IMAG^ EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

?ji IIIIIM

2.0

1.8

1.25 1.4 1.6

►

V).

/}.

op.

//,

Photographic

Sdences
Corporation

.V^""^'

Xj^

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716; 872-.,503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiquos

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or whicrj may significantly change
the usubl method of filming, are checked below.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le rb-ieilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la methods normals db filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

n
n

D
D
D

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommag^e

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculee

Cover title missing/

Le t'tre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
11 se pput que certaines pages bianches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 fiimdes.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

D
D
□

Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d^color^es. tachetdes ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages d^tachees

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quality in^gale de I'imprassion

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refiliiied to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires:

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmd au taur de rdduct'on indiqud ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

I
-^ ,

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the geriorosity of:

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol —»> (meaning "CON-
TINUED"J, or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those loo targe to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'examplaire filmd fut reproduit grdc^ d la
g6n6ro8it6 de:

La bibliothdque des /Archives
publiques du Canac

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 repr{
plus grand soin, compte tenu de
de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire fill
conformity avec les conditions
filmage.

Suites avec le
condition et

, et en

contrat de

Les exemplaires originaux don^ la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont filmis en commen^ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustratior't, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les s^utres exemplaires
originaux sont film^s en cohimengant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
a'impression ou d'illustrat/on et en terminant par
la dernlSro page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V siynifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre
film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Stre
reproduit en un seul c!ich6, il est filmd d partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche i droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

1 2 3

4 5 6

;»

t V

'■>

)

THREE SPEECHES

THE PACIFIC SCANDAL.

-*9*-

NUMBER ONE.

THE BOWMANVILLE SPEECH.

On tlie erening of Tuesday, the 26th August, 1873, shortly after the prorogation, and
before the meeting of the Royal Commission, Mr. Blake addressed his old constituents in
the Town Hall at BowmanTille. HaTing spoken for some time upon other topics, Mr,
Blake proceeded as follows : —

I have come also for another pui^ose. I hare come because I have been told, and I
bflieve, that it is my duty to say somewhat to my fellow countrymen on the great topic
which is now agitating the public mind. I cannot hope to say much that is new, but what
I do say shall at any rate be, according to my convictions, true. The fubject is of such
vast scope that I cannot hope to treat it in one addr )ss. I shall therefore endeavor to point
out what I believe to be the true history of the ma' ter up to a certain period, reserving for
another time and place the detailed expression of m / views on the later phases of the story.
In order luUy to realize the situation, it is nccessai y that we ahould go back to the close of
1871. You will recollect that the Can'iian Government which met Parliament in 1867
with a very ^arge majority — with a majority in the whole of about 75 votes, and a majority
from the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec of some 'i7 votes — had during the four preceding
years bi en engaged in building up its political strength by means which we condemned — by
grants of the public moneys, given in some cases almost openly, in other cases in fact, upoari^
a consideration of the political opinions of the constituency or its member, and not solely,
as we contended these grantd should be given, upon public grounds and with reference to
the general interest. There can be no doubt that owing to the demoralization of publio
sentiment in various quarters from various political occurrences, this atrocious doctrine
received considerable countenance, and the practice of it produced considerable effect within
Government Preparations for Election of 1872.

the walls of Parliament and in several of the constituencies. The last session approached,
and with it canje the preparations for the general elections — that great trial, the verdict in
which would establish whether or not the Government retained the confidence of the country.
Some of the principal preparation* of the Government were these : — They determined
to play the part of Conservatives as tu the Election Law ; to insist on retaining that Iaw,
which was vicious in two important particulars. First, in that it gave to the Qoremment

4 MR. BLAKLi

the pover of determining the oixler in wliich the elections should be hrld, a circumstance by
no means insignificant in its ell'ect on the tceneral result ; because, as we ell know, the eiTeet
of carrying twenty or tljirty constituencies at the commencement of a general election may
be very great. It is calculated to excite the hopes and animate the exertions of the winning
paity, to damp the spirits and depress the energies of those who are losing, and to
transfer from their ranks to those of their adversaries that too large body of weak-kneed
and faint-hearted voters whose convictions of the right are too feeble to withstand their
fondness for the winning side. The Government determined to retain to itaalf the advan-
tage of fixing the order in which the great trials to take place before the people between the
two parties shoirld take place, and so to arrange the elections as to give themselves every
advantage, and to inflict on their adversaries all possible discouragement. But the second
particular in which the Election Law was vicious is of infinitely greater consequence. I
refer to the machinery for the trial of controverted elections. We knew well the evils of
this law ; we had cxpL'rianced them for many years. So strong had been the popular feeling
that remedies had been applied in several of the Provinces, but it was quite obvious that
the advantages of undue infliK;nce and corruption were too great to be thrown away by a
Government which could procure means to exercise undue influence and to practice corrup-

nisantlc Scheme of Corruption. ^

tion, and so they dcbermined to resist this great reform. Another preparation which the
Government made for the coming contest, was to arrange for the means of influence and
corruption. I need hardly tell you that this preparation was the Pacific Railway charter.
That gigantic scheme was to be accomplished after a fashion unexampled in modem tiines^
and calcxilated to give to the Government powers and facilities for influence and corruption
of a most extraordinary character. Tlie Government determined that two private com- ,
panics who applied for incorporation, sliould be chartered on precisely the same conditions.
But they stated that in order that the country might not lie at the mercy of either of these
companies or both, in case there should be a combination, they would ensure competition by ,
taking to themselves power to charter another company. They also determined to tak& ^
to themselves power to agree upon all the terms and stipulations of the contract, with the
exception of some very general provisions which were contained in the Aci of Parliament. — '
proviiions bo general as to give an extremely wide discretion as to the disposal of the money
and land subsidies. They took the power of making the company as they chose. They
assumed the control cf the $30,000,000 ia cash and 50,000,000 acres of land, and the large
additional acreage for the two branch lines. It is difficult for the mind to apprehend the mag- ..
nitude of these figures. ?3u,O0O,000 is a national treasure ; from 50,000,000 acres you can
carve several independent States. But these were not the limits of the afiair. The national
control over another 50,000,000 acres the power of dealing with that immense additional area
was also demanded for themselves by tte Government. They went further atilL By this extra- ^
ordinary Act, it was provided that an Order of the Privy Council might over-ride the order
of Parliament, the provisions which Parliament had, during the same session, deliberately •
determined to be wise and needful in the public interest. This enactment, ceding to the
Executive the control, unchecked by Parliament, of transactions of such enormous magni-
tude, gave a means of exercising undue influence, and of acquiring funds for improper pur-
poses, altogether beyond the means which had been in the possession of any Government of
C nada at any previous time. Now, sir, these were the weapons which the Government

Tue Ring of Jobbers,
were preparing for the struggle. There was another body also preparing for that memorable
meeting — the whole army of speculators. They saw before thera in the prospect of this
groat railway, no ordinary c>.ntract, no ordinary job. The treasury of a nation, and the area
of independent States, a predominant and commanding position in the country, were all to
be the priis of some fortunate ring of speculators, and they toe were making preparations to

SPEECH AT DCWMANVn,LE.

ai-
jr-
of
ut

)le
lis
ea
t»
to

influeuce Govcinmeut, Legislature ami people in favor of their piitic ilar viewf, and in

fuEtherai "e of their private and personal objectH. You know I do not state this from reputo

merely, or from r.^iuour. You know it from what has been , ublished of the correapondouco

of these gentry. Let us look for a moment at what they wrote. Let us listen to the nttu-

ances of these birds of ill oineu. They saw before them a mif;hty carcass, and where the

tarcags is, the eagles— but I will not so degrade the name of the noble bird — no, the eormo-

r;int8 and vultures were gathered together ready and anxious to batten on their country's

vitals. What says James Dcaty, junior : — -,,;;?■.;>£•■•; \

" I had some confidential communication with a mcniijer of the Government, when in
Ottawa, of great importance to us. I want to piorit by it. We must be prepared for a
light, and now is the time to begin. There has been — a.s you are no doubt aware — a new
Government fonncd in Ontario, the Opposition element preponderating in it, although a
friend of the Ottawa Government is a member, and I may say to you he M'eiit in on the
advice of Sir John. The result may be that this Local Government will eventually be
driven from Brown, and that the entire party will side to a certain extent w th the Ottawa
Government, or it may eventually go in direct opposition to them, especiii'ly at the next
elections this year. Our Bill and arrangements niu.st therefore be maJe tl.jt> session to be
safe under all cireun)stanccs. 1 am in that position to advise a united efloit in co-operation
with the Governnrent to carry this thing successiully. To do this, money will be necessary,
and a considerable sum. I therefore write to say that I ought to be supplied at once with
$50,000, and another §.')0, 000 when the session opens, and i think tlmt will do it. 1 will
give an account for the whole of it, and I think I can guarantee a satisfactory charter. Of
cdhrse, this is not to he whispcrrd this side of the line, and on your side only as fur as neces-
sary to obtain it. It Would play havoc with us if it were known that any money was in
hand connected with it. 1 see new the best u.se to make of it, where prompt action is neces-
sary. A letter of credit to Patterson & Beaty. on Bank of Montreal, or Bank of British
North America — I prefer the Bank of British North America for various ivascns. It is
unpolitical, &c., and the same notice would not be t iken of it there as in the Bank of Mon-
treal. Of course, I always understood you were ]nvpavcd to come to the recjuiicments of
the case when necessary, and 1 therefore write in tliis way. It is now tuccusanj tc redeem
myself, to satisfy parties thac niiist be satisfied, anil to ask no questions at present. Ker-
steman docs not know of this. It must not be known, aud will be the more ell'ectual the
less it is known."

Hark again to Mr. James Beaty . — ■

" I have had about three months' corre8l>oudcnce both by letter and personal inter-
view of the first importance to the Government, and all this with the ultimntc object on my
{art of settling the PaciQc. The project had more of direct reference to the elections, and
always understood you to say that some thousands of dollars would be no object in reCer'
tnce to our common object. "

Again — , ■ •>•'-•• ■ ..-..-)..--.'

" The Government have now taken the matter in hand, and will have, it is expected,
flOO,000 subscribed ia a few days to promote their influence in the country, which might
have been done under oxir direct control, and with special reference to our scheme."

What were these unhallowed my?teries between the Canadian Government and James
Beaty ? But let us not waste our tin.e, let us turn from this minor villain, and listen to the
utterances of a bigger and still baser man. In the same month Sir Hugh Allan writes : —

" Dfar Sir. — It seems pretty certain that, in addition to money payments, the follow-
ing stock will have to be distributed : — (naming various sums and parties to amount of
$850,000 ) To meet this I propose that we give up of our stock a.s follows : — C. M. Smith,
$260,003 ; C. W. McMulleu, $250,000 ; Huc;h Allan, $3r.C,000 ; total, $850,000.

He goes on to say : —

" Please say if this is agreeable to yon » 1 do not think we can do with less, and may
have to give more. I do not think we will require more than $100,000 in cash, but I am
DOt sure as yet. Who am I to draw on ibr money when it is wanted, and what pr,oof of pay-
ment will be required ? You are aware I cannot get receipts. Our Legislature meets on tne
11th of April, and I am already deep in prepaiation for the game. Every day brings np
some new difficulty to be encountered, but 1 hope to meet them all successfully. Write to
me ic'joiediately. Yours truly, Hugh Allan. "

UR. BLARES

And tlien comes the postscnpt. Like the laiHiss' letters, the most importnnt part is the
postscript, — " I think you will h^ve to go it blind in the matter ofmoney — cash payments.
I have already pa'd $3,600 and have not a voucher, and cannot get one. " There, Mr. Chair-
Hian, is the language of this gang, working their work in darkness, because their deeds were
evil. Urging the necessity of silence, pointing out the impossibility of getting vouchers or
receipts, and saying, each in his own languagp, that their correspondents must ask no
questions, but go it blind in the matter of money- I think, considering the difference in
situation, in standing, and in every attribute of the two men, that there is a wonderful
family likeness between thum notwithstanding ; and I suppose it is only to be accounted
for by the fact that they w.re of the same class — engaged about the same dirty
business, proposing the same dirty means, and so revealing in private that baseness
of heart which no scruples of conscience, but their dread of the public wrath, caused them
to conceal from the public mind. The discovery of these letters has disgraced their writers
in the sight of every honest man. Now you have had a glimpse at the preparations of the
speculators ; you have heard a short extract from the language of the prince of bribers
and of his humble follower, Beaty ; and I -.hall next direct your attention to the
preparations which were being made by another body in the State. The Liberal
party was making ready to foil the devices of these corrupters of public morality, the Gov*

Antl-Brlbery Bills voted down.

emment and the jpeculators. We were proposing to offer to the consideration of Parliament and
the country, additional grounds for reposing confidence in our'policy and for reversing in 1872
the verdict given for the Government in 1867. We proposed measures which, had they been
received by the Government — had they been heeded by Parliament — would have averted the
very great scandal which has since arisen, and saved the country from, descending into the
humiliating position in which, I am sorry to say, it stands this day. We recalled, sir, in anti-
cipation of the great contest, the fundamental principles of liberty. We wets not forgetful
of the maxim that public virtue is the foundation of popular Government ; we were not
forgetful of the great truth that unless there exists in the people a high degree of public
virtue, they will be unequal to the grave responsibility of self-government. We remem-
bered that whatever tends to vitiate, degrade, or weaken that principle, tends to the
destruction of popular Government, which is endangered by the introduction of motives
conflicting with that principle, and must, the moment such motives become prevalent
inevitably fall. When that high sense of public virtue has been so far weakened as to
leave the country practically at the mercy of meii who, by money or influence, control the
exercise of the suffrage, they have succeeded in converting that which has been regarded as
the shield of liberty into an instrument of tyranny. Feeling that the exercise cf the
suffrage, the greatest political right that belongs to a freeman, must, amongst the mass df
the electors, be based on public grounds, not upon grounds of private affection, or of pre-
judice, and far, far less upon the basis of undue influence, or of the purchase of the votc-
we regretted to see that there had been growing, from General Election to General Election, a
system of bribery and corruption. We were aware that, pressed by similar diflicultleB,
the longing for a remedy had so far animated the people of the old land that they had
pressed upon Parliament, and Parliament had agreed to the new election law. Wo were
proposing to do not only what had been done in Great Britain, but what had been done by
the Local Legislatures in our own Province, ivi New Brunswick, and in British Columbia.
Thus a large majority of the constituencies of the Dominion, in their local elections, were
ruled by that law, and we felt that we could do no greater public service than forthwith to
make it the law of the Dominion. We felt that it was a law which would give comparatively
ch'^ap, sp«edy, and certain justice in the trial of controverted elections. We felt that that
law, seven) and harsh as some erroneously call it, would really be most beneficent, falfilling
the highest' fonction of a law, acting as a prevectative, and not simply as a punishment^ of

SPEECH AT BOWMANVILLB.

were

,*■,

^ 11

bribery and comiption. I siy a preTentative, for the candidate and his supporters, knowing
that under Its proyisions the use of undue means would ensure defeat and failure in the
accomplishment of their olyeot, would be restrained from the crime. Under the existing
Jaw, So ::,'rcat was the difficulty of trying such charges, so rnormotis the expense, so marked
the un rtainty, that to have obtained, by wlmleTcr means, a seat, was, for all practical
purposes, to have secured it for the entire Parliament. The new law, and one for simul-
taneous polling, were pressed upon the consideration of Parliament. But the, Gorcrnment
•aid no. They told us in grave, yet impassioned tones, that it would be moat improper, to
ask the Judges to try such cases, even should they be willing to consent. Tliey told ua
that it was impossible for the Judges to find time to try tliem, even if it \» ould be proper to
ask them ; and they referred us to a f-inglo case in Ireland, where tlie language used by the
Judge produced great excitement, as a conclusive reason why we should not adopt that law
in this country. Of the weight which, in their own miinl.", they attached to these arguments,
you and I can well judge, knowing, as we do, tliat no sooner had their true object beea
accomplished than on the meeting of the new Parliament the same law Vas proposed by
themselves. Now, may we not justly conclude that their true object was/simply and soleiy
to obtain the henefit in the coming struggle of the evil system which they so soon afterward*
agreed to abandon ! But it was absolutely needful for them just then to retain the old law,
because without that their means of undue influence and corruption would have been of little
avail. As I have said, they had to go further. Tliey proceeded to find the means of influence
Unprecedented Character of the Pacific Railway Bill.

and corruption. They introduced and carried, in spite of our opposition, a law giving them
those extraordinary powers with reference to the Paeific Kailway contract. We all rememker
the often qaoted saying of a Minister at the Tcontc Convention of '67, that the Intercolonial
Railway would give Sir John A. Macdonald ten years' lease of power, and we know how far
that saying has been verified. But it would puzzle anybody to determine how many times
more powerful the Pacific Railway scheme would be than the Intercolonial, the enterpriae
being infinitely more gigantic, and the mode upon which it was to be carried out infinitely
better adapted to give unlimited power to the Executive of the day. When that measure
was proposed we contended that a con. titutional principle was involved. We were told in
reply that the powers of the Executive would be used in a proper way, and that
oo harm would result. But we contended that,a violation of sound principle would produce
unsound practice. Practice is simply the reduction of principle into action ; and to lie
«ound in practice you must be sound in principle also. Now, sir, the principle which was
^Tlolatei was this, that in free Constitutions the Executive power must be guarded, limited,
and restrained, and must not be permitted to encroach on the rights of the people and their
representatives. Executive power it is which has at all times been the great foe of liberty.
The name under which this power is exercised is wholly immaterial. Whether it be a King,
President, or Cabinet which wields the Executive power, the constant tendency of those
possessed of such power, is to invade the domain of the other branches of the Govern-
ment and to enlarge their own jurisdiction. In the great struggle which subsisted for bo
many years in England, out of which the liberties you now hold were gradually evolved, this
was the main subject of contention. This lesson has be-^n graven on the hearts of the
British people, and we must never for an instant forget it. I warn you to beware lest the
length of time since that struggle ended should make you heedless of the prize which it secured.
By gradual steps, her<s a little syid there a little, the. liberties of a people may be invaded,
and results accomplished by degrees which, had they been proposed as one operation, would
have been rejected as monstrous. It is then the duty of every representative of the people
narrowly to watch any proposal which may tend to give larger authority to the Executive ;
than it has, according to the well-established principles of the Constitution. These principles
-were violated when we gave the Executive power to conclude irrevocably, and withoat the

MR. nLAKCS

assent of Parliament, snch a Ri£;antic contmct aa thnt foi tlie constniclion of the Pacific
Railway. An orilin.iiy stcain-packct contract is snbinitked to Parliament for approval. There
have been two contracts n\aile in the Inst year wiili Sir Hugh — one, the contract for carrying
raaila nrross the ocean for i short period, anil for nn amount, too large, indeed, but still
insigniiicant compared with the Pi'cifu;. That conijiaratively trifling affair was properly
submitted to Puriiamont ; but the other and enormo\is contract made with Sir Hugh for the
Pacific Riiilway, was left in the hands of the E.\ecut ve without any power buing reserved to
Parliamtnt. Can thece things be reconciled ? Ib\t argument was vain ; the Government
prevailed, and certainly at the close of the session it seemed as if they had won the battle.
Ihey had maintained the bad election law which gave them facilities for bribery and corrup-
tion, and they had obtained power to make the mighty contract which was to give them

Tto Ring eo to 'V/ork.
unlimited influence and f"ndsforcomiptioii. In the meantime the bribers had been at work.
"We know that Sir Hugh received some §10,000 during the session from his American associates
for the secret purpose referred to in the latter part of the letter which I read. He speut
the money, he tells us, in polluting the press, the bar, the pulpit, and, I suppose, he entered
the legislative halls as well. To him no place was sacred ; in his eyes every man had his
price ; and in his mind the only questions were, how cheap he could be bought and whether
he was worth the money. There has arisen in these days, through the extension of the
press, a means of influencing public o[iinion more potent than any known to cur ancestors.
You know then, have been no speeches on recent developments in this great scandal, but
yon are familiar with the arguments on both sides because you read the papers. P)Ut what
confidence can you place in those utterances, when you are told by the man who is said to bo
the representative man of Canada, commercially, that he bought and subsidised the
newspapers and so polluted public opinion at its source ? He undoubtedly gathered
around him a very strong influence. Ho combined certain local interest!; in Quebec
with the great scheme he had in hand. There was a very strong desire lo promote a
railway from Montreal to Ottawa, and thence westward. This he took hold of and identified
it with the Pacific Railway scheme. He told those locally interested that both
shonld stand or fall together — that if he obtained the contract for the Pacific
Railway their anticipations would be more than realized. And having so gained their con-
fidence, he took his place. He stood a gigantic figure in the path of the Government, and

The Electoral Contest of 1872.
dominated the situation. The Liberal party, in tlie meanwhile, was preparing to fight the battle
on the grounds which it had indicated during the preceding session, confident that it was
sustained by the public voice. And, Sir, this confidence was not misplaced. The arrangements
which had been made for the earlier seriously contested elections to suit the convenience and
wishes of the Government, turned out most propitious to the Liberal party. Seat after seat was
wrested from the Government in Ontario. In Quebec Sir Geo. Cartier's election and those
of other Ministerialists were in imminent danger, and it became evident that unless some
new lever were brought into action, thty would be lost. The situation of the Government

The Govemmont and the Ring Come to Terms.

was desperate. Under these circumstances, in the last of July and the first of August, they
yielded to Sir Hugh Allan. His influence and money had become not merely desirable, but
absolutely necessai-y to them. Adverse as Sir George Curtier had been at an earlier period
to Sir Hugh Allan's pretensions, he yielded, and ariangements were made between these
persons satisfactory to Sir Hugh Allan. What preci.s«-ly was the assurance Sir Hugh ob-
tained is matter of controversy, but those who are well-in<brmeJ with regard to the history
of the negotiations, say that there were more form.al assurance s than those Sir Hugh has
produced. But it is enough for our purpose to know that asi^arances were given which Sir

SPEECH AT DOWMANVILLB.

Hugh accepted m satisfactory. Well, the matter was to \>e kept quiet till after the electioilfl,
partly because cmbarmasment might be created in Ontario. Mr. Macpherson was at the
hea«l of another com7>any, and he was opposed to any p»-efprence being givci. tr^ Sir Hugh.
So Sir John Mucdonald states in the publishud telegram, and lie niukes the atip latiou that
nothing was to be known till after the elections, so thiit he might have Sir Hugh's (.saistance
from below, and Mr. Macpherson's assittance from above. The influence which Sir Hugh

Sir Hugh Allan comes to the Rescue.
had been prepared to exercise till that moment to defeat Sir George Cartier and his friends,
he turned in their favor, on receipt of the assurances for which he bartered that influence.
A few days after the assurances were given, upon the Sth of August, he appeared at a public
meeting in the city of Montreal, beside Sir George, and formally stated to his friends that
he had received satisfactory pledges, and intimated his desire accordingly that they wouIl
support Sir George and his party. At the same time that Sir Hugh Allan's influence wa»-
thus acquired, arrangements were made for his advancing money, net merely for Sir George
Carticr's election, but for other elections generally. Tlie elections in the Montreal district
— in the city of Montreal and surrounding constituencies — were managed by a central com-
mittee, which had its head-quarters in thut city. Arrangements were made for the supply
of funds to this Committee on Sir George's requisition, to be dealt out amongst the
constituencies. All these arrangements were contemporaneous with the giving of the satis-
factory assurance to Sir Hu^h Allan with regard to the Pacific Railway contract. These
thingp are incontrovertible. There is no question of their truth. But it is stated in defence

" Quite Accidental ! "
of Sir Hugh Allan and the Governn.'^iit that the several transactions had nothing to do with
one another ; they were mere coincidences. The fact that Sir Hugh Allan having insisted
upon a particular thing being gi\an to him, upon a certain memorable day obtained it, and
the further facts that on that day he turned round and extended his influence in favor of
Ministers and their friends, and upon the same day arranged for the supply of money for
the same purpose, you are to regard as entirely distinct — mere coincidences, events which,
though occurring at precisely the same time, had nothing whatever to do with one another.
It was a pure accidenf. that they happened together ; that is the argument. Now, all those
of you who havy ever been suitors, or witnesses, or jurors, or spectators in a court of justice,
must have h'jard and seen, time and again, similar absurd but utterly futile effi)rt3 to per-
suade the court that two contemporaneous transactions between the same parties were yet
wholly independent of each other. The answer Jias always been, in the words of tht»
proverb, " I can put '.wo and two together ;" and if such a flimsy argument were presented
in a court it would be laughed oat of the place. It ia«perfectly ridiculous and unworthy of
every intelligent and honest man to argue that these facts had no connection with oce

The Connection between Allan and the Government utterly Indefensible,
another. I say it was utterly impossible for the Government to have honestly, even for
legitimate election purposes, taken one shilling from Sir Hugh Allan, or from John Abbott,
la the relations which they mutually occupied to them. Sir Hugh was then at any rate a
competitor for this great contract. If he had not already obtained it, he was at any rate
seeking it, and had received certain assurances, satisfactory to himself, as he tells us in his
affidavit Standing in that relation to him, was it possible that honest men could have
received from him or from his solicitor and agent eoutiibutions even for honest election
purposes t Could they be free in dealing with him afterwards? Yet these men had sup-
plied Sir John A, Macdonald with money to the amount of about $100,000, and the Central
Committee to an amount approximating to $150,000 ; end all this money was supplied dur-
ing the crisis of the election, not, as the amounts plainly showed, for honest purposes, but
for the purpose of bribing the electors of this country. Now, sir, let me remind you of
some of the declarations of Sir John Macdonald. You will remember that while this

Un. BLAKE 8

!! '

baaiuesA waa going on, while these transactions were being accomplished at Montreal, Sir
John A. Mi<udouaId wna making an rloction tour through Ontario, and after they hod been

Blr John'o Election Speeches,
concluded, he continued that triuni[)hul tour ; he made his impassioned speeches ; more
than once he called his God to witnc.is that his hands were ch^an. He pourod filth upon
hli adversaries. Let me read you from the Mail's reports what he said. At Clinton, on the
17lli of August, he said :

"After the long service he (Sir John A. Mncdonald) had given to the public he could now
come forward and cliallenga friend or foe to state on the hustings before the people, or In
private discussion, that he had ever been guilty of an unclean and disreputable act. In the
Uniti-d States they had seen one Judge dismissed and dying broken-hearted, and another
brouglit to his death-bed, because improper conduct had been proved against them. There,
too, they saw corruption rife in nil political par'iea, public mi' n, depraved officials pur-
cha.sed, whole communities sold like sheen in the shambles, and the public outr'<ge by
such indecent venality. But nothing of tne kind was seen in Cana<Ia, and why t" — Cui
you conjecture why, my friends T Let me read on ; — *• Because for seventeen years h« had
been the chief member of the Government, and during all that time had looked sttadily to
the mother country for an example. There might be political contests in England, bnt
who«?ver led the Government there, whether Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli, both of whom
were his personal friends, they might be certain it would be composed of honest and upright
men who would earnestly devote the intellect and capacity God nad given them to the b«8t
interests of the country. It w'ls his pride and boost tliat he had endeavoured to pursue the
same course in Canada. He niighv, without dishonesty or dishonor, h.»ve used occasionally
the means of information possessed by everj' Minister of the Crown in order to amass a
colossal fortune ; but from the beginning of his political career he had laid down this rule,
and net only had he insisted upon it himself, bnt ho had insisted on the observance of it by
his colleagues, that no Minister of the Crown should make one farthing beyond the salary
which he derived from his office. If ever there had been a suspicion, or a doubt, or a
charge to the contrary — and sometimes there had been charges — he had investigated the
matter to the bottom, and sometimes they might hare seen that Ministers had disappeared
from his Government. "

A most cuiious statement this ! The charges vhich had been made ogaiust
members of his Government were true then, and the gentleman told the public that
he had found, if not himself, at least some of his colleagues, guilty of acts of corruption
charged against them. But he, forsooth, was a moral and high-toned gentleman, and dis-
missed them from his counsels as unworthy of his distinguished company I At St. Mary's,
two days afterwards, on the 19th August, where Mr. Kidd was the ConseiTative candidate,
he said : — " He appealed to Mr. Kidd to say whether he had received or been promised any
"money from the Government to carry on the contest in South Perth ?" Mr. Kidd replied,
* Not a farthing." Sir John Macdonald said " the same answer would be given by every
"candidate in Ontario if he were appealed to." Now, Sir, here is t\ statement made by
himself — that every Government candidate would say, if appealed to, that not a farthing
had been supplied to them by the Government to aid them in their elections ! At Sarnia,
on the 21st of the same month, his speech is thus reported.

" He went on to charge the Government of Ontario with using its powers corruptlr,
by granting silver Innds in return for assistance at these elections. This would
be proved before a ComT.lttee ot the House during the next session of Parliament." On the
SOtix of August, four days after the famous 26th, he said : — " He had come to Lindsay for
the purpose of doing what he could in his humble way for his personal and political friend
Mr. Dormer. * * • He referred to the attempts that hod been made to con upt the con-
stituencies during these elections. He charged the Opposition with bribery on an extensive
scale. * * * He did not doubt that large sums nad been raised as a cor'-uption fund
among persons interested in timber licenses under the Ontario Government. Ue said that
already a case had been made out against them which would demand legislative notion of tha
most stringent kind. To show ilie capacity of the Opposition for corrupt work if that kind,
he refeiTcd to the outrages that had been committed in Proton and elsewhere, .ud said that
these mattvirs would undoubtedly come before Parliament at its next session."

This was on the 30th of August, while his hands were reeking with pollution < This wt»

while he was pntting those unclean hands into the money-bags of Sir Hugh Allan and Mr.

(1)

v.';?^

MPKKOII AT UoWMANVILLE.

on the

■uptlr,
would
)n the
ay for
friend
e con-

nsire

fund
that

fth«
[kind,

that

Mr.

Abbott, iiiul bril)iu|j thu elt'c' tra of (.'iiiuula with iiiuuuy obtuiued by \m cctit<ion of tiie rights
of thou)^ whom hi- wu8 tliUH oorruptiug iiutl dvinoiMlizing. I ui-ed hardly iuiy to you tlwit four
days before that bust Hpeecli he had Mtut the now famous teluginiii, "Must have another

ten thousand. Will be the last time of calling. Do not fail me ; " Mhowiug thut

Uiert* hud beeu "ten thouHiiiids" .si'iit Ixfttre, and tluit the money wiw bt iiig received and bpent
lit the very time he wati making tlieae asHertiouii of hlH innocence, and accusing others of guilt
which wius hiH alone. Sir, I nee 1 not remind you that he did not repeat tliose charges
iigaiust the Oov(unmeiit of Ontario during the session. His .statements thut there would bo
a Comntittee of Investigation when these facts would all be brought before the House and
the country, have not been made goud. The session began and ended, b:;t he never dared
to moot the subject i!i tlie House. He knew he hud no gnmnd or iiretence for these charges,
which were utterly false, but be sought by charging others with what he had been guilty of
bimfidf to divert public attention fiom his own culpable ]>rocceding8. lie acted like the
robber who, while he is running avay with th" spoil, cries " Stop thief" very loudly all the
time. Now, the.s»! are the circumstances, as they ai»|)eur before you, uudisputeil and
indisputable, occurring while the elections were jiroceediug. While he was at this

The Ring at Work in Lowex Canada.

work in Ontario, the Central Committee and Sir George Cartier were at like work
in Quebec, and as I have told you, a still larger snm was disbursed down there
than was disbursed uj) here. Well, Sir, it was sAid at one time that the money
Iiad to do with the Northern Colonization Roatl. That is of no <'on8e<jHence. Of
course it is equally improiier to bribe with money obtained from one (luarter as with that
obtaiiied from another, but at any rate the Northern Colonization Koad was identified with
the Pacific Koad. They were part of the same scheme. It was said, ag<un, that the advance
liad to do with Sir Hugh Allan's political feelings — that he was an ardent Conservative and
subscribed these .sums in the interest of the cause. His letters have told how much he
thinks of politics. There he describes the two political parties as factions, and informs his
correspondents that the Lower Canada members, whom Sir George Cartier inHuenced, held
the balance of power and could control this country. lie does not tell you in the freedom
of private corresi^ondence of political a8j)irations of one kiml or another ; on the contrary,
ho shows that he intended to stand in the path of the Government, determined to do his
best to defeat them, unless he obtained the Pacific contract, willing to support them if he
should get that contract. He an ardent politician ! I am told he never subscribed to an
election in his ti' before. He is conservative of one thing^I mean his money. But it
was not because he had any interest in politics for their own sake, one way or another, 'that
he mlvanced these moneys. It was a pure — or rather an impure — business transaction, and
Ids letters .show that the whole amoui.t he expended, including tlie $40, f^' which he
obt dned from his American caiifreres, nigh $400,000 in all, was an e.vpeuditurt made in
order to obtain, and charged upon, this contract, believed by his American associates to
have been so expended, and claimed by hiin to be payable to him after the contract was
secured ; and yet men will dare to tell an intelligent people that these are political subscrip-
tions by ft public man, without any reference to cOBtracts, or anything but ]iolitical pur-

BaseneBs of th^ "hole Transaction,
jioses. Sir, the culprits may coine forwa ', and they may j)ledge their oaths to their
innocence ; they may call their God to witness again, as they have called their God to
witness before —I know no difterence in the solemnity of tlje a<ljuratioii, whether it be matle
upon the hustings, or in the witness box — but in the face or all these letters and telegrams,
and in the face oi" these adiuissious, it is utterly impossible to believe any such statement,
It is utterly impossible to fin 1 iuiy me.(,ns of escape from the conviction that " those hands '
re unclean, indeed. It i utterly iuipoasible to hnd means to escape from the tonvictiou
•2

MR. BLARES

thut the enorn>.ou8 powers entrusted to them in reference to this contract were used for the
purpose of procuring induence and cash from the contractor to whom they agreed to give the

Its Effefit on tlie Elections,
■contract. What, sir, was the result of this profuse expenditure ? I have said tliat the
Government majority in Ontario and Quebec had been forty-seven, and even alter this
expenditure, ihut majority was tuined into a minority of nine in these two
Provinces. The disgraceful conduct of Ministers in reference to the seats for
South Renfrew and West Feterboro' took two i f those votes away, making four
on a division . There was therefore, on the whole, a change in tlie two Provinces
oi" old Canada from 'i majority of forty-f-^ven for the Gover'iment. to a majority of five
jvgainst it. Now, with such overwhelming evidences of the change in pvblic opinion, what
would have been the result if $350,000 of the Pacific money had not been pnt into the
scales? I venture to say that I am speaking far within bounds when I say that twenty
constituencies in Ontario and Quebec have been purchased by that expenditure, ar I that
instead of the Opposition being in a majority cf five in both Provin 3s, they would, if that
money had not been used, have been in a majority of 45. The situation of the Govern-
ment was desperate, they had taken these desperate means to remedy it, and yet when Par-
liament met, their powev depended upon the men from the Maritime Pro' inces, the bulk
of <vhom haJ belonged to the old Liberal parties in those Provinces, and were by no means
strenuotto jupporters of the Government. They were able to obtain a majority on flie first
vote ; and having done so they obtained temporarily the control of the House, but by no
ceuain tenure. There was no moment at which their pcsition was easy during the sestion.
The people of the outlying provinces did not feel satisfied with the course they were taking
in supporting a Government which had only a limited share of their confidence, and which
hatl lost its hold on Ontario and Quebec, while whnt strength it had was due to the corrupt

The Ring Money "merely" ased in Corrupting the Electors,
means to which I have referred. Some of the friertds of the Government urge that they
are Ie^8 blarnewortJiy than if they had pocketed this money tliem.selves ; and seem to wish
a verdict of not guilty on that ground. They were not charged with having pocketed the
money ; but * declare to you that I conceive that would be a crime less trrave than the one
with which they were charged. It would certainly have }>oen a more sonlid, a meaner
crime — a crime which would expose the perpetrators to greater contempt, but by no means
to greater indignation. In the case supposed it is thi> disgrace of the Minister alone ;
whilst in the actual case it is the disgrace of the whole country. In the case supposed you
can easily punish thb criminal Minister ; but in the actual case how are you to vindicate
public justice ? $350,000 have been scattered broadcast throughout the country in cor-
rupting thousands of electors. Sad experience has shown tha*: those who have been once
bought are more likely to make merchandise of theilr votes thereefter. Tlius not one, but
thousands of crimes have been committed, and the moral sense of the community has been
sensibly lowered. You may indeed punish the Minister, but how shall you punish these
unworthy voters — how shall you restore the purity and independcice which have been bartered

TLe Entire Political Fabric Undermined,
away? Again, remember thai by v/hat has been dore, a majority has been purchased. The
free voice of the people has been overborne-, and these men lule, not becp.use the free voice
of the people has so decided, but in spite of the Ukvcrances of U voice. I deny that my
rights or your rights are to be subject to the control of those who sed their votes. That is
not the theory of popular Government, and in p' -ctice would be found intolerable tyranny.
Such a House should be purged at an early day, and if it were found continuously that the
unbiassed vote of the country were crashed by the purchased vote cf some unworthy men,
the time would have arrived ibr such a change in the system of Government as would ren-
der it iolerable by a free people ; and I have no doubt that in that evil day you would be
tound ready for the exertions nnd sacrifices to which you might be called, as your anceetors

< I»

SPEECH AT BOWMANVILLB.

5e.l. The
ree voice
that ray
That is
yrauny.
that the
hy men,
uld ren-
fould 1m!
incffetors

i I^

were ready when the day came for the vindication of liberty aj^ainst tyrai«ny. But it would
be in truth an evil day ; an.l it i8 because T nm so fully sensible of its horrors that I am
inclinod to describe as the most heinous of public crimes, such a betrayal of your liberties
as would result in your being forced to rise in their defence. Shoitly before the session
bega.i, the Governrnent made tho great Chatter Contract. I shall not enter into its details
to-day. You are familiar, I suppose, with its provisions, which hav>i iieen the subject of
discussion in the press. They have not yet been the subject of an exhaustive discussion in
Parliament. We .saw before the session was far advanced that there was a prior question .
Before we came to discuss the Charter we had to discuss the charterers ; we had to discuss
the parties, and the considerations moving them, before we can>e to the terms of the docu-

BogUB Character of the Ring Charterers,
ment itself. A word or two I may say with reference to the composition of the Company.
T. have sc-^n it stated that while Sir Hugh Allan is only President of the Com|iany, the other
corporators are respectable gentlemen, with the great majority of whom he has but little
connection. I am willing to admit that some of those gentlemen are vrry respectabh ,
others are less so. The aubscription .shows that they have as a rule taken up ^TSO.OOO each,
and pai 1 down $75,000 each, and we well know that there are very few of tlu^se gentlemen
who could pay the 10 percent. Not a sir.gle man, except Sir Hugh Allan, could pay the
$750,000. It has been seriously pretended that the.se subscri](tions and payments were made
bona fide, but respeciting some of t^c/n, at any rate, theie can be but little doubt. The
payments of some of these gentlemen were, I believe, advanced for them; others subscribed
upon an undei-standing that they should not be called on to assume any continued respon-
sibility ; it is said that one of the corporators was not aware of his situation till after
the formation of the company ; and on the whole it is impossible to describe what has
been done as a boiia fide subscription and security for $10,000,000. The cash,
it seems, has been arranged for, so that it is to remain undrawn at the various
banks at 5 per cf nt., under the deposit receipts of the banks. These have been ac('e])ted by
the Government upon the same terms, so that unless Parliament should otherwise order, the
money is not to be drawn out of the banks in which it is said to have been deposited. You
understand what that means. It means that the .so-called payments in some
instances, at any rate, made through the banks, were nominal payments representing
merely transactions of accommodation, and not cash at all. Now, sir, it is said that this
Company is not to .stand or fall by Sir Hugh Allan ; but I say that the memorandum of Sir
John A. Macdonald upon the contract shows that Sir Hugh is the great controlling spirit of
the concern. Sir John, throughout, speaks of the parties as " iSir Hugh Allan and his
associates." He is the head of this Company, and if no honest man is to be found— and
for the honor of my country I hope no man will be found — to vindic.vte Sir Hugh Allan,
whatever may be the result to the Government of the great cause now .so long pending', it
is utterly impossible that we can entrust to a man, the author of a correspondence the most
scandalous and profligate of modern times, the asserter of his own di-sgraco, that influence
and position ishich is to be locked for and must be the property of him v/ho is to be the
President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

The honorable gentleman then intimated that ho had arrived at that stage of his nar-
rative at which he proposed to close his more detaile<i remark.s, and that he would endea-
vor, in a very few words, to give a curs'ry account of the subsequent tiiinsactions in this
connection. Neither their patience nor his strength would pei mit him to ileal with the
whole subject just now as he desired, or as its importance deserved. He then revi"wed the
subsequent events, referring, amongst other matters, to the constitution of th-^ Royal Cnm-
mission, and pointed out that it was not to be wondered at that the he«d of tne judicirry
of Ontario should have (;;s it was publicly stated he had done) repelled the approaches m«( e
to him on the .subject of his becoming a Commissioner, and this on the gnmnd that the
prooe«j<ling was uncdnstitutional.

MH, J3LAKE8

NUMBER TWO.

THE LONDON SPEECH.

On the evening of Thursday, 28th August, 1873, Mr. Blake addressed a public meeting
a« follows : —

Mr. Blakk said : — Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlen.en — Deeply conscious, as Tani,
of my inca})acity jtroperly to handle the great question to which you, sir, have alluded, 1
did not feel free to decline the invitation extended to me by my political friends in this
city, considering that it was my duty at this great crisis to contribute my quota, however
small, to the defence of the common weal. The subject is so large, and involves so many con-
siderations of an historical as well as of an argumentative character, that I should not attempt
even the most cursory summary within the limits of one address. On a recent occcasion I
took the opportunity of discussing some of the earlier events bearing on the situation of to-
day. Trusting to your acquaintance with public affairs, I shall not now review those events
in detail. (The sjteaker proceeded to summarize the account given by him in his speech at
Bowmanville, and continued as follows): — Permit me, then, to commence my detailed

Tbe Parliamentary Session of 1873.

remarks by adverting tc some of the incidents of the late session. In accordance with a
promise contained in the speech from the Thione a law for the trial of elections was brought
forward, and then was seen the hoUowness of the pretences on which, only a few months
before, when a similar law had been proposed, it was kicked out of Parliament by the verj'
men who now introduced it. All the difficulties which they had announced anterior to the
ilections had vanished when the elections were over. The steed had been stolen, and the
stable door was about to be locked. But not just yet ; there was yet a steed to steal. Some
elections were expected shortly. Some vacancies there were ^ready in the Cabinet, and
further changes were known to be ipuiiinent. Although it was acknowledged now, so

Tlie Anti-C3rmp^lon Bill, Again.

late, that this was a good law, which it was in the interest of the country to pass ; yet even
at this late moment the Government resolved to postpone its ojjeration until the month ol
Novembei next, leaving the intermediate elections to be held under the provisions of the old
and abandoned law. This action on the part of the Government was utterly indefensible,
but it was necessary for the completion of Ministerial arrangements. South Ontario must
retain the bad i)re-eminence it has of late years acquired amongst the constituencies of this
country. Mr. Gibbs must become a Minister, and Mr. Gibbs must not be deprived of the
only means by which he ever had represented or ever could represent that unhappy Eiding ;
and so for a while longer the powers of darkness were to prevail. The Minister who has so
long ruled this country with a cynical disregard of consistency and principle, perhaps the
most remarkable feature in a remarkable career, was now to give one more example of this
characteristic. That good and great man, the echoes of whose speeches against-the bill were
still lingeiing around the hall, was now to propose its adoption ; and hardened though he
was, he felt the embarmysment of the situation. He did not attempt to defend this change
of [)olicy. Tilt! measure was introduced in silence ; the second reading was moved in silence ;
aad it was in Committee of the Whole, where the details alone are considered, that we
oblainelthe first opportunity for discussion. A single evening's debate proved so unsatis-
factory tc the Ministei that he postponed the resumption of the subject until the
very last days of the session, when it was impossible to resist the action of the
Goveru.nent- The bill is certainly an immense improvement on the existing la.v,
but it is by no means as satisfactory as it would have been, had the free

i 1^

< 1^

SPEECH AT LONDON.

will of the House been allowed to operate upon it. It reriuires, and I hope will short'y
receive, serious amendment. Now, Sir, while the strength of public opinion, as evinced

Rumors of the Great Scandal.

iluring the elections, was forcing the election law upon Ministers, mmours which had been
current for a considerable period of an enormous job in connection with the Pacific Railway
gradually assumed consistency and shape. Many who were aware of suspicious transactions
in times past, and believed that there had been coiTuption in connection with the distii'm-
tion of public moneys and public contracts, were yet of opinion thc.t even if there had beeii
some wrong doing as to the Pacific, it would be as in former years, impo.ssible to ascertain
the truth. We know that, as a nile, these transactions are conducted in all the obscurity,
.surrounded by all the ban iers, and cloaked with all the devices which can be planned by
the ingenuity of man, and that it is always difficult, and frerpiently impo.ssible, to establish
them ; nor do I wonder that even those who most .suspected Ministers of sucli improprieties,
should have been very doubtful that they could be proved. But the transactions were so
large, the interests so numerous, the conspirators so audacious, that the plans for conceal-
ment were baffled, and shortly after the commencement of the .sessionl circumstances becime

Mr. flnntington'B Cbarges, l

known to Mr. Huntington which warranted him in making, and linct they warranted,
bound him in the discharge of his public duty, to make the statenfent which has created
so much discussion. I need not repeat the words ; they are graven on the hearts of the
people of Canada ; you remember that he alleged his ability to prove certain high
crimes and misdemeanors against Ministers and members of the Hou<<e, and moved for a
Select Committee to enquire into the matter. It was a ndghty issue. Its determination
was to affect the character of Canada and her institutions for long years to come ; for if it
be true that such guilt has invaded the land, and yet public sentiment .shall permit the
culprits, adding crime to crime, to violate the C^on.stitntion in their flight from justice, and so
to escape the fit rewanl of their accumulated guilt, we shall have degraded ourselves in the
eyes of the world, and .shall have pronounced oiirselves unequal to the position of a self-

Tbe Motion for Inquiry Sununarlly Voted Down.

governing people ! How was the motion met ? It was met by the Government with no
word of denial, with no word of explanation, with no word of reply. Assuming an attitude
of injured innocence and offended dignity, tUcy called upon their followers to vote it down,
and their followers were equal to the occasion. The step was a bold one, but in their des-
perate situation not unwise. Could they have maintained their ground it would have been
well taken ; b\tt they could not maintain it. The reaction was almost instantaneous, and

Public Opinion Condemns the Refusal of Inquiry.

within six hours it became obvious to those who had the opportunity of ob-serving the turn
of events and the drift of public opinion, as evinced within the walls of Parliament, that a
retreat must tiike place, and an enquiry be conceded. The change was announced next day,
Rnd shortly afterwards the Minister himself move I the reference of Mr. Huntington's .state-

Ministers Impeached.

ments to a Select Committee. T5y that motion, to which the House unanimously assented,
the Minister acknowledged, first that Mr. Huntington had preferred those charges in a pro-
per manner and upon a proper statement, and secondly, that he had proposed the proper
mode of investigation -that same tribunal which the Minister himself asked the Hou^e to
adopt for the pui-pose. During the di.scassion, the Minister announced that the motion was
in substance an impeachment. And he was quite right. It was not, of course, technically
an impeachment, becau.se in that Constitution for which he is chiet'y responsible, with
wonderful prescience, he was careful to make no provision for the establishment of a Court of
Impf.achment ; but it was, as he said, .subst;mlially an impeachment, and that for a high

«ij oL » w'd

1 1 >)

iiili '
iliii '

{K)litical oH'ence, such a.s has always been disposed of exclubively by Parliament. In hin
motion, he somewhat limited the en(juiry [iropoaed by Mr. Huntington ; and he added a
clause giving the Committee power to sit if need be (mark the words, " if need be ") after
the prorogation of Parlimnent — a thing impossible accoixiing tc ordinaiy Pai li&mentary doc-
trine, which layi down that the House cannot give to any of its Committees a life longer
than its own ; bul 1 suppose, justified to himself by the Minister on the ground betore
alluded to, that this was in the .nature of an impeachm»;ut, since it is well settled that not
even dissolution, much lesa^prorogation, abates an i.npet jhment. That proposal was re-
markable in aaolher particular, for it indicates that then, at any rate, the Minister did not
believe, or, if he did, clio^e conceal his belief that the work of the Committee would
necessarily be untinished in May or June, the anticipated period of prorogation. The pro-
posal was simply that " if need be," the Committee should sit after prorogation. There-
fore, the work would possibly be^finished, and would, of course, be commenced before pro-
rogation. It is obvioius enough that he did not then intend the House to understand
that it was out of the (juestion for the Committee to examine a single witness before pro-
rOg'ation. The motio.i was carried, and the Committee was forthwith struck according to
the usual plan, by which each member gives a vote for one person as member of the Com-
mittee ; and thui^, of coja-sc, the Government secured a majority, having three votes to two

The Oaths BUI.

fr >m the other side. Not long after the Committee had been organized, it recommended,
in accordance with suggestions thrown out by both sides, the pa.ssage of what is known as
the Oaths Bill. The Minister jirolea-sed doubts as to the power of the Canadian Parl'anient
to pass it ; but upon that ques ion he, at any rate, was committed. As leader of the Hou.se
he had shortly before carried through Parliament, and placed on tlie statute book, an Act
conferring upon the Semite, the other branch of the Legislature— that of which you, sir,
are a distinguished ornament, the power of administering oaths at its bar. That mea-
sure is objectionaldc on precisely the same reasoning as that which has effected the dis-
allowance of the Oatiis Bill, and is defensible only on the same grounds on which the Oaths
Bill may be defended. If one is c mtrary to the Constitution so also is the other. Yet, for
that Bill, the Minister himself is specially responsible. His opinion then must have been
that Parliament had the power to jtass such an Act, or he was gros.sly derelict in his duty
when he promoted its passage. Again, he was in other ways committed. In two of the
Local Legislatures, those of Ontario and Quebec, measures were passed by which those
Legislatures assumed to arrogate to themselves the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons of Bingland, as they stood at the 1st of July, 1867. The Minister here
and the law officers of the Crown in England all reported aeainst these measures as being
beyond the competence of the Local Legislatures. From that conclusion, the accuracy of
which I never doubted, and which 1 had myself announced in the Legislature of Ontario, it
plainly followed that the Local Legislatures were unable to take tc themselves the powers,
l)rivilege8, and immunities of the Canadian House of Commons, which were the same as those
of the English House on 1st July, 1867. In conformity with that opinion, thes-i acts were,
under the advice of the first Minister, disallowed and struck off the statute books of the
Provinces. The powers of the Local Legislatures in this particular having been thus deter-
raJued to be more limited than those of the House of Commons of Canada, these same Legis-
latures nevertheless each thereafter passed an Act giving power to their committees to ex-
amine witnesses under oath. It is the duty of the Minister, as he has himself declared, to
consider all acts of the Ivocal Legislatures and to advise disallowance of such as aie beyond
their competence. He considered those acts, but did not advise .their disallowance, rie
adviseil that they should be left to their operation, and they were so left. Upon this occas-
ion, therefore, it is perfectly clear that the Minister must have been of opinion that the
Local Legislatures, with fewer powers and privileges than the Parliament of Canada, had,

8PKECH AT U)ND«M.

nt. In hit*
1 he added n
d be ") after
Dentary doc-
a life longer
oiind lietore
led that not
osal was re-
ister did not
uttee would
The pro-
m. There-
l before pro-
underatand
i before pro-
iccording to
of the Com-
'otes to two

onunended,

s known a,s

Parl-ament

[' the House

3ok, an Act

cli you, sir,

That mea-

ed the dis-

1 the Oaths

Yet, for

have been

in his duty

two of the

hich those

lities of the

nister here

8 as being

iccuracy of

Ontario, it

he powers,

ne as those

acts were,

aks of the

■hus deter-

inie Legis-

tees to ex-

Bclared, to

re beyond

nice. He

this occas-

n that the

lada. had,

notwithstanding, the j>ower to pass this very Oaths Bill, in respect to wliich he now pro-
fesses to doubt the pow(;r of the Parliament of Canada itself But whatever his doubts were,
he overcame them. As leader of the Government it was his constitutional duty to see that
no improner legislation passed the House, and as law adviser of the I'rown, it was his special
duty to ail vise the Governor with reference to each Act submitted for assent as to whether assent
should be given or not. This measure he permitted to pass, and he recommended the assent, and
so it became law ; but not without delays in its progress, through your branch of the Legislature
and suljsequently. 1 hese delays had excited impatience both within and without the walls of

The Committee Heady for Work.
Parliament ; and before the passage of the Bill, the Committee had sunnnoned a large number of
Mr. Huntington's witnesses, and had procured their attendance, 1 having announced that unless
the Hill was assented to at once I would propose to the Committee to proceed forthwith under
the existing law. On the day on which 1 was to make this n' <tion we were informed that
the Bill would be assented to on the Monday following, and we adjourned to the Tuesday,
erdering the witnesses to be then once more in attendance for the commeneemeot.of the
business, already too long deferred. The assent was given, and on the appointed day we
met, the House and the public expecting that, at length, after so many preliminary

Systematic Procrastination.

difficulties, we were to be allowed to begin. During all this time no hint had been dropped
of further obstacles — on the contrary the speeches of the Minister had all been in the ojiposite
sense ; but the evil day had come at la-st, and he was forced to dnvelope those plans for still
further delay whifih either originally or in the meantime had suggested themselves to his

The Absence of Witnesses Dodge.

fertile brain. He appeared before the Committee and announced the absence of three
individual — Sir George Cartier, Sir Hugh Allan, and Mr. Abbott — and that there was ne
expectation of their return until June ; facts of which we had all been aware ever since the
date of the original motion. He startled us by the statement that in their absence the
Government felt it impossible that the Committee should proceed, and he requested an
luljournment until the 2nd July, in order that Allan and Abbott, who he said were the only
witnesses of the Government, might be present. He also threw out a proposal that the

The Secrecy Dodge.
Committee should be secret. A member of the Committee following almost immediately
made a speech developing a striking coincidence with the views thatjhad just been enunciated.
He produced from his pocket and proposed certain resolutions carrying out these views.
Against these resolutions Mr. Dorion and I voted, but they were carried over an amendment,
proposed by Mr. Dorion, that Sir Francis Hincks, a witness summoned and then in attendance,
should be called and examined. Well, sir, the resolutions were reported to the House, whose
sanction was asked to them. A very strong feeling was develcped innnediately against the
proposal that the Committee should be secret, a proposal which 1 do not hesitate to
say was of a most scandalous character. The members of the administration and
their friends have not unfreiiuently descanted, when it served their turn, on the purely
judicial character of the investigation, and who, living in a free country, is ignorant
of the fact that one of the greatest securities for the continuation of that freedom is the
publicity of judicial p«oceedings ? But, sir, that proposal shocked the sense of the House,

Inquiry Postponed by a Party Vote.

and it was withdrawn. The proposal for adjournment was debated on our side at any rate,
the other side declining discussion, and relying on that nower of numbers which enabled
them, by a very considerable majority, to carry it. I never doubted that many gentlemen
who voted for the a Ijournment did so conscientiously ; 1 agreed that there were two

MP. m.AKES

Vn !

Miii

sides to tliat question, althou{,h my own view was stronffl • atlverse to the proposal
that the work should not commenfc till the 2nd of July. I was always of opinion
that any witness wanted by the Oovernment should be called, and that any adjouniment
necessary for that purpose should be granted, but I was not of opinion that there existed
at that timh, and linder those (nrcumstanees, a case for postponing the oonimrncement of
the enquiry to the 2nd of July. The Minister had stated that the work would last from

Tlie Real Motives of Postponement,
four to six weeks, and it was therefore pldn that a very great mass of evidence would have
to be taken. It was also plain that extreme inconvenience was likely to occur, if the House
were not to sit while the Committee was sitting. This mistake, it was, from which all the
other evils flowed ; but for this mistake we should not have been here to-night, deploring
baffled justice and violated right. The presence of the House was required, first, in order
that the Committee might be able to ajiply to it for instruction and guidance, in case of any
difficulty in the prosecution of the en([uiry, and for the interposition of its authority to
compel the attendance and the answering of witnesses ; and secondly, in order to give the
members of the House, who were to be the ultimate judges of the case, the opportunity of
hearing and seeing for themselves the taking of the evidence. I should like to know whether
any of you who have ever Iwen'suitors in a court would prefer that the evidence should be
taken down in writing, in the absence of the judge or jury who were to decide upon a subse-
quent peiTisal of the evidence, or whether you would not prefer that the witnesses should be
examined in the presence of the judge or jury. Are you not aware that the demeanour of
the witness, liis hesitation in answering, the difficulty in extracting replies, or, on the other
hand, a suspicious fluency, that a hundred circumstances only perceptible to the man within
sight and hearing of the witness — are most material, nay vital, to juries in coming to a con-
clusion as to the honesty or the accuracy of the witness, and the weight to be given to his
evidence. Therefore 1 felt that it was right that, if possible, every member of Parliament
should be in court while the examination of witnessey was going on. There were several
other reasons, but I will not now detain you by detailing them ; suffice it to say that the
proposals of the Government were adopted, and as a necessary conse(iuence, in order to keep
the Committee alive, it was arranged that the House should adjourn instead of being pro-
rcgi\ed ; but there was another reason, unsuspected by us, why it was important in the in-
terest of the Government that the House should not be prorogued, but adjouraed during the

The Allan—McMiaien Corruption Papers.

enquiry. It kas since transpired that the Infamous Allan letters were In existence, in the
hands of Mr. Stames, on terms which were devised to keep them secret so long as the ses-
blon should last, but to set them firee after a prorogation ; and who can doubt that the hope
of the guilty men was that by arranging for the prosecution of the enquiry before proroga-
tion, these documents might be kept concealed, and so the evidences of their guilt might be
suppressed ? But tnith was to prevail ! Mr. Huntington became aware of the existence
and custody of these papers, and justly dreading their destruction, he took steps for securing

The Royal Commission Dodge.

them, to which I shall presently refer. During the various discussions which took place
ujion the enquiry, the First Minister had more than once indicated his preference of a Royal
Commission to a Parliamentary Committee : but his suggestions were received with the
most marked disapprobation in a House, which in nothing else had dared to disapprove of
anything he said. No voice in Parliament, save his own, was ever ni.sed ii: support of this
proposal ; and the gentleman who had taken the most active part amo'.gst aU his supporters
during the whole session in sustaining his every view — the gentleman who argued for him
the West Peterboro' case, who argued for him the Muskoka case — the gentleman who had
never hesitated to come to the front on doubtful and desperate issues in other instances— I

SPEECH AT LONDON'.

tlio |troposnl
i of opinion
.idjonmmont
tliore existed
If nocmpnt of
lid last from

would have
if the House
vhich all the
it, deploring
pst, in order
1 case of any
authority to
r to give the
portunity of
low whether
ce should be
pon a sxibae-
ps should be
emeauour of
on the other
man within
nf» to a con-
given to his
J Parliament
ere several
lay that the
er to keej)
lieing pro-
in the in-
uring the

nee, In tbe
as the ses-

it the hope
e proroga-
might be
existence
r securing

•

ook place
)f a Royal
with the
iprove of
rt of this
upporters
I for him
who had
ances— I

mean the nienihe for Cardwell — even he (though not till his leader had yiehled) cnunt ateil
in the strongest way his disajiproval of the plan o' i Commission, ailding that he would 1 ave
declined to serve on a Royal Commission wliile the proper tribunal, a Cnmniittcf, was
available. The Minister, I say, yielded to this unaniino»3 expression of opinion, and pro-
fessed to ibamlon his idea of a Commission. Thus the House ma<ieJchoiee in a most striking
manner of a Committee in pieference to a Commission, and to that view every single membi r
was an assenting party. One alleged precedent alone did Sir .Tohii Mncdonald cite in sujipoi t
of his proposal, namely, the Ceylon case. Mark, first of all, that this is no precedent for the
issue of a Royal Commission without an address of thejHouse,[|for the Commission issuetl in
the Ceylon case was issued upon address. But I shall shov.J you in a very few words that
this precedent is wholly inaj>plicable. There had been an insurrection in Ceylon, in tbe
.suppression of which it was alleged that liord Torrington and the local authorities had actid
with great violence and brutality ; and a select Committ'^e was onlered to investigate these
ch;'rg33. The evidence was to Iw obtained principally from witnesses living in Ceylon, and
owing to this difficulty the Committee did not get very far, and towards tlie close of the
sessiuB recommended that a Royal Commission should issue to enquire on the .spot into >,.ie
circumstances connected with the suppression of the rebellion. That recommendation
was declined by the House. Thereupon the Committee reported, recommending that it
should be reappointed next session, and that means should be taken in the meantime for
summoning witnesses from Ceylon. The Committee was re-appointed next session, and in
the prosecution of the enquiry it appeared that a proclamation had been i.s.sued, purporting
to be signed by Captain Watson, an otficer serving in Ceylon, to the effect that any persons
having in their possession or knowing the whcrciibouts of certain property, who did not
deliver up or disclose the whereabouts of the property, shoulil be killed, and their
effects confi.scated. Captain Watson, who happened to be in England, denieil having
signed this bnital proclamation. Certain evidence to the contrary having been
tendered to the Committee, they decided not to enter int.» a (juestion atTecting
the honour of tin officer of Her Majesty's Army. Subseoueni ' an address to the
Crown was moved and agreed to without debate, for the is.sue of a u vi Commission, to
enquire on the spot into the circumstances connected with the papers pri. \nted to the Com-
mittee under Captain Watnon's signature. The Committee itself procteded with the
investigation of the charges referre<l to it, in which the Imperial Government was only
indirectly concerned, through the suggestion that they had improperly approved ' of Lord
Torrington 's proceedings ; hut there was no hint of the Government being in anywise respou.si-
ble in connection with the Watson proclamation. The Committee reported the result of its
labors, and once more suggested a Royal Commission to the House for certain purposes,
but no such Commission was ordered. In the third ses.sion, the House took up the question
on the evidence reported by the Committee, ami finally disposed of the charge against the
Government. This is the history of the Ceylon case, and you will see that so far from its
being a precedent for the enquiry by a Royal Commis-sion into charges of high crimes and
misdemeanors preferred against Ministers and membeis of the House, it furnishes precedents
against that course, both by what was done and by what was declined. But the Ceylon

case is a precedent upon another point upon which the Minister did not cite it. At
the end of the session, during the absence of Mr. Dorion and myself, objection was taken for
the first time to our presence as member.s of the Conimittee, upon the ground that our
position in theHousewas such that ■:ve shoxdti'.avedeclined to serve — the Minister arguing ihat
Mr. Disraeli would have scorned to serve on such a committee against Mr. Gladstone — and
on the further ground that the speeches we had made in the House .showed ♦^hat the Goveni-
ment could not expect to get fair play from us. Tliese are two separate point.^. Upon the
first I will cite the Ceylon case. Mr. Disraeli, who was leading the Opposition, wai« an
active member of that Committee, and in the Hou.se he moved motions, and made strong
speeches on the .subject. Now, here is a precedent against the Minister, furnished in the
very case he cited, by the very person whom he cited. But of coxirse the parallel would
not have held. Neither my friend nor myself occupied the position attributed to us and
which was occupied by Mr. Disraeli. Neither of us was leader of the Opposition in Parlia-
ment. That position was filled by my friend and col'eague Mr. Mackenzie. You know,
too. that the circumstanc?s under which Mr. Dorion w;\s elected were snch as rendered him

MU. iiLAKUH

11!

■M

lea«t of all liable to uny hucIi charge. He ha<l announced his retirement t'roni public life
and his ueterniiuation not to seek re-election. He left for Knglan<l on private businesH,
declining to say that he would sit if elected ; on the contrary, declaring that he rau«t, in that
event, resign, ami refusing to couii)ly with the request of his friends to leave behind him a
tieclaratiun of (|ualiticatioii. During his absence liis (riends were determined that he should
be re-elected, and tliey retuined him to Parliament. On his arrival here he was over-borne
by the preBsuie of his friends, and took the seat so honourably provided for him. Was Mr.
Dorion, having so come into Parliament, and standing, as 1 1)elieve he did, and does, higher
tlian any other man in the esteem anil affection of the House, incapacitated by his position
from giving a full and fair consideration to tlie matters coming before the Committee ? Was
he, of all men, to be bribed to injustice by the expectation of otHce ? ^h to myself, you are
perfectly aware that prior to the general election I announced to my friends that it was ijnpos
sible for me, whatever might be the result of the election, to serve my country otherwise
than in the ranks. During my abse\ice in England, Sir John Macdonald and his friends
made large use of the statement. They accepted it as true, and they drew from it the false
and ungenerous inference that there was some sjilit or difficulty between my friends and
myself. That served their turn just then, but a little later, at the close of the session,
though i had in the meantime unenuivocally repeated my announcemement, it suited the
purpose ot the Mini.ster to allege that 1 too, as an as))irant for office, was inconn)etent to sit
on the Committee. Sir, 1 had Bat on Commitrees in which Ministi-rs were deei)ly concernefl
before. I was the Chairman of Sir G. Cartier's Election Committee, and an active member
of the Committee on the Allan MacNab purchase, and 1 appeal with confidence to the part
1 took in tho.se investigations as proof of my desire to act fairly towards Ministers. As to
the other charge, that my speeches during the session on this matter showed that the
Goverment could not expect fair j>lay from me, 1 shall not answer it save by a reference to
th(! records ; and 1 challenge Sir John Macdonald, his friends, followers, and satellites to
point to a speech, a sentence, a word of ndne, while a member of that Committee, which
justifies the statement. But tlie truth is that at this time the Governinent saw that the
matter was b^^;oming very serious, and they were endeavoring to break the blow by assailing
the adversary and finding cause of complaint against the Committee. Towards the close ol

The Sealed Packet

the session Mr. Huntington found that certain documentary evidence was in danger, and
looking to the aspersions that hail been cast upon him, and to the complaints which had
been made of his former conduct, he j)ropo8ed to prove to the House that he had cause for
the motion he was about to m&ke to instruct the Committee to impound these documents.
He did not oiler oral evidence, but he proposed to read the letters of Sir Hugh
Allan, the very man whom the Goverimient had described na their chief wit-
ness. The i)roposed explanation was defeated by the arbitrary conduct ol the
S[)eaker ; but the temper that was evinced, the dismay exhibited, and the earnest desiie
shown to avoid these disclosures, convinced me, though at that time I did not Know the
contents of those letters, that there must be something there very unfortunate for luinisters.
The motion was canied, Mr. Starnes was summoned, and the package was nnirked and left
in his hands. Then came the last scene, in which the Government made an attempt, 1
think, of a most unfair character, to place their adversaries in the position of being appar-
ently ungenerous to a departed foe, or of being untrue to their political principles and
opinions of many years standing, and untrue, also, to the belief which they had expressed,
that the pending charges deserved serious attention and searching investigation. The
Government proposed that a public funeral should be given to Sir George Cartier, and that
a monument should be erected at the public expense in hi)nor ot him whom they designated
as a great statesman and an excellent man. One precedent there was for the proceeUing,
but it was emphatically the exception which jiroved the rule -the rule that no such honors

i iiiiii

SPBKOH AT LONDON.

i })Ubli(' life

ite businesH,
nust, in that
ehind him a
ut he Hhould
s over-boriie
I. Was Mr.
does, higher
his position
ittee ? Wab
self, you are
t was iinpoH
ry otherwise
I his friends
it the false
friends and
the session,
t suited the
potent to sit
y concernefl
ive member
! to the part
ters. As to
sd that the
reference to
satellites to
;tee, which
w that the
L»y assailing
the close ol

anger, and
which had
d cause lor
ocumenta.
Sir Hugh
lief wit-
Lit ol the
lo^t desire
Know the
lu misters,
d and left
ttempt, I
ug appar-
uples and
xpressed,
Du. The
and that
esignuted
oceeding,
;h honors

'^■^

should be conferred on political characters. The motion was prb|)ONud in a thin house, and
upon the last day of the session, and so these men (iamcd a re.solution decreeing a public
inonumeni to him on whose grave they are now engaged in heaping dirt. The only author-
itative statement we have had from the Government as to the Pacific is one declaring that
certain documents and aiTangements were personal to Sir (Jeorge Curtier, unknown to his
colleagues, for which they decline responsibility, and the odium of which they seek to C4wt

The DlBallowance Trick.

upon him alone. Well, Sir. upon the 2nd of July the Committee met, as it was hoped, for
business ; but, a.s usuixl, the Government was at work. The previous day, the anniversary
of Confederation, our national holiday, these patriots had entployed in issuing a Govern-
ment proclamation disallowing the Oaths Bill. That disallowance was highly improjier.
The first Minii'.er himself, in a memorandum prepared by him on fhe 8th of June, 18(58,
had accunitely stated the rule as to intorference by the Impeiiul (Jovernment with Colonial
legislation. 1 will read his words :— " Of late years IJer Majesty's (Jovernment has not, as
a general rule, interfered with the legislation oi Colonies having representiitive institutions
and responsible Govenunent, except in the caaes specially mentioned in the instruction.s to
the Governor, or in matters of Imperial and not merely local interest." Now. this matter
is neither mentioned in tlie instructions to the Governor, nor is it a matter of Imperial or
other than of merely local iriterest. The object was confessedly good, and if Parliament
had not the power to pass it, n ) one will pretend that it should remain so powerless. The
Imperial Government, therefore acted in a most ill-advised manner in not leaving the Act
to its operation. The queslioi. ,i its legality could have been decided in our courts, and
could then have been brouglrt before the highest tribunal open to us, the Judicial Committee
•f the Privy Council ; but, in8t'.:ad of that, the Imperial Government, under the advice of
the Law Officers of the Crown, not acting under the responsibility of Judges, and without
that pre-requisile of just judgment, the argument of both sides, undertook to wipe this law
out of our s,..atute book. I call public attention to the observation I have just made, as
bearing stronj^ly on the degree of respect you are to bestow on these dcfusions of the Lav
Officers. None of you would be satisfied if, even in a trivial case affecting his own inter-
ests, the qv-cstion were merely stated to the judge, and decided by him without argument on
either side. Our whole judicial system pre-supposes such argiunent as a condition of sound
judgment. There is an ancient maxim of the law, as holy as it is ancient, which leaches
that the judge who decides without hearing the other side, though he may have decided
justly, has acted unjustly. Nevertheless, on such a decision this gieat (jucstion is said to
have been determined conclusively and foi ever. But how different a course has been taken
with reference to other Acts. I could easily point out several objectionable statutes on
which this power was not exercised, and you will all remember an instance in which the
Imperial power wa^ used, not in disallowing, but in confirming by Imperial legislation an
objectionable Act. The Act authorizing the Senate to administer oaths at its bai was left to
its operation. But in this case, on which so much depended, instead of adopting the wiser
the more judicious and constitutional course which 1 have suggested, disallowance in the
most rigorous form was adopted But neither the views of the I nv Officers of the Crown,^
nor the order ot the Queen's Privy Council in England, irade that law less operative than it
was before. Its disallowance necessitated action upon this side of the water, and by the
Constitutional Act the Governor-General had the right to take that action in one or two
modes — either by proclamation, which he might issue at his convenience, or by message to
the Parliament upon its first meeting. Had the latter alternative been adopted, the Coni-
mittee could have proceeded with the examination and the subsequent disallowance on the
meeting of Parliament, would not have interfered with the Committee's labours. This
course might have been followed without any inconvenience, but the other course was re-
commended to the Governor, and the Act was disallowed by a proclamation framed by the

MR. BLAKES

First MiniHtrr of Canada, and oountersigned by him and tlip Secretary of Ftate, ifwuwl on
the day before the'sitting of the Comniittco, and thus depriving it of the power with whiih
it was before amied. Contrast this with the course taken npon another Act — the Act of the
Ontario Legislature— giving an additional allowance to Superior Court .Judges. That Art
was condemned as beyond the powers of the Ontaiio Legislature by the Law Officers of the
Crown in Fnglnnd and ♦^he First Minister of Canada. How did the Minister proceed in this
cafcc ? Why, lie reporte*! t« the Governor that the Act must be disallowed, unless
the Legislature, at its next session, should repeal it. He advised the Governor not to
disallow it immediately, but to leave it in the meiintime, and it was left until the last day
for di. allowance, iintil the year's salaries liaTl been paiil under the Act, and then at
the latest iM>ssible moment the disallowance was accomplished. I leave it to you to
guess why there wa#such a change of policy in the case of the Oaths Bill. Notwithstanding
what had taken place, Mr. Dorion and myself were of opinion that the Committee could
proceed. The Committee had been constituted without power to take evidence under oath,
with instructions to enquire into this charge. After the passing of the Oaths Bill, whi( h
authorized Committee to take evidence under oath, in biases in which the House should have
re.solved that this was desirable, the Committee was instructed under the authority of the
Act to take evidence upon oath ; our opinion was that the instruction fell with the Act,
upon which it was based. Our opinion also was that our major duty was the pursuit of the
investigation, that what we were called upon to do was to make the enquiry by all lawful
means in our power, and that by so doing we should best fultil the orders of the House
and the expectations of the country That view, however, was over-ruled, and the
Committee adjourned until the 13th August. We were ofleretl a Royal Commission, which
we declined, for reasons stated in letters written at the time, by which reasons we stand to-

The Prorogation.

day. I will discuss them shortly. It had now become obvious that ttiere was a change in
the situation. During the sitting of Parliament, and when the proposal was made that the
Committee should meet on the 2nd of Jtily, a statement had been made by the Minister that
fill the evidence would be taken and the report of the Committee prepared before the 13th of
August, and that all the House would have to do would be to receive the report j^ro forma,
and be prorogued. ]t has been said that this was agreed to bf both sides of the House. I
was not in the House at the time, but .speaking from the reports and from the information
given me by my friends, I say there was no such agreement ; on the contrary, Mr. Holton
pointed out to the Minister that he might not be in a position to advi.se a prorogation on the
13th of August, and subsequently Sir John, said, that if it were true that they must have a
qutirum, he would be exceedingly happy to see Mr. Holton fill his place in the same health,
with the same vigour, and with the same degree of combativeness as he displayed at that
meeting. Mr. Holton was there, he was combative, and with gootl cause, but the enemy
would not fight. Biit it was quite jilear, that oven had there been an undcstanrling, it
could not have been binding upon the House, which is, and must be, free as air to determine
upon its course a.s the exigencies of the State may require. It was also clear that any .such
understanding must have been based upon the statement, supposed to be correct by all
parties, that the Committee would have completed its labors, that the evidence would have
been taken, that the work would have been done, and only the final judgment would remain
to be disposed of at some future period. No man expecte<i the prorogation to take place with
the evidence untaken, with the materials for foi-ming a judgment uncollected, with the work
undone. The whole ba-sis had vanished upon the2nd of July, when the Committee was adjourn-
ed, and it follows that it was the bounden duty of those who had the power and responsibility
of advising his Excellency to take immediate stej s to meet the new exigency, and to arrange
that Parliament shoiild have an opportunity of deciding what .should now be done. That the
situation was changed has been practically confessed by Ministers themselves, for they have

HPUECll AT LONDON.

;atp, ifwuwl on
rer with which
-the Act of the
'8. That A( t
Officers of tlie
|)ro('ee(l in this
lowed, nnlesH
vemor not to
til the last day
and then ut
it to you to
itwithstanding
nniittue could
ce under oath.
18 Bill, whi( h
se should have
thority of the
with the Act,
pursuit of the
by all lawful
of the House
lied, and the
iiission, which
s we stand to-

,a a change in
made that the
; Minister that
jre the 1 3th of
ort jyro forma,
;he House. I
e information
Mr. Holton
ogation on the

must have a
? same health,
ayed at that
it the enemy
cstamling, it
r to determine
that any .sucli
orrect by all
je would have

would remain
ake place with
with the work
e was adjourn -

responsibility

nd to arrange

I)ne. That the

for they have

iHvuiselves acknowledged lUtit in couseiiuence of the events since the adjournment, an Oc-
tobei GOtiaiou has bccouie uocossury. Government should have nuide the necessary arrauge-
niuutsfor the .soasion on the 13th, being a business session ; or if this season was peculiarly
inconvenient for meinbors, they should have i-rranged for an adjournment to a more suitable
|)eii(Kl, alth\)ugh I maintain that no consideration of private convenicnt;e should have any
weight iu the mind of a representative of the people, when compared to his paiaaiounl
duty to the State in a tremendous crisis like the present- Although that was the obvious
duty of the Government, it was equally obvious, from all the available sources of iuforma-
tiou, that thoy intended themselves to remove this cause from the Commons, to create some
tribunal of their own devising, and to prevent the House from meeting for business this
year ; and so, tired of waiting, and taunted by the Ministerial press with having made
baseless charges, Mr. Hunliagtju authorized the publication of a portion of the evidence — .
only a i)ortiou, however, as I hapiMiu to know. The publication at once took possession of
the public mind. It could not be slighted, for it consisted of the letters of Sir Hugh
Allan, confessed, to be authentic by that person, the chief witness for the Government, and
the chief actor in the transaction ; an I it was hoped by some people, that the elfect pro-
duced by the publication would load the Government to change its views and adopt the policy
1 have indicated. But it is clear that the determination of the Government was ditferent.
The publication of the telegrams and re(piisitious for money showed that further fatal
secrets were to be disclosed, and the desperate decision waa confirmed to gag the Uoinmons,
to destroy the Committee, and to set up that mockery of justice which is sjiortly to be per-
formed at Ottawa. It was announced that His Excellency would be absent from Ottawa, and
that a Commission had been issued for the purpose of proroguing Parliament, as the affair
would be purely formal. But, Sir, that announcement was contradicted by the event. His
Excellency thought, and thought rightly, that his first and higliest duty was to be person-
ally present, and to as.sume, iu his own proper person, the responsibility of whatever course
he might determine upon under the circumstances. He was there ; 130 members were there
iis well ; and of the absentees a very great majority were quite accessible. All the
representatives from Manitoba were there, and some twenty members from the
distant Provinces of the Atlantic ,sea -board ; and that the attend.uice was not still larger
was due the fact that the Government did not ask any of their supporters to attend, and
that to those who enquired of them whether their attendance was desired, a negativ.e
reply was returned. 1 say this with iiuthority, beciiuse I have the best means of knowing

The Members Remonstrate.

its tiiith. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, close upon 100 members oi Parliament
met for consultation, and they deemed the situation so alarming, and the crisis so unexampled,
everything indioating an immediate [»rorogation, as to warrant the determination — since
they were not likely to have an opportunity, in a strictly Parliamentary way, upon the floor
of the Hou.se, of advising His E.Kcellency on the question of prorogation or adjc 'rament, or
of deciding what order should be taken for the prosecution of the emjuiry — that their senti-
ments should be placed on record, and that His Excellency should be approached in the only
way which his Ministers had left open for approach. They signed and forwarded to His
Excellency a respectful, temperate, firm representation, stating that to prorogue Parliamei t
without giving it the opportunity of taking order for the prose jution of the enquiry, would
create intense dissatisfaction in the country. That document, which only repeated views
enunciated by thousands of petitions already before His Excellency, was adopted by more
members than would have made a majority on any division during the session ; 183 men
having voted on the largest division, 92 may be fairly said to be a majority in a full House.
The Government advised His Excellency to reject that apj)eal, to prorogue the House, and
to issue a Commission,, and he agreed to follow their advice. He answered those who had
made the representftticn, as to manner graciouslf indeed, for the manner was his own ; but

Ill

luri!

:..:!

■ I

MR. BLAKII'h

M to mutter inont iinhHp]iily ; the matter waH hifi Miniflten'. I HuppoHt; that the reaHonin^M
even of ii V'^icoroy nre not frre from criticiam, Imt hii(i theae been the rraRnninKx "f thp
ViffTQV himst'lf, I confcHH I should have felt some eiiilmrinsmejit in the choice of an epithet
with which to characterize them. I couM not call them puerile, because liord Duffcrin is a
mature statesman; I could not call them disingenuouH l)i'(-au8e Lord Dud'criu is an honorable
man ; ami I wouhl Imve been inclined to abandon in despair the search for an adjective
which mi^ht fit iit once my sense of the proprieties and my conviction of the truth. But I
am relieved from any such emb.irnissment. These are the arjfuments on which hi.4 Minister^
advised him to the course he took ; these are tlic rctMions which they advised him to offer t»
the memorialists and the public as the justiticatio't oi the course they recommended ; and 1
cuu have no hcsitntion in dealinj?, fiiily 1 trust, y«t tirmly and freely, with the argument.
What then do these men advi^o the chief of the State to say. First, they say that because
the signatures do not constitute a numerical majority of the whole House, therefore Hijt Kxcel-
Icncy has no assurance Vhat they represent the fetding of Parliament. That. sir. is true in
the letter, but fulse in the spirit ; for the reason already given that the number woa a
practical m'ljority of the House ; And for the further rea*on that the views of the House hwl
already, during that .session, been plainly indicated by its unanimous resolution that this
matter .should be prosecuted by itself through the medium of its select Committee. Repeated
and anxious debates had taken jdace as to the mode of the enquiry, and as to the securities
for its being thorough and exhaustive. So there was the best possible means for knowing
that the feeling of the Commons was that the encjuiry should l)e conducted by a Parlia-
mentary Committee, and certainly the signatures of so many members to the representa.
tion, afforded good ground for that which, even in the absence of any evidence, was
the only fair conclusion, namely, that the Commons had no'„ changed its mind ; nor
was there the shadow of a foundation for the notion that the House was prepared
to reverse its decision, to dissolve its Comniittce, to abandon the duty it had under-
takc-n, and to leave to others the determination whether there should be an enquiry and
what sort of enquiry there should be. Again, remember that these signataiies did
not venture to say that any particular course would be taken by Parliament. They
simply advLsed His Excellency to give the House an opportunity of telling him what it
should determine. There was no dictation as the course of the House ; there was only the
the assertion that the House desired to deliberate and decide on a course to be talren ; and
who can doubt that this was, as it ought to hare been, the desire of the House ? Let me
now turn to the second argument adduced. These men, these incriminated Mini-sters,
advised His Excellency to say that to accede to the representation would be— what ? Why,
to decl.ir>' them guilty of the crimes which were charged against them ? What said the
representation ? That there would be dissatisfaction unless Parliament were permitted to
take order for the trial of the charges ; and the argument is, that to accede to this requeitt
is to agree that the charges are proved; that the accu.sed are guilty; and so, of course, to
dispense with the trial altogether. Sir, for such an argument, the words puerile and disin-
genuous are the fittest epithets I know. Well, Sir, agsin they advise l:is Excellency to say
that his difficulties would disappear if their could be a call of the House, but that this was
impossible. Why impossible ? The impossibilities are said to be physical — the great
distances and the fact of the alleged understanding as to prorogation ; but these, Sir, are
difficulties which extend only to the time of the call. They are not difficulties in the way

Adjournment the Alternative.

of adjournment. They are not difficulties to be solved only be prorogation, They are
simply objections, which are to be met by fixing for the adjourned session a convenient
time, having regard to the expressed views of all parties that the enquiry should be prose-
cuted at the earliest possible moment. An adjournment might have taken place even to the
day named by His Excellinty for the ntw scsfioii, alil.ou^h 1 i-htuld h<ve

8PI10R AT LONDON.

t the reaitoninf(M

fdnonings of thp

i<'(' of an ppithut

iril Dufforin jm n

I is itn honorahlt*

^or an adjective

e truth. Rut I

ch hi<4 MiniHter^

1 him to offiHr t«

mended ; and I

the arf^unient.

my that beraufw^

pfore Hi* Kxcel-

it. sir, in tnie in

number waa a

' the House hwl

lution that this

ttee. Repeated

to the securities

ins for knowing

ed by a Parlin-

the npresenttt.

' evidence, was

its mind ; nor

i was pr.-pared

it had under-

n enquiry and

signatanes did

liaiiient. They

him what it

was only the

be talrcn ; and

)use ? Let me

ted Ministers,

-what ? Why,

What said the

e permitted to

to this request

, of course, to

rile and disin-

jellency to say

that this was

al — the great

these, Sir, are

ies in the way

>E, They are

a convenient

uld be pro8i'-

ice even to the

hiuld hjve

thought that )• long time. The middle of ()(;t<>l)tr he nunictl iw the (teriixl
for the new session, to which tlie fiiitii of the Crown is pledfjed ; and
hail a proposal for adjournment been made, I am able confidently to atfinn thi»t
no objection would have been rnised. Those who urr nHpoiisiblf for the iiianugemerit of
the Opposition in I'arliamcut, f<'lt it thfir duty on this oiciision to ussenible early at the
capital, and calmly to tleliberate and take counsel together aa to their course under various
contingencies. They thought from the liniguage of the Ministers im ' their organs, that
the absence of Ministerialists would be alleged us reml'Tiiig it unfair to proceed at once
with business, and the unanimous det^isiun arrived at was, that while they .'ilt Mini.sters
had disregarded their obvious <luty in not having their supporters there, and being ready to
proceed, they shouhl not stund uiu.ii that for an instant, but should say, " Throwing ujon
you the responsibility of sending back to tht homes one huadred and thirty members, we
agree to your proposal for an adjounmient, ,,,id leave you to name the day when we .diall
meet in order to resume the discussion of tliis question. ' That vould have b(!en the attitude
of the Opposition upon the i>oint of ailjournmcut. His Kx(ellcn<y hHS.«aid that the question
before him was one of very gnat dilK<ulty and embarrassment. Wliere the chief of the State
80 expresses himself, and where there is not, as here there ia not, the slightest impr.tation
of jiiirtizanship or of designed leaning to either side, I agree that his lecision is to be can-
vassed with tenderness and respect ; but. Sir, while that is the duty w<! owe to the Chief of
the State, to the State herself we owe a higher duty still. And while I declined on a
former occasion — at the time when the determination of His Kxcellency was made known —
to s.iy a single word upon that subject, confining myself then to what is the main and sub-
stantial issue here, the advice given by his Miuister.s, upon which he acted, and for which
they are responsible, 1 do not feel at liberty to let this occasion pass without saying a woffl
or two upon what my reading of ♦he Constitution would leatl me to believe was the ti-ue
duty of His Excellency in such a crisis. My bcjief is that the spirit of the Constitution,
properly inter^iretei' would have led him to say to his Ministers, "As your suppoiters are
not here, ask for an adjournment ; if you please, I will do that which ia not without prece-
dent, I will send down a mes.sagc requesting an adjournment ; but either with or without a
message ask an adjournment. Take what time is necessary, name the earliest conve-
nient day, and if the House declines to accede to the request, then in order to place
you in the same position which you would occupy if an adi;>urnment had been
granted, I will give you a prorogation, and will call a new session for the day
named ; but further than this I decline to interfere with Parliament." My belief
is that this course would have given io Ministers every advantage in the way of
their followers being present, and to the absent member? every advantage in the way of
facilitating their attend:. mcc in Parliament, which the; course pursued has given, and
that it would have possessed these enormous advaniages, that Parliament would
be left undisturbed in the prosecution of the great (mquiry, that the cojimittee
would not be destroyed by the prorogation, and that the conduct of the case would not be
wrested from Parliament, in order to hand it ovor to others named by the accused. I have
every respect. Sir, for the doctrine that the Governor is as a rule to be guided by the advice
of his responsibk Ministers ; but therr can be no doubt that the prerogative of the Crown
may, and should, be exercised under certain circumstances against that advice. The coi:-
atitutional doctrine on some aspects of the cognate question of dissolution is well settled. A
Ministry defeated at an early period, in a House elected under its own auspices, hes no right
to another dissolution, and the constitutional rule is that advice to dissolve under such cii-
cumstances should be refused. (>u the ether hand, a Ministry formed out of a House which
haa been elected under the influence of the opposite party, is, as a general rule, entitled to
advise a dissolution, and such advice ought io be followed. I do not say you can find the
line 80 clearly IpJd down for the present case, but [ do say that on principle and nnalogv.

Mil. ULAKKS

Vitiated Counsels.

tills was a case for refusing the advice to prcnogue. Mark that it was upon tlie advice of
incriminated Ministers, against whom "the House of Commom had commenced a proeew),
which process was |)endiug ; of ii; jriininated Ministers, iigiiinst whom a case had been made,
which they themselves acknowledged requires explanation, that the Governor was asked to
take a step which would destroy the p'-cccss, which would nullify the proceedings, which
would deprive him of tha advice and counsel of his Parliam -nt, and leave him under th«
control, or the advice at any rate, of those Minist-Ts, upon a subject so materially affecting
their fortunes and their fame. Mark, too, that the couseipicnce of his refusing that advice
would be siiajdy this : he woukl have said to the Parliai}ieiit and the people, " Gentlemen,
I could not, under the circumstances, reverse the determination arrived at by the House of
<.^ommons, that a Committee of that House should prosecute this matter ; 1 could not,
under the circumstances, decline to be advised by my Parliament. I felt that it was a case
in which my Parliamant ought to decide what was to be done, and I have declined to be
advised to dismiss you. I could not hesitate wheh the choice was between my free Parlia-
ment id my inculpated Ministers. I have elected to take the responsibility — of what ? —
of kci ^ mg around me at this critical emergency the great Council of the na+ion ; and when'*'
an issue is pending between the Commons of Canada and my Ministe"s, of keeping intact the
l)ower of the Commons, and taking their advice as to the extent to which my Ministe:^ slialr
be allowed to interfere with the conduct of the enquiry. " Can you doubt what the answel
of the Parliament and the people of Canada— of any man with a spark of freedom and
l)atriotism in his bosom — would have leen to an appeal like that ? From one end to the
other of the Dominion, I venture to say it would have been affirmed that the
position was una.ssailable, that it was a just and proper use of the prerogative
to keep Parliament together, and to seek its advice in the emergency, and that
His Excellency should be sustained. That determination would have been entirely
in favor of popular rights, and the people would have joyfully recognized the use of the pre-
rogative in the people's lavor. Talk of the advice of responsible Ministers ! Sir, it is
absurd to apply these high sounding words to the m itter ou hand. On the plainest and
most ordinary principles, it is only in the case of overruling necessity, where there is no
other possible alternative, that the advice of any one, as mm •r Minister, is to be taken on
a ! atter in which his personal iuterests are at stake, and may obviously be opposed to the
interests of the State in whose name he professes to advise. Here there was no such over-
ruling necessity, there was a very obvious alt 'riiative. His Excellency had his choice te-
tweeu taking the advice of the Ministers and takuig tlic advice of the Commons. He
should have declared his Ministers incompetent to advise him in their own case t© dismiss
the Commons, and he should have resorted to the latter for jiat counsel which they would
have been prepared to give. Although my opiii.oii is, that the true spirit of the Constitu-
tion points to a conclusion opposite to that at which the Governor arrived, yet that, after
all, is not the main issue before u^, because His Excellenciy, by accepting the ailvice ten-
dered to him, has placed the responsibility of that advice u^ion his Ministers, and they
must bear that intolerable burden. And if it was, as His Excellency luis stated, a sciious
and embarrassing situation in which he stood, when he was called upon to decide whether
he should act under or against the advice of his Ministers, who can doubt what the situation
id of the Ministers who have so adviseu him— of thj Ministers who have ad'ised him to
disniss Parliament, to annul what Parliamt;.:t had done, i:ud to form for the prosecution of
this emjuiry new maidiincry — machinery of which Parliament had disapproved, and
which 1 h'^pe, believe, and tmst, at no di.stant day. Parliament will une<juivocally condemn.

Judging ThemselTes.

B it, sir, his Ministers advised his i^xcellency to go further ; they put in his mouth an
O(>inion on the i)resent state of the case upon the evidence already given, and I coniijiend it

SPEECH AT LONDON.

te those, few in number and insignificant in importance, who yet alfirm tliat there has been
no evidence to touch the Ministers at all. It is not a cheering expression of opinion, com-
ing from the lips of the accused ; it is not at all cheering when we consider that it is thf
judgment of those who aro themselve-i uj)on their trial. Listen to a few of the words : —
"The charges," His Excellency is advised to say, " require the most searching investiga-
tion ;" •'thecon-espondence has produced a painful impression upon the public mind ;" and
" certain documents have appeared in connection with these mutters of very grave signifi-
cance," in regard to which " the fullest explanations must be given." That is the state-
ment they have put into the mouth of His Excellency with regard to their present position.
" The fullest explanations must be given." Given by whom? Given by the men who
wrote them, and signed them, and are responsible for them ! 1 trust the day will shortly
come for the giving of these explanations ; I may not say I hope they will be, because I
know they amnot be, satisfactory. But Ministers add a saving clause. They say — "no
proof has yet been produced which necessaiily connects these papers with the culpable trans-
actions of wtiich it is asserted t'aey form a part, however objectionable they may appear in
juxtapcsitiou with the correspondence." That is the saving clause. It is perhaps not as
decided as tlie Ministers would have liked to make it, but dubious as it is, I object to it. I
declare that if the documents are genuine — and they appear to be admitted as genuine by
this State paper — they conclusively establish the guilt of the Ministers. They con-
clufliveiy establish that Ministers with one hand werj signing assurances for the giving
of this contract to Sir Hugh Allan, while they were signing with the other 1 and requisi-
tions for money to be paid by Sir Hugh, receiving that money, and distributing it to corrupt
the electors of this country. That is what is established by these documents, and I know
of no evidence which is required in order to bring the conviction to any honest, unpreju-
diced mind, that these transactions had a connection. I repel with indignation — I cannot
seriously argue — the absurd idea that while Ministers were bargaining with Sir Hugh Alliin
about the contract, the other transaction, whic(». was then going on, was entirely kept apart ;
that the right hand wa-s ignorant of what the left was doing. Now, sir, in order that we
may fairly estimate the enormity of the public crime which ha.s been committed in advising
prorogation, it will be useful to en([uire why it is that an impeachment, the proci.'dure with
which tliis enquiry is in cubstance identical, is not abated by a prorogation, or even a disso-
lution of Parliament, but stands in j ast the same position when Parliament resames as be-
fore the prorogation or dissolution of the House ? Why, it is for this reason, that the secu-
rity of the Crown and the security of the people alike demand that the prerogative of the
Crown should not include the poiver in any way to inlluence an impeachment. The rule and
its reasons were fully established ii) the course of the impeacliment of Warren Hastidgs,
and largely on the argument of William Pitt, who demonstrated th.at it was for the security
of the Crown, because otherwise the Crown might be advised by Ministers, against whom, or
against whose influential frieiids an impeachment was dei)ending, to make use of the preroga-
tive for the purpose of battling tiie process, a course which would result in the alienation of
th>! affections of the people, which constitute the secure foundation of tlie English throne. Just
because impeached Ministers would, when guilty, inevitably advise the Crown to prorogue or
dissolve, if the effect of such an act would be to abate their impeachment — ^jast because it
was impossible that under such circumstances the impeached Ministers could faithfully advise
the Crown, it was deterinined that their advice, if followed, should not be operative to

Reasons against Prorogation,
abate the impeachment ; and so tl\e Crown was rescued from a position of difficulty and
danger. The security of the people, too, required this limitation ; and for the same obvious
reason, namely, that the exercise of this prerogative by the Crown on the advice of impeached
Ministers would render it utterly impossible to bring great offenders against the State to
justice. Impunity produces crime ; and so the safety of the people and the security of tlie
3

MP BLAKK S

Crown were alike subserved by this limitation of the prerogative. Now the proceeding
against the Canadian Ministry is accepted on all hands to be substantially an impeachmeut ;
not technically so, it is true, in consenuence of the defects of the Constitution ; bat the
technical diflerence leaves untouched the gieat considerations of policy whicli \V( have been
discuHsing, and which apply to this proceeding. Let us apply them. They tea' h us that
the eni^uiry should not be broken up by a prorogation ; and as the Committee would he
disBolved by the prorogation, the result is necessarily that the prorogation should not hare
taken place. Every argument which is used against a prorogation abating an impeachment
in England, is an argument against proroguing in Canada, pending the enquiry, the result
being just that which is condemned in England. In England the prerogative is limited, s«
that it cannot do the mischief ; here it does ilie mischief, and therefore it ou^ht not be uaed.
There waj another reason for Parliament not being prorogued at that moment. Sir Hugh
Hugh Allan has been in England. He hau, ^e are told, made conditional arrangements by
which, under certain modifications of the Charter, he may be able to sell the Company's
bonds. We read in the Ministerial organs a fev days ago that there was a meeting of the
Pacific Railway Company at Ottawa with th-: view of arranging terms, and of submitting
them to the Government of the day. Mow I hope we all agree that, whatever be the fate of
the charges against the Government, or of i-he Government its If, Sir Hugh Allan must not
continue at the head of that enterprise. I trust no one will say that the man who has
brought-^whether his letters be true or false — the profoundest humilation on this country
choold be allowed to retain a position, tlie most important and influential whi«h exists in
the community. The President of this great Company, the controller of its enormous
interests, will occupy a position predominant in' this country for many yesrs, Sir ^lugh
has injured Canada more than I should have supposed a few months ago Canada coald be
injured by any one man. Wliat position do we occupy to-day in relation to the people ot
the United States ? We have been accustomed to pride ourselves on the comparative elevation
of Canadian morals, and the comparative purity of Canadian politics. We can do so no longer.
With these letters before us, we cannot refuse to believe that this man expended and found
persons to receive enonnous sutis for purposes which would not bear the light ; we are
a humilated people, and he is one of the chief authors of our shame. Under these circum-
stances, an important duty of Parliament was and will beat the earliest moment to see that
no further stipulations are entered into, and that no further arrangtments ar<* r^ade with
regard to the charter ; and yet for all we know, even now, the Government may be engaged
in further complicating our rights. Under all the circum.sta,nces I, for my part, can
attribute the prorogation of Parliament to nothing but the desperate view that the position
of the Government, b'.'ing the worst conceivable, it was in the turn of events that time
might mend it. But, of course, it was necessary to preserve some slight appearance of fair
dealing and to resort to some device which might appear to excuse the delay, and it was also
necessary' to with'lraw from Parliament, as far as posoible, the control of the enquiry, which
would only bedone by i)roviJing some other tribunal. It was not sufficient to have a Coiu-
rnittee of wiiich three out of five were selected by the Ministers ; it was necessary that every
single one][of the peibc ^\s who were to conduct the enquiry should be nominees of the Govern-
ment. So it was determined that a Royal Commission should be issued. Ministers knew
knew perfectly well ^that neither Mr. Dorion nor I could accept such a Commission, that
Parliament had refused to a.ssent to it ; they knew from the members' protest our public,
•ittitude ; they knev; from the beginning that it was impossible for the Opposition, without
violating the principles they had laid down, to recognize their tribunal. But it was thought
some cry could be raised and some feeble attempt made to keep up appearances, which might

Plausible Pretences.

be successful for a time. What was the presence ? There was but one pretence — the dis-
idlowance of the Oaths Bill. Now there have been pointed out several parlJameatary modes

SPEBCH AT LONDON.

by which the oatli may be adiniiiiatered. 1 Hb?A[ refer to one only, that which «,*■ the
moment commends itself most to my judgment. It is the proposal that an Act sliould be
passed authorizing certain named persons, members of the Committee or others, to
Administer on oath. This would, in fact, constitute a parliamentary a.s distinguished from
a Royal Commission. Many years ago, by such an Act in England, there wa.^ established a
Commission of Inquiry into alleged abuses in the navy. The Commissioners named in the
Act, which required them to examine witnesses on oath and to report to the L^peaker, made
that famous report which contained the charges upon which Henry Duadas, then Lord
Melyille, was dismissed from his office, removed from the Privy Council, and afterwards
impeached. So here is a precedent, and it is the one which seems most suitable for*
adoption, in order to secure the taking of the evidence under oath. Now, this plan alone,
leaving out all the others which are open to us, and assuming what I am not prepared to
admit, that the House of Commons has not itself the disputed power, disposes entirely of
the disingenuous argument that the Royal Commission was necessary to obtain the oath.
But this further observation is also to be made, that if a Royal Commission were the
enly course, there is no reason why it should not have been a Commission of members,
named by the House and issued on an address by the House. Tliat plan I do not myself
recommend, but there cau.be no doubt of its infinite superiority to the plan adopted of
defying Parliament, 'and refusing to take its advice altogether. Parliament might not have
acted wisely in passing such an address, but at any rate it could not complain that by acting
on the address the Crown had wrested from it any of its privileges. Besides, if the Ceylon
case were applicable, it is itself a precedent for a Commission upon address ; but oy no means
authorizes the Crown to take the affair into its own hands without any signification of the
will of the Commons. Under any circumstances, even supposing that the only alternative
was that the enquiry should take'place without the oath, the Hoi se shoidd clearly have had
the opportunity of decilling whether it would act by Committee or Commission, and should
have been spared the outrage inflicted upon it by t^ exercise of the prerogative. To the
Commons, from time immemorial, has belonged the right to institute, prosecute, and control
proceedings for the impeachment of Ministers and others charged with high offences against
tlie State, and for enquiry into charges affecting the honor and independence of own members.
Nobody denies this fundamental doctrine. It is one of the greatest securities for liberty
that the people's representatives, responsible directly to them, and liable to be by them
dismissed in case they tall in their duty, should have this exclusive right, and be charged
with this solemn responsibility, thus preventing those who act as advisers of the Crown
from giving that ill advice by which they and their friends may be sheltered from justice.
Let me trouble you with a short quotation wliicii very aptly enunciates the views expressed
by the House of Commons at a very early date, and retained by it to the present day.
Solicitor-General Lechmere, in 1715, on the impeachment of the rebel Lords, used this
language : — "The Commons of England would not permit the fate of those prosecutions to
depend on the care or skill of those who are versed in the ordinary fonns of justice. No
instance ever has arisen in English history, where our ancestors have permited a prose-
cution against the chief offender to be carried anywhere but in full Parliament. In justice
to the King, as well as io the people, we ought to take this into our own hands and not to
entrust it to any other body. It was the greatest ease, security and support of the Crown,
that no power should be lodged there to prevent the Commor i fro.m examining into the
offeree, or to defeat the judgment given in full Parliament. And he took it to be the
greatest advantage to the Crown that the Constitution of the Kingdom hud not, he thought,
invested it with such power ; and, on the other hand, such a pmver tras utterly uicmunstent
with the fuTularnental rights of Parliament." And mark this, that the fuller the
development of the doctrine of responsible Government the completer the control
by Ministers over the preiogative, the naiTower the discretion accorde<l to the chief
of the State independently of his Ministers, the more apparent becomes the

MR, BLARES

necessity of treating aa an exception to the general nile an occasion when the persona]
])o.sition of the Minister conflicts with the public interest, and renders him incompetent to
frivii disinterested advice. The prerogative of the Crown is now said to be the property of
the Minister — the projjerty of the iminipeached Minister perliaps, but surely not the instru-
ment vheieby the impeached Ministers is to thwart justice, and to violate the fundamental
right, of the Commons to control enquiry into such high offences. Sir, the interference of
any other court of justice in the land with the high court of Parliament, even though that
other court be established by Act of Parliament, is weli settled to be a "a high contempt, ''
Parliament has got, and Parliament must be allows to keep, undisturlied hold of the great

Unparalleled Audacity.

cause. For the accused Ministers, while Parliament is actually engaged in the prosecution
of the cause, to turn it out of doors, in order that the trial may cease, and then, forsooth, to
say Parliament can do no more, the Committee is dissolved, there is an end of the investt-
gation, we have no alternative now but to take the control into our own hands — was ever
such a spectacle presented since English history began ? No, Sir, I defy those who search
even into the dark ages, unless perhaps they look to the evil days which preceded the great
rebellion, I defy them to find anything approaching the audacity of this procedure of
Ministers in breaking up their trial, while actually progressing in the proper form, and
on the same day creating a tribunal to suit themselves for their own prosecution. The
appointment of this Commission is a high contempt of Parliament, and you are not to
listen to those who tell you that the privileges and rights of Parliament are not im-
portant to you. The privileges of Parliament are the privileges of the people and the
rights of Parliament are the rights of the people. It is for those rights and in those interests
alone that we strive to-day. We are not separate from you ; from you we springy
to you we return ; in your interests and your name alone we speak and act, and it
is for your rights that we are now contending. Besides being such a breach
of the privileges of Parliament in the general, this Commissior i . a gross and
and glaring bre?vch in the particular of its most important privilege — the freedom of speech,
and of debates and proceedings in the House. Sir, who is there that does not know that
freedom of speech is liberty ? Not the greatest security for liberty — it is liberty itself.
Freedom of .speecii ! — give me freedom of speech for a people and I will undertake that this
freedom shall secure for them every other freedom — freedom of life, freedom of person, and
freedom of property. It is by virtue of that right, not yet — thank Ood ! — annulled in
Canada, that I am here to-night and, it is by virtue of that privilege that I expect when
Parliame.it meets again that we shall stand approved before the people and the
people's i'epresentatives. Sir, this charge was made by my honorable friend in his
capacity as a representative of the people on the floor of the House of Commons, admittedly
in the proper place, and in proper language, and followed by the proper motion. That
language of his, that resolution of his, that proceeding of his, is not, and cannot be cog-
nizable in any other court or place in this country. "We can discuss it at public meetings,
we can invoke public opinion upon it, but no tri})unal in Canada already in existence, or
which can be devised by the Crown, has the right to enquire into the matter, or to investi-
gate whether the charge be true or false. The very instant the contrary is determined, that
very instant the British Constitution is changed — that very instant the security that you
have for liberty is gone ; because this security depends upon the absolute immunity of the
people's representatives from discussion by any tribunal outside of Parliament of any words
by them spoken in Parliament. Sir, in the hey-day of freedom will you abandon the
securities for liberty? If you do, 1 know not how son you may fall upon evil days in
which, deprived of those securities, your liberty may be taken from you. I say to you that,
at this instant, by the unconstitutional acts of the present Administration, the Government
of this country has been seized ^into their hands ; that at this moment, by their act of

SPEECH AX LONDON.

prorogation, they have substituted an uihitruiy uud tyraunieiil Government by the Cabinet,
Jor the Parliamentary a:id popular Government whii.h we have hitherto enjoyed. Let us
not forget the history of the past ; let us not forget what lias been said, and done, and
sufl'ered in order to secure for you the liberty which the Commission impeaihes. Look at
its lanj^uage. It recites that Lucius Setli Huntington, a memlier of Parliament, in his place
iu the House made certain charges against Aliuisters, and mo/ed for a Committee — that the
Crown has appointed Commissioners to e»([uire into and take evidence, and report their
opinions upon the charges so made, and forthwith these Commissioners proceed to write to
the member of Parliament who, in the discharge of his duty, had taken this stand, telling Mm
tliat they, forsooth, had been autnorized to entiuire into it, and calling upon him to give a
list of his witnesses, and v.o appear before them at tl:o time and place they appoint — dese.
crating Ijy that appointment the people's House — there to answer and there to make good
his charge. I .see in the Ministerial print; that in elfect he is upon hi^ defence,
and thpt the (question really to be investigated is how iu the world these honest and
honorable transactions — which all thesi- Ministerial gentlemen are so glad came to
light — did come to light ? The (jUestion is, wlio got the letti'is, who got the telegrams, and
how iu tilt world did so much hidden virtue see tlie day .' Well, sir, let us refer to one ex-

Slr John Eliot.

ample in English history. One of the noblest, 1 will not say the noblest, for there are so'
many noble men in Engli.sh h'story, but one of the nobhist of them all, was Sir John Eliot.
He was the leader of the populai' party iu Parliament iii the evil days of the tivst Charles.
He alleged in Parliament that the Council and J udges liad conspired to trample under foot
the liberties of the subject. This charge, in general terms, another member of Parliament
has recently made. It is the essence of tht! charge made by Mr. Huntington lately, that
the liberties of the subject had been conspired against f.nd trampled imder foot by Ministers.
Well, Sir, Parliament was dissolved, and after dissolution an information was laid in the
King's Bench by the King's Attorney-General againut this man for the charge so made. He
pleaded to the jurisdiction, alleging that in Parliaiuent alone could his words be noticed ;
and to show you that I do not over-estimate the ini] ortance of the (question, ht me recall the
words in which the great historian, Hallani, desi;ribes the issue : — "This brought forward,
nays Hallam, " the great question of privilege, on which the power of the House of Commons,
and consequently the character of the EiujlWi CoimtitiUion, seemed evidently to depend."
The character of the English Constitution evidently depended upon the question whether a
eharge made by a member in Parliament could be taken cognizance of by any other Court.
Well, the King's judges decided for the King, and ordered that Sir John Eliot should pay a
fine of £2,000, and be confined in prison until he made his submission to the King. He
; who had occupied tne highest positions, who was the leader of the poj'ular party iu Parlia
ment, and tilled the important post of Vice Admiral, was imprisoned L. the Tower. At any
moment, on making his humble submission, he would have been released by the King.
Had a Parliament been called, he would have been released by Parliament. In those bad
days Parliament was not annually convoked, and was sometimes also very suddenly pro-
rogued, and so, unable to ask redress from the people, or to obtaiii justici- from the Crown,
he lingered in the gaol. Let me read to you some affecting words in which, during that
jlose confinement which was wearing out his life, he describes to you his sufferings; — "To
'• be made poor and naked ; to be imprisoned and restrained ; nay, not to be at all ; not to
" have the proper use of a^j'thing ; not to have the knowledge of society ; not to have
" being or existence ; his faculties confiscated ; his friends debarred liis presence ; himself
" deprived the world ; I will not tell you all this, su'.fered in your service, for you, your
" children, and posterity, to preserve your rights and liberties, tliat as they were the in-
* heritance of your fathers, from you they migiit descend to your sons." Towards the end of
his life he wrote tliese lines to the famous .John Hampden : —

S'2

MR. BIjAKRS

; i

" My Iwlgings arn removed, and I am now whore candlelight may bo suffered, bnt
scarce fire. I hope you will think thtat this exchange of places makes not a change oj
mind. The sarae protection is still with me, and the same confidence, and these things
can have end by Him that gives them being. None but my sei-vants, hardly my sons, have
admittance to me. My friends I must desire for their own sakes to forbear coming to the
Tower."

A Suffering Patriot.

He was in the prime of lif(% not yet 41 years old, but the close confinement brought
on consumption. His physicians advised that to remain was death, and that to be enlarged
for a time was probably life. He sent in a petition to the King, stating what his physician
advised, and requesting enlargement. The King answered that it was not htimble enough.
He then sent a second petition. It is short, let me read it : — " Sir, 1 am heartily sorry I
have displeased your Majesty, and having so said do humbly beseech you, once again, to set
me at liberty, that when I 'lave recovered again I may return back to mv prison, there to
undergo such ])unishment as God hath allotted to me, " He was told that it was not humVde
enough. He did not }»etition again. Being very near his end, he caused a picture to be
made of his attenuated form, and directed it to be hung upon the walls at Port Eliot, in
order that it might be prcsei-vcd in his family " as a perpetual memorial of his hatred of
tyranny," and there it still hang.s beside another one of the great leader of the Commons,
taken shortly before iu the pride of his strength and vigor. The contrast is one of the
most afi"ecting spectacles which any man can witness. Soon after, of that imprisonment, he
(lied. His son humbly petitioned that he might have his body to be buried in his Cornish
home. The ruthless King replied, " Let the body of Sir John Eliot be buried in the church
of that parish wherein he died," and he was buried in the Tower. No stone marks his
grave, but it has been well said that " while freedom siibsists in England he will not want
a montunent. " When next the necessities of the King drove him to call a Parliament, one
of the first acts of the Commons was to declare the judgment against Eliot illegal, and a
high breach of the privileges of Parliament. Subsequently, that judgment was brought up
in the House of Lords, and was by them, as the Supreme Court of Judicature, reversed an
illegal and void ; and at a later date, at the day of the re-settlement of the British
Constitxition in our present charter, the Bill of Rights, an express declaration was inserted
in these words. " that the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings iu Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or ))lace out of Parliament." That solemn
declaration had been affirmed by many precedents ; it was sanctified by that martyr's blood,
and it is this privilef,e and right, the violation of which you are now called upon to sanc-
tion or condemn. Are we the worthy sons of such sires as these ? Have we brought to this
side of the world the true notions of English liberty, or are we in these pali ' days of
freedom to forget what were the trials, what the expenditure of time and pains, of blood
and treasure, by which our ancestors secured those jewels which we are now told are trifles
to be flung away? Sir, I recall to you the position in those days of old London, the city
after which yours is named. During those troublous times, when the King tried to arrest
the five members, Parliament wuh practically turned out of its house by the advent of the
King in person to seek the objects of his wrath. Then the city of London was found to be
the guardian and protector of the peoples' liberties. In the ancient City Hall, Parliament
assembled and deliberated under the guard of the city trainbands. Thus old London bore
a prominent pai-t in making that struggle a successful one, and I believe that as you have
brought to this land the name, so you will preserve the traditions of that famous city, and
that you will be amongst the foremost to rise up against the infamous attempt which has in

Parliamentary Security Violated.

these latter days been made to violate your sacred rights. Sir, I do not pretend for a mo-
ment that these Royal Commissioners design to punish, or could punish Mr. Huntington

SPEECH AT LONDON.

tor the words ha uttered in Parliament, but I point out to you that the principle upon
T\hich the Commission is issued is utterly incompatible with his security, or that of any
other of your representatives. The principle violated by the Commission is that no tribunal
can be constituted which shall take any cognizance, whicli shall know aught of what trans-
pires in Parliament, that the House alone can deal with what its members say. If you
allow the violation of that principle by the creation of a tribunal permitte I, nay required,
to take sucli cognizance, liow shall you fall back on the old and sacred nile, when the dark
days come, as come they .surely will, if you permit the jewels of libertj' to be wrested from
you ? But the Commission is, upon other grounds, in my judgment, illegal and void. In
the first place it is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice, that either the accu-
sers or the accused should have the creation or control of the tribunal which is to do any
material thing in the ti^al. That commends itself to every man. Everyone feels that it
would be monstrous that he should himself be tried, or that anytliing important with ref-
erence to his trial, .should be done by a body of men all chosen by his accusers. Which of
U.S, in any private contention, would agree that the other party should name the persons
who were to take and rejiort on the evidence ? Would not each of ns say, '• No, it is an
unfair advantage ; let us agree ; let one of us name one ]>arty, and the other name another,
and let us or ^they agree upon a third. I cannot consent that either of us should
have the exclusive nomination of the persons who are to perform such an important duty."
But it is said *".iat this is not a material thing ; it is said, to be .simply a recording of evi-
dence. Do not be led away by any sueh fallacy as that. I tell you that the questions which
will arise before the tribunal, however and whenever constituted, as to the limitations of
this enquiry, as to the order in which the witnesses shall be called, as to the mode in
which they shall be examined, as to the character of the an.swers which shall be accepted
as satisfactory, are of the essence of the great cause. I tell you, so strong is my con-
viction on this point, that I decided if the Committee, of which I was a member, had
been turned by the House into a close Committee, so that I should not have had the protec-
tion of public opinion and the light of day, to decline to sit upon it an hour longer. That
was not because publicity alone would be a sufficient protection, but because it would be a
partial guard, at any rate, against extreme injustice being done by the majority to the min-
ority. If there was that risk of injustice with the Committee, where both sides were re-
presented, though unequally, has the risk ceased with the Commission, which represents
one side alone ? Why, Sir, the whole foundation of our system of justice is subverted : the
,inry system is subverted ; and the right of challenge is destroyed by allowing one of the
parties to name the persons who shall be judges of the fact and of the law ! What rejison,
what justice is there in it ? Does it not shock every honest mind that one of the parties to
the cause .should have the power of appointing the Commission charged with the trial and
judgment of the cause ? The Commission is given the same powers as were proposed to the
Committee. We were told, while that Committee was going on, fhat we had most important
powers, that we were the judges, that some of us were utterly untit to sit there, and could
not do OTjr duty because we were anxious to get office, forsooth ! We were not told, however,
that the chairman was imfit because — because he had happened to receive some of the
money ; but that was not generally known just then. However, Sir, those men who
criticised our position as Committee men, asserted that our duty was very important, and by
necessary consequence must admit that the duty of the Commis.sion is equally inii)ortant.
Now, Sir, there is yet more — this Commission is authorised to report its opinions upon this
matter, and the Commissioners themselves in the Chairman's letter to Mr. Huntingti^n, have
expressly stated that they are " to enquire into and report upon the matters stated in Inn

WUtewasliiiig Wanted.

resolution." The obvious design is to obtain a whitewashing report from this Commission,
and after^rards to call together Parliament and say to it, "Thue gentlemen heard the

MR. BLAKI'S

evidence ; they saw the witnesses, and knew exactly what degree of credibility was to be
attached to each ; you did not see them, and you could not judge who told tl<c truth. Will
you not accept their opinion ? Who so qualified to judge as the persons who heard the
•vidence ?" These are the arguments that will be addressed to the House. I fully recognize
the advantage to the judges of being present when the enquiry is going on. I always
argued that it should be conducted while Parliament was sitting, so that members could
see and hear tlie witnesses, and, for my part, I decline to accei)t a Commission which the
accuwd has appointed, which is itself to determine the limits of the enc^uiry, to decide on
the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and to report on the truth or
falsehood of the charges. Remember again, that thosewho talk so much to you about oaths and
the superiority of judges over a Parliamentary Committee, lose sight of the fact that, while the
Constitution provides a security that the judge shall do fairly his judicial work, in that he is
sworn to do it honestly an i fearlessly without fii\ i.>r or partiality, those gentlemen who
comprise this Commission — ^two of whom are judges, and tlie other an ex -judge — are of
course unsworn in this investigaticm, to which their oaths of office do not in the slightest
degree apply ; and therefore that alleged security of a judicial tribunal is not given,
since the men who have to try, though some of them happen to be judges in another
capacity, are not in this one sworn judges. I do not attach too much importance to that.
The Committee was not sworn, the new Committee may be unsworn ; but when you are
called u|ion to contrast the position of the Committee with the superiority of the judicial
character, and the sacredncss of the judicial obligation, it is well to remember that the safe-
guard which the law declares to be necessary in judicial tribunals does not extend to this

The Conunlasion UnconstltutionaL

particular tribunal. Again, this Commission is not within the reason of Royal Commissions
at all. Such Commisdons are issued in order to inform the Government of the day upon
matters of which they are ignorant — to make encj^uiries into things of which the Goternment
is unaware, in order that they may be the better able to determine what the public interest
requires in matters of administration. That is the legitimate object of such Commissions,
but in this matter who can say that the minds of Ministers require to be informed ? It is the
public mind that requires to be informed by Ministers themselves. They know ; we are
ignorant. They destroy the machinery we had provided in order that we might inform our-
selves, and they appoint a Commission that they may find out what they knew already. Sir,
this Commission is entirely without warrant, either of the common or the statute law. The
great master of the English law. Sir Edward Coke, laid down that, " a Commission is a
delegation by warrant of an Act of Parliament or of the common law, whereby jurisdiction,
power, o'r authority is transferred to another court. All Commissions of new invention are
against law till they have allowance by Act of Parliament." This is, in effect, a Com-
mission to enquire into crimes and offences committed by particular persons, and which,
if Parliament chooses, can be dealt with by the courts ; for the offence charged is a misde-
meanor, punishable by the law. Now, sir, commissions of this character have been adjudged
illegal, because they interfere with the ordinary course of justice, which is one of the greatest
securities of the people. It is your security and mine that there is a general standing law
providing the machinery for bring to trial all offenders against the other laws of the land, and
it is of tlie utmost consequence that there should be no quuestioning of offences cognizable
by the courts, except under the authority of the general law and by the tribunal constituted
for the trial of all such offences. Remember, what is done by Ministers to-day in respect of
themselves they may do to-moifow in respect of you Remember that the Commission
now issued to enquire into these charges against Ministers is a warrant for the issue in
future ot Commissions to enquire into offences against the law alleged against yourselves,
and that you may be called, out of the ordinary course of law, before a Court of Inquiry
created by the exercise of the prerogative alone ; that a robbery of the mails, for in«

■

A #

SPEECH AT LONDON.

3f>

•tanoe, may be tried by a (!.'oinmiiBion iuBtead of the regular courts of law. The Mcurity
uf the subject is, therefore, grievously impaired by the issue of this I'ommission. But
it is said that the recent Act authorized its issue. Not so. The Act, in the first place,
is framed not to anthoiize the issue of a Commission, but to provide that when the (iov.
ernment, in the exercise of the prerogative, chooses to issue a ''ommission it may confer
powers as to Oaths on the Oommissioaers. The Act leaves the issue of the C'ommissiou
to the prerogative. Again, the general language of the Act, can never be extended to
subvert fundamental laws and principles, such as I have referred to— namely, that the
accused shall not nominate the tribunal ; that offences against the law, cognizable by the
courts, shall not be taken hold of by any tribunal cieated out of the ordinary course ;
that Commissions are only issued to inform Ministers on matters about which they re-
quire information, and that Commissions are not issuud to try or interfere with State
offences or questions raised iu and belonging to the Uoase of Commons. I have very
shortly stated what, of course, is a dry legal question, but one which the intelligent peo-
pie of this couniiry must, to some extent consider, inasmuch as the rights of every man
amongst us depend upon the true apprehension of the principles to which I have referred.
Then there are certain grave inconveniences connected with this Commission Wit-
nesses are entitled to refuse to answer criminating questions. The Commons have the
right, I believe, to compel such answers. At any rate, provision may be made for that ;
but since by this Act witnesses may refuse to say anything that tends lo criminate
them, and since the offence charged is a criminal off'ence, it is competent for the chief
actors to decline before this Commission to answer many most material questions. There
are, indeed, many other objections to which for want of time 1 shall not refer. 1 am ex-
tremely averse to discussing the personnel of the Commission. It is always disagreeable
to say anything aga'nst those who are practically precluded from mrkinga puolic answer,
and upon the whole I have determined at present to say only that I am unable to ac-
quiesce in the proposition that the Government having undertaken the invidious task of
naming their triers, have ohoaea men in whose decision the country can or ought to con-
fide. Some other day I may feel called on further to discuss this topic ; I abstain at
present, only adding that it was not in human nature that the accused should, if guilty,
act diff'erently in the choice of their judges. Upon the \«hole, sir, I believe that my fel-
low members and myself who signed that representation to his Excellency, and announced
our view that intense dissatisfaction would be created if parliament were prorogued
without allowing it to provide machinery for the prosecution of the enquiry, must stand
by each other in defence of the Constitution. We must take the judgment of Parlia-
ment and the country upon the quebtion, and therefore we must bide our time until

Parliament to Maet Early.
Parliament meets. An early meeting, you are aware, is promised. For that early meet-
ing the faith of the Crown is pledged, and at that meeting we shall assert the princi-
ples which I have been endeavoring feebly to expound this night. We shall say what
we should have said earlier had the opportunity been given us to criticise the proposal
before the act was committed, and we shall look to the people to sustain us in fighting
the people's battle Am I heard, or shall my utterances be read by any man who calls
himself Conservative? Let me ask him to step to the front with me to comer re the
Constitution, to conserve those ancient principles of British liberty which he can agree
with me are not newfangled, but are as venerable as they are just. Is it for anyone who
calls himself a Conservative ..o sanction, er to do ought bat condemn this new and dan-
gerous course, sweeping away every well settled principle upon which the Constitution
rests ? I want to know what is his function in this country, if it be not to stand up for
those good things which are established. Sometimes, I regret to say, it is deemed cause
enough to stand up for an evil thing because it is established ; and assuredly I hope to

MR. nLAKE'8

! ,

have the aupport of many ConB«rtrativea iu the maintenance of th eatabihhed good.
Yoa may be told we are trifling ; that although theie prinoiples are andeniable, and
theae privilegeu unquestionable, we are not to sorutinize the mcuQa, because the end is
good. You may be asked to adopt the degrading doctrine, that " the end juatifies the
meana. " You may be asked to say that because the object 1<< inv oatigation, which all
desire, therefore you should entirely overlook the means. And yet thesb gentlemen who
tell yoa that, with the same breath are prepar-^d to denounce my friend Mr. Huntington
beoaase they suspect that ia the attainment of that go id end. the truth, he has used some
unjuatiAable means in getting evidence! But it is said the matter is a triding one. Were
not the few shillings of ship-money levied on John Kampdcn a triBe? It would have
been better, these time servers and followers of expedieacy will tell you, for him to have
paid the twenty ahiUiogs than to be vexed and harrafcscd with suits, and yet upon that
trifling issue were staked the liberties of England ! And hia name is hold in
everlasting remembrance by all worthy sons of 'England, because he refused to
pay that trifling sum, and put fortune, fame, life itself to the issue rather than desert
what was his country's cause. Was it not a trifling matter to Sir John Eliot that he
ebeuld write a humble letter to the King, sayicg, "I submit myself." Seeing that
Parliament had been dissolved, that the evil had been done, that whatever was wrong and
tyrannical had been accomplished, was it a very important matter that he should say, " 1
regret my error," and so escape for a season, biding the good time when Parliament
should be called again ? Time servers would tell you Sir John Eliot ought to have so
acted. They would belittle the martyr's fame ; they would say his suff'erings should fall
upon his own stubborn head, that sympathy foi him was entirely misplaced, that there was
eomething utterly absurd in the man not jdelding for the time and waiting until Parliament
should redress his wrong. No, Sir ; no. Sir ; these are doctrines we cannot afford to hear
broached without denouncing them. We cannot permit the most trifling encroachment
upon principles, the inviolable preservation of which is our only security for liberty. Let
us agree that no object can justify our parting with the least of the securities of lilierty
Let ns agree that there is, as all history teaches, danger, the greatest danger, in an evil
precedent. I have seen it in my own brief experience. I never saw a bad Act of Parliament
passed but that it was urged, and often successfully, as a precedent for a very much worse
act next session. Such is the invariable result. Give the precedent, and it is always
stretched and stretched In the wrong direction. The trifle of to-day becomes the monster
of to-morrow. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand in the morning may become by
ni^ht a deluge sweeping away the very landmarks of freedom. And let me say that you but
ill repay the sufferings which that noble man, a part of whose story I have told, endured for
yon and your children, as he tells in the letter which I could not read, nor you hear without
emotion, wnen you permit one jot or one tittle of the sacred principles which his blood has
sanctified, which his martyrdom has enshrined, and which form to-day the comer stone of
British liberty, to be impugned or infringed by even the highest and mightiest with the
best and purest intentions, far, far less by incriminated Ministers, seeking through stratagem
to escape from justice ! No situation is so secure but that the people's negligence may
make it dangerous. No situation is so desperate but that the people's vigilance may work
out their salvation. Upon that vigilance depends the preservation of your liberties to-day.
That vigilance I expect you to exercise. Awake, then, to the magnitude of the issue. The
feeling of the people will be the feeling of Parliament next session. Wliat you, what the
intelligent people of Canada .shall have determined in the meetings out of Parliament, is
what Parliament itself will shortly do. Awake, I say again, to the issue ! Let your voice
and weight be'felt. By one stern lesson teach a corrupt and audacious Ministry that th :y
may not, unpunished, trifle with your dearest rights ; and plant once more on fonndation^i
broad and deep, on the foundations of public virtue and constitutional liberty, the fair fabric
<whieh your rulert are now shaking to its base.

SPRECH IN TIIK HOUSE OF COMMONS.

NUMBEB THREE.

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,

ON 3» AND 4th NOV., 1878, IN KEPLY TO SIR JOHN A. MACDONAI.D.

Ottawa, Nov. 3.
The honorable gentleman who hat juHt addreflscd the HoiiHe for more than five hourn,
has in a long professional and Parliamentary experience learned how hest to conduct a
weak case. When the logic and the facts of the case are with him, when he is on the side
of honesty and right, no man knows better than himself the importance of marshalling all
the facts in their order, of abandoning all irrelveant topics, of putting »11 else aside, and
of confining the House closely to the question whi^h is for its decision; and no man is
better aware than himself that when the case is diiierent, as this is. when it is of such a
character that it cannot bear investigation and argument failii, the only course open is to
reverse tl\at mode of procedure, to confuse the aigument. to bring in irrelevant and side
issues, to tonch a tender part now for a moment, then pass away from it, and revert to it
again, with no conneoted strain, with no attempt at a perspicuous ant) plain state-
ment, no attempt to demonstrate that which is impossible of demonstration, but with
ample use of that other artifice which at the close of a long career, copyinir from his
early professional experience, ho has brought into prominence to-night, namely, to abuse
the other side. Sir, the interests which are at stake on this o(!casion are too momen-
tous, the circumstances are too grave to permit us for one moment to waste oar time
by any discussion which is not fairly relevant to these matters, by any assertions which are
not for the immediate determination of this House. As to t1i<> concluding words of the hon.
gentleman, as to those things upon which he said he now threw himself for judgment — the
feeling and intelligent decision of the Houst>, of the country, and of posterity, and last and
highest, on that mens conseia recti which he says he possesnes, my short answer is this : that
when the hon. gentleman was called upon to vindicate before the people his policy ; when
he was called upon by reason and argument to sustain hi.s course, and to prove his title to
the confidence of his country, it was not to these high and elevating sentiments he appealed;
it was not upon the intelligent judgment of the people be relied, but it was upon Sir Hugh
Allan's noney, obtained by the sale of those rights of the Canadian people, which he held
in trust. That was the influence which he then used to sway the public mind. What have

No Irreleyant Issues.

we to do in this great discussion with the question whether a letter has been stolen, whether
a telegram has been bought, whether McMullen soldor gave the letters of Sir Hugh Allan?
Have these considerations anything to do with the question whether the hon.
gentleman acted in a manner unworthy of his position, and betrayed the trust
confided ,to him? These suggestions of bis are interpolated into this debate
most unfairly, and unjustly, and they are excusable only from the pitiable con-
dition in which the hon. gentleman this night stands. But for that pitiable condition,
unscnipulous as he has always shown himself in debate, I believe that even he
would have abstained from resorting to these arguments. If the hon. gentleman has anf
charge to make against any member of the House, of having been guilty of acts unworthy
of a member of this House, I suppose that at the proper time he will formulate that charge. I
do notdonbt that this House will be disposed to deal with that charge, and I do not doubt
that even-banded justice will be meted out to any man whom he may establish to have
acted in » manner unworthy of a member of this House ; but what have we to do to-night
with the question whether the hon. gentleman will, or will not formulate such charges, or
ean, or oanaot establish them ? We are dealing to-night with men whom we impeach, not

Mil. liL^KKH

iuer(«1y ao accu8e(l.|hut ns eHtablinhed criminuiH. And it Is the pica of the priHODer ttt ibu bai .
that hiH accuser huH been guilty of somo other crime, a pleu which he Hays he ctUi prove
•ome'otht^r time it' you acquit hliii now oi the cliurgt against hiniHolf! L>t him, or thot<>
who uucceed him in Parliament, at Home future time, as Hoon aH he pleaHeH after thet«e
uhargee h'lve been dlsipoHed of, redeem bis pledgeM thiH night given, and put thexe mattcrtt,
or Buch of tht'm as may be deemed proper, to trial, but h^t this controversy be disembar-
raiwed of them. Whatever be the fate of his charges, they cannot effect one vote to be
given to-night. They cannot et!e(!t the consideration of that question which my hon. friend
from Lambton has tendered for the judgment of this House, and which it is proposed to
supersede by the amendment of the hon. member tor Pictou. The question is, compara-
tively speaking, a short, and s'knple one. I thought, till I heard the hon. gentleman's
speech, that it was large enough -that it embraced topics which might well be the subject
matter of a considerable lunouut of discussion; but it is short, simple, and contracted
within narrow limits, when you compare it with the vast range ofirrelevunt topics which

Feints at iBBue.
the hon. gentleman lias chosen to bring into the diecusuion. What 'are the two ponits
really in isaue ? First, whether the conduct of the Government, in the course of the in-
vestigation, merits the censure of the House ; and. secondly, whether the conduct of the
Qovemment. a* disclosed in the evideme, merits the censure of the House. What have
we to do with the cries which tlie hon. gentleman Bays we raised against him ? What
have we to do with the question of the Nova Scotia subsidy ? What have wo to do with
the question of the Washington Treaty ? What liave we to do with the question of the
Manitoba Act, or with the attitude of the Opposition at the period of the union of British
Columbia, upon the subject of the Pacific Kailway ? These matters do in no wise assist
the House to come to the conclusions to which the hon. gentleman invites it to oome, on
the issues joined between him and his accusers. The honourable gentleman commenced
his speech by an allusion to the question of the prorogation ; and he alleged that the
prerogative and the will of the people could no longer be opposed to each
other ; that the prerogative was a part of the liberty of the people ; and he
insisted that the question of constitutionality could not subsist for a <noment.
Whatever opinion I hold as to the duty of His Excellency under the advice tendered
to him, that question is not raised in this debate. I limit myself to what is raised in the de-
bate, and that is the action of His Excellency's Ministers, the advice they tendered and the
course they pursued. It is all very well to tell us that the prerogative is of less importance than it
once was. It is all very well to tell us it can no longer accomplish, in the hands of the
Crown, what once it could accomplish. lUit it makes no difference to a free people whether
their rights be invaded by the Crown, or by the Cabinet. What is material to them is to
know that their rights are not invaded from any quarter, to secure them against invasion
from all quarters, and to guard against that new danger of increased, and increasing power
of the executive, which presents itself in these modern days. This is no fantasy o| mine.
You will find the best writers upon constitutional topics referring to the subject Yon
will find that most fair, and impartial, and candid writer, Hallam, adverting to the danger
0. the increase, by insidious degrees, of the executive power of the Cabinet, and to the
duty of the people to guard against that increase. It is very well to say to the people
they are all-powerful, b..^ if we hand over to the Cabinet powers — inordinate powers, not
susceptible of being ';v,)' under proper control — we may be deprived of that very ezpres-

The Prerogative Abused,
sion cf popular will which is necessary in order to popular Goverameat. Tho
hon. gentleman says the prerogative, under the advice of responsible Ministers,
can never be used against the p'^ople. We allege that the prerogative undex- the
advice of Ministers ?uts been used against the people. We allege that it has been used vi

8PBB0H IN THE UOUSK OF COMMONS.

trder to prevent the action of the peopleV rppre«entatlve«. We nllojfo that It hnn
bten uHod in ordor to withdraw from the cognizance of tboM) representatives the great cause
which wtih ppndi'fg between the government and their acciiHem. We uliego that in thin
very cane you And an inntanceof theevil which the hon. gentlenan ridiculen ana fantaft;
of the imagination, and full proof of the neceHsity of prenerving all the forms and principles
of the OonsUtution. every security for free government, and every right of the peoplo which
our ancestorn have tianded down to ns. Sir, the most dangerous dor-trine to which a Par-
liament can assent, is the doctrine that it should pan with some portion of its ancient
liberties, immunities, and privileges. We ought to be most jealous with reference to each
one of these. We oug t to flhd not merely that there does not exist some present obvious
danger from the ab-ndonment, but also, that Uieir exists no possibility of future danger
from their abandonment. And even if we cannot s«e at the moment any such danger, we
must find some preponderating cause for our action before we give up one of those safe-
guards which have been handed down to us, and which it is our duty to transmit unim-
paired to posterity. The hon. gentleman has argued this question of the prorogation
historically; he haa told us that a formal announcement of prorogation vra» made as from the
Grown. I did not understand any such announcement. No such announcement was in
words made. I have heard the hon. gentleman announce the intentions of the Grown be-
fore to-day upon such topics. I have heard him announce what his advice to the Grown
would be, and what he had been authorized by the Crown to state upon such topics.
Though on this occasion be says there'wasa forma! announcement fVom the Crown, I say
the House did not so understand it. I say more ; it is contradicted by the facts ; if His
Excellency had formally, through the First Minister, anterior to ac^ournment, communis
Gated his intention to prorogue at the opening of the House, on the 13th of August, would
there have been a second communication to this Chamber, through you, Mr. Speaker, to
the sam" effect ? And yet we were informed by you, on the 13th of August, that you had
that day received a communication from His Excellency that it was his intention then tD pro-
rogue the House. No, sir. the whole idea of prorogation on the 13th of August, was based
of necessity upon one theory of the result of the labors of the Committee, namely, that
those labors would be efTectnally prosecuted, and that they would result in a verdict of
acquittal. I do not believe that the hon. gentleman will seriously argue that he intended
that this House, provided the evidence before the Committee established the charges, should
waittill next springbefore it pronounced judgmentupon the case; thatthis Houseshould allow
Ministers to maintain the control of the Government of this country after they had been clearly
proved to have been unworthy of the trust committed to them. I believe that such a proposal
would not have been assented to by the House, and whatever was said, must, from the
necessity of the case, be taken to have been said under the oonditions I have named.
Th'j hon. gentleman nimself would not have dared to say to this House, "though the
evidence taken before the Committee proves my guilt, I will still insist that Parliament
shall not meet for business on the 13th of August ; I will still retain power till February
or March next." He would not have dared to say that ; but in the ostentatious assump-
tion of innocence which he put forward, he chose to affirm that nothing whatever could
be proved ; that the result of the Committee would be to establish his innocence, and,

No Agreement to Prorogue.

therefore, there would be nothing for the House to do. Now, Sir, that it was impossible
that the arrangement, which the hon. gentleman says, was finally and definitely agreed
upon, should, under all circumstances, and under all contingencies, remain as the settled
state of things, is shown by our being here this night, diacussing this question, because a
contingffiQcy did arise, which rendered it quite impossible to adhere to this programme of
the hon. gentleman, whiph he declares to Lave been settled ftnd tiual. His programme
was that Parliament should not meet till February next. He had no idea of a fall sitting.

JiR. BLAKBS

»nd is it not just as much a breach of faith for every member to be summoned here on the
ii3rd of October, as it would have been to be summoped for business on the 13th of August ?
We are here, after all, at a time when, according to the programme, we should not have been
here ; but the hon, gentleman's fixtures having all hinged on the contingency I have
mentioned, and that contingency not having happened, the Committee not having been
able to do anything, we are here to-day, which, according to the hon. gentleman'n view, is
a breach oi faith. It seems to me that under the circumstances we hav^ to aon&idev thia
prorogation not bj itself alone, bui; as a means to an end. It did obviously accomplish one
thiag. On the 21st of July, an authorized Ministerial announcement was made that at the
earliest moment this matter would be submitted to a tribunal competent to take evidenc*
under oath. It is clear, also, that so long as the Committee was in existence, (and iti
•xistence was contemporaneous with the existence of that session of Parliament,) Ministers
themselves thought it not fit to interfere with the Committee, abortive though it was, by
iesuing the Commission whiuh was, we may fairly assume, the tribunal in contemplation by
tliem upon the 21st July. We find so far back as this the design to withdraw from Parlia-
ment, and to bring before another tribunal this investigation. Now, it was perfectly
•bvioos ths* the eflfect of prorogation would be to destroy the the enquiry, to destroy the
powers of tho Committee, and that whatevei- had to be done would have to be recommenced.
Under our Constitution, owing to a difference in its forms, different results arose from those
which would have arisen in Englaud ; and so it was that Ministers had deliberately deter-
mined to avail themselves of that difference of form, and by prorogation to remove frotu
Parliament and to assume to themselves the cognizance of their own impeach-
ment. And yet we are told that there is no danger in prerogative.

OrrAWA, Mov. 4.
Mr. BLAKE resumed the debate on the Address as follows : Last night I pointed out
that a great number of the topics introJuced by the First Minister of the Grown were wholly
irrelev>\nt to the serious queciion engaging our attention. The House and the hon. gentle-
man know that it is not my custom to shrink from a fair discussion of any public question
at any time or ct any place, or before audiences from any of the Provinces whom the hon.
gentleman seeks to array against me, and whose champion he assumed to be last
uight. I am perfectly prepared to state, and I believe satisfactorily to vindicate, as
in the highest interests of the Canadian people, the motives by which I was actuated in
consenting to the policy which my friends have pursued on public questions to which he
has referred. But, Sir, it is not fit that we should interfere with this debate by these con-
siderations, and I feel myself the less bound to «mter into the discussion of the electoral
battle, because it is known I w is not present during the campaign. I was surprised to learn
the courr ^ it took, according to the view of the hon. gentleman opposite. All I can say is
that, from the information I have received, t am led to believe the First Minister's recollectio.T
is inaccurat as to the points agitated in the west, and I believe if anything was said about
Nova Scotia, that ii was an attack upon my honorable friend from Lambton, by thehou. gentle-
man himself, because he alleged that my hon. friend had brought about an exorbitant grant to
that Province for her Provincial building. But I not choose now to enter into the question
whetherthegeneralconductof the Government has been prudent or imprudent. The conduct
of the Government in the past has no more to do with protec.ing them against thie charge than
their other misdeeds can be made a ground for convicting them on this ch irge. It is to be
remembered that the complaint is one of breach of high public trust, and you must not for-
get that charges of this description cm o ily arise against persons who hare borne very
good characters. It is by mrans of such characters that they procure the confidential
positione in wbich a betrayal of trust becomes possible ; and hon. gentlemen opposite hav-
ing thoB, as they alloge, by their previous good conduct obtained the opport«nit/ of- com-

I i

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.

initting a great public crime, now put forward that previous good conduct as a reason for
acquitting tliem of that crime. The embezzlement by a confidential clerk, or the betrayal
of a trust by a trustee, cannot be condoned by previous good conduct. At criminal trials,
witnesses are called to speak to the good character of the criminal, but they are merely
called to mitigate the sentence ; but upon this q^uesvion the verdict of this House is asked,
guilty, or not guilty of conduct which merits the severe censure of this House. Upon that
isBue evidence of good conduct is immaterial. It is material in one sense, indeed, !
because it involves a coufession of guilt by appealing to these mitiguting circumstaDcet*.
I will merely add a word as to the attack on the general policy of the Opposition. So

Policy of the Opposition.

far from the Opposition being actuated by any sectional feeling, as has beea alleged
against us in regard to our policy respecting the different Provinces, I believe it can be
demonstrnted that fair play to all parts of this Dominion has been the groundwork of our
policy in the past, as it will be the groundwork of our policy in the future. That man i»
as much a seotionalist who seeks to array Province against Province, by acts of partiality
which must be unjust, as the man who raises a cry against merely fancied injustice. If
the Opposition has complained of some things, it was because we thought them improper.
If we were wrong in that, let us be met by fair argument, without these miserable appeal»
to local interest, these unpatriotic attempts to band whole Provinces together in hostile
array against the rest of the Dominion, which have disgraced hon. gentlemen opposite in
the past. Let it not be said that in this House any member, come from what Proviroe
he may, is not to be free to argue questions of public policy, without encountering these
wretched attempts to rouse against him the local feelings, passio^is, and prejudices of
particular sections of the country. Now I returR to those roints bearing more or less on
the question before the House, on whirh the hou. gentle-^an dilated, some of which I
shall touch, but very lightly. In the first place, the hon. gentleman argued
that the motion of the member for Shefford w»" a motion of want of con-
fidence. I do not think that is very material, but his proofs do not
sustain the statement They are threefold ; tirat of all the hon. gentleman
read a statement from the Ottawa correspondent of Tlie Globe and he announced that the
great party, which my hon. friend leads?, was irrevocably bound, because The Globe cor-
respondent said, before it was known what the motion would be, and when the hon. gentle-
man himself expected quite h diflferent motion, that it was supposed to be a motion of want
of confidence. That argument is so absurd that the mere statement of it is its suflQcient
answer. Then the hon. gentleman turned to the member for Wentworth to whom he gave
the character of being a very honest man. Notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's praises,
1 think my friend is fully entitled to that character; but I believe he does not set up for
the only honest man on this side of the House. My honorable friend from Wentworth did
say his opinion was that the motion was intended as a motion of want of confidence. I did
"ot so understand it, and I do not suppose that my honorable friend set up his view.s as
binding upon the whole party. Lastly, the hon. gentleman eaid the mode in which the
motion was originally mtended to 'he made namely, by amendment to a motion to go into
Committee of Supply, indicated that it wae a motion of wantof confidence. That is not correct
in point of Parliamentary law, and there are to be found in the very same session two notable
instances contradicting the hon. gentleman's theory, in which amendments to go into Com-
mittee of Snpply were carried, and were not treated by the hon. gentleman as motions of
want of confidence. Such motions are, therefore, not to be considered tx-m;ce»HitaUt as
votes of want of confidence. The hon. gentleman has been fond of using thi.*) argument,
and hence that excellent parliamentary weapon had in course of time been blunted, but its
edge had been restored by cho hon. gentleman's consent last session. Weil, Sir, what are
the reasons on the other hand ? The nature of the motion itself is one which prevents it

MR, BLAKBS

l|i

s '■

in:

from being called properly a motion of want of confideace. A motion for enquiry can
hardly be a motion of want of confidence, A charge ia roade; a charge of such gravity
as to demand an investigation, and the proposal to investigate only, not to adjadge, can-
Bot be a proposal that there is no confidence in the Administration. I quite admit that
the Administration can make it a motion of want of confidence aa they can make any
other motion, even one of adjournment ; but the motion itself, as projected by the mover,
cannot be considered one of want of confidence. Then the attitude of the member for
She.Tord in making the motion, indicated it was not one of want of cobtidence. He made
no speech; he made no attack upon the Ministry; he siciply made his statement and
placed in your hands tlts motion based upon it. Then the attitude of Ministers them-
selves destroys their argument, because they themselves within a few days invited the
House to pass the motion they had at first rejected. It could not change its character
and be on the 2nd a vote of non-confidence, and on the 8th a vote consistent with the

Fresr -ore on the aovenunent
«tention of their seats by Ministers. Next the hon. gentleman alleged that no pressure
was put upon him *\o grant the Committee. Well, of course we accept the statement of
the hon. gentleman, but we must remember that thie was a charge against the Govern-
ment, and it is established by the evidence brought forward last night in this House, that
49everal supporters of the Grovemiu<iut considered the charges were a proper subject of
investigation, and informed members of the Government that was the last vote they would
receive from them unless the Committee was granted. By whot intuition the hon. gen-
tleman became possessed of this fact, what bird carried it, what stone'' wall heard it —
booto not to consider; suffice it to say that pressure waif put upon the Gk>vemmeut, and
that the Government yielded to the pressure. Next the hon. gentleman stated that he
never dreamed that the Committee would proceed at once. I ask every candid man in
this House, except the hon. gentleman, whom I am obliged to except, though he is known
to be a particularly candid man, whether he ever dreamed ot anything else, whether the
whole tone of the discussion, the zeal manifested for the passing of the Oaths Act; the con-
duct of the various proceedings which ensued subsequent to the appofntme '■ '^f the Com-
mittee, did not all point conclusively to an immediate coramencemt.i . ~; ^ors, and
their prolongation beyond the session only ixi case it should be foiuid impoiiSible to finish
them during thn (tension ? The hon. gentleman was bound, if he thought that this Com-
mittee could net meet for busineti tiU after the return <^f those gentlemen, who he knew
were to be absent till June, to have said at once that tho Committee could do nothing
until their retura. He was bound to take the House into his confidence, and to have ex-
plained thnt ho \'ihought it impossible to get on at on.^ ; but there were many matters
with reference to which the hon. gentleman kept the House, and even his own supporters,

Those Damning Papers,

in the dark. All that time he had in his desk those damning papert — the letters of Sir
Hugh Allan, the contract between Sir Hugh Allan and his American associates — papers
which have disgraced the writer of them irredeemably throughout the world. And yet
the hon. gentleman never took his supporters into his confidence on thib subject, and I
venture to say it wat> a surprise and a shock to many of them, apart from the other '^^'i-
deuces of their leader's guilt, when they found that before this charter was granted, ' 'ic
nothing had been done that could not be undone, the hon. gentleman bad received t . h
written records of the villainy th^t had been perpetrated by the man whom he aftei .var .
t>laced in the position of Tresident of the Company. It was the duty of the hon. geiitlemau
to tell the House, which he was swaying with an iron rod, whither he was leading it, and
that the Committee oould not meet till these gentlemen returned. But I shall prove by
faotd beyond dispute that, whatever the hon. gentleman's secret intention was, his public
and avowed plan of action was that the Conomittee should proceed. The hon. gentleman

81'EROH IN THB HOUaB OP COMMONa.

ft; i.
emau
and

'faft« told us that he knevr the chances were infinitieBimally small that thote f^entlemeu
would return during the BeeBion,and yet he agreed to have the Oaths' Bill pushed through
the House, and he brought down His Excellency in the middle of the aeasion to asarnt
to that Bill. To what end did he do this ununual thing, if the Oaths' Bill was not tr be
caod immediately afterwards ? It is clear that, whatever may have been the hon. ^(eDtle-
man's secret thoughts, he was willing to lead this House to believe that immediate action
on the part of the Committee was desired and intended by him. But when tho Com-
mittee at length met for action, the hon gentleman applied for an sdjourrment, to which

Protestations of Innocence,
the Committee agreed. That proposition was submitted to the House, acd then fcr %
firet time he delivered a speech in vindicition of his conduct, in which ho declared there
was not one jot or title of truth in this charge. He made a speech, in which I am sure
he led every man on both sides of this House to believe that either he must be utterly
false, or my hon. friend for Shefford must have been utterly mistaken in bringing forward
this: charge. Ho said there was no shadow of foundation for it; nothing whatever which
could have led to the preferring of such an acf^asation. These were the declarations of in-
nocence on the part of the hon. gentleman. Under these circumstances, and by virtue of
that denial (how caudidit was, he having all those papers in his desk, and in his
guilty breast the knowledge of his crime, I leave to you to judc[c\ he induced the House
to postpone the Committee to the 2nd of July. I now come to to the Oaths' Bill. It so
happened that I was not in the House during any of the discussions upon the subject of
the Oaths' Bill. I was present when the Committee was moved for, on which oeaasion tho
hon. gentleman made the statement that the evidence should be taken under oath, for he
it was who first made the suggestion to take tho evidence on oath. I thought it strange that
he should propose that the Committee should sit after prorogation without asking for a Bill
to authoriz3 that procedure, and I thought also thit if he dtsii'd to take evidence on
oath, he should introduce a Bill for that purpose; and I did on that occasion make those
suggestions. I am not about to discuss the question of the legUity of the Oaths Bill. I
leave that to the hon. momber for Card well, who has maintain d it 1 eretofore, and will
no doubt maintain it still against all comers from either side of the wa',er. I have argued
this question before, and I argue it to-day upon other and higher grounds than the ques-
tion whether the Oaths BUI was Intra or ultra viren. That i* of iDinor consequence, be-
cause if we have not got the power we can easily obtain it; but the question of disallow-
ance, asBumirig the measure to be xiUra virc-i, is one of the most serious questionn Lu«ir cau

Disallowance of Bills.

be brought before this Parliament. The views of the First Minister upon this question of
disallowance have been mada public. On the 8th of June, 1808, in a memorandum sub-
mitted to His Excellency, the First Minister used these words :—"0t late years Her
Majesty's Government has not as a general rule interfered with the legislation of colonies,
having representative institutions, and responsible Government," except in the cases
specially mentioned ia the instructions to the Governor or in matters of Imperial and not
merely local interest." That is the true rule, stated in the most moderate terms, as to the
exercise of the power of disallowance. When you put to one side iirst all those matters
contained in the instructions to the Governor, and, secondly, all matters of Imperial, as
difltingnishcd from local concern, you have exhausted all the subjects of disallowance ;
and yet in this tho greatest self-governing community iu dependence upon the British
Orown.in which the principle of self-government was first established, and is supposed to
be furthest advanced; in which we have 'exhibited, in a very complicated if not a very
perfect shape, the ijnperiu.n in imperio ;in which, of all others, we ought to preserve as far
as poisible, in the 'interests of the Empire and in the interests of the 'connection, those
well-settled rules as to non interference by England in purely domestio matterf, we
4

MR. BLA&ES

U' I

find that thcne Trbolrsotne and necefsary rales have been forgotten and fbat this dieallow-
ance has taken place. Bat can tre blame the Imperial GoverEment in the face of tho
facts which have been divulged by the pt pf rs just brcaght down T No, Sir, we cascot,
and why T Becanse the First Miiiiattr of this country, betraying his duty to his country,
expressly invited the interft recce of Her Majesty's Gcvernment. So far from
suggesting, as he ought to have suggeetf to Bid Excellency that the ^ct was cue of do-
mestio import solely, with vhicL England thould not meddle, the hon. gentleman says this :
— " The undenigned, to whom has been referred by Your Excellency the Bill passed daring
the ^tesent session, has come tc the couclniiion, although not rrithout doubt, that this
Bill is not within the competency or jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament, and that the
attention of Her Mojestija Oovnrnment ahoiild be called to its provisions and to tJie doubt
that exists with respect to its validity " The intimation of the hon gentleman, promptly acted
npon by the law officers of Her Majesty's Government, was in direct contradiction to the
principle laid down by himsel.*, that Her Majesty's Government should not interfere in
oar domestic legislation, bat leave us to settle our domestic troubles by oar own machin-

He must Bear the Burden.

ery. Tn ignorance of this dinpatch, I did, on a recent occasion, blame the Tmjerial
Government for depaiting from what I stated to be a well settled rule. I am free to
admit that the burden has bee-^ lirgely shifted^ and now lies chiefly npon the shoulders
of the First Minister of this onntry. I obstrve'l, Sir, &t the time, that the proclamation
issued on the Ist day of July was not a^cotnpauiei by the certiflcate which it is provided
by the Act shsU accompany it And I confess I did not suppose the hon. gentleman
wouM have be>3n guilty of the act which from theL'e papers it now appears he has com*
mitbed. I snppimed it was by some slip that it happened. The occasion was argent, it
was a puMio holiday, there were various things to be done, and I supposed that the cer>
tificate ( '-'T-d Kimberley, which is required to be appended to the proclamation, had
merely bb^i * od by miacbke; bat by the papers brought down,it appears that the Act

was not rip n* disallowance at the time; it appears the certificate was signed
and sealed in England a[>oa the 1st of July, the same day upon which the proclamation
WM issued in Canada miking p-.olic the di3allowaace. Now, Sir, the law is that
in order to disallowmce the proclamation or message of the Governor must be
accompanied by a certificate ot the Secretary of State ; and until receipt of snch m
eertifiisate no proclamation could lawfully be made. Bat it now appears that the hon.
gentleman caused the proclamation of disallowance to be issued illegally upon that day,
in order to stop the proceeding'^ of the Committee, and to carry out the scheme of dis*
allowance which this memorandum thows he contemplated from the commencement.
Sir, upon a telegraphic communication to the effect that the Act was disallowed, he
misled His Excellency into a violation of the law, by proclaiming the disallowance at a
time when His Excellency was phyt-ieally incapable of performing that Act, because he
had not yet received the rcqutite ( ertifirate of the Secretary of State. Under
these circumstances the hon. geutltinan shoula cot have advised this proclamation. He
shoald have waited until the certificate which the law requires had arrived. The Com
mittce could then have proceeded with and probably finished their labors, because, till
the legal proch nation of its disallowance, the validity of the Act was not affected by
the English Order in Oouuoil The object of the hon. gentleman, however, was not thue
to be accomplished. To meet his views it was necessary that the disallowance should be
proclaimed, and the proceedings of the Committee stayed. The hon. gentleman alleges

The Lord Chancellor of Ensland.
that this disallowance was the act of the Lord Chancellor of England, and he presses ibis
House with the weight of that great authority. As I said before, I make him a present

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

of the propoiitfoti that the Act ia ultra vir a.- of the powers of this Parliament,
and I leave to the honorable memUer for Card well, who introduced the
Bill, to establiah to the Houae aa ho establiohed before, in spite of the exertions of hia
leader;, that the Bill is not beyond our j arisdiutidn. I assume fur the purpose of argument
that ihe Bill was ultra vires, and have put before the^ House only the constitutional quel-
tion whether, the faut that it was ultra vires being admitted, i*- was fit; that it should be
disallowed. The legal opinion of the Lord ObaaccUor ia therefore noo material to my ar-
gument. I am aware that the hon. guntloman is gazetted, although not yet sworn, a
mombor of Her Majesty's Privy Council, and he probably knows more than I do of what
takes place in that Council, und perhaps he knows that the Lord Chancellor gives to every
order of Council his personal consideration and eanction. I was very much Burprised to
hear it, and 1 do not think that the honorable gentleman will allege seriously that it ia
the Lord Chancellor's duty to consider the validity or legality of every Order in Council.
In this casn, as is quite apparent upon tho face of the despatch, the Lord Chancellor was
not of the Council when the Act wai disallowed. Contiideriug the circumstances, consid-
sidenug that it was presented and disposed of on the 26th, and the result telegraphed on
the 27th of June, I have a notion that the Loid Chancellor hearciof the matter for the first
time when that little breeze blew from this to the other side of the water; but it is o( no con-
sequence. I decline, in matters cf importance to the good Cavern ment of this country alone,
with reference to our domestic affairs, to ba hound by the extra judicial opinion of the Lord
Chancellor of England, or any other law ufficars of that c iUntry. The question is, whether,
according to the well settled principles which regulate the conduct of the Imperial author-
ities in matters relating to the internal economy of self governing Colonies, the aot being
ultra vires, our Minister acted worthily or unworthily in suggesting the oouvse which was
taken. That question we must settle for ourselves, and 1 do not doubt we ehill settle it

* The Boyal Commission.
welL Sir, I do not propose to add anything to the few words I said last night upon the
sabjeot of prorogation, bub I propose to deal shortly with the question of the Commission.
The hon. gentleman has said that he does not think himself bound to argae the propriety
01 the Commission, because we use som^ of the papers which have been laid before Ub in
in that connection. iSir, this might answer iu a nisi pr'ms court, but not in this High
Oomrt of Parliament. Confessions soltsmuly made and signed by the parties, docu-
ments submitted to this House, if they appear to be genuiue, or be admitted by the parties,
may be used as the foundations fur jid^ment, although we dispute the process by which
these papers saw the light. Although we dispute the legality of the Court by which
these documents were evolved, we can stll ju^gu npon the facts which they contain, and
condemn, upon the results of their own illegal tribuui*l, the men who have been guilty of
the crime of constituting it, and of the crime which the evidence taken before it discloses.
Tht hon. gentleman has given us a verbal account of tme further opinions upon this
subject, and hs says that the law officers of the Crown iu Eugland have agreed that His
Excellency's course was legal and constitutional. It may be so. We have
the hon. gentleman's word for it, but, Sir, we are not discunsiog the con-
stitntionality of His Excellency's course. We are discucsing the advico given
to His Excellency, and notwith-itaading the arguments used by the hon. gentleman, not-
withstanding any opinions he msiy produce, our right to discuss and form our own judg-
ment on that advice is undisputed and undiaputable. It is advice which, if permitted to
become a precedent, would destroy at one fell blow every vestige of our libnities. I
repudiate the notion that we have not the right to criticise, and criticise freely, the acts
of the Minister who advises, since ev- rythiug done by the head of the Executive, within
the line of the Qonstitution, is beyond the sphere of uriticism. For the proposition that

MR. BLARBa

II:

we have a right to criticiso the acts o! Mtniatera in advising the Crown m?n have fonght
and died. It is a principle thoroughly well reorgnized in our law, well established in tho
English Constitation; and I venture, for the credit of this oouatry, to say that we here
repudiate the attempts which were made lAst night to shift responsibility from shoulders
which ought to bear it, on to shoulders which cannot bear it without a oontlict between the

Law Offlcers not Infallible,
people and the Crown. I have no thing to do with theopiQionof thelawofficarsof the Crown,
Ibct if I had, I would say that, whatever respect I may have for the opinion of two emiu'
ent English lawyers, who I do not suppose assume the role, of infallibility wboi they become
Attorney-General and S jlicitcr General of Eagland, finality is not to be attiibuted to that
opinion, even when given on a legil (juestion; still less when it is given on a Constitu-
tional question of a large and complicated description, on which the opinion of Parlia-
mentarians, not of lawyers, is chiefly valuable. We hear too much in this country of
the opiiilon of the law ofTuers of the Crown. It is a little too much, Sir, that
at this day of our history we are to be told that we are governed by the determiaation of
two gentlemen of the lungrobe put down on paper three thousand miles away,
before, whose opinion we are to be dumb, though we have not even enjoyed the humblest
enitor'a tight of appearing and arguing our cause before this august tribunal. When the
hon. gentleman says he has always been right according to the opinion of the law officers
of the Crown, he forgets one case out of the four or five controversies which have arisen
— one case in which, by the way, English intereats^were concerned, Tvhen the English law
officera decided, with great promptitude, in favor of Eagland ani against the hon. gen-
tleman. I refer to the caao of the Intercolonial Guarantee Loan, in which the law officers,
m strong tarms, stated that there had been misapplication of the funds, and in a severe
dispatch the Secretarj' ordered that it should not be continued. A reconsideration of
that decision was requested, but the J '\w officers declined, to Uiodify in the least degree
their former opinion. The hon, genticman does not ask tnem to reconsider their late
r linion, for an obvious reaaon, The opinion it ao-v held out to ihe people of this country
as something that mu^t be acccp'^ed without remonstrance. I have no doubt that each of
«a will be inclined to magnify the opinion of the law officers when it tends to
support our own view; and to lower it when opposed to our own view.
Such has been, and such no doubt will be the course of the .hon, gentleman.
Well, Sir, in this Parliament we must decide this Constitutional question for ourselves,
upon what we are able to a?ctrtaiii for ourselvea; upon what onr learning and reading tells
ns are the rights of Brituh faubjects', are the rii;hts of a Biitith rarliatneut. And I do
not doubt the statement of the hon. gentleman as to the opinion of the law otticers of tho

Ancient Landmarks Violated.
Crown will be absolutely disregarded. What I ea'd with reference to prorogatioi' I say
with reference to the Cc^mmission, that its appointment was a\inlationof the ancient
landmarks of the Constitution and of the Rights of Pailiament, and an invasion of the
privileges of the people by an exeiciae of the prerogative, which ought not to be tolerated.
The hrn. gentleman says there is no longer any danger from the exercise of the preroga-
tive — that the times of audi danger art past. I say there i danger staring us in the facr,
and the hon. gentleman's course has demonstrated the danger. I referred yesterday to
Hallaci. Let mo quote the observations of another writer, eminent in the cause of liberty.
Let me read you a few lines from the dedication to the English nation of the letters of
Junius, and you will see what Re tells'the people of that day. He says: — "Never sufTer
any violation of your political Ctnatitutiou, however minute the instance may appear, to^
pau by without a determined persevering reaistanco. One precedent makes another;
they soon accumulate and constitute law. What jOitirJay was fact to-day is doctrine.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.

ExatnplfS are eupponed to jn«tify the mr>Bt rUngerons mex^nrfis. atd where thpy do not
Boit exactly the defeot it supplied by analogy." These obaervations are applicable to the
case on hand, they teaoh ns not to jield to the specions propositioos of the First Ministei',
and to regard onr ancient rights jealonsly.and not part with a tingle one. The day may oom^
vhen we shall require them, The arguments of the Premier upon the prerogative and
the rights of the Crown contrasted with the rights of Parlit.menk are, as are many of bit
arguments, entirely inconsistent. It is one of the we%knes8es, if I may be pardoned in
so speaking of that ABtnte person, that he is so impress °d for the' moment with the import'
ance of making out by every argument, fallaoious as well as fair, the point which he iv
taking, that even in the same speech he utters statements diametrically opposed to eack
other, and advances propositions utterly iii'jonBistent. L.\Bt night we heard in his argn<
ments will 'o^^ard to the several branches of the Legislfhure inconsistent propositions.
At one iivJL . ue said there was no dancer in the exerciiie of the prerogative, as it waa
really the property of the Ministers controlled by the people; the next moment he said
wliat was quite ditferent ; hti statei', veiy strunj^i^, i,UAi t>^c ;^iu.vu haa its iudcpcUileut
right; that as an independent brancb of the Legislature, the Crown had a right to issue this
Commission, and to seud papers, au>l despatches to the House for wbioli wu could find no
one responsible. Thus we see the hou. gentleman utterly destroy, or dangerously magnify
prerogative, as suits the exigency of hiii case. Let us steer an even course between
these arguments, noiiher diminishing nor extending these prerogatives. Sir, I maintain
that no word the hju. gentleman h i4 said was suifieient to justify that invasion of the
rights of Parliament accomplishtsii by the constitution of tbib Commission, based as it
was on words spoken by my hon. f j lend in his place here, and constituted as it was for the
investigation of high crimes and misdemeanours here alleged agaiuEt Minigters of the
Crown and members of this House, and so exclusively cognizable by this House, which

Reluced to Extremities.

had already undertaken the enquiry. What an instance of weakness was that, and to
what extremities was the hon. gentleman reduced, when he was forced strenuously,
earnestly— may I say theatrically ?— to argue that we had communicated the
charges of the hon. member for Shetford to the Crown, because we bad sent for the acsei-t
of the Crown a Bill to empower this Douse to examine witnesses under oath. That Bill
did not say anything about these charges, it was a general law ; but the hon. gentleman
said that he, a Minister of the Crown, had himself communicated these charges to His
Excellency in order to induce him tj do what he knew was a futile thinft — give his
assent to the Bill in the middle of the session. I know of no authorization given to the
hon. gentleman to inform His Excelltmy of what was passing in this Chamber. I say it
was the htight of auda' ity, acd an ins^ult to this Chamber, to tell us by way o' excuse
that by word, act, or deed he had aasuHu^l to violate, infringe or waive any one of our
privilege?. The Minister, if he ma<'e that communication, made it on hia own responsi-
bility, %nd is guilty of a crime which wil not fortify him, but weaken his position before
the Chamber, befure which he is on trial. The hon. gentleman has failed — utterly failed
— to produce a precedent for such a Commission as this. The hon. gentleman brought
for'vard on a former oscaeion the Cejlon Commisiiiou. That precedent, however, no

. No Precedent.
longer does duty. It has been exploded, but Le brings forward another. He rcft^ired
the other day to the Me^u^ra Commission, but he knew that case had no application, so
in his defence he drops that too, but he faUs upon one single precedent, on which alone
he now rests himself— I mean the Melville case. This was a Parliamentary
Commission, and not a Royal CoinmisBion, to eLqiire into abuses witL reference
io the navy which had been prevalent for some time. It was established, not as s Royal
Co':;Mnission, not upon address, but by Bill, in wh eh Bill the Commissioners were named.

MR. BLAKE S

; i

li!
ii

It wa^theactnot of the Grown, bnt of the Parliament. And this, forsooth, is seriously bronf^ht
forward aa the solitary, the nearest precedent for this Oommission ; for a Royal Oommis*
■ion not sanctioned by the House, not asked for by the House, and disapproved of by the
House I The production of such a precedent is the clearest and strongest proof that
British history furnishes no authority fur the hon. gentleman's course. He, however,
■aid that the Grown, as a bran oh of the Legislature, ht,da right to exercise the prerogative
in this way. He also said there was nothing in these charges to prevent the Senate from
having a Committee to investigate the facts. Certainly not, if the Committee were founded
on information which came properly within the cognizance of the Senate ; but there
is no authority for the Senate taking up my hon. friend's charge, and upon it
founding a Committee, nor is there any authority for the Crown taking up my hon.
friend's charc^e and upon it founding a Commission. Did the hon. gentleman tell us
in the speech which he advised his Excellency to deliver on the 13th of August that he
was advising the issue of a Commission to enquire into the charges. No sir I The
Speech from the Throne stated that a Commission would be appointed to enquire into
*' certain matters connected with the Pacific Railway." For all we knew, the propoed
Commission might be perfectly legal; but when the Commission was issued, instead of
being of that character, It recited the motion of the hon. member for Shefford and the
order the House made upon that motion, and it directed an enquiry into the matter of
that resolution. The hon. gentleman ought to have presented to this House some better
argument, some better reason for the advice he gave. It has been said that the English
procedure for enquiry into corrupt practices justifies the Commission, but my hon. friend
from Durham has shown clearly that the English statute is an authoriiy directly opposed
to the issue of this^^Commission. Sir, this Commiesion is also opposed to the fonda*

Revolting Impropriety.

mental principles of justice. What was the revolting scene depicted by the Minister last
night T He described himself an going about the country asking one judge and another
to become his judge in this great State trial. He asks one judge to come, who says, " I
cannot, bat I recommend yon to so aui so." The right hon. gentleman has caused
• Commission to be issued, to men named by himself to try himself He has
made efi'crts to persuade us that the judges must be impartial, but suoh an account as he
gave last night ought to convince, and I hope has convinced, every man with a sense nf
public duty, that the transaction is one which cannot be sustained. The hon.
gentleman is not fond of ancient precedents, and asks us to abandon them alto-
gether. He says with the new light we possess, we can safely abandon those old lamps
that have guided the footsteps of our forefathers for so long a period. The hon. gentle-
man is the leader of the Conservative party, and he enunciates these revolutionary doc-
trines; doctrines belonging to the new revolution against liberty which he seems disposed
to attempt. I, Sir, as a humble member of the Liberal party profess to be Conser 'ative
of the Constitution of the country, the principles of British liberty, and the securities for
popular rights. I do desire to maintain these precedents, which ought to serve us for
guides in the future. Let me cite an instance which tends to show the f Allacy of the hon.
gentleman's argument. He says that in old days the prerogative was dangerous because
it was used by the Crown for its own purposes. The most dangerous instances we have
known of the exercise of the prerogative in conflict with the interests of the people, have
been abuses of the prerogative by Ministers. In the time of Charles, the Duke of Buck-
ingham was impeached, and that impeachment had gone a certain distance when a Select
Committee, consisting of most eminent man in the House of Commons was ap-
pointed to prepare articles of chart;e. Some of the articles had been pre-
parod. The impeached Minister used, with regard to that Committee, aa the
bon. -gentleman has used with regard to our Committee, the prerogative of the

8PEE0H IK THB HOUSE OF COMMONS.

4»

Orowa to abay the hand of the Oommons. The impeached Miniiter indaoed
the So7eretga harriedly to prorogue the House and stay the hand of hia aocuaera.
Sir, wh«t happened imtnediatuly aiterwardi> ? Two daya later, the Tomniittfe of the
Commons, who had been appointed to prapare the charges, received a message from the
law officer of the Grown, the Attorney-General, requesting their attendance. They at«
tended, and a request was made to them. Let me read you the answer these eminent
men retarned. " Whereas, this morning, whon wa attended upon a commandment from
Hia Majesty, aigned by yourself, yon gave us an intimation of a purpose of His Adajeaty
to have a proceeding in the Star Chamber against the Duke of Buckingham, of anch
matters as he stood oharced with in Parliament, and to that end required to be instructed

^ . what prao'a we had to maintain the aoyeral chargea prepared from the Commona to the
Lsrds against the 8»id Dake, we, according to your advico, have considered thereof toge«
ther, and entreat yon to take kaowledj^e that whatsoever was done by us in that business
waa done by the command of the House of Commons, and by their direcdon some proofs
were delivered to the Lords with the obarges; but what other proofs the House would
have used aocordiag to the liberty reserved to themselves, either for the maintenance of
the chargea or upon the reply^ we neither know nor can we undertake to inform yon."
Thia is signed by Eliot, Pym, Glanville, Selden, and others whose names are household
worda to Icvera of English liberty. Not satisfied with that, the impeached Minister
advised the King to have Sir John Eliot taken before the Privy Council, where they
endeavored to extort answers with regard to the evidence. Sir John Eliot re-
sponded that what he had learned he learned only in the House for the service of that
House, and not except for its service would he make use of that information. So, foiled

I in hia purpose, a sham information was filed in the Star Chamber, a sham answer was

made by the Minister, a few witnesses were asked some sham questions and retarned some
sham answers, when the proceedings dropped abortive, and there was an end to the attempt
• made in those bad days by an impeached Minister to use the prerogative for the purpose
of transferring from the House the accusation made against himself. And yet the hon.
gentleman says, notwithstanding tho objection to its constitutionality, notwithstanding
the absence of precedent, notwithstanding the enormously grave objection that the Com*
mission was issued by the Minister himself, specially for the trial of himself, that thia Com<

Burlesquing Inquiry.

mission is a legal one. The Commission is to be tried by its works. I believe that trial
will result in the verdict given formerly when that question came up before us. I think
the hon. member for Cardwell, during the last session, pointed out the difficulties that
would ariae from a Commission being appointed. He expressed Btrong objections to it,
- because it would rem ore this matter out of the hands of the 0omn.>on8, and would be un-
satisfactory to the House and country, and a feeling of joy on learning that the ri^ht hon.
gentleman had yielded to the general view. 1 think, Sir, these observations have
been more than fortified by the result, and I expect to find that the hon. mem*
ber will not withdraw from his position. I expect to find him maintaining the inex*
pediency of any such transfer as has taken place. I maintain that there exists evidence
to show that thia Commission is eminently unsatisfactory. Questions were put by the
Commissioners, and by the accused in a most improper manner, and I regret to say an
attempt has been made in the formal record of the evidence to conceal somo of these im*
proprieties. I ahall give but two instances, intending to pass on to more important matters.
A witness was called who had aigned hia name to a most compromising paper, a receipt
or $20,000. Instead of sifting the witness to the utmost, the Commissioner aaid to him,
" I aupporte you aigned it inadvertently," and the witness adopted the Suggestion and
accepted the means of escape which the Commissioner gave him. Although the news*
papers gave this question and answer, the question is omitted in the report before Parlia*

MR. BLAKKB

mtnt, and the aofcwer tppeart m a volnnUry cxpreision of the witnesa. Again, a witoeM^
Mr. White, I think, after giving evideno* relating to large expenditure in Montreal on
the part of the 0|ipMition, Lad the qneation pnt to him by the firit Minister — "You were
ontbid in r.;t ?' and the answer waa, " I cannot iay we were outbid." That qneetion was
in a nuwt.objeotionable form, bat I find it omitted in the evidence placed on the table of
the HoQse, which represents the answer as a volantary statement of the witness. Theae
are samples from a large mass of similar impropripties which coi 1 be brought forward.
Beeideis, the work of the Commiation was most perinnctory, mft?' . important subjeets of
enqniry, lying on the surface, obvioas to the most oasnal obaerver, were left untonohed.
Of these omissions I will give an instance or two presently. But ni^satiefaotory, imper>

The Trath Will (hit

feet, and nnfair as the work is, the opinion generally held in the conntry, and, I am satis-
lied, entertained by the majority of this House, is that the disclosures of the Commissioa
are such as call for the instant action of Parliament, are snob aa rende t>d it necessary for
the honor of the couatry that at the earliest moment at which the verdict of this House
could be taken on these declarations and confcBsions, the question should be Kubmitted,
and the senae of the House obtained. In that spirit, in that view, was the motion of my
friend from Lambton made, yielding nothing, abandoning nothing, for it censures the
course as well aa the disttlosarea, not recognizing the legality of the Commiasion; yet pro-
nouncing the case so strong, so plain, that we would have been recreant to cur duty if
we had hesitated to place in your hand"! that motion. The Hon. gentleman, though
he rambled from one subject to another in his long discourse, and touched upon topics
wholly irrelevant, yet faikd altogether to deal with what my hon. friend had pointed out
to this House as the real root of thia matter. It waa known in this country before the
late electiona that bribery had assumed alarming proportions. It was acknowledged to be
on the increase. It had become a serious question with honest people in thia country
how long popular government could be maintained, how long the people could be fairly
represented, if corruption were further continued. Those who were interested in the cleva<
tion of the people, in the purity of the people, and who desired to avoid that demoraliza-
tion and degradation which results from the sale of the franchise, had painfully considered
the question and had endeavored to bring about a beneficial change in the election law.
Such a change had been attempted in the old world with satisfactory results. The hon.
gentleman, however, so fnr from being an o&timiat, has become a pessimist. He believes
that this expenditure at elections alwaya haa exiuted and alwsya will exist. He abandons
in despair the hope of seeing a fair and pure and honorable election, a true rcpreseuta-
tion of the people according to their honest convictiona. Sir, I do not abandon that hope.
If I did, I would despair of the Republic. But the truth is tha hon. gentleman's tactics
were of th» other description. We had tried the effect of the new law upon this matter.
It had been tried under his eyes. He had witnessed the effect of it in the Province of
Ontario. I say — and I can speak with as much knowledge aa any other man in this
country upon thia subject — I say that while the election in Ontario in 1SG7 was a very
corrupt one, the election in 1871 was the purest that had been kuown for very many
years; and I say that this enormous change was produced by a proper election law, aud

Keep Your Hands Clean,
by the adoption of a course which I have alwaya reoommended privately and in public,
which, I believe, is the only course upon which any party ought to succeed, and which I
hope is the only course upon which any party will succeed, namely, that having a law
which will enable you to punish bribery and corruption, you shculd keep your own hand*
altogether clean, and expend whatever money you choose to expend on elections, in
searehipg out, repressing, and punishing corrupt acta on the part of your opponents.
Appeal to the courts, let your expenses be in the cour{». Let the courts try the case, and'

BPRrCH IN THE HOUSR 0» COMMONS.

i/ the election of yoar opponent bae not b«en p(iri>, he wU Butrur, and yun will gain io
coaaeqaenoe ol tbia oorraption. That was the priuoiplo upon which the election of 1871
waa carried, and that wa« the principle upon whiob the elvot>oD of 1872 would have heui-
ran h*d the hon. gentleman permitted it But, bir, although the hon. g^ntifuaD
affirmed aolemnly to this House, in 1872, that the Election C immitteea were sctiAfactory-
tribonalff, and though he indaoed this Honae eo far to believe him aa to leave the trial* of
eleetions to tbeae Cjmmitteea, yet the hen. g^ntlemaa in his evidenoe hM told ut— and
I kaow of no inatanoe in which a pnblio man hai been ea completely and unequivocally
coodeuDed nt of biaown month— he baa told us in hie evidence that corrupt and illegal
expenditure uiade unlawful by laws for which be is clkietiy respouitiblo, had i xinted, and
would oontinue to exiet, because of the utter iaetfectivenes* of the tribunal wliich b« had
so pcraeTeringly maintained. He said that the ojpenditure for hiring team aod for «n<
tertaioments was illegal, and yet was universal. According to the boii. gnutleinaa'a
reasoning, everybody did it, and as no one could expect that tive mcmberR, eaub of whom
had treated and hired teams, would adja Ige the Sbat of another man ler vuid becau»e he
had treated and hired teams, therefore these breaohts of the Uw were never couipUiued
of, and the statute rem&ined inoperative. Thi/* is the bon j^entlemau'a own statement,
this is his own description of the tribunal which he imposed up >n thu C')uutry for the lat«
elections. Upon page 110 of the evideaoe, where one of bis colleagues wis crobs-ex^min-
lug him, the first Miuiitter testidei that b? believed the praotiue of uirii]>( t<;a ns and
treating was universal, and that he had never known of any sort us contest before an
Election Committee on the K>'(>uod pf tuch expenditure. The hen. t^tntlemau tells us
that during his 40 years' experience in electiouf), during that 40 yia^s of painful travel
through the wilderne3!<, now so soon to end, he had found that tribunal ho utterly inctiec-
tive, that the law upon the statute book which declared this system of treating and hiring
teams to be illegal, was a dead letter— was violated with im|;unity. And yet the hoa.
gentleman declined to change that tribunal, and declared it to bo a good tribunal, by
refusing to us the trial by judges. How does it, may I oak, lie in the hon.
gentlemaif's month to say be was forced into a large' expenditure, in tbeee elec-
tions ? If there was a large expenditure, he himself forced it. He ciu^ed it by
two means— first by insisting upon retaining the law which he aeknowledgtd to
be utterly inefifeotive, aud secoLdly, by procuring these funds from Allan, which,
it is clear were only a part of the largo election fund which the hon. gentleman
collected. I do not know anything about it. I was absent from the country at the
time. I epent no money, ar.d 1 was elected in spite of the opposition of the hon. gentle-
man, and I defy him to defeat me by any expenditure of moaej ; but if there was a large
expenditure, he is the last man la thia country— be who arramjed at an early period for
the expenditure— he is tho liafc man to complain pitifully, aud eay, "I was
forced into tpeuding money at elections which I would not otherwise have dor;e." ^Vhy^

An Inconsistent Argiuuent.

Sir, the hon. gentleman, who, at the commencement of last seesion, was so impressed
with the importance of keeping within the law — of not infringing in any way upon the
jurisdiction of Election Committees, that he would not permit this Uomie to render jus-
tice %o the people of West Pcterboro', that ho told the House they must not even tempo-
rarily seat the man who had the majoyty of votes, but must allow the man who wa»
rejected i>y the people to sit and votei, because the only salvation of the House was to
leave all these things to Election Committees —the hon. gentleman who then found such
virtue in an Election Committee when it was to give him a vote or two, now proposes in
his desperation that we shonld sweep away all Election Committees and make arrange*
moits lor a new Commission of three judges, to be chosen by lot from the benches of aU.
th« Provinces, who are to come from Halifax and Victoria, and to perambulate the landk.

' I

UR. BLARES

from Dan {o Beenheb», Bearching ont all the innnttiea that have taken plaofl, and that ve
•honld pub the seats of all the members of this Houte at the dispotal of those gentleman.
Personally I ran have no objection to as many Oommisaions as the hon. gentleman pleasM
to ask for, but I very much doubt whether some highly respectable gentlemen on th«
other side are ardently desirous of snoh a Oommisiion. I extremely doubt whet* - many
of these gentlemen foel grateful in their heart of hearts to the hon. gentleman {gMt*

ing snoh a scheme. Well, ^ir, when he proposes it we shall disonss it. If there is to b«
a Oommission— if all the cases which have been disposed of by the Election Committeei
•re to be thrown open; if those in which no petitions have been presented are to be inves-
tigated; if those which are before Committees are to be withdrawn from their cogniianoa,
let ns, at any rate, have a Commission that will do speedy justice. If this Commission is to
perambulate the land, Parliament will expire before half the constituencies are dealt with.
But, of course, the hon. gentleman will take the Ministerial members first, and will allow
the Opposition *;o point out the order of their going ! This proposal, which is thrown ont
as a bait to lead the House away from the topic, is simply another instance of the nttur
absence of consistency which the hon. gentleman exhibits in his arguments to this House.
One moment the Election Committee i8*the palladium of our liberties; the next moment a
Commission of three men, to be chosen by ballot, is to supersede the Election Committee,
Bir, the hon. gentleman ought to have abstained from very shame from such an argument.
The hon. gentleman has said that, being pressed by the enormous expenditure on the part
of the Opposition, on the part of my friend from Lambton who seemed to have found some
mine of silver or of gold, the locality of which the hon gentleman did not point out,he wai
driven to do what he would gladly have avoided. I have pointed out that the hon.
gentleman's scheme was concocted when he refused a pure law for trying elections. 1
proceed to point out that he knew that the con8en[nenceB of that refusal were that money
would bu spent, and he intended to spend the money. Before he and Sir George Cartier
left Ottawa, as appears by his own evidence — before this frightful expenditure on the part
of the Opposition had set in at all — before the writs wcie issued — before the alleged diffi-
cnlty had arisen, the hon. gentleman was already preparing to obtain means to oormpt
the people of this country. On page 104 of the evidence, he says: — " When Sir George
Cartier and I parted in Ottawa, he to go to Montreal, and I to go to Toronto, of course. as
leading members of the Government, we were anxious for the sucooss of our Parliamentary
supporters at the elections, and I said to Sir George Cartier the fiercest contest

would be in Ontario, where we might expect to receive all t osition the Ontario

Oovernment could give ui and our friends at the polls. I said, * ]('ou must try and raise
Buch fands as you can to help us, as we are going to have the chief battle chere.' I men*
tioned the names of a few friends to whom he might apply, Sir Hagh Allan among the
rest, and that he was interested in all these enterprises which the Government were

Looking to Sir Hugh,
bringing forward." At that early day, before there was any pretence for Opposition
expenditure, he had seen that, to carry Ontario, he would want more than his personal
presence, more than his personal influence, more than the patronage of his Government,
more than the arguments which in the open face of day a man may fairly address to his
fellow countrymen. Yes, it would require more ! It would require Sir Hugh Allan't
money! But not Sir Hugh's alone. We hoar hon. gentlemen say, "What
is 945,000 T" Does the Minister pretend that was all he got irom all sources for the
elections T No, he acknowledges he got more. He says he got some friends in the West
And in various quarters to contribute moneys to an amount which is not in the sUghtest
degree indicated. This $45,000 is a part— a part only— of the election fund ; but it u ft
portion obtained by an abuse of the trusts .ftnd powers of the Government, in
order to help ont the political snbsoriptionfl of their frienda. At thftt time

BPEROII IN THE HOUSE 0¥ COMMONS.

•a

4 k

tlia Miniater oonfMsea he thought of Sir Hugh Allan. U« know that ffentleman waa
intereited in the enterptUes which the Government were forwarding, amongat
others the Paoitio Railway, and he thought of Sir Hugh Allan ; bat buth be and
Sir George Cartier knew that instead of Hit Hugh, in his present frame of mind,
being at all likely to "•hell out, " as he expressed it, that personage had ostablihhed •
oombiaation, and achieved a position which would enable him to ruin, and which he in-
tended to use for the purpose of mining tho Government of the day unless they should
yield to his terms. This great contractor, thu powerful man, had raided himself to suoh
A position that the confidence uf a number of leading men and intending candidates
would be given or withheld from the Goveroment as he should decide. At tbat moment
he was exercising his influence in an unfriendly spirit ; at that moment he was laising
ft feeling of hostility against the Government, because they were not yielding to hii views;
At that moment he was exciting discontent and suspicion, and sowing discord in the ranks
of their supporters, and was making his power felt, as the evidence shows. This friend
of the Government, as the hon. gentleman called him, was far from being a friend, but he
was williog and honest enough — if the word can be used in connection with his name in
any sense— honeat enough to declare his williugaeas to sell his intlueuco, to buppcrt tho
€U>vernment which he was attempting to deittroy, and to calm the tempuHt ho had raised,
if he could only be secured in the object of his desires, and what that-object was is nuj

Allan's Letters.

to be seen ! I am not going to investigate the subtle question how far Sir Hugh Allan's
letters are evidence in this caee, bub I thiuk aay man of common sense will agree with
me that letters written at the time, with perfect fraaknesa, up3n the subject of pending
transactions, are, where thoy are not distinctly contradicted or explained away, the best
evidence of what the facts were at the time the letters were written, infiuitily better evi-
dence than is to bo gathered long after from the lips of a man who confesses his failing
memory, and his changed viawa aud inclinations. I quite admit that a hostde witaesB
may be brought to such a point as to establish the falsity of his letters, but if you want
to establish the falsity of hia letters, you mual: not treat him in the tender
manner in whii^ the Commissioners and the Government have treated
Sir Hugh Alia) You are bound to make bim state wherein hia letters
were falae. With reference to every particular of which you fail to obtain a distinct
denial, you must take it for granted that tho letter is true and cannot be denied. It is
utterly impossible for gentlemen to say, because Sir Hugh Allan speaks of inaccuracies
which apply to letters written in tho confidence of private intercourse — as if he only told
the truth in public and regularly lied in private — it is utterly impossible with a general
phrase of that kind, to answer the stern demand of justice upon the man who comes for-
ward and insinuates that hia letters were falsehood:!. That stern demand requires,
however unpleasant it may be, that there must be an explicit denial. These letters bear
on them the marks of truth ; there are, probably, some inaccuracies in them, but they
•re not inaccuracies which affect theu substantial truth; and as no one else feels disposed
to aay a good word for Sir Hugh Allan, I will say I do not believe he was lying to hii
partners in the gross manner stated by gentlemen opposite. But for the purpose of my
argument, the letters are not necessary. I am content with the sworn testimony. Well,
these gentlemen knew that their friend, Sir Hugh Allan, was raisins; an unfriendly feeling
towards them, that he held a great influence in his hands, sufficient, thous;h he should spend
no money, to accomplish the failure or success of the Government. This great influence
was to bis propitiated — Sir Bngh Allan was to be conciliated before Sir Geo. Cartier
oonld hope to get the money from him, and so the hon. gentleman endeavors to make
•a arrangement between Sir Hugh and Mr. Macpheraon. He says he met Mr. Macpher-
«oii in Kinfiiston about the 26th of July, and after failing to noake terms between the two

Mil. U.'.AKKH

II J)

be tblegrapbed to B'r Goo Cirlitr that h« might assare Sir Ha;;h Allan that the
power of the Government will be exercised to et'cure to him the Presidency

What He Wanted,
of the Cornpafiy. The hon. gentleman now asys thftt Sir flagb Allan wanted
something more. It wa^ tLin, and this only, that in ca^e an amalgauaiCion
should fail, the contract shr^uld b t given to his Company instead of t> a uev CompEuiy.
That was the only farther point be wanted, whereas the podition of the leader of the
Government was that a new Coaipany should in thai event be formed. I need hardly tell
you that the purposes of Sir Hngh Allan m;oL*^ ^^ •[uite aa well answered by the forma-
tion of a new Company as by his own plan. \t i*' ^<^ wanted was the control of the
Company; and it woald suit him just as well to contrul a nc*^ Company as the Canada
Pacific Company Bat it would have been inconvenient for the O im r uuent to give any
positive pledge tiiat the control should be given to that identica' Company whi ih had
been set up as a Quebec Company as against an Ontario Compicy. In t'uii pirtijular
alone, comparatively unimportant, Sir Hugh Allan wantsd more. He got more, I know
not exactly what, but something more, a»d here I come to a point on which I may fairly
•'ay the CoirmisBion has performed its work in a pirrfunetory manner. On the 30th of July
Sir Hugh received two letters from Sir Gaorge Ca^tier. In the long letter it la expressly
stated, " I enclose you copies of tekfiram^ receive i from Sir John A. Macdonald, and with
reference to tfuir ccnimU, I would say," &c. The House will see that the plural is used.
The Hcusa will observe there was more than one .elegram received from Sir John Mac-
donald bearing upon this subject, which it was necessary to communicate to Sir H. Allan
as part of the anthor'.ty upon which action was being taken by Sir George Cartier, and yet
only one has been produced, nor is any question asked of the First Minister, or of Sir Hngh
Allan or of Mr. Abbott, each of whom could have told us what the other telegram was. What
are we to conjecture ? Are wo to say, in the face of that palpable failure on the part of
the Commissionera to do their duty — in the face of that plain, palpable failure on the part
of the Ministers *"-> make a full unreserved statement of ever^thi^^.g, are we to say that the
bottom of this matter has yei been reached ? Are we to say, as the hon. gentleman haa ,
contended, that a favorable inference it to be drawn, though an important telegram has-

Fallure of Justice.

been concealed ? Mark another failure of justice. Let me draw your attention to the piti-
ful attempt which was made to explain two words in the shorter letter. The words of that
letter were, "any amount which you or your Company shall advance shall be recouped."
The pitiful attempt was made by Sir Hugh Allan, in his evidence, to suggest certain ex-
planations, without being able to deny what the true meaning of the words "^our Com-
pany" was. The Minister of Justice, who knew that the original draft of that letter was
drawn, that the copy produced before the CoaimisRioners was writtan by Mr. Abbott, who
is a Bonnd lawyer and knows the use of language and the moaning of every sentence and
every word, yet did not ask Mr. Abbott a single question on tJiis point. Nor did the
Commissioners. They enquired of Sir Hngh, who could not explain it; they say nothing
to Mr, Ybbott, who could ! Cjin you doabt the reason ? It was because they knew per-
fectly well that Mr. Abbott must answer — "the Pacific I'.ail'vay Company." But, Sir,
the answer is demonstrated upon the face of the letters- themselves. These two letters
weie prepared at the same time by the same person ; they had reference to the
same transaction; a nbrase is used in the one, and[that identical phrase is need in the other
Nor is there any law of evidence better known to legal gentleman or better recog-
Dir.ed by intelligent men, than that the .'none phrase used in different
parts of a correspondence- at ttie same time, npon the same transajtion,
means the same hhing. In the letter of Sir Gtorge Cattier to Sir tini^b
Allan, of the 30th Jvdy, we find the wordv, "Voar Company," occur thus — "Dear Sir

SPKE'^H FN TIJK H()USR OV Oi>MMON'-5.

Hugh, I enclose you copies of telegramB received fr»m Sir John A. Ma.cdonaM, ami with
re'erence to their contents I would ^ay that in my opinion the (Jovernor in Counnl v. ill
approve of the amalgamation of ymn' Company with the Intero'-eanic Company, under the
name of the Canadian Pamtic Railway." And thnn he goes on to ppf-ak of the constitu-
tion of the Board, the ^wweis of the Compiiny, and so on. Sir, in the other letter written
by Sir Oeorge on the same day, we find that identical phrase occurring, iu reftr-
cnce to the money, thus:- 'Dear vSir Hugh, the fiiend.i of the <lovernnient will expect to
be assifited with funds in tne coming tltctioij«, and any amount you or your C- vpiyv;/
shall advance for that purpose ^hall be recouped to yon." But of oours? the two Compa.
Dies referred to in these two letters, written and signed at the same time, were juit the
same ! I do not know what Company was m'-ant We are rot toM in tha evidence what
Company was meant, but it contot mean "that Company." Why; Sir, if it were made
to mean that, it woul^ condemn the Ministry, and this is a cotolusive argunicui; against
each a construction! The whole evidence upon the subject of these two letters demon-
strates that they were one transaoiion. A conference took place between Sir Hugh
Allan and Sir George Cartier, by appointmeat. ThcEe very ttlograms were produced.
We are not told how they were produced; but they were produced, and they formed the
fubject of discussion. Sir Hugh Allan wanted soinething more definite, and Sir George
Cartier was willing to give him his own assurance for something more definite. The
wily contractor understood that he was obtaining the ganotion of the Firat Minibter for
all that was in the telegiams, and the assurance of C'artier for Eomething more ; and after
discusEiug what the terms should be, he suggested their reduction to writing, and it was
arranged that the process of so reducii g them should take place at a £u')se(juent meetiug,
meantime that a draft should be mide, and the transaction afterwards completed. Sir,
at that first interview, Sir George Clvrtier })rought up the subject of money to help at the
elections. Before he put his hand to the fatal boni ; before that bond was written ; before
he snnenderel his liberty of acliion ; wliJo yet his Government and himself remained
in a position in which they could give evouhanded jiisti.ic with regard to the award o' :hig
oontraot ; while yet an unfavorable answer might have cuished the hopes of the coi trac-
tor, and a favorable an aer was necessary to his suocoss, SirGiorgo said, "Don't you

Allan's Ijiauence.

intend to help us in the elections ?' Now, Sir, we have heard of Sir Hugh Alku'd great
influence, what a povveiful mm he was. How did he conjecture what was wanted ?
Did be say, " Oh, >es, I wlil exert my influence tor yoa. li is true I have been exciting
the country against jou, but I will soothe all that down. I will tell my friends you in-
t*ind doing what is'right. and I will thus r.iake them your fr!cn:?s." Was that what he
said? No, Sir, not tha.t, but S( mothing (|uite difTcrcut. It wa? — "How mush?" It np-
pea-8 from the evidonce of Mr. Abboti— which, under the circumstances. I inn dispnted
to acoept, withou' withdrawing the complinnnts I have paid to Sir Hugh Allan,
as the more credible, tl.at no mm was named ; iu favt, I trppc'e it
was to bo just aa mich aa wai necessary to corrupt the canntry suUlc'uutly
to enable the Government to fulfil their bargain. AoeordiDg to Mr. Abbott's evidence,
all thatjwas s.iid about the money was that the arrangement as to it shoul.l be put in writ-
ing, and Sir George snii if Mr. AV>bott drew out the paper it would be signed, and the
whole matter- mark it was all one matter — couM bo completed. Then those t^vo worthies
go (iown to their den of iiiiquity to concoct t'leir pnperH. There bnth the letters arc drafted,
and they return to Sir George Caitler to^etht^r. These letters are both presented at
the same time to Sir Georpe Cartier. H^ .cads them over, ho makes some objection to
the last pige of the long letter. The paragraph is alte/id Ho changes tha drafli
of tbi shorter on". Mr. Abbott writes it out for him, and then both are signed '^^
Both are signed at the same tim<>, and the bargain is struck, «o far as tho8c> two geat1«'

MR, ULAKEa

■'I

men can strike it ; and yet men of oommoa sense aro heard to say that this wm not one
tr»..saotion— that there was one bargain about the Facific Hailway, and that the money
matter was an independent political subscription, quita apart from the Pacific Railway
matter. Sir, I tihatl not insult the inisUigence of this House by arguing upon this point.
Every man fhould put it to himself, should cor/jider it with reference to his own private
business rcUtions. Every man ought to put himself —if a man should be asked so far to
degrade himself- -in Sir Hugh Allan's place, and fancy what he must have thought — whe-
ther he must not have thought that the whole matter was one bargain. I will not waste
time ia meeting the tochnicalities which I have heard raised upon this point, but I will
simply point nut that the law would regard these two matters as portions of one transaction.
There would be no controversy in the courts, but that it was a bargain, and abargain by which
asi'Uranues were given on the one hand and the money was given on the other. Supposing
there had been no letter, would that have prevented the whole bargain from being carried
out ? Will hon. gentlemen argue that a contract unwritten was not a contract T Sir, it
would be perfectly preposterous, and the writing of the two parts on different slips of pa-
pers leavtb them still two parts of the same transaction. The hon. gentleman, however,
alleges that he repudiated that contract, and that the letter of the SOth of July was with-
drawn. I deny it Sir, and I undertake to prove, to the satisfaction of every man whose
mind is not closed to argument, that it is utterly untrue. Before I pass to the telegrams
which pas>ed upon this sulgect, let me call your serious attention to the fact that we have
but the oral statements of geatlemtn as to the terms of the telegram of Sir John Mac-
donald, which gave rise to the two telegrams which 1 am about to refer to ; and. Sir, I
inaiutaiu that no proper exertions were made, no proper questions were asked, in order to
elicit the truth &i to that telegram. I maintain that, if it was of importance to this en-
quiry at all, the Commisisioners ought to have gone much further than they did. Who
can doubt that Sir Hugh Allan had a copy of that telegram ? He speaks of it in his evi-
dence, he refers to it, but he never was asked for it. Who can doubt that Mr. Abbott
knew about it t buf- he was never asked its whereabouts ; who tan doubt that it waa
amoug Sir George Cartier's private papers ? but although the custodian of these papers
waa well known, he is never called upon or brought forward ; and all that wc^ know
about that telegram from the evidence is what the witnesses supposed it to havj been,
without a single endeavor to have it pioduced. But if we have not the telegram we
have the answer. Let U9, Sir, take that answer of Sir Hugh Allan's. " I have seen Sir
Oeorge (artier to-day ; you may return my letter or regard it as waste paper. It was not
intended as anything official." But, the letter referred to in this despatch
is the Utter of Sir Hugh Allan to Sir John Macdonald, not the letter of Sir

The Corrupt Agreement.

George Cartier. But what does Sir Hugh say further in his telegram to Sir John: — "\oiir
telegram to Sir Geoige Cartier is the basis of our agreement, which I have no doubt you
will approve of." Why, this speaks of "our agreemenl; !" What agreement? What
agreemiut, Sir, but the letter of the SOth July. But why tliaiorm? What was its pur-
pose 1 Sir, ito purpose we well understand— its purpose was that the First Minister might
be able to say he had never sanctioned the clause as to giving the contract to the Canada
Pacilio C iinpany instead of a new comptny. Sir Hugh Allan withdraws his own letter,
and 8a> s it was not intended as anything official, bat he sticks to the agreement with Sir
Qeorgf, an<i sajs — "Your telegram is the basis of our agreement." Let me turn to the
telegram < f Sir George Cartier to Sir John Macdonald of the SOth of July and see what it
Bays:— ' Have seen Sir Hugh. He withdraws his letter written yon since you make objee-
tion to it, and relies for the basis of arrangement on your telegram to me, of which I gave^
him a onpy " Does this telegram say that the letter to Sir Oeorge Cartier was withdrawn? '
fiir, that letter was never withdrawn, and the First Minister knew it. He knew it, b««

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.

canee it was not proposed to be withdrawn. On the other hand, he knew that the agree-
ment was continaed, for Sir Hngh Allan expressly said in his despatch, "Your telegram
to Sir George is the basis of our agreement." Let me now turn to the lottars of Sir Hugh
Allan of the 6th and 7th of August, on pagv^s 207 and 20S of the evidence, in which, with
▼arions other details, he states that " an agrp.ement was entered into yesterday. " Sir, that
'etter is sabstantially true, if the letter of Sir George Carlier had not been withdrawn;
but it is false, uttpfly false, if the letter had been withdrawn. Therefore, the written evi-
dence of Sir Hugh at the time f;orroborates the proposition that the letter of Sir George

Sir Hugh's Conversion.

Oartier was not withdrawn. But, I have more evidence yet. On the 9th of August Sir
Hugh Allan attended a public meeting, theeie terms, as it wduld appear, having been then
recently arranged; and I must Eay that everything points to something having been said,
done,' and talked over between the 30th of July and the 6th of August, which we have
not yet heard of, because on the 6th and 7th of August the letters of Sir Hngh speak of
an agreement made "yesterday," and on the 9th yon find Sir Hugh speaking at a public
meeting. Had the public speeches of Ministers, and the ( ffi ct of their great policy, pre-
vailed upon him ? Did he, from motives of patriotism, think it was his duty to rii^e up and
anpport the party who had done so much for the country? Was he swayed by the argu-
ments of the First Minister with reference to Nova Scotia and Manitoba, and the other
Provinces which he had brought into the Union ; or did he come out and speak out
beoanse he had learned of the earnest and patriotic desire of the Miuistcra to uphold
British connection, which is their only object in clinging to their places ? Had these many
virtues, as sometimes happens even with an oM man, as sometimes happens even with a
man of such deep-seated convictions as Sir Hugh Allan, persuaded him of the error of hia
■ways, and caused him to come out and support Sir George E Oartier, whom he had but
» few days before so bitterly, so eflfectively, opposed? L«t me read you his words on the
hustings, at Montreal on the 9th August, at Sir George Cartier's nomination, " You »ro
aware," he says, "that two^rival Compauics have been contending for the contract to
build the Pacific Bailroad. The policy of the Government is ta have these two C>;mpanies
amalgamated, and then to give the contract to the Compauy thus foimed " Yuu observe
that in the meantime it was stated that there would prubably be an amalgamation, and
at any rate it seems to have been thought better to 1 ave to the future the consideration
of what was to be done if amalgamation bhuuld not take ^Jtca. He goes on to say, "The
terminus to be at or near Nipissing, and arrangemuti are ia prog' e-s for the construc-
tion of a branch from there to Hull, where it will joiu the Northern Colonization Railway,
thus virtually bringing the terminus of the Pacific Railroad to the east
end ot the city of Montreal. Measures to secure thii amalgamation are already
in progress. Your represent *tive, Sir G-^orgi C^rtier, coincides with me
on all these points, and in the battia of arraii^timeut, which he has agreed to, and cum*
mends to his colleagues i: o Ministry on the Pacilic lUilroad quustion, they have been
carefully kept in view. " i^u, this is • public declaratiju, mj.1 'ongside of Sir George
Cartier by Sir Hugh Allan, who it appta'tt had uudergoue a > kugc of feeling, so far aa 6ie
George was concernei^ ; that the ba--' A an urraogeu.< ut had been arrived at between
them, which the latter had agreed to re ')m<iiend to lui colleagues. But he sayii still
further— of course y^'> iuinvt^ that it was only " the basis uf an arr»ngement" that ha<l been
arrived at — "but I am satisfied that if the vic>vs fcxpr»8!< l)y iiir Hj^orge (Jaitier are
adopted by the Government, as from their reas ;ible nature there ia every reason to
expect they will, the interests of this city and I Atr Canada will be Eccuied, while, at
the same time, every consideration is given to all thu other Provinces in the Dominion. I
think no time should be lost in getting the oentract ^^rup tred, and sigtied as soon as the
Government can meet. I have every reason to be satixfi' «vith-whatSir George hasdone.

4>8

MR. BLAKHS

ii:

and I beli'^re the results will be approved by all. A speaker at one of the political meet-
ingi '_^ th)a city Ia«t week, ventured to insinuate that in my negotiations with your
representative, I was contending for the interedta ai the lines of steamship with which I
am oonnecte.^i, a^ much as for the railroad. This etatemeat is entirely void of truth. I
assure you, grutlemen, that the subject of steamship or mail contract never was alluded
to in any r/. these discussionB, directly or indirectly, and I appeal to Sir George Oartier
himself to oouQim the statement I now make — that 1 have made no attempt in tny-
way to jnnect the Steamship Company or its veiisela with the subject discussed. The
railroad, and that alone, has been under conhideiation." I am afraid. Sir, I am obliged
to rcti ant some of the observations I made with reference to the questions of high public
policy which induced tho oinversion of Sir Huch Allan. I im afraid my recollection waa

Sir Hugh's Moilives.

iraccurate, ard that I must now admit that at this time my friend Sir Hugh Allan was
.not animated by thosa high motive?, but by the consideration, "How ami to get the con«
tract for thf; Pacitio Raiiway, or the Pre8idency of the Paoiflij Railway Company?" Bat it
is ea'd that in fact he ^ot nothing. Was the Preiidency nothing ? Was the telegram no-
thing ? V as the ba&is of agreement nothing ? Ltt us look at this for a moment. What
did the contending parties think of it; what did Mr. Micpherson think of it? Did kf
think it wa? nothing ; that it was all the sano whether he was at one end of the board of
thirteen gentlemen or the other? Did h^ t'link that the President would have no more
inllaonce, no more weight than hi-i personal position would give him as a Director at the
Board, and that, it n it PreiiJen!;, Sir Eliigh Alian would exercise as much iotiiienje ? He
thought nothing of the kind ; everything shows that the question of the Presidency wa?i
a. vital .{ueation. It was what Sir Hugh Allan wanled; it was what Mr. Macpherson did
not want him to g.ot, ajid what ho was determined he should not have Was it anything
or v,&i it nothing'? What was Sir Hugh A]I*n doing before he got that offer. What did
he a,^ren to do in consideration of that oiler? And what has he done on account of
that offer? 8ir, as I have said, ib was in consideration of that offer,
and not until ho cime to an arranj^ement with tho Govei nment by which ho was assured
of that offer, that, till then hostile, he turned round and supported them, and famished
them wish a lirgc sum of money to corrupt the electors of this chantry. And yet hon.

'- Sir Hush malces hl3 Barg.ala.

gentlemen will have ns believe that it was nothing at all. It is enough for us to know
that Sir Hugh Allan and the Government thought it was something ; that he fought them
until he got it, and that he then helped them ; that he got his terms, and gave hij price.
LooU at the contract; what was his bargain? It was one which was of suflicient import-
ance to induce him to make an expenditure cf extraordinary sums of money. Bat does
he iutea^l to pay that money himself. No, Sir ; he inakeo a contract with the Americans ;
Ihey arrange to take |5,500,003 out of $10,000,000 of 8tock,'Sir Hugh taking the remain-
ing $1,5C0,0C0, but the Americana paying 10 per cent, on the whole $10,000,000, the
profits of the enterprise to be applied in the firtt pL\ce to recoup this expenditure, and
afterwardi to be divided in proportion to their interests. They were thus to pay at once
for his benefit $4r)0,000, and in the end ho was to be saved from the expenditure of a single
dollar. The Company had paid $40,000 for preliminary expensea. The hon. gentleman
Bays the preliminary expenses in starting any company exceed f 40,000, Sir, that may
be ; the ho.i. gentleman has had more experience in that direction than I have ; but yon.
Mr. Speak< r, know it only requires •'JlOO to pay the Parliamentary expenses of getting a
Bill through this House. But perhaps the idea of the hon. gentleman is, that preliminary
expenses in all cases inuludo not only the expanse of legislation in this House, but the sab-
sidizlng of newspapers and iadividnals. If that is his idea I oongratnlate him npon his
oti )n3 01 purity aud morality in these matters. Bat besides those preliminary expenses, Sir

aPBECH IW THK H6USB OP COMMONS.

^»

ETogh AJUan wm prepared with ammanitioo, to be faraiBhed him by the AmerioaaB — Mn-
manition whioh he woald not 'Vaste opon inferior Ministers" — sooh as^some^of thoM I
now lee before mo. Look, Sir, at his letters to the Americans, letters whioh the hoB.
Minister of Finance rightly pronounces to be infamous. In one of these he'saya "I hare
had letters from England offering to take the whole thing np, bat it looks to ma to be
too good to part witiii readily;" bat he is willing to giro the contract to Amwicans, with
whom he thinks he can do better than by sellin;jit in England. The evidence'establiahes
that on the part of Sir Hngh Allan this was xnerely a mercantile transaction, a gigantio
scheme by which he might make a great deal of money, and some reputation. I dare say
he has lost some money, and I am afraid his reputation has suffered. Now, Sir, the hoa.
gentleman has said he was responsible for tiie action of his colleague. Sir George Oartier,
in this traasaotion. I rejoice to hear the honorable gentleman make that deolara-
tion, becaase the announcement made on the 2l8t July, was in contradiction of that view,
and to attempt to thrust the odium en Sir George Oartier would have been a most unjost
and moat injorious, if not a most unconstitutional proceeding. How was the money ob-

How was the Money Obtained.

tained by which the hon. gentleman retained the position he noir occupies ? BoW was this
moneyobtainedwhiohgot him the supporters in OntarioandQaebec on whomhe'nowdependsf
It was obtained by Sir George Oartier, at the honourable gentleman's own instigation. Before
the pair left Ottawa, Sir John had told him to get the money from Allan, thenceforward
both of them were eng&red in trying to come to terms which might eoable them to obtain
it from Allan, on the 26th July, the hon. gentleman telegraphs the terms he thinks
acceptable, and by virtae of that tele£n:am he obtains the money. The hon. gentleman
says the telecrram was despatched on the 26th, before there was any talk of money. No,
Sir, the couTersation in Ottawa was long before that telegram was despatched. The hon.
gentleman says the Government are not bound by Sir Georfi(e Oartier's action, but they
accept the responsibility of it. The hon. gentleman knew he had to assist in making Sir
(George "all right" with Sir Hugh before money could be got. He knew Sir George and
Sir Hugh were at arm's length, and that to obtain Sir Hugh's assistance they would
be brought arm in arm, and when this was done he got the money which could only be
got by coupling these two gentlemen. And yet he dares to say the telegram was entirely
unconnected with the question of money. Some people say this money was given as a
subscription. I have pointed out the words "advance" and "recoup" in the shorter
letter as proof that this is not the caso. It is perfectly plain that that document was so
framed because Sir Hugh wanted these men to be under an obligation to him, he wanted
to make them his bondslaves, he wanted to put them in a position in which he could say,
■** Gentlemen, one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, if you please. I advanced yoa the
money, and you promised to recoup me. Of course, there Mas an understauding that if I
got the contract and the Presidency I should cancel the advance; but I did not get the
oontract or the Presidency, and I insist upon repayment." He did not expect to get the
money, only because he knew he would get a consideration for it in the chape of the
oontract or the Presidency. To say that these words are of no account is abpurd. They
\7ere a part of his plan to get the Government in his power, and, in order that there might
be no misunderstanding afterwards as to the price they were to give for what they were
receiving at his hands. "An election subscription," forsooth ! When you or I, sir, or
any other member of this House sub cribes to a church or a charity, or to any of the
purposes for which subscriptioES are asked, we do not expect to be repaid; we do not call
it an advance; we do not bargain for recoupment. We give the money and there ia an
end of it I suspect it is the same with election subscriptionB. But this, as I have
shown, was aVuuj^other diffdrent, and I must do Sir Hugh the justice to say that he never
oalls tiais & subscription. The advance put theae gentlemen completely in his power.
6

«0

UR. BLAKS'S

! I

III

They prate abont their sacrifices in the lervice of the coaotry, they ray they are poor men
alL If so, how could they repay |1GO,000 7 And if they could not, were they not hard
«nd fast in Sir Hugh Allaa'a hands ?

It being tiz o'clock the House rose for reoeu.

After recess,

Mr. BLAKE resumed the debate. He said : — I was pointirg cvt that circTmstanco
demonstrated that the object of Sir Hugh Allan in these traneailioDs was to secure the
contract, and that it was thoroughly undtrttcod that he was to teemed in itlnin for
what he waa doing fur the Government. I also pointed out that it was Bt£Bci(nt]y
apparent that the colleague of the First Minister was acting by the instigation of th«

Sir Hugh has reasons.

First Minister hinuie If. On that queetion, let me refer to the farrsfifs in the CT:d<Bce of
the First Minister, which are to be found in the 116th and 119th pige of the Crmmis-
sioner's report. Qaestion — " Had you any reason for mentioning Sir Hugh Allan's name
beyond that which actuated you in mentioning the names of the ctliir gtiitlimen?
Antwer — Yec, I had. I thought Sir Hugh Allan was especially interested in getting a
railway Parliament returned, and that he was interested in tustaining the Government
which would carry out the railway policy whith they had inauftuiated." Then the hon.
gentit man proceeds to point out the other personal interests Sir Bugh ^llan had in the
result of the elections, but the speech which I read to you shows it was not a peisonal
interest other than the getting of the Pacific Railway Oharter that moved Sir
Hugh. Then on page 119 the First Minister saye, " I have no doubt Sir Hugh
gave those subscriptions for the one object of tustainuig the Government and
their railway policy in connection with the Pacific Pvailway, he being assured that that
policy would be sustained with the influence and power of tho Government if it remained
a Govemnent. " It was in order to secure the material advantages which would result
from the obtaining of the charter that this advance was made. Sir Hugh Allan's interest
in the elections was not political, but was that of an expectant Presitlont and contractor. I
have heard it argued that no harm was done, because nothing had been given to Sir
Hugh from which the material interests of the country had suffered. Can you suppose
that? Sir Hugh would give this large sum of money unless he '■/as to get some advantage
at the expence of the Government ? Could it bo treated ?.» a subscriptlyu i." his views
were thwarted and his desires not carried out ? But wliat have we to do with th«
question what Sir Hugh Allan got ? The argument is entirely fallacious. We l.avo to d*
only with that for which he bargained. It may add to the infamy of the trarsi-.ction if
Ministers, after getting the consideration have cheated their confederates, but that ca..not
juPkil'y the bargain. Men in high judicial positions lia.e been impeached and driven frofu

Lord Chancellor Bacon.

power for actions less corrupt. One of my hon. friends made allusion to the cafle of Lord
Chancellor Bacon, and I thiik it appropriate to point cut that the argument of the hon.
gentleman opposite would have entirely relieved Lord Chancellor Bacon from the slightest
imputation. There were two petitions on which the impeachment waa founded ; one
that of Aubrey, who alleged that being a suitor, worn out with delays, he presented £100
to the Chancellor tliat his case might bo expedited, but notwithstanding, this ofTering
the Chancellor had iironounccd a lilling decree agnhn-i Mm; the other that t)f Egerton
who stated that to procure the Chancellor's favor he had caused to be presented to him
£400 as a gratuity, under colour that my Lord, when Attorney-General, had befriended
him, ltd nolwilhstanding the present, the CJiancellor had decided against him.
Upon (lio pt'litions it was determined by the Comniona, witnesses being examined, that an
impeachment shou'd belaid ngaia.st the Chancellor, Hnd (hat great man fell on tbece charges.
But according to the modern doctrine of Ministers ho was not guilty. They are innocenl,

BPEECn IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.

•I

-k-

liiongh they gave Allan much for his money, because it was not too much ; Bacon gnrcly
must have been intocent who gave Aubrey and Egerton nothing at all for theirs! How
low have those men fallen who are driven to such base arguraen's as these I But all history
refutes them, and every man's conscience warns him to rept-l them. Again, there is the
Macclesfield case, that of another Chancellor who was charged with selling the Mastershipt
in Chancery. He said he did not sell the offices, he only received presents from the persona
on whom the offices were conferred, just as here the Minister stys he did not sell the Charter
or the Presidency, he only received a present from thH person on whom those things were
conferred. This case was also decided against the bribed Chancellor. Was the $160,000
received by the Administration a present? No, it was asked for, haggled for, stipulated
for, implored for, begged for in every shape and way. We remember the telegram which
has become notorious throughout the land, which says"! must have another $10,000; don't
fail me ; last time of calling." Was that a tree gift pressed by an ardent political partizan
on his chief and leader ? Why, Sir, it is preposterous to attempt to abuse the intelli-
gence of ordinary men with such reasoning. The argument of Lord Maccles-
field's counsel was that such payments were presents only. It was an argument that
failed in that day, and it is an argument that will fail in this day. These
gentlemen were trustees for the public, of the power to bestow this great po'ition. They
insisted on obtaining from 1 arlianient enormous, extraordinary, and unprecedented
powers, and in proportion to the magnitude and gigantic cliaracter of the trust and rcspou-
iibility which they took upon their own shoulders, it became necessary that they should
act with the most jealous regard of the public interest, with the most jealous exclusion of
all private interest which might disable them from forming a fair and unprejudiced deter-
mination. What would be said of a private person having for sale an estate of which he
was trustee, and standing for a constituency, who should say to some intending purdmser,
who was competing for the lot, " I will arrange to sell it to you upon such and such terms.
We shall not quarrel about the details ; but I am standing for the county, and I want you
to give me £jOO to help to pay my expenses." Who would hesitate to say that the trustee
had in effect proposed that he should be bribed, and that he should sell his trust ? Could
ke protect himself by alleging that the transactions wore distinct, and that he had made a
good bargain for the owner ? No, sir ! No, sir ! One of the first principles of jurispm- .
dence, a principle founded on uo technical consideration, but on a recognition of the fruilty
•f our nature, is that you may not place yourself in a position in which your inVn'.st will
eoiiflict with your duty. \Vhat was done by the Ministers ? I will put it that Sir Hugh
being simply a competitor with others for the control of this great enterprise, the Gorem-
meat asked hiui for, and -he, at their instance, advanced thorn enormous sums of money to
be recouped after the elections — putting the Cise so low as that, I say they placed theniselyes
in a wholly unjustifiable po.siliou. Had tlie imiuey been obtained for legitimate purposes,
for the lawful expenses of candidates at election^!, they would not have been relieved of
the great difficulty to which I h ive referred. The Government cannot properly provide
funds even fur a lawful purpose, by unliwlul me.ms, or from an unlawful sonrco |
but no man can pretoud th^t these were logilimale expenses. The evidence of the First

lUegltimato Purposes. > ir.« lU^ , . .

MinUter, wh'ch I have read, demonstrates for what purposes Ihe money was expended.
He has told us tint the chi^f expen-e-! were team-'iire, and treating, both iltesitimate. It is
true, he said in Ms speech la^t night, " I did not use money so as to endangi-r any man's
seat." But he did not pretend to say that ho took care to prevent the expenditure of that
money in those unUwful wiy^, or in others s ill more corrupt. No one supposed that the
hoD. gentlemm himself wou'.d go round to the polling places offering bribi'S to the
Yoterp. Tie tion. gentlem m him-i -If was engagt-d in i\w duti. s of Commander-in-Chief.
He A'as * ngaged with his hands in gathering in from the coffers of Sir Hugh Allan and

•I

MR. BLAKBS

•flwra, enormoQB sums to be handed over to aid the «lf clions of bia candidates ; he
was engaged with his tongue in solemnly protesting that no Governmont candidate was
Moeiting, or was to reoeive from Ibo GoTernmont ono farthing to aid bis election. These
■bUifarioaf), attd ooasisteat occupations, I dare eaj, filled up his time. And, no doubt, he
hidded over largo soma in gross to others to be applied, if I may borrow a now fomiljukr
phrase, " where it would do most good. '' But the times, and Him sums in which the money
irM ot>taitied preclude the idet that it was used for other than the grossest form of bribery.
I sm told some of his colleaguep, whom I see on the opposite benches, had to do with the
ftstaHs of part of this expenditure, and as the application is stated to be an honest
iwd upright application, I suppose they won't object to say how they applied it. I am sure
tfie Hoose will be glad to hear these explanations at the earliest moment. Sir, the hon.

EtrcdTocatiMx.
f^tleman has wholly failed to offer any ef-use or even palliation for the statement he made
te the people of Canada at St. Mary's on the 1:9th August. Let me read the Mail repeft,
Hu accuracy of which the hon. gentleman has admitted. He states that he ' ' appealed to
Mr. Kidd (the Government candidate,) to say whether he had received or been promised any
money from the Government to carry on the contest in South Perth !" Mr. Kidd replied
"not a farthing." The hon. gentleman rejoined in these memorable words, "The same
uurwer would be given by every candidate in Ontarie if he were appealed to." And yet the hOn.
gtntleman had then received and disbursed in aid of the Ontario elections $35,000, from Sir
Hogh Allan's funds, apart from other payments, and a day or two after* procured that last
10,000 ! Comment is useless, and would only weaken the force of these plain facts. Sir, the hen.
jgentleman has said that he was driven into a corner in Ontario, that he had the powerful influ-
ence of the Government of Ontario against him, and he has charged that Government with hav-
ing nsed its powers corruptly to influence the elections. As I have before stated publicly, fhe
lion, gentleman made that charge during the election, and announced that steps would be
tdken on the meeting of this Mouse to establish its truth. When we met here the hon.
gentleman did not vindicate that statement. He never uttered a word about it, nor toek
any steps whatever to show that he himself entertained the slightest confidence in the
tnith of the charge ; but now, attacked himself, now brought to bay, now self 6on-
demned, now awaiting judgment in this House, he repeats this stale accusation for which he
has nevt^r furniahed one scrap of proof, and urges it as a reason why his own iniquities should
be coniloned. The hon. gentleman alleged a sale of timber limits as an instance of tho
means of corruption tised, and that was the only instance he brought forward. I, who am
familiar witli ttie administration of public affairs in the Province of Ontario, know that,
for a period boginning long before the general election, the system of the sale of timber
licenses w.is one which altogether forbade their use as iustrumeuts of corruption, for the sale
of these lioenses was by auction to the highest bidder. There was no aliendiion except en
these teriiis, and the statement is so unwarrantad that its recklessness will be patent t«
every porson acquainted with the affairs of the Prorince. But if it were time that the Onta-
rio Government had used corrupt means to defeat the hon. gentleman ; if it were true that
the Opposition candidates in Ontario used corrupt means to defeat him, I do trust and hope
that this House will not so far degrade itself, will not so far fall below its high duty, as te
»rer that the offences of others are a justification for the great crime cojnmitted by the gov-
ernment of this country. Sir, the hon. gentleman's duty was to fight the b ittle by fair
means. He hail his candidates, presumably as wealthy as those of the Opposition ;
he had his private, and personal friend°, presumably as wealthy as those of the Opposition;
be had the legitimate ii fl lence and patronage of the Government, the importance of whiok
lie has intimated to this Houao, when he has more than cn;e talked of the enormous influ-
enco and patronage of a Local Government, and if the administrA'ion can add to these
enormous advantage", which belong to it over the other side, the price of public oontracts<

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF C0MM0N8.

then we may as well at oaoe give up what will hare become the farce of represeatalivo
Gorernment. It would be more eoonomioal to giro the gentlemea in power a perpetual
lease of if, than to go through the ceremony of a general election, in which the people's

Evil Precedents.

tK>te8 are to be purchased by the people's money. The hon. gentUmnn has said that these
acts are to be vindicated by reference to transactions which have taken place in England.
I wonder what they will say in England when they hear that defence of the hon. gentleman.
The hon. gentleman has told us that because, in foruier times, when England was just
emerging to a certain extent, at any rate, from corrupt iDfluences, when England was yet
familiar with the old borough-mongering regime, when able men, pure, wisi*, honest, and
honorable men, according to the standard of public morality, whiuh at that time prevailed,
thought it not indecent to buy a borough, because, in tho^e times, a Secretary of the Treas-
ury received subscriptions from political friends — not, sir, from public contractors, not as
a condition of public benefits — to be handed over to individuals, he himself is justified ; he
compares a Secretary of the Treasury to the First Minister of England ; and, because a
Secretary of the Treasury received some subscriptions from political friends to help In Iho
elections, he says the First Minister of England would have receiver), for the same purpose,
the price of a contract from a public contractor. There is no comparison between the two
cases if the times were the same ; but, thank God, they are not the same, and it in discredit-
able to the hon. gentleman that he should ask us to agree that there has been no advance in
the standard of public morality since the period to which be reverts. 1 rather look to
fnodem English sentiment ; I rather look to the wholesome docti-ine enunciated in the
Churchward ca.se, when the Dover and Calais packet contract was cancelled, becatise of
practices pure as the driven snow, compared With those of the hon. gentleman ; nor can
any of the gentlemen opposite, who may yet propose to vote for the Government, resist
the proposition that if this contract had not been relinquished, they would have felt
bound to vote for ils cancelUtion. I believe a large majority would have felt bound
to do that, and yet I defy those who would have voted for the cancoUation of the contract
to show a ground upon vthich they would have so voted, which does not also form a
ground for the condemnation of the Ministers who signed the contract. The hon. gent'i-

Wbat was said in England,
man adverted to English opinio i. If he desires to advert to English opinion, let him
look at the tone of the English press. I am not one of those who are disposed to bow
down and worship English or other outside opinion, whether it be the opinion of law
officers or the opinion of newspapers, but no man can deny that the unanimous conclusion
of the press of a free country upon the character of a political transaction gives you the
fairest indication of what the national opinion is, of what the national standard of judg-
ment is, with reference to that transaction. There is no doubt that tlie best test of the
English view of this transaction, apart from party views, or views swaying opinion in
favor of the Ministera is to be obtained by observing the tone of the English press. Yet
that tone is one of universal reprobation. Waiving all questions of a bargain, looking
merely at the avowed relation between Ministers and Sir Hugh Allan, the tone is one of
universal reprobation, and therefore we have a very good guide as to what English opinion
is ; and since the hon. gentleman is pleased to refer to old English transactions, as his
justification, I point him to modern English opinion as to this transaction. Ail these act
were done, the hon. gentleman tells us, for what purpose ? For that high and holy purpose
for which alone his Government has maintained itself in power — to preserve the connection
with England ! The great policy of this Government — to preserve the connection between
the mother country and Canada — necessitated and sanctified these acta ! On what is the
connection based ? It is based on mutual affection, which cannot exist v ichout mutual res-
pect. So soon as we find ourselves confessing that we belong to a lower scale in the rank of

MR. BLAKB'8

nations ; so soon as we find ourselves publicly ncknowledgingthat a different code of politiorf
morality must exist here from that which exists in England; so soon as we pronouuM
ourselves unable to sustain the same standard of political purity and morality which la
there administered, I say, Sir, the momeiit that we shall make that confession, If
imhappily for our^ country we should be determined to make it, that moment one of th*

British Connection,
greatest ties of the connection is destrov"^. We are not at this time politically upon »b
•qual footing with those of our fellow-subjects who inhabit the British Isles. They have th»
absolute control of u portion and no insignificant portion of our affairs ; it you are to add t«
the political inferiority a personal inferiority, and if you are yourselves to mark that personal
inferiority — if you are to say that that may be done in Canada which would make our heada
hang down with shame in England ; then I would like to know upon what basis we can
kope for the subsistence of a connection which rests upon mutual affection f If we becoraa
objects of contempt, we shall deserve to be cast away ; if we lose our self-respect and the
respect of England, how can we hope to attain that to which the hon. gentlemen opposite do
not seek to aspire, but to which I confess I do aspire— the possession of the full measure of
a Briton's rights ? IIow can wc claim those rights if we endorse the action of th«
gentleman opposite ? How can we, with those doc^'ines of Government, with
those notions of political morality- how can wc ask England to give us our proper portion
in the control of foreign affairs ? Wc dare not do it, we cannot do it ; we are under a ban
nnless we purge ourselves. Sir, if the hon. gentleman wants to preserve the connection,
he will resign his ollice ; if this House wants to preserve the connection, it will turn him
out of his ofllce, and so tell him, tell England, tell the worhl at large, that we in Canada are
governed by the same principles of political morality which govern the P'nglisli peoi)le. Mr.
Speaker, I know too well the influences by which the cleotions were carried, so far as Min<
iiters did carry them I know also what influences prevail to a large extent in this House.
J am not prepared to go the length to which the Minister of Customs went with referen««
to his supporters, but it cannot be denied that his House i.'?, to a certain extent, aye, to a
large extent, a purchased and a tainted House. Gentlemen opposite have said that every
one of their supporters is branded with Sir Hugh Allan's mark. The Minister of Cnstoma
told us that the amount given by Sir Hugh Allan amounted to a trifle divided among eighty,
sight constituencies. He told every man behind him who was returned for Ontario, that
ke had tr.sted of the accursed thing, that he liad piirtaken of this money in securing his
olection. I do not believe that. Wc all know that a great many of the constituenci-s wei*
earried by acclamation, and in others tlie contest was merely nominal. Nor is it probabl*
that in these cases much money was spent, unless perhaps to buy off a competing can-
didate. By these we may reduue the area over which Sir Hugh's dollars and other funis
were distributed, but, all said and done, there is no doubt a considerable element of
ti'uth in the 'statement wf the hon. gmitleman. 1 am not disposed to qunrrel with it ; I ain
disposed to let him and his followers settle that between themselves. All I can say is, that
though 1 do not advance the wholesale accusation he made against his friends, though I am
prepared to believe there are some ot the supporteis of the Goveniment who did not receive
any of this money, yet there are many, too many, who did, and I can understand the answer
that a Minister may give to those of their partizans to whom they have advanced money,
and who may now be saying, " this is a very black business. We do not see how we can give
this vote." I can quite understand the answer to those gentlemen. " What right have
you to say so ? You took the money, and now, forsooth, you are going to blame us who got
it for you. Yon are equally responsible with ourselves." Some such pleasant conversa-
tions, no doubt, have titken place, nnd some men, I am convinced, will vote upon this occa-
sion, knowing that they had carried their elections with Government money, and tlius feel-
ing bound to say that the transaction which procured it for tliem woi an honorable transa*-

BrRECU IN TUB noCBB OP COMMONS.

tion. That is the unfortunate position with reference to both Ontario and Quebec. But for
that, I have not the slightest doubt the majority against the Government in this Hous*
would be much larger than it is to be on the motion of the member for Lambton. As it is,

Influences at Work,
kowever, it will be sufBcicnt for the occasion. Other influencec, I am aware, are being used
to diniiuish our numbera ; I would fain believe that they will not be successful. 1 am loath
to supjiose that it should ever be sai^l of a Canadian Parliament, what a poet of the neighbor-
iag Republic has said of the representative body of that country, when he described it thus : —

" Undcrnpath yon donr, whoso coping
Hprlngg above tlieni vast and tall,
GravQ men in the dust are groping
J<'or the largess, mi-'an and small.
Which the hand of power is scatterinf,
Cruuibs that from Its tJiblo fall.
Base of heart, they vilely barter,
Honor's wealth, for party's place,
Stej) by step on freedom s charter,
I^eavlng foot-prints of disgrace,
For the day's pmr pittance turning
From the great hope of their race/'

I will not believe it. T will not believe that any such influences as we have reason to kn«Vr
have been used, and are being used, can be successful here. It is true there may be nieu
•ittiny here and voting herewith the promise of oflice and preferment in their pockets. Wa
have men who vote here to-day who may, for all we know, be Governor's to-morrow, or wl/o
may bo officers in various departments to-morrow. We have men who maybe so influenced,
but I hope they will not be so influenced, for I say, not in any spirit of rlictoiical exaggeration,
but as my sincere conviction of the truth, that the name of every man who shall vote against
the proposition of my lion, friend from Lambton will be a marked name, a disgraced name.
(Cries of "order.") Hon. gentlemen seem moved by that remark. It might not bo Parlia-
mentary for me to say after the vote that tlie vote was a di.sgiaeeful one unless on a propositiok
to rescind it, but it is perfectly legitimate for me, before the vote is taken, to express my
opinion of the vote and of those who are to give it.

Mr. ALMON— And we will take it for what it ia worth.

Mr. BLAKE — And I venture to say, standing here as an humble member of this ITonse,
known act to have any aspirations for oflice, that the lion, gentleman will llnd before many

Tne End of Corruption,
hears are over, that it is worth a good deal. I lelieve tbat this night or to-morrow night,
will see the end of 20 years of corruption. This nig*'l or to-morrow night will sec tht
^dawn of a better and a brighter day in the administration of our public all'aiis. I am not
ooncenicd to answer — I disdain to answer the foul and reckless chnrges whicli the first Min-
ister hurled against individual members on this side, and against this side as a whole. My
best answer is by my abstinence from such charges against gentlemen opposite. 1 have
endeavored, so far as I could, to confine myself to fair statements of the I'aets, and to fair
deductions from those facts. 1 have expres-sed plainly, as it was mybtumJdi duly to do
on this important occasion, my views of the political situation. I have said, and I repeat,
that the Ijattle is one between ])Uiiiy and corruption. I have never clKinied for myself or
my friends that we are the embodiment of absolute purity ; nor have I a.sseittd that all tho
gentlemen who sit opposite, and who, under a mistaken notion of fidelity to a party leader,
or of fealty to a lost cause, are about to vote ag;i1nst<us — are corrupt. Far from it ; 1 can-
not be so ungenerous ; I cannot be so unjust. I'.ut to them I repeat my solemn warning,
thn,t they will be strictly judfjed, and that loyalty to a party, or to a man, will not be held
to justify treason to their country. And for us, sir, who are professing opposite views to-
night, I desiie that we shall be judged by them for all time to come — that in whatever

m^w

(96

MK. BLAKl's ftPWffCH IN TUB HOUflH OV r'OMMONH.

«lt«»tiun my Uouorable frionds around me> may be placed, the position we have taken, the
titnde we liare aaaumed, the ground upon which wo atand shall be held by «■, and if
ot by ns, then against xm, as the only trae and solid ground. We are here to set «p
■once again the st, mdard of public virtue. Wo aro here to restore once again the fair
fame of the country which has been tarnished ; wa are here to brighten, if we may, that
Ikme ; we are hpre to pnrge this country of the great scandal and calamity inflicted on H by
those entrusted with the conduct of its atfjiire. I agree with the hon. gentleman, that after
»U Our efforts we will still be led in » position far inferior in the eyes of the world l» that
which we held before these transactions happened. We cannot, even by the act of jtuliro
<which we propose to perform; we cannot, even by the solemn judgment which we are abont
to render ; we cannot, even by the purgations, and lustrations which we are about to accom-
plish, altogether wipe away in other eyes, and amongst other people, the stain, the sharue,
and the disgrace which has fallen upon the land. I have no feelings of joy, and oongratn-
lation at this result. I deeply deplore the trnth of these facts ; but I am one of those who
believe that what ia to be deplored is the existence of the facts, and not their discovery. I
do not understand that Spartan virtue which deemsa theft no crime so long as it is concealed.
I do not understand that morality which will permit a crime nnseen, but is deeply shocked and
alarmed for the credit of the country lest the crime should become known. 1 do not iTidBr-
stand the morality of the Minister of Customs, who told us that it was greatly to \f fe-
gretted, while these things must and would be done, that they should be made pabUo. Sir,
yon will not heal the fostering sore by healing the skin above it. You must lance it, laj it
open, cleanse it, and purify it, beforf) you can get good healthy flesh t« gr*w again,
«nd effect a thorough cure. Painful though the task may be, arduous though it is, 1 believe
it is about to be accomplished. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. When this
vote is rendered, let it be rendered by every man amongst us with reference t ^ those prinoi-
plca of public virtae which he would apply in his own transactions as the standard between
• himself and his neighbor. Let us not be carried away by the alwminable doctrine that timve
is a distinction between the standards of public and private virtue ; let us not agree to the
notion that that may be done in secret which it is a shame to state in public ; let us lay
down the rule that our transactions shall be open and candid, and such as may bear the
light of day ; and as the shame exista, as it has been discovered, as it has been conclusively
established, as it has been confi'ssed. It us now adjudge to ita perpetrators their just
jeward.

I \