accomplishment of these things, we Tan>>t not 
 forget the lessons of the Great Teacher and Exem- 
 plar. When interrogated upon secular things, when 
 asked as to renderiog tribute to Caesar, He said, ' Ren- 
 der unto Caesar the things that are Ca'sar's, and to 
 God the things which are God's. ' He laid down tha 
 principle, and he left the people — the querists — to 
 make the application. So again when he was called 
 upon to settle a dispute between two brcthers about 
 an inheritance. He said : ' Man, who made Me a 
 judge or divider over you ? ' Such was the view He 
 took as to the duty of a minister, as to the work of 
 the pulpit ; and while I do not hesitate to say that 
 to all ministers I would freely accord the right as 
 citizens of voting, of expressing their opinions, of 
 arguing and persuading and influencing if they 
 please, my own opinion is that the pastor of a flock 
 divided on poUtics will be much more likely to retain 
 the fullest confidence of all the members of that 
 flock, and so discharge effectually his great task, if 
 he abstains from active interference in those political 
 affairs on which there is and will be great divisions 
 of opinion among them. But, Sir, it has been 
 argued in some quarters that the free exercise of one 
 form of rehgion amongst us is impaired by this law. 
 That would, indeed, if true, be a serious thing. 
 But, if it were true, we would stUl be bound, in my 
 opinion, to preserve the fundamental principle of the 
 freedom of the elector. No man, any article of 
 whose creed should make him a slave, would be 
 fit to control either his own destiny or that of free 
 men. A slave himself, he would be but a proper 
 instrument to make slaves of others. Such an 
 article of religion would, in a word, be inconsistent 
 with free institutions, because it would not permit 
 that liberty of opinion in the individual which is 
 their very base and corner etone. But we are not 
 confronted with that difficulty. The public and 
 deliberate utterances of high dignitaries in more 
 than one Province of Canada have shown that the 
 assertion is unfounded, and have recognized the 
 right of every elector to vote according to his con- 
 science ; and the recent statement — communicated 
 to the public through Lord Denbigh — of the head 
 of that Church shows that the United Kingdom, 
 where the law as to undue influence is precisely the 
 same as ours, is perhaps the only country in Europe 
 where the professors of that rehgion are free to 
 practise it. If this be the case in the United King- 
 dom, it is so here ; and it is not true that there is 
 any form of rehgion, the free and full exercise of 
 which is impaired by the preservation of the great 
 principle to which I have referred. I trust, then, 
 that tiie ill-advised pretensions which have been 
 set up will be abandoned ; but should they be 
 pressed, I take the opportunity of declaring that for 
 myself, whatever be the consequences, I shall stand 
 by the principle which I have laid down and shall 
 struggle t" preserve, so far as my feeble powers 
 permit, to each one of my fellow-countrymen, what- 
 ever his cr:ed, the same full and ample measure 
 of civil freedom which he now enjoys under those 
 laws which enable him and me, though we may be of 
 diverse faiths, to meet here on the same platform, 
 and here to differ or agree according to our owa 
 
ae 
 
 MB. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON TiUI 
 
 politieal eonvictiooB, and not aeeording to our 
 religion! faith or the diouUion of any other men, 
 lay or olericaL" 
 
 Now, Sir, finally, in September, 1881, 
 there was a further coramunioation dealing 
 ■with these two subjects to which 1 have 
 reforred, and from it I shall trouble the 
 House with a very briet extract. It is a 
 communication from the Prefect of the 
 Sacred Congregation, Cardinal Simeoni : 
 
 " It han come tn the knowledge of the Sacred Con* 
 grpgation of the Propaganda that m yonr ProviDce 
 oertain members of the clergy and of the secnlar 
 body eontinae to inteifere too mucli in political elec> 
 tion0, by using either the pulpit or ntwspapei s and 
 othtr pub icatioDS. 
 
 " It is eqi)ail> known to the aforesnid Sacred Con- 
 gregation that a certain BufTragao of Yijur Lordship 
 now endeavours to appeal to Parliament to cause the 
 electoral law concerning the bo-cailed undue influ- 
 ence to be amended. 
 
 "Now, as repfaids the first point, I hasten to re- 
 mind Your Lord^h>p that as far back as the ytar 
 1876 the Snprtme Congregation of the Holy Office 
 isBued the following inntruction : " 
 
 And then follows the instruction which I 
 have already quoted. The communication 
 proceeds as follows : 
 
 "In conformity with this instrnction Tour Lord- 
 ship mu8t without delay mnke known to all yonr 
 Huffragann, to the clergy, and to all those whom it 
 may concein. that it is the intention of the Holy 
 Father that all the aforesaid prescriptions of the 
 Holy Office be strictly observed. 
 
 "As regards the second point, Your Lordship must 
 notify all the uniTritaanB that each of the prelates 
 individually ruuist refrain from agitating or causing 
 to be agitated the question of the ;<meudment of the 
 law eouttertiing thu said undue influence. If there 
 ■hould come a time wLen the Bifrbops assembled 
 abould judge unaniiuoasly that the proper period 
 had eooie to make the aforesaid demand, they mu'it 
 first apply to the Sacred Congregation to receive 
 from it their proper instructions.'' 
 
 And that, as far as I know, was the final 
 settlement of that controversy, so far as con- 
 cerned the views of the highest authorities of 
 the Church, repeated after an interval of 
 years. During that controversy, on the 
 twentieth of Januarv, in the vear 1876, the 
 Archbishop of Toronto addressed a public 
 letter to my hon. frien<l the member for East 
 York (Mr. Mackenzie), which, dealing as it 
 does with this subject, may appropriately be 
 re^d at this time. It is as follows : 
 
 " ToBosTo, 20th January, 187ft. 
 
 " Hon. A. Mackenzie, 
 
 " Premier of the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 *• Hon. and Dbab Sib, — I think this an opporttrae 
 time to ii form you and yonr Government that priests 
 in oar Archdioeese are strictly forbidden to make tha 
 altar or pulpit of their ehoxehes the tribona of politi- 
 cal harangnes for or againf^ any party or eandidate 
 
 for eleetioB, or to tbrea^n any •pintual diaabillty 
 for voting w4h either party. 
 
 **Prie«tB may, of oonrse, instrtiet their people on 
 the cou-cientions obligation of voting for tb<> candi- 
 date whom they judge will beft promote tb* iutereata 
 of the country, of taking no bnbes, and uf oouduet- 
 ing themselTes at the elections in a loyal and peaee- 
 ful manner; but they are not to say to the people 
 from the altar, that they are to TOte for this candi- 
 date and reject the other. 
 
 " It would be very imprudent in a priest whose 
 congregation ia composed of Liberals and Gonserra- 
 tives to become a warm pm tisan of aither politieal 
 party. 
 
 " It would neutralize his inflnenee for good in too 
 many instances, and a priest reqnires all he poesesses 
 tu forward the interests of his whole congregation. 
 
 "It ia true that a priest, in his ordination, does 
 not renounce his rights of eitizent^hip ; nor does he 
 receive authority to impose on his congregation his 
 own particular views of politics. 
 
 "The Catholic Church asks no tjpecial faTonr from 
 any party, tier existence is independent of both. 
 She asks only that her people be put under no nnju^t 
 restraint or ban. It is true that the old legislation 
 of England made the Catholic religion a bar to 
 political and almost social existence ; and though 
 wiser counsels now prevail in Courts and Parha- 
 ments, yet some of the Protestant popula'ie, and aa 
 occasional statesman in his individual capacity, so 
 long educated in the traditions of the past, retain a 
 deep-rooted prejudice and snspicion, not easily con- 
 quered, that the CathoUo religion should be a bar to 
 preferment and that the Catholic Church is inimical 
 to free institutions and unfavourable to Stat* 
 rights. This is still a reproduction of the old 
 Pagan cry : * The Christians to the beasts,' or the 
 old Jewish accusation : ' We have found this man 
 perverting our nation and forbidding to give tribute 
 to Ctesar.' 
 
 *'ThH Catholic Church asks only liberty to da 
 good, ard to be untrammelled by nnjnst laws in the 
 exercise of her divine rights. I might here remark, 
 that when in a free country reiigmus and sacred 
 rights are brought into the arena of politics, then 
 the Catholics have to follow them to the polls and 
 contend there for their rights, as in the case of edn- 
 eation. We believe that parents have a perfect 
 right to educa*e their children as they please. 
 * Train up a child in the way he should go, and when 
 he is old he will not depart from it. ' Hence, when 
 the Catholics of Lower Canada conceded the right 
 of separate education to the Protestant minority of 
 Lower Canada, the Catholic minority of Upper 
 Canada claimed the same right, but had to contend 
 for this right at the elections ; and thus religious 
 questions are dragged out of their sphere. Tho 
 Catholic does not permit his relig'on to hinder the 
 { rogress of the country, or the peaceful exercise of 
 a diflerent religion to his neighbours. When his 
 religions principles are safe, the Catholic, under the 
 impression that party gOTernment is a lesser evil» 
 gives his support to that which he thinks will per- 
 form its duties for the greater good of the ooontry 
 and the happiness of the people. 
 
 ** I am. Honourable Sir, 
 
 ** Tour very obedient servant, 
 
 •' JOHN JOSEPH LYNCH, 
 
 " Archbishop of Taranto." 
 
 As I have said, there was a long and bitter 
 controversy in the Province of Quebec with 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 
 
 sr 
 
 some who strove to abuse the power of thp 
 clmrch in the way to which 1 have referred. 
 That long and bitter controversy was a con- 
 troversy in which my friends, the Liberals of 
 Lower Canada, were the oppressed party, 
 the party which was being overborne in it, 
 which waa, suffering from it, in the constitu- 
 encies ; and though they have received justice 
 at last in the particular to which I have re- 
 ferred, it ia useless to disguise the fact that 
 so long a conflict, r^aged in that niannet, and 
 with those weapons, has had a permanent 
 weakening effect. 
 
 THE ATTITUDE OP ONTARIO ORANGEMKS AS TO 
 QUEBEC DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 But I want to know where in all that time 
 were the Orange Tory leaders of Ontario 1 I 
 want to know whether they were helping in 
 the cause which baa thus been vindicated in 
 the end. I want to know whether they were 
 expressing and actively manifesting their 
 sympathy with those who were struggling 
 for the rights which have at length been 
 accorded them. It is not so : it is known 
 not to be so. It is true that many of the 
 Protestants of Quebec came to the assistance 
 of the Liberals of Quebec in that struggle, 
 but the Orange Tory leaders of Ontario were 
 unflinching in their support of, and in their 
 consort with the very members who were 
 waging that controversy against the Quebec 
 Liberals. Why 1 Because they were united 
 in political bonds with those members ; be- 
 cause they rejoiced in their success at the 
 polls, although that success was achieved 
 against those with whom they professed to 
 be in sympathy. They were kept in place 
 and power by means of that partnership ; 
 and therefore thev were untrue to the prin- 
 ciples which they professed, and in order to 
 promote which they are now saying they 
 wish to be incorporated. I have declared 
 my views on this subject, and I have nothing 
 to recall in regard to them. I have shown 
 where I am to be found in case any conflict 
 may arise in which any church, whether 
 Roman Catholic, or Episcopalian, or Presby- 
 terian, or what you will, shall strive to en- 
 croach on what I believe to be the just 
 domain of the State. I believe that, if you 
 commit to any church absolute power and 
 control over faith and morals, and if, at the 
 same time, you commit to that church abso- 
 lute and unlimited power to determine what 
 is comprised within faith and morals, you 
 concede necessarily to that church absolute 
 power altogether; and I believe, therefore, 
 that it is quite necessary to consider that 
 
 there may be a point at which we may be 
 called on to consider what the tenets of the 
 church in that particular point of view are. 
 I have shown that the struggle was fought 
 out within the Roman Catholic Church ; that 
 those rights on which the Liberals of Lower 
 Canada insisted have been vindicated, and 
 that the electors have a right to vote as free 
 men. But should such a struggle recur, 
 which Goa forbid, could I, judging from the 
 past, hope for any assistance, could the Lib- 
 eral party look with hope for any assintance, 
 from the Orange Tory leaders of Ontario I 
 No, because we have not received it in the 
 past ; and, whatever the views of these 
 leaders, they subordinated them altogether 
 to party politics, which led them to rejoice 
 in the triumphs of those who were perf>etu- 
 ating principles directly opposed to their 
 own. 
 
 THE ORANGE CLAIM TO SUPERIOR LOYALTY. 
 
 There are some other reasons which lead me 
 to think that this society in Ontario is not a 
 beneficial one. Its leaders claim a monopoly 
 not merely of true Protestantism, but also of 
 loyalty. The hon. member for East Hastings 
 (Mr. White), at Winnipeg, said : 
 
 " One of his reasons was, that with three others 
 he had opposed the CnstiL'an resolution, which waa 
 a duect iuKolt to the Mother Country, and to every 
 loyal citizen in the country, except party leaders on 
 hoth sides and members who were pandering to the 
 Catholic vote, and not one member of the Orange 
 society said, ' well done.' " 
 
 »jr 
 
 rand Master Bennet said : 
 
 " Ton are no doubt aware that a most siu<:nlar 
 combination was formed at the last Session to defeat 
 the Bill. We had the astounding f<pectacle of Pro- 
 testant Liberalism and Ultramontani8m in alliance 
 to defeat it ; Liberalism, because of the loyalty of 
 Orangemen, and Ultramontainism, because of the 
 advanced Protestantism of the Orange order." 
 
 There you have it, Sir, laid down as a rule, 
 that Orangemen are so loyal, and their loy- 
 alty is so offensive to others, that the Orange- 
 men must be put down by force. I maintain 
 that that is an offensive statement, and that 
 a secret society which devotes itself to the 
 propagation of such opinions as these, as to 
 the loyalty of others, is one which does not 
 deserve favour or State recognition. 
 
 ORANGE ATTACKS ON THE LOYALTY OF ROHAN 
 CATHOLICS. 
 
 There is another reason. These Ontario 
 Orange leaders claim that their object is to 
 advance Protestantism, and they claim to 
 advance it by assertions with reference to 
 the Roman Catholic Church which I believe 
 
38 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 to be baseless. And here again I do not 
 propose to deal with assertions as to dogma. 
 I do not propose to deal with assertions with 
 respect to religion, as to whether certain 
 viows are right or wrong, for we have no- 
 thing to do with them. But we have to do 
 with their views as to the tenets of that 
 church, as they affect the political condition 
 and social order of the country. Those 
 things are of material interest to us ; and it 
 is well that we should know what is advanced 
 in the name of Protestantism, or with a view 
 of promoting it, by the leaders of the Orange 
 society in Ontario. In the Sentinel of De- 
 cember 21st, 1882, there is the following, 
 which is headed "Allegiance to Rome only " : 
 
 •' We have always contended that the Bomish 
 Church teAches its followers to be disloyal to every 
 State wherein it exists, to recognize the authority of 
 no tempore! Government, and to own allegiance only 
 to the Papacy." 
 
 On April 26th, 1883, the same paper said: 
 
 " ?lt is hardly necetjsary to say that every true 
 member of the church must yield to the Pope, the 
 infallible head of the church, unquestioning obedi- 
 ence in morals, dogmatic faith or belief, and also 
 conduct and civil alJair?. 
 
 ' No member of the church can dispute the right 
 ef the head of it to decide infallibly and dogmati- 
 cally all questions affecting temporal power in 
 Governments, any more than he can that of the 
 faith and belief put forth in her teachings. 
 
 " The people in America are governed by consti- 
 tutions which leave to themselves the power of 
 determining the character and structure of Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 ' ' These constitutions are, therefore, inimical to 
 the Church of Eome, in her opinion, and are only 
 tolerated because they cannot be destroyed. As she 
 is at war with every form of Government not pre- 
 scribed by herself, it would be her duty to destroy 
 these constitutions if she could ; nay, she would be 
 guilty, under her teachings, if she had the power 
 and did not destroy them. 
 
 "Is it not a lumiliation that in a country like 
 this a loyal :.£^ociation has been refused the same 
 privileges that are daily granted to those who pro- 
 c aim the prerogative of a foreign Prince Bishop to 
 be superior to those of Her Majesty and Her Govern- 
 ment — privileges daily granted to those whose civil 
 9t1Ifgianoe is firstly to the Pope and secondly 
 wherever he might direct it, though that should lead 
 to the destruction of the dignities and prerogatives 
 of the Imperial Crown now largely directed by the 
 responsible Ministers of the Government, who hold 
 office at the will of the people ? " 
 
 Again in the Sentinel of the 8th of Nov- 
 ember, 1883, the following language is used : 
 
 " It is necessary to keep constantly before the 
 mind of the Orange and Protestant pnblic of the 
 Dominion that Rome is still tme to her motto, 
 $emper eadem. 
 
 " She is the same to-day that she was a hundred 
 years p^o, planning, scheming and contriving to 
 subvert the best liberties and freest institutions of 
 every State in Christendom." 
 
 These are the statements repeated over and 
 over again as to the political attitude of the 
 Church of Rome ; and all true Protestants 
 are called upon to occupy an inimical position 
 toward members of that Church on the 
 ground, lirst of all, that the adherents of that 
 Church do not owe civil allegiance to the 
 Queen of this Dominion and the Constitution 
 of this country ; second, that they owe civil 
 allegiance to a foreign power ; and thirds 
 that that power is inimical to free institu- 
 tions, and that its eSorts are directed to sub- 
 vert them as far as possible. That is the 
 attitude with respect to the Church of Rome 
 and its adherents in Canada to-day. Again, 
 so late as the 19th of February, 1884, at 
 a meeting of the Grand Lod^. of Ontario 
 West, the Grand Master — while this Parlia- 
 ment was in Session, while this Bill was on 
 the Order Paper — referring to the unfor- 
 tunate affair in Newfoundland, said : 
 
 " Brethren, it is the old story. It has been told 
 in Ireland a thousand times. It has been told in 
 Fort Garry, Montreal and Newfoundland, and shows 
 to us as plainly as the sun at noonday that when 
 Bomanism has the ascendency Protesiants have no 
 rights and are only tolerated, and that the teachings 
 of Rome are the same to-day as they were in '98 — 
 that to break faith with heretics io no sin, and that 
 killing is no murder." 
 
 Then, Sir, in the same speech, he quotes 
 approvingly from a weekly journal these 
 words : 
 
 "It (i.e., the Orange body in Ireland) is acting 
 strictly in self-defence for everybody who uas read 
 Irish history, or who listens to Fenian harangues, 
 must know that from the moment when power 
 passed into the hands of Irish Catholics no man of 
 British blood or Protestant religion would ever 
 dwell in safety on the soil of Ireland." 
 
 Commenting on that statement he says : 
 
 " This statement, coming from a gentleman who 
 on more than one occasion has spoken in no friendly 
 terms concerning our order, shows that the thinking 
 Protestants of this country are becoming alive to the 
 necessity of having ^ Protestant secret society to 
 counteract the influence of the gigantic secret aociety 
 of Bomanism." 
 
 EFFECT OF THESE STATEMENTS, IF TRUE. 
 
 Now, these are statements with which we 
 have to deal to-day. If these views be cor- 
 rect, if these be accurate statements of the 
 tenets of that Church, then it does not merely 
 hold erroneous views in matters of dogma. 
 The hon. member for Hoch^laga (Mr. Des- 
 jardins) and myself do not agree in our 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 
 
 39 
 
 religious views, and unfortunately we do 
 not agree in politics ; but our difference in 
 religion does not mark the difference in our 
 political allegiance. Our differences in reli- 
 gion are questions between us and our con- 
 sciences, between us and our God, to be dis- 
 posed of individually by each of us. But 
 these other views, which 1 have just now 
 read, are of an entirely different character ; 
 they go far beyond divergencies of religious 
 opinion. We have here statements of views 
 hostile to the Throne, hostile to free institu- 
 tions, hostile to our Constitution, hostile to 
 social order and safety ; views which are 
 destructive of everything which we, in Can- 
 ada — and I do not place the Catholic below 
 the Protestant — which we, as a united people 
 in Canada hold most dear. I say that, if 
 you tell me truly that in civil matters the 
 adherents of the Roman Catholic faith do 
 not owe allegiance to the Crown and the 
 Constitution, but owe it to a foreign power, 
 then they are' not true subjects to the Queen, 
 they are aliens in the midst of our land. If 
 this be so I say that you cannot trust them, 
 and I agree with those gentlemen who some- 
 times, as was mentioned this evening, say 
 harsh things until "they grant absolution 
 before the elections." I agree with them 
 that if these are the tenets of that Church, 
 I can well understand their hostility, from a 
 political point of view, to the E.oman Catho- 
 lic religion. If they believe that that Church 
 is hostile to and desires the subversion of our 
 free institutions, of our Constitution, I can 
 understand their hostility going far beyond 
 differences as to dogmas of religion ; I can 
 understand that the institution is one with 
 whose adherents no alliance is to be main- 
 tained. Once again, if it is their opinion, and 
 if it be the case, that Roman Catholics be- 
 lieve that no faith need be kept with a here- 
 tic, that the killing of a heretic is no murder, 
 then social order and safety are at risk, and 
 we cannot possibly remain at ease if such 
 doctrines as these are theirs. All those who 
 honestly believe these opinions to be true to 
 the Roman Catholic faith or of the adherents 
 of that faith could not possibly, if they are 
 lovers of our Constitution and our institu- 
 tions, honestly co-operate with them in poli- 
 tics. It is impossible. Sir, that an honest be- 
 lief in these things, as the actual tenets of 
 that Church, could consist with political co- 
 operation on the part of those who so believe, 
 with Roman Catholics. On the other hand, 
 all lovers of free institutions should combine 
 against the evil which would be wrought, 
 the pressing evil and danger to our institu- 
 
 tions which would exist, if such indeed were 
 the tenets held by such a large proportion of 
 the citizens of this country. The question, 
 then, is a serious one. We have it here ; 
 we have had it within the last few months ; 
 we have it stated as 8C doctrine of to-day, and 
 the hon. gentleman even now nods assent to 
 it, as the feeling an Orangeman holds with 
 reference to his Roman Catholic fellow- 
 citizens. 
 
 THE STATEMENTS ARE UNTRUK. 
 
 But are these statements true?' Sir, I believe 
 them to be untrue. I believe that the Church 
 of Rome holds many religious doctrines and 
 dogmas most gravely erroneous : to these I 
 am entirely opposed. 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). You believe too 
 much ; that is the troubla 
 
 Mr. Blake. Well, perhaps I believe too 
 much. I will not state that the hon. gentle- 
 man believes all he says ; I hope he does. I 
 have endeavoured in my own poor way, and 
 to the best of my humble ability, to promote 
 the spread of those Protestant principles of 
 dogmatic religion, those views of the Gospel 
 and of the Bible, which I hold. 1 am doing 
 what I c;ftn in that direction, and have been 
 for yeajs j it is not much, but I have done 
 what I <;ould. I believe that a most potent 
 factor ia that direction is a greater union 
 among the Protestant denominations, and I 
 have alv^ays been desirous of seeing such a 
 union accomplished for the better advancement 
 of the Gospel, according to our views of it. I 
 rejoice to see the evidence of a tendency towards 
 that union, in the existence of those organi- 
 zations in which ministers and people of vari- 
 ous denominations mingle, forget their differ- 
 ences, and learn what is best in each other, 
 and in what points they agree. I rejoice to 
 see Evangelical Alliances, Young Men's 
 Christian Associations and Ministerial Asso- 
 ciations, such as the one that exists in my 
 own city. I have worked with Orangemen 
 in tbe Synod of my Church and elsewhere ; 
 they have sympathized with me, and I have 
 sympathized with them, I cared not for our 
 differences in politics : they have never made 
 the shake of our hands less warm, or our co- 
 operation in the work of our church less earn- 
 est ; and it pains me that hon. gentlemen 
 opposite should seek an occasion of this kind 
 to raise a wall of division, even among those 
 engaged together in church work, by uttering 
 and circulating these calumnies against me, 
 and by declaring that my Protestant prin 
 ciples are abandoned because I cannot in my 
 conscience support a Bill for the incorpora- 
 
40 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 tion of a society which propagates opinions 
 like those which I have read. I kno-v that 
 
 I SHALL BE MISREPRESENTED AND MISUNDER- 
 STOOD, 
 
 and that men will be misled, in my Province 
 and elsewhere, as to what I have said to-night. 
 I cannot help it : I felt it borne in upon me 
 as a duty to say it : I had to say it. I know 
 that men will be misled by designing poli- 
 ticians, who are using the cloak of religion 
 and the cloak of charity to promote party 
 politics. If we could forget our differences, 
 and agree to mingle in all chartible works, 
 irrespective of our faith — as, God be thanked, 
 although we differ in religion, we may agree 
 in works of charity — it would be a blessed 
 achievement. But to-day what are we doing 1 
 You are promoting these calumnies in refer- 
 ence to another church ; you are coming for- 
 ward and declaring, untruly as I believe, that 
 the tenets of that church, from which you 
 differ, are in these respects detestable, and 
 that every true Protestant must take the 
 same position. It is a course of which I hope 
 you will repent before you are many years 
 older. Now, I am anxious for a Protestant 
 ascendency of one kind — for the spread of 
 those opinions which I believe to be true ; 
 but I am anxious that there should be no 
 Protestant ascendency of the material kind 
 to which the leaders of the Orange Tory 
 party refer, when they speak of that Protest- 
 ant ascendency which existed in the past in 
 Ireland, and to which they look backward 
 with such longing eyes. I am not anxious for 
 that kind of Protestant ascendency, and in my 
 desire to promote my dogmatic faith I do 
 not countenance such weapons as the hon. 
 gentleman and other Orange leaders use. My 
 belief is that my Catholic fellow-subjects do 
 acknowledge allegiance and feel a loyalty to 
 the Crown and the free institutions of this 
 country. My belief is that they do not think 
 that to break faith with a heretic is no sin, 
 and that to kill him is no murder. I have 
 not forgotten the declaration made against 
 such calumnies as these by the Irish prelates, 
 as long ago as the twenty-fifth of January, 
 1826, in a document which contains many 
 statements of faith and doctrine, as to which 
 Protestants and Roman Catholics are as wide 
 as the poles asunder. But it contains two 
 statements which touch our social and politi- 
 cal system, and our relations to each other as 
 citizens of one common country, as follows : 
 
 " The Irish Catholics swear that the Catholics of 
 Ireland do not believe that the Pope of Borne, or 
 
 any other foreign prince, prelate, state or potentate, 
 hath, or oaght to have any temporal or oivil jaris- 
 diction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directl.v 
 or indirectly, within this realm : and this withoat 
 any mental reservation or dispensation." 
 
 The prelates go on to say : 
 
 " After this full, explicit and sworn declaration, 
 we are utterly at a loss to conceive on what possible 
 groand we conld be justly charged with bearing 
 towards our Most Graoiqus Sovereign only a divided 
 allegiance." 
 
 And with reference to the other insulting 
 charge they say this : 
 
 " The Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, 
 but they declare on oath that they delest as nn 
 christian and impions the belief, that it is lawfnl to 
 murder or destroy any person or persons whatever 
 under the pretence of their being heretics; and 
 also the principle that no faith is to be kept with 
 heretics. " 
 
 There you find distinct statements which 
 contradict allegations which ought not to 
 have been made, and which there ought not 
 therefore to have been necessity for contra- 
 dicting ; and yet. Sir, we find, not ten years 
 ago. not five years ago, not one year ago, 
 but within the past few days, the most 
 offensive of these allegations eated, Alega,- 
 tions which I have shown would, if true, in- 
 dicate a condition subversive of the free 
 institutions of our country. Now I am not 
 prepared to mark as murderous, as treacherous 
 and disloyal, nearly one-half of my fellow- 
 citizens. I do not believe that the cause of 
 Protestantism, of true religion, the advance- 
 ment of the Gospel, the peace and prosperity, 
 the welfare and the good government of this 
 Dominion, will be promoted by the State 
 recognition of this secret society, organized 
 and led as it is in Ontario, and devoted to 
 the propagation of views such as those which 
 I have exposed. I do not myself attach, in 
 the discordant dissolution of parties with 
 respect to this Bill, any political significance 
 to the question. I have viewed it from 
 another aspect altogether ; I Lave been anxi- 
 ous that we should undei'stand what the real 
 merits of the controversy are ; and in my 
 statement of my objections I have endea- 
 voured to sustain them, not by stale and musty 
 authorities, but by recent and authentic ut- 
 terances But, perhaps, I am wrong ; I dare 
 say that I shall be more bitterly misrepre- 
 sented than ever before by the Orange Tory 
 leaders ; and as to the Tory Roman Catholic 
 leaders, they, too, the temporary struggle 
 between them and their Orange allies being 
 ended and the alliance revived, will regard 
 me ail the more distastefully because I have 
 
ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 1884. 
 
 41 
 
 necessarily shown, eitaer how sham their 
 battle is, or how false and unnatural is their 
 conjunction. 
 
 THE TEUE POLICY DEFINED. 
 
 Bat I have this satisfaction, that I have told 
 plainly the truth as I believe it ; and it will 
 be an ample reward to me, if I have succeeded 
 in explaining to moderate men on both sides 
 the views t hold, and in pointing out the 
 true path o* duty in a community of diverse 
 
 races and creeds like ours ; where we must 
 combine firmness in the assertion of our own 
 rights, with fulness in the recognition of the 
 right of others ; we must cultivate modera- 
 tion and forbearance ; we must avoid mis- 
 representation, calumny and abuse ; we must 
 hold to the ample acknowledgment of each 
 man's individual rights of conscience in 
 religious matters, and of the common citizen- 
 ship of all in civil affairs, if we would make 
 of Canada a great and free country, inhabited 
 by a happy and united peoplOi 
 
HON. EDWAED BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE MOTION CON- 
 DEMNING THE GOVEENMENT FOE THE EXE- 
 CUTION OF LOUIS EIEL, MAECH, 1886 
 
 (CONDENSED). 
 
 Mr. Blake said, in the course of his re- 
 marks ... I entirely agree that, while 
 the case is one for our consideration, the dis- 
 cussion is of a delicate character, dealing as 
 it does with the administration of justice. 
 It is a case in which I believe 
 
 WE OUGHT ABSOLUTELY TO ESCHEW ALL 
 SPIRIT OP PARTISANSHIP, 
 
 in which we ought, as far as possible, to 
 eliminate from our minds all spirit, even of 
 party, and which we ought to approach as 
 nearly as we may with the calmness, the 
 dignity, and the impartiality of the judge. 
 This is always a difficult task for a political 
 body, and therefore . a task rarely to be 
 attempted — to be attempted only under that 
 pressure of necessity which rests upon us to- 
 day. But it is a task peculiarly difficult on 
 the present occasion, because of those ques- 
 tions of race and creed which have been drawn 
 into the discussion ; because of the old 
 offence, which has been made, rightly or 
 wrongly, a part of the question under con- 
 sideration ; and because also of the question 
 of the responsibility of the Government itself 
 in connection with the outbreak which gave 
 rise to the trial which resulted in the sentence 
 which the Government ordered to be executed. 
 But, Sir, though I quite recognize the special 
 difficulties which surround us in approaching 
 this our task, in the spirit in which it ought 
 to be approached, I conceive that the exist- 
 ence of those difficulties only makes the 
 adoption of that spirit the more imperative, 
 and that our duty is, so far as the interests of 
 truth and justice ivill allow, 
 
 TO SAT NO WORD THAT MAY IRRITATE, 
 
 and as far as possible, to take a course which 
 m,ay heal old sores — and new sores, too. 
 
 I have the honour to occupy, however 
 unworthily, the position of leader of the 
 Liberal party ; and with a full sense of the 
 responsibility attaching to that position, I 
 took at the earliest practicable moment, after 
 
 my return to the country, the opportunity of 
 declaring publicly, what I conceived ought to 
 be and was the attitude of that party towards 
 this question. I have since enforced by argu- 
 ment on all occasions, the view that that was 
 our true attitude ; and I repeat to-day, in the 
 presence of this Parliament, the declaration 
 I then made, that upon this subject there has 
 not been, nor is there intended to be, the 
 slightest association of party in our ranks, — 
 that of set purpose and in the belief that we 
 shall so best discharge our duty to our coun- 
 try, we have agreed that each one of us shall, 
 after listening to the arguments and coming 
 to such conclusion as we can, vote as he con- 
 ceives, entirely irrespective of party alliances, 
 the interests of his country demand. 
 
 Some hon. Members. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. Blake. Hon, gentlemen opposite 
 cheer derisively. I understand thorn per- 
 fectly J they cannot conceive of such an act. 
 It is 
 
 INCREDIBLE TO THEM THAT PUBLIC MEN 
 
 should SO act, and I do not feel moved at all 
 by their cheers, knowing as I do, from 
 eighteen years' experience, their manner of 
 conducting business. But what I say is true, 
 for all that : and so, upon this occasion, 
 
 I MUST SPEAK, NOT AT ALL IN MY CAPACITY 
 
 OF LEADER OF A PARTY, BUT AS AN 
 
 INDIVIDUAL FOR MYSELF ALONE. 
 
 I have said that I believe that there are 
 materials very important to a satisfactory 
 discussion of this question, which materials 
 the Government have not thought fit to bring 
 before us. I say we ought to have had an 
 opportunity of seeing some of the papers 
 which have been brought down and which we 
 have not yet seen, because we know that un- 
 printed papers are accessible to but few. For 
 my part, I have not yet had the opportunity 
 of seeing a single paper brought down by the 
 Government so far, with the exception of the 
 instructions to the Crown counsel of which I 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 4& 
 
 obtained a copy. There are important 
 papers, so far as I am able to gather from 
 statements made by the Minister when pre- 
 senting from time to time those which he did 
 bring down, which are not yet brought down, 
 and some, as I shall show before I resume 
 my seat, very important. I think the 
 
 CONDUCT OF THE ADMINISTRATION ON THK 
 
 QUESTION OF THE PRODUCTION 
 
 OF PAPERS 
 
 is blamable in the extreme. They use these 
 papers as a fund upon which they can draw, 
 so far as they think them advantageous to 
 themselves in the conduct of the discussion ; 
 but such papers as they think do not tell in 
 their favour, they hold back. The Govern- 
 ment select such papers as they think they 
 can make a point on in the debate. These 
 they bring down at the moment th^y want 
 to use them, but the mass of papers on the 
 perusal of which, if they had been placed in 
 cm accessible form before us, a proper general 
 judgment could be reached, these they refuse 
 to bring dotjon. They say they have no time 
 to bring them down, that they have no time 
 to do anything else but to debate this ques- 
 tion from day to day, and have time only to 
 bring down those papers which serve their 
 own arguments. I said the other day, and 
 I repeat, that in my opinion the whole 
 question of 
 
 THE CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT, 
 
 before the rebellion, and up to the outbreak, 
 and the whole attitude and relation of the 
 half-breeds and white settlers to the Govern- 
 ment with reference to the various questions 
 which have been agitated, are extremely 
 material to the formation of a judgment upon 
 this question. We are doing a wrong thing : 
 we are 
 
 PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE 
 
 when we discuss first of all the final act in 
 the great drama, instead of dealing in the 
 first instance with those precedent facts and 
 circumstances, threshing them out, sifting 
 them, and endeavouring to reach a conclusion 
 as to the relative responsibilities and attitudes 
 of the Government of the country and of the 
 people who rose. I say that we ought to 
 know that in order that we may properly 
 measure what the moral guilt was of those 
 who rose, we ought to know it in order that 
 we may properly measure what was the right 
 of this Government to act as judge in this 
 cause. And, therefore, Sir, I am of opinion 
 that the course which the Government has 
 
 decided and insisted upon being pursued in 
 this matter is an inconvenient, an illogical, 
 an unsatisfactory course. I think also that 
 it must be thoroughly understood — and we 
 may as well understand it now — that, if we 
 are to put the cart before the horse, we shall 
 have to deal with the horse a little later. 
 
 I have stated in a speech which was but, 
 after all, a chronological recital of the actions 
 on the one side and of the other, my view 
 upon the evidence which was then presented, 
 of the relations of the Government to the 
 North-West, to the white settlers, and to the 
 half-breeds in the neighbourhood of Prince 
 Albert and elsewhere ; and I have declared, 
 and I think I have proved, that there were in 
 those matters 
 
 GROSS, PALPABLE, INCREDIBLE DELAY, NEGLECT 
 AND MISMANAGEMENT. 
 
 I have held, and I hold this Government 
 responsible for every dollar of the public and 
 private treasure which has been expended, 
 for every pang that has been inflicted, for 
 every life that has been lost, whether on the 
 field or on the scaffold in the North- West, 
 and I believe that for this, their responsi- 
 bility, they will be called to a strict and stern 
 account, here first, and afterwards at the 
 great tribunal, so soon as they, who so boldly 
 challenge us to come on, choose to bring for- 
 ward those papers which they hold within 
 their vaults. 
 
 THE GUILT OF THE INSURGENTS. 
 
 Now, with reference to the insurgents, of 
 course there was legal guilt — of course, 
 rebellion, the old saying is, is always treason 
 until it becomes revolution. The degree of 
 moral guilt is not a qioestion for the jury at 
 all ; it is a question to be co7isidered when 
 you come to award the punishment. It does 
 not affect in the slightest degree either the ver- 
 dict of the jury or the sentence of the court. 
 Riel was legally guilty, no matter how great, 
 and pressing, and long endured the grievances 
 may have been ; no matter how strong the 
 case may have been, Riel was legally guilty; 
 no matter what the 'moral justification or the 
 moral palliation or excuse may have been, 
 Riel, and those who rose with him, were 
 legally guilty of the crime of treason, if they 
 mere mentally responsible. The Crown in the 
 course of this trial, stopped the evidence about 
 the grievances, and they stopped it — I make 
 no complaint of their conduct — they stopped 
 it rightly, because it was no defence at law, 
 because it was utterly impossible, as the 
 Crown counsel observed, that the court 
 
44 
 
 MH. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 which sits under the authority of this Parlia- 
 ment and of this Government, could permit 
 evidence to be taken to show that treason or 
 rebellion against this Government was a 
 justifiable thing. There was then, Sir, upon 
 this trial before the jury, complicity with and 
 a lead in the insurrection being abundantly 
 proved, and in fact practically admitted, the 
 ^ngle question whether the prisoner should 
 be found guilty, or whether he should be 
 found not guilty, on the ground of insanity. 
 Now, before dealing with that question, I 
 wish to refer to some only of the incidents 
 •connected with the trial. I have expressed 
 my regret at 
 
 THE CHOIGK OF THE JUDGE 
 
 in this case. I have pointed out there were 
 some difficulties m relation to any judge who 
 might be appointed under the existing cir- 
 cumstances ; that in the first place these 
 stipendiary magistrates in the North-West 
 were, in truth, inferior magistrates. They 
 are not magistrates — I desire to speak of 
 thenj with all due respect — but confessedly 
 they are not magistrates in any sense of that 
 weight, dignity, authority and standing which 
 belong to those magistrates who, under the 
 laws of the older Provinces of the Domi- 
 nion, are entrusted with the trial of capital 
 ofiences. I have pointed out, besides, that 
 these judges are political officers, as members 
 of the North-West Council, of that very 
 Nortli-West Council which shortly after 
 these trials thought it within the sphere of 
 its duty to pronounce an opinion — first of all, 
 upon the conduct of the Government with 
 reference to the transaction of its business, 
 that portion of its business the neglect of 
 which led to the insurrection or gave the op- 
 portunity for the insurrection; and secondly, 
 to pass an opinion upon the course which 
 ought to have been or the course which was 
 pursued by the Government with reference to 
 the execution of this very sentence. I have 
 pointed out also that the standing of those 
 officers in another important respect is infe- 
 rior to that which ought ^o be the standing 
 of men entrusted with such issues, in this : 
 That they are not ojicers holding their office 
 during good behaviour ; tliey are officers 
 holding office practically during pleasure. 
 The security which grows from the 
 
 EKTIBE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDGES 
 
 of the Executive Government does not sub- 
 sist in this case, and the fact that it does not 
 subsist has been emphasized by this Govern 
 
 ment, which in a well-known case has 
 removed one of those stipendiary magistrates 
 from office. So that not merely in theory 
 but in practice has the lesson been taught thai 
 these judges are under the control of thia 
 Government. Those difficulties in my opinion 
 should have been removed by legislation. I 
 do not think that Parliament as a whole, 
 whatever the Administration may have done, 
 really contemplated that trials for high trea- 
 son or treason felony should take place before 
 those magistrates. I do not suppose that in 
 what we thought was happy, peaceful and 
 contented Canada there was any one who 
 thought of the possibility of a trial for hi^h 
 treason or treason felony. Speaking for myself, 
 I say it never occurred to me that we should 
 have such a trial last year or any year in our 
 country ; and I therefore say that I fancy it 
 must have been upon that view very largely 
 that the legislation which was passed by the 
 late Government, and which was amended by 
 the present Government in a direction which 
 diminished to some extent the securities for 
 the prisoner, was passed. You may say these 
 are but theoretical difficulties after all. I 
 say, No. I say they arQ serious practical dif- 
 ficulties. They are intensely practical. I 
 have already said elsewhere that the question 
 is not simply of the actual fairness of the 
 trial. It is of the last consequence that the 
 public should retain all the securities which 
 constitutumal government and parliamentary 
 government have wrested from the prerogative, 
 and that there should be in the minds oj the 
 public a certain conviction tlmt those securi- 
 ties exist and are available. This is not a new 
 question with us. Its spirit is exhibited in 
 our Statute Book, in the Act which consti- 
 tutes the Supreme Court, by which it is 
 expressly provided that the judges of 
 
 THAT COUET SHALL NOT BE COMPETENT 
 
 to accept any commission or employment of 
 emolument under the Government of the day. 
 In the Consolidated Statutes of Lower 
 Canada an express prohibition of a similar 
 character exists. How was it that the law 
 was engrafted on the Statute Book % Because 
 it had been found of practical consequence to 
 the people of the Province of Quebec that it 
 •hottld be so. There also, as we know, there 
 had been an agitation against grievances of 
 many years' standing, which culminated in 
 tlie Rebellion of 1837; and for a great mmy 
 y ars this question was one of the questions 
 agitating the people of that Province. You 
 will find that, as early as 1825, the resolutions 
 
EXECUTION or LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 45^ 
 
 of the Legislatire Assembly of Lower Canada 
 declared as follows ; 
 
 " That for the more upright and impartial admin- 
 iEtration of ja.-tiee it is exp^it nt to render the iaJges 
 of His Majesty's Court of King's Bench and Pro- 
 vincial Courts more independent than hitbertofore 
 by incapacitating the said judges from seats in the 
 Executive and Legislative Councils, and disqualify- 
 ing such as have now seats therein from sitting or 
 voting in such Councils. 
 
 " That it is expedient to secure by law to the said 
 judges their respective offices during good behaviour 
 in the same manner as those officers are secured in 
 England. 
 
 •♦ That it will be expedient for the aforesaid t© se- 
 cure adequate pemifinent salaries to the said judges 
 on their being prevented from holding any other 
 office of profit or emolument under the Crown. " 
 
 It is not, Sir, in the heyday of liberty that 
 we are to forget the securities for freedom. 
 The price — according to a hackneyed but 
 ever-to-be-remembered maxim — the price of 
 liberty is eternal vigilance ; and in this regard, 
 as I have said, an error has been committed. 
 Now, what is the measure and extent to 
 which this Administration is chargeable in 
 this respect 1 Certainly not in the existing 
 state of the law with reference to a trial be- 
 fore one of the stipendiary magistrates. All 
 that can be complained of fairly against them 
 is that their attention being called to the 
 special circumstances of the case, to the un- 
 precedented and unanticipated circumstances, 
 during the late Session of Parliament, by the 
 hon. member, for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), 
 and the suggestion being made that legisla- 
 tion should take place, they declined to 
 accede to the suggestion, and insisted that 
 the trial should go on under the existing 
 laws. Sir, I have said that trials of this 
 description differ altogether from all other 
 classes of trial in respect to the importance 
 of the independence of the judiciary. 
 
 RELATION OF THB OOVERNMRNT TO TRIALS 
 FOR TREASON. 
 
 They differ wholly, because in trials of this 
 description there is hardly a conceivable case 
 in modern times, at any rate, in which the 
 Governmont does not occupy a wholly differ- 
 ent relation to the prosecution from that 
 which it occupies in all ordinary cases in the 
 administration of criminal justice. I refer 
 to the well-known book of Lieber on Civil 
 Liberty, when he uses these words : 
 
 " In the trial of treason the Qovtmment is no longer 
 iheweiicaUy tfie prosf rating party, as it may be said 
 it t« in the case of theft or assault, but Die Govern- 
 ment is tlie really offeniedt irritated party, endowed 
 at the same time with all the force of the Government 
 to annoy, prosecute mmd •ften to trush. Governments 
 have theiwjore been rrnsf tenneions in retaintnsr 
 
 whatever power thf y could in the trial for treason ; 
 and on the other hami it U most important for the 
 free citizen that in the t^ ial for treason he should not 
 only enjoy the oommon protec'ion nf a Hoaad penal 
 
 trial, but far greater pro eotion I'hf 
 
 trial for treason is a gn-nffe of liberty. Tell va how 
 they try people for /reaton, and wewill teUyou whether 
 they are free. 
 
 *' It redounds to the glory of England that atten- 
 tion was directed to this subjeci frum early times, 
 and that guarantees were granted to the prisoners 
 indicted for treason centuries before they were al- 
 lowed to the p! rson su-pected of a common off-nce. 
 . . . Experience proves that net only are all the 
 guarantees of a fair penal trial peculiarly necessary 
 for a fair trial in treason, but tluit it requires ad- 
 ditional tafeguards; and of one or thd other the 
 following seem to me the nutst important. 
 
 '" Tliejwlges must not depend on the Exeeutivf. 
 
 " TJie judges mtut not be political bodies" . . ^ 
 
 Many safeguards are specified, of which I 
 select the two that are apposite to the present 
 ca.se: "The judges must not depend on the 
 Executive. The judges must not be political 
 bodies." Now, Sir, being in tho difficulty 
 that in these particular trials the Govern- 
 ment, under the standing laws which they 
 did not choose to propose to alter, had to- 
 select a judge who was dependent on the 
 Executive — a judge who was one of a politi- 
 cal body — it was 
 
 EMINENTLY INCUMBENT ON fHEM TO HAVE 
 MADE TUB BEST SELECTION, 
 
 the one which was least objectionable, the 
 one in respect of which it miglit be said, 
 though there is a difficulty as to all to which 
 I have adverted, this one is certainly the 
 least, or at any rate not the most, obnoxioua 
 But what I have objected to on a former 
 occasion, an objection which I renew to-night, 
 is the choice of the particular judge, because 
 this particular judge, as you will see if 
 you refer to the Public Accounts, was the 
 recipient of special favours, the occupant of 
 special relations to the Executive of the day. 
 In the first place he is the legal adviser to 
 the Executive of the North- West ; he is so 
 appointed during the pleasure of the Govern- 
 ment ; he is so paid a salary during tho 
 pleasure of the Government. He answers to 
 the Attorney-General, the legal adviser of 
 the Government in the North- West Terri- 
 tories ; and it needs not to enlarge upon the 
 relations and re.sponsibilitit s of a Lieutenant- 
 Governor of the North-West Territories to a 
 rebellion in the North-West, and upon the 
 relations and responsibilities of the First 
 Minister of Canada; who declared that he 
 was the medium of communication between 
 the two Governments and of the Minister of 
 the Interior towards the Lieutenant-GovemoT 
 
46 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 of the North- West Territories to show that 
 it was an unhappy choice to select, out of the 
 three or four judges, the very person who filled 
 the position of the political adviser, the politi- 
 cal law officer, to the Government in the Terri- 
 tories, to be the judge in this particular trial. 
 He is also the recipient of special favours. 1 
 find in the Auditor-General's Report, just 
 brought down, a statement of his accounts. 
 I find that, irrespective of his salary of $3,000 
 a year, there has been paid to him, during 
 the year to which these accounts refer, a 
 special rental allowance of $500, an addition- 
 al salary as legal adviser to the Lieutenant- 
 Governor of $200, three votes of $200 each 
 as a nominative member of the North- West 
 Council, his travelling* allowance of $1,000, 
 and something between $400 and $500 for 
 expenses and allowances for attendance at 
 Ottawa in connection, it is said, with the 
 Torrens Act — making a total of over $2,700 
 paid during the last year to this judge in 
 addition to his salary of $3,000. Now as to 
 travelling allowances, and allowances as 
 nominative members of the North-West 
 Council, the other judges were in the same 
 position ; but the allowances for house rent 
 and as legal adviser and in connection with 
 the Torrens Act are peculiar to the particular 
 officer whom the Government, I think, ex- 
 tremely unfortunately, decided they would 
 entrust with the duty of conducting these 
 trials. Well, 
 
 THE JUDGE CHOOSES THE JUB¥ PANEL, 
 
 and we have heard from the hon. member 
 for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) a statement, 
 which I think is of considerable importance, 
 and with reference to which I should have 
 desired to hear something from the Govern- 
 ment before now — a statement to the effect 
 that there were persons of the faith and 
 nationality of the prisoner eligible as jury- 
 men, but that none or only one such was 
 chosen of the panel. I heard the hon. mem- 
 ber for Montreal Centre (Mr. Curran) say 
 that no objection of that description could 
 apply, in consequence of the relations of the 
 prisoner at the time of his trial to the Church 
 of his fathers and the Church to which he 
 himself belone;s, but I do not think that 
 argument holds ; and for my part I must 
 express my regret that, if the circumstances 
 be as up to this moment they appear to be 
 from the uncontradicted statement of the 
 hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot), a 
 wider selection should not have been made of 
 the panel ; and I share the regret expressed 
 by several hon. members that the single per- 
 
 son who happened to be on the jury of that 
 faith should have been peremptorily chal- 
 lenged. For that challenge there may have 
 been, for all I know, a good reason ; but we 
 are not told, and we must not presume it was 
 a challenge for cause. We all know the 
 shock to the administration of justice which 
 ensued when those of his faith were chal- 
 lenged on the occasion of the O'Connell trial. 
 That ought to have been a lesson on this 
 occasion, and the same difficulty ought not 
 to have recurred in our day. Again, with 
 reference to 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 The written instructions which were given 
 to the Crown lawyers were to try all the 
 leaders, with the exception of certain Indians 
 and others who might be chargeable with 
 murder — to try all the leaders for treason. 
 No distinction whatever was made in those 
 instructions between Louis Riel and the 
 other leaders. Now, how did it happen 
 under these circumstances that all the pris- 
 oners except Louis Kiel were indicted — for 
 the same offence, is true, but under the more 
 modern statute and procedure for treason- 
 felony, while Kiel alone was tried for high 
 treason under the ancient law? I pass, 
 although there are other points to which I 
 might refer, to the issue which I have said 
 was for the jury to decide on that occasion, 
 and that issue was, 
 
 NOT WHETHER RIEL WAS INSANE 
 
 in the sense in which, in common par- 
 lance, we use that word, but whether he 
 was insane in the sense in which the word 
 is so used that it may create irresponsi- 
 bility for crimes. By our law, whether the 
 law be right or wrong, he might be insane 
 in the sense in which we ordinarily use the 
 word, and yet criminally responsible ; and 
 the question for the jury was, in fact, whether 
 he was so insane as, within the meaning of 
 the law, to be irresponsible for his acts. 
 This is a difficult question, as are all ques- 
 tions of insanity, and it may be divided into 
 two headings : First, what was the effect if 
 his conduct were genuine ? And next, was 
 it genuine or feigned ? Now I want to 
 fasten if I can upon your mind the question 
 for the jury. I want you to remember 
 that the question for the jury was 
 whether he was insane within the mean- 
 ing which the law attaches to that 
 term, so as to induce the consequence 
 of irresponsibility for crime, because it must 
 be always remembered as the vital question, as 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 47 
 
 the vital point, that vnthout disturbing in the 
 slightest degree thp finding of the jury, there 
 may remain and generally will remain 
 under circum^stances like these import- 
 ant considerations as affecting the moral 
 guilty and therefore as affecting the de- 
 gree of punishment to be awarded to the 
 prisoner. The verdict then of guilty would 
 be right, first of all, no matter how great 
 were the faults of th*' Government, no matter 
 how clearly political was the offence, no 
 matter how great the grievances, no matter 
 how long-enduring and long-suffering the peo- 
 ple might have been, the verdict of guilty 
 would be right no matter how these things 
 might have been, and also the verdict of 
 guilty would be right no matter how clearly 
 Kiel's intellect were disordered, if it were not 
 disordered up to a certain point ; and theiie 
 two things, the question of the political char- 
 acter of the offence and the resultant con- 
 siderations, and the question of the disorder 
 of intellect, would fail to be considered, con- 
 sistently with not disturbing in the least the 
 verdict of guilty by the jury, in the award of 
 punishment. Now, I shall make g<3od 
 after a little while by authorities those two 
 propositions ; but before touching the facts as 
 to the mental condition of this individual, it 
 may be as well to look for a moment at 
 
 THB GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJ3CT 
 AND THE PRINCIPLES OP ENQUIRY. 
 
 [Note. — Here Mr. Blake gave numerous 
 citations now omitted for the sake of brevity 
 from medical and legal works showing the 
 true view as to insanity, and the responsibility 
 of the insane for acts against the criminal 
 law, and the influence of porsons more or less 
 deranged.] 
 
 Sir James Stephen says : 
 
 "Diseases of the brain and the nervous systent 
 may in any one of many ways interfere more or lee t 
 with will so understood. They may cause definit i 
 intelleetual error, and if they do so their legal effec I; 
 is that of other innocent mistakes of fact. 
 
 "Far more frequently they affect the will by 
 either destroying altogether, or weakening to i 
 grealer or less extent, the power of steady, calr i 
 attention to any train of thought, and especially t > 
 general principles and their relation to particula r 
 acts. They may weaken all the mental faculties s > 
 as to reduce life to a dream. They may act like i 
 convulsion fit. They may operate as resistibls 
 motives to an act known to be wrong. In other 
 words they may destroy, they may weaken or they ma / 
 leave unaffected the power of self-control. 
 
 '* The pbactical infbbbnce fbom this beems t ) 
 me that the law ought to becognize these var10d3 
 
 EFFECTS OF MADNESS. It OUGHT, WHEBE MADNESS 1 5 
 
 PBOVED, TO ALLOW THB JUBT TO BETUBM AHT ONB Ot 
 
 THKiiE VEBDICT3 : 
 
 " (1) GOILTT ; 
 
 " (2) gooitt ; but his powbb of contbol was 
 weakened by in san its ; 
 
 " (3) Not Guilty on the obound of insanity." 
 
 I once again call the attention of the 
 House to the suggestion as to what the law 
 ought to be, and I call attention to it because 
 / shall point out before I have done that this 
 practical result of dealing with the second 
 class of cases, namely, guilty, kat his power of 
 control was weakened by insanity, is achieved 
 by other means to-day, namely, by the Action 
 of the Executive. 
 
 Again Mr. Stephen says : 
 
 " As to the verdict of not guilty on the ground of 
 insanity, the foregoing observations show in what 
 cases, in my opinion, it ought to be returned, that is 
 to say in those cases in which it is proved that the 
 power of self-control in respect of the particular act 
 is so much weakened that it may be regarded as 
 practically destroyed, either by general weakening of 
 the mental powers, or by morbid excitement, or by 
 delusions which throw the whole mind into disorder 
 or which are evidence that it had been thrown into 
 disorder by diseases of which they are symptoms, or 
 by impulses which are irresistible and not merely 
 unresisted." .... 
 
 " The position for which lawyers have always 
 contended as to insanity is that parts of the conduct 
 of mad people may not be affected by their madness, 
 and that if such parts of their conduct are criminal 
 they ought to be punished for it. It may, however, 
 be asked how ought they to be punished ? Ought 
 they to be puniah^d in all respects like sane 
 people ? To this I should certainly answer. Yes, as 
 far as severity goes ; No, as far as the manner of 
 punishment goes. The man who, though mad, was 
 found guilty without any qualification of murder I 
 would hang, but if the jury qualified their verdict in 
 the manner suggested in respect of any offender I 
 think he should be sentenced, if tha case were 
 murder, to penal servitude for life, or not less than 
 say fourteen years, and in cases not capital to any 
 punishment which might be inflicted on sane men. " 
 
 Now, Sir, having thus attempted to state, 
 not in my own words, but in words which I 
 think will be taken as those of the greatest 
 authority, what are the doctrines of the law 
 upon this subject, I propose to address 
 myself for a brief space to what was the 
 evidence in this particular case adduced at 
 the trial as distinguished from other circum- 
 stances which might have been adduced. 
 And first of all, the most important point in 
 the case is this : 
 
 THE MAN HAD BEEN INSANE. 
 
 Unquestionably he had been insane. I say 
 that is a most important point, and there- 
 fore it is first to be taken up. Dr. Roy, the 
 medical superintendent of the Beau port 
 
48 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 Lunatic AHylam, was examined, and the 
 substance of his testimony was : 
 
 The prisoner was pat in the asylnm by the Qnebeo 
 Oovernment in Jane, 1876, and discharged Jaoiaary, 
 1878. 
 
 Dr. Boy, in discharge of his daty, studied his caRe 
 and attended him. He was ocqaestionably insane 
 at that time. The type was megalomania. The 
 symptoms or prominent featares are connected with 
 religion, or power, pride and egotism. The patient 
 cannot bear contradiction, and beeomea irritated. 
 There are delusions. 
 
 On ordinary snbjects, and where not affected by 
 the delnsions, the patient seems to reason well, and 
 may be clever. Itiel bad these symptoms, and was 
 at that time of unsound mind, and incapable of con- 
 trolling his acts. 
 
 The disease may disappear, or intermit and recur. 
 
 Biel was of sound mind when released. 
 
 The witness heard the evidence given by the wit- 
 nesses as to Biel's words and conduct daring his visit 
 to the North West. 
 
 The symptoms were the same as he had witnessed 
 himself in the asylum at Beanport, and he believed 
 Biel was insane at the time in question. 
 
 Now, according to this statement, if we were 
 to assume that that, was to conclude the 
 case, according to the opinion of Dr. Roy as 
 to what his condition was during the Rebel- 
 lion, I would infer the right to acquit him 
 on the ground of insanity. But what is 
 
 UNDISPUTED AND INDISPUTABLE IS, THAT THB 
 MAN WAS INSANE FROM 1876 TO 1878, AND 
 THAT THE SYMPTOMS HAD RECURRED IN THB 
 YEAR 1885 — THE SAME SYMPTOMS WHICH OC- 
 CURRED WHEN HE WA9 UNQUESTIONABLY IN- 
 SANE FROM 1876 TO 1878. Now there was 
 more evidence on this subject which I want 
 to refer to at another period ; but I may say 
 that what has been made very plain, though 
 it was not proved on the trial, is that he had 
 been in two other asylums, and I now refer 
 to the 
 
 PROBABILITIES OF A RECURRENCB OF INSANITY. 
 
 Browne, in the " Medical Jurisprudence of 
 Insanity," says : 
 
 *'One circumstance must not b« cverlooked in 
 connection with the durability of insanity, and that 
 is that there is a ten'^enoy to recurrence even after 
 complete restoration to health. Perhaps of 100 per- 
 sons who have an attr.ck of mania and recover from 
 it fifty will, after anch recovery, again become in- 
 sane. After insanity has passed away there seems 
 to exist a hyper-sensitive condition of mind wbich is 
 ill-suited to carry on the rough intercourse of the 
 world and its society. The man who has recovered 
 is not so well as he was before he was taken ill. 
 Disease always chooses the weak for its victims. 
 The result then of these researches, which have 
 been mads into the intrioaoies of this subject, are 
 these : tAat of twelve persons attacked with insanity, 
 six recover and six die sooner #r later ; that of the six 
 who recover three only will remain sane during the rest 
 of their lives, and that the recovery of the other three 
 will not be permanent.'^ 
 
 The result of that ia, that oncn found it is 
 that a man ih unquestionably insane, the 
 chances are three out of four either that 
 he will continue in.sane till he dies, or, if he 
 recovem, that recovery will be but temporary 
 an I he will once again become insane. Brown 
 i>ays again : 
 
 "It n«ed scarcely be added that as recovery of 
 health is gradual so mast the recovery of responsi- 
 biUty or civil hbility be also a matter of time. But 
 as the law cannot reeognise the minute distinctions 
 which exist between to-day and to-morrow, it can- 
 not recognise graduated responsibility, and it is only 
 necessary to remember that this recovery of mental 
 strength is gradual, that due allocvanee mny be 
 made for thope persons who have recently suffered 
 from an attack of mental di^^ease. and that it is safe 
 to regard such pers ns as still irre^ponsihU Jor trim?- 
 nal acts and incapable of civil privileges, even although 
 the tecffvery may seem complete, unless the c»nttary can 
 be proved. Let the presumption be in favour of their 
 want of capacity and the irresponsibility, and no in- 
 justice is likely to arise. At the same time tbi.-« pro- 
 sumption is liable to be rebutted by proof of its op- 
 posite.'' 
 
 In the commission to which I have already 
 referred Dr. Tuke, being examined, made 
 these answers : 
 
 "The fact is certain that insanity constantly 
 exists with long lucid intervals, and that it is more 
 or less patent at different times. 
 
 "Q. — And that the patient fluctuates in a con- 
 dition between what may be termed sanity and in- 
 lanity, the line between which is not easily defin- 
 able ? — A. Yes ; tbat is a constant form of what we 
 call insanity with lucid inttirvals, or insanity with 
 remissions, or recurrent insanity." 
 
 I do not think that too much importance 
 can be attached to the circumstance of the 
 unquestioned and 
 
 UNQUESTIONABLE INSANITY OF LOUIS KIEL 
 
 as proved by the facts to which I refer at 
 this precedent time, and to the character of 
 his alleged illusions or delusions, as you 
 please to call them, at the later date. Hav- 
 ing regard to the knowledge and experience 
 we have with reference to the probability of 
 recurrent insanity it seems to me these cir- 
 cumstance 8 show that he wag labouring under 
 insane delusions on religion and politiis prior 
 to and during the outbreak, and that these 
 delusiofa were directly connected tot/A tl^e 
 crime ufith which he was cliarged. He be- 
 lieved himself a prophet, a priest, a religious 
 potentate ; he had visions ; he had irrational 
 ideas as to foreign policy, as to the lands 
 and the division of them, as to other nation- 
 alities, as to religion, as to politics, as to his 
 influence, as to his mission, and as to the 
 Metis nation. Of these facts I think the 
 evidence taken at the trial afforded abundant 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 49 
 
 teHtimony. I think it affords abundant testi- 
 mony as to his condition anterior to the 
 outbreak, and I have taken the evidence 
 chronologically. Now, the evidence which 
 was given by the priests as to his condition 
 is to be accepted, with this observation — that 
 if it were possible for any one to suppose 
 that any course of conduct on his part could 
 have influenced them to swerve from the 
 accurate, honest truth — if it were possible, 
 which I am the last to suggest, that such a 
 thing could be, it is clear that they would 
 not have been swerved in favour of this man, 
 from whom they had suffered so much, who 
 had cast aside their religion, who had pro- 
 faned their churches, who had insulted them- 
 selves, who had as^sumed their position, who 
 had le.'l away their flocks, who they thought 
 was instrumental, directly or indirectly, in 
 the murder of two of their order, who had 
 caused all the misery of the people in benefit- 
 ing whom their whole lives had been spent 
 — I say it is impossible to suppose that they 
 could have been swerved in favour of this 
 man by anything in the way of feeling ; and 
 at that time he had not recanted his religious 
 errors. But they state not onl; opinions, 
 but facts, and facts of the most important 
 character. 
 
 FATHER ANDRE SAYS 
 
 on religion and politics he and Riel frequently 
 conversed, against his will ; because on these 
 subjects Riel was no longer the same man; it 
 seemed as if there were two men in him ; he 
 lost all control of himself on those questions. 
 Twenty times he told Riel he would not 
 speak on those subjects, because Riel was a 
 fool, did not have his intelligence of mind ; 
 that was the witness's experience; he had the 
 principle that he was an autocrat in religion 
 and politics, and he changed his opinion as he 
 wished ; his ideas changed ; to-day he admit- 
 ted this, and to-morrow he denied it ; he be- 
 lieved himself infallible ; he would not allow 
 the least opposition at all ; immediately his 
 physiognomy changed and he became a differ- 
 ent man. Then comes a most important act. 
 All the priests met and they discussed whether 
 it was possible to allow Riel to continue in 
 his religious duties, and they unanimously 
 decided tJiat he was not responsible on these 
 questions ; that he could not suffer any con- 
 tradiction ; that he was completely a fool in 
 discussing these questions ; it was like show- 
 ing a red flaa; to a bull. Now, remember 
 that these statements of Riel to Father 
 Andre were made and this conclusion was 
 reached long before the outbreak, and before, 
 
 D 
 
 as he says, Riel had actually risen against the 
 priests. These erroneous ideas and these 
 manifestations of irregularity of mind were 
 during the latter part of 1884 and the early 
 part of 1885, before the rebellion. 
 
 i 
 
 FATHER FOURMOND SAYS THAT HE 
 
 was present at this meeting of the priests, 
 that it was he who raised the question ; and 
 he states the facts on which his view rested. 
 He says : Before the rebellion it seemed as 
 if there were two men in the prisoner ; in 
 private conversation he was affable, polite, 
 pleasant and charitable ; if contradicted on 
 religion and politics he became a different 
 man and would be carried away with his 
 feelings ; he would use violent expressions. 
 As soon as the outbreak began he lest all 
 control of himself ; he often threatened to 
 destroy all the churches. He had extraor- 
 dinary ideas on the subject of the Trinity ; 
 according to his ideas it was not God who was 
 present in the Host, but an ordinary man, six 
 faet high. As to politics he wanted first to 
 go to Winnipeg and Lower Canada and the 
 United States, and even to France ; and ho 
 said: "We will take your country even," 
 and then he was to go to Italy and over- 
 throw the Pope, and then he would choose 
 another Pope of his own making ; he said 
 something to the effect that he would appoint 
 himself as Pope. As the agitation was pro- 
 gressing he became a great deal more excit- 
 able J at the time of the rebellion Father Fon/r- 
 mond thought him insane. At one time 
 when there was a gathering he kept follow- 
 ing the witness into the tents and compelled 
 him to leave the place and cross the water. 
 There was a very extraordinary expression 
 on his face ; he was excited by the opinions 
 he had expressed on religion. He said to 
 the women : " Woe unto you if you go to 
 the priests, because you will all be killed by 
 the priests.'' All of a sudden, when the wit- 
 ness came to the boat, Riel came up with 
 great politeness and said : "Look out, Father ; 
 I will help you to get on the boat." In an 
 in.stant he passed from rage to great polite- 
 ness. Once again at the Council the witness 
 was brought up for trial ; Riel was enraged, 
 and called him a little tiger ; but when the 
 witness was leaving, he passed again from 
 rage to extraordinary politeness, offered a 
 carriage and took the witness's parcel and 
 carried it for him. 
 
 THEN CHARLES NOLIN 
 
 (whose conduct seems to have been incon- 
 sistent and certainly unfriendly) Bays that 
 
60 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 about a month after prisoner arrived, eay 
 the end of July, he showed him a book he 
 had written in the States. The first thing 
 there was to de&troy England and Oanada, 
 and also to destroy Rome and the Pope. He 
 said he had a divine mission to fulfil, and 
 showed Bishop Bourget's letter, eleven yean 
 old, as proof. Riel showed him a book 
 written with buffalo blood, the plan in which 
 that was, after taking England and Canada, 
 he would divide Cana<]a, and give Quebec to 
 the PruRsianK, Ontario to the Irish, and the 
 North- West Territories he divided between 
 the European nations. The Jews were to 
 have a {>art, and the Hnngarians and Bava- 
 rians. As to the money he wanted from the 
 'Oovernment, he «aid if he got the money he 
 wanted from the Government he would go 
 wherever the Government wished to send 
 him. Ho told Father Andr<i, if he was an 
 embarrassment to the Government by remain- 
 ing in the North- West, ho would even go to the 
 Province of Quebec. He said also if he got 
 the money he would go to the United States 
 and start a paper and raise the other nation- 
 alities in the States. He said : " Before the 
 grass is that high in this country, you will 
 see foreign armies in this country." He 
 said : *' I will commence by destroying Mani- 
 toba, and then I will come and destroy the 
 North- West and take possession of the 
 North- West." He told tJie witness that he 
 considered himself a prophet; one evening 
 there was a noise in Riel's bowels, and Riel 
 told him that it was his liver ^ and tltat he had 
 inftpiraiions which worked through every part 
 of his body. Be wrote his inspirations on a 
 sJicet of paper, and said lie toas inspired. 
 Whenever the word " police " was pronounc- 
 ed he became very excited. He proposed a 
 plan to the witness, and said he had decided to 
 take up arms, and the tirst thing was to fight 
 for the glory of God, for the honour of reli- 
 gion, and for the salvation of souls. Before 
 the Duck Lake fight he was going about 
 with a crucifix a foot and a half long, taken 
 out of the church. Now all these things save 
 the last were before the rebellion, and a great 
 portion of them in the year before the rebel- 
 lion, the year 1884. 
 
 TUEN, p. GARNOT PROVES 
 
 that about the beginning of the outbreak, 
 Riel talked to him about changing the Pope ; 
 wanting to name Bishop Bourget Pope of the 
 new world. He said that the spirit of Elias 
 was with him; he wanted the people to 
 acknowledge him as a prophet, and said he 
 had the spirit of Elias in him and was 
 
 prophesying. Avother time he declared he 
 was represenliny ^t. Peter, Almost every 
 morning he would oome in front of the 
 people and say such and such a thing would 
 happen. WJt^n he slq)t at the witness's house 
 he toas praying Uud all night ; there was 
 NO ONE ELSE TBKRK. He would not Stand 
 any contradiction by any one. He several 
 times said how this country was to be divided 
 into seven Provinces, one for the French, 
 Germans, Irish, and others ; he mentioned 
 Italians ; he expected the assistance of an 
 army of several nationalities ; he mentioned 
 th« Jews, he expected their assistance and 
 money, and he was going to give them a 
 Province as a reward for their help. He 
 had no doubt of his success, or that any 
 obstacle could prevent him from succeed- 
 ing; he always mentioned that he was 
 going to succeed, that he had a divine mis- 
 sion, and was an instrument in the hands 
 of God. The witness thought the man was 
 crazy, because he acted very foolish, and 
 communicated to others at the time this im- 
 pression of him. 
 
 ■lUILlR EVIDENCE VROM OTHKB WITNESSES. 
 
 George Ness says that at the beginning 
 of the outbreak he witnessed a diflBculty 
 between Riel and Father Moulin, in whici 
 Riel accused Bishop Grandin and Bishop 
 Tach^ of being thieves and rogues. Father 
 Moulin wished to speak to the people, 
 but Riel refused and said, "No, we won't 
 let him speak ; take him away, take him 
 away, we will tie him." Riel said he would 
 take possession of the church. Father 
 Moulin said he protested. " Look at him," 
 said Riel, " he is a Protestant." He said 
 that the Spirit of God was in him. Father 
 Moulin said he was making a schism in 
 the church. Riel said Rome had fallen. 
 " Rome est toinbee," and that the Pope was 
 no longer legally Pope ; that the Spirit of 
 God was in him (Riel), and that he co«ld 
 tell future events. 
 
 Dr. Willoughby sayi: At the commence- 
 ment he saw Riel. He said his proclamation 
 was at Pembina, that it was going forth, and 
 he would be joined by Indians and half- 
 breeds, and that the United States was at 
 his back. He intended to divide the country 
 into seven portions ; he mentioned as parties 
 Bavarians, Poles, Italians, Germans and 
 Irish. There was to be a New Ireland in 
 the North- West. These nationalities were 
 going to assist him in the rebellion, before 
 the war was over, and they would have their 
 portion. Ho mentioned the Irish of the 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 SI 
 
 United States, the Gertnaus, Italians, Bava- 
 rians and Poles. He put Germany and Ire- 
 land twice ; 6r8t, the Irish and Germans of 
 the United States, then Germany and Ireland 
 themselves. The proposition did not appear 
 rational to the witness, who also proves the 
 excitement of Riel. 
 
 Saunderson says: Riel told him that he 
 was going to divide the country into sevenths, 
 one-seventh for Canadians or white settlers, 
 one for the Indians, one for the half-breeds, 
 three-sevenths to remain to support the 
 Government. He said he had cut himself 
 loose from Rome altogether, and would have 
 nothing more to do with the Pope. 
 
 Walters says : Riel told him that the land 
 was to be divided — one-seventh to the pioneer 
 whites, one-seventh to the French -half- breeds, 
 one-seventh to the church and schools, and 
 the balance was to be Government lands. He 
 said that if the whites struck a blow a thun- 
 derbolt from heaven would strike them, that 
 God was with their people. 
 
 Lash says : He mentioned that he was 
 going to give one-seventh to the Indians 
 and one-seventh to the half-breeds. He 
 had been waiting fifteen years and at 
 last his opportunity had come. Astley pro- 
 posed an exchange of prisoners, but Rie^ 
 came up and said he could not see it in 
 that light, but that he would exchange them 
 for Hon. L. Clarke, Registrar Sproat and 
 McKay. We know what an exchange of 
 prisoners is, but Riel proposed that the most 
 important personages on the other side should 
 be given up to him in lieu of inferior pri- 
 soners on the same side whom he had in his 
 hands. ' 
 
 Jackson says Riel told him his brother's 
 mind was affected ; that it was a judg- 
 ment on him for opposing Riel. He talked 
 pf giving one-seventh of the proceeds of 
 the land to the Poles, one-seventh to the 
 half-breeds and one-seventh to the Indians, 
 and some to the Hungarians, and so on. I 
 was surprised to hear it stated that it was a 
 mark of sanity in Riel that he should have 
 thought Jackson in.sane, while we know that 
 inmates of the insane asylums know that 
 their neighbours are insane and discuss the 
 question of their insanity. 
 
 Mackay had a conversation with RieL He 
 appeared very excited and said : 
 
 "It was b'ood, and the first blood tbej wanted 
 was mine. There were eome little dishes on the 
 table, and he got hold of a spoon and said : You 
 have no blood — yon are a traitor to year people. 
 Your blood is frosen, and all the little blood ;oa 
 have will be there in five miuntes, patting the Bpoon 
 xtp to mj face and pointing to it. I said: If yon 
 
 think yon are benefiting year winse by taking my 
 blood you are qaite welcome to it. He called hit 
 people and the committee, and wanted to put me on 
 trial for my life, and Garnot g >t ap and went to the 
 t.ble with a sheet of paper, and Gabriel Dumont 
 took a chair on a syrap keg, ami Riel called up the 
 wiju^sses against me. He said I was a bar, and ha 
 told them that I had said all the people in that 
 ■eHionof the country had risen against them. He 
 ■aid it was not so, that it was only tiie people in t'aia 
 t )wn. He said he could prove that I was ^ bar by 
 Thomas Scott." 
 
 Then c;oes on the account of the trial during 
 which Riel was up stairs. 
 
 ** When he came down 1 0, Riel, apologized to me 
 for what he had said, that Le did not mean it to me 
 personally, that he had the greatest re'speot for me 
 personally, but that it was my cause he was speaking 
 against and he wished to show he fnt rtained great 
 respect for me. He also apologized in French to the 
 people there, and he said as 1 was going out he whs 
 very sorry I was against him; that he would be 
 glad to have me with them, and it was not to& late 
 for me to join tliem yet." 
 
 Young says : 
 
 •' Riel explained that at Duck Lake he gave three 
 commands to fire. 
 
 " 1. In the name of God who made up, reply to 
 that. 
 
 "2 Then they fired and Crozier's men replied ; 
 and Riel said: In the name of Qod the Son who 
 saved as. reply to that. 
 
 "3. In the nam« of God the Holy Ghost who 
 eanctifies us, reply to that." 
 
 Riel gives a like account in less detail to half 
 a dozen witnesses of his action at that time, 
 and General Middleton says : 
 
 •'Of course I had heard constantly before about 
 reports of his ineanitv. J heard for instance one or 
 two of the people that escaped from him, scouts, 
 half-breeds. One man, 1 nmtmVr, told me, ' Oh I 
 Riel is mad. he is a fool.' He told roe what he was 
 doing at B>»toche. So that I really bad heard it, but 
 I cHme to the conclusion that he wa« very far from 
 being mad or a fool." ^ 
 
 Kiel's conduct at the trial. 
 
 To that is to be added the prisoner's own con- 
 duct at the trial, the statements he made, 
 even in the course of his interruptions durin^ 
 the trial, with reference to these poiiits, and 
 then in his addresses. In them you will find 
 him declare that he dov>s not plead insanity, 
 and you find him saying he showed that 
 calmness which they said he could not show. 
 He obviously in the address be made to the 
 jury was doing his best to restrain himself 
 in respect to those matters which had been 
 presented as proofs of his insanity, with the 
 view and in the hope, so far as was c» nsigtent 
 with his assumed position, that he might {.re- 
 vent the jury from coming to the conclusion 
 that he was insane. For instance, this ex- 
 
52 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 traordinary division of the territory into 
 sevenths among different nationalities was 
 pressed very much. What does he say to 
 thati He says: 
 
 '• A good deal has been said about the settlement 
 and division of lands ; a good deal had been said 
 about that. I do not think my dignity today here 
 would allow me to mention the foreign policy ; but if 
 I was to explain to you, or if I had been allowed to 
 make the questions to witnesses, those questions 
 would have appeared in an altogether different 
 light" 
 
 A little after, when the verdict had been given 
 and he was showing his reasons against the 
 sentence, you will find he developed the 
 policy which at this time he preferred not 
 to do when he restrained himself, as those 
 people often do under similar circumstances, 
 in order to obtain that which he desired, a 
 verdict which would not find him insane. 
 He speaks in the same way, thanking Gen- 
 eral Middleton and Captain Young for prov- 
 ing him as he believes he is sane. 
 
 RIEL ON HIS OWN INSPIRATION. 
 
 Having touched the question of foreign policy, 
 
 as he calls it, in the lands, he feels called 
 
 upon to deal with this question of inspiration, 
 
 and he attempts to explain that matter. He 
 
 says : 
 
 " It is not to be supposed that the half-breeds 
 acknowledge me as a prophet if they had not seen 
 that I could see something into the future. If I am 
 blessed without measure I can see something into the 
 future ; zve all see into the future more or less. Last 
 night ivhile I was taking exercise the spirit who guides 
 and assists me and consoles me told me that to-morrow 
 somebody will come ' f aider ' and help me. I am con- 
 soled by that. While I was recurring to my God, to 
 our God, I said : But woe to me if you not help me, 
 and those words came to me in the morning : ' In 
 the morning some one will come f aider, that is to- 
 day.' I said that to my two guards, and you can go 
 for the two guards. I told them that if the spirit 
 that directs me is the spirit of truth it is to-day that 
 I expect help. This morning the good doctor who 
 has care of me came to me and said : ' You will 
 speak today before the court.' I thought I would not 
 be allowed to speak ; those words were given to me 
 to tell me that I would have the liberty to speak. 
 Tliere was one French word in it ; it meant, I believe, 
 that there was to be some French influeuce in it, 
 but the most part EngUsh. It is true that my good 
 lawyers from the Province of Q lebec have given me 
 ,'ood advice. Mr. Nolan came into the box and said 
 that Mr. Riel said that he heard a noise in his 
 bowels and that I told him that it meant something. 
 I wish that he had said what I said, what I wrote on 
 the paper of which he speaks ; perhaps he can yet ba 
 put in the box. I said to Nolan ' Do you hear?' 
 Yes, I said there will be trouble in the North-West ; 
 and was it so or not, has there been no trouble in 
 the North-West? If it is any satisfaction to the 
 doctors to know what kind of insanity I have, ;/ 
 they are going to call my pretensions i*nanity, I say 
 humbly, through the grace of God I believe I am the 
 
 prophet of the new world. I wish you to believe that 
 I am not trying to play insanity; there is in the 
 manner, in the standing of a man, the proof that he 
 is sincere, not playing." 
 
 THANKFUL TO BE FOUND GUILTY AND SANE.- 
 
 Then, the moment the verdict was given and 
 the prisoner was called to speak in respect 
 of sentence, he congratulates himself and 
 thanks the jury for having found him sane, 
 and says : " At least if I were going to be 
 executed I would not be executed as ar 
 insane man." Then he goes on to say : 
 
 "In some way/ think thai to a certain numhe>- of 
 people the verdict against me to-day is a proof that may 
 be I am a prophet, may be Riel is a prophet. He suffers 
 for it. Now, I have been hunted as an elk for fifteen 
 years. David has been seventeen, I think. I would 
 have to be about two years still ; if the misfortunes 
 that I have had to go through were to be as long as 
 th )se of the old David I would have two years still, 
 but I hope it will come .sooner." 
 
 Then he proceeds to describe what he had 
 kept concealed in the earlier speech — the 
 question of the lands. He says : 
 
 '* The half-breeds had a million and the land grant 
 of 1,400,000 acres out of about 9,500,000, if I mistake 
 not, which is about one-seventh of the land of Mani- 
 toba. You will see the origin of my insanity and of 
 my foreign policy. One-seventh of the land was 
 granted to the people, to the half-breeds of Manitoba, 
 English and French, Protestant and Catholic. There 
 was no distinction whatever, but in the subdivision, 
 in the allotment of those lands between the half-breeds 
 of Manitoba, it came that they had 240 acres of land. 
 Now, the Canadian Government say that we will 
 give to the half-breeds of the North- West 240 acres. 
 If I was insane I would say yes, but as I have had, 
 thank God, all the time the conscientiousness that I 
 had a certain degree of reason, I have made up my 
 mind to make use of it, and to say that one-seventh of 
 the lands of Manitoba, as the inauguration of a princi- 
 ple in the North-West, had to bring to the half-breeds 
 of the North-West, at least as soon as possible, the 
 guarantee for the future that a seventh part of the 
 lands will also be given to them. And seeing and 
 yourself understanding how it is difficu" c for a small 
 population as the half-breed population to have their 
 voice heard, I said what belongs to us ought to be 
 ours. Our right to the North-West is acknowledged, 
 our co-partnership with the Indians acknowledged, ♦ 
 since one-seventh of the lands is given us, but we have 
 not the means to be heard, what we do ? I said to 
 some of my friends : If there is no other way, we will 
 make the people who have no country understand that 
 we have a country here which we have ceded on con- 
 dition. We want the r.eventh of the land, and if the 
 bargain is not kept, it is null and void, and we have 
 no right to retreat again, and if we cannot have our 
 seventh of the lands from Canada we will a.sk the 
 people of the States, the Italians to come and help us 
 as iinraigrauts. The Irish I will count them. 
 
 " Now, it is my turn, I thank you. I count them 
 and I will show you if I made an insane enumeration 
 of the parties, I say we will invite the Italians 
 of the States, the Irish of the States, the Bava- 
 rians oi the States, Poles of the States, Belgians 
 of the States, and if they come and help us here 
 to have the seventh, we will give them *>ach a 
 seventh ; and to show that we are not fanatic's, 
 that we are not partisans, that we do not wish only 
 for the Catholics, but that we have a consideration for 
 those who are not Catholi'is, I said we will invite the 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 53 
 
 Danes. We will invite the Swedes, who are numerous 
 in the States, and the Norwegians, to come around, 
 and as there are Indians and half-breeds in British 
 Columbia ; and as British Columbia is a part of the 
 immense North-V^est, we said, not only for ourselves, 
 but speaking for our children, we will make the pro- 
 position that if they help us to have our seventh on the 
 two sides of the Rocky Mountains, they will each have 
 a seventh : and if the Jews will help us, and on the 
 condition that they acknowledge Jesus Christ as the 
 Son of God and the only Saviour of human kind, if 
 they help us with their money, we will give them one- 
 seventh. And I said, also, if the principle of giving 
 one-seventh of the lands is good in the North- West, if 
 the principle of giving one-seventh of the lands to the 
 half-breeds in the North- West is good, it ought to be 
 good in the east also ; and I said, if it is not possible 
 that our views should be heard, we will — I, as an Ame- 
 rican citizen — I will invite the Germans of the United 
 States, and I will say • If you ever have an opportu- 
 nity of crossing the line in the east, do it, and help 
 the Indians and the half-breeds of the east to have a 
 revenue equivalent to about one-seventh. And what 
 would be the reward of the Germans ? The reward of 
 the Germans would be, if they were successful, to take 
 a part of the country, and make a new German -Indian 
 world somewhere in British North America. But 
 that is the last resort, and if I had not had a verdict 
 of guilt against me I would have never said it. Yes- 
 terday it was just those things that I have avoided to 
 say, when I said, I have a reason not to mention 
 them. And when I said, as one of the witnesses said, 
 that my proclamation was in Pembina, I think I am 
 right, because of this trial. You see that my preten- 
 sion is that I can speak a little of the future events. 
 My trial has brought out the question of the seventh, 
 and although no one has explained the things as I do 
 now, still there is enough said about the sevenths of 
 the lands and the divisions of the lands into sevenths, 
 seven nationalties, while it ought vo have been said 
 ten nationalties, that by telegraph to-day my procla- 
 mation is in Pembina truly, and the States have my 
 ideas." 
 
 Then he reverts to it again, and says : 
 
 " My heart will never abandon the idea of having a 
 new Ireland in the North-West, by constitutional 
 means, inviting the Irish of the other side of the sea 
 to come and have a share here ; a new Pohmd in 
 the North- West, by the same way ; a new Pavaria by 
 the same way ; a new Italy in the same way. And 
 on the other side of the mountains there are Indians, 
 as I have said, and half-breeds, and there is a beauti- 
 ful island, Vancouver, and I think the Belgians will 
 be hai)py there, and the Jews, who are looking for a 
 country for 1,800 years, the knowledge of which the 
 nations have not been able to attain yet, while they 
 are rich and the lords of finance. Perhaps will they 
 hear my voice one day, and on the other side of tKe 
 mountains, while the wave of the Pacific will chant 
 sweet music for them, to console their hearts for the 
 mourning of 1,800 years. Perhaps will they say : He is 
 the one thought of us in the whole Cree world, and if 
 they help us there on the other side between the great 
 Pacific and the great Rockies to have a share, the 
 Jews from the States." ' 
 
 Then he says : 
 
 " The Scandinavians, it possible, they will have a 
 share. It is my plan, it is one of the illusions of my 
 insanity, if I am insane, that they should have on the 
 other side of the mountain a new Norway, a now Den- 
 mark and a new Sweden, so that those who spoke of 
 the lands of the great North- West to be divided in 
 seven forget that it was in ten, the French in Mani- 
 toba, the Bavarians, the Italians, the Poles, and the 
 Irish in the North- West, and then five on the other 
 «de too." 
 
 Then again he says : 
 
 "Not insanity, because it is disposed of, but 
 whether I am a deceiver or an impost. >r. I have said 
 to my lawyers : ' I have written things which were 
 said to me last night, and which have taken place to- 
 day. / said that before the court opened last night the 
 spirit that guides and assists me told me : * The court 
 will make an effort. ' " 
 
 Now these were the events of the trial itself, 
 and apart altogether from the other evidence 
 which is before us, although not official. 
 There was, besides 
 
 THE EVIDENCE OF THE OTHER MEDICAL 
 WITNESSES. 
 
 Dr. Clark was called and examined. He 
 had examined Riel three times, had heard 
 the evidence, and if he was not feigning 
 he was insane to the limit of irresponsi- 
 bility. But it takes long to find out that a 
 man is insane. Dr. Wallace, who, 1 believe, 
 is the Superintendent of the Hamilton Lun- 
 atic Asylum, examined him once and heard 
 the evidence. He could only say that he did 
 not find out — he might be insane. It takes 
 long to find out whether a man is insane. 
 Dr. Jukes, who was not a specialist, and was 
 the police surgeon in charge of the prisoner, 
 had never examined or tested him at all. 
 Ill also says it takes a long time to find out 
 though he had not found out anything to 
 show his insanity. Now I do not myself 
 believe that it can he at all seriously contended 
 that this man was feigning. The old insanity 
 had recurred. They were the same sort of 
 vieivs which he had expressed during the old 
 insanity. He was most anxious to avoid the 
 imputation of insanity, and to this end he 
 restrained himself at the trial, to a consider- 
 able extent in his expressions. He was art- 
 ful in his insanity, as often happens, and 
 what he ivanted was to show that lie was a 
 genuine prophet. All the symptoms which 
 are stated in cases of feigned insanity are 
 symptoms which indicate that 
 
 THIS man's insanity WAS NOT FEIGNED. 
 
 Taylor says : 
 
 "/f w necessary to remember that imanity is never 
 assumed until after the commission of a crime and the 
 actual detention of a criminal. No one feigns insanity 
 merely to avoid suspicion." 
 
 The same learned author says : 
 
 "I am indebted to a learned judge for the follow- 
 ing note on feigned insanity : ' It may be safely held 
 that a person feigning insanity will rarely if ever try 
 to prove himself to be sane— (or he runs the great risk 
 of satisfying others that he is sane -the conclusion he 
 desires to avoid. There is no better proof in general 
 that the insanity (supposing other evidence of it to be 
 strong) is real than in the keen and eager attempt by the 
 
54 
 
 MK BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 accused to prove that he it tane, and strong and indig' 
 nant remonstrance against being held to be insane, 
 though that would protect himself against trial and 
 punishment.' " 
 
 Now, Sir, my clear conclusion from this evi- 
 dence is that in the testimony at the trial 
 there was overwhelming proof of great dis- 
 order of intellect, of insane delusions on 
 religions and political topics, those very topics 
 out of which the acts grew. Now it is un- 
 necessary to enquire for the purpose of the 
 issue before us whether that disorder was so 
 great as, by our law, 
 
 TO JUSTIFY A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY, 
 
 on the ground of insanity. On that point 
 minds will differ as to whether it was great 
 enough or not. Assume if you please — and 
 I think there is great force in the proposition 
 — that, dealing with the verdict of the jury 
 and with the judgment of the court in Mani- 
 toba, you may not unfairly argue that it was 
 indicated strongly so far as the evidence at 
 the trial went that he was not so irrespon- 
 sible within the meaning of the law as to 
 have a verdict of not guilty returned — though 
 that conclusion would not accord with my 
 own individual opinion. But assume that. 
 Give the verdict all its just weight ; omit the 
 very strung point to which my hon. friend 
 from East Quebec alluded, the evidence in 
 the case of Jackson which I have read in the 
 imperfect report we got in the newspapers, 
 in which Dr. Jukes seems to have sworn 
 that with the exception of something said 
 about his not speaking rationally all the 
 while, his delusions were much the same as 
 Kiel's and on which evidence he was found 
 insane ; I say that assuming, if you please, 
 that the disorder was not so serious as to ren- 
 - der the prisoner' ivholhf irresponsible, so decid- 
 ing you justify the verdict of guilty, and 
 having justified tlie verdict of guilty, you by 
 no means rid tlie Executive of very grave 
 duties. 
 
 JUDICIAL DUTIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Now upon this question there are very serious 
 errors largely prevailing in the public mind. 
 It is common talk, and this House has not 
 been wholly free from that common talk, 
 that there should be no interference with the 
 verdict or sentence in capital cases ; talk 
 which, if it were acted on, would render it 
 impossible to maintain capital punishment on 
 the Statute Book for twelve months in any 
 civilized country. Now I shall prove the 
 errors of this view by statistics. The statis- 
 tics of the administration of justice in 
 
 England and Wales during ten years before 
 1863 show that the proportion of convictions 
 to committals, for all classes of crimes taken 
 together, was 70 to 71 per cent, ; and 1 may 
 say that there is a curious run of similarity 
 for many years in both England and Canada 
 in that regard. But for murder during those 
 ten years the proportion of convictions to 
 committals was only 23^ per cent,, or a little 
 over one-third of the proportion in the gen- 
 eral run, W/iile tfius you find, in the first 
 place, that a much smaller proportion of per- 
 sons in proportion to (hose charged were con- 
 victed of murder tlian in tlie general run, 
 you find the proportion of executions to the 
 convictions for murder was but 60 per cent., 
 and that ,0 per cent, were comm.uted. In the 
 twenty years from 1861 to 1880 there were 
 512 capital sentences for murder. Out of 
 those there were only 279 executions, or 54^ 
 per cent,, and 233 not executed, or 45| per 
 cent. In the five years from 1880 to 1884 
 there were 168 capital sentences. Out of 
 these only 80 executions took place, or 48 
 per cent, ; 88 Ave re not executed, or 52 per 
 cent. Thus there are now fewer executions 
 in proportion to sentences than there were. 
 In the first period I gave you there were 
 something more than half; during the second 
 period there were fewer, but still a little more 
 than half ; but for the last available period 
 less than half those sentenced were executed. 
 In France, by the evidence taken in 1864, 
 the persons found guilty of murder in four 
 years, from 1859 to 1862, were 1,368 ; of 
 these 1,22'^, or nine- tenths, were found guilty, 
 with extenuating circumstances, leaving only 
 140 or one-tenth guilty and liable to death. 
 These were the very worst cases, yet of these 
 about one-half only were executed and the 
 rest were commuted. 
 
 Now take Ontario and Quebec, in the four 
 years 1880 to 1883, According to the 
 criminal statistics brought down by the hon. 
 gentleman opposite there were ninety-six 
 persons charged with murder : twenty six 
 only were convicted, or 25 per cent. ; thirteen 
 only were left for execution ; every 'second 
 sentence was commuted. During the same 
 four years 70 per cent, of those charged with 
 all crimes were convicted ; and the commuta- 
 tions (including murder and second commuta- 
 tions of capital cases) were only one in 350» 
 and of those many were due to ill- health. 
 The result is that of 600 charged with all 
 crimes 350 are convicted, and of these 349 
 or more suffer the sentence of the law, so 
 that practically the sentence is executed in 
 all these cases. But of 500 charged with 
 
WHAT IS THE GENERAL RESULT? 
 
 EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1888, 55 
 
 mnrder only 135 are convicted instead of the same degree of moral gnilt, and therefore 
 
 350, the general average ; of the 135 only that it is essential to provide some machinery 
 
 sixty -seven or sixty- eight suffer the sentence by which, to some extent, the punishment 
 
 of the law, or one out of two, instead of 349 awarded shall be proportionate to the degree 
 
 out of 350, the general average. Of the 500 of guilt in the specific case. But in caj)i(al 
 
 charged with murder only sixty-seven are eases there are not less — there ore even wore 
 
 convicted and suffer the sentence of the law, — shades oj guUt than there are in other cases. 
 
 or less than 12 per cent, of the committals ; No one will dispute that ; no one who has 
 
 while out of 500 charged with all crimes 349 read the interesting but harrowing accounts 
 
 or more are convicted and sufler the sentence of murder trials but must agree that there 
 
 of the law, or 70 per cent of the committals are all sorts and shades of guilt in the com- 
 
 — nearly six times as many as in capital cases. mission of that which, according to the law 
 
 of the land, is yet always murder. Aiid yet 
 in thai particular case the judge has not any 
 The general result of these statistics is that in discretion at all. He must pronounce the 
 England, in France, in Ontario and Quebec, only sentence, the ultimate sentence, the 
 there is a more careful sifting in the prelimi- maximum sentence, the sentence which is the 
 nary process before verdict in the capital cases worst and severest sentence now applied, not 
 than there is in the general average of crime. to all murderers, but to the worst murderers 
 There is a greater reluctance to convict, alone. But there is a discretion, notwith- 
 there is a greater tendency to acquit, and so standing. There is no reason why, in this 
 there is a very much smaller proportion of particular case, there should not be some- 
 persons charged with that particular offence, where that discretion which exists in other 
 the capifal offence, who are convicted than of cases, not as a part of the prerogative of 
 those who are charged with other offences, mercy, but as part of the administration of 
 What follows ] It is that it is in the rest- criminal justice, which in other cases is 
 duujn, the worst cases, the plainest cases, the vested in the judge. It is impossible to say 
 most obvious cases alone that conviction takes that you should not find somewhere in the case 
 place, and after that preliminary sifting which of murder tJie discretion to apportion Che pun- 
 results in the most obvious and plainest cases ishment to the moral guilt, when you give it 
 only leading to conviction in cases of charges by your Statute Books in all tJie other cases in 
 of murder ; yet while only one in 350 of all the land. For reasons which I need not dis- 
 classes of sentences is commuted, in capital cuss, this discretion is not in capital cases 
 cases 175 out of 350 are commuted. Why is vested in the judge. The reasons may be 
 it that we do not interfere with other sen- satisfactory or unsatisfactory; it is no matter, 
 tences, and yet we interfere to such an but in fact the discretion rests in capital 
 enormous extent with these particular sen- cases not with the judge, but with the 
 tences, capital sentences 1 Executive, and in this case the ministers 
 
 DlgCHARGE under THE LAW OP THE LAND 
 ▲ DUTY WHICH IS PART OF THE ADMIN/STUA- 
 TION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND WHICH IK 
 
 The reason is perfectly obvious. It is be- all other cases is, under the law of 
 
 cause there are various classes and degrees the land, discharged by the judge who 
 
 of moral guilt in the same legal definition, tries the case and awards the sentence. 
 
 and because in all other cases than cases of They have combined find commingled also the 
 
 capital sentence the judge has a discretion to prerogative of mercy strictly so called, as 
 
 apportion the punishment to the particular distinguished from this part of the adminis- 
 
 circumstances of the case. He does so. He tration of justice, the prerogative which they 
 
 tempers justice with mercy himself ; he con- exercise with reference to all cases. If they 
 
 siders the palliating circumstances ; he con- think the judge's sentence too severe, they 
 
 aiders among other things the state of mind may — though I am glad to say the power is 
 
 and degree of responsibility ; he exercises rarely exercised — commute the severe sen- 
 
 a wide discretion ; he may have a right tence of the judge. This is a distinct exercise 
 
 to commit a man for life or for one hour; for of the prerogative of mercy, and in the 
 
 a long term of years or for a month. The capital cases they have, as a matter of course, 
 
 law gives it to him because the law feels that to consider the two positions, and they are 
 
 in all these classes of cases, of larceny, of commonly considered together ; the whole 
 
 intent to commit murder, of assault, of what case and the circumstances are considered 
 
 crime you will it is impoBsible to predicate together. Now I think I have shown you 
 
 REASON FOR THE LARGE PROPORTION OF COM- 
 MUTATIONS TO DEATH SENTENCE. 
 
56 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 perfectly plainly and perfectly clearly that 
 there is the most marked distinction that can 
 be conceived between the capital sentence 
 and its execution and all other sentences and 
 their execution. I might put it to you in 
 another point of view in this way : The case 
 would be the same in kind, though not in 
 degree, if your law for all other crimes than 
 the capital crimes obliged the judge to award 
 the maximum sentence which the law now 
 awards for the particular crime. Then you 
 would immediately have the Executive neces- 
 sarily invaded with applications, as a branch 
 of the administration of criminal justice. 
 Thfy would say : Your law has made no dis- 
 tinction at all, yet the moral guilt and the 
 degree of responsibility varies, and in this 
 case it is very light, and yet there is a twenty 
 yearis* sentence ; you must mitigate. This 
 discretion the judge exercies now in all other 
 casea You accomplish this result by another 
 operation in cases of capital sentence. You 
 do it by the operation of the Executive in 
 the case of a capital sentence. Tims the 
 capital sentence is not in the sense which has 
 been applied to it, the «• ntence of the law 
 with reference to the capital crime. It is the 
 extreme sentence of the law. It is not the 
 rule to execute that sentence. In Ontario 
 and Quebec as many sentences are commuted 
 as are executed, and in England and Wales 
 more. There it is the exception to execute, 
 and why 1 Because it is not fitting there 
 any more than in other cases to apply as a 
 rule the extreme, the maximum penalty of 
 th(^ law to this class of crimes. Now, 8ir, I 
 have spoken up to this point of the capital 
 oflence oi murder, because it is in practice — 
 or was in practice until the 16th of Novem- 
 ber, in modern tiities — the only capital citFence. 
 
 THK OLD LAW AS TO HIGH TREASON, 
 
 of course, remains, but milder views have 
 long prevailed with reference to politi- 
 cal offences. Since June, 1848, in England, 
 and since a later period here, the same 
 offfnces precisely, the same character of 
 offences may be, and since that time as far 
 as I know have always been in England 
 tried under the milder Act as treason-felony 
 in rcopt^cb of which the maximum sentence 
 is imprisonment for life. I do not mean that 
 this observation appliea to isolate 1 acts of 
 murder, which are generally excluded from 
 amnesties and are tried as such. If, there- 
 fore, there be any distinction with reference 
 to the application of the general principles 
 of the administration of criminal justice to 
 which I have adverted and which I have 
 
 established, if there be any distinction 
 between murder and treason, it is not what 
 has been intimated from the other side. It 
 is not that your law is more severe in the 
 case of treason ; it is that your law is milder 
 in the case of treason. It is that while you 
 continue in the case of murder to provide 
 only a machinery under which the sentence 
 must be capital, yet you have provided in 
 the case of treason, and you have used in 
 every case in the North- West except one, a 
 milder procedure, another law in respect 
 to which the maximum penalty is im- 
 prisonment for life for the same offence. 
 There is the distinction as it is en- 
 shrined in the Statute Book in England and 
 Canada, and you cannot from that make out 
 this conclusion which hon. gentlemen opposite 
 have made of treason as the highest crime. I 
 know there is a sense in which it may be so 
 regarded. You may talk about the life of 
 the State, the body politic, the corporation, 
 and so on; but I think I shall show before I 
 sit down how much there is in all that. The 
 distinction, then, is that. Now, Sir, I ask 
 what more is to be said after this statement, 
 of its being a duty on the part of the Execu- 
 tive to carry out the sentence of the law ? I 
 maintain that there is 
 
 NO DUT^ ON THE PART OF THE EXECUTIVE, 
 
 to leave the law to take its course 
 when in this particular case, it is the maxi- 
 mum punishment which the law obliges 
 the jiidge to award, and when, as I hav(! shown, 
 as often as not that maximum punisiiuient is 
 not inflicted. In truth and in fact, disguise 
 it how you will, in England, in France, in 
 Canada, it is the Fx'icufive that awards the 
 real sentence of the law in capital cases ; and 
 in this particular case flc' duty of the Execu- 
 tive was emphasized a)id en 'a i<'d by the 
 special provision in North- W mi 'frrritories 
 Act, which having a due regard, or some 
 regard, to the comparative weakness of the 
 tribunal and the circumstances of the case, 
 made a special provision under which the sen- 
 tence was not to he executed until the pleasure 
 of the Executive was known ; which the 
 learned Chief Justice of Manitoba described 
 as providing in fact three trials: First, 
 before the judge and iiiry ; secondly, bt fore 
 the court in Manitoba ; and thirdly, before 
 the court in Ottawa — the Executive of the 
 country. 
 
 THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY. 
 
 Now Sir, I propose to reinforce the position 
 which I have taken as flowing inevitably 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 67 
 
 from the statistics and the reasoning which 
 I have given you, as to the principles and 
 the practice of the exercise of what is called 
 the prerogative of mercy. And first of all 
 let me deal with it in capital cases generally. 
 I quote from the same harned authority to 
 which I before referred, Sir James Stephen's 
 work : 
 
 •'The su>>iect of the discretion exercisel by the 
 jadges in oummon oases, and bv the Executive 
 Government (practically tke Home Secretary) in 
 capital easee, appears to me to be little understood. 
 As to this it must be remembered that it is practi- 
 cally impossible to lay down an inflexible rule by 
 which the same punishment mast in every case be 
 inflicted in respect of every crJm • falling within a 
 given definition, because the degrees of moral guilt 
 and public danger iijvolvel in offences which bear 
 the same name and fall under the same definition 
 must of necessity vary. There must therefore be a 
 dipcietion in all cates as to the np.nishment to be 
 inflicted. This discretion must from the nature of 
 the case be vested either in the judge who tries the 
 case, or in the Executive Governmant, or in the two 
 acting together. 
 
 " From the earliest period of our history to the 
 present day the discretion in misdemeanor at 
 common law has been vested in the judge. . . . 
 The caseb which still continue to be capital — 
 practically muider and treason— supply the only 
 iustancbs worth noticing in which the judge has no 
 discretion. The discretion in such cases is vested in 
 the Secretary of State. 
 
 • ' It was never intended that capital punishment 
 should be inflicted whenever sentence of death was 
 passed. Even when the criminal law was most 
 severe the power of pardon wax always regard' d as 
 supplementary to it. and as supplying the power of 
 mitigating sentences of death which the words of the 
 law refused. ........ 
 
 " The power of pardon, in the exercise of which 
 Her Majesty, advised by the Home Secretary, still 
 remains unaltered, and in respect of capital sen- 
 tences, it answers the purposes fulfilled in other 
 cases by the discretionary power entrusted to the 
 judges. The fact that the punishment of death is 
 not inflicted in every case in wLicli snritence of death 
 is inflicted proves nothing more than that murder, 
 as well as other crimes, has its decrees, aud that 
 the extreme punishment which the law awards 
 ought not to be carried out in all oases." 
 
 [Note. Here Mr. Blake made numerous 
 citations, omitted for the sake of brevity.] 
 
 IN POLITICAL OFFENCES. 
 
 Then if you deal with cases of political 
 
 offence, as has already been pointed out, the 
 
 severity of the law has been mitigated in 
 
 France by the Constitution of 1848, which 
 
 abolished the punishment of death en matiere 
 
 politique. Now, let me come to the mode 
 
 and extent of the exercise of this prerogative 
 
 in these cases. In 1835, with regard to the 
 
 Dorchester laborers, Lord Russell, then Home 
 
 Secretary, said : 
 
 '< What I have to say is that in this case, as in 
 atiy other that may be brought before me, whether 
 
 in the House or oat of it, I do not hold myself pre- 
 cluded from entering npon the consideration of any 
 facts or circumstances that may come to my know- 
 ledge, or from forming a judgment upon them with- 
 out reserve." 
 
 Mr. Home Secretary Walpole said that a 
 murder referred to was one of aggravated 
 enormity and barbarity ; yet the sentence 
 was commuted. Again Mr Gathorne Hardy, 
 Home Secretary, said : 
 
 " After the trial and condemnation facts might 
 come out which it would be desirable to sift ; and, 
 however long it might be after a man's conviction, 
 if circumstances transpired showing that the con- 
 viction was unjust, or throwing such a doubt on it as 
 to make it clear that there ought to be some interfer- 
 ence, there must necessarily be some authority to 
 exercise the prerogative of mercy." 
 
 Then on the remission of capital punishment 
 Mr. Bruce said : 
 
 " It is well that the House and country should 
 understand how in the cases, which so often ollenJ 
 the honest opinion of the public, there is apparent 
 discrepancy between the opinion of judge and jury 
 on the one hand and that of the Home Secretary on 
 the other. It arises from this — that the jury is 
 obliged to find from the direction of the judge a 
 verdict of wilful murder, and that the judge is con- 
 stantly required to pass a sentp .^ce of death, when it 
 is quite certain it will not, cannot, ought not, to be 
 executed. . . . Such is the state of the law, 
 and so long as it is the state of the law it is abso- 
 lutely impossible but that the decision of the Secre- 
 tary of State must occasionally be in disaccord with 
 toe finding of the jury and the sentence of the 
 judge." 
 
 WHAT SHOULD BE THE EFFECT OF A RECOM- 
 MENDATION TO MERCY? 
 
 I think 1 have sufficiently established the 
 accuracy of my statement, and enlarged even 
 my own statement by these proofs of the 
 extensive powers and consequential duties of 
 the Executive in exercising this branch of 
 the administration of criminal justice, par- 
 ticularly in capital cases ; but before I pass 
 to the question of what should be done in 
 cases of insanity and the specialties of those 
 cases, I wish to make an allusion, at this 
 point, to the effect of the recommendation to 
 mercy. Sir J. Stephen says : 
 
 " Itis true that the recommendation to mercy of an 
 English jury has no legal effect and is no part of 
 their verdict, but it is invariably considered with 
 attention and is generally effective. 
 
 " In cases where the judge has a discretion as to 
 sentence, he always makes it lighter when the jury 
 recommend the prisoner to mercy. In capital cases, 
 where he has no discretion, he invariably in practice 
 informs the Home Secretary at once of the recommen- 
 dation, and it is frequently, perhaps generally, fol- 
 lowed by a commutation of the sentence. 
 
58 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S 3P££CH ON THE 
 
 PKOPBB BXERCI8B OP PREROOATIVB IN CASKS OF 
 INSANITY. 
 
 I turn to the question, bo for as it may be 
 illustrated by authority, of the exercise of 
 mercy in thos,9 cases in which the defence of 
 insanity arises, and upon that subject no less 
 a learned judge than Lord Cran worth was 
 examined by the Capital Punishment 
 Commission in 1865, and the Attorney- 
 General for Ireland put to him this state- 
 ment : 
 
 *' I happen to know a recent case where a man was 
 tried, and the defence was insanity— incapacity to 
 judge of hia actions. The jury convicted this man ; 
 not believing that he was insane. The Executive sub- 
 sequently received information from various doctors 
 who had not been produced, showing that the man 
 really was insane, and in that case the prerogative of 
 mercy was exercised, the man being retained in 
 prison." 
 
 And the answer was : 
 
 " That would be the reasonable mode of dealing with 
 him." 
 
 So you see that where the question of 
 insanity was raised at the trial, and where 
 the jury decided against it, and where the 
 Executive upon the evidence given at the 
 trial and before them did not think they 
 were wrong — and where of course the judge 
 was not dissatisfied with the verdict either — 
 yet where subsequent medical testimony was 
 brought forward it was acted upon by the 
 Executive and they coiiimuted upon the score 
 of the subsequent medical testimony, and 
 therefore they received it. 
 
 [Here further citations were made.] 
 You find the responsibility of the Govern- 
 ment declared by the Lord Chancellor, the 
 head of the judiciary and the legal official of 
 the Government, who explains what is done 
 in criminal cases where a man has been con- 
 victed and sentenced, and a question exists 
 as to the state of his mind. You find that an 
 inquiry is made, that medical opinions are 
 taken, and evidence is taken as to the facts 
 from which conclusions are to be drawn. 
 Then the Royal Commission on Indictable 
 OUences in 1878, composed as I said before 
 of Judges Blackburn, Barry, Lush and 
 Stephen, said : 
 
 '•It must be borne in mind, that, although insanity 
 is a defence which is applicable to any criminal charge, 
 it is most frequently put forward in trials for nmrder, 
 and for tliis offence the law— and we think wisely — 
 awards uinin conviction a fixed punishment which the 
 judge has no power to mitigate. In the case of any 
 other offence, if it should appear that the offender was 
 atBicted with some unsoundness of mind, but not to 
 such a degree as to render him irresponsible— in other 
 words where the criminal element predominates, 
 though mixed in a greater or less degree with the 
 insane element— the judge can apportion the punish- 
 
 ment to the df^ee of criminality^ making allowance 
 for the weakened or disordered mtellect. But in a 
 case of murder this can only be done by an ap[>eal to 
 the P^xecutive ; and we are of opinion that this diffi- 
 culty cannot be successfully avoided by any definiti<jn 
 of insanity which would be both safe and practicable, 
 and that many cases must occur which cannot be 
 satisfactorily dealt with otherwise than by such an 
 appeal." • 
 
 Now this is stated at a late day by men of 
 the highest authority, having had the advan- 
 tage of the evidence of many learned men 
 engaged in the actual administration of the 
 criminal law, declaring the theory and prac- 
 tice of that administration in cases in which 
 there is a weak or disordered intellect, 
 though not so weak or disordered as to justify 
 a verdict of not guilty on the ground of in- 
 sanity ; and in language in which I would 
 only weaken by attempting to restate the 
 argument, they point out 
 
 WHAT COMMON SENSE AND COMMON HUMANITY 
 APPROVE, 
 
 that a weak and disordered intellect, al- 
 though there may be enough to leave a man 
 responsible, leaves him not responsible to 
 the same degree as to the severity of punish- 
 ment, as if he were of perfectly sound mind j 
 and that while in all other cases by the law 
 the precise sentence proper to be awarded 
 as proportioned to the moral guilt and to the 
 palliative circumstances, is fixed by the 
 judge, in the particular case in which the 
 sentence is that of death, that duty is dis- 
 charged by the Executive. Sir James Ste- 
 phen in his book to which I have so fre- 
 quently referred, alluding to the provision for 
 recording sentences which had the effect of 
 a reprieve, says : 
 
 **I remember a case in which Mr. .Justice Wight- 
 man ordered sentence of death to be recorded upon a 
 conviction for murder. The prisoner, thowfh not quite 
 mad enough- to be acquitted, was obviously too mad to ht 
 hinged. I have met with cases in which I wished I 
 had a similar power. " 
 
 Mr. Stephen in the same book says : 
 
 " These conditions appear to me to show that mur- 
 der, however accurately defined, must always a«lmit 
 of degrees of guilt, and it seems to me to fi.llow that, 
 some discretion in regard to punishment ought to be 
 provided in this and in nearly every other ewe. This 
 discretion does in fact exist at present and is exer- 
 cised by the Home Secretary, thougf) ou every con- 
 viction of murder sentence of death is passed by the 
 judge." 
 
 Then he gives causes affecting the guilt of 
 such an offence : 
 
 "There are manv cases in which a man's mind is 
 more or leas affected by disease, but in which it cannot 
 be said that he is entitled to be altogether acquitted 
 on the ground of insanity." 
 
 [Here further citations were made.] 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIELs 1888. 
 
 59 
 
 8UHMAKY OF WHAT HAS NOW BEEN PROVED. 
 
 I think it is established beyond all contra- 
 diction that the practice accords with reason, 
 that a disordered condition of the intellect, 
 which in the view rightly or wrongly of the 
 law is not sufficiently disordered to entitle 
 the prisoner to immunity from crime, i^ yet 
 regarded in dealing with the quantity of 
 punishment awarded ; that in all other 
 oases than the capital cases that regard is 
 paid by the judge ; and in the capital cases it 
 is to be paid by the Executive, whose duty 
 is, not as a matter of clemency or mercy 
 simply, but as part of the administration of 
 criminal justice, as part of that justice which 
 we declare in our Statute Books we seek to 
 accomplish by the apportionment of the pun- 
 ishment to the moral guilt ; to have regard 
 to what surely must be an element of the 
 moral guilt, the degree of the disordered 
 intellect, the degree of the insane impulses, 
 of the insane delusions of the unbalanced 
 mind. Even although this degree may be 
 not enough to entitle him to acquittal, 
 though the verdict may be right and the 
 judge's sentence under the law may be right, 
 there is not a mere discretion but a sacred, 
 solemn and imperative duty to have regard 
 to the circumstances disclosed on the tri*»l, 
 and all other circumstances which may bo 
 made known ; and if upon the whole of the 
 circumstances you find, as was said by Mr. 
 Justice Stephen, that the man was not mad 
 enough to be acquitted but too mad to be 
 hanged, you cannot shelter yourself under 
 the proposition that it was your duty to carry 
 out the sentence of the law, and that the 
 verdict of the jury had settled all that 
 matter. The verdict of the junj settled no 
 more than this : the prisoner was not so com- 
 pletely insane as to he entitled to be absolntely 
 acquitted on the ground of insanity. Coiisist- 
 ently with that finding, his intellect miijht be 
 seriously disordered. He might be sericjusly 
 disordered mentally, though not sufficiently 
 disordered to give him immunity. Is not 
 that question to be decided ? Was that 
 question settled by the verdict? No, it was 
 left unsettled. It was to be settled by the 
 Executive. Has it been settled ? If not, 
 they did not discharge their duty. If they 
 settled it, and decided that it did not apply 
 in this case, then I humbly say that I wholly 
 disagree from them in opinion. Now, Sir, 
 to come to the other brauoh of this case, 
 
 THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL OFFENCES, 
 
 that has also to be considered on the ques- 
 tion of the award of punishment, and in 
 
 this matter I ara obliged to differ very 
 much from the spirit of a good deal that 
 has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite. 
 [Here further citations were made.] Thnre 
 IS a most interesting and instructive dis- 
 cussion on Mr. O'Connor Power's motion, 
 in 1877, with reference to certain Fenian 
 convicts, notably, the Manchester murde- 
 rers, of whom three suffered the extreme sen- 
 tence of the law, and the others sentences of 
 imprisonment for considerable terms ; and 
 after a period an agitation took place for a 
 remission of these sentences. Mr. Gathorne 
 Hardy said : 
 
 " He would admit that this question came very near 
 the hearts of a great many of the Irish people ; but 
 they were not the whole people of the Empire. This 
 was an empire and not an aggregate of sepanite king- 
 doms, and the Grovernment had to consider the interests 
 of the whole of this great empire. It was also a free 
 empire. Every man who was wronged hal the 
 opportunity of bringing his wrong to light, and there 
 was no man who suffered an injury who had not an 
 opportunity of obtaining redress in a c institutional 
 manner. Therefore the man who took up aritis had 
 to vindicate himself from a charge of the deepest dye. 
 Where there was no necessity — not even an excuse — 
 for shedding blood, the man who raised hin arm to 
 shed blood comndtted a crime ; and for tbat crime 
 the country had a rigiifc to demand, h-? would not sav 
 vengeance, but the utmost punidnnent tiie law allowedf. 
 Much more whf-n men who had taken upon them-elves 
 the character of defenders of the country violated the 
 oaths they had taken, and conspired to destroy the 
 country, no puni.-hment could be indicted upon them 
 which they did not deserve. " 
 
 Then the Attorney-General of England in 
 the same debate, describing the offences, used 
 these words : 
 
 "Hon. members might, if they liked, call that acei 
 dental shooting, but he {Attorne>-Gene.a!) ca led it 
 deliberate homicide. . . . They iniglit call it a 
 technical crime, but he called it vulgar iniirdor. They 
 might cull it a rxditicil < ffeace ; he called it deliberate 
 and atrocious assassination. It w.as a (.U^lilieiattdy 
 planned attack, carried out by the prisoners who werft 
 afterwards convicted, regardless whether th<'y com- 
 mitted murder or not, but determined to do murder 
 rather than fail in their object. " 
 
 Mr. Pease, the member I think for South 
 Durham, said : 
 
 " Well they hatl had a real rebellion some years ago 
 in Ireland, headed by a gentleman who sat for many 
 years in that House, ami w.as highly n spect'd by all 
 who knew him — he alluded to Mr. Smith O'Mrien. He 
 was taken while in arms, holding a cottage 8( me hours 
 against the Queen's soldiers ; and in that extreme 
 case, when tiie offender was actually conv cted of trea- 
 son and formally sentenced to be hang-nl. d awn and 
 quarteied, the dread sentence was afterwards com- 
 m\ited to 14 years' banishment, and was afterward* 
 again commuted, and Mr. Smith O'Brien was hrnught 
 home to his country. Ha 1 any of the men whose f te was 
 now before the House of Commons been guilty of such 
 a great crime as Mr. Smith O'Brien ? He h d ■*igned 
 the roll of I'a'-liament, had taken tie oath of ailegi.mce, 
 was in the Queen's Commission of the I'eace, an<l yet 
 it was felt consistent with public safety t) commute 
 his punishment twice after he had been sentenced to 
 death, and had been tranaported to mark the turpitude 
 of hia crime." 
 
•60 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 Mr. Gladstone said : 
 
 " The question which we have to det€rniine is, what 
 constitutes a political offence. It is quite clear that 
 an act doea not become a political offence because 
 there was a political motive in the mind of the offender. 
 The man who shot Mr. Percival and the man who in- 
 tended to shoot Sir Robert Peel did not become politi- 
 cal offenders merely on this ground. By a political 
 offence I at least understand an offence committed 
 un<ler circumstances ap|)roachins to the character of 
 civil war. Whenever there is a great popular move- 
 ment the offences committed in giving effect to the 
 intentions of the people partake of the character of 
 civil war. Reference has been made to the action of 
 the President of tlie French Republic in pardoning 
 offences committed by Communists ; but it must not 
 be fcrgott'^n that the offences -though darker than the 
 crimes for which the Irish prisoners are under punish- 
 ment — were committed in the progress of a civil war. 
 But the riot committed at ^Ianche8ter. by a crowd 
 locally gathered together, was a proceedini: totally of 
 a different character, and must he ci»nsidered as in the 
 main belonging to the category of ordinary crime, 
 though it is not on the ground that the offence is a 
 politicctl offence that I think the prisoners in question 
 can be recommended for consideration. But if these 
 offences be not political offences in a strict sense, yet 
 they were undertaken for a political motive, and in so 
 far partake of that character as to affect in a material 
 degree the moral guilt of the persons concerned." 
 
 That was the observation made by the most 
 eminent of Englishmen as to the ingredients 
 of a political offence, even in a case so ob- 
 viously gross and, as many of us would regard 
 it, so totally alien from the ordinary catecfory 
 of political offences as the case of the Man- 
 chester murderers. 
 
 CANADIAN GASES. 
 
 Well, Sir, let us come to our own country. 
 History repeats itself in a wonderful way. 
 The signatories of the response in 18-37 by 
 the committae of the county of Montreal to 
 the Workingmen's Association of London 
 made this representation : 
 
 "Our grievances are not of new characters or of 
 recent date. They have been publicly and distinctly 
 stated, and the mode and measures of redress have 
 been plainly defined. Our citizens have at public 
 meetings reiterated them for years past. They have 
 founded upon them humble petitions to your Parlia- 
 ment, which turning a deaf ear now adds aggression 
 to contempt." 
 
 That was signed among others by Papineau, 
 O'Oallaghan, Nelson, DuchesnoisandCartier ; 
 and then comes also something which shows 
 us how power generally acts under circum- 
 stances like these. We remember the events 
 — so widely differing in many particulars — of 
 the Lower Canadian revolt. But see how 
 power treated it in the proclamation of Sir 
 John Colborne on the 29th of November, 
 1837: 
 
 "Whereas, in divers counties of the district of 
 Mt)ntreal, disaffection with the Government of Her 
 Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria has unequivocally 
 declared itself, and divers outrages upon the persons 
 and properties of Her Majesty's loyal subjects have 
 
 been recently ))erpetrated therein ; and whereas, prison- 
 ers arrested on charge of high treason have l)een 
 rescued from the hands of justice, and the troops of 
 Her Majesty, in the lawful discharge of their duty, 
 while ai<iiiig the civil authorities have been assailed 
 and fired on by the hands of an armed pea.santry : 
 
 " And whereas, it is notorious that the present 
 blind and fatal excitement in that district is to l)e 
 attributed to the machinations of a few evil minded 
 and designing men, who have imposed upon the 
 credulity of an unsuspicious peasantry, and by plaus- 
 ible misrepresentations and wilful calumny, by prac- 
 tising upon their fears and inflaming their passions, 
 by appealing to national distinctions and exciting 
 political prejudices, which it has been the unabated 
 endeavour of the British Government to extinguish, 
 have at length succeeded in implicating a part of a 
 peaceable and loyal population in the first excess of a 
 reckless and hopeless revolt." 
 
 You would almost think I was repeating a 
 speech we heard the other day. Then we 
 find how power acted again in the proclama- 
 mation of Lord Gosford : 
 
 " Whereas, L. J. Papineau is charged with the 
 crime of high treason, and there is reason to believe 
 he has fled from justice ; and whereas, it is expedient 
 and necessary for the due adniinistrati(m of justice 
 and for the security of Her Majesty's (Jovernment in 
 this Province, that so great an offence should not 
 escape unpunished : 
 
 "1 do hf'rt-by require and command all subjects to 
 discover, take, and apprehend the said L. J. Papineau 
 and carry him before a justice ; and for the encourage- 
 ment of all persons to be diligent, a reward of £1,000." 
 
 A similar proclamation was issued against 
 Wolfred Nelson, E. B. O'Callaghan, J. T. 
 Drolet, M. P., W. H. Scott, M. P., A. Girod, 
 T. 3. Brown, C. H. O. Cote, M. P., J. J. 
 Girouard, M. P., E. E. Rodier, M. P., and 
 Jean O. Cheirier, ofiering .£500 reward, and 
 against others at the lesser price of £400. 
 Then the ordinance of Lord Durham, who 
 assumed to banish Wolfred Nelson, R. S. M. 
 Bouchette, B. Viger, S. Marchessault, H. A. 
 Gauvin, T. Goddu, R. Desrivieres and L. H. 
 Masson to Bermuda also provided : 
 
 "If any of them, or if L. J. Papineau, 0. H. O. 
 C6t^, J. Gagnon, R. Nelson. E. B. O'Callaghan, E. E. 
 Rodier, T. S. Brown, L. Duvernay, E. Cartier, G. E. 
 Cartier, J. Ryan, jun., L. Perrault, P. P. Demaray, 
 Jos. F. Davignon and Louis Gautier, against whom 
 warrants for high treason have been issued, shall here- 
 after without permission come into the Province they 
 shall be deemed guilty of high treason and suffer death. 
 
 " Nothing in any proclamation shall extend to the 
 cases of certain named persons, or of any other person 
 charged with the murder of Lieut. Weir, or'with the 
 murder of the late J. Chartrand, and they shall derive 
 no advantage from such proclamations." 
 
 The case of these persons was raised in the 
 English House, and Lord John Russell said : 
 
 "The Government has not neglected to let Sir J. 
 Colborne know its opinion of the inexpediency of 
 inflicting capital punishment on occasions of this 
 nature." 
 
 Sir Robert Peel argued that an exception 
 should be made in the case of the murderers 
 of Lieut. Weir. As soon after as 1841, the 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL, 1886. 
 
 61 
 
 following resolution was passed in the House 
 of Assembly by a vote of 39 to 9 : 
 
 " Remlred, That it is the opinion of this committee 
 that an humble Address be presented to His Excellen ;y 
 the Governor General, as representing the Crown iii 
 this Province, praying for the exercise of the Royal 
 prerogative for granting a free pardon, indemnity ancl 
 oblivion of all crimes, oifences and misdemeanois, 
 connected with the late unhappy troubles in the la ,€ 
 Provinces of Upper and Lower Cana<.ia, to such ol 
 Her Majesty's misguided subjects, in so far as may 
 be compatible with the safety of the Crown and tie 
 security of the Privince, and of all attainders and 
 outlawries during the period of four years. " 
 
 In 1842 Mr. Lafontaine proposed to Sir 
 Charles Bagot an amnesty, to which he agreed 
 for all except Papineau. Mr. Lafontaine 
 declined, and threatened to resign. Th<i 
 Government yielded, and a nolle prosequi was 
 ordered as to Papineau, whereon he was able 
 to return, as he did in 1845. It is unneces- 
 sary, Sir, for me to refer to the Upper Cana- 
 dian rebellion in respect of which one might 
 almost go through a similar history. I have 
 gone so far, in order to show the language 
 which is used in events of this description, 
 while they are going on, as contrasted with 
 the language used a few years afterwards 
 as illustrating the view taken when passions 
 have subsided and the mists of prejudice 
 have disappeared. It is to that view that 
 the Executive should look in their determi- 
 nation of cases of this description. It is not 
 the view of the moment ; it is the view of 
 the future they should look to. Then I turn 
 to another case of a more recent date — 
 
 THE CASE OP THE FENIAN INVASIONS OF 
 CANADA. 
 
 These Fenian invasions harassed us for a 
 number of years. Oi: the 9th of March, 
 1866, Lord Monck reports to the Secretary 
 for the Colonies : 
 
 "These reports, taken in connection with the open 
 avowals at their public meetings held in the United 
 Sttrtes ot leaders of a portion of the Fenian Society 
 that it was their intention to attack this Province, had 
 induced a feeling of great uneasiness and insecurity 
 amongst the people. ... It will be satisfactory 
 to you to learn that the order calling out the force was 
 issued by telegraph from headquarters and the differ- 
 ent stations late in the afternoon of Wednesday, the 
 7th instant, and that by noon on Thursday, the 8th, 
 answers had been received showing that at that time 
 about 8,000 men were mustered and prepared to move 
 on any points where they might be required." 
 
 Well, the advance did not come at that time. 
 On the 4th June, 1866, Lord Monck says : 
 
 "The body of Fenian conspirators who crossed the 
 frontier from Buffalo to Fort Erie on the morning of 
 Friday, 1st June, proved to be between 800 and 900 
 men, and seem to have been well aimed. . 
 Immediately on receipt of intelligence of the invasion, 
 Major General Napier pushed on by rail to Chippewa 
 
 a force consisting of artillery and regular troops, under 
 Col. Peacocke, 16th Regiment. . . . Tht-y came 
 upon the Fenians encampc ' in a bush, and imme- 
 diately attacked them, but were outnumbered and 
 compelled to retire to Port Colborne. This occurred 
 some time on Saturday, 2nd June. . . . We 
 have sixty-five prisoners in our possession, who have 
 been by my direction committed to the common 
 gaol, at Toronto, to await trial." 
 
 On the 8th June, 1866, Lord Monck writes 
 thus : 
 
 " Immediately after the first news of the inva-xion 
 reached me the whole volunteer force of the Province 
 was placed on active duty. ... I am sure I do 
 not exaggerate when I say that within twenty-four 
 hours after the issue of the order "20,000 men were 
 under arms, and that within forty-eight hours after 
 the same timo they, in combination with the' regxdar 
 troop.-i, were disposed by the Lieutenant-fJeneral com- 
 manding in positions which rendered the Province 
 secure from attack. With uhe assistance of the officers 
 and rnen of the ships of war now in the St. Lawrence, 
 a flotilla of steamers has been chartered by tht Pro- 
 vincial Government and fitted up as temporary gun- 
 boats for service both on the river St. L.iwrence and 
 the lakes. . . . Parliament is to as.'^emble this 
 day, and it is intended at once to suspend the Habeas 
 Corpus Act, and to extend to Lower Canada the Act 
 at present in operation in Upper Canada (Consoli- 
 iated Statutes Upper Canada, chap. 99), provi<ling for 
 ■,he trial by military courts martial of the prisoners.' 
 
 The report of the Privy Council, 2nd June, 
 .870, calls the Fenian invaders •' brigands." 
 '^he despatch of Lord Granville expressly 
 ( alls them " a bo<ly of conspirators " and 
 ceclares that "it is not often in the history 
 0? civilized nations that a country has .sut- 
 f» red from an attack so gratuitou.s and unjus- 
 tiiable." The report of the Privy Council 
 01 1st July, 1870, speaks of the Fenians as 
 " he miscreants concerned in these outrages." 
 Tl e report of the Privy Council, 28th July 
 1871, states tha:.- 
 
 ' The Fenian oiganization has for nearly seven 
 yea -s been a source of irritation and expense to the 
 peo lie of Canada. " 
 
 Thf memorandum of the Privy Council of 
 1871 declares that one of the principal 
 obje its of the organization created in Novem- 
 ber, 1863, has been the conquest of Canada 
 agaii St the people of which it is not preten- 
 ded i "j has had any cause of complaint. The 
 repoit of the Privy Council of November, 
 1871, says of the expeditions : 
 
 " Th ?se plundering and murdering expeditions were 
 prompt y repulsed, but not without the loss of valuable 
 lives ar 1 great injury to the country." 
 
 So mu h with reference to the view that high 
 politic} 1 authi ricies took of the character of 
 those t xpeditions. Listen also to the lan- 
 guage { f Judge J. Wilson in passing sentence 
 on R. ^. Lynch, found guilty without any 
 recomni ndation to mercy : 
 
 "You { id those who were with you profess to have^ 
 come here to redress the grievances of many centuries, 
 
62 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 and to right the wrongs of an oppressed peo ole. You 
 allege that the iron h-^el of the Saxon was ,>laceil on 
 the neck of the Celt hundreds of yearn »go, and tnat 
 your ohj'r'Ct was to free your land from that oppres- 
 sion. If you had reflected you wouM have seen that 
 you had begun to do this by attempting to inflict on 
 us the very injuries under which you contemplated 
 your native land an suffering. Why should yovr iron 
 heel be placed on our necks ? In what wav did we 
 hurt you that you should endeavour to do this prriev- 
 ou^ harm? and why should our homes be made desolate, 
 our young men slain, and our farms pillaged by you? 
 Will any man of sense answer these plain questions 7 
 Was it anything '.ess than murder, was there any pos- 
 sible excuse for you to come here in the dead of night 
 to kill our people, to ravage our homes and to lay 
 waste our farms and habitations, in order, as you say, 
 to relieve the conditions of Ireland? W^hat nght had 
 yon. or Who could have authorized any man to commit 
 such a wrong as you i>erpetrated upon us ? It is put- 
 tins,' the matter iu a very plain and clear light, just 
 such a light as you must have [wrceived it in, if you 
 had thought for a moment before going on with this 
 mad and wicked enteri)'i8e. You stand there sur- 
 rounded bv the friends and relations of the men you 
 slew on that occasi(m. You cannot be surprised that 
 the law shoulil be enforced, and that you should suffer 
 its dread i>en:dty, as I am very much afraid you will; 
 for how could we permit the young, unreflecting men 
 who were brought here by you and others like you, 
 wlio placed couhdence in you, who put faith in what 
 you said ; how, 1 say, could we iu justice punish them 
 U we allowed you, the greater criminal, to escaiw?" 
 
 And after that sentence and under those cir- 
 cumstances, that sentence was not executed. 
 The prisoner's sentence was commuted, not 
 even for life, but for twenty years' imprison- 
 ment, and as far as my knowledge goes he 
 was pardoned not very long after the sen- 
 tence was given. That was the case of a 
 person wlio never had any pretension of 
 being a Canadian citizen, who never had any 
 pretence of having a grievance against Can- 
 ada, and who cost us so much in time, money, 
 anxiety and life. That indicates that tlte 
 modern doctrine, as applied by ourselves in 
 this case, is a doctrine which practically ex- 
 cludes from almost any conceivable case of a 
 political offeace a capital sentence. 
 
 THE HALF-BREED REBELLION. 
 
 Now I turn to this case in hand, and I say 
 that some language has been used before 
 and in the course of this debate which 
 I, for my part, cannot approve of, language 
 which seems to ignore as nonexistent 
 the right of resistance. I think here, 
 and I have never disguised my opinion, 
 that the half-breeds should not have risen, 
 and that in that sense the rebellion was not 
 justiiiable ; but the position which was taken 
 by the Minister of Militia at Winnipeg, and 
 the position he took the other evening, and 
 the position which other hon. gentlemen have 
 taken in this debate upon the general ques- 
 tion, seems to me to be at variance with our 
 •nnderstood constitutional rights in the larger 
 
 sense. Always there is legal, but only gen- 
 erally is there moral guilt in a rising ; always 
 legally, generally morally, is there guilt, but 
 not always morally. I cannot approve of 
 the spirit of those observations. God for- 
 bid THAT WB CANADIANS SHOULD POROET FOR 
 A MOMENT THAT THE CORNER STONE OF OUR 
 LIBERTY IS THE SACRED BIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 Some, through their blind zeal, do forget 
 thia They forget that the sacred right of 
 resistance was exempli6ed iu the events 
 which preceded the great charter, and is en- 
 shrined in that instrument itself ; they forget 
 that the pious and immortal memory of 
 William is the memory of an intruder who 
 ro.se to the throne through the people's resist- 
 ance to their king ; they forget that tm Battle 
 of the lioyne was the triumph of the i7uni/rgenti 
 over the monarchy ; they fo^rget tJuit ths glori- 
 ous revolution was the consecration of the 
 right to resist, and that the present settlement 
 of the British Crown is the visible embodi- 
 ment of that right. Let me read you just 
 two passages on that point to show that I 
 am not extreme in these views. Amos says : 
 
 " Bui, ais now, resisting tests were inconsistent with 
 the revolution which was founded upon resistance, 
 those of the Acts of Uniformity and Militia were 
 abolished at that epoch ; and the non-resisting test in 
 the Corporation Act was exf>unged from our statute 
 book at the accession of the House of Brunswick. 
 
 "Thus there is np longer any obligation of con- 
 science V)in<lirig one soul in secular chains to regard the 
 royal dignity merely as a descendible proj>erty, in- 
 stead of viewing it as a trust for millions, suliject to a 
 right of resistance when rendered iudispensably neces- 
 sary by the salus popali." 
 
 And take Brougham's Political Philosophy : 
 
 " The national resistance was not only in point of 
 hTstorical fact the cause of the revolutionary settle- 
 ment ; it was the main foundation of that settlement. 
 The structure of the Government was made to rest 
 upon the |>eoi)le'8 right of resistance as upcm its cor- 
 ner stone, and it is of incalculable importance that 
 this never should be lost sight of ; but it is of equal 
 importance that we should bear in mind how essential 
 to the preservation i-f the constitution, thus estab- 
 lished and secured, this principle of resistance is ; how 
 necessary lioth for the governors and the governed it 
 ever must be to regard this recourse to that extremity 
 as always possible— an extremity no doubt, and to be 
 cautiously embraced as such, but still an extremity 
 within the people's reach, a piotection to whjch they 
 can and will resort as often as their rulers make such 
 a recourse necessary for self-defence. " 
 
 1 say I can not, as a Liberal, permit senti- 
 ments which appear to me to be 
 
 SENTIMENTS OF RKTROQRESSIOW 
 
 to the ages of absolute government, senti- 
 ments which from time to time in the best 
 eras of English liberty have been repudiated, 
 to pass without saying what I feel of the 
 sacred right of resistance ; and I think it 
 
 # 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, ISM. 
 
 68 
 
 caniR with a very ill grace from the hon. the 
 Minister of Militia to throw tauats at this 
 aidM of the Uoune upon that subject aud to 
 accuse us in effect of having stimulated by 
 our views feelings of this description when 
 he ought to have remembered that the Min- 
 ister of the Interior under whose reign this 
 i-ebellion broke out was the very gentleman 
 who, in 1849, signed the annexation manifesto 
 declaring that it was the object and intent of 
 the signatories to agitate, peacefully of course, 
 for — and they set that up as their object — 
 separation from England and annexation to 
 the States. According to the high-flown 
 views of loyalty which hon. gentlemen oppos- 
 ite utter that would have been a treasonable 
 act, I do not say it was a treasonable act. 
 I shall not inquire into its motives and shall 
 not ask how it was that the hij^h flying Tories 
 suddenly turned round aud advocated annex- 
 ation. I believe there was a great deal to 
 be said iigainst the action of dismissing those 
 who signed that statement from the militia ; 
 but for a gentleman who had for his colleague 
 a Minister of the Interior who signed that 
 declaration, and set that great example to 
 the half-breeds, to give us the high-toned 
 notions which he expressed was, I thought, 
 a little out of place. Now, having said this 
 as to the abstract right of resistance, I think 
 it is important that we should remember also 
 that the more representative and popular is 
 our form of Government, the rarer are the 
 ■occasions upon which resistance is necessary 
 or justifiable for the re<ire8S of grievances. 
 And, if, as stated in our Canadian charter, in 
 that Col- aiiil Secretary's despatch upon which 
 our right-s were chiefly depemlent for so 
 many years, if the spirit of our charter is ob- 
 served, and so long as tne Government is 
 administered according to the well under- 
 stood wishes of he people, there will be no 
 grievances to redress, and consequently there 
 will V)e no cause for agitation, modei-ate or 
 €.xtren>e, resistant or otherwise ; and on the 
 other hancl, if the Government is not admin- 
 istered according to the views of the people 
 this Parliament is the field of battle, aud we 
 members of Parliament and representatives 
 of the people are the army, it is in this 
 peaceful way that our contests are conducted 
 and our grievances are redressed, and that 
 govei'ument according to the well understood 
 wishes of the people is eventually obtained. 
 
 WHEN EIGHT OP RESISTANCE MAY BE EXCUS- 
 ABLY EXEUCISED. 
 
 We must remember as well that whatever 
 the form of government may be, whether 
 
 you have a parliamentary form of govern- 
 ment or not, there are two other conditions 
 which are essential to the moral justification 
 of the exercise of the right of resistance : 
 first, that the grievances must be serious, 
 must have been long endured, patiently 
 represented, all peaceful means used and ex- 
 hausted, so that there seems to \>e no hope of 
 amendment by other means ; and, secondly, 
 that there may be some reasonable hope of 
 success by this, the last resort, not indeed 
 without loss to those engaged, but of import- 
 ant practical results. Now in" the case be- 
 fore us, unfortunately, so far as the unhappy 
 persons who rose are concerned, our consti- 
 tution was lame and imperfect. There was 
 no representation in Parliament for them, 
 and therefore we had not that safety-valve, 
 that opportunity, that means of averting 
 difficulties which a representative govern- 
 ment applied to every part of the general 
 body of the people gives. My own opinion 
 is that, if at an earlier date that representa- 
 tive government had been accorded, that the 
 circumstance would have prevented this ris- 
 ing. My opinion is, that if there had been 
 a representative from the North-West, know- 
 ing what Mr. McDowell knew, what Mr. 
 Lawrence Clarke knew, what tlie othtT per- 
 sons who have made represent^M^ns, some of 
 which are liefore us, knew, a representative 
 here in Parliament, speaking on the floor of 
 thi^ House the sense of his people, telling us 
 what their difficulties were, calling for the 
 papers, showing the grounds of their gric^v- 
 ances and pointing out their neglect by the 
 Government, each Session pointing out to 
 the Government and to the House their re- 
 missness and declaring the growing condi- 
 tion of discontent and difficulty, the Govern- 
 ment woidd have been stimulated to action, 
 and that which ought to Lave been done 
 would have been done, if not as early as it 
 ought to have been done, yet early enough 
 to avoid the friiihtful results which have given 
 rise to this debate. The absence of that 
 guide and safety-valve of course at once in- 
 creased the responsibility of an autocratic 
 and paternal Government such as ours was in 
 reference to the North- West; a paternal 
 Government which refused this assistance ; 
 and it also operated more or less inasmuch 
 M they had not provided for them the repre- 
 sentative machinery to diminish the moral 
 guilt of the people. But with regard to the 
 other aspects and conditions to which I have 
 referred, I have already said that while I 
 condemn as in the highest degree censurable 
 the conduct of the Government, 1 my.self 
 
64' 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 have not been able to agree that this rising 
 was jtistitied, that the conditions remove, al- 
 though they may and in my opinion do 
 lighten the stain of moral guilt ; and there- 
 fore the case had to be dealt with on the 
 (juestion of punishment, and V)y the Executive 
 under their responsibility to us. Unhappily 
 
 IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE I.V THIS CASK FOR THE 
 GOVERNMKNT TO JUDGE THIS QUESTIOf FAIRLY. 
 
 They had precluded themselves from that 
 position. They had made this their own 
 issue. They had tleciared that to admit the 
 existence of grievances as a justification or a 
 palliation for the insurgents would be their 
 own condemnation, and they therefore had 
 declared that that death, which would be the 
 indication that the extreme rigor of the law 
 was the appropriate punishment, that death 
 on the scaffold was needful in order to avert 
 their own death here, and thus they had be- 
 come disqualitied for sound judgment. 
 
 THE CHARGE OP VEXALIXr. 
 
 In this connection I desire to say a word, 
 and a word only, with reference to a charge 
 highly calculated, if true, to increase the 
 guilt, so far as he was morally responsible, of 
 Reil. I ref^r to the charge of venality. 
 I have alrea<^^,#ead that portion of the evi- 
 dence of Nolin which shows the purpose to 
 which the man stated he would apply the 
 money which he was about to get from the 
 Government — that he would apply it in 
 starting a newspaper and in raising other 
 nationalities in the States, and in alfecting 
 the prosecution of his designs. [ say that 
 however plainly that may appear to be a 
 violent, a wicked, or a mad sentiment, it is 
 utterly inconsistent with the charge of ven- 
 ality; it shows that this was the mode which, 
 in his disordered mind, he thought would be 
 most efficacious in order to accomplish the 
 design for his people and for himself, as part 
 of his people, which he entertained. But the 
 very circumstance that he made that state- 
 ment to Nolin to my mind proves that it is 
 impossible that he could have made the pro- 
 posal for a venal purpose. I know perfectly 
 the prejudices which exist. I know how 
 many men would like to ease their con- 
 science by saying : Oh, this was a base, and 
 venal man. But it would be an act of hu- 
 miliating cowardice on the part of one who 
 has formed another conclusion on this sub- 
 ject to bend to such prejudices, and to allow 
 a name which must ever be deeply clouded 
 find stained to receive another cloud or stain 
 which hs, at any rate, in my judgment. 
 
 dops not deserve. Now, Sir, with reference 
 to the 
 
 QUESTION OP THE INDIAN WARFARE, 
 
 I think that if there was one thing above 
 another that nerved us the very instant we 
 heard of this rising, to press on the Admin- 
 istration in every way we could, to take all 
 the steps which they with their greater 
 knowledge of the conditions up there might 
 themselves deem necessary, and not to make 
 a single suggestion that they were doing too 
 much, it was the possibility of an Indian 
 rising. The thought which immediately en- 
 gaged us all was that there could not be a 
 rising created by Riel and the half-breeds 
 without imminent danger of an Indian rising, 
 and that in the condition of the country we 
 owed it to ourselves and to our humanity, to 
 the isolated settlers all through that country 
 to take very large steps, to make very great 
 preparations that if possible we might antici- 
 pate, at any rate minimise, the terrible re- 
 sults that might flow from that rising. No 
 man felt, no man feels more strongly than 
 myself the dangers, the difficulties, and the 
 probabilities of an Indian warfare, and there- 
 fore I am quite prepared to agree that if you 
 are dealing witn a man of perfectly sound 
 intellect this would be very important as 
 importing a very much deeper dye to the 
 crime he was committing. But, Sir, I may 
 say that I do not think that hon. gentlemen 
 are entitled to rest the whole burden of this 
 case upon that fact. In the first place we 
 are to remember that the man himself was a 
 half- breed ; that he was partly of Indian 
 blood ; that those who were with him were 
 half-breeds ; that it was natural, in fact, in 
 view of so large a part of their, though not 
 of his, training, that that warfare should be 
 adopted. In the second plaoe, we can hardly 
 hold our heads high with refei^nce to this 
 question of Indian warfare. Why, you 
 remember the great fight between Wolfe 
 and Montcalm at Quebec, and you remember 
 the monument which celebrates that event 
 and in which their names are joined^ But 
 Montcalm had amongst his forces a thousand 
 Indian warriors, and an Indian warfare was 
 going on in connection with these events. In 
 the other part of the Provinces at the very 
 same time the English were using the Indians 
 in warfare ; the Americans had used them in 
 warfare. Why, Sir, it is but a few years 
 ago that at the instance of my hon. friend 
 from Brant we voted $5,000 towards a 
 monument to Joseph Brant. I suppose we all 
 know Bomething of the history of Joseph 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL, Hm. 65 
 
 Brant, and what a remarkable man he early, that particular amnesty. It did not, 
 
 was. But to the end of his life Joseph however, cover this particular offence j bat 
 
 Brant defended, with all his enlight- the rising, the political part of the whole 
 
 ened Christian views, the Indian sys- affair, the raising of men in rebellion, the 
 
 tem of warfare as, for their circumstances creation of a Government, the organization 
 
 and under their circumstances, proper and of forces — all that was with the unanimous 
 
 necc'fisary, barring the question of torture, as consent of the people of Canada amnestied, 
 
 to which I am glad to say he took an en- There remained, as I have said, the quf s- 
 
 tirely difTerent view, as many remarkable tion of this particular offence. As to thiit, 
 
 persons among the Indians have done, from what was my attitude in 1871 ? It is tlie 
 
 the ordinary line. So with reference to same as my attitude to-day. I thought 
 
 Tecuniseh, a naint! perhaps hardly inferior then, as I said then, that iu my opinion the 
 
 to that of Joseph Brant So that while we death of Scott was a cruel murder. There 
 
 honour and refer to those persons, we cannot is just one point in respect of which the dis- 
 
 altogether forget this past in the present, cussions which have gone on within the last 
 
 Nor need we go so very far back. Why in the few months have tended to modify my view, 
 
 Lower Canadian rebellion there is a most and that is the very point to which I have 
 
 interesting account of tiie feats of the Indians been drawing the attention of the House 
 
 of Caughnawaga, who captured some sixty or this evening. It is questionable in ray 
 
 seventy insurgents ; but they were on the opinion — and those who read with the light 
 
 loyal side, and therefore it was a proper act which recent events and evidence have 
 
 In the course of 1869-70, when Lieut. -Col. t'rjwn upon these matters will agree with 
 
 Dennis as conservator of the peace went it. will see in much that has occurred the 
 
 into Manitoba and proposed to raise forces, reason of that question — it is questionable how 
 
 he raised an Indian force. There fifty Indians far the mind of Riel may even at that earlxf 
 
 under Chief Prince were enrolled as part of day have been thoroughly balanced. I do not 
 
 his forces, and they were doing garrison duty, intend to discuss it ; I allude to it as the 
 
 which was all, fortunately, they were called only thing in regard to which there is an 
 
 upon to do ut the time. The Grovernment observation to be made which differs my 
 
 very properly disapproved of it, and they attitude to-day from my attitude in 1870 
 
 stopped it They were thoroughly alive to with respect to that event. That being my 
 
 the dangers and the improprieties of it. But attitude then and my attitude ever since, an 
 
 it was not a crime of so deep a dye to "engage attitude in which I was confirmed by Sir 
 
 the Indians and thus to create a great proba- George E. Cartier, who called it a cruel 
 
 bility of an Indian warfare, as to prevent the murder, by Sir John A. Macdonald, who also 
 
 late Lieut. -Col. Dennis from being raised im- stigmatised it as such and invoked his Maker 
 
 mediately afterwards in the public service by to testify to his anxiety to catch the crimi- 
 
 those gentlemen, and being promoted in that nal — that being my attitude, I was exnosed 
 
 service, and remaining in it until he was at that time to a storm of indignation, 
 
 superannuated. Now, Sir, referring to an- because I expressed the view that those who 
 
 other point, to had been, as I conceived guilty of cruel 
 
 murder should be brought to justice. I did 
 
 THE QUESTION OF THE OLD OFFENCB. my best to cnforce that view. I am told 
 
 that I did it without papers and I want 
 
 It is said by the hon. gentlemen opposite, papers now. I had papers ; the Govern- 
 
 and has been said very loudly, that my atti- ment had brought down the papers to tb- 
 
 tude on that subject entirely precludes me House 3 they had brought down the full 
 
 from conddmning this execution. Well, account of the murder. ° I had Mr. Donald 
 
 with reference to the old offence. We must Smith's account and the account of other 
 
 remember that there was a general amnesty dignitaries — all the evidence on which a 
 
 announced by the Government by proolama- man could reasonably come to a conclusion 
 
 tion, on their responsibility covering not in advance of a trial. What did I want ? 
 
 that particular offence, but covering all the I wanted a trial ; I wanted that the man 
 
 political offences and disturbances. That should be brought to trial; and I thought 
 
 amnesty was received with universal appro- then and I think now that I had quite 
 
 bation. I do not remember a single voice ample evidence to justify me in stigmatis- 
 
 or newspaper ever being raised against it. ing that event as a murder, and in calling 
 
 It was universally thought that the Govern- that the perpetrator should be brought to 
 
 ment had done proper in issuing, and issuing trial. 
 
66 
 
 MR. BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THii 
 
 FULL AMNESTY WAS GRANTED. 
 
 That being so, yet in the year 1875 I think 
 I was amongt those who, though not of the 
 Government, yet in our party councils, and 
 subBequeutly in my place in Parliament, 
 most strongly supported by voice and vote 
 the proposition that there should be an 
 amnesty in respect of that offence. I 
 believed that the facts which were revealed 
 before the special committee on the North- 
 West troubles proved that we were in duty 
 bound to grant that amnesty ; that we were 
 in honour bound to grant that amnesty ; and 
 so believing I acted upon that belief and 
 sustained, as I have said, by every force in 
 my power the proposition that an amnesty 
 should be granted. That amnesty was a 
 very effectual and complete transaction. It 
 was not granted simply upon the responsi- 
 bility of the Crown without the approval of 
 the people's representatives. The people's 
 representatives were asked to take the initi- 
 ative, at the instance, of course, of the 
 responsible Ministers of the Crown ; and 
 they did so by an overwhelming majority, 
 in which you are to count not merely that 
 very large majority that voted for the grant- 
 ing of that amnesty but also all those who 
 voted for the granting of an unconditional 
 amnesty and may have recorded their votes 
 against this one because it was conditional. 
 Now, Sir, here was a solemn amnesty — an 
 act of oblivion, 
 
 WHAT IS THE MEANING OP " AMNESTY " ? 
 
 It is a blotting out of remembrance. 
 What is the meaning of " oblivion " 1 It is 
 the same. That is the technical meaning 
 expressing the reality of these transactions ; 
 and it is in my opinion contrary to the spirit 
 of our law that we should, at this time and 
 under these circumstances, bring up the event 
 which was so solemnly amnestied as a 
 reason why the extreme penalty of the law 
 should be inflicted if but for that event it 
 should not be inflicted. Will you allow me 
 to read a word or two that Sir Robert Peel 
 used in the House of Commons when, at as 
 early a period as 1 825, he proposed a Bill for 
 restoring the credit of criminals : 
 
 ... " By the spirit of the English Constitution 
 every man who had satisfied the justice of the country 
 by a pardon ought to be restored to the same situation 
 as he was in before he committed any otf ence. . . . 
 The Bill would also go to place persons whose sentence 
 had been commuted in the full enjoyment of all thdir 
 rights as free citizens. So when a capital convict has 
 fulfilled his commuted sentence of seven years' trans- 
 portation he was to be restored to all his ' credits and 
 capacities.' ... In God's name, when parties had 
 
 expiated their offence by fulfilling the sentpnce of the 
 law, why should any exclusion remain against them ? 
 It was therefore provided by the BUI that whenever a 
 party had undergone the punishment awarded by the 
 court for any offence, he was then restored to all his 
 rights, credits, and capacities iti as full a manner as 
 if no offence had been committed." 
 
 Much more solemnly can we apply such 
 language to the case of a parliamontary 
 amnesty such as was granted here. Now was 
 he hanged for the old oflence ? If yes — if his 
 sentence would have been commuted but for 
 that, then he was in efiect hanged for it ; and 
 this would be in efiect to adopt the views of 
 those who called for his blood on the ground 
 of the death of Scott. But, Sir, if his intel- 
 lect were disordered, how could the old 
 offence be taken into consideration in admin- 
 istering the extreme punishment for the new? 
 Incarceration for life was required ; pardon 
 would not have been right. That is one of 
 the observations hon. gentlemen opposite 
 make : " You say he ought to have been 
 pardoned," I have not said so. / say 
 pardon v)ould not have been right. The safety of 
 the State, and his punishment, taking the strong- 
 est view against him of his mental condition, 
 demanded incarceration; but the amnestied 
 offence should not have hanged him,. 
 
 WAS KIEL EXECUTED AS A DETERRENT? 
 
 It is said the execution was needed as a 
 deterrent. Sir Alexander Campbell in his 
 report has declared that there never was a 
 rebellion of which it might be so truthfully 
 said that it was entirely the act of one man 
 — that if he had not come there, or had been 
 removed one day before it took place, the 
 outbreak would not have taken place. Yet 
 he said that as a deterrent to others against 
 rebelling, it was necessary that he should be 
 executed. I do not think so ; I have not so 
 ill an opinion of the people of the North- 
 West. Incarceration would have been quite 
 enough to deter, with all the other results 
 which have followed from their unjustifiable 
 rising. Justice and mercy, redress of griev-. 
 ances, and a proper attention to the rights 
 and interests of the people, are the best 
 deterrents. We ask, to-day, Sir, in our 
 prayers that peace and happiness, truth and 
 justice, religion and piety, might be estab- 
 lished amongst us through all generations ; 
 but I do not believe that it is by this man's 
 blood that a step has been taken to accom- 
 plish that result. / do not see how, on the score 
 of necessity to deter, you canjustijy hanging a 
 7nan of a disordered intellect. That is a 
 deterrent, it is true, but it is a deterrent to 
 the continued existence of the principle of 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 67 
 
 capital punishment, 
 with reference to the 
 
 Nov 
 
 one word 
 
 KEPIIKVKS AND THE DELAYS. 
 
 We have not yet heard a satisfactory explan- 
 ation of the last reprieve. I do not desire 
 to detain you on that subject ; but I wish to 
 advert to an authority upon it. In 1869 the 
 Home Secretary, Mr Bruce, said this : 
 
 " In Windsor's case, again, although the enormity 
 of the offence was undoubted, still the sentence haviny 
 been postponed for six months in order that important 
 questions of law might be determined, the right hon. 
 gentleman had thought that it would not be right 
 after that lapse of time to permit the prisoner to be 
 executed." 
 
 Now the hon. Minister of Militia refered to 
 what he called the evidence with regard to 
 the 
 
 LETTER OF GENERAL MIDDLETON TO RIEL ; 
 
 The question is, Wliat does the letter fairly 
 import / The authority of General Middle- 
 ton is not of any consequence, if that were 
 disputed, though I do not suppose it is. 
 Now the question to my mind on this sub- 
 ject is just this : Is it for the honour and 
 credit ot the volunteers of Canada that it 
 should be declared that that paper was sent 
 in order to warrant the prisoner, if he sur- 
 rendered himself, against lynch law 1 Is it 
 to the credit and honour of the volunteers to 
 say that it was necessary for a Major-General 
 in the British army to give assurance to Riel 
 and his council that thej would not be lynched 
 if they surrendered themselves ? I should be 
 sorry to come to any such conclusion ; and 
 then, the question rexnains : Was it not 
 reasonable to believe that the result of this 
 statement was. You shall not, in fact* be 
 exposed to the very worst that you can pos- 
 sibly be expi sed to if you ar<^ caueht, that is 
 death. I think the liberal interpretation of 
 tnat letter, in th(! sense and spirit in which 
 such letters and assurances have been inter- 
 preted in all events of this description, would 
 have led to that conclusion. I turn to the 
 subsequent question, the ]>romise of inquiry 
 and the expectations of commutation. I turn 
 to the very important statement by the hon. 
 member for Hochelaga (Mr. Desjardins) on 
 that subject, and to the language of the 
 Ministerial press, and I say that those 
 expectations ought not to have been arop sed, 
 that that attitude ought not to have been 
 taken unless they were to be acted upon and 
 abided by, truly, faithfully and loyally ; 
 because if they had not been aroused other 
 steps might have been taken, other evidence 
 might have been brought forward, other facts 
 
 might have been presented to the Executive, 
 which naturally w^ould not be brought for- 
 ward if there was an understanding that there 
 was to be an eificient inquiry. For my part 
 I always believed there would be in this case 
 a commutation, having regard to the circum- 
 stances and the testimony as to the prisoner's 
 mind ; and I believed that if there was doubt 
 in the mind of the Government on the 
 question of 
 
 THE MENTAL CONDITION OF THE PRISONER, 
 
 that doubt would have been attempted to be 
 solved by an efficient and proper uiedicil 
 enquiry ; particularly so when we find that 
 Dr. Howard was not called. Now Dr. 
 Howard said in Montreal he could do Kiel 
 no good, because under the law, although he 
 obviously implied he did not agree with the 
 law, he would have been obliged to prove 
 that Riel was responsible. Of course he 
 would. He thought Kiel was irresponsible 
 and that the law was wrorig. He could not 
 have disturbed the verdict, but his evidence 
 would have been important as to the state of 
 Eiel's mind with a view to the awarding of 
 punishment afterwards. So with Archbishop 
 Taclie, who we see in his letter declared that 
 he had formed the conviction that for twenty 
 years, with all his brilliant gifts, this un- 
 fortunate tnan was the victim of megalomania 
 and theomMnia. So with reference to Bishop 
 Grandin, whose letter the Minister of Militia 
 read, dated June, in which the bishop charac- 
 terizes Riel as a mvterable maniac. So w^ith 
 reference to a number of pieces of evidence 
 I have collected and gathered from news- 
 papers which were accessible to Ministers, 
 but which I will not trouble the House with 
 at this hour. So with reference to the diary, 
 which contains indubitable traces of a dis- 
 ordered mind. So with reference to the last 
 effusion I have read, the prophecy of Regina, 
 which no man can read without co)idny to tlie 
 conclusion that he who wrote it was disoi'dered 
 in his mind. So with reference to the 
 papers not brought down. I have been told 
 that of the Orders in Council of the provi- 
 sional government, which are in the custody 
 of this Government, the very first is an 
 order declaring Riel a prophet, something 
 after the fashion of John the Baptist. I 
 have shown you he called himself Elias and 
 Peter, and this order I believe represents 
 him as John the Baptist. The next order 
 was one altering the days of the week, and so 
 forth. All these things and many statements 
 that were made, some of them at an earlier 
 period as to circumstances which had 
 
m 
 
 MR BLAKE'S SPEECH ON THE 
 
 occurred, were worthy of attention. So were 
 the letters wi-itten with reference to the trial. 
 At the close of the trial the correspondent 
 of the Mail reported that Dr. Clarke, after 
 having heard the evidence which was called 
 since Kiel's examination, and after having 
 heard the prisoner himself speak, was quite 
 convinced he was insane. I say the case was 
 one in which it was incumbent on the 
 
 ADMINISTRATION, IF THEY PELT A DOUBT AS 
 TO THE PROPRIETY OP COMMUTATION, TO HAVfi 
 A THOROUGH MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND 
 
 ENQUIRY. The medical examination they 
 caused was limited in scope. Sir John A. 
 Macdonald's letter expressly points that out. 
 We have not the instructions to these gen- 
 tlemen, but Sir John's letter to the Minister 
 of Militia pointed out that it was limited to 
 the question whether Kiel's condition had 
 become so much worse since his trial that he 
 was no longer capable of knowing right from 
 wrong. It was not, therefore, such an inquiry 
 as has been frequently made in cases infinitely 
 weaker than this ; it was not an inquiry 
 which involved the real question : What was 
 the condition of his mind at the time of the 
 offence, which constituted the crime he com- 
 mitted 1 What was the condition of his 
 mind before that time I So with reference to 
 the very important point of hereditary 
 insanity. I have read in the Mail the state- 
 ment that his mother went into a state of 
 absolute craziness during the rebellion, and a 
 statement of her falling into the same con- 
 dition at a subsequent period, when she heard 
 of the conviction — a circumstance the im- 
 portance of which, in considering what the 
 real condition of this man's mind was, can- 
 not be overstated, as must be extremely 
 familiar to all those who have made mental 
 alienation a study. 
 
 THESE GENTLEMEN WERE NOT SPECIALISTS. 
 
 Dr. Valade certainly was not. Dr. Lavell 
 had very limited experience, having had, for 
 a short number of years only, the charge of 
 the criminal lunatics in the Kingston peni- 
 tentiary, because up to a comparatively recent 
 period the criminal lunatics were transferred 
 to Bockwood, which was under other orderg. 
 Dr. Lavell also, if I be rightly informed as 
 to his views upon a late occasion, that of 
 Lee's examination, was a very improper per- 
 son sent to iind Kiel sane or insane, because 
 npon that occasion, if I am rightly informed, 
 his opinion was that the man was sane, 
 though the others found him insane. The 
 experts also who had been examined at the 
 trial took no part in the subsequent examina- 
 
 tion, except perhaps Dr. Jukes, who did not 
 take any real part in it. Then we have not 
 the reports of the commission, we have only 
 this edition of their reports which has been 
 laid on the Table, and we do not know what 
 their instructions were or what were the 
 reports on which the Government acted. I 
 say, however, that for the purpose of a 
 proper discharge of the duties of the Execu- 
 tive in cases of disordered intellect though 
 not amounting to irresponsibility, those 
 reports, even such as they are brought down, 
 were of the highest importance. They prove 
 the genuine existence of delusions and hallu- 
 cinations on the subjects of religion and 
 politics, on the very subjects on which the 
 delusions and hallucinations were proved, in 
 respect of which the crime was committed. 
 They show that these were persistent, and 
 my cojichtsion is clear tliat Riel was so dis- 
 ordered in mind as noty within the accepted 
 rule, to have been a proper subject for the 
 capital sentence. It is impossible, in case of 
 serious delusion or so-called monomania, to 
 be sure how far the flaw has affected the con- 
 duct in question. It may not have affected 
 it in some cases, though whether it did or not 
 is very frequently a question beyond the v It 
 of man to determine. But here we know it 
 did, because we know that the flaw had 
 regard to these very two points of religion 
 and politics upon which this rising and these 
 events turned. Criminal responsibility, then, 
 for public security there may and must be, 
 though there may be some mental disorder ; 
 but not responsibility unto death. And here 
 a.i;ain come in the political nature of the 
 offence, the general rules relating to these 
 offerees, and the special circumstances of the 
 conduct of the Government in this matter ; 
 and my belief, therefore, is that the maximum 
 sentence for the same crime of which Kiel 
 was convicted, had he been tried under the 
 milder procedure ol: the modern law under 
 which his colleagues were tried, namely, 
 imprisonment for life, would have been 
 
 THE PROPER AND ADEQUATE DISPOSITION 
 
 of liis case. But if the Government doubted 
 this thftre was an imperative call for thorough 
 and ethcient inquiry, for an inquiry going far 
 beyond what was possible at Kegina, and 
 extending to the condition of the criminal 
 not only at that moment but at other times ; 
 there was imperative ground for such an 
 inquiry before a determination should be 
 reached, that the sentence should be executed 
 My own opinion is, then, that a orbat 
 
 WRONG HAS BKEN DONE, AND A QBKAT BLOW 
 
EXECUTION OF LOUIS KIEL, 1886. 
 
 00 
 
 HAS BEEH INFLICTED UPON THE ADMINISTRA- 
 TION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ; AND FOR THIS 
 
 THE Executive is responsible to us. I 
 know the atmosphere of prejudice and passion 
 which surrounds this case ; I know how 
 difficult it will be for years to come to pene- 
 trate that dense atmosphere ; I know how 
 many people of my own race and of my own 
 creed entertain sentiments and feelings hos- 
 tile to the conclusion to which I have been 
 driven ; I know that many whom I eateem 
 and in whose judgment I have confidence, 
 after examination of this case, have been 
 una bio to reach my own crenel usion. I blame 
 no one. Each has the right and duty to 
 examine and judge for himself. But cries 
 have been raised on both sides which are 
 potent, most potent in preventing the public 
 from coming to a just conclusion ; yet we 
 must not, by any such cries, be deterred from 
 <loing our duty. 
 
 I HAYE BEEN THREATENED 
 
 more than once by hon, gentlemen opposite 
 during this debate with political annihilation 
 in consequence of the attitude of the Liberal 
 party which they projected on this question ; 
 and I so far agree with them as to admit that 
 
 the vote I am about to give is an inexpedient 
 vote, and that, if politics were a game, I 
 should be making a false move. I should be 
 glad to be able to reach a conclusion different 
 from that which is said by hon. gentleman 
 opposite to be likely to weaken my influence 
 and imperil my position. But it can be said 
 of none of us, least of all of the humble 
 individual who now addresses you, that his 
 continued possession of a share of pub.ic con- 
 fidence, of the lead of a party, or of a seat in 
 Parliament, is essential or even highly impor- 
 tant to the public interest ; while for all of us 
 what is needful is not that we should retain, 
 but that we should deserve the public con- 
 fidence ; not that we should keep, but that 
 while we do keep we should honestly use our 
 seats in Parliament. To act otherwise would 
 be to grasp at the shadow and to lose the 
 substance ; propter vitain vivendi perdere 
 caiisas. We may be wrong : we must be 
 true. We should be ready to close, but 
 resolved to keep unstained our public careers. 
 I am unable honestly to differ from the \ie\v 
 that it is deeply to be regretted that this 
 execution should have been allowed to take 
 place, and therefore in favour of that view I 
 must record my vote. 
 
 / 
 
 ' 
 
THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 
 HOME EULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886 
 
 (CONDENSED). 
 
 On the motion to go into Committee of 
 Supply, on May 4th, 1886, Mr. Blake made 
 the following speech : 
 
 Mr. Blake. I rise for a moment to in- 
 tercept that question in order to bring be- 
 fore the House another, in which the last 
 House showed a deep concern — I mean the 
 Irish question. In 1880 I spoke my views 
 upon this subject, and expressed my belief 
 and hope that we should at no distant day 
 see a measure of Home Rule granted to Ire- 
 land. In the year 1882 the question was 
 moved on the other side of this House. At 
 that time we, on this side, heartily co-ope- 
 rated in order to give the greatest possible 
 weight to the proposed action. Then I spoke 
 at length my opinions upon the whole ques- 
 tion, which saves me from the necessity of 
 trespassing now upon the time of this House, 
 and since that time to the best of my humble 
 power here and elsewhere I have aided in 
 the advancement of that cause. Since then 
 a new Canadian House of Commons has been 
 elected, which House has not yet spoken up- 
 on the question. Since then great events 
 have transpired in the United Kingdom 
 itself. The people both of Ireland and 
 Great Britain, have received for the jBrst 
 time a very full measure of representation in 
 Parliament. The Irish people, under that 
 measure of representation have by an enor- 
 mous, an overwhelming majority, pronounced 
 in favour of Home Rule, and the great states- 
 man who leads Her Majesty's Government 
 has recognized the vital necessity of grappling . 
 at once with the question ; and Her Ma-' 
 jesty's Government have, as I ventured to 
 suggest on a former occasion, seen the pro- 
 priety of themselves formulating a plan for 
 the settlement of that question. Now, Sir, 
 a controversy has arisen on some of the more 
 important details of that measure. I do not 
 myself admire all those details. For exam- 
 ple, admitting the great difficulties, I should 
 yet prefer to the present plan for the ex- 
 clusion of Ireland from the management of 
 Imperial affairs in which she is interested, 
 her continued representation for those Im- 
 
 perial purposes in an Imperial Parliament. 
 I should ]n'efer the plan, notwithstanding it« 
 great difficulty, of her retaining that share of 
 control. But it needs not to discuss this or 
 any other matter of detail, because it has 
 been expressly and authoritatively stated 
 that none of these points are considered in 
 any way vital to the question which is now 
 before England and before the world. The 
 vital principle now at stake is that of self- 
 government for Ireland in local affairs. This 
 was stated by Mr. Gladstone in his reply to 
 the criticisms on the first reading of the Bill, 
 and he has further and authoritatively declar- 
 ed it by his recent manifesto, which was trans- 
 mitted to us only yesterday. In that mani- 
 festo, he thus speaks : • 
 
 " As for the means we take the establishment in 
 Dublin of a legislative body empowered to make 
 laws for Irish, as contra- distingnisbed from Impe- 
 rial affairs. It is with this that we are busied, and 
 not with details and particulars ; their time will 
 come." 
 
 He adds : 
 
 " We are not debating the amount of Irish con- 
 tributions to the Empire, of the compositson of the 
 legislative body, or the maintenance of representa- 
 tive connection with Westminster. On these ques- 
 tions and many more we may and we may not be at 
 odds ; but what we are at this momemt debating is 
 the large and far larger question Thich includes and 
 I think absorbs them all — the question whether you 
 will or will not have regard to the prayer of Ireland 
 for the management by herself of affairs specifically 
 and exclusively her own. This and no other is the 
 matter which the House of Commons has at once to 
 decide. If on this matter it speaks with a clear and 
 intelligible voice, I feel the strongest assurance that 
 the others, difficult as some of them are, will never- 
 theless with the aid of full discussion and with the 
 aid of a wise and conciliatory spirit be found capable 
 of a rational and tolerable settlement." 
 
 Now, Sir, that Bill to which this manifesto 
 refers stands for a second reading in a few 
 days, and then that vital question is to be 
 decided. A great excitement has arisen ; 
 the Empire has been aroused ; not merely the 
 Kingdom, but the Empire. The emotion 
 has passed beyond the seas ; it has passed 
 beyond the Empire ; the English speaking 
 people outside the bounds of the Empire 
 
DEBATE ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886. 
 
 71 
 
 have been aroused ; nay more, the f lee nations 
 all over the world have been moved. Every 
 eye is at this moment bent on Westminster, 
 and every ear is strained to catch the echoes 
 when they come of the «ireat debate, and to 
 learn the issue of the mighty struggle from 
 beyond. Under these circumstances marks 
 of sympathy and of admiration have been 
 cabled to the First Minister, and he has 
 responded to them in such a sort as proves 
 conclusively that he regards them, as they 
 must bf , helpful to him in, the enormous task 
 he has undertaken. We know as well as if 
 we had received it already what the tone of 
 the reply will be to any such communication 
 as we have on a former occasion addressed, 
 or as other large bodies have addressed, upon 
 this subject. The circumstances are of 
 course changed ; they are changed since the 
 day we addressed Her Majesty ; they are 
 changed as to the position of the question ; 
 but they are changed in this particular also, 
 to which I call your special attention. At 
 that time we assumed — and I suppose we are 
 not now prepared to resile ; I am not, at any 
 rate, prepared to resile from the assumption 
 of our right respectfully to approach the 
 Throne with a view to tender our humble 
 advice and hopes upon a subject of such vital 
 importance to the whole Empire, and to 
 Canada as a part of the Empire. But, Sir, 
 at this time not merely in other particulars 
 are the circumstances changed, but they are 
 changed in this : That whereas when we 
 were asked to accede to the view that we 
 should assume the responsibility of respect- 
 fully tendering that advice and opinion to 
 Her Majesty's Government, that Government 
 had not acted. Now we can say that Her 
 Majesty's Government, whether upon that 
 advice or not, have acted in accordance with 
 the spirit of that advice, and that we are no 
 longer called upon by any sense of duty, and 
 it is unnecessary that we should tender them 
 any advice. What we are called upon now 
 to do under the present circumstances is to 
 assist them, so far as we can, by giving them 
 our moral support in furtherance of the views 
 which they have expressed, and in the adop- 
 tion of the principles of the scheme now be- 
 fore Parliament. The answers which have 
 been given to the communications which 
 have been received show their helpfulness. 
 To the Speaker of the Quebec Assembly, in 
 response to their resolution, Mr. Gladstone 
 writes : 
 
 " I am deeply grateful at the resolution adopted 
 by your honorable body. It is my belief that the 
 people of England, who have partial responsibility 
 
 for the old misdeeds of the British Government, and 
 the people of Ireland who have really none, wiii 
 concur in the wise and liberal view entertained by 
 the Quebec AsGembly. " 
 
 To the Mayor of Boston, in answer to the 
 resolution of the city, he cabled : 
 
 "I feel that American opinion, allied as it ia with 
 a regard and affection for the Old Country, affords 
 Her Majesty's Government a powerful moral sup- 
 port." 
 
 Then, shall we be slack to-day 1 Shall we 
 be silent now who spoke before 1 I say, No. 
 We are bound to speak smd speak now. 
 Else it will be said of us : " You spoke ere 
 the question was ripe, when your words em- 
 barrassed ; now that it is near, even at the 
 door, you withhold your help." Else it will 
 be inferred that we have changed our minds, 
 and that no lonffer does the House of Com- 
 mons approve of self-government for Ireland. 
 Our silence to-day will be as positively hurt- 
 ful as our speech to day would be helpful. 
 It was but yesterday that we were, in etFect, 
 appealed to. Listen to the words of Mr. 
 Gladstone's manifesto. He appeals, indeed, 
 directly, in the words which I am about to 
 read, to the masses of the population of 
 Great Britain ; and this is what he says : 
 
 " Watching from day to day the movement of the 
 currents of opinion during the present conflict, more 
 and more I find it vital to observe the point at 
 which the dividing lines are drawn on the side ad- 
 verse to the Government. They are found, as I sor- 
 rowfully admit, in profuse abundance, in station, 
 title, wealth, social influence and the professions, 
 and the large majority of them in tho world, spirit 
 and power of class. These are the main body of the 
 opposing host. Nor is this all. As knights of old 
 had squires, so in the great army of class each en- 
 rolled soldier has a roll of dependants. The adverse 
 host, then, consists of class and dependants of class; 
 but this formidable army is the bulk of its constitu- 
 ents, part of the same, though now enriches I at our 
 cost, with a valuable contingent of recruits that has 
 fought in every Government the greatest political 
 battles of the last sixty years, and has been defeated. 
 We have a great aim, Fo); us now it is to restore 
 your parliamentary efficiency, by dividing and by 
 removing obstacles to its work ; to treat the Irish 
 question with due regard to its specialties, but with 
 the same thoroughness of method by which we 
 have solved colonial problems that fifty years back 
 were hardly if at all less formidable ; to give heed 
 to the voice of the people, speaking in tones of 
 moderation, by the month of the vast majority of 
 those whom we ourselves have made its constitutional 
 representatives, and thus to strengthen and consoli- 
 date the Empire on the basis of mutual benefit and 
 hearty loyalty." 
 
 I ask whether we, too, though that appeal 
 is not a direct appeal to us, we too, a demo- 
 cratic people, kinsmen of those he addresses, 
 of that very mass of the population to which 
 Mr. Gladstone speaks, shall not echo and 
 
72 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 further his appeal. He describes in the same 
 manifesto the response from the world. 
 Thus he speaks : 
 
 " Never have I known an occasion when a parUa- 
 mentary event so rang through the world as the in- 
 troduction of this Bill, under the auspices of the 
 British Government. Prom public meetings ano 
 from the highest author.ties in the Colonies, from 
 capitals sucti as WaBhington, Cincinnati, Boston, 
 Quebec, and from the remotest districts lying beyond 
 the reach of all ordinary political excitement, I re- 
 ceive the conclusive ansurance that kindred people 
 regard it with warm and fraternal sympathy. Our 
 present effort is to gettlo on an adequate scale, and 
 onoe for all, the long-vexed and troubled relations be- 
 tween England and Ireland, which exhibit to us the 
 only one conspicuous failure of the political genius 
 of our race, to confront and master a difficulty, and 
 to obtain in a reasonable degree the main ends of 
 civilized life." 
 
 I ask under those circumstances, and when 
 the highest testimony is given to those reso- 
 lutions from various quarters as to their uti- 
 lity, shall Canada who was earliest in the 
 field be dumb to-day] Shall her voice, so 
 loud before, be silent now t Shall we not 
 listen to that mute appeal and cause our 
 names to be enrolled amongst those who con- 
 stitute the forces of the great public opinion 
 throughout the world, giving an added im- 
 pulse to the progress of this great measure ? 
 T dare not be silent longer. I do not bring 
 this as a party question. I have waited till 
 the last moment, hoping that some one on 
 the other side of the House would move. 
 That hope I have been obliged to abandon. 
 I see that the Minister of Inland Revenue 
 has declined to move, and has cabled for him- 
 self and for the Irish representatives in Par- 
 liament the assurance of his and their adhe- 
 sion to the address of 1882. I do not 
 undervalue his assurance, but it is not the 
 assurance required. What is required is the 
 assurance not of one, but of all classes ; not 
 of a section, but of the people ; not of 
 a Minister of the Crown, but of the Com- 
 mons of Canada ; not of the Irish Catho- 
 lic members, but of the French and English, 
 Scotch, Irish and German, of all creeds and 
 of all nationalities. To substitute the hon. 
 gentleman's assurance for our voice would be 
 to acknowledge that we do not choose now to 
 speak in the sense in which we spoke then, 
 and in which he declares his own readiness 
 to speak again. I therefore speak, but not 
 as a Reformer, or a party leader ; I speak as 
 a Canadian and citizen of the Empire to 
 brother Canadians and fellow-citizens of the 
 Empire. This not a Protestant or a Catho- 
 lic question ; they are enemies of their coun- 
 try who would make it so. It should not be. 
 
 in Canada at all events, a Conservative or a 
 Reform measure. I regard those as the ene- 
 mies of tlieir country who would try to make 
 it sa I hope that we may by our own action 
 this day show ourselves united in the redress 
 of wrongs and in the advancement of the 
 cause of libei'ty. For my part I should feel 
 myself nothing less than a coward and a 
 criminal should we, without any effort of 
 mine, stand passive to-day and fail to lend 
 our help at this critical moment to the cause 
 of freedom and local self-government for the 
 Irish people. I therefore move to leave out 
 all the words after " that " and insert the 
 following : 
 
 An humble address be presented to Her Majesty 
 to re^pectfaily assure Her Majesty that the in- 
 terest and concern felt by the Commons of Canada 
 and the people whom they represeut in the con- 
 dition of Ireland, and their desire that some means 
 may be found of meeting the expressed wishes of so 
 many of Her Majesty's Irish subjects for the grant 
 to Ireland of a measure of local self-government, 
 still continue as warm and earnest as in the year 
 1882 when they were humbly signified to Her Ma- 
 jesty by an address, to the terms to which this House 
 alHrms its abiding adhesion. 
 
 Humbly to inform Her Majesty that this House 
 bails with joy the submission by Her M^ijesty's 
 Government to the Parliament of the United King- 
 dom of a measure recognising the principle of local 
 self-government for Ireland. 
 
 And humbly to express to Her Majesty the earnest 
 hope of this House that the principle of the s. id 
 measure may be affirmed, and that it may form the 
 basis for such a settlement of this great question as 
 shall conduce to the peace, happiness and prosperity 
 of the Empire. 
 
 [Note. — The debate was adjourned under 
 an arrangement between Mr. Blake and Sir 
 John Macdonald by w^hich the subject should 
 be taken up as a substantive motion ; and it 
 was resumed on May 6.] 
 
 Mr. Blakb. In pursuance of the Orders 
 of the Day, and for the reasons I stated on 
 Tuesday, no intimation having reached me 
 from any member of the House that any por- 
 tion of this motion is, in its form or substance, 
 objectionable, I beg to move the address of 
 which I gave notice on Tuesday, expressing 
 the joy this House experiences by the sub- 
 mission of a measure in the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment recognizing the principle of local self- 
 government for Ireland. 
 
 Mr. CosTiGAN It is no secret, 
 
 nor did lintend that it should be, because full 
 publicity was given to the facts, that represen- 
 tative men of one very prominent Irish society 
 of this city called upon me, urging the pro- 
 priety of moving some resolution on this ques- 
 tion. Their obj ect, of course, was not to consult 
 with me as to the desirability, or otherwise, 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886, 
 
 7» 
 
 t}t taking that step, because those who have 
 read the reports of the proceedings of the 
 «ociety will see that, in the first place, the 
 society decided that that was the proper step 
 to take, that some resolution should be 
 moved, and they then decided that a com- 
 mi^^tee should ask me to take that step. The 
 reasons that I gave them, I think, hold good 
 at present I stated, and I repeat now, that 
 if on that occasion we had not been success- 
 ful, and whether hopeful of success now or 
 not, if we had failed on that occasion we 
 might and it would be our duty to make 
 another attempt to gain an expression of 
 sympathy from so important a body as this 
 is. Then having succeeded beyond, as I 
 stated before, the most sanguine expectations 
 of the most earnest Irishmen in this country 
 in obtaining a unanimous expression of sym- 
 pathy from this Parliament in favour of the 
 Irish people and the constitutional agitation 
 they were carrying on for the attainment of 
 that system of Government and those consti- 
 tutional privileges which we enjoy in this 
 country and cherish so highly, I believed for 
 one that it was not only not prudent or ad- 
 visable, but that we had no just reason for 
 asking Parliament to take this question up 
 again. I noticed that in some of the city 
 papers giving my reasons for refusing to 
 move in that direction when I was called 
 upon to do so, it was declared that I stated 
 that my reason was that I feared the defeat 
 of the resolution. I deny ever having made 
 such a statement. I entertain no such fear. 
 I am quite satisfied that the Parliament of 
 Canada, that the representative men in this 
 country are always ready and willing to give 
 an expression consistent with the privileges 
 and the Constitution under which we live, 
 and that there is no man in Canada who 
 would not be willing to see his fellow-men in 
 any part of the globe enjoying the privileges 
 of free and self-government which we enjoy 
 in Canada. I did say, however, that as we 
 could not expect to get Parliament to give a 
 stronger expression of opinion, what would 
 be the object of introducing the question 
 again, when the risk might be to get a weaker 
 expression of opinion. I did not say that 
 the question would be defeated. I did not 
 entertain such a belief at all, but it is pos- 
 sible that some division might take place, 
 that some one man or some two members, or 
 three or four, if you will, might differ from 
 the views taken by the majority of the House 
 of Commons on that occasion, and therefore 
 to that extent the expression would be that 
 much weakened. .... I, therefore, beg 
 
 leave to move in amendment to the motion, 
 seconded by Sir Hector Langevin : 
 
 That all the words after "that" be struck out, 
 and the foUowing added instead thereof :— the 
 Commons of Canada desire to express their deep 
 and abiding interest in the prosperity and happiuoss 
 of their feilow-subjects in Ireland, and thtiir adhesion 
 to the sentiments expresssed in the Joint Address to 
 Her Majesty of both Hoases of the Canadian 
 Parliament passed in the Session of 1882 ; 
 
 That in such Address Parliament suggested that 
 Canada and its inhabitants had prospered exceed- 
 ingly under a Federal system, allowing to each Pro- 
 vince of the Dominion considerable powers of self- 
 government, and expressed a hope "that if consistent 
 with the integrity and well-being of the Empire, and 
 if the rights and status of the minority were fully 
 protected and secured, some means might be found 
 of meeting the expressed desires of so many of Her 
 Majesty's Irish subjects in that regard." 
 
 That in answer to the said Address the then Seo- 
 retary of State for the Colonies was commanded to 
 state that " Her M^ijest? will always gladly receive 
 the advice of the Parliament of Canada on all matters 
 relating to the Dominion and the administration of 
 its .flairs, but with respt^ct to the questions referred 
 to in the Address Her Majesty will, in accordance 
 with the Constitution of this country, have regard 
 to the advice of the Imperial Parliament and 
 Ministers, to whom all matters relating to the affairs 
 of the United Kingdom exclusively appertain." 
 
 That this House, having reference to the tenor 
 of the said answer, does not deem it expedient 
 again to address Her Majesty on the subject, but 
 earnestly hopes that such a measure or i^uob 
 measures may be adopted by the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment as wUl, while preserving the integrity and well- 
 being of the Empire and the rights and status of 
 the minority, be satisfactory to the people of Ireland, 
 and permanently remove the discontent so long 
 unhappily prevailing in that country. 
 
 Mr. Casey If the hon. 
 
 gentleman (Mr. Costigan) asks for rea- 
 sons why we should renew that expression 
 of opinion, I have plenty to give him. 
 First, because this is a new parliament. 
 After that expression of opinion in 1882 
 the members of this House went to their 
 constituents, and if the constituents objected 
 to the course taken in 1882 they had means 
 of showing it. I do not think there is 
 anything in the result of that election to 
 show that they did object to that expres- 
 sion of opinion. But we do wish to put 
 on record the fact that this House of Com- 
 mons, after the expression of opinion given 
 by the former House of Commons and after 
 consulting the constituents, entertains the 
 same opinion that the House held four yeais 
 ago. That is one reason for renewing the ex- 
 pression of opinion. Another reason is, and 
 it is a still stronger one, because now Home 
 
 Rule is a practical issue Now it 
 
 is a practical issue ; now something has been 
 proposed ; now a measure, however defective 
 some of us may think it, has been submitted to 
 
DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 the British House of Commons, and apparently 
 it has a possibility at least of being adopted 
 in principle, a measure adopting, at all events 
 the great theory of Home Rule, however we 
 may differ from the details proposed in that 
 measure. Now I say is the time when our re- 
 expression of opinion will be useful 
 
 But now, wh^n Home Rule has ripened, when 
 Home Rule is in process of being granted to 
 Ireland, an expression of opinion coming 
 from this House, of which the great majority 
 is known to be Conservative, would not be 
 looked upon as a political dodge, but would 
 be looked upon as a sincere and earnest at- 
 tempt to strengthen the hands of those who 
 
 are working for justice to Ireland 
 
 We asserted in 1882 our right to petition the 
 Throne in regard to a matter which we de- 
 clared to be of Imperial significance, but which 
 we declared to have material bearings on the 
 
 prosperity of Canada as well I say 
 
 that the acceptance of that Resolution by this 
 House appears to me to be an acceptance of 
 the snub which was administered to this 
 House, by the then Secretary of the Colonies, 
 at the time we sent the former resolution. 
 I object to taking the ground 
 that because they would not hear us before 
 we will not speak to them now, when they 
 
 are willing to hear us What is 
 
 the meaning of the remarks of Mr. Glad- 
 stone in his late manifesto 1 Is it not a re- 
 cognition that not only Quebec, a French 
 Province living under British rule, filled now 
 with British sympathy and love for British 
 constitutional Government, not only a French 
 Province like Quebec, but even States entire- 
 ly severed from the Empire, are members of 
 the great British family council, composed of 
 the offspring that have come from the loins 
 of that great nation 1 Is it not a recognition 
 of our fellow-citizenship in the British Em- 
 pire ? I say it is. Is it more than a recog- 
 nition of our right to speak in that family 
 council. It is an invitation to lay our opin- 
 ions before the head of that family, with the 
 assurance that those opinions will be accepted 
 with gratitude and regarded with the favour 
 and respect that their importance deserves. 
 .... Though of Irish descent, and though 
 proud of that descent, I hope I shall be able to 
 discuss this question rather as a Canadian than 
 as an Irishman. I hold that Home Rule is as 
 much a principle of the Canadian people, is a 
 sentiment as dear to the Canadian heart, as 
 it is to that of native Irishmen. I mean 
 Home Rule in the general sense, not merely 
 as applied to Ireland, but as applied to all 
 isolated communites who claim the right to 
 
 manr.ge their own affairs. 
 
 The 
 
 Legislature of Quebec has given an almost 
 unanimous declaration of opinion in favour of 
 Home Rule, thereby inferring that Home 
 Rule has worked well with them. Another 
 parallel exists in the fact that there is a large 
 Protestant minority in Ireland whose rights 
 some people fear will be injured by the con- 
 cession of Home Rule to that country. 
 There is a larg« Protestant minority in the 
 Province of Quebec. Has Home Rule in 
 Quebec been disastrous to the Protectant 
 minority ? I do not think any member of 
 this House will contend that it has. It is 
 evident that the English-speaking members 
 of the Quebec Assembly do not think it has, 
 for they have given their assent to the princi- 
 ple of Home Rule. And is it to be asserted 
 that the people of Ireland, with whom so 
 many of us are allied by race, are less reliant 
 or less disposed to live at peace and harmony 
 among themselves under Home Rule than the 
 people of Quebec? I repudiate the assertion, 
 
 if any one is hardy enough to make it 
 
 I will give my support to the resolution in- 
 troduced by my hon. friend as leader, and in 
 the second place, if that resolution .should 
 not meet the acceptance of the House to 
 whatever form of words may be agreed 
 upon by the House and to which we 
 can give our unanimous support ; while 
 I maintain, at the same time a strong 
 preference for the form of proceeding we 
 have already adopted. In this I believe I 
 am only doing my duty, not as an Irishman, 
 but as a Canadian. J believe tJie action this 
 House will take w:i^ ^-eatly strengthen the 
 hands of the vener^ .»l3 statesman who is risk- 
 ing all the fr'uts of a great and long career 
 to do what he conceives to be just to Ireland, 
 and who is doing this at the risk of losing the 
 support of many who have been his friends 
 through life. In that position he demands 
 the sympathy of the world, and I hope he 
 will receive the sympathy not only of Re- 
 formers but of Conservatives as well through- 
 
 out British countries 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN .... Will it be for the 
 advantage of Ireland that such a resolution 
 shouldbe brought forward 1 In view of what 
 has been said in the press, in view of the im- 
 putation which was cast upon us, in view 
 more particularly of the unanimous vote 
 cast in this House in 1882, a more emphatic 
 expression than which this could not pos- 
 sibly have been given, we thought, Sir, it 
 would be impossible for us to secure any- 
 thing more forcible, and that it was desirable 
 to let the matter stand before the worlds 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RES0LUT1^')NS, MAY, 
 
 1886. 
 
 75 
 
 before the eyes of Mr. Gladstone, who had 
 received it and who had returned it in the 
 contemptuous manner that has been referred 
 to, that was the unanimous expression of this 
 Parliament. It has never been appealed. 
 No one had stood up in this Parliament and 
 asked that a different opinion should be re- 
 corded, and we felt under the circumstances, 
 and not only those gentlemen, but the best 
 Home Rulers in this country whom I have 
 consulted, those who have given their time, 
 their money aud their energy to the cause, 
 also felt that unless we could secure a unani- 
 mous vote again in this House, or something 
 tantamount thereto, it was in the interest of 
 Ireland that the old resolutions should stand, 
 which had been carried by a unanimous vote, 
 
 and that they should not be disturbed 
 
 This body does not feel it necessary to pre- 
 sent an Address to Her Majesty, but I may 
 say that the course which has been adopted 
 by the leader of the Opposition not only does 
 not meet the views of those who may be sup- 
 posed to speak for the Irish people of the 
 Dominion, but it meets with their entire dis- 
 approbation A very great dilfi- 
 
 culty indeed exists, as has been pointed out 
 in such a plain manner by the Minister 
 of Inland Ke venue, in view of the recep- 
 tion which our last Address received, 
 when Mr. Gladstone himself advised Her 
 Majesty to tell us in plain language that 
 while the Government of England would 
 always be ready to receive any advice we 
 might have to offer upon Canadian affairs, yet, 
 so far as regards Imperial concerns, Canada 
 
 had better mind her own business 
 
 Now, Sir, the substance of the hon. gentle- 
 man's (Mr. Blake) resolution may be all 
 right enough, but according to his own 
 friends, according to common-sense ideas and 
 a due regard for our own dignity, we cannot 
 adopt by any possibility the form which he 
 has adopted, the form which brought this 
 answer from the Earl of Kiraberley, whilst 
 we have an equally effective mode ; a mode 
 that will involve no discourtesy towards this 
 House, if it exists ; a mode by which the 
 Parliament places upon its records and pub- 
 lishes to the world what its views are upon 
 this question in its present state in the 
 
 Imperial Parliament 
 
 Mr. McMuLLEN, who was received with 
 groans by Government supporters, said : — 
 Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is right 
 that any Irishman should get a groan in this 
 House. I claim to be an Irishman just as 
 much as the gentlemen who have already ad- 
 dressed the House on this question. I believe 
 
 I am just as true an Irishman as any who sits 
 within th s Chamber. I was born on the old 
 sod ; I li\ 9d there for a good many years ; I 
 have visiti d it and travelled through it fre- 
 quently. I love and reverence the green 
 hiLs of Ire and just as much as any man in 
 this House and when I, in my humble way, 
 rise to offer ; few words in the interest of this 
 important qi, ^stion, I think I am just as fairly 
 entitled to a hearing as any man who sits in 
 
 this House The hon. gentleman who 
 
 has just sat d( wn has told us that the Irish- 
 men of this H 5use and the Irishmen of the 
 Senate had a i leeting and talked the whole 
 question over, i nd he said that every Irish- 
 man in this H luse and in the Senate was 
 present. Well, Sir, I claim to be an Irish- 
 man, and I waj? not there ; I heard nothing 
 of the meeting, and I do not believe there 
 is an Irishman oa this side of the House who 
 heard anything oi it. I would like to know 
 if the hon. leader of the Opposition heard 
 anything of it ■? 
 
 Mr. Blake. No. 
 
 Mr. CuRKAX. 1 spoke of Irish Catholic 
 members and Senators. 
 
 Mr. Blake. It is a Catholic question, 
 is it? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. No, it is not, but you are 
 trying to make a Grit question of it. 
 
 Mr. McMuLLEN. I am sorry the hon. 
 gentleman is so exceedingly narrow-minded 
 on this question. I vould like to know if 
 the resolution carried in this House in 1882 
 was carried only by the vote of Irish Catho- 
 lic members. I would like to know if both 
 Catholic and Prostests.nt members did not 
 support that resolutior. Mr. Parnell is not 
 a Catholic, and why should the hon. gentle- 
 man narrow the question down to Catholics? 
 
 . . . Now, if we 30uld take the resolu- 
 tion that has been presented by the hon. leader 
 of the Opposition and the amendment that has 
 been presented by the hon. Minister of Inland 
 Revenue and place those two resolutions in 
 the hands of Mr. Gladstone and in the hands 
 of Mr. Parnell, I venture to say that their 
 decision would be, let us have the resolution 
 
 of the hon. leader of the C'pposition 
 
 I believe if years ago Irciand had got Home 
 Kule, we would to day hive more Irishmen 
 living in Canada, which ^vould be a decided 
 advantage to us. Any man who will travel 
 through Ireland, as I have and witness the 
 evidence of ancient greatness on every hand 
 and the unfortunate condition of things to-day 
 which stand out in strong contrast to those- 
 evidences of past grandeur, will come to the 
 conclusion that something s wanted. .... 
 
76 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 If Ireland got Home Rule, she would use it doubt we shall hear from the Miaigter of 
 
 cautiously and carefully, knowing that the Customs, he is an Irishman. 
 
 eyes of the vvorld would be turned upon her Mr. Bowell. You are wrong. 
 
 to see whether she would really use the privi- Mr. McMcLLBif. We also expect the 
 
 lege granted to her with prudence and care. hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc- 
 
 I believe the Catholic majority would deal Carthy) to speak. Surely he ia going to say 
 
 out to the Protestant minority an ample a word on this question. 
 
 share of free treatment, and that the latter Mr. McCarthy. Yes. 
 
 would not suffer in the slightest. I believe Mr. McMullen. And the hon. member 
 
 it is the incumbent duty of this House to for Hastings (Mr. White), surely we wiU 
 
 express our opinion on this question, and not have a word from him on this question. 
 
 to present our resolution in the emasculated Mr. White (Hastings). I am opposed to it. 
 
 style proposed by the Minister of Inland Mr. McMullen. All these men will rise, 
 
 Revenue. I think the leader of the Oppo- and they will deplore the unfortunate spirit 
 
 sition has given ample evidence of his sin- that actuated the leader of the Opposition in 
 
 cerity, first, by introducing the resolution in a introducing a question of this kind without 
 
 broad and comprehensive style, and secondly, consulting hon. gentlemen opposite 
 
 by the very admirable speech in which he lam rather disposed to think that hon. gentle- 
 supported it. Did not thep leader of the men opposite, notwithstanding all their valued 
 Opposition (Mr. Blake) try to impress on the loyalty as Conservatives, are disposed to ignore 
 
 House the absolute necessity that its expres- the Queen in this question There 
 
 aion of opinion should be unanimous, not as is not a man in this House, who will deny 
 a party question, but as an expression of that poor, unfortunate Ireland has suffered for 
 Canadian public sentiment, with the object years for the want of that measure of Home 
 of strengthening Mr. Gladstone's hands by Rule that we believe would be pleasant to 
 securing to him the prestige which would her. They attack the resolution of the leader 
 arise from our action and our experience in of the Opposition, and I am sorry to say that 
 the matter of Home Rule 1 The hon. gen- there are some men of Irish parentage who 
 tleraan also spoke with regard to the attitude have been so neglectful of the honour they 
 of the Globe and 3faiL Well, any person in owe to their parent laud, that in the moment 
 the habit of reading the Globe can come to of her struggles, and of Mr. Gladstone's efforts 
 no other conclusion than that the Globe is a in her behalf, they have stood, while clothed 
 consistent advocate of Home Rule. Its with the honour of being representatives in 
 course on that question has been advocated this House, clothed with the privilege of dis- 
 in that bold and liberal spirit in which that charging the duty of representatives of con- 
 newspaper agitates every question it takes stituencies that, in many cases, have a large 
 in hand. But what has been the course of number of Irishmen — they have stood still 
 the Mail ? The Mail played shy for a long for nine weeks without offering one word of 
 time. It followed the course which is encouragement to the leaders of the Home 
 usually followed by the leader of the Govern- Rule movement, or presenting any resolution 
 ment in an important question. It wanted, in order to back up Mr. Gladstone in the 
 
 first, to see how the wind would blow, to see enormous task he has undertaken 
 
 what course would be taken by its leaders, I contend that we should go farther than the 
 and after a long time it mustered courage resolution itself. If the amendment had 
 enough to come out and express opposition to added force to the resolution it should have 
 Home Rule. Irishmen have not much to been seriously considered. I must again ex- 
 thank the Mail for. They will be able to press regret that the question has not been 
 see through the course taken by the Mail and approached in a spirit of liberality apd fair- 
 by the hon. gentlemen opposite, and I do not ness by hon. gentlemen opposite 
 
 believe they will be a party to this scheme of Being desirous as an Irishman to do every- 
 
 blinding the eyes of those who sympathise thing in my power to aid the efforts being 
 
 with Home Rule and hoodwinking the Irish put forth by Mr. Gladstone in favour of 
 
 population I suppose we shall Home Rule, I beg to move an amendment 
 
 have an address from others on that side of to the amendment : ^ 
 
 the House on this subject No doubt the ^^ j^^^^ ^^^ ^ ^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^ .menament after 
 
 member for Montreal and the Minister ot «»that" and insert the following words in addition 
 
 Inland Revenue will not be allowed to stand thereto, after the word " adhesion' 
 
 » . 
 
 alone. No doubt the first Minister will .. ^^^ t^i^t this House is confirmed and strength- 
 address the House. We expect him to. No ened by the events which have occurred since the 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS. MAY, 1886. 77 
 
 passage of the said addresa in ita conyictiona that utter, were cut off hy assafisination 
 
 !?mii?«i^nT«t,^Ji?^«"t7i*K^ I "tte^ly repudiate the idea that those 
 
 Diiapire will be seived m the highest degree by the . •' i ^»r-r. n-. 
 
 grantingof Home Rule to Ireland." " gentlemen who support Mr. Farnell s doc- 
 trines as to what is best for the Government 
 
 Mr. EuRXs In 1882, in the face of Ireland, can be said to represent what is 
 
 of opposition from his own party, he (Mr. popularly called the Irish people, except so 
 
 Co8ti^an)introducedinto the House a series of far as they speak for their own following in 
 
 resolutions, which were carried unanimously, that country. I want that hon. gentleman 
 
 or almost unanimously The facts to understand — and I think I am perfectly 
 
 are as stated by the Minister, that it was sug- justified in making the remark — that there 
 
 gested to hiin that resolutions of this kind is f\ very large population in Ireland who 
 
 should be introduced, but after consultation have no sympathy with ]^Ir. Parnell's 
 
 with those with whom he was associated, doctrines or his movements, and who do not 
 
 with his countrymen if you will, it was recognize him in any way as a leader. I 
 
 deemed inexpedient, or unnecessary rather, would like to ask the hon. gentleman 
 
 that resolutions of this nature should be in- v/hether an Ulster Orangeman or a Protea- 
 
 troduced tant from the west of Ireland has not just as 
 
 Mr. O'Brien. It seems. Sir, to be assnm- much right to speak in this House on behalf 
 
 ed by all who have yet spoken on this ques- of that portion or the population of Ireland 
 
 tion, that this House is unanimous in an ex- who are opposed to the principle of Home 
 
 pression of an opinion in favour of Home Rule, who look upon it as disastrous and 
 
 Rnle for Ireland, as embodied in the Bill perilous to their best interests, as anyone 
 
 brought in by Mr. Gladstone, or in some who believes in the position assumed '^y Mr. 
 
 similar measure, as to pass in favour of that Parnell. Now, Sir, I for one ocupy 
 
 question by unanimous consent. Now, Sir, precisely the same position as the hon. 
 
 I, for one, view with the very gravest appre- Minister of Inland Revenue. I am the 
 
 hension as to the result, not only to Ireland descendant of an Irish family, which at least 
 
 and the best interests of Ireland, but also to has borne a not ignoble part in the Li tory of 
 
 the Empire at large, of the measure intro- that country ; and I say, as representing that 
 
 duced by Mr. Gladstone I congrat- clsiss of Irishmen, that I protest against any 
 
 ulate the hon, gentleman (Mr. Blake) upon the measure such as that introduced by Mr, 
 
 position in which he stands, and upon his pecu- Gladstone, which bristles with objectionable 
 
 liar suitability for the position he has taken as features, and which I think should be 
 
 the mover of this resolution. I hope this defeated on the ground that if it is pas-sed 
 
 remark will not be considered out of order something worse must follow. When the 
 
 He poses — I withdraw th^t word, because it hon. Minister of Inland Revenue or other 
 
 implies a charge of insincerity ; but that hon. gentlemen undertake to speak on behalf 
 
 hon. gentleman stands in the position, among of the people of Ireland, I think it only fair 
 
 laymen, of a declared supporter of evangeli- to mention that at least one-third of the 
 
 cal Protestantism in Ontario; and yet he population of Ireland, including the great 
 
 COMES FORWARD AS THE cnAMPiON OP A bulk of the Pfotestant population and a 1 irge 
 
 MEASURE WHICH EVERY Protestant IN Ire- minority of the Roman Catholics, who do not 
 
 LAND VIEWS AS DANGEROUS AND PERILOUS TO believe in the doctrines of Mr. Parnell, look on 
 
 HIS LIBERTIES There never was a Mr. Gladstone's measure as disastrous to the 
 
 system of coercion in Ireland to be compared country, and have protested and do protest in 
 
 with the terrorism exercised by the Land the btiongest manner against it 
 
 League since Mr. Parnell was placed at the Bub, Sir, the most serious objection to that 
 
 head of it ; and it is somewhat singular that measure, and that we, as Canadians, are most 
 
 any one can be found to support a body whose entitled to consider, apart from any sympathy 
 
 recognized agents have endeavoured, and un- which we may feel, as I do, with that Pro- 
 
 fortunately too often successfully, to carry out testant minority, is that it is regarded by Mr. 
 
 their measures by the vilest crimes that any Parnell and his followers, whatever may be 
 
 man can possibly conceive of. Hon. gentle- said to the contrary, as a mere lever by 
 
 men will remember that upon this day four which they may accomplish what they really 
 
 years ago, two men who landed in Ireland desire, that is the complete isolation and 
 
 charged with a message of peace, which, if independence of Ireland. I am disinclined 
 
 there had been time given to utter it, might to sat anything, which, howbver remotely 
 
 have very much changed the position cf mat tend to strengthen Mr. Gladstone in 
 
 afiairs, but which they were not ailowed to this measure How^manyhon. v e a- 
 
78 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMOXS, CANADA, 
 
 bers here who are pre[)ared to vote on the 
 resolution proposed even to know anything or 
 have read anything about Irish affairs'? Have 
 they ever considered what will be the position 
 of what is called the minority, and what will 
 be the effect, conimercially, if this measure 
 should pass? .... Are we to gratify 
 the wishes of what I honestly believe to be 
 nothing more than a faction, who have sin- 
 cerity, no doubt, but are actuated by motives 
 that fall short of anything like true pat- 
 riotism. Holding these views, believing 
 
 AS I DO THAT THIS MKASUllE IS ONE THAT 
 OUGHT NOT TO PASS THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, 
 I RAISE MY VOICE HERE IN PROTEST AGAINST 
 IT ; AND, AS PAR AS VOTING UPON THE RESOLU- 
 TIONS NOW BEFORE THE HOUSE IS CONCERNED, 
 I SHALL VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF Mr. 
 COSTIGAN SIMPLY ON THIS GROUND — 
 
 Some hon. Members. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien. Hon. gentlemen may cheer, 
 
 BUT let me finish MY SENTENCE — SIMPLY 
 THAT IT IS JUST THE ONE RESOLUTION OF ALL 
 THE THREE THAT I THINK IS LIKELY TO HAVE 
 THE LEAST EFFECT. 
 
 Mr. Landerkin A short time 
 
 ago, you will remember that, when it was 
 announced that that distinguished statesman 
 who leads the Government of the British 
 Empire, the Right Hon. William Ewart Glad- 
 stone, was about to propose a measure for the 
 amelioration of this condition of affairs in Ire- 
 land, that he had a measure to propose that 
 he thought would bring about peace, would 
 relieve the distress, and stay the crime that 
 had marked itself in Ireland for the past half 
 century or more, the nations of the world 
 stood as it were on tip-toe anxiously await- 
 ing the utterances of that distinguished 
 
 statesman It is the desire of 
 
 every patriotic man in this House that the 
 wrongs under which Ireland has suffered 
 shall be redressed, that the landlordism 
 existed and that has oppressed 
 tenants in that country shall 
 away with, that eviction and 
 coercion of every kind shall be taken away 
 from the law that governs Ireland, and Ire- 
 land shall yet be free, shall have her own 
 Parliament, shall make her own laws, shall 
 have her own Home Rule in effect. Well, 
 this is natural, that we should sympathise 
 with the distinguished state.'^man who has 
 brought in this measure, a mi asure which, 
 by reason of the traditions, by reason of 
 those conditions that have existed in the 
 hearts of other parts of the British Empire — 
 traditions that have been formed, prejudices 
 that have been grounded in th3 pc ople — has 
 
 that has 
 the poor 
 be done 
 
 met with much opposition ; but it is the 
 desire of true Canadians and true Britons 
 that Ireland may receive that measure of jus- 
 tice which she has clamoured for, which she 
 has demanded, and which she has a right to 
 exper :. Are the Iri.sh people, because they 
 as) berty, to be stamped out as rebels'? 
 Ai^ he Canadian^ who desire a change in 
 our constitution to be said to be rebels '? Are 
 those who are now in this country seeking a 
 change in our constitution and desiring Im- 
 perial Federation rebels? The First Minis- 
 ter himself is advocating radical changes in 
 the constitution of this country, and for that 
 is he a rebel ? And is Mr. Gladstone, when 
 he is addressing wrongs, stamping out inju- 
 ries which have existed for centuries in 
 Ii eland, not deserving the support, the united 
 support of this Parliament in the most im- 
 portant dependency of the British Empire, 
 supposed to be represented by those who are 
 true to the parent stem from whence we 
 sprang '?.... Now, Sir, in reference to 
 the resolution introduced here some years ago, 
 strongly as I felt that the wrongs of Ireland 
 should be redressed, I saw that there was no 
 practicable measure before the Imperial 
 Parliament, and I thought it was inexpedient 
 to introduce the question here, it appeared to 
 me to be devised for the purpose of securing 
 popularity to those who introduced it. It 
 would not look to be sincere and an honesu 
 thing. But to-day, when there is a practicable 
 scheme, we see the author of the resolution in 
 1882 now shrinking from enforcing the prin- 
 ciples he professes to admire. .... I 
 think the member for Muskoka described Par- 
 nell as a robber, or something of that kind, and 
 here we have the Government, through the 
 Minister of Inland Revenue communicating 
 with a gentleman whom the member for Mus- 
 koka dubs as a rebel, or something worse. 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I think all the lovers of 
 freedom in this House will support the amend- 
 ment to the amendment that has been moved 
 by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. 
 McMulkn). I rather favour that. There 
 is a word in the motion proposed by the 
 leader of the Opposition which I would like 
 to see left out. I will read the first sentence 
 and point out the word, which I think might 
 be left out, because it gives it a narrowness 
 which t\u^ motion ought not to have. I wish 
 to see that one word " Irish " left out, and 
 " Her Majesty's subjects " inserted. 
 
 Mr. Blake. I would explain to the hon. 
 gentleman, that that word is in the original 
 address, which I was following in that para- 
 graph, and that is the reason it is there. 
 
ON THK HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886w 79 
 
 Mr. Landerkix. That is the address vided for in the measure that has been sub- 
 passed in 1882 ? mitted to the British House of Couinions, 
 
 Mr. Blake. Yes. and therefore I say that I cannot support the 
 
 Mr. Landerkin. That is quite satisfac- resolution of the leader of the Opposition, 
 
 tory. because it causes this House to accede to the 
 
 Some hon. Members. Hear, hear. principle laid down by ><r Gladstone in his 
 
 Mr. Landkrkis. The explanation as Home Rule resolutions, and those principlea 
 
 given, is somewhat satisfactory no doubt; are not the principles which I would like to 
 
 but it is not quite satisfactory to my mind see carried out 
 
 because it has a broader signification.. Mr. McNeill. . I wish, however, briefly 
 
 Mr. Blakk. I quite agree. ' to explain what my views are on this 
 
 Mr. Landerkin. And if there was an subject, how 1 shall vote,, and why I 
 
 error at that time in tho address, I do not shall vote as I do. Before doing so. however, 
 
 see why it should not be cornicted now. With I should like to congratulate the hon. gentle- 
 
 the motion of the leader of the Opposition I man, the leader of the Opposition, on at last 
 
 am heartily in accord. I am also heartily in having discovered a policy. I am sorry, 
 
 accord with the amendment proposed by the however, that 1 cannot congratulate him on 
 
 hon. member for North VVellington (Mr. the nature of the policy he has discovered. 
 
 McMullen) I speak here as a That policy is a policy of discord. The hon. 
 
 Protestant, and speaking from that stand- gentleman knows as well as he knows that 
 
 point, I believe it is necessary in the interests a soul is in his body, that the people of this 
 
 of all the people in this country, irrespective of country, the people of the Dominion of 
 
 religion, creed or nationality, to come forward Canada, entertain views with reference to this 
 
 at this moment and assist Mr. Gladstone, question, as wide as the poles asunder. The 
 
 and do all they can to strengthen his hands hon. gentleman knows, that in his own city 
 
 so that his statesmanlike measure may be of Toronto, the other day a meeting was held, 
 
 carried into effect. attended by some of the best informed and 
 
 Mr. Orton .... As far as my humble most influential men in Canada, and that at 
 ability would allow me to judge, I have always that meeting views were expressed diametri- 
 held that to grant Home Itiile to Ireland would cally opposed to the views that hon. gentle- 
 be the best means of strengthening the Briti.sh man presented to us to day. He knows, too, 
 Empire and causing Ireland to be like what that the sentiments to which I have referred 
 we desire Canada to be, more closely allied are sentiments which may very readily be 
 to the British Crown and the fortunes of the stirred deeply in the breasts of the people 
 British Empire. I believe Home Rule for of this country. He knows also that this 
 Ireland would have the effect of strengthen- question has excited such an agitation in 
 ing rather than weakening the British Em- England, as neitl.r be nor I have seen be- 
 pire. But while I hold these views, I do not fore. He knows that England, that Great 
 consider the system of Home Rule about to Britain and Ireland are divided into hostile 
 be inaugurated by Mr. Gladstone is one that camps on this subject. He knows very 
 is calculated to strengthen the British Em- well that Great Britain and Ireland are in 
 pire j it is not one calculated to elevate the throes of such an agitation as they have 
 Ireland to the extent that Home Rule should never seen before, in reference to this very 
 elevate that country and improve its condi- question, and that an agitation so fierce is in 
 tion. In the first place, the reason why I progress there that actually the fearful and 
 am opposed to the resolution of the leader of awful words " civil war " are whispered from 
 the Opposition is because it endorses the lip to lip. 
 Homo Ruleprinciple laid down by Mr. Glad- Mr. Blake. Hear, hear, 
 stone. Mr. McNeill. The hon. gentleman says 
 
 An hon. Member. No, it does not "hear, hear," but he knows that. 
 
 Mr. Orton. I say that it is not calculated Mr. Blake. No he does not. 
 
 to do good to Ireland I would like Mr. McNeill. WeL, if he does not, he 
 
 to see extended to the Protestant minority in should read the newspapers, or corf-espond 
 Ireland the same principles that '^e extend with his friends in Ireland, and he would 
 to the Catholic minority, in Ont' ' the know it. He knows that, and he knows 
 Dominion, and the same caref'x. : .dera- how deeply that question may stir up feel- 
 tion of the minority, as is concedet to the ings of animosity among men, who are to- 
 Protestant minority in the Province of Que- day neighbours and friends, and yet he has 
 bee. But that, in my opinion, is not pro- no hesitation in going out of his way to 
 
80 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 introduce this question, and force it into 
 the minds and hearts of the people of this 
 country, irrespective altogether of the ter- 
 rible results which may accrue 
 
 But, for my part, I venture to say that I am 
 as much entitled to speak here, on behalf of 
 Ireland, as any man in this House. I am 
 not only an Irishman by descent, but by 
 birth ; I spent my childhood, my boyhood, 
 and a part of my manhood in Ireland ; and 
 I do not speak of this matter from 
 theory, but from actual knowledge. There 
 is not any person inside or outside this 
 House in Canada who loves Ireland more 
 dearly than I do. My home was there, my 
 father and mother are buried there, and I 
 have dear relatives and friends there to-day. 
 1 claim to have as much right to speak, on 
 behalf of Ireland, as any man iu this House 
 or this country, whatever he may call him- 
 self, and if I thought the measure intro- 
 duced by Mr. Gladstone, would be for the 
 benefit of Ireland, I would support it as 
 heartily as anyone ; but i do not support 
 THE noN. gentleman's resolution, because 
 
 IT PRACTICALLY SUPPORTS THAT MEASURE ; IT 
 PRACTICALLY AMOUNTS TO THIS, THAT IP WE 
 PASS IT, WE SHALL BE ENDORSING Mb. GLAD- 
 STONE'S ACTION. 
 
 Some hon. Members. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mu. McNeill. Hon. gentlemen know 
 perfectly well that if that resolution is sent 
 over, it will simply be used by Mr. Glad- 
 stone as an argument to strengthen his 
 position. 
 
 Some hon. Members. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. McNeill. I am glad to hear hon. 
 
 gentlemen admit that Now, the 
 
 measure proposed in this House in 1882 was 
 a federal measure, which would give those 
 people an opportunity of safe-guarding their 
 own interests as a separate Province. The 
 measure, the hon. gentleman is supporting, 
 is one of a perfectly different nature. It is 
 one which will prevent those people from 
 having any control over their own affairs, but 
 which will put them under the heel of the 
 people of the other three Provinces of Ire- 
 land. ... I shall support the amendment 
 of the Minister of Inland Revenue, because it 
 expresses this yiew, that we do not ask the 
 people of England to pass any measure of 
 Home Rule tor Ireland, of any kind or 
 description, unless that measure can be 
 passed in such a way as to secure the unity 
 of the Empire, and at the same time safe- 
 guard the rights and privileges of the 
 minority of Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Hackett. There is, of course, a very 
 
 respectable minority in Ireland opposed to 
 Home Rule, but it is hoped and believed that 
 this measure will afford to these people the 
 same protection in their rights and privileges 
 as is affordr,a ^o the minority in Quebec and 
 to the minority in Ontario. It is a part of 
 our Federal Government that could be very 
 fairly put in force, and, with these amend- 
 ments, I am sure that those people in the 
 North of Ireland who a.re now opposed to- 
 Home Rule will be reconciled to it and will 
 see eventually that Mr. Parnell and those 
 sincere Protestants who work with him ar& 
 patriots as well, and are working in the in- 
 terests of the whole country. But, after the 
 snub we received in sending home the address 
 of 1882, I think it would be quite improper 
 again to send an address of a similar charac- 
 ter. I think we should do as they did in 
 the Parliament of Quebec, simply pass a 
 resolution atfirming the principle of Ilomn 
 Rule. They are proposing to pursue a simi- 
 lar course in the Legislature of Nova Scotia, 
 and, in view of that fact, I "support the reso- 
 lution of the hon. the Minister of Inland 
 Revenue in amendment to the main motion 
 of the hon. the leader of the Opposition. I 
 believe that resolution is more in accordance 
 with the genius and spirit and the dignity of 
 the people of Canada, and that, after b^ing 
 treated in the insolent manner in which we 
 were treated in 1883 after the passage of 
 that address here, and after having it sent to 
 Her Majesty and after having received the 
 very insolent reply from Lord Kimberly, we 
 should not allow ourselves again perhaps to 
 
 be treated in a similar way 
 
 Mr, Allen. I desire to say a few words 
 on this important subject before the vote is 
 taken, being an Irishman by birth, having 
 lived in that country for nineteen years, 
 knowing that oppression reigns in that coun- 
 try, knowing and believing by past experi- 
 rience that that country has been badly 
 managed, that there have been grievances 
 for the past five hutulrel years, that no 
 statesman for the past two hundred years has 
 been able to grapple with the affairs of that 
 country. To-day we find that there is such 
 a gentleman who will stand up in the House 
 of Parliament in England and advocate the 
 rights of Ireland and the rights of Lishmen, 
 while many in this country and in other 
 countries deny the fact that Irishmen are 
 competent or deserving to govern themselves. 
 It is a slander which we do not deserve. 
 Irishmen are able to take their position in 
 all British dependencies in any part of the 
 world. They are competent and able to take 
 
ON THE HOME IIULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886. 
 
 81 
 
 a position on every platform. .... Sir, 
 are we afraid or ashamed to stand up for our 
 rights and again ask Her Majesty to consider a 
 resolution from this House 1 Is it true that 
 we have been insulted ? Why, Sir, we are 
 entitled to our rights as British subjects, we 
 are entitled to our privileges as an indepen- 
 dent people, and I say we should stand up 
 for the same rights which we asked for in 
 1882, and agaia give our advice to the Home 
 Government to take into considc ration the 
 question of justice to that country which we 
 love so much. 
 
 Mr. Wallace (York) Sir, I 
 
 do not think that the resolution proposed by 
 the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. 
 Blake) will meet with the approval of this 
 House, 
 
 BECAUSE IT ASKS THIS HOUSE TO AFFIRM THE 
 
 PRINCIPLE OF MR. GLADSTONE'S BILL GIVING 
 
 A MEASURE OF HOME RULE TO IRELAND. 
 
 There are many people who will favour 
 Home Rule if it is a fair and equitable meas 
 ure, but who oppose the scheme of Mr. Glad- 
 stone because of its gross injustice, and the 
 manifest failure that will attend it if it should 
 
 become law Mr. Parnell, who is 
 
 at the head of the Home Rule party, is a man 
 with great directness of purpose ; he states 
 his desir and wishes pretty plainly, and in 
 his cou. e he has not deviated very much 
 from his first purpose. And what does he 
 tell us ? In a sp<iech delivered by him at 
 Cincinnati, on 23rd February, 1880, on the 
 Irish question, he said : 
 
 "None of us, whether in America or in Ireland, 
 or wherever we may be, will be satisfied until we 
 have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland 
 bound to England." 
 
 That was the policy which Mr. Parnell in 
 1880 enunciated when addressing the people 
 of Cincinnati. We find Mr. Parnell's course 
 and policy since then have not varied. What 
 was his policy then is evidently his policy 
 to-day. I am afraid the measure proposed 
 by Mr. Gladstone, which is supposed to be 
 for the better government of Ireland, will 
 have the eflfect of carrying out Mr. Parnell's 
 policy, for we find when we examine Mr. 
 Gladstone's Bill, which we are asked by the 
 resolution proposed by the leader of the Op- 
 position to sanction and afford our moral 
 
 support, indicates this 
 
 Mr. Blake. If the question which is the 
 fittest motion to be made, which is the motion 
 that would get the greatest measure of sup- 
 port in this House and yet accomplish the 
 
 greatest measure of assistance for Ireland is 
 to be solved now, on the floor of this House, 
 by discussion between hon. members and by 
 public expressions of opinion on the different 
 forms proposed, that responsibility does not 
 lie at my door, because, when I was in a posi- 
 tion in which I was able to obtain the deci- 
 sion of the House upon the precise proposi- 
 tion which I thought moderate and yet the 
 best calculated to produce that result, I 
 abandoned that position upon the statement 
 of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue that, 
 to take the other attitude and withdraw mv 
 motion and to accept the right of bringing 
 forward ray views in this form, might produce 
 the result, after conference, of agreement : 
 The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue in invi- 
 ting me to accede to the suggestion of the 
 First Minister said : 
 
 " Therefore I think the hon. gentleman should 
 withdraw it. Then there would be an opportuuit}- 
 giren to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House 
 who, he thinks, have been lax in their duty, to con- 
 salt with him. We do not claim that anything we 
 may say will influence his views ; we do not pretend 
 to hope that ; bat I think we are entitled to say to 
 him that, feeling as much interest as he possibly can 
 in this question, it might be possible for us to agree 
 upon a motion that would be passed unanimously by 
 this Hoase. We might possibly agree apon a motion 
 to be submitted to the House and passed unani- 
 mously, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree 
 with me that such a motion would be of more value 
 than one which necessitated a division. I am not 
 here to discuss what changes we might ask for ; that 
 could be discussed among those specially interested, 
 and to whom the matter might be referred. If the 
 hon. gentleman think, that weald at all meet hia 
 views, and tbat we could come to such an under- 
 stand ng, I will not continue my remarks ; but if he 
 thinks my request is one he cannot entertain, 1 will 
 have to crave the indulgence of the House while I 
 make further remarks on this subject." 
 
 I rose and, after making an observation or 
 two, on other things, said : 
 
 " I may at onoo say that I am quite willing that 
 whatever time is reasonable and consistent with the 
 object of the resolution should be given at once to 
 carry out the suggestion of those hon. gentlemen. 
 My object is just what the hon. gentleman's is, to 
 procure a unanimous motion ; and because he tells 
 me expects, by the course he proposes, to produce 
 such a result, I am all the more ready to agree 
 to that coarse." 
 
 At a subsequent part I said : 
 
 " In the meantime, &% to the form in which the 
 motion sLall be presented, I shall only be too glad 
 to meet the hon. gentleman, or any other hon. 
 member, with the view of settling that point." 
 
 At a subsequent period, after recess, the hon. 
 Minister of Inland Revenue said : 
 
 " Wlielher the suggestion cornea from one side of 
 the House or the other, there are groundit, perhaps, 
 
82 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 apon which we can onite, and the snggeBtion that we 
 should agree upon a resolution i« worthy of fair 
 eonsideration. " 
 
 " Hear, hear," said L The hon. gentleman 
 proceeded to say : 
 
 *' And I think that the hon. gentleman whc refuses 
 that must a-sume considerable reeponsibility, if tha 
 vote is not aa large as it mi»{ht be made by a fair 
 disonasion of our views on the sabjeot." 
 
 " Hear, hear," I said assentingly to that 
 remark. Then, when the final arrangement 
 was made, my last words were these : 
 
 " And I add to that, in response to the statement 
 of the Minister of Inland Bevenne, and to the dug- 
 Ideation rather than the statement of the First 
 Minister, that if there be any opportunity in the 
 meantime to accc mmodate matters with reference tc 
 the form of ezprebsion of that motion, I shall be 
 only too glad to facilitate such a result." 
 
 Then the Minister of Inland Revenue said : 
 
 "Whatever difference of opinion may exist be> 
 tween the hon. gentleman and myself, I feel mnoh 
 pleased that he has taken this course, as I think it 
 is the wisest course and one calculated to bring 
 about, if possible, a solution of this question. I 
 am glad the hon. gentleman has taken the oourse he 
 has." 
 
 Now my motion was before the hon. gentle- 
 man ; he had stated his desire to consult with 
 me ; he had stated his desire to make such 
 suggestions as he hoped after conference might 
 produce an agreement. I at once responded, 
 twice and thrice responded, declaring that I 
 would be most happy to concur in the steps 
 he proposed to take, with a view to our arriv- 
 ing at that result. But the hon. gentleman, 
 as I was obliged to say in offering my motion 
 to-day — neither he or any other hon. gentle- 
 man intimated to me the slightest dissatisfac- 
 tion with the form of my motion. They 
 made no suggestion or proposition for a 
 change; they have 
 
 INVITED MB TO NO CONFBRENOB 
 
 on the subject from the time the discussion 
 closed down to this moment. Therefore, I 
 say, if it be on the floor of this House, by the 
 hon. gentleman bringing forward his proposi- 
 tion in opposition to mine, if it be on the floor 
 of this House that we have to dispose of tha 
 question which is the fitter resolution, which is 
 the more appropriate, the responsibility of 
 that result, whatever may be the measure of 
 it, lies not at my door. Now, Sir, the hon. 
 Minister of Inland Revenue explained the 
 reasons why he had not acted in this matter 
 in the House ; and he took occasion to say 
 that one of those reasons was not what had 
 been stated erroneously in one of the papers 
 
 to be the case, a danger that the resolution 
 would be defeated I Not at all ; he never 
 apprehended that ; but a danger that there 
 would be three or four dissentients. That 
 was what the hon. gentleman said, that was 
 the measure of the danger which prevented 
 him from bringing up this question in this 
 House I Now, Sir, we know from the pro- 
 ceedings which took place very shortly after 
 the passage of the address in 1882 that 
 there were three gentlemen who stood up 
 and annoonced that they dissented on that 
 ^casion ; though neither yon nor I, as I 
 had occasion to say at that time, had seen 
 any expression of dissent. There was there- 
 fore a public avowal of dissent on that occa- 
 sion. What the hon. gentleman has now 
 declared is, that after considering the whole 
 situation, after analysing the feeling of the 
 House, so far as he coald judge it, and anx- 
 ious as he was to go forward, after ascer- 
 taining what the feeling was, he believed 
 that there might be three or four dissen- 
 tients out of the 211 members of this House ; 
 and that circumstance affrayed him from the 
 enterprise. Well, we are glad to know that 
 In whatever quarter the hon. gentleman 
 apprehended those three or four dissentients 
 resided, it was not on this side, for he asked 
 none of us our opinion on the subject ; and 
 we have tolerably well learned already, in 
 the oourse of this debate, where it wai the 
 hon. gentleman found that the dissent 
 existed. We have heard it from the 
 
 OUTSPOKEN UTTERANOKS OF SOMS ; 
 
 we have heard it from the more veiled ntter- 
 anoes of others ; we know it was in the 
 house of the hon. gentleman's own friends ; 
 and because there were three or four of his 
 own supporters who disapproved of the 
 measure he chose — and that is his defence 
 to the people of Canada — he chose to deter- 
 mine that no resolution ought to be moved 
 heie. But the hon. gentleman said : There 
 was another reason ; it is a useless thing to 
 do in view of the circumstances of the 
 former address, as well as a dangerous thing, 
 because the new work could not be so 
 thoroughly accomplished as the old. It was 
 useless, although this was a new House ; 
 useless, although the conditions had changed 
 so much between that time and this ! I 
 believe the feeling in Canada has changed ; 
 but my belief is that there has been a grow- 
 ing feeling in favour of Home Rule in Can- 
 ada, and that feeling is very much stronger 
 to day than it was in 1882 ; and certainly 
 that is not a change which should affright 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886. 8S 
 
 US who favour Home Rule from endeavour- in which all lovers of liberty throughout the 
 
 ing to obtain the views of the representa- world have an equal interest. 
 
 tives of the people on the subject. But Mr. Hesson. Where are the Irish Catho- 
 
 there is another circumstance. The time is lies on your side ? 
 
 critical. Bead the cabled reports in the Mr. Blake. I have mentioned two Irish 
 
 newspapers of the impressions of the lead- Catholics on my side of politics, members 
 
 ing organs of public opinion and of those of Parliament, whom the hon. gentleman 
 
 who take most interest in following pubUc did not consult. 
 
 measures, and you find it impossible to say Mr. Hesson. Not members of this House, 
 
 what the fate of the principle of Home Mr. Blake. I did not say members of 
 
 Bule — I ecause that is what Mr Gladstone this House ; I said members of Parliament. 
 
 says he holds to be at stake on the second Now, Sir, I ask what inference must be 
 
 reading of the Bill — is to be ; and, Sir, if drawn from the state of things to which I 
 
 there \s as no reason why some further action have referred. In 1882, an address passed 
 
 should be taken to-day by those who acted unanimously by the Commons of Canada in 
 
 before, I ^ant to know why the hon. Minis- favor of Home Rule. In 1886, the ques- 
 
 ter of Inland Revenue telegraphed to Mr. tion being in a critical condition, in which 
 
 Parnell that he and the Irish members of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue feels it 
 
 this House still abided by that address. He necessary that something should be said 
 
 gave Mr. Parnell that encouraging and on behalf of some portion of the Commons 
 
 flatteriog assurance, that assurance so cal- of Canada on the subject, to show that they 
 
 calated to cheer and elevate his mind, that are still true to the views they formerly 
 
 the Irish Catholic members were really still expressed, he despatches his utterance on 
 
 true to Home Rule I What was the infer- behalf of the Irish members of the Parlia- 
 
 ence to be drawn from that message ? Why ment of Canada. Now, here is the con- 
 
 the inference was that of the other members trast that would be drawn. The enemies 
 
 he could not say the same. What other of the cause would say : Oh, in 1882, the 
 
 inference tsau you draw ? He says to Mr. Canadian Parliament, unanimously in the 
 
 Parnell that the Irish members, by which I Commons and by a very large majority in 
 
 understand him to mean the Irish members the Senate, passed resolutions in favour of 
 
 of his own creed — nay, those of them who Home Rulf , In 1886, a Minister of the 
 
 sit on his own side of the House — are of Crown, the same Irish Catholic who moved 
 
 the same opinion as before. He treats it as before, is afraid to move a resolution in favour 
 
 an Irish Catholic question, as the hon. mem- of Home Rule, and he sends forward, for- 
 
 ber for Montreal Centre (Mr. Curran) sooth, his own cable despatch to Mr Parnell, 
 
 treated it — which is to be taken as equivalent to the 
 
 Mr. Curran. I beg your pardon, Sir. I voice of the Commons of Canada. No, it 
 did not do anything of the kind. 
 
 Mr. Blake. Yes ; and so treating it, they ^°^^^ ^^^ «^ equivalent. 
 got together a body of gentlemen from the Is it a substitute ? No, but it is a deolara- 
 Senate and the House of Commons who are tion by inference, that the other members of 
 Irish Catholics — no, not the Irish Catholics, this House^ beyond those for whom the hon. 
 but the Tory Irish Catholics. Did the hon. gentleman, by what authority I do not pre- 
 gentleman invite Senator Power to that tend to say, chose to speak, would not say 
 meeting ? Did he invite Senator Scott ? what he said. I ask, did he apply to any of 
 Were they there ? Did they take part in them to allow him to speak for a larger con- 
 it ? No ; the Irish Tory Catholic clique stituency than those for whom he assumed 
 meet together in a little assembly, and they to speak ? If he did, what answer did ha 
 say this is so purely an Irish Catholic qaes- get which discouraged him from speaking 
 tion, and a Tory Irish Catholic question, for more ? That is the position in which 
 that we alone are to decide whether a reso- the hon. gentleman's action put the ques- 
 lution is safe, or prudent, or advantageous tion, so that the enemies of Home Rule 
 to be introduced into the House. Sir, if could say : Canada will no longer speak in 
 there be a step which is calculated to preju- favour of that measure, and the best proof of 
 dice the cause of Home Rule at home or that is, that the Minister who moved the 
 abroad, so far as we can do it, it is this resolution in 1882, does not move another 
 treatment of it by hon. gentlemen in the resolution to-day, and does not profess to 
 hon. member's position as an Irish Catholic aver that the Canadian Parliament believes 
 question — as if it was not a general question as it did then. Now we know the reason. 
 
84 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 The hon. gentleman stated it would be a course is to pass on, and to speak a^ain when 
 
 dangerous thing to move again, because the occasion again arises, as it is now aris- 
 
 there would be some dissent, alth lugh he ing, in which, not under similar circum- 
 
 limits the dissentients to three or four, stances, because, as I have said, we are not 
 
 Again, the hon. gentleman says : "Oh, then, now tendering advice but are still expressing 
 
 there is the difficulty about the form of an opinion wherein we are fortunately able 
 
 anothsr address which deterred me ;" but to say we abide by the views we expressed 
 
 still that does not appear to have been a in 1882, which you did not think fit to adopt 
 
 very serious difficulty, then but have since adopted and are now 
 
 carrying out. I say 
 
 BECAUSE THE HON. GENTLEMAN HAS FOUND "^ » "^ 
 
 another form which gets rid of that diffi- no more fortunate occasion 
 
 culty to-night, so that that could not have 
 
 prevented him from earlier action unless could be conjectured for this country to re- 
 his wit has been spurred by the exigencies assert with dignity its right to address the 
 of the last day or two, and his zeal for the Queen on this important subject, with the 
 Irish cause was not sufficiently potent to certainty that the right this time vill not be 
 enable him to find out what, under thepres- repudiated but be gratefully acknowledged, 
 sure of necessity, which we all know is a The most dignified course for us is to re- 
 powerful lever, he has since ascertained, assert in that way, not by any reference to 
 He has proposed a method, he says, of Earl Kimberley, our right to speak to our 
 getting over the difficulty. But circnm- Queen, to signify to her our views on this 
 stances now differ. We are not, under my question, the occasion, as it is now 
 motion, now doing what Lord Kimberley, admitted, calling for it. The hon. gentleman 
 unadvisedly, in my opinion, told us !n effect himself proposes that we should signify our 
 we ought not to do ; we are not now tender- opinions, although in an abortive fashion ; 
 ing advice to Her Majesty's Ministers as to and proposing that we should signify our 
 the policy they ought to accomplish ; but opinions, I say the most dignified and 
 we propose to cheer and encourage them on happiest method is simply to go forward 
 in the course they have declared they will and once again, in a constitutional manner — 
 pursue. We are not offering advice, but unless we are prepared to rescind our address, 
 we are adding the moral force and support unless we are prepared to agree that we 
 of this House to them, to aid them in the should do so no more — re-assert our senti- 
 course they are themselves pursuing. ments, with such variations as the circum- 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). I hope it won't, stances of the case may require. But if we 
 
 Mr. Blake. Ah ! there is one of the do not choose to proceed by an address on 
 
 dissentients. this particular occasion — and that because 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings), I have always we have been told formerly that we ought 
 
 been one. not proceed by address to advise or suggest — I 
 
 Mr. Blake. I will have to settle an hope that we shall not fall so low as formally 
 
 account presently with these three or four to record on our journals the agreement that 
 
 who have deterred the Minister of Inland we ought not to act for that reason. If the 
 
 Kevenue, up to this day, from bringing for- hon. gentleman's amendment is passed, we 
 
 ward his resolution. I say we were right, shall agree that, because Earl Kimberley 
 
 in 1882, in averring that the Commons of chose to make this statement four years ago, 
 
 Canada had the right, and that it is our duty therefore we do not choose to address the 
 
 respectfully to address our Queen, the Queen Crown ; and that of course will apply to all 
 
 of the Empire, tendering our loyal sugges- cases of emergencies in which Imperial 
 
 tions and opinions upon this question so interests may be concerned. We shall be 
 
 interesting and important to us, as citizens agreeing and in a formal manner assenting 
 
 of the Empire and as Canadians. I hope no to the view of Earl Kimberley ; wo shall be 
 
 hon. member of this House will declare to- acting upon that view, we shall be declar- 
 
 day that we were not right in doing that, ing he is right and we are wrong, and in thus 
 
 because, forsooth, a Colonial Secretary has agreeing we will close the door upon our- 
 
 been found to express a different opinion ; I selves by our own resolution, from, at any 
 
 hope we are not going to abnegate that right future time, venturing a humble address to 
 
 as citizens of the Empire ; I hope we are not the Queen upon an Imperial question. Sir, 
 
 going to derogate from that right as citizens there are, no doubt, exciting times ahead for 
 
 of the Empire. I say our most dignified the British Empire ; there may be troublous, 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 18iiQ, 
 
 85 
 
 dangerous times uliead for the British 
 Empire, and 1 siiall 
 
 NEYER WILLINGLY AGREE TO ABANDO» 
 
 the right of a British subject, or of the House 
 of Commons of any colony, to approach the 
 Queen and to tender her respectfully the 
 advice land opinions of her subjects in foreign 
 parts upon those questions which touch the 
 interests of the Empire, which so nearly con- 
 cern ourselves, although we are not able to 
 speak directly by representation in the 
 British House of Commons. I now turn to 
 the substance of the hon. gentleman's resolu- 
 tion. It is a suspicious circumstance, it is a 
 circumstance which ought to make the hon. 
 gentleman himself suspicious of his resolu- 
 tion, that it finds so much favour with the 
 enemies of Home Rule. The hon. membtr 
 ior Mubkoka (Mr. O'Brien) with that frank- 
 ness which commends itself so much to the 
 confidence of this House, told us in the con- 
 cluding, the most pungent, and, he will allow 
 me to say, the most forcible phrase of hia 
 speech, that he would vote for the amend- 
 ment of the Minister of Inland Revenue 
 because it would do the least harm. Let me 
 make an appropriate alteration in that phrase, 
 if we are to put it in the mouth of the friends 
 of Plome Rule : and we would say : We 
 would vote for either of the two other resolu- 
 tions because they would do more good to 
 the cause than the resolution of the Minister 
 of Inland Revenue. The hon. member for 
 Muskuka (Mr. O'Brien), is loyal to his party, 
 and so he proposes to vote for the resolution 
 of a Minister of the Government he follows, 
 which resolution he does not approve. It is 
 a harmful resolution, but even that one, 
 colourless as it is, pallid as it is, hedged 
 around as it is, built upas it; is to satisfy, as 
 far as possible, the susceptibilities of the hon. 
 member for Muskoka, he is prepared to take, 
 but to take only because it does the least 
 harm of the three. The hon gentleman has 
 presented to him three different kinds of 
 nauseous drugs of which he must take one. 
 He smells at them, he sips them a little, he 
 seta them up between him and the light, he 
 puts down two rejected as the worst, and 
 with a wry face he swallows the third. If 
 these are the 
 
 SENTIMENTS OP THE FNEMIES OF HOME RULE 
 
 held as to these different resolutions, what 
 should be the sentiments of the friends of 
 Home Rule ? I am very sorry for the cause 
 of Home Rule that the Minister of Inland 
 EdTenue, in his attempt to please the three 
 
 or four dissentients, in the attempt not to 
 wound their susceptibilities, eiiould have 
 proposed a resolution which, by comparison, 
 will be certainly less favourable than I 
 should have desired, which will provoke un- 
 favourable comparisons just where we want 
 favourable comparisons to be put. I am 
 very sorry that, in the attempt to combine 
 the heterogeneous elements of which the 
 hon. gentleman's following is composed, lie 
 should have given us a resolution which Li;a 
 produced these comments from the hon. 
 member for Muskoka (My. O'Brien), and 
 practically, though in more veiled language, 
 from other hon. members of his way of 
 thinking. Now the hon. member for Mont- 
 real (Mr. Curran), after having made a 
 speech which I do not think really very 
 likely to conduce'to harmony and good feel- 
 ing — perhaps it was the hon. gentleman's 
 mode of producing harmony ; perhaps, au 
 Irishman like myself, he thinks a good fight 
 is the way to promote harmony and good 
 feeling — uttered a fervent expression of trust 
 that the proceedings might end harmo- 
 niously. After all our heads are broken, I 
 suppose we are all to shake hands. A\.\ 
 the hon. gentleman proceeded to apply hii 
 blackthorn to my unlucky pate, and to smasii 
 me as hard as he could. Well, I am glad 
 to know that the hon. gentleman's arm is 
 not quite long enough to reach me, and that 
 I do not feel the worse for the exhibition of 
 prowess which he displayed on this occasion. 
 He says that there are grounds for suspect- 
 ing me. He will not suspect me ; oh no, 
 not he ; but it makes a great draft on what 
 he calls his credulity not to suspect mo ; and 
 ho proceeds, with the precision ot a cruninal 
 lawyer trying to make out a case in a polic** 
 court, to give the grounds upon which I am 
 to be suspected, which grounds are not 
 sufficient, with his candour and kindness and 
 good feeling, to induce him actually to sus- 
 pect me ; but it is about as hard for the hon. 
 gentleman not to suspect me as it is for the 
 lion, member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) to 
 swallow the resolution. He says the first 
 ground is this : There were other Irishmen 
 in the House, and did I consult them ? Now, 
 for a long time these hon. gentlemen, hav- 
 ing their little clique together, got talking 
 over this matter, trying to decide wnat 
 should be done. I ask, did they consult me ? 
 Flad I not helped them before ? Had I not 
 donjB my best to forward the cause ? Had I 
 not done my best to produce a happy result 
 on the former occasion ? And, if there was 
 a (xueetioa to be considered on this occa»iuii| 
 
86 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADik, 
 
 might I not fairly have expected that hefore 
 they reached a decibiou upon it they would 
 have conBulted me ? I do not eomplain of 
 their not ecu suiting me unless they chose. 
 1 do not take the line of the hon. member 
 for Montreal, but if it is a ground of com- 
 |)laint against me that I did not consult 
 them after they had decided that it was too 
 dangerous to move in the matter — though 
 where the bombshells are to come from they 
 know, not Ij where the mines are to be 
 exploded they know, not I ; where the dan- 
 ger lies they know, not I— I should like to 
 know with what reason they can complain 
 01 my not consulting them. The hon. Minis- 
 ter of Inland Beveuue was good enough to 
 consult me on a former occasion, in a sense. 
 He referred to it, though with an inaccurate 
 recollection of the circumstances, the other 
 night. He did not invite me to his com- 
 mittee. I suppose it is to be pardoned to 
 idm as to me, the making of these Uttle 
 Blips, but he gave a new nationality to one 
 hon. member. He said they had decided to 
 bring all the Irishmen in the House to the 
 committee except the First Minister and the 
 leader of the Opposition. I know that 
 •' seven cities claim " the First Minister's 
 birthplace. Sometimes we hear that he was 
 born in Scotland, and sometimes in Canada. 
 
 Mr. CosTioAN. If the hon. gentleman will 
 allow me for -a moment, I will say that he 
 is correct in regard to what I stated. I re- 
 member that I committed that error in the 
 words I used. What I intended to say was 
 that we did not think it advisable at that 
 time to invite any of the leaders of the 
 House, and he being the leader of the Oppo- 
 sition was the reason why he was not 
 invited. 
 
 Mr. Blake. I thought the hon. gentle- 
 man, with his superabundant loyalty to Lis 
 ciiief, which he has exhibited on several 
 occasions and notably on one occasion, in or- 
 der to keep up that harmony on which he 
 lays so much stress, was desirous to strength- 
 en the First Minister's hold on the people 
 oi" this country by declaring him an Irishman 
 for the occasion, but he now tells me that it 
 was one of those blunders that he and I as 
 Irishmen are privileged to make. T say tht 
 hon. gentleman was good enough, in 1 882, 
 after having settled the form of this motion, 
 to send it to me with a note to which I re- 
 sponded in general terms, but in the altered 
 motion which the hon. gentleman after wards 
 brought forward I saw another hand. He 
 knows who drew it. It was his brother 
 Irishman, the First Minister. It is quite 
 
 true he did not consult the First Minister 
 early, but he consulted him late. Ha brought 
 him at last into his committee, and when 
 the final blow was to be struck, when the 
 hon. gentleman was at one bound to fix 
 himself on the pinnacle as the representative 
 of Irish sentiment in Canada, it was his 
 brother Irishman, the First Minister, who 
 helped him 1 This is the first reason why 
 the member for Montreal (Mr. Curran), my 
 prosecutor here, proposes to show that there 
 are strong grounds, which only his great 
 sense of generosity can induce him io say 
 are inadequate, for suspecting me — that I 
 did not consult him. Tiie next is, that the 
 resolution was brought in as an amendment 
 to Committee of Supply. A dreadful sin ; 
 because I followed strictly the precedent of 
 the last occasion, when the resolution was 
 brought in as an amendment to Committee 
 of Supply ; because in 1882 it was brought 
 in as an amendment to Committee of Sup- 
 ply, and in 1886 I proposed it iu the same 
 way, because the First Minister, when in 
 Opposition, in 1878, had brought up the 
 constitutional question of the Letellier case 
 on amendment to the motion for supply, not 
 at all impugning the Government at the 
 time, but simply bringing up the question 
 whether Lieutenant-Governor Letellier had 
 acted constitutionally in dismissinsr his Min- 
 isters, brought it up as a non-party question 
 and stated so distinctly ; because I thought 
 these two precedents were ample justifica- 
 tion, and served as a good reason for me to 
 propose this resolution in amendment to 
 Committee of Supply — particularly as there 
 was no other way of getting at it at all ; 
 because I knew tilat hon. gentlemen 
 
 THOUQHT IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO TOUCH, 
 
 and of course would not help me to touch it ; 
 that they thought it ought not to be brought 
 up, and of course would not give me facili- 
 ties for bringing it up ; and therefore, but 
 for bringing it up in that way, we would 
 not have had it at all — because I did not 
 perform impossibilities, only his great sense 
 of generosity can lead him to consider the 
 reasons inadequate for not suspecting me. 
 Then he says that perhaps I ought not to 
 have spoken to him, but at any rate I ought 
 to have spoken to the Minister of Public 
 "Works, the leader of the French Conserva- 
 tive party, it was my business to have spoken 
 to him, and because I did not the hon. 
 gentleman feels grievously inclined, but for 
 that superabundant good nature of Viis, to 
 euspeot me. Well, I have often hai occa* 
 
ON THE HOME KULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886. 87 
 
 Bion to consult the Minister of Public Works, their part to the Commons of Canada sub- 
 during the unfortunate absence of the Frst mittiug to the Qaeen of the Empire their 
 Minister, on the ordinary routine of public opinions on this subject ; and all I can say 
 business and so forth, and our relations are about that is that he and I are at issue 
 always, I am happy to saj', very pleasant ; there. The hon. gentleman states that he 
 but what particular reason there was for consulted a great many persons — of course 
 consulting with the Minister of Public Works on his side of the House ; and he was told 
 on this question I do not know. I suppose there would be a very great difficulty indeed 
 that the decision of the Minister of Inland in proceeding because of the answer to the 
 Revenue and his friends was not taken with- last address — very great difficulty. I dare- 
 out consulting with his colleagues and the say that the friends of the hon. gentleman 
 Minister of Public Works. We know that who don't want Home Rule did magnify 
 all these gentlemen had decided that it was the difficulties, and pointed out to him that 
 too dangerous to bring this question up. the snub, as it is called, of Earl Kimberley, 
 Well, then, the hon. gentleman says : Oh, was a reason why this great step, in which 
 but the Globe said some time ago — I do not he and I are so much interested, should not 
 know when — the Globe pointed out that I be taken by the Commons. Allow me to 
 was in a minority, and I could not bring a advise the hon. gentleman in the future, 
 resolution up ; and because the Globe ex- when he is trying to find out whether there 
 pressed an opinion, which I heard of for the are difficulties, rather to distrust the opinion 
 first time, I must confess — for I am not so of those who don't want the step to be 
 diligent a reader of my Globe as the hon. taken. You know of tie timorous man who 
 member for Montreal (Mr. Ourran) is of generally finds a lion in his path. The hon. 
 his — I say, because the Globe expressed the gentleman has found a good many lions in 
 opinion a fortnight ago that being leader of his path. I do not know whether they are 
 the minority I could not bring up this reso- coloured, orange, tawny, or what, but to my 
 lution, the hon. gentleman finds another mind it looks very like — for I do not share 
 ground which, to less credulous persons, the hon. gentleman's too generous feelings 
 would be a good ground for suspecting me. in a desire not to suspect — it looks uncom- 
 Then he goes further. He says that the monly to my mind, considering the quarters 
 Ottawa correspondent of the Montreal Post in which he searched, as if he was in search 
 baid that such a resolution, if moved here of lions, as if he wanted some good cause 
 by the Conservatives, would be a Tory dodge, to be afraid, as if he wanted to find a reason 
 and because the Ottawa correspondent of the for not doing anything ; and he went about 
 Montreal Post — I have no doubt a very re- among the alarmists, and the alarmists 
 spectable gentleman, but one whose acquain- alarmed him, and, being properly alarmed, 
 tance I have not the honour of having — he held his tongue. Then he says, the 
 said that a resolution moved by the Tories address may be regarded as a satire upon 
 in this House upon this question would be Earl Kimberley. Earl Kimberley is a very 
 a Tory dodge, therefore I am to be suspect- respectable and able personage, and I am 
 ed if anybody but the hon. member for sure he would have too much good sense to 
 Montreal Centre brings up the resolution ! suppose that it was a satire upon him. But 
 Well, under these circumstances it is that I those hon. gentlemen who think that we 
 am a suspected character, and that I pre- have been snubbed by Earl Kimberley's 
 sume, under the old coercion Act, I would answer, I suppose, would not be very loath 
 have been liable to be sent to Kilmainham I to reassert our rights and our dignity by 
 Then, Sir, the hon. gentleman says that addressing the Throne, even if it did happen 
 there should be no address, that it is to be a little satirical upon Earl Kimberley. 
 
 I suppose it would not grieve their souls 
 
 OONTBARY TO THE FEELINGS OF THE IRISH ^^^y ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^-^^ ^^ ^^^ . 
 
 PEOPLE -^g vrere right then, and we saw a little 
 
 — by which, I presume, he meant the Irish further into the future than you did, and we 
 
 Catholic people — that we should address the now help you on to do that thing which. 
 
 Crown again upon this subject. I think four years ago, we exhorted you to do. I 
 
 the hon. gentleman mistook the feeling of do not think the hon. gentleman's pack of 
 
 the Irish people, whether Catholic or Pro- alarmists would, from that point of view, 
 
 testant, I do not believe it. I think he is have great difficulty in supporting the 
 
 entirely mistaken. I should be very sorry address. Well, then, there were some other 
 
 to suppose that there is any reluctance on hon. gentlemen who referred to me — for, 
 
88 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 really, I have had so much attention paid to 
 me to-night that I feel embarrassed properly 
 to respond to the compliments I have 
 received — there were some other hon. mem- 
 bers to some of whose remarks I shall not 
 pay any attention, but to one or two I shall. 
 The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr Burns) 
 said that I had said that I had acted spon- 
 taneously. Was I not asked to move ? he 
 •"aid ; was I not forced forward ? Sir, I 
 have frankly stated that 
 
 I WAITED UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT 
 
 in the hope that some o? the opposite side 
 of the House would move. I felt satisfied 
 that their apprehensions could not be due to 
 my side, that they could not fear any opposi- 
 tion from me, knowing what I had done in 
 1882, and I hoped that they would be able so 
 to compose the diSerences in their own ranks, 
 so to create a unity of feeling on their side of 
 the House, that, knowing that the solid Lib- 
 eral force -would be with them, they woulu 
 not be afraid of their own friends, so far 
 afraid of their own friends as not to pro- 
 pose a resolution. I hoped that happy result 
 would ensue ; I did hope we would find the 
 Conservative party a unit with the Reform 
 party in favour of this, and I waited until 
 the last moment in order not in the slightest 
 degree to embarrass the efforts which I felt 
 sure — and I now find I was right — that the 
 Minister of Inland Revenue and the hon. 
 member for Montreal were making in order 
 to achieve that happy result. It seems they 
 failed to promote a unanimity of feeling 
 amongst their friends, and that, therefore, 
 they gave up the attempt. It has not until 
 then, and until the question was, as I said 
 the other day, almost at the door that I 
 moved. Now, with reference to my being 
 asked to move, I was not asked to move 
 until after I had made up my mind that I 
 was going to move, and when I was asked to 
 move, I will tell the hon. gentleman the re- 
 sponse which I made to those who asked me. 
 I was asked by a deputation from a very re- 
 sepectable society here, the St. Patrick's 
 Literary Society of Ottawa, and I told the 
 gentlemen who were good enough to wait on 
 me that, highly as I felt the honour of the 
 invitation, I could not accept any invitation, 
 from any body, speaking for any particular 
 sect, or class, or nationality in this commun- 
 ity, either to act or abstain from acting, upon 
 a question of this description. I said I be- 
 lieved that the question itself would be in- 
 jured if it were treated from any su Ji point 
 of view, as the special property of one por- 
 
 tion of the community. I said that it was 
 as Canadians, as persons interested, from 
 their experienwj of its blessings, in the prin- 
 ciple of . 
 
 HOME RULE AND ITS EXTENSIOX, 
 
 as Canadians, citizens and subjects of the 
 Empire, interested in the prosperity of Eng- 
 land, as free men, interested in the propaga- 
 tion of the cause of freedom, that we should 
 act, and that I thought the strength and 
 force of any such movement would be greatly 
 diminished, and that prejudices would be ex- 
 cited which ought not to be excited, if it were 
 attempted to be moved from one particular 
 section of the population, or by any man as 
 the exponent of one portion of the population. 
 I decline altogether to agree to the position 
 which some hon. gentlemen opposite arrogate 
 to themselves in regard to this question. The 
 Irish Catholic members in this House and 
 in the other Chamber, and particularly the 
 Tory Irish Catholic members, have no special 
 part in this question — none whatever, and 
 their cause suffers when they attempt to as- 
 sume such a position. It is as Canadians 
 they are to speak ; it is as one whole body ; 
 with the exception of three or four individuals 
 who have frightened the Minister of Inland 
 Revenue, it is as Canadians speaking in fav- 
 our of a common cause, moved by a common 
 impulse and acting on a common principle, 
 that we are to succeed, and they who make 
 difficulties for the cause are they who declare 
 that this question is the special part and pro- 
 perty of a particular class of the people. 
 Then the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr, 
 Burns) said that I was trying to catch the 
 Irish vote. I have been in public life a good 
 many years. The Irish population of my 
 Province is, of course, composed of the Irish 
 Protestant population and the Irish Catholic 
 population. 
 
 I HAVE ENDEAVOURED TO DO MY DUTY 
 
 and to aci/ upon what I believe were sound 
 liberal principles towards all classes of. the 
 population. I have found myself opposed by 
 a solid body, by the great majority, by the 
 vast bulk of the Irish Protestants of Ontario. 
 They are my strongest, and sternest, and 
 fiercest political opponents to-day. I have 
 found n>yself opposed by the great bulk of 
 the Irish Catholics of Ontario. They also, 
 with some noble exceptions, were amongst 
 my opponents when I was defeated in South 
 Bruce, during my absence from the country 
 through ill-health. It was the Irish Catholics 
 of that riding that rejected me, that deprived 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY. 1886. 
 
 89 
 
 me of my seat in Parliament and obliged me 
 to stand for another constituency at a sub- 
 sequent date. I have endeavoured, notwith- 
 standing all that, to do my duty and to act 
 according to my lights honestly, justly and 
 fairly towards the Irish Catholics and towards 
 the Irish Protestants, toxvards all classes. I 
 make no distinction whatever in consequence 
 of class or creed, and I extend no bid for the 
 support of any class or creed. The position 
 of the Irish Catholics and the Irish Protest- 
 ants is this : They know that from the Lib- 
 eral party they will obtain all they can justly 
 claim, whether they give or refuse their sup- 
 port to that party. They know that the 
 Liberal party will always act on the principle 
 of justice, freedom and equal rights, because 
 that is the plank upon which we stand. 
 They know they have nothing whatever to 
 gain by supporting us, because they will not 
 gain one jot or tittle beyond what those prin- 
 ciples of justice, freedom and equal rights 
 require. They know they have nothing to 
 lose by opposing us, because they know, how- 
 ever strenuous their opposition may be, 
 
 IT WILL NOT MAKE US ONE WHIT LESS EARNEST 
 
 or less active in the promotion of their inter- 
 ests and of the common interests according 
 to the same principles of justice, liberty and 
 equal rights. And therefore there is no need 
 for them to turn their votes one way or the 
 other in order that they may obtain from the 
 Liberal party their need of justice and liberty. 
 That is our relation to that class, as to which 
 the hon. gentleman rather coarsely said I was 
 attempting to catch their votes. The hon. 
 memVjer for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), who is 
 an old personal friend of miie, and who I am 
 sure must havebeenvery muchexcited to-night 
 when he raised his blackthorn against me,as did 
 the member for Montreal Centre (Mr. Curran), 
 used some expressions in regard to a former 
 debate, for which he was called to order and 
 to which I will not refer. He said later that 
 I occupied a very peculiar position because I 
 happened to be— he mis-stated my position — 
 the leader of a party in religion. T am none 
 such. I am ceitainly of the evangdical por- 
 tion of the denomination to which I belong, 
 and I am a member of the advanced wing, 
 perhaps, of that party. That is quite true. 
 And the hon. gentleman says because I am a 
 Protestant, occupying that position I must 
 know, if I have any Protestant friends in 
 Ireland, that every Protestant in Ireland 
 denounces Mr. Gladstone's measure, and that 
 I am inconsistent in my present course. I 
 
 have some Protestant friends in Ireland and 
 I have some in Canada, and the bulk of my 
 Protestant friends in Ireland, and, though 
 I regret it, it is perfectly natural considering 
 their condition, circumstances and surround- 
 ings, are opposed to Home Rule. 
 
 BUT I DENY ALTOGETHER THE STATEMENT 
 
 that every Protestant in Ireland denounces 
 Homo Rule. It is not so. The hon. gentle- 
 man will find that there are a very consider- 
 able number of Protestants who are for self- 
 government for Ireland. And it is not to be 
 forgotten that such was the sentiment of the 
 country at the very time at which that union 
 took place, which is now thought such a 
 sacred compact — that compact which was be- 
 gotten in profligacy and corruption admittedly 
 without a parallel, that compact which was 
 certainly not a holy compact — it was opposed 
 as strongly and earnestly by a large body of 
 Protestants, aye by Orangemen too, as by 
 the other classes of the population. Then 
 the hon. gentleman from Muskoka said — and 
 I quite approve of his observation, and I 
 made one like it myself — that he claimed the. 
 right to speak for Ireland as well as the Min- 
 ister of Inland Revenue. He is perfectly 
 right. I quite accord the right to speak for 
 Ireland to the hon. member for Muskoka ; 
 let each speak according to his lights. He 
 thinks Home Rule will be disadvantageous 
 to the country from which his people came, 
 and I think it is an advantageous proposal 
 for the country from which my people came. 
 We are each of us 1 suppose entitled to our 
 own views and are free to follow our own 
 convictions. I quite agree that the hon. 
 gentleman has a right to speak for Ireland as 
 any other hon. member whose ancestors came 
 from Ireland, but in each case it must depend 
 upon the circumstances under which, and the 
 degree of interest and thoroughness with 
 which the hon. gentleman has studied the • 
 question, and after all any definite conclusion 
 at which any of us may arrive may be errone- 
 ous. The member for Centre Wellington 
 (Mr. Orton) said he also had something to 
 say about it. He endorsed the principle of 
 Home Rule, but he found words to say that 
 he would support the Ministry. I do not 
 think it takes very much to induce the mem- 
 ber for Centre Wellington to support the 
 Adrainistration. I pass him by. The hon. 
 member for North Bruce (Mr. McNeill) said 
 that I knew there was a great diversity of 
 opinion in Ontario. I have no doubt there 
 is a considerable numberof persons absolutely, 
 though a very small number relatively, I be- 
 
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE VAST MAJORITT 
 
 90 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 lieve, in the Province who entertain strong if it fails I do not choose to forecast the 
 
 opinions adverse to Home Rule ; consequences. But I do say that the very 
 
 reason which the hon. member for West York 
 (Mr, Wallace) who, with those other gentle- 
 of the people of that Province, taken as a men, are, I suppose, the dissentients, to 
 whole, are directly, thoroughly and irrevoc- whom the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue 
 ably in favour of the principles of Home Rule referred — the very reason he and others give 
 as applied to Ireland. That is my opinion ; as a ground why the motion of the hon. 
 I may be mistaken ; the member for North Minister of Inland Revenue is preferable to 
 Bruce may be right if he entertains a differ- the motion which I have offered — that they 
 ent opinion, but such at all events is ray are prepared to support it, because it would 
 opinion. Then the hon. member for West do so little good to the cause of Homj Rule 
 York (Mr. Wallace) said that the motion and that it would do less harm to the opposi- 
 would not do because it endorses the mea- tion to Home Rule than the other, is the 
 sure of Mr. Gladstone. What my motion reason why my motion should receive the 
 does is to endorse the principle of that mea- support of the House. Then the hon. gentle- 
 sure, which principle, as I pointed out to the man says the question is a most intricate 
 House on Tuesday, the author of the Bill one. Undoubtedly, it is a vast question, an 
 himself declares to be the principle of Local enormously intricate question in its details ; 
 Government or autonomy for Ireland. The and if we were offering an opinion on all its 
 question of Irish representation for Imperial details I think we would require a great deal 
 purposes at Westminster, Mr. Gladstone more study and perhaps a great deal more 
 said : I put to one side, I do not ask you to local knowledge, as to some of them, than we 
 vote for that on the second reading. There have had the opportunity of acquiring. But 
 are other details in regard to internal mat- we are not asked to pronounce on the details 
 ters, and in regard to them Mr. Gladstone of the measure. We are asked, as I have 
 says : I do not ask you to vote for them, but said and I have established, to pronounce on 
 I ask you in voting for the second reading of the second reading of Mr. Gladstone's Bill, as 
 the Bill to vote for the principle of self- 
 
 government for Ireland and for this measure ^ affirmation of the principle of 
 as calculated, at all events as far as the «<^^^ ^^^^ '^^ Ireland. 
 Local Government of Ireland is concerned, That is the best, the most sensible, the most 
 irrespective of the question of the measure practical step towards the accomplishmoDt of 
 of control Ireland should have in Imperial the object which I believe a majority of this 
 affairs and of some other questions, to form House has at heart, and that step we are 
 a basis for settlement. What the hon. gentle- asked not to take, that step we are asked to 
 man from West York says is that the mea- set aside in favour of this pale, this colour- 
 sure will not do. It does not suit his views, less resolution of the Minister of Inland 
 He is opposed to any large measure of Home Revenue, which is acceptable to hon. gentle- 
 Rule. He would like the Irish to have men who do not like Home Rule because it 
 municipal institutions, but a large measure is the least calculated to promote Home Rule 1 
 of Home Rule he is opposed to, and there- The hon. member for West York (Mr. 
 fore he is opposed to my motion. That is Wallace) said it really looked to him as if I 
 
 were toadying to Mr. Gladstone. Because I 
 
 THE VERY REASON I WANT MY MOTION CARRIED. ^^^ ^^^ ^J^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^ ^^ 
 
 because I am in favour of a large measure of Gladstone, because I had not asked the 
 
 Home Rule. He is opposed to my measure House to express its sympathy and admira- 
 
 because it will aid, comfort and support the tion for Mr. Gladstone, as has been done by 
 
 second reading of Mr. Gladstone's Bill, which other bodies, because I preferred passing him 
 
 he does not want to take place. But that is by and moving for an address to our Most 
 
 just what I do want — that the second read- Gracious Sovereign, I am supposed, forsooth, 
 
 ing of that Bill should be carried. I believe to be toadying to Mr. Gladstone ! When in 
 
 that the most important stage in the ques- 1882 I ventured to point out the ditficulties 
 
 tion of Home Rule for Ireland would be of Mr. Glawstone's attitude at that time, when 
 
 achieved by the second reading of that Bill. I pointed out what he has since proved true 
 
 I do not believe the question will be ulti- by his action, that it was not a sufficient 
 
 mately settled in the terms of that Bill, but defence for him to say that a small minority 
 
 the most important stage in the settlement of which had grievances did not formulate a 
 
 it will have been passed if it is carried, and plan which they had no power to carry into 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886. 91 
 
 effect ; that if he admitted that there existed humbly think it is beneath the dignity of 
 grievances, it was his duty, who had the this House, as I feel sure it is beneath the 
 power, to formulate the best plan he could in dignity of gentlemen expressing such a large 
 order to remedy admitted grievances accord- love of liberty, to say that this action ia 
 ing to his lights, the First Minister said : taken only to cheer on the Imperial Govern- 
 Here is a gentleman criticising that great ment, sustained by a powerful Parliament, 
 statesman, Mr. Gladstone, criticising him in bringing forward a measure which has ob- 
 adversely, using harsh language towards him, tained so thorough an adhesion, and the 
 telling him that he is mistaken, that he is success of which is really assured, if not as 
 wrong, that he ought to do some other thiiig ; to its details, at any rate as to a very large 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, he said, though a great states- measure of the principle involved 
 
 man, like other men, is human, and he will I agree in the statement of the hon. mem- 
 be annoyed when he sees the hon. gentle- ber for West Durham, that we have the right 
 man's speech ; I hope, he said, that the to express our opinion, as fellow-subjects of 
 report containing the speech will be delayed the Empire, on that or any other question ; 
 in transmission j I hope that by some happy but I do say that before this House is asked 
 accident the mail steamer may be lost, so to sacrifice its dignity by approaching again 
 that the hon. gentleman's speech may not the very men who have declared they have 
 reach him, because, if it does, the good which no advice to take from us, that the matter is 
 the address will do will be defeated by what exclusively one for themselves to consider, 
 he said of Mr. Gladstone ! Yet the hon. and that they had formed their opinion be- 
 member for West York finds to-day that 1 fore hearing from us, at least it should be 
 am toadying to Mr. Gladstone ! Now, Sir, shown that some practical useful purpose is 
 I believe it is extremely unfortunate that the to be served and and somebody to be bene- 
 proposals of the Minister of Inland Revenue fitted. It is for these reasons that I am in 
 as to an effort to agree upon the motion, in sympathy entirely with the Minister of In- 
 the interval between Tuesday and to-day, land Revenue, in feeling indisposed to invite 
 were not by him carried out. I think it the action of Parliament upon that question 
 would have been much better if that had been again this Session. . . I do sav, both as one 
 done ; but we have now to settle the question who is entirely in sympathy with the address 
 in the ordinary way. I consider my motion of 1882, and as a member of this House, that 
 preferable to the hon. gentleman's for the I am opposed to passing any address on this 
 reasons I have stated. I consider the amend- subject in view of all these circumstances, 
 ment which the hon. member for Wellington and that I think the dignity and self-respect 
 (Mr. McMullen) is proposing to introduce in of this House will be best maintained by 
 it an improvement on my motion. I intend, simply asserting what this House resolved in 
 therefore, to vote for the amendment of the 1882 it adheres to to-night, and records its 
 hon. member for Wellington, , opinion without undertaking to present an ad- 
 Mr. Thompson. Now, a reason given why dress on the subject to the man who spurned 
 the House should adopt this resolution is our address before, from whom we have 
 that it is the right of the House, in spite of no reason to expect any change in this par- 
 the rebuke of the Earl of Kimberley to assert ticular, although there may be a change in 
 
 its undoubted privilege of addressing the the question now before Parliament 
 
 Throne. Let me call the attention of the Mr. Coursol. I think it is the opinion 
 
 House to the fact that this has been alto- of all the Irishmen in Canada that something 
 
 o 
 
 gether renounced in the resolution now should be done here, and I believe they will 
 
 oflfered to this House and in the speech of be thankful to the mover of the resolution. 
 
 the hon. member for West Durham. That This is no time to quarrel about politics, 
 
 resolution and that speech assert no right. This is no time to say that it has been brought 
 
 They simply express joy at the action of Mr. in by the leader of the Government or the 
 
 Gladstone in introducing the Home Rule leader of the Opposition. It is for us to 
 
 measure ; and the hon. member for West decide whether the proposition before us 
 
 Durham says : We are not approaching the deserves our approval, whether it will serve 
 
 Throne as we did before, we are not tender- the purpose desired, whether it will show to 
 
 ing advice to Her Majesty, or Her Majesty's England, to the British Empire, that Mr. 
 
 advisors ; we are cheering them on. Sir, the Gladstone, in his Home Rule measure, has 
 
 House in 1882, on motion of my friend the friends in Canada who are disposed to cheer 
 
 hon. Minister of Inland Revenue did cheer him on in the course he has adopted 
 
 on a depressed, a downcast cause ; and I We are told that Mr. Gladstone held different 
 
^ 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 views some time ago. I do not care what 
 views he may have held in the past ; I care 
 for his views of to-day. I take his proposi- 
 tion as I nnd it, and I think it deserves our 
 hearty support. I believe the d.iy is not far 
 distant when he will achieve that great feat 
 of repairing the injustices of the past, that 
 he will receive the reward he deserves, and 
 that his brilliant career will be closed by 
 passing a law that will be a blessing to the 
 people who have suffered so long. For my 
 part, I do not view this as a party measure. 
 If the propo.sition of the Minister of Inland 
 Revenue had been alone before the House, I 
 would gladly have supported it. But if I 
 find something more to the point, something 
 calculated to do more good, I am bound, as a 
 lover of Ireland, as a lover of freedom, to sup- 
 port the second proposition Now, 
 
 Sir, the motion of the hon. leader of the Oppo- 
 sition is couched in a calm, dignified tone, 
 there is nothing in it to offend, and I am 
 sure if it is sent by this Parliament to Mr. 
 Gladstone, he will receive it with gratitude, 
 and thereby correct the mistake that was 
 made before. We ought not to think of that, 
 if we can accomplish our end ; our first object 
 is to do good to Ireland, and we ought not 
 to dispute about the terms, we need not be 
 so punctilious about the terms. Let us do 
 our duty first about the cause of Ireland and 
 of Home Rule, and if we succeed we shall be 
 satisfied. If, on the contrary, the English 
 Government should think fit to return such 
 an answer as they did before, then Canada 
 will know what she will have to do, but I 
 presume no such thing will happen. I shall 
 vote in favour of the amendment i.-: 't stands, 
 hoping that it will be annexed to the motion 
 of the leader of the Opposition. 
 
 Mr. Patkhsox (Brant). I desire to say 
 but a few words on the subject that has en- 
 gaged the attention of the House this after- 
 noon and evening. I have waited until our 
 Irish friends in the; House have had an 
 opportunity of expressing their views, and 
 now that they have had full opportunity, 
 and one of our French friends has found 
 occasion to approve of the course of the 
 leader of the Opposition and of the resolution 
 which he has submitted, I, who cannot claim 
 to be either Irish by birth or Irish by descent, 
 r«cognize that lact, and at the same time 
 venture to claim that I am in a position in 
 which I may be permitted to say a few words 
 on this question. I conceive this to be a 
 question that is more than an Irish question. 
 These resolutions are introduced into the 
 Canadian Parliament, and as a Canadian, 
 
 and as a representative in the Canadian Par- 
 liament, I feel I am at liberty to express my 
 views in regard to the substance of them, 
 and to intimate what my views are in that 
 direction. I think it is eminently proper 
 that in the Canadian Parliament, composed 
 of the representatives of various Provinces, 
 which enjoy to the full the privilege of local 
 self-government, such resolutions should be 
 inl reduced. I was one of those in the House 
 who, in 1882, was very glad, al ng with al- 
 most all the members in the House, to ratify 
 by my assent and by my vote on that occasion 
 what I believed to be a correct principle, 
 that local self government should be given to 
 the people of Ireland, permitting them to 
 manage their own local affairs as to them 
 might seem right and proper. And there- 
 fore when the leader of the Opposition has 
 to-day placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, a 
 resolution declaring that we adheie to the 
 principles we enunciated at that time and 
 evidenced by our vote, and that he desires 
 further to express to Her Majesty our belief 
 that the principles we then advocated have 
 been incorporated in a measure that has been 
 brought down by the Imperial Cabinet and 
 submitted to the House of Commons, I feel 
 that I desire to express my approval of that 
 resolution and give it my support, and. if I 
 have an opportunity, my vote. It is to be 
 regretted very much, I tiiink, that on a 
 question of this great cons'quence, on a ques- 
 tion on which it is so desirable that we should 
 all be united, an attempt should have been 
 made to introduce an element of party strife. 
 It is particularly to be regretted that the evi- 
 dent intention to introduce, if possible, party 
 strife into the discussion of this question 
 should come from those who have constituted 
 themselves, as it were, the special champions 
 of the Irish people and of the Irish cause. 
 . . . . Where is the proof of the charge 
 laid against the leader of the Opposition that 
 he has introduced this resolution in a purely 
 party spirit and for pa"*^.y gains an. I purposes ? 
 The Minister of Ju. charged that when 
 
 the Costigan resolutiouc were introduced, one 
 of which expressed the ]r^r>"i that persons 
 then confined in gaol mig' ' j rejeased, the 
 voice of the leader of the o imposition was not 
 raised on that occasion. Does not the hon. 
 gentleman know that on that very occasion 
 the leader of the Opposition seconded the 
 motion 1 Does not he know, and if he was 
 not present has he not heard that such was 
 the easel I well recall that his eloquent 
 advocacy of the cause of local self-government 
 of the Irish people captivated the entire par- 
 
ON THE HOME RUI^ RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886. 
 
 93 
 
 liamentary assembly, and that the cheers 
 rang out not only from his supporters but 
 from those who were politically opposed to 
 him. I have here the testimony, in contra- 
 diction of the charge of the Minister of 
 Justice that the leader of the Opposition had 
 sat silent upon that occasion. I have the 
 testimony of the Minister of Inland Revenue 
 himself. In his speech delivered in this 
 House the other day he said : 
 
 " Mr. Speaker, on a former occasion, when this 
 same subject was discussed before this Parliament, 
 no man who sat in this Chamber and listened to the 
 hon. gentleman when he spoke on that occasion 
 admired him more sincerely than I did, or was more 
 ready to congratulate him upon the very able speecli 
 he delivered on that occasion." 
 
 And yet, Sir, the Minister of Ju.;tice rose 
 and charged when these resolutions wtTe 
 passing through — alluding to one of them 
 desiring the release of the persons then in 
 prison — the leader of the Opposition had re- 
 mained silent. I tell you, Sir, and I tell the 
 House that long before the Costigan resolu- 
 tions were introduced into this Parliament 
 this measure of Home Rule for the people of 
 Ireland was in the heart, and found expres- 
 sion from the lips, of the hon. leader of the 
 Opposition. Two years and four days before 
 the Costigan resolutions were introduced into 
 this House, when my hon. friend was speak- 
 ing of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of 
 the probable immigration we would receive 
 into our country, reciting the fact which he 
 much regretted that we did not receive so 
 large a number of immigrants from Ireland 
 as he desired we might, he pointed out what 
 he deeply regretted, that unfortunately the 
 Irish Catholic population of Ireland, when 
 they left their country owing to the em- 
 bittered feelings which existed between Ire- 
 land and England, instead of seeking our 
 shores where they could find comfortable 
 homes and work their fortunes, they sought 
 the shores of another country and became 
 settlers of, and helpers in, building up a 
 foreign nation. Upon that occasion the 
 leader of the Opposition, after deploring the 
 fact I have pointed out, said this : 
 
 " But I hope for great things for Ireland and the 
 Empire from the .^ents of the last few days. 1 
 hope and trust thav '"^ advent to power of the 
 Liberal party, supported •-„ " g^-eat majority of 
 decided Liberals and Radicals, r/ill result in fresh 
 measures of relief and jastice to Ireland, which will 
 tend still farther to weaken her old feelings of hos- 
 tility and dissatisfaction, and to make the Empire in 
 this regard a United Empire. 1 hope we shall see 
 am mg other things a moderate measure of Home 
 Rule for Ireland, and witness by the application oi 
 
 that measure the crpation and maintenance of true 
 and real bonds of Union between Ireland and the 
 rest of the so-called United Kingdom." 
 
 That was the sentiment deep in the heart of 
 the leader of the Opposition, a sentiment 
 which found expression from his lips two 
 years and four days before the Costigan reso- 
 lutions were moved at all ; and yet, although 
 that is the record of the hon. gentleman, he 
 is charged by hon. gentlemen on the other 
 side, now that the desire of his heart in that 
 respect seems to be approaching completion, 
 now when he sees that by another effort it 
 may become almost an accomplished fact, 
 they say that after having waited, after hav- 
 ing given them every opportunity to move 
 from the other side, in order if possible, that 
 a unanimous vote might be secured, after 
 waiting until he found from the newspapers 
 that they would not move, he comes forward 
 and moves his resolution — a resolution which 
 is simply an affirmation of the one whiclf 
 was adopted by hon. gentlemen on both sides 
 in 1882, and stating further that we desired 
 to inform Her Majesty that this House hails 
 with joy the submission by Her iSIajesty's 
 Government to the Parliament of the United 
 Kingdom of a measure recognizing the princi- 
 ple of local self-government for Ireland — they 
 now find fault with him for moving this reso- 
 lution. ... I would desire to express my 
 joy that now at last there has been a measure 
 submitted to the Imperial Parliament by the 
 Premier of the Empire to secure that boon 
 to the Irish people ; and I am of the opinion 
 expressed in the words of the amendment 
 offered by the hon. member for North Well- 
 ington (Mr. MoMullen), that the events that 
 have taken place since 1882 have strength- 
 ened the conviction we then entertained, 
 that it was a proper and desirable thing to 
 grant such a measure. I shall therefore 
 have much pleasure in voting for the amend- 
 ment of the hon. member for North Welling- 
 ton, which will express to Her Majesty, as 
 we have clearly a right to do, that we hold 
 the same views now that we held in 1882, 
 and that we rejoice to know that those views 
 are now embodied in a measure submitted to 
 the Imperial Parliament for ratification and 
 approval. I shall have much pleasure, Sir, 
 in supporting this resolution, and I only re- 
 gret that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue 
 has sought to supplant the original resolution 
 by the introduction of a resolution that will 
 not tend in any material degree, I fear, to 
 strengthen the hands of the right hon. gentle- 
 man engaged in this great task, but whose 
 hands would be most materially strengthened 
 
94 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 if the original resolution were to receive, as 
 it ought in my opinion to receive, the appro- 
 val of the members of this Chamber. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. .... It is useless to 
 argue at this age of history the question of 
 whether the Irish people should have Home 
 Rule or not ; it is universally admitted that 
 griev ances have existed and that the peace of 
 Ireland has suffered from the want of that 
 power of self-government within the island 
 itself, which is almost universally admitted 
 to be now necessary. I will, therefore, not 
 now discuss that side of the question, because 
 I think there is but one opinion on all sides 
 of this House, and that is that the action 
 taken by the right hon. the First Minister of 
 England, that the principle of the Bill which 
 he submitted — I am not going so far as to 
 say I will endorse all the details, I think 
 there are many the right hon. gentleman 
 knows he will require tc alter — but I say 
 the principle of the Bill is one which will be 
 universally admitted in this House to be of 
 absolute necessity in order to secure the peace 
 
 of the Empire When we find 
 
 the right hon. the first Minister of England is 
 receiving assurances of sympathy from for- 
 eign lands, from Irishmen south of the border, 
 and from other British colonies, it is our 
 duty as well as our right to give expression 
 to the wish which in our heart we feel that 
 every efiort should be made to meet the just 
 expectations of that country which has suf- 
 fered so much from maladministration. I 
 will say no more on this point, but simply 
 express my opinion as to what is desirable 
 we should do to sustain the hands of Mr. 
 Gladstone. I regret very much to find that 
 the reasonable motion of the hon. member 
 for West Durham (Mr. Blake) was not. 
 accepted by the Administration. Let any- 
 one take up that resolution and let him take 
 up the amendment moved by the Minister of 
 Inland Revenue, and say whether there is 
 any very substantial difierence between the 
 two, except this, that the resolution of the 
 hon. member for West Durham is more ex- 
 plicit, more to the point, conveys better the 
 idea we deaire to convey, conveys in the strong- 
 est manner possible the desire of our people 
 through their representatives in Parliament 
 to press upon Her Majesty, Her Majesty's 
 advisors, and the people of England, the fact 
 that we in C-anada, comprising between 
 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 people, admittedly 
 the brightest gem in the crown of England, 
 her foremost colony, one that has shown by 
 her enterprise that she is prepared to receive 
 the homeless millions of Europe — sympathize 
 
 with Mr. Gladstone ; and our opinion should 
 be expressed in a manner in which there will 
 be no uncertain sound or doubt. If the hon. 
 member for West Durham had not moved 
 his resolution, and the Minister of Inland 
 Revenue had submitted his as an original 
 proposition, I would have supported it with 
 pleasure ; but in my opinion it is not as 
 strong as the other, because it is simply an 
 expression of the opinion of this Parliament, 
 while the motion of the hon. member for 
 West Durham is a direct address to the foot 
 of the Throne. If the motion of the hon. 
 Minister of Inland Revenue had been pre- 
 sented in the first instance I would have 
 gladly supported it, and I feel that, after the 
 unanimous expression of the opinion of this 
 Parliament which we gave in 1882, when I 
 had not the honour of being in Parliament, it 
 is a matter of regret that on this occasion we 
 should not act unanimously. If there be a 
 division on the motion of the hon. member 
 for West Durham, and if the House divides 
 on the motion of the hon. member for Well- 
 ington and the amendment of the hon. Min- 
 ister of Inland Revenue is carried, I suppose 
 it will be carried on a divided House. That 
 is a fact that I would very much regret. I 
 feel that if we are sending an expression of 
 opinion on so vital and important a question 
 to a large number of our fellow-subjects on 
 the other side of the water, we ought to send 
 an unanimous expression of opinion, and I 
 would ask the Ministry whether, even at this 
 late hour, they could not find that it would 
 not derogate from their dignity or influence, 
 but, on the contrary, lead them to be more 
 respected in this House and country, if in 
 order to command unanimity they should 
 withdraw the motion of the Minister of In- 
 land Revenue. The hon. member for West 
 Wellington (Mr. McMullen) would then 
 withdraw his, and the first resolution go as 
 proposed. But if the Government are deter- 
 mined to press for a division, the country 
 will hold them responsible for it. The hon. 
 member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), who 
 waited two months after the House opened 
 before he submitted his resolution, I am 
 sure, though I am not in his confidence, 
 knew nothing of this motion, and would 
 have been willing at once to accept the pro- 
 position of the Minister of Inland Revenue, 
 if it had been submitted in the first in- 
 stance. If, with so little difference between 
 the two resolutions, a division is had, the 
 country will hold the Administration of the 
 day responsible for preventing that unani- 
 mity upon this question which we all desire. 
 
Oir THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 18^. 
 
 95 
 
 Tktkt w ftll I h»Te to wj. In sanding home 
 » reaolution on this subject I do not want 
 im vote M the hoo. member for Mnskoka 
 (Mr. 0'Bri«m) said he won Id, for a reaolction 
 that wiM do ike least food. I want to vote 
 for the strongest resolution, and therefore I 
 propose tCYOte for the amendment of the 
 mh. member for Wellington, and, failing 
 that, for the motion of the hon. member for 
 West Durham. 
 
 Mr. CosTioAN I need not repeat 
 
 whftt I hftye already stated, and what has 
 b«en better stated by my colleague the Minis- 
 ter of Justice, that the contention has been 
 a little strained, that because a new Parlia- 
 ment has come in, that resolution is of no 
 force nnless it is renewed by this Parliament, 
 I say it has all that force it had on the day 
 it was passed until some adverse resolution 
 is adopted by the Parliament of Canada. It 
 is true that we are not the same in personnel, 
 that we are not the same Parliament, but 
 we were the voice of Canada at that time, 
 and the expression of the people of Canada 
 through their representatives has never been 
 reversed up to the present time. It may be 
 reversed to-night. It may be, if a vote is 
 taken, that it will be weakened, I hope I 
 shall not be held responsible for that. 
 
 Some hon. Members. You certainly will. 
 
 Mr. CosTiGAN. Hon. gentlemen say that I 
 certainly shall be. I am prepared to take the 
 responsibility of any act I perform. I have 
 
 always been prepared to do that I 
 
 will vote against any amendment that may 
 be proposed in order to reach my own 
 motion. I believe that my motion will 
 recommend itself to a majority of this 
 House, and I think it will meet the reason- 
 able expectations of every man who wishes 
 to see harmony in this country, which is the 
 subject of ocr discussion to night. 
 
 An hon. Membeb. Harmony and peace 
 on that side of the House, you mean. 
 
 Mr. Costigan. Well, the harmony and 
 peace we secure on this side. We do not 
 know all the little differences that occur 
 on that side. .... If the day should 
 come that it appears to the people most 
 interested in this question that they have 
 resison to believe I have failed in the proper 
 discharge of my duty, I will pay the penalty 
 
 of not having their confidence any longer. 
 
 • *•••«« 
 
 [House then divided on amendment (Mr. 
 Mc Mullen)]: 
 
 Ybas : 
 
 Messieuri 
 
 Allen, Armstronf, 
 
 Amyot, Aa(fer, * 
 
 Memieiin 
 
 Bain (Wentwrribj, 
 
 B^hwrd., 
 
 Bergeron, 
 
 Bemier, 
 
 Blake. 
 
 BonrasMk, 
 
 Burpee, 
 
 Cameron (Huron), 
 
 Cameron (Middlesex)^ 
 
 Campbell (Renfrew), 
 
 Cartwright (Sir Richard), 
 
 Ca«ey, 
 
 Casgraia, 
 
 Cook, 
 
 Coursol, 
 
 Daviea, 
 
 Denaulnien (Maakin'<), 
 
 Desjardins, 
 
 Dupont, 
 
 Fairbank, 
 
 Fisher, 
 
 Forbes, 
 
 Gigault, 
 
 Gillmor, 
 
 Glen, 
 
 Guay, 
 
 Gunn, 
 
 Harley, 
 
 Holton, 
 
 Innes, 
 
 Irvine, 
 
 Ja( kaon, 
 
 Ki.ij?, 
 
 Kirk, 
 
 Landerkia 
 
 Mclntyre^ 
 
 Mc Mullen, 
 
 Milli, 
 
 Mitchell, 
 
 Mulock, 
 
 Patenon (Braot)^ 
 
 Piatt, 
 
 R*y, 
 
 Rinfret, 
 
 ScriTef, 
 
 SomenrQle (Brant), 
 
 Somenrille (BmoeX 
 
 Springer, 
 
 Sutherland (Ozfofd) 
 
 Trow, 
 
 Vail, 
 
 Watuon, 
 
 Weldon, 
 
 Wilson, 
 
 Wright, 
 
 Yeo.— ea 
 
 Nats: 
 Messieurs 
 
 Abbott, 
 
 Allison, 
 
 Bain (Soulanget) 
 
 Baker (Missisquoi), 
 
 Baker (Victoria), 
 
 Barker, 
 
 Barnard, 
 
 Beaty, 
 
 Bell, 
 
 Benoit, 
 
 Blondean, 
 
 Bourbeau, 
 
 Bowell, 
 
 Bryson, 
 
 Burnham, 
 
 Burns, 
 
 Cameron (Tnvemew), 
 
 Cameron (Victoria), 
 
 Campliell (Victoria), 
 
 Carlin^r, 
 
 Caron (Sir Adolphe), 
 
 Cimon, 
 
 Cochrane, 
 
 Costigan, 
 
 Coughlin, 
 
 Curran, 
 
 Cuthbert, 
 
 Daly, 
 
 Daoust, 
 
 Dawson, 
 
 Desaulnieni (St. Manrice). 
 
 Dickinaou, 
 
 Do. Id, 
 
 Duga«, 
 
 Dundas, 
 
 Everett, 
 
 Farrow, 
 
 Ferguson (Leeds & Gren. ), 
 
 Ferguson (Welland), 
 
 Fortin, 
 
 Foster, 
 
 Gaudet, 
 
 Girouard, 
 
 Gordon, 
 
 Grandlwia, 
 
 Guilbanlt, 
 
 Guillet, 
 
 Hackett, 
 
 Haggart, 
 
 Hall, 
 
 Hay, 
 
 Hesson, 
 
 Hickey, 
 
 Homer, 
 
 Hurteau, 
 
 Jamieson, 
 
 Jenkins, 
 
 Kaulback, 
 
 Kilvert, 
 
 Kinney, 
 
 Kranz, 
 
 Labrosse, 
 
 Landry (Kent), 
 
 Landry (MontmagnyL 
 
 Langevin (Sir Hector^ 
 
 Le.sage, 
 
 Macdonald (King's), 
 
 Macdonald (Sir John), 
 
 Mackintosh, 
 
 Macniaster, 
 
 Macmillan (Middlesex), 
 
 McMilllan (VaudreuilJb 
 
 M cCallum, 
 
 LlcCarthy, 
 
 McDougall (C. Breton)^ 
 
 McGreevy, 
 
 McLelan, 
 
 McNeill, 
 
 Massue, 
 
 Moffat, 
 
 Montplaisfr, 
 
 O'Brien, 
 
 Or ton, 
 
 Ouimet, 
 
 Paint, 
 
 Patterson (Easex)^ 
 
 Pinsrmneault, 
 
 Pruyn, 
 
 Reid, 
 
 Riopel, 
 
 Robertson (Hamilton), 
 
 Robertson (Hastintfs), 
 
 Royal 
 
 Rykert, 
 
 Scott, 
 
 Shakespeare, 
 
96 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 
 Messieurs ^ 
 
 Small, 
 
 Valin, 
 
 Sproule, 
 
 Vanasse, 
 
 Stairs, 
 
 Wallace (Albert), 
 
 Tawcherean, 
 
 Wallace (York), 
 
 Taas4 • 
 
 Ward, 
 
 Taylor, 
 
 White (C.'ardwell), 
 
 Temple, 
 
 White (Hastings), 
 
 Thompson, 
 
 White (Ilenfrew), 
 
 Tov.nhhend, 
 
 Wigle, 
 
 Tupper, 
 
 Wood (Brockville), 
 
 Tyrwhitt, 
 
 Wood(WeBtmoreland)-118. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 House then divided on amendment (Mr. 
 
 CoBtigan) : 
 
 
 
 Yeas: 
 
 
 Messieurs 
 
 Allison, 
 
 Kinney, 
 
 Bain (Soiilanges), 
 
 Kranz, 
 
 Baker (Missisquoi), 
 
 Labrodse, 
 
 Baker (Victoria), 
 
 Landry (Kent), 
 
 Barker, 
 
 Landry (Montmagny), 
 
 Barnard, 
 
 Langevin (Sir Hector), 
 
 Beaty, 
 
 Lesage, 
 
 Bell, 
 
 Macdonald (King's) 
 
 Benoit, 
 
 Macdonald (Sir John), 
 
 BlonHeau, 
 
 Mackintosh, 
 
 Bourbeau, 
 
 Macm aster, 
 
 Bowell, 
 
 Macmillan (Middlesex), 
 
 Bryson, 
 
 McMillan (Vandreuil), 
 
 Burnham, 
 
 McCallum, 
 
 Burns, 
 
 McCarthy, 
 
 Cameron (Inverness), 
 
 McDougall (C. Breton), 
 
 Cameron (Victoria), 
 
 McGreevy, 
 
 Campbell (Victoria), 
 
 McT^elan, 
 
 C'arling, 
 
 McNeill, 
 
 Caron (Sir Adolphe), 
 
 Massue, 
 
 Cimon, 
 
 Motfatt, 
 
 Cochrane, 
 
 Montplaisir, 
 
 Costigan, 
 
 O'Brien, 
 
 Coughlin, 
 
 Orton, 
 
 Curraa, 
 
 Ouimet, 
 
 Cuthbert, 
 
 Paint, 
 
 Daly, 
 
 Patterson (Essex), 
 
 Daonst, 
 
 Pinsonneault, 
 
 Dawson, 
 
 Pruyn, 
 
 Deaaulniers (St. Maurice), Keid, 
 
 Dickinson, 
 
 Riopel, 
 
 Dodd, 
 
 Robertson (Hamilton), 
 
 Dugas, 
 
 Robertson (Hastings), 
 
 Du"da9, 
 
 Royal, 
 Eykert, 
 
 Everett, 
 
 Farrow, 
 
 Scott, 
 
 Ferguson (Leeds &Grea.), Shakespeare, 
 
 Ferguson (Welland), 
 
 Small, 
 
 Fortin, 
 
 Sproule, 
 
 Foster, 
 
 Stairs, 
 
 Gaudet, 
 
 Taschereau, 
 
 Girouard, 
 
 Tass^ 
 
 Gordon, 
 
 Taylor, 
 
 Grandboia, 
 
 Temple, 
 
 Guilbault, 
 
 Thompson, 
 
 Guillet, 
 
 Townshend, 
 
 Hacl-ett, 
 
 Tupper, 
 
 Hau'gart, 
 
 Tyrwhitt, 
 
 Hall, 
 
 Valin, 
 
 Hay, 
 
 Vana-ise, 
 
 Hesson, 
 
 Wallace (Albert), 
 
 Hickey, 
 
 Wallace (York), 
 
 HiHiard, 
 
 W^ard, 
 
 Homer, 
 
 White (Cardwell), 
 
 Hurteau, 
 
 White (Renfrew), 
 
 Jamieson, 
 
 Wigle, 
 
 Jenkins, 
 
 Wood (Brockville). 
 
 Kaulbach, 
 
 Wood(We8tmoreland)-117 
 
 Nays : 
 Messieara 
 
 AUeo, 
 
 Amyot, 
 
 Annstrong, 
 
 Anger. 
 
 Bain (W'entworth), 
 
 B^hard, 
 
 Bergeron, 
 
 Bernier, 
 
 Blake, 
 
 Bourasaa, 
 
 Burpee, 
 
 Cameron (Huron), 
 
 Cameron (Middlesex), 
 
 Campbell (Renfrew), 
 
 Cartwright (Sir Richard), 
 
 Casey, 
 
 Casgrain, 
 
 Cook, 
 
 Coursol, 
 
 Davies, 
 
 Desaulniers (Maskn'g^, 
 
 Desjardins, 
 
 Dupont, 
 
 Fairbank, 
 
 Fisher, 
 
 Forbes, 
 
 Gigault, 
 
 Gillmor, 
 
 Glen, 
 
 Guay, 
 
 Gunn 
 
 liarley, 
 
 Holton, 
 
 Innes, 
 
 Irvine, 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 King, 
 
 Kirk, 
 
 Landerkin, 
 
 Mclntvre, 
 
 McMuUen, 
 
 Mills, 
 
 Mitch'-ll, 
 
 Muhxjk, 
 
 Paterson (Brant), 
 
 Piatt, 
 
 Ray, 
 
 Rinfr^t, 
 
 Scrivt.', 
 
 Somerville (Brant), 
 
 Somerville (Bruce), 
 
 Springer, 
 
 Sutherland (Oxford),. 
 
 Trow, 
 
 Vail, 
 
 Watson, 
 
 Weldon, 
 
 White (Hastings)^ 
 
 Wilson, 
 
 Wright, 
 
 Yeo.— 61. 
 
 Kilvert, 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Blake. However deeply I may 
 regret, Sir, that the Commons of Canada 
 should have decided to speak with a voice so 
 vague and ineffective, and to add so slight 
 an impulse to the movement I was hoping 
 to advance, it is yet for me to consider what 
 is the best use that can be made of that vague 
 and ineffective voice and that slight impulse. 
 The resolution we are to substitute for the 
 original resolution is a simple expression of 
 our opinion, to lie upon our journals. Weak 
 and inadequate as it is, it is still better that 
 it should do some good; and I therefore 
 move to add to the motion, as amended, the 
 words following : — 
 
 And that a copy of the resolution be communi- 
 cated forthwith by Mr. Speaker to Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald. I object to this 
 amendment simply on the plain ground that 
 it is in direct contravention to the resolution 
 we have just passed. It is in effect &n 
 address. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). I object to it 
 on another ground. I think it is unworthy 
 of the dignity of this House that we should 
 append to a resolution such as we have 
 passed a message requiring you, as the 
 Speaker of this House, to communicate it 
 even to such a distinguished individual as 
 Mr. Gladstone ; and if by doing so, as I have 
 no doubt my hon. friend the leader of the 
 Opposition desires, we should give encour- 
 
ON THE HOMK RULE RESOLUTIONS. MAY. 1886. 
 
 97 
 
 agement to liia proposition for Home Rule 
 for Ireland in the sense in which he has 
 d( nunciated it, I demur to it on that ground 
 also, as totally dissenting from any such 
 proposition. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. I support it on this 
 ground, that inasmuch as the minority of 
 this House, who 1 believe will iind their 
 action endorsed by a majority in the country, 
 have failed to get such a resolution as would 
 fairly express in the strongest terms our 
 approval of Home Kule for Ireland, and 
 secure the greatest amount of good, I believe 
 our next duty is to put the resolution 
 adopted by this House into such a shape that 
 ' he man who stands foremost in the world 
 to-day, and is endeavouring to give Ireland 
 the benefit of self-government, shall have 
 his hands strengthened in every way in 
 which we can do it ; and I have much 
 pleasure in seconding the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Mills. The position the hon. First 
 Minister has taken on this resolution shows 
 very clearly to the House and the country 
 what are his real feelings on this subject. 
 It is well known that hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site are not sincere advocates of the princi- 
 ples of Home Rule. It is well known that 
 the hon. leader of the Government has again 
 and again declared himself against the 
 principle of federation, against the principle 
 of local self-government, and in favour of a 
 legislative union. But the hon. gentlemen 
 have not the courage of their convictions. 
 While they profess to favour Home Rule, 
 they propose a resolution that is addressed to 
 nobody. Now, Sir, when my hon. friend 
 proposes that that resolution should be sent 
 to the Prime Minister of England, who is 
 struggling with the aristocratic classes there 
 to maintain the rights of the people of 
 Ireland, then these hon. gentlemen say : 
 We shall not consent that that resolution 
 shall be sent to Mr. Gladstone ; we shall not 
 consent that it shall be put into the hands of 
 the man who is seeking to confer that benefit 
 on the people of Ireland ; but we will leave 
 it on the journals of our House ; if the Irish 
 people of Canada attack us we will bay, we 
 voted in favour of this resolution ; and if our 
 Orange friends are disposed to attack us for 
 voting for Home Rule, we will say, it is true, 
 we attempted to conciliate a section of our 
 followers by voting for that resolution, but 
 we refused to forward it to Mr. Gladstone, 
 because we did not intend that it should be 
 of the slightest service to the people of 
 Ireland. 
 
 Mr. CouGHLiN. I crave the attention of 
 
 this House for a few momenta. I beg to 
 propose a re solution, and I ask the followers 
 of Sir John A. Macdonald to back me up : 
 
 That a copy of this resohition be sent to Mr. 
 Pamell. 
 
 The Irish people to-day owe this movement 
 to Mr. Pamell. We would not be here 
 to-night voting for this resolution if it had 
 not been for the noble exertions of that noble 
 man. If any credit is duo to any person for 
 the oosition of the question to-day, it is due 
 to Mr. Parnell ; and I ask my hon. friends 
 on this side of the House to back me on this 
 resolution. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. It is moved by Mr. 
 Coughlin to strike out the word *' Gladstone " 
 and insert the word " Parnell." 
 
 Mr. Blake. I uhould have been very 
 glad if the hon. gentleman had proposed to 
 add the words " and Mr. Parnell " to the 
 words of the resolution ; and I should have 
 cordially acceded to that, recognising as I do 
 the great services that Mr. Parnell has 
 rendered to the cause of Home Rule. But 
 at this moment I think it is the hands of 
 Mr. Gladstone that want strengthening, and 
 I am not going to vote to strike out the 
 name of Mr. Gladstone in order to substitute 
 that of Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Sir Richard Cartwright. I think it is 
 well that the First Minister, at any rate, has- 
 thrown off the mask, and has shown us 
 clearly and distinctly, what all of us who 
 know him know, that he has no sympathy 
 for Ireland, and no more sympathy for 
 Home Rule in Ireland than he has for Home 
 Rule in Canada. The hon. gentleman has 
 been plotting, since the time he was sworn in 
 as First Minister of Canada, against the 
 Local Governments of this country. We 
 know, Sir, that but for Sir George Cartier, 
 when he was sent to England as a delegate 
 some nineteen years ago, he would have 
 misused and abused the power put into his 
 hands to deprive us of our local libertie.s, and. 
 Sir, now thrown off his guard for a moment, 
 he cannot help showing his real .qentiiuents. 
 He cannot help showing as far as lies in him 
 that even this emasculated and miserable 
 resolution, which the Minister of Inland 
 Revenue I regret to say, has allowed him- 
 self to be made a tool of to have placed on 
 our journals 
 
 Some hon. Members, Order. 
 
 Mr. Spkaker. I think the hon. gentle- 
 man should not use that word. 
 
 Sir Richard Cartwright, Well, Sir, if 
 you rule that to say that one Minister is the 
 
98 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 tool of another is out of order, T will with- 
 draw that in deference to your ruling, I 
 maintain ray own opinion as to the use that 
 ha8 been made of the hon. gentleman by the 
 First Minister on this particular occasion, as 
 V)efore. Sir, the hon. gentleman's I'esolution, 
 I do not doubt in the least from the verbiage 
 of it, has been conceived in the brain, if not 
 traced by the haiid of the First Minister ; 
 and Sir, if there could be a more contempt- 
 ible, a more ridiculous, a more absurd propo- 
 sition placed before this House, after formally 
 passing a resolution — which if it has any 
 meaning or object, if there is any conceivable 
 sense in it, must be intended for the purpose 
 of strengthening Mr. Gladstone in the struggle 
 against great odds that he is now maintain- 
 ing for the bestowal of Home Rule upon 
 Ireland — it is the refusal to adopt the sensi- 
 ble and intelligent proposition of my hon. 
 friend beside me, that that resolution should 
 be sent to Mr. Gladstone. What position 
 shall we be in — what attitude shall we 
 assume — if it turns out that we are bold 
 enough to pass a resolution here, but are not 
 iDold enough to send it where alone it would 
 be of use — that we have dared to put it on 
 our journals, but do not dare to communic ite 
 it to the Imperial House 1 For my own part, 
 I say that we, as British subjects, have got a 
 good right to advise the Empire on all points 
 of Imperial policy such as this. There are 
 greater issues contained in this question than 
 the mere question of Home Rule for Ireland. 
 "Prom this will spring other results. I 
 believe that one result which will spring 
 from this will be that in substance, within a 
 few years, the English people will have to 
 adopt a system somewhat similar to that 
 which we have here ; because I believe that 
 this doctrine of Home Rule cannot be applied 
 to Ireland alone, that, in all human proba- 
 bility, is comprised in it a Federate Parlia- 
 ment for the British Isles, and probably for 
 the British Empire. It may be something 
 more than that ; it may be an alliance, if not 
 a federation, of the whole British race, and 
 it is because I believe it is the interest of the 
 whole British Empire and British race 
 depends to a large extent of doing away with 
 those just causes of complaint which the 
 Irish people have long had, that I am pre- 
 pared to support my hon. friend's motion. 
 But in any case let us not commit the miser- 
 able absurdity of putting a resolution on our 
 journals and yet not daring to communicate 
 it to the Imperial Government. 
 
 Mr. McNeill. There is no question of 
 daring in the matter. 
 
 Mr. CiJRRAN. I have great pleasure in 
 supporting the amendment of my hon friend 
 from Middlesex. I hear, on the other side 
 of the House, a great many jeering renjarks, 
 but I want to say that, for my part, I look 
 upon the sturdy perseverance with which Mr. 
 Parnell has conducted his campaign, as being 
 the cause of bringing Mr. Gladstone to the 
 position he occupies, and if we are to give 
 cheers, let us cheer the people who have done 
 the fighting. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. I feel it is necessary to 
 state the reason why I am going to support 
 the amendment. I will support it, not be- 
 cause I think it is the best thing to be done in 
 order to secure what the statesmen of Eng- 
 land and Ireland are trying to secure for Ire- 
 land, but because it is the only thing open for 
 us to do, after we have passed the resolution. 
 This amendment is not in accordance with 
 the dignity of the House, after having given 
 expression to the opmions we have expressed, 
 as to what the feelings and sentiments of this 
 Parliament are upon the great question which 
 is agitating our friends on the other side, but 
 as this House, under the leadership of the 
 right hon. gentleman, has chosen to refuse to 
 send the resolution to Mr. Gladstone and to 
 refuse to send the address to Her Majesty, as, 
 while endorsing the sentiment he refuses to 
 countenance its transmission, the proposition 
 to send the resolution of the House to Mr. 
 Parnell will receive my support 
 
 Mr. CosTiGAN. I do not presume to go 
 in advance of Mr. Parnell, but I am willing 
 this House should convey, in the speediest 
 manner possible, to Mr. Gladstone, to the 
 leader of the Opposition, and to Mr. Parnell, 
 the hero of the struggle, the message stating 
 what has taken place. 
 
 Mr. McNeill. I cannot support the a- 
 mendment to send this resolution, tne express- 
 ion of this House in favour of some measure 
 of Home Rule, to the gentleman who said 
 that he never would have taken oif his coat 
 to go to this work had he not expected by so 
 doing to sever the last link between Ireland 
 and England. So far as the other proposition 
 is concerned, since Mr. Gladstone has told us 
 in the most explicit manner to mind our own 
 business, I will not support the proposal now 
 made to send a resolution of sympathy to him 
 when he feels himself in some difficulty. 
 
 i,C H^ 'i' Tr n' 'i^ 'P *p 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). By the action of 
 
 the House to-night 
 
 Some hon. Members. Question. 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). I have kept very 
 
ON THK HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY. 1886. 
 
 99 
 
 quiet and have interfered with no one, and I 
 am only going to speak for a few iuomer/«. 
 It looks, by the action of the House to-night, 
 as if the people of Canada were icnanimousfy 
 in favour of Home Ride. I say it is not so. 
 I say there are a large number of people in 
 Canada who are not in favour of Home Rule. 
 A large number of the Irish pf^ople are not 
 favourable to Home Rule. Many gentlemen 
 have said to-night that they come from Ire- 
 land. Well, I think I know a little about In;- 
 land, and I contend that the people of Ire- 
 land as they are governed to-tlay, will be 
 more contented than they will after they get 
 Home Rule, if they do get it. I am opposed 
 to this House interfering directly or indirectly 
 with the British people. Let them pass their 
 own laws without any interference from us. 
 / am opposed to evertj motion made, and 
 shall vote against every motion made, no 
 matter from which side of the House it 
 comes. 
 
 Mr. Casey. I think the remarks of the 
 leader of the House on this proposition were 
 particularly unfortunate. They will be re- 
 garded by everybody in this country as indi- 
 cating that the hon. gentleman preferred to 
 risk the utility of the resolution which we are 
 about to pass, to risk its having no effect at 
 all rather than to appear to add anything to 
 the strength of a party leader who is oppos 'd 
 to him in politics 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald. I do not in- 
 tend to notice the speech of the hon. gentle- 
 man from South Huron (Sir Richard 
 Cartwright), or his remarks respecting 
 myself. I have heard a good deal from him 
 before, and have treated it in the same way 
 as I do now, with contemptuous silence. 
 The reason why I shortly objected to sending 
 the resolution to Mr. Gladstone was that the 
 whole of these resolutions, not only the 
 resolution which was carried, but the 
 original resolution moved by the hon. gentle- 
 man opposite, the amendment of my lion, 
 friend, and the amendment to the amendment, 
 will be sent by cable to England and known 
 everywhere in England, by Mr. Gladstone, 
 by Mr. Parnell, and by the leaders of the 
 Opposition in both Houses, to-morrow. 
 Therefore it would avoid the appearance of 
 in fact sending an address to Mr. Gladstone 
 instead of to Her Majesty. The information 
 will go to England, it will have its effect in 
 in England completely and fully, and it will 
 not have its full effect unless all the resolu- 
 tions voted this evening should be sent at the 
 same time. I have no objection that a 
 resolution should be adopted and added ihat 
 
 this resolution and the other resolutions on 
 the same question voted upon shall be trans- 
 mitted to the three gentlemen mentioned by 
 my hon. friend. 
 
 Mr. Blake. That is not in order. 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald. Not just now. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. The question is on the 
 amendment of Mr. Coughlin. 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald. Lost. 
 
 Mr. Br.AKE. Veas and Nays. 
 
 Mr. Coughlin. I will withdraw it. 
 
 Some hon. Members. You cannot 
 draw it. 
 
 Ho\ise divided on amendment 
 Coughlin) : 
 
 Ykas: 
 
 with- 
 
 (Mr. 
 
 Mes-sieura 
 
 Barnard, 
 
 Burns, 
 
 Cameron (Tnverneaa) 
 
 C^oughlin, 
 
 Curran, 
 
 Fortin, 
 
 Girouarrl, 
 
 Grandboia, 
 
 Guilbault, 
 
 H «ckett, 
 
 Hurteau, 
 
 Jenkins, 
 
 Macdonald (King's), 
 Mackintosh, 
 McGreevy, 
 Ma.ssue, 
 Mitchell, 
 Montplaisir, 
 Patterson (Essex), 
 Roy 1)1, 
 
 Shakespeare, 
 Tass^ — 22. 
 
 Nats: 
 Me.'«sieur8 
 
 Allen, 
 
 Allison, 
 
 Arm.^trong, 
 
 Auger, 
 
 Bain (Wentworth), 
 
 Baker (Missisquoi), 
 
 Baker (Victoria), 
 
 Barker, 
 
 B^-aty, 
 
 Bechard, 
 
 Bell, _ 
 
 Benoit, 
 
 Bergeron, 
 
 Bemier, 
 
 Blake, 
 
 Blondeau, 
 
 Bourassa, 
 
 Bourbeau, 
 
 Bo well, 
 
 Bryson. 
 
 Buruham, 
 
 Burpee, 
 
 Cameron (Huron) 
 
 Cameron (Middlesex), 
 
 Campbell (Renfrew), 
 
 Campbell (Victoria), 
 
 Carling, 
 
 Caron (S'.r Adolphe), 
 
 Cartwright (Sir Kicnard), 
 
 Casey, 
 
 Casgrain, 
 
 Cimon 
 
 Cochrane, 
 
 Cook, 
 
 Costigan, 
 
 Cuthbert, 
 
 Daly, 
 
 Da vies, 
 
 Dawson, 
 
 Dickinson, 
 
 Dodd, 
 
 Dundas, 
 
 Dupont, 
 
 Everett, 
 
 Fairbank, 
 
 Farrow, 
 
 Ferguson (Leeds & Gren.), 
 
 Ferguson (Wellaml), 
 
 Fisher, 
 
 Forbes, 
 
 Foster, 
 
 Gigault, 
 
 Gillmor, 
 
 Glen, 
 
 Gordon, 
 
 Guay, 
 
 Guillet, 
 
 Gnnn, 
 
 Hatr^'art, 
 
 Hall, 
 
 Harley, 
 
 Hay. 
 
 Hesson, 
 
 Hickey, 
 
 Hilliard, 
 
 Holton, 
 
 Homer, 
 
 Innes, 
 
 Irvine, 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 Jamiennn, 
 
 Kaulbach, 
 
 Kilvert, 
 
 King, 
 
 Kirk, 
 
 Kranz, 
 
 Landerkin, 
 
 Landry (Kent), 
 
 Landry (Montgomery), 
 
 Langevin (Sir Hector), 
 
 Macdonald (Sir John), 
 
 Macmaster, 
 
 Macmillan (Middlesex), 
 
 McMillan (Vaudre-iil), 
 
100 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 Messieurs 
 
 Springer, 
 
 Sproule, 
 
 Stairs, 
 
 Sutherland (Oxford), 
 
 Taschereau, 
 
 Taylor, 
 
 Temple, 
 
 Thompson, 
 
 Townshend, 
 
 Trow, 
 
 Tiipper, 
 
 Tyrwhitt, 
 
 Vail, 
 
 Valin, 
 
 Vaiiasse, 
 
 Wallace (Albert), 
 
 Wallace (York), 
 
 Ward, 
 
 Watson, 
 
 Weldon, 
 
 White (Cardwell), 
 
 White (Hastings), 
 
 White (Renfrew), 
 
 Wigle, 
 
 Wilson, 
 
 Wood (Brockville) 
 
 Wood (Westmoreland), 
 
 Yeo.— 141. 
 
 McCallnm, 
 
 McCarthy, 
 
 McUoti.rjill (Cape Breton), 
 
 McTntyre, 
 
 McLelan, 
 
 McMullen, 
 
 McNeill, 
 
 MilU, 
 
 Moffat, 
 
 Mulock, 
 
 O'Brien, 
 
 Orton, 
 
 Ouimet, 
 
 Paint, 
 
 Piitersoii (Brant), 
 
 Piatt, 
 
 Pruyn, 
 
 Ray, 
 
 Reid, 
 
 Rinfret, 
 
 Riopel, 
 
 Robertson (Hamilton), 
 
 Robertson (Hastings), 
 
 Rykert, 
 
 Scott, 
 
 Scriver, 
 
 Small, 
 
 Somerville ( Brant), 
 
 Somerville (Bruce), 
 
 Amendment negativf^d. 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald, 1 mentioned a 
 little while ago that I would propose certain 
 amendments, but it has been suggested to me, 
 in order to avoid the appearance of partisan- 
 ship, that I had better substitute the follow- 
 ing motion j I therefore beg leave to move : 
 
 That all the words after the word •' following " be 
 struck out, and the following be inserted ; ' ' And 
 that a copy of this resolution be transmitted by the 
 Speaker to the Speaker of the House of Commons in 
 E!-igland." 
 
 Mr. Blake. This is another way of mak- 
 ing the House speak with a dumb voice. 
 This question arose with reference to the 
 proper form of action in another assembly, 
 an enquiry was made, and the result of the 
 enquiry was that the Speaker of the House 
 of Commons in England, was deemed to 
 have no authority to communicate to the 
 House resolutions so tranfimitted to him. 
 You, Sir, in the Chair, I think, will confirm 
 that statement, so that if my motion is 
 amended, as the hen. gentleman proposes, he 
 will have accomplished his object. His 
 object is to get rid of any communication 
 across the water. He so stated. He said : 
 We don't want to communicate. He then 
 suggested that we should communicate to 
 the Marquis of Salisbury the defeated motion, 
 after he had found difficulty in the first place. 
 Now he proposes we should communicate it 
 to the person who will have no authority to 
 communicate it to the House of Commons of 
 England at all. It is an ingenious device to 
 accomplish the objects of nullifying, as far as 
 
 possible, the feeble effects of the resolution. 
 I hope the House will not adopt that device, 
 and I ask you to say whether i am not correct 
 in that statem t. 
 
 Mr, Speaker. The Speaker has no powtr 
 or authority to communicate it to the House. 
 A communication like this was sent to ra*^ 
 from the British Columbia Legislature, and 
 I simply sent it to the Prime Minister as a 
 private communication. 
 
 Sir John A, Macdoxald. I have no 
 douV)t that the Speaker of the House of 
 Commons in England will take the same 
 course you did. He will take steps to give 
 it full publicity in England. 
 
 Mr. Blake. Why shou'd he not send it 
 to Mr. Gladstone directly i 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. It looks very much like 
 an attempt to burk the expression of opinion 
 in this House. It is not only likely to result 
 in the failure of the object of this discussion, 
 but it will bring discredit and disgrace on the 
 
 Parliament of Canada. 
 
 Mr. CosTiGAN. I wish there may be no 
 misunderstanding about this. I stated, 
 before the hon. gentleman moved to add 
 some words to the resolution, that I was 
 willing that we should take such steps as 
 would secure the intelligence of the action 
 of this House being placed before the per- 
 sons most interested. The hon. gentleman 
 moved that it be sent to Mr. Gladstone, and, 
 my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr Cough- 
 lin) was anxious that Mr. Parnell should 
 also he communicated with. I stated then 
 that I thought we might solve the diificuhy 
 by communicating it to the three leaders in 
 the House of Commons, so that, there may 
 not be any party significance given to it, 
 and I state now that if the channel which 
 the right hon. gentleman has indicated, that 
 is the Speaker of the House of Commons, 
 is one that will, without doubt, answer the 
 purpose, I am willing to accept it. But 
 you, Mr Speaker, indicate that there is a 
 doubt, and that it might not reach the 
 House of Commons through the Speaker, 
 I do not want any doubt about it. 
 Mr. Blake. Hear, hear. 
 Mr. CosTiGAN. No, the hon. gentleman 
 need not say "hear, hear." The House of 
 Commons having pronounced upon this 
 question, there ought to be no bickering 
 about the final steps to be taken now. I 
 am willing to adopt any reasonable mode 
 by which we can place this resolution before 
 the people and Parliament of Great Britain, 
 so that Mr. Gladstone shall have an oppor- 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLITIONS, MAY. 1886. 
 
 101 
 
 tunity of knowing wliat we have done, and 
 that the leader of the Enghsh Opposition 
 may also know, as well as Mr. Paruell. Mr. 
 Speaker has questioned the competence of 
 the House of Commons in Fnglaud to com- 
 municate any message except through this 
 House. 
 
 Mr. Blake. Then you had better per- 
 suade your leader to withdraw the motion. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. It seems to me the 
 uneasiness manifested as to this resolution 
 being known by those interested in this 
 question is altogether misplaced. The 
 House knows from the passage I read in the 
 Engliah Hansard this evening that on 1st 
 May, 1882, before any official communica- 
 tion had reached Mr. Gladstone or the 
 Colonial Office in London the proceedings 
 of this House had not only appeared in the 
 London Times but had been read in j\lr, 
 Gladstone's presence in the House of Com- 
 mons. I undertake to say that before the 
 news can be officially communicated by the 
 officers of this House the proceedings of this 
 afternoon will not only be published in Lon- 
 don, but will be known to every member of 
 the House of Commons, aud therefore, the 
 question of how wc shall officially communi- 
 cate is not one of essential importance slh 
 regards the contents of the resolution, but 
 one in regard to which we may fairly con- 
 sult our dignity by havmg the Speaker of 
 this House communicate with the Speaker 
 of the British House of Commons. 
 
 Mr. Mills. The hon. gentleman like 
 other hon. gentlemen opposite this evening 
 has declared that we do not want to com- 
 municate this resolution to anyone. 
 
 Some hon. Members. No. 
 
 Mr. Mills. The hon. gentlemen and also 
 the First Minister have declared that on ac- 
 count of the dispatch of Earl Kimberley it 
 would be beneath the dignity of the House to 
 communicate with Her Majesty. The hon. 
 gentleman is afraid of sacrificing the dignity 
 of Parliament by communicating anything to 
 the Queen, and so when it was proposed to 
 communicate the resolution to the Prime Min- 
 ister of England the Prime Minister of this 
 country said we will not communicate the re- 
 solution to the Primf Minister, and he pro- 
 poses to communicate it, to whom 1 To the 
 Speaker, who cannot make known the com- 
 munication officially to anyone. Hon. gentle- 
 men object to communicate with the Prime 
 Minister because it is beneath the dignity of 
 the House to communicate with him. That is 
 the only reason given. While hon. gentlemen 
 opposite refuse to have a communication sent 
 
 direct to the Prime Minister they wish to 
 save our dignity by having the Speaker of 
 tbe British House of ('oramons, after re- 
 ceiving the communication, communicate it 
 to the Prime Minister if he chooses. Of 
 course the hon. gentleman is proceeding on 
 the assumption that he will choose to do so. 
 That is the way the hon. gentleman proposes 
 to get out of the difficulty, and I am sure the 
 hon. gentleman's followers must he very highly 
 pleased indeed with the demonstration made 
 on this question this evening. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). It seems to me 
 that this matter is really becoming a burlescjue. 
 Perhaps some hon. gentlemen wish to make it 
 such, but I desire if possible to bring the 
 House back to a sense of its own dignity. It 
 seems to me it is entirely inconsistent with 
 the dignity of this House that it should con- 
 descend to send any resolution it may pass to 
 any individual or in any other way than by 
 the usual and constitutional usage. It is en- 
 tirely inconsistent with the dignity of the 
 House that we should pass a resolution and 
 add a rider that it should be sent to Tom, 
 Dick or Harry. 
 
 Mr. Blake. His name is William Ewart. 
 
 Mr. \ameron (Victoria). Whether it is 
 to Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Parnell or anybody 
 else, so far as this Parliament are concerned 
 they are Tom, Dick and Harry. We are de- 
 grading ourselves and losing sight of our 
 dignity by sending that resolution to anyone 
 or communicating anything except in a pro- 
 per and constitutional manner. I trust any 
 resolution communicating what we have done 
 to-day will not be sent to anyone. 
 
 Mr. Blake. Let us expunge the resolu- 
 tion then. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). For all prac- 
 tical purposes I think the re.solution might 
 be expunged. In other words, the whole 
 thing is buncomb. I think the leader of the 
 Opposition in moving the resolution moved it ^ 
 as a buncomb resolution for the purpose of 
 catching or strengthening his hold on the Irish 
 Catholic people of Ontario, and the whole 
 discussion from beginning to end has been 
 conducted with that view, possibly by both 
 sides of the House. I have no hesitation in 
 saying so. It is all buncomb. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is in or- 
 der for an hon. member to refer to a resolu- 
 tion of the House in that way. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). I did not under- 
 stand the resolution was yet passed. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Blake. I think the hon. gentleman 
 voted f<'ir it. 
 
102 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 Mr. Cameron (VicBoria). If it is unparlia- 
 mentary to declare that what the House has 
 done iB buncomb, I withdraw the expression. 
 I have no desire to offend a^inst the rules 
 of the House even by telling what every hon. 
 member knows is the solemn truth. We 
 know Sue discussion is conducted with this 
 point in view, and that the leader of the 
 Opposition who has expressed strong sym- 
 pathy with his fellow Irishmen on moving 
 this motion had an ulterior object in view. 
 
 Some hon. Members. Order, order. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). I have not 
 finished my sentence. I was going to say 
 that the hon. gentleman had an ulterior 
 object in view of increasing that popularity 
 in which the Irishmen of the country esteem 
 him. I think that is parliamentary. I have 
 no hesitation in saying that I believe the 
 principal reason why my friend brought for- 
 ward this motion and raised the discussion 
 to-nigiit has been a desire and expectation 
 that the Irish Catholic vote will be influenced 
 by this discussion. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. You said that before. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). The hon. gentle- 
 man says I said that before. I think the hon. 
 gentleman's observation and his vJbes too 
 have been very largely influenced by the fact 
 that there is a large Irish element in his con.- 
 stituency. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. Order. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). To come back 
 in all seriousncys as to the right or propriety 
 of transmitting the proceedings of this 
 House to any other than a duly constituted 
 assembly, or to Her Majesty, and that we 
 should condescend to send them to individuals, 
 even if they happened to be the leader of the 
 British Government, or the leader of the 
 Irish party. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. Half a loaf is better than 
 no bread. 
 
 Mr. Cameron (Victoria). The public effect 
 of the announcement, if it is deserving of 
 any, will be given for what it is worth, and 
 I think it is better to let the matter rest 
 there. 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald. I think the 
 hon. gentleman should withdraw his motion. 
 
 Amendment to the amendment, by leave 
 of the House, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I beg leave to move in 
 amendment to the amendment to add the 
 name of Charles Stuart Parnell, M.P. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I would suggest, inasmuch 
 as hon. gentlemen opposite have not been 
 willing to accede to the proposition of the 
 Minister of Inland Revenue that the resolu- 
 
 tion should be couimunicated to the leaders 
 of the various parties in the House — 
 
 Some hon. Members. Oh 1 oh ! 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I say that hon. gentle- 
 men have manifested an unwillingness to do 
 that, and there is no use in hon. gentlemen 
 signifying their dissent. I will suggest as a 
 motion, I will move in the event of this not 
 being carried, that the resolutions be com- 
 municated to the Colonial Secretary. 
 
 Mr. Blake. After that statement, and 
 the reason for it, I will state why I could not 
 give my assent to this resolution being sent 
 by the Parliament of Canada to the Marquis 
 of Salisbury. The reason is that the Marquis 
 of Salisbury is himself a bitter opponent of 
 Home Rule in Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. He is leader of the Oppo- 
 sition. 
 
 Mr. Bi ake. Not in the House of Com- 
 mons, and I suppose the leader of the Oppo- 
 sition in the House of Commons entertains 
 the views of the leader of the Opposition in 
 the House of Lords. On the 15th of April 
 the Marquis of Salisbury expressed his views 
 on this question, and he said : 
 
 " Home Bule, which a year ago was a chimera, 
 has suddenly become a bomiug question. It needs 
 no apology from ns if, in presence of so great a cala- 
 mity threatening our nation, we put aside all minor 
 differences and join hands to defend that which i» 
 equally precious to as all." 
 
 A little later he said : 
 
 "Now this is, I hope, the commencement of a 
 great many meetings which will take place in various 
 parts of England. I hope, in the first m- 
 stance, that these meetings will rouse up the people 
 to study and appreciate the terrible gravity of the 
 problem placed before them,and to resist the tremend- 
 ous change in the constitution of their country. Bat 
 I hope that such meetings will rouse them to do 
 something." 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. Blake. That is the view of the hon. 
 member for Hastings. 
 
 Mr. White (Hastings). Yes. 
 
 Mr. Blake. And that is the reason he 
 would like to have the resolution sent to the 
 Marquis of Salisbury and Sif Michael Hicks- 
 Beach. The Marquis of Salisbury said 
 further : 
 
 " My belief is that the future Government of Ire- 
 land does not involve any such unmanageable 
 difficulty, for the people of this country will be true 
 to the Empire to which they belong. (Loud cheers). 
 We want a wise, firm, continuous administration o* 
 the law. (Cheers.) But you must support it, or it 
 wUl not take place. V^ e want a steady policy — that 
 no considerations of weariness or difficulty at West- 
 minster, that no considerations attaching to the 
 manifold ties of party government under which we 
 
ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY. 1886. 
 
 103 
 
 iiTe, shall drive aside from its strong course the 
 policy upon which the people of England have 
 decide<l. It is not enough for them to decide it. 
 They mast watch over it when it ia decided ; they 
 must, by their constant and steady support, by the 
 overwhelming force of their will, sweep away this 
 body of resistancs wliich has hitherto, at West- 
 minster, prevented anything Uke a steady, or con- 
 stant, or wholesome policy for Ireland (cheers) ; for 
 this matter, believe me, does not concern Irt-I^iud 
 alone. There is a great responsibility upon you, and 
 it will be a terrible thing if, through your weakness, 
 the Irish people are abandoned to the anarchy under 
 which assuredly they will fall. But there ia some- 
 thing more which you, as owners of a vast Empire 
 extending to the ends of the earth, mast consider 
 before you take this fatal step downwards to which 
 your rulers are inviting yon now. There has been a 
 great contest between England and the discontented 
 portions of the Irish people. It is a contest that has 
 la- ted through many generations past, through 
 many vicissitudes, and now you are asked to submii 
 to. a measure which is placed before you, and to end 
 the contest by a complete and ignominious surren- 
 der." 
 
 Again he said : 
 
 " Your course is watched all over the world ; if 
 yon consent to this great capitulation ; if you mark 
 it with these last signs of disgrace, that you aban- 
 doned those whom you induced to fight for you ; if, 
 like the Russian traveller, you Ughten your sledge 
 for your own fight by throwing out your defenders 
 to the wolves, beheve me that it will not be a mere 
 sentimental punishment that you wUl suffer. Your 
 enemies in every part of the world will be looking on 
 what you do with exultation Your friends, your 
 supporters, your partisans, will view it with shame, 
 with confusion and with dismay, in every quarter 
 of the globe." 
 
 And the Minister of Inland Revenue pro- 
 poses that we should send the resolution to 
 the Marquis of Salisbury. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. I am opposed to sending 
 any address to Mr. Parnell, and I shall vote 
 against it no matter in what shape or form 
 it may come up. I think I can give a very 
 good reason for so doing by reading an 
 extract from Mr. Gladstone's opinion about 
 Mr. Parnell and his dealings with the Home 
 Rule question given not long since. He 
 said : 
 
 • • Mr. Parnell has never uttered one word of dis- 
 approval or misgiving about the assassination 
 literature of America, maintained by a knot of 
 Irishmen who are not ashamed to point out how the 
 ships of Her Majesty's navy ought to be blown into 
 the air, and how gentlemen that they are pleased to 
 select ought to be made the object of the knife of 
 the assassin. You know that there have been some 
 attempts of that kind made in this country. You 
 have heard of the explosion of dynamite in Salfofd. 
 Mr. Parnell said that occurrence appeared to him to 
 bear the character of a practical joke." 
 
 I certainly shall not, sitting here in my place 
 in this Parliament, vote to send a resolution 
 
 to Mr. Piirnell, who has thus been character- 
 ised, and I believe truly characterised, by 
 Mr. Gladstone, for reasons now apparent to 
 us all. I would also refuse to send it to Mr. 
 Gladstone for this reason. I think our send- 
 ing it to him would be, as the leader of the 
 Opposition desired by his resolution, an ap- 
 proval of the measure submitted by Mr. 
 Gladstone for the consideration of the Im- 
 perial Parliament. While I am in favour of 
 a fair and reasonable schfrae of Home Rule, 
 which will secure the rights of the minority 
 as well as the majority of the people of Ire- 
 land, I am not in favour, and I do not believe 
 the majority of the people of Canada are in 
 favour, of handing the minority over to the 
 majority, and Vjringing about a worse state of 
 things than existed before. I do not believe 
 Mr. Gladstone's Bill is one that will be 
 accepted by the people of Ireland. I believe 
 it is accepted merely as a step in the direction 
 of separation by the people who are advo- 
 cating separation. I have good proof of that. 
 I will read an extract from T. P. O'Connor's 
 letter to the London Times, in which he 
 speaks in very distinct terms of the measure 
 Mr. Gladstone has presented to Parliament. 
 He says : 
 
 "To tax Ireland for Imperial purposes and give 
 Ireland no voice in Imperial affairs " 
 
 That is the proposition in Mr. Gladstone's 
 measure. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. That is changed. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. Pardon me, it is not 
 changed. The only change is the dropping 
 of the Land Bill, but this has not been 
 changed, and there will not be any change in 
 so vital a principle of Mr. Gladstone's mea- 
 sure : — 
 
 " would be taxation without representation in a very 
 aggravated form, and would be calculated to make 
 the Empire odious instead of dear to the Irish 
 people." 
 
 That is the measure now submitted, and that 
 is the measure which Mr. Parnell has 
 acccepted as an instalment ; but I think we 
 all know that it is accepted with the view of 
 carrying out the scheme Mr. Parnell has 
 pursued for years, and has never attempted 
 to deny ; that is, the separation of Ireland 
 and the dismemberment of the Empire. For 
 these reasons I am opposed to sending this 
 resolution to Mr. Parnell, and I am also 
 opposed to sending it to Mr. Gladstone. I 
 am not willing to go further than the House 
 has gone in approving of a measure of Home 
 Rule which is fair to all classes. 
 
10-i 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, CANADA, 
 
 House divided on amendment of Mr. Mills. 
 
 Yeas: 
 Messisurs 
 
 Allen, 
 
 Arayot, 
 
 Armstrong, 
 
 Bain ( Wentworth), 
 
 B^chard, t 
 
 Beij,'eron. 
 
 Blake, 
 
 B'uxrassa, 
 
 Bourbeau, 
 
 Biirns, 
 
 Burpee, 
 
 Caiueron (Huron), 
 
 Cameron (Middlesex), 
 
 Campbell (Renfrew), 
 
 Cartwris^'ht (Sir Richard), 
 
 Casey, _ 
 
 Casgrain, 
 
 Cook, 
 
 Costigan, 
 
 Coui^hlin, 
 
 Curran, 
 
 Daly, 
 
 Davies, 
 
 Dodd, 
 
 Dupont, 
 
 Fairbank, 
 
 Fisher, 
 
 Forbes, 
 
 Gigault, 
 
 Gillmor, 
 
 Girouard, 
 
 Glen, 
 
 Guay, 
 
 (iuilbault, 
 
 Gunn, 
 
 Hackett, 
 Harley, 
 Holton, 
 Horteau, 
 Innes, 
 Irvine, 
 Jackson, 
 King, 
 Kirk, 
 
 ' Landerkin, 
 Macd maid (King's), 
 McGreevey, 
 Mclntyre, 
 McMuilen, 
 Massue, 
 Mill fa, 
 Mitchell, 
 Moffatt, 
 Mulock, 
 
 Paterson (Brant), 
 Patterson (Kssex), 
 Piatt, 
 Ray, 
 Rinfret, 
 Royal, 
 
 Sommerville (Brant), 
 Sommerville (Bruce), 
 Springer, 
 
 Sutherland (Oxford), 
 Trow, 
 Vail, 
 Watson, 
 Weldon, 
 Wilson.— 69. 
 
 Nats : 
 Messieurs 
 
 Allison, 
 
 Auger, 
 
 Baker (Missisquoi), 
 
 Baker (Victoria), 
 
 Barker, 
 
 Barnard, 
 
 Beaty, 
 
 Bell, 
 
 Benoit, 
 
 Blondeati, 
 
 Bowell, 
 
 Bryson, 
 
 Bumhani. 
 
 Cameron (Inverness), 
 
 Cameron (Victoria), 
 
 Campbell (Victoria), 
 
 Carling, 
 
 Caroiy (Sir Adolphe), 
 
 Cimon, 
 
 Cochrane, 
 
 Cuthbert, 
 
 Dawson, 
 
 Dickinson, 
 
 Dundas, 
 
 Everett, 
 
 Ferguson (Tieeds 8i Gren. 
 
 Ferguson (Welland), 
 
 Foster, 
 
 Gordon, 
 
 Grandbois, 
 
 Guillet, 
 
 Haggart, 
 
 Hill, 
 
 Hesson, 
 
 Hickey, 
 
 HUliard, 
 
 Homer, 
 
 Jamieson, 
 
 Jenkins, 
 
 Kaulback, 
 
 Kilvert, 
 
 Kinney, 
 
 Kranz, 
 
 Landry (Kent), 
 
 Landry (Montraagny), 
 
 Langevin (Sir Hector), 
 
 Macdonald (Sir John), 
 
 Mackintosh, 
 
 Macmaster, 
 
 Macmillan (Middlesex), 
 
 McCarthy, 
 
 Mcdougall (C. Lirtton), 
 
 McLelan, 
 
 McNeill, 
 
 O'Brien, 
 
 Orton, 
 
 Ouimet, 
 
 Paint, 
 
 Pruvn, 
 
 Reid, 
 
 Riopel, 
 
 Robertson (Hamilton), 
 
 Robertson (Hastings), 
 
 Rykert, 
 
 Scott, 
 
 Shakespeare, 
 
 Small, 
 
 Sproule, 
 
 Stairs, 
 
 Tass^, 
 
 Taylor, 
 
 Temple, 
 
 Thompson, 
 
 Townahend, 
 
 Tupper, 
 
 Tyrwhitt. 
 
 Valin, 
 
 Vanasse, 
 
 Wallace (Albert), 
 
 Wallace (York), 
 
 Ward, 
 
 Messieurs 
 
 White (Cardwell) 
 
 'White (Hastings) 
 
 . White (Renfrew), 
 
 " Wigle, 
 Wood (Brockville), 
 Wood( Westmoreland) — 87. 
 
 Amendment necjatived. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I made a suggestion a 
 few moments ago as to a channel through 
 which I thought this resolution might be 
 communicated without any objection and 
 without any loss of dignity. Since then it 
 has been suggested that it would be desirable 
 to have a more immediate and public com- 
 munication on the matter. I therefore beg 
 to move in amendment to substitute these 
 •words : • 
 
 "That the resolution be transmitted forthwith 
 by the Speaker to the High Commissioner for 
 Canada " 
 
 Some hon. Members. Hear, hear, and 
 laughter. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I am very glad that my 
 motion seems to meet with very good humour- 
 ed approval by hon. members on the other 
 side of the House ; but I am afraid if they 
 will allow me to finish reading it that they 
 will not be so well pleased. 
 
 *' for the information of the members of the 
 
 House of Commons of the United Eingdcm." 
 
 Mr. Cook. For the information of the 
 Minister of Justice I would inform him that 
 the High Commissioner is the <;entleman 
 who has no confidence in the breed. 
 
 Mr. Casey. The Minister of Justice says 
 this is in order to obtain more immediate 
 transmission of the resolution to the parties 
 whom it concerns. Instead of sending it to 
 the First Minister of Great Britain for the 
 information of the House of Commons, he 
 wishes to send it to the High Commissioner 
 of Canada for the information of the British 
 House of Commons. Sir Charles Tupper is 
 a very great man, and in the estimation of 
 the Minister of Justice he is a peculiarly 
 great man. The Minister of Justice owes 
 his position in the Cabinet and many other 
 things to him, but to ask us to believe that 
 Sir Charles Tupper has greater facilities for 
 communicating this resolution to the House 
 of Commons than has the First Minister of 
 England is an absurdity. I believe the Min- 
 ister of Justice claims to be Irish to some 
 extent. By proposing this motion, he haa 
 only shown his capacity for committing a 
 most stupendous Irish bull. 
 
ON THE HOME KULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 1886. 
 
 105 
 
 Mr. Blaeb. The Minister of Justice in 
 behalf of the Government, which a little 
 while ago, declared through the mouth of 
 the leader of the Government that they 
 were opposed to any communication what- 
 ever, is now so anxious there should be direct 
 and immediate communication, that he pro- 
 poses to facilitate the immediate communica- 
 tion which, at the beginning of the discussion, 
 was thought objectionable, by a process 
 which rather seems to be based on the belief 
 in the old proverb that 'Hhe longest way 
 round is the shortest way home." The most 
 prompt way of communicating the resolution 
 to the English House of Commons would be 
 to communicate it to the leader of that 
 House, but the hon. gentleman thinks he 
 will get nearer and quicker to the House by 
 communicating to Sir Charles Tupper who 
 has not yet obtained a seat in that body, 
 which some newspapers declared he was 
 seeking. How, then, is he going to com- 
 municate it to the memberp of the House f 
 By issuing circular letters, each containing a 
 copy of the despatch, to the members, so that 
 each member will find it in his box at the 
 post office 1 Is that the way each individual 
 member is to receive our communication from 
 the High Commissioner? This is only 
 another proof of the secret feelings of hon. 
 gentlemen opposite. 
 
 Mr. Landerkin. If this is to be cabled 
 to the High Commissioner, let it be made 
 •♦ collect" 
 
 House divided on motion of Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Messieurs 
 
 Ybas: 
 
 Messieon 
 
 AlUsoR, 
 
 Baker (Miausqaoi), 
 Banuurd, 
 Beaty, 
 Benoii, 
 Blondeao, 
 Bowell, 
 Bryson, 
 Bumham, 
 
 Cameron (InTemetw), 
 Campbell (Victoria), 
 i^arhng, 
 
 Caron (Sir Adolphe), 
 Ct -chiane, 
 CoHtigan, 
 Cuthbert, 
 Daly. 
 Dawson, 
 Dickinson, 
 Dundas, 
 Everett, 
 
 Ferguson (Welland), 
 Fortin, 
 Foster, 
 Oordon, 
 Grandbois, 
 Giiillet, 
 Hackett, 
 Haggttrt, 
 H 
 
 Hesson, 
 
 Hickey, 
 
 Homer, 
 
 Hurteao, 
 
 Jamieson, 
 
 Kaulbacb, 
 
 Kilvert, 
 
 Kinney, 
 
 Kranz, 
 
 Landry (Montms^gny), 
 
 Langevin (Sir Hector^ 
 
 Macdonald (Kiner's), 
 
 Msbcdonald (Sir John), 
 
 Mackintosh, 
 
 Macmaster, 
 
 Maomillan (Middlesex), 
 
 McCarthy, 
 
 McDoagall (C. Breton), 
 
 MoLelan, 
 
 McNeill, 
 
 Moffat, 
 
 Montplaiiir, 
 
 O'Brien, 
 
 Orton, 
 
 Ouimet, 
 
 Paint, 
 
 Esr 
 
 Robert&on (Hamilton), 
 
 Bobertson (Hastings), 
 
 Royal, 
 
 Scott, 
 
 Shakespeare, 
 
 Small, 
 
 Stairs, 
 
 Tass^, 
 
 Taylor, 
 
 Temple, 
 
 Thompson, 
 
 Townshend, 
 
 Tupper, 
 
 Tyrwhitt, 
 
 Valin, 
 
 Vaiiasse, 
 
 Wallace (Albert), 
 
 "Ward, 
 
 White (Cardwell), 
 
 W hite (Renfrew), 
 
 Wigle, 
 
 Wood (BrockviUe)-80. 
 
 Nats: 
 MessieniB 
 
 Allen, 
 
 Aniyot, 
 
 Armstrong, 
 
 Auger, 
 
 Bain (Wentworth), 
 
 Baker (Victoria), 
 
 Barker, 
 
 B^chard, 
 
 Bell, 
 
 Bergeron, 
 
 Blake, 
 
 Bourassa, 
 
 Burns, 
 
 Burpee, 
 
 Cameron (Huron), 
 
 Cameron (Middlesex), 
 
 Campbell (Renfrew), 
 
 Cartwright (Sir Richard), 
 
 Casey, 
 
 Casgrain, 
 
 Cook, 
 
 Coughlin, 
 
 Curran, 
 
 Davies, 
 
 Dodd, 
 
 Dupont, 
 
 Fairbank, 
 
 Ferguson (Leeds & Gran.), 
 
 Fisher, 
 
 Forbes, 
 
 Giganlt, 
 
 Gilmor, 
 
 Gironard, 
 
 Glen, 
 
 Guay, 
 
 Guilbault, 
 
 Gunn, 
 
 Harley, 
 
 Hilliard, 
 
 Holton, 
 
 Innes, 
 
 Irvine, 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 Jenkins, 
 
 King, 
 
 Landerkin, 
 
 Mclntyrf , 
 
 McMulle » 
 
 Mills, 
 
 Mitchell, 
 
 Mulock. 
 
 Paterson (Brant), 
 
 Patterson (Kssex), 
 
 Piatt, 
 
 Ray, 
 
 Rinfret, 
 
 Rykert, 
 
 Somerville (Brant), 
 
 Somerville (Brucf ), 
 
 Springer, 
 
 Sproule. 
 
 Sutherland (Oxfort' t. 
 
 Trow, 
 
 VaU, 
 
 Wallace (York), 
 
 Watson, 
 
 Weldon, 
 
 White (Hastings), 
 
 Wilson, 
 
 Wood(We8tmore.andy -70. 
 
 The House divided on the motion of Mr. 
 Costigan, as amended : 
 
 TKASt 
 
 Messieurs 
 
 Allen, 
 
 Allison, 
 
 Amyot, 
 
 Armstrong, 
 
 Auger, 
 
 Bain (Wentworth), 
 
 Baker (Missisquoi), 
 
 Barker, 
 
 Barnard, 
 
 Beaty, 
 
 B^haJrd, 
 
 Bell, 
 
 Benoit, 
 
 Ben^eron, 
 
 Blake, 
 
 Blondean, 
 
 BouraBsSi, 
 
 Bowell, 
 
 Bryson, 
 
 Bumham, 
 
 BnnM, 
 
 Burpee, 
 
 Cameron (Huron), 
 
 Cameron (Inverness), 
 
 Cameron (Middlesex), 
 
 Campbell (Renfrew), 
 
 Carling, 
 
 Caron (Sir Adolphe), 
 
 Cartwright (Sir Richard), 
 
 Casey, 
 
 Casgrain, 
 
 Cochrane, 
 
 Cook, 
 
 Costigan, 
 
 Coughlin, 
 
 Curran, 
 
 Cuthbert, 
 
 Daviei, ^ 
 
 DawBoo, 
 Dickinson, 
 Dodd. 
 
106 
 
 DEBATE ON THE HOME RULE RESOLUTIONS, MAY, 188«. 
 
 McMieon 
 
 Dondaa, 
 
 Dopont, 
 
 BTerett, 
 
 Ffdrban^, 
 
 Ferguson (Welland)b 
 
 Fiaher, 
 
 Fortin, 
 
 Foster, 
 
 Gintdt, 
 
 Giunor, 
 
 Glen, 
 
 Gordoi'^ 
 
 Grandlrail, 
 
 Guay, 
 
 GuiUet, 
 
 Gunn 
 
 Hacketb, 
 
 Hs^art, 
 
 Harley, 
 
 Hesson, 
 
 Hickey. 
 
 HiUiard, 
 
 Helton, 
 
 Homer, 
 
 Hurtean, 
 
 Innea, 
 
 Irvine, 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 Jamieson, 
 
 Jenkins, 
 
 Kaulbach, 
 
 Kilvert, 
 
 King, 
 
 Kinney, 
 
 Kirk, 
 
 Kranz, 
 
 Landerkin, 
 
 Landry (Kent), 
 
 Landry (Montmagny), 
 
 Langevin (Sir Hector), 
 
 Maedonald (Sjnff*B), 
 
 M»odonald (Sir John), 
 
 Mackintosh, 
 
 Macmaster, 
 
 Macmillan (Middlesex), 
 
 McCarthy, 
 
 McDoagaU(Cap. Breton), 
 
 Mclntyre, 
 
 McLelan, 
 
 McMullen, 
 
 McNeill, 
 
 Mills, 
 
 Moffat, 
 
 Montpiaisir, 
 
 Mnlock, 
 
 O'Brien, 
 
 Orton, 
 
 Paint, 
 
 Paterson (Br%nt), 
 
 Patterson (Essex), 
 
 Piatt, 
 
 Prnyn, 
 
 Reid, 
 
 Rinfret, 
 
 Riopel, 
 
 Robertson (Hamilton), 
 
 Robertson (Hastings), 
 
 Royai, 
 
 Scott, 
 
 Shakespeare, 
 
 Small, 
 
 SommervUle (Brant), 
 
 Sommerville (Bruce), 
 
 Sprii^er, 
 
 Sproiue, 
 
 Stairs, 
 
 Tass^ 
 
 Taylor, 
 
 Temple^ 
 
 Thompson, 
 
 Townshend, 
 
 Trow, 
 
 Tupper, 
 
 Tyrwhitt, 
 
 Vail, 
 
 Valin, 
 
 Vanasse, 
 
 Wallace (Albert), 
 
 Baker (Victoria), 
 Ferguson (Leeds & 
 Forbes, 
 
 Messieurs 
 
 Wallace (York), 
 
 Ward, 
 
 Watson, 
 
 Wei don. 
 
 White (Cardwell), 
 
 White (Renfrew), 
 
 Wigle, 
 
 Wilson, 
 
 Wood (Brockville)— 140L 
 
 Nays : 
 Messieurs 
 
 Mitchell, 
 Gren.), Rykert, 
 
 White (Hastings) -6. 
 
 Motion agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. I think it is well now 
 that we should know what course is to be 
 taken by the High Commissioner in London 
 when he receives this document. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. There is nothing before 
 
 the chair. 
 
 Sir Hector Langevin moved the adjourn- 
 ment of the House. 
 
 ' Mr. Mitchell. It is rather too late to 
 discuss the subject now, but I think the 
 Government ought to give the matter their 
 serious attention, and direct the Commis- 
 sioner how he will communicate it to the 
 members of Parliament. 
 
 Motion for adjournment agreed to ; and the 
 House adjourned at 4:30 a. m. (Friday).