IMAG^ EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ?ji IIIIIM |M 2.0 1.8 V 1.25 1.4 1.6 1 M 6" ► V). <^ /}. 'e i^ ^a op. '7 e //, Photographic Sdences Corporation f m\ .V^""^' Xj^ % o 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716; 872-.,503 % % n7 w. I 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 n D D D n 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 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. n 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 ;» i \ t V \v S' * < '■> f ) % \ THREE SPEECHES BY OK 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 I 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 i \ if i 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. " 6 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 I 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, here 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 10 Un. BLAKE 8 ii M !! ' baaiuesA waa going on, while these transactions were being accomplished at Montreal, Sir John A. Mirocceding8. 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.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 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. 13 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) 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. 17 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' 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 referrelay 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. 21 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 m '^■^ 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 i 22 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' 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 hE, 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 oint of ailjournmcut. His Kx(ellcnurnment 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. vm y 26 Mil. ULAKKS if I 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 uneinion on the i)resent state of the case upon the evidence already given, and I coniijiend it SPEECH AT LONDON. 27 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 28 MP BLAKK S ii 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. 9 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