^ \^ ^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I tii Kii 12.2 £f 1^ 12.0 L25 II U ,,.6 *l 6" ► P: '^r ^/. .'^.V ^^.!i^ V y /A Photographic Sciences Corporation ^^""i^^"^ o^k ^r.^ ^^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) S73-4503 o .o % CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Tschnical and Bibliographic Notan/Notes tachniquas at bibliographiquas Tha Inatituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha reproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. D D D D D D D Colourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture andommagda Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couieur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches at/ou illustrations en couieur Bound with other material/ Rali6 avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these hfive been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdas lors d'une restauration apparaissant dans la texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: Tha tot L'Institut a mirrofiimi la meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a it6 possible de se procurer. Les details da cat exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Colo'jred pages/ D X D Pages de couieur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^as □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou peliicui^es rT7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ L2\J Pages d6color6es, tachaties ou piqudas □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes The pos oft film Ori| beg the sior oth( first sior oril Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Qualitd indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriai suppi^mentaira Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible The shal TINl whii Ma; difft enti begl righ' requ metl Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure tlie best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partlailement obscurcies par un fauillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6ti film6es A nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J. 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X m. The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Pubiic Archives of Canada The images eppeering 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 end 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 impvos- 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"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large 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: 1 2 3 L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce h la gintrositA de: La bibiiothique des Archives publiques du Canada Las images suivantes ont At* reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de Texempiaire filmA, at en conformity avec ies conditions du contrat de fiimage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont fiimAs en commen^ant par Ie premier plat at en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second plat, salon la cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fllmte en commenpant par ia pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par ia dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur ia darnlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion lo cas: la symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", Ie symbols Y signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tabieaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour fttre reproduit en un seui clichA, ii est film* A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammas suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 z ' '■#■ ^: V 1 6 ,. . 4*' • THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL SPEECH OF THE HON. JOHN S. D. THOMPSON, MINISTER OF JUSTICE. X)E!IiXVEI?,E!3D 3S/£^E,CH: 22, 188G. Tlie Hotisfi resumed the iidjoumtHl d(^))aj:sion of issues on which hon. gentlemen opposite seek to bring .'.gainst the Government the charges which have been bandied across the Housit in tliis debate, of guilt in connection with other trans- actions altcgether. 1 said. Sir, that I felt it my hrst duly to express this opiuion to the House, and I am glad to know that some hon. gentlemen oj'iiobite feel a=( I do. The hon. member w lio addressed the Ilotiw" on Eriday evening so long and so ably, has filled the oHico which I have the honor to hold at present. He is conscious of the great dilBeulties wiiieii beset a Minister of ./usticc in advising the dispensing of the- clemency of tiic Crown, and within the last three months the hon. gentleman said, in a great public assembly: " r know how much these difficulties are enhanced by he.ited partisiin and populir discusaion, in whioh distorted views and an impertoot apiirociaiiou of the facts ara likely to prevail." After that frank admission I would suppo.s;' that if this question was to be argued in this House, as it has- been argued by the other side, as a question of conhdencts we shonhl at least not have had tiiose "heated partisan and popular" a]'p'>al8 made in order that the juarof Parliainonl to brinir forward a matter of Ibis kind, Htill I iissort tlitit it i>< iiiost itiooiivenieiit iiiid iiIui<'hI iinpotiittblei for titiii Huuae, upon cj' parte statonieptn, or even upon iin nrKuineiit of tliu uhho, to arrive at a proper il«itiHioii of thoniHitor. • « • y\'q (\vii tbat there war. a vnnv of miatakon identity. • • • 1 think wo »hould as far as posaiblo rcnoKoIzo ibo principle that the- quoMlioo uf dispenaing thu mercy of tho Crown nhould nut become a niattoi uf debute in this llonse." If this is to he- done, if a political disrussiou is to follow the autioii of tho Kxiniitive in every cr to iik which olomeucy is given or "efuscd, one win easily undi-rstand what confuHion we Bl.irtl! introduco into the administiatioii of criminal jistice in tliis country. The greatest criniiiiul who may he eondjinned by the tribunals will have some hoDO thnt if hia cmc can only ho llirown into the voitex of politics, to tpiotn the language of Louis Riel on tae day of Bfttochr>, "politics will suvo uw." lie will point to the fact that, lifteoa yeais ago, u politici'l party in this country made a desperate olfort to gain jmwer by appealing to public passion about a gi'.at tragedy whicli too; place, and tlifrt linving faih-d in that enterprise, llftecn years utter^ards they considereil they could climb into power on the feelinj^ provoked by Another tragedy — first trying fortune uj^wu the fate of tin; victim, and tlien trying it upon the fate of the murderer. It will result, tiir, that the Executive, especially if it be weakly sup])orte(i in this llonse and iir the country, muflt seek to do, not what is right merely, not what is justice merely, not wluii is a fuhihnent of the law merely, bia t;hat which is moat iwpular in tlie eouutiy, in view of the fact tiiat the ease is liktdy to l>e tried all (;ver again iu the Uoiuu of (Commons a.i a court of appeal, and in view of tho fact tiiat afterwards it will be tried ail over again at the i)olls. More than this, we liuve had already indicated a still mure serious result. It is not merely that the admiuistraliun of justice is to bo broufjlit into disnipnte, not merely that its just euforuemcut is to be endangered, but if the J^xecutive shall attempt to carry out the law, tlien in relation not not merely totl)e lilxeculive itself, but in relation to the ptople who support its policy, and all people who believe that it was simply carrying out tlie law and discharging its duty, a cry of revenge, as my hou. friend from Kent (Mr. liundry) said, is to go up, and be kept u[i, by one section against the other. We s) all have, then, not merely the admiiiistratioa of justice degraded, but we shall have, as indetd we had in the month of November last, the cries of civil war raised in our own streets, when they had died away on the banks of the Saskatohewan. We have heard, at each stage of the debate, the cry for more papers. I do not presume to discuss what was done iu the House last Session, although 1 have liad full access to its records, but 1 have noticed that this Session the cry became more urgent and more emphatic the more papers were, brought tlown. We had fiitjt the cry that the record was not complete. We had iwsued to the public nnd laid en the- Table of the House all that constitutes, technically, the record in criminal cases — all that would go before a court of appeal — all that should bo asked for here if this Parliament is to be considered a court of appeal. There was even more than that in the blue book which we printed and circulated; but we had hardly met when we were told that we must have all the arguments upon the controversy about tho postponement of the cose, although that argument resulted in an agreement between the counsel which, withdrew the matter from the consideration of the court altogether. Those paper.H were brought down, and the cry became louder and more urgent still for more papers. We were told tin re w,as a controversy on the trial as to whether Louis Riel should be allowed to defend liimself, besides being defended by cowu- sel — ^" bring that down." We .brought that down to this House, and the cry became more urgent still- " We have not the judge's charge here," it was 8aid> and one hou. member told tho House, that we were not even in a position to tell the House that the judge's charge was before the Court of Appeal in Manitobfi, although the blue book which he lield in his hand contained the judgment of that court, in which one of the judges said that he had great satiafaction in being able to say that he hs.d read the whole charge and that he endorsed every word of it. Well, we brouglit down the judge's charge and the cry became more urgent still. One said all the papers that were asked for were not brought down, and another complained that we had brought down more than were asked for — simply for the reason that those which wore brought down were not as satisfactory to them as some hon. gentletneu expecttid. Let me turn the attention of the House again to the practice whicli prevails in the Hiitish Parliament upon that tiuestion. I have looked, I think I may say, at every case which has coiue up for consideration in that Parliament for the last twenty-live years, and 1 have been unable to find a cnse ii>. which the papers connected with a criminal caae were laid before Parliament at all. The question has; arisen theie sometimes on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, sometimes on a question whiuh tftjfc Home Secretary has to answer, but never upon a motion of want of confidence — never with ti e reqiiesft that the papers should be brought down. But, while I have been unable to find a *ecord protlueecL to Parliament, in such a case, I am able to find that it was refused, fof, on the l7th of May, 1878, m tL^ iiiMTWsion of the case of George Bromfield, reports touching the insanity of the prisoner were asked tor, and Mr. ABJi^ton Cross, the Home Secretary, said that "all the communioaKons made to the Secretary of State in the matter were of a confidential character, and therefore he did not consent to produce them." I thipk, Sir, that as soon as the papers which remain to be^^bronght down are laid upon the Table of thft House, thf doaire of lomn of th« hon. Tnombcrs for \M\)i'n will bn more urp-nt than ever. Tlii'y will not Uke the papprn whicli are y\»k Inr tli' jiapi-ra whinli he, waid wure lying * mimblering Unop«>ne«i' in our offioes. Aa an ilhrntriition of tlio uurtanouiibltines?* with which soino of these (IcuiJUidtt luiT« been made upon us, lot ui" call tlie atti-ntion of the Honsn^to a single itiatanco. On the 17th of March nil hon. nnjinbur moved: I" "That an Address to Hist KiocUonoy tho (lovonior-denoral ho proMotcd tor a full and complete rev it of tho trial of Thomaii f^aott, chiirKod wiin ' treasnn-telony' at Kejtina; giving the ovidonuo for tUo Crown and deftiiieo, (iRether with addreHHflB ofooun»id and ehargo of the Stipendiary MatciHtrate. Rppcrt oi tho trial and nentenoo ol the halt-brctd prinoiiorH at imt illustration and of some facts wo do know, how true and appropriate this comment by u bystwidei is upon t^iis cry for jwpers : "1 wa* ainiixod lo-day at Mr. . He was toarinn tho Qoverninont to tatto-S for not haying tbe pspem down. ' Wliere i« liio diary of Louis hielV ho cried, and then asidu to linurior, ' fs that down 7' Nt, •whisiioriid back Irfiurior. Then Mr. btooine furioun in his donunciatioos bccaaso it waBn't down.' ] think. Sir, that at an earlier stogo of this discu8!iion, this hon. member for IJellcchaHSo (Mr. Aniyot) saw the ditUculty the Houbc would meet in the discussion of a f^uestion of this kind, and in receiving and • Mting upon the doctrine that this House was to be a court of aj'pcul; for tho hon. member declareil almost u\ so niauy words, that he and his fricn Is were justilied in trentiug this case as an exceptional fase, becauHe it cf»mo from tlio North-west Territories; imd the hon. member icad to the iloum u Bcctioii of the Act which provided that the report of a capital case trivd iu the North-west Terriloriss ikoiiid come to the P'.xccutive. Mr. MILLS. Hear, hear. Mr. THOMPSON (.\ntigonish). I .■^hall read — especially as an hon. member of my own profession OB the othc- side of the Hoiiae says "hear, lu-ar" — two sections of the law- the section b''aring on easts m the Noith-West Territories and the section bearing ou cases in too various Provinces, and will ask what the ditference is. The general law, taken from tho Act of 1873, applying to every Province in this Dominion, is ; "Tho juddo beforo whmu auch priJoner has been convicted shall forthwith make a rtport of the •nse, throuidi the ^iocretary ol .>tale lor Canada, lor tho information of the (Jovernor, and the day o be npixiintod for ■ Mrr^ioK iljo sei.iouco into exeoutiou Bliall be such aa in tho opinion of the Judge will allow sulliuieni time lor a ■igniileation ot the Uoveruor'a pleaHuro ^eforo such aay." Now, the provi.siou relating to the Nortii-West is this: " Wh*n any person is oonvicted of a oapital offonc', and Is sentenced to death, tho Btipondiary magistrate shall foi'wanl o the Minisfur of Ju.suc8 full nows of tho evidence, with his report upon the ease, and the execu- tion S11..11 be postponed from time to time by tho stipendiary magistrate, if fonud necessary, until such report i» reeeived, and lUe pleasure ot the liovernof (ieueral tbereon is uomniunicatod to tho Lieuteuaut-liovernor. Now, the only diUerence between the two Ecctions is this; First, it is provided that the judge in a ^o^th- West cufje shall furnish full notes of the evidence— and the hon. member laid stress upon that point. I can only »;iy to him that, lull as the notes of the evidence are in this and in every capital case coming from the North-West, they arc not one iota fuller than the reports of capital cases whicli we rcjreive frons the Provinces; and as regards the postponement of the day of the e.xecution of the sentence, although thj jpower is specially conferred upon the stipendiary magistrate in tins iVorth-Wcst Territories, it is still fully compitent to the judges in the other Provinces to respite until tlie pleasure of the Governor is made kuowu. The provision making it mandatory upon the stipendiary magistrate to postpone in tho cose of Nortli-West trials was inserted, I believe, in consequcuce of the remoteness of the country and tht dilMculties of communication; V;ut in practical working the two provinioDs arc identical, and a case com- ing from the North-West Territories has no more couneution -vvitli the functions of this House or the poiilvcs of the country than a case con ig from the Province of Qm-bec or the Province of Nova Scotia. . Before 1 refer to the criticisms which \ .c passed upon the trial of the case, and as one of the preliminary iflteervations 1 wisli to make, I desire to reply to a remark which was made by the lion, member for HocheUvga (Mr. Desjaidins) the other evouing. Keplyiug to a remark of the Minister of Public Works, he a.iked how the Minister of Inland I'evcnue, and how the- Minister ot Justice could reconcile with truth the statement which had been made in this House that there had Leen a change in public opinion in the Province of i^uebccl He referred to the mtietings which had taken place at St. Jerome and St, Colombe, at which 1 had the honor of assisting, and at the latter of which my hon. colleague, the Minister •!' Inland Rcveuuo, was with me. The hon. gentleman wanted to know what wo had to say, after those meetings, of the state of feeling in the Province of Quebec '< I answer that if we are to judge from what »e saw, tlierd had been a greai change of feeling in the Province of Quebec. The people were disposed to listen to reason, to arguu.ent, and to truth, and there was no more passion evinced at those meetings than at any meetings of equal size' called in any other part of the couutry, for the discussion of public questions. If 1 had to judge from the reports we saw in the press, 1 should have to give tljc hon. gentle- man a dilferent answer; but at present I shall testfy from what 1 saw, not from what 1 read in the papers afterwards. 1 should think the hon. gentleman would have hesitated to ask me, in the presence of this Mouse, what I thought of the change of public feeling iu the Province of Quebec, when we have so muty ill not riiught II tny: Inring initiiils 7th of rtof rii and al and ttod to witnir foUow- oountrynum, accun-d tho unnnimoUH adoption of lhf;., mildly wan the r<>»olntion woidi-d ttiftt it oxcitcd th(! mi, pi, ion of the hon. rncmlMir for Woat Dnrhani ^^l . Hlakc), iiuJ ho dncdarod that th« Govcrumont inimt have drav.n t!iin iiMlictnn nt. I wish to uiiiko on.' other preliminary ohBcrvation, au obiorvatiou with regard to ihe hon. irn'mlnr for Be.lloe.haHse (Mr. Amyot) in rosii^e.t of a matter in which, I think, ho did mo, umionH.uoiwIy, lui injuHtiro. Ahont (en minutea bofore tlii»i dolmte Ugmi, when tlie hon. merubar for Montmagny (Mr. Landry) was about to take the floor, the hon. uiemWr tor HeUecha*! (Mr, Amjot), williont having given any noticti of lii-i i|n.,4tion, rose and a^ked a (lueatio'i involving a ■umber of dotails, iw to wliother tlie modioal \<-]M)vtM lioin Uegina had been recfivod by tolograi.li, and if so, at what dulo, niiii would Miey 1m' bimight before tho irou.so, and involving othor imrtiunlars as wrii. I Btatod that I waa unablo from memory to answci Ihe que.stiou on tlic Bjiot, prohuining the" hon. giuitlp.- man would, m im BubHiuiuently did, plit it in writing, and give me an opportunity to furniili the |)aiU- oularH Biilvod for, I lliought that it wiw Roniewhat ungcneroiw on the part of the hon. gentleman (but it probably waa due to lii» miHiindor.Htanding my unsw((rT, when lie said that roemheiH of the (government wen) 80 di.sp()sed to iriilo with thi.s great ,iueHtioii aiul with the wishes of tin; Ifouac itself, that when thef wore aaked a vital (pie.slion tho an.swer waa that thoy could not remember. Ho forgot lie wa.i aHlciug a quoation involving particulars which could not lio Htutcd without looking /it the documents tbeniHelTni, or tho records of the Department, :uid of which he had not given any notice, and that therefoio he oouU ■ot expect the information to be at once supplied. The hon. gi'iitlcmnn had been in this House two weeks of the Scsaion; he had alr"ndy aake.d lor pajxtr of alirio.Ht every dcHcription, and if it had occurred to him to put his (juealion a little earlier than ton minutes Infore the debate iH'f^an, I should have been ia a position to n.iy something more delinite than that I was n-it able to answer from memory, \V> have kad the point laised and prc*w,d with groat earnestness, that the trial was an iiul:iir one, and we have heard it asserted by a member of the legal jiroh ssion, that aitiiough it was a legal trial it was not a fair •■0. 1 confess, after having given that obs-rvation all the reflection I have since been able to giv.« it, I am unable to understand it; i am unable id understand hovs the Executive can be condemned for not having given to the piisoncr .something more than the law gave liim, I's reganis the procedure in thia trial. Wo have generally understood, throughout thin Em])ire, that a synonym for fair play as reg^r4« tfae administi-ation of criminnl/justiee w:w British lu\-, and yet we are told now, for the first tiioe, lu * Parliiuuent existing under British institutions, th;vt the Ooverninent are to be condenuied booau^o their counsel couducted the trial in such a way, that although strictly in accordance with the law, it was •« unfair trial. Now, let mo iwk the House to bear witl. me for a few monents wliile I aildrese it ujxm those points in roHi)ect of which it wiut said the trial wa*i unfair. We were told by th'j hon. ii'embcr for West Durham (Mr. Bl4ke) that tho judges wore ill lerior judges. I presume ho meant, UHdiniciily, that' they were judges of an infoiior court, and not that he meant to impugn their professional staiuiing or abilities as meaibe.i-s of the judicial bench. But that ia an entirely irrelevant en(^uiry. Thu jurisdictioa, whether the courts be RUi)eiior, or inferior, is plainly conferred upon them by law; the law of the country requires that, whether these be superior or inferior jiulgcs, they should lake cognisance of ea9<'i like thia. It has been said that the couits there were peculiar in their organisation. The criticism, pointing, m I uupiHiJ'O it ;niii to t\w ie^ihlutiou on that •ubjfot, I lind tiiut that flNviaion wm iu««rtvd uot by the ^viitlfin* ii who Rit oti tiiia Hid« of the llousr, not liy tlio k>'<>^1*"B<^'> •ho bad in tlil« rase In Mliuinttter [he. hkw, but wait |>ul by gciillflintin ou|x>i»it« into llut Act of ]87r>. It "*»«• aaid that ihi'Ho judjy theni without a niiirmur or ooniplaint. It woa said likowise that a grave miatokt! had bnen uiad" in the ueltctiou of tho judge It was said that Judgo Kichartlion atanda in the Ipcaition of Attoriit^-Clonvral in the North-W(>»t. ' I think that 'hat iii' hardly a c<>n\:ct slatciucnt of his iHMitioM thi'ti'. Heiwaa, it is true, as law «dcrk to the North- WVai <'omi'il, as b'gal adviser in refunmce V> the legal biiHlufss that couiim Kfore tliat Council, and as t^nch he recuivos a paltry, almost a iiion the conduct of the Kxeouiive in this very case. In justice tt> Mr, Uichurdnou, I muHt say Uiat, when those resolutions oamc iMjfoie iho Nortli-West Couiuiil for deliberation, bo withdrew from the Board. I think that the choice of .ludgti Jtichardson wa^ as 'viae a choice as oiuld have been mide. He was iif ipioiutec of oiirn; it could not ne said that for nay [jolitiml soi vices hfl had rendered to this (lovcrnunrnt or Ibis party in the jMwt bo had received liit judicial olh rMinnmw uf tha trUI him Wn i;h»HrnKi'm i< not uware wluit that man'i ii'lif(ioii wnit. I mn .iMc t*. N««ur«> tb« Hon«> on their authority, vrhirh, I mn Huri*, will not \iv iiii)>iif;iii'(i li<>r«>, or uTiywImrc cIim' in Ihia ooQlttry, that th*|i of religion Mi^vt'f «!nt4>rr(l into thoir i'oiiiit(lt!rntiou at all. The hmi imMnhfr for \SVitt I)iirhain tliiittiji that tliat oould himlly li no, titHtnuif, tut myn, If il wnm ho then! wonlil havr \tMiu a clinlien^ "for cauM." Every person nrai'tiinng at th A liiir^-Hnil i up|H-nl t«i all my |init<>iiHi(inul hn>thr«>n on lM>th aiilcti of Uta IIoQi« to ('(mJirm th«> HtiU'-iatnt -knowH that in the trial of muwii thimi may h" douhtu an to tlio quallfl- cAtion, monlal or ollnrvrtNc, of j«irorH, liotibta aH to the I'ouiidni'iix r>i the jiidgriK-nt whioh they may Viring to th« uauM', (louhtH as t<> tht;ir |mrtialitv m Jnrort, whinh cannot l>c Vfriflpd on a (:h«ll<-n^fl " for c-aum, IwoAuac, perhapH, tiie witnoRMH aii' at n iIimUiio^ who could provo tho objctitiuna, and it iH hotter and anfer in th« punlio internat, oafcr in thti int<-roHtH of jiiHlicM, to chullongA perf>in]itorily. AltlioiiKh thcrt wi^e a number of jitrora lihalluiiKfd on that otit-aiiiun by tht' dnfono.ci, thm in tho Hiuglc infttanoit in whicb a Juror WM challauged on thu part of th iltat ooiiti'iitiim, uml nti»U* 1 oauili.lly io llip H<>ii!*i> ihiit I'vlilfiicn Willi ri'^*"* to tlir f^riavitncoii wiia pm['«rly n-jiut iwiltl U'>t Imro hcim ltelt«T imi llmu it wiw put by Mr. Kmhanlm*, who Mill: " It in nojaillfloatlon, in thn trial ofa t>rlioD«r ohargad with %o anoraitltutionai a«ltatii>D, tliat bo mad* ft •onatliiitiiitiiii NiUMtloii at ivny oilier time. For that n'mtoii (.uly tlt«t Crown ui>uiii>«tl ih(;llii(Nl to onicr thn sttfudnnm* of Mr. Vaiikoognat and Mr. Burf(«MM, Aiiil w« havd tliM a>i haTttigaaeuaevf honor to uiakn to tlio IlouMi'ol iho hon. ini'inhin for Wniit Diithitui (Mr. (Uaka), who ^tatro ^\itno-■e• for whom an ainnifity, and not a Huli| trial, wuh ititv«r nuhinltted to th(^ tribuiud it all, nevi*r onnio l><r a montli, (MnniNcl for th(; ('town — Mr. (.'hrUtopln'r UuIiiubou, Q.C— unnouijou to ih« •ourt tlu; nnilfrntanding that had Ix^oii arrivt \ at. llo ivtid: " All thu«e witnoiieii who are in thii oountrv can ti« snt Hi wfok iuiit ai woll ao In a moiuli, or a yftar. Tha- Orawn wi I lio morn. Tho (Jrown will tuln witli my learnod frioixl in t«l«|rraptiinir t to thn Houm* what >va.s donft ift Ibo dlaoliai^,')' of that Agr''nn)ent tto arrived at, buit.tu.Ht; thn caiii*, 1 admit, ih A[ tho wwm' if, after having ▼Ithdrawn that application from the lonHidiTation of the court, thny did not (airly ana honorably fulfil th« •bligation thty had undnrtaknu. On thn '2lHt July, ISHf), tho Deputy MmiMter <>f Jutitico sent tUa talegrani from Kvgina to Dru. Clark and Howard: " You are roniienx sorrv that Valli''e oanaot oomo, but oanuut hulp it. Clark has been aunnuonod. Will oxpoot yonraelt'and Viuoolutie an warned." On tho Hame day, 22nd July, Dr. Howard ttdegiaphed to 8lr .lohn A. Macdoirald for oonfinnation of the telegram, and .said: " If all right will go up at onoe." IJut Dr. Howard, in consequence, as it is state* iy the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Curran), of inJirniitv of health, felt unable to undetakp louy the i'oimH«| fnr th« ibfDnmi atti'inli«tl at tin- trial. If uny jxTnon't ftltanditiitw Witn not H<<r tlm (inwii iw n^^nU rti('fliir or aiiytliiiiK ''Im'. Alti-r niakiiiK tliit Miiiti ,nc, no mutter how hiimUtl hn nmy l'« l>y |iri'jmiiw, that Ihf Iriu! wm ii'iruirly i'> iiuii t<'it*tuM, that i. J<'!t/|«liiuk, in oiuit, nflrr thix .niliTittiiii lin^ wim Krriviil nt, niiulu iIiIm utAtiimonl; "Mny It |ila(.«a your Honor. ~r, on bohalfnribe (isninos, ainunia iho raniwudtbiiltjr of Aoocpiinf the •i«(ay iriiioh. »« iiittcxi liv til* i^rowii IK iiniiel, the <'r<>wii l« r>r«|i«r«il to ofl'tr Ui. " Mr. .(ijKtlott (doli'inlioii -1 iliiiik It ii rviinoiiiitilii. "Mr. F>t|ia rl<;k.— I iliink i' In a loaaoiiiililu tlnio. I intMhl, perhain. bar* ttratohr't a day nr no, but no# b«yofiii 'hitt. b«(!Hui*M iliK ini'itiiii III (MiiiiiiiuiiiouiUin ara very i|uick now coininkrail with what lliey weru, mill » witoe** oi^n li« tfot I'loiii (,{u«tieo, >li]." Yet, Hlr, aftnr that atatf^uwht ik;ip«are(l in tin* puhlh' )inutR, a luotlun of n*iiTft luw heon a(lv to ri'l'itw' tlio prinoner a tair dolay for llin iir('|tuiiitioii of IiIh tiiul, and (HID nuunlwr laid it wim do Iiimi< iiii oiiU'iik« thai int^i liko Mr. UohiiiNun, Mr. ().iUiif(;t. lli' thunght tliry wcru (liriatinn ni'iiUi'ini'n, hi' tin i.^ht thum profi'iHiunal mnn of high honor, lintlcniun hua givua tiieu). Mo MiiiHl hnvi- fiilnrtalin-d the o|iinioii of hm proft'saional brolhroii whloh an KnKl'xh I'Hi.iiyiNt did •oiuo tiniuago, wIumi Ini naid with ri>giird to tin- trudilion th it cohmhpI was honiid, if, he took ii hri<>f and waa pttid a ft>i>, lu do oven diahoiiorulilc thiiigu for the hnicht ofliin oliont, " it cntuoa to thih: lliat a man may do for a guinea what ho would not no without it ifit thu worhl." Thi- m-xt ohjt'otioii wuh that ther« vaa no autllcient iiit)tr[irutntioii of tin: I'tiniouy. 1 have only to nay lliat thi' ^'|>o^l of Iho triut hIiowni •ad tho auBWerawhich huvu boiiil givi n nii; ui>on that point hy tlui coiumol h'r the (^ruwn, ahow, that ut ewry atago of tho caDo thiru waa thi> In st iiiteriir<'tatioii that could hei got in tho i ountry. It wiia not for tliA Orown to providu au iutorproti^r lor thu itrrondant'a witnehwci; it waa enough for tho Crown to pay tim iyiyK'11808, ami tho t'rown (Ii an npaking the French language, and thu slighteat i«acouraoy of iut»;fpielfttiou would hare been cheeiv d. With the exeojilion of one iiistauin!, there wa» ■ot a eomplaiut niHdo about thu iiitorpreter, and tin n it wiia reuioved na well as wt>H jiohxiblo. Thun wo were told that it wiw unfair that the Haloche j^puM weie kept back from tho priaooer, Now, thoae papers were tiot kept back in the ordinary nduso of the Aord. Any pup' whleh waa demanded by the •oun»ei for the deloiu.e vouM have been jjrojinoc'!, and none wre uaked for by cither of them. The »pplu)atioa whidi was made was for a nyuw of paj-jiH e.aptuied at ilatoelio — not Iticl's jwiM-ra ahme, but papers atleoting the interests of eighty priHonerH wlio were then in custody on a charge of high trenson, and tho domaud woh; " (Jive uh at the Iriivi of tho lii-Ht of those priHonera, all these paiteiM; let \m ranauok all tho evidence Agi\inst the eighty othuiii," and I think the itouae will readily underntand that lor ather roaaons than the one which waa iuHiimated — that those ^)ui)or8 might have developed aouiething agaim some Minister of the Crown — ihoy were withheld from au indiHcnuiinate search on the part oif gentlomen Tcjtrejiontiug the defence, who wore not in a jHwition to call for anj "articular dixiument or any particuliir sot of documents, but aimply wanted to .search all tliro'igh the i)ttpe., m in the invwcbaion of the Orowii 1 would oflk •■ ho,se who have had cxjiorieuce in the prusecutiou of cawes tor the Crown, wliet he * hey com knew of such an application beinc granttnl at tho iustiuiee of the oounsel for tho defence, wl ; M lo'the Srosecuting counsel: " Uive rie ueforc tho trial begins lUi insix-ction of the whole of your \n l\ yovtv oouments, every paper of every kind representing your side of all your cases for the tenn ? ' i ueii, Sir, ii was niid — and 1 need hardly, after the observations of the hon. member lor West Durham, have referred to this ))oint, and will simply dwidl on it for a mcmcut — it was said that there wa» au unfair e«cluHion of tcst'mouy. It was .said, when Judge liichanlson remarked that the evidence of a constitu- tional agitation was no justification ot an unconstitutional agitation, and when the question was .iecidcd in favor of the Government, tho passage in the blue book was held up to obs<,'r ration and tjuoted loudly, that the obj -ctiou of tho counsel for the Crown was; " Why, you are putting tho Government on it» trial." The hon. member for West Durham said: "Why should not the Coverameut be put on trial 1" Well, Sir, one at a time. Tho trial then going on was tho trial of Louis Riel, and 1 should be ashamed to say a word or to cite a lino of authority to show that evidence rolaliug to the conduct of the Goveru- ■lout in relation to the land grievances in the North- West would not be admis.siblc evidence in ".lie prisoner's favor. IJut the hon. gbutlemau, when he refei-red to page 110, nud read the erprcasion — (I soe it wofi made by the judge) — "it would be trying tho (Jovernment," unfortunately forgot to read to tho Jiouso what followed. It was unfortunate for tho confidence -Uich we wouhl feel in his t ii rreli^vanrto the issue. , . . , . . . , .^ ,x_ t ' Mr. Leniieux.— The most important objection Is that it is leading. As to the opinion of toe witneM,! flhould think his opinion is valuable ; it is facts I want from the witness; I snjppose he can give his opinion baaea on tho facts. If be Kiiys no or yes, I will ask him whv, and ho will give luo his reason why. *' 11 is Honor M r. JUistlce ftiohnrdson.— That will be a matter of opinion, " t'r. Lemioux.— I will put the auestion and you oan object to it. " Q.— iJo you know if at any time the Dominion (Jovernraont agreed to accede to the demands made by the haif-breedfl and clergy, relative to the claims and right* you have spoken of in the preceding answer? " Mr. O-ler.— I do not object to the nnestion, if •'onflned to a date prior to the Ist .July, 1884, the time he wae asked to come into tho country, althougn tho question is really irregular. I am not going on strict linos, bat I do ohiect to his asking aa rogaids the pret{ testimony Wth regard to that, if that were not conclusive, as I should suppose it would be, and that is this: The llegin* Leader of August 13 contained this statemcL't of what took place immtdiately altea the trjrl: '■ The counsel for the defence, Mossrs. Fitzpatrick, Lemieux and Greenshlelds, waited on Judge Richardw* before they went east, and thanked him for the fairiiess and consideration which had charooterized bis rulingi." Notwithstanding the statement which was made by an interviewer of a Montreal paper, and whict wwt jread to this House a few evenings ago, I hesitate to believe that Mr. Jjemiuux actually ohauged his iridad. 11 in th« another law and of apj)ea]: iny objee- shall haT« bench in m ohardMi rulingi." •^hen h« got «mong his friends in the Provinoe of Quebec, and did, either-for the purpose of creating sympathy for his client or making capital agninst the (Government, say anything that he would not haw «aid at Regina about the fairness of the trial. Mr. l*'it/patricl( has idso spolien again. At a public meet- ing in Montreal, ho said: " It was unfair to nrrai^n before the tribnnaj ot public opinion the judge and jury who tried Riel. Thoy were «imply the outoume of the law a« it was found in the iStaturu Uooti." And yet, Sir, because we administered, in the case of I>ouis Riel, the judgment which the law pronounced, the conhdence of this House is asked to be witlecau8e it is in the regular course of Tny argument, but becausti this condemnation has been conv meuted on l)y the other side for the purpose of drawing a very different conclusion from it. Dr. Willoughby, at page 12 of tlie report, referring to the prisoner, gave evidence as to what the latter told hiffl: " He said they had time and time nsrnin petitioned the Government for redress, and the only answer they received eaon tima was an inoreaae of police. " U. Whatriex did he SB y?— A. lie said, now I have my police, referrinst to men at the door. " Q Those ()0 or 70 mei.?— A. Yes; ho pointed to thcni and he said, ' Yon see now I have my police. In On* ■ Mttlo week that little Government police will be wiped out of existence.' " This is the man who, we are told, was to be regarded as a loyal subject, because at some time he drank a glass of liquor to the health of the Queen. This is the man who, I understood the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Laurier) to say the other night, must have come to this country for the purpose of pressing a constitutional agitation, although one of the first things he said was that the force that sup- ports Her Majesty's Government, and represents there the law of the country and the rights of the settlers, wa^ to be absolutely wiped out of existence* " Q. That was the renson vrhv he said the settlors of Saskatoon had no ripht to proteetion?— A. He said: * We will now phow Saekatoon or the people of Saskatoi.n who will do the killing.' " Q. Anything else?— A. Ho said that the ,imo had now come when he was to rule this country or perish kt the attempt," Shall it be said he came to this .country under any mistake as to his position, Mnder any idea that he waa to be treated onc« again as a political offender, under any notion tliat he had a right to receive again the clemency of the Crown which, fifteen years befon , he liad tran^led under foot and spat upon? No; ha knew well the real issue. " Q. You say he referred to the previous rebellion of 1870, what did ho say in regard to that?— A. He referred to that and he said that that rebellion, the rebellion of filteeu years ngo, would not be a patch upon thiti one. " Q. Did he say anything further with regard to that?— A. lie did; he spoke ot the number that had been killed m that rebellion. " 0. What diu he say as to that?— A. I cannot state as to what he said, but it was to the effect ihat this rebellion w"» to be of far greater extent than the former." This rebellion, carried on in the lines, hon. gentlemen opposite say, of a constitutional agitation, was t* be of far greater extent tiian the former, with regard to the number killed. Thomas McKay, on page !• of the report, gives this evidence: « " Q. Well?— A. He aeoused me cf neglecting them. 1 told him It was simply n matter of opinion. That I had oer ainlv taken au interest in them, and that my interest in the country was the narno as th< irp. and that I had advisi'd them time and again, end that I had not neglected them. I also said that he had neglected them a long time, if he took as deep »n interest ia them as he professed to. He became very excited, and got up aud said, ' You don't know what wf. are alter'" Constitutional agitation, hon. gentlemen opposite say; petitions, these gentlemen say; S newspaper entor- prise, these gentlemen say; but Louis Riel said: " It is blood I blood 1 Ws want blt:.d 1 It is a war of extermination ! Everybody that is against us is to b« driven out of the country.'' Driven out by a newspaper I suppose. :i ■i 12 " Q. IIo uiiod Fort Oailton an attack would bo rande at r o'clock." Now, what was the summons lie sent to Fort Carlton? What was the snmmona he sent to the ovRcer who- was in cliurge of the jtortiou of ^''»* forces, which alone protected the lives and property of the setllere, the force which alone protected thu rritory for the Queen and Canada. The snuunons was: "In the cage of non-acceptance, «o intend to attack you whon to-morrow, the Lord's Day. is over, and to oommenco without doiiiy a warof extermination upon all those who have shown thomeelvus hostile fo our rierhti.'f What wtw the feeling that went throughout this country then? What itself upon every man's mind when that piece of evidence got into print) was tho conviction that forced Why, even those papers, and I am wilfing to assume the Toronto CrVoA^'wos one of them,~whiflh were anxiott>i to keep public judgment in abeyauci; until tlie result of the trial was arrived at, came to the ooucltisiou that for Louis Kiel all wau garer. On tlie 'dri August, 1885, the Globe said: " Tho moment Kiel's letter was put in evidence it became clear that the prisonei- had been not onl^ a partici- pator in but the notuiil iustigutor and leading miad of the rebellion. No shadow of a doubt remained that ho was guilty as charged in the indiotment. Tho testimo.iy that follotved only deepened the certainty ot bis guilt. There never was made out a clearer case, and tee only doubt that remained was as to the extent of the prisonar's jespun- (ibility. As to this the medical e.Tpcrrs differed, and it would h lo,000 of Canadiaij money in his pockets, and the half-breeds might sulfer as long as they did before. It is in conversation with Nolin that he refers to the newsiwpers. Remark this, that altiioii^h the wuue statement is made by Father Andr6 and by Jackson, to neither of these men did he set up this absurd pretence that he wouM «8e this money to start auewspai)er. He knew that Fatiier Andre, with whom he had a like couversa- Uon, and whom he exi>eoted to act as agent to prociue tliis mouey for him, was not a man to be deceived by any humbug like that, and therefore he ^did not utfer to him any such protest. It was only whec tilkin" to a half-breed, a man moro ignorant than himself, but a man to whom, for his diameful venuli-ty, he hau to give some excuse, even if it was only humbug and imposture, tliat he put over his conduct that thin pretenco'that lie was to set n]i a newspajjcr in the Amerie^ii territory. When he undertakes to discuss the question of .i bribe, or of selling out the half-breeds, wiih any man of critic*! faculties or any man of informatien, he Aoea not set up that pretence at all, but says boldly: "The e^use of the half- breads will 1)0 my eAus«% if I can get $35,000 or even $10,000, and I will go where you please. ' They te41 us it must have been an indication of his madness whan he proposed that we should give him tSS.OOO and that he was gv>ing tq,the United States territorj' and start » newspaper." No, Sir, it had »ot even that excuse; it was a thin disguise put on for the purpose of deoeiviug the ignerant, and a disguise which he did not .'vttempt to use whon he was disoussiug the eNBe thiag witk meA of greater 13 jrrenderM Fort t'-breeds; aa fM ace or mercy. intelligexioe, wh* would hav« laughed in his faco Iiad » propounded such a misernble impooturt;. TUis man had come into the country on th« aasumptiou tl the whole Noith-Wiist was liki; a ban-el of gun- powder which only ueeddl a apark to explode it; he s, . i to th.; half-bieed«: . "You have been jxttition- it)g long enough, petitiou no h)nger; ' and, with uiinn in his liaud, and r.ftec ho had declared tliat the day jpf {letitioning waa at at an f.inl, and the time was como for a war of exUirminntion, he was willing to abandon the entei-}>rize, was ii'^t only willing to ahimdon the petitions, becauwi it was, he said, a time lor blood and ptitions had failed, it was a time to succeed or perish in the attempt, he was willing to start for the Unites States and set up a new8paj)er ! I envy the clmrity of the gentlemen who behove that excuse which has been ott'ered. The hon. memlipr for West Durham (Mr. iVlake) could not believe that it was olfered as an excuse, as his oolleague biiside him believed (Mr. Laurior), but he 8upp gotten the circumstanco that they can say "hear, hear" in dwiisiou, and can read this report aa simply an evidence of the man's insanity. There is a feature of the case which 1 shall have to come to now, and which, in my himible opinion, stairs this man's character with the deejiest dye with which the conduct of any convict in the country was ever stained, and that is tlie feature of his inciting the Indians of the countiy, not merely to be allies of his in the sense in which the Indians were allies in some of the cases cited by the hon. member for West Durliam (Mr. Blake), not simply to co-operate with him, and to act under his command, but lo rise and to attack peaceful sfjttlements, to attack weak ganisons — "rise, plnnder, bum and destroy." W'o know that they obeyed his command, and we know that the lives of not only peaceful settlers btit of Government officers, lives of missionaries precious in the sight of God and man, were laid down upon that prairie as the' result of the behest he scattered to the Indians of the North-West Well might the hon. gentleman have said, not in this Parliament, when surrounded by allies who will vote for them on this motion for the first time perhaps, not in chis House where he can get sympathy by sounding another note, but in ihe great Piovinco •£ Ontario, surrounded by his own party and his own followere, well might he then say : " I have always held that both parties might bo deeply guilty— Oovemment forneglect, delay and mismanage- ment; and the insurgents for rininK in rebellion— always a grave offence against ihc State, and in this case aggra- vated by >the incitement, to the IndianH to revolt." But when wa come to Parliament what we hear is : '• We cannot hold our heads very high about the Indians. Theiv was a time when Wolfe and Mountcalm had Indians for allies ; there was a time when Brant led our Indian allies, and Tecumseh was a very great man in the opinion of a great many people. Brant showed that Indian allies might be employed, and might be very successfully employed — hairing the torture of course." I have read in times past some speeches of the hon. gentlemsa on the subject of the effect which the policy of the Government of this country would have npon prospective immigration into the North-West; 1 have read some speeches in which he made eloquent denunciations of the .policy of the Government now in power on the ground that they were placing such burdens upon our people that intending European immi.:rant8 would be unwilling to share the fortunes of this countiy, were unwilling to become partners in tb; great enterprise which we had undertaken in the settlement of the North-West, If we adopt the hon. gentleman's \ iew of Friday night about the Indians of the North-West Territories, 1 wonder what ■ the inimigmnts will say before coming to Canada to ent^r into a co-par tnei-ahip withlisr 1 wonder what our agents would have to say in reply to i'ltendingimmigiant* who wculd tell them: "You in Canada have 20,000 or 3o,<.t00 Indians, many of them in a savage state, many of them pagans; lot us know what your laws are for the pi'Otection of settlers in the North-West, and let us know what the policy of your Government is as to the enforcement of those laws. " I think our agents would have to tell them: " Our laws are excellent, our laws make it murder, make it treas^on, to incite tLese Indians to revolt, but the policy of the Government, in view of what has been pro^xiunded on the Hoors of Parliament, must be that aa regards the Indians we don't hold our heads ve y high; although we have some objections to torture." I think, Sir, that after a deckration of that kind immigration into the North- West will be very scanty indeed, notwithstandipgthe strong inducement that we would not permit tlic Indians to torture. I think, Sir, that the settlere in the North-West now, to whom the faith of this countiy is pledged that we will honestly enforce the l;iwi»- would be very much jcojiardised tf we allowed the idea to go abroad that to incite the Indians to tuvolt could be treated as anything but a heinous crime, to be vi;ited ]iy the severest punishment of the law. 1 thiiiki Sir, that it would be prejudicial to the safety of the people who are there now, with whom, as 1 have said, we lutve made a contract, if we do not hold our heads high on this '. question now. There may have been times in the past on which differences of opinion existed upon this iij ■ ii 1 ; • * i I ; i 1 t H ( r 14 Suestion. The hon. Konlloman knows that when Indioa H\ic.» were some extent, in the dispensation of the clemency of the Crown, in such cases, 1 say that the man who undertikes, in the North- West, in the condition in which the Indians are now, to incite these Indians to rise and to commit war and depre- dation, cither upon the garrisons or upon the white scittlera of the North- West, takes his lifi; in his hand, and when he upwals to me for mercy he shall get justice. Now, Sir, turning again to' the Winnipeg J'Vee Prtu of 17th November, 1885, only a day alter the execution, we tind this passage: "Biehhas ozniitod his orimeo. Ifo was fairly tried, honestly convicted, laudably condemned- and juatlr executed. Thcro is not one liiw for ihe Froiich and one for tbe Ijogli.ih in this country. •• Itiel wag a morooniiry, cold bit. odcii, ^elf-seekor and we ciinnot understand liow his oompatrioti in Q>uebeo eonld have been »<> luiHguidnd aa to espouse his oauic, which was nut the oauso uf (he JTrenon more than it was the cause of other nsdians." , And the same papn, on 18th November: " It ix evident, therefore, that the sympathy of the i^cople of Quebec hns been worked on, not by tbe wronurs •f the half-breeda, hut by the Frcncli bbiod which flowed in Kiel's votiis. They undertook to uphold the criminal because of his nationality, and have been shown that tbe law:) of Canada are uo resueoters of persons." I cite that, not for the purpose of reflecting upon the sentiment which prevailed among onr friends in Quebec, but for the purjioae of showing what the sentiment on the spot or near the spot, so far as we can gather it from the press, was at the time immediattdy succeeding the execution, and the utterance comes from a portion of the press deadly lioatile to the jiresent Administration. But, Sir, upon this question of oriminality we were not left to decide merely upon the e^ idence, bristling, as it is, with condemnation of the prisoner's conduct from beginning to end. We had reriionstranceB coming to the Government, repre- aentatioiis coming to the Qovcmin snt with regard to tlic cases of the other State prisoners who were then iu our handR. In the consideration of them we found representations with regard to the oriminality of Louis Kiel which could not be di.sregarded, representations favorable to the other State priaouers, ftnd made favorable to them on the ground that they were victims in his tyrannical hands, and, Mr. Si)eaker, although these were not made for the purpose of injuring him, if we had disregarded them, if we had commuted tliis sentence and we had been obliged to bring thcfe pajiers down, tiie Government would have been challenged in this House for having disregarded that evidence proceeding from the most disinterested sources, evidence directly condemnatory of the jirisoner, and for having disregarded it under the miserable pretext that it was laid before them in connection with some other men's cases. What did Bishop Grnndin say in a petition scut by him to the Government after the trial and condemnation of Biel, and alter the seuteuoe liad been pronounced? and iu reference to what ho said, and iu reference to what some of the other ecclesiasticfl iu the Noi-th-West ^id, I mart diifer from a statement made on Friday evening uj the hon. member for West Durham, as regards the feeling of thase persons towards the convict. He intimated that if there was any chance of their judgment being swerved, it was probably swerved against the pristmer beoanso he had acted in hostility to their faith, he had become an apostate from iheir religion. But anyone who has read thie history of these ti-oubles in the North- West knows that the conduct of these men was influenced by no snoh consideration. Everyone knows that from the first to the lost when he became reconciled to them — I go further and am compelled iu stating the ihere truth to say that i rom the time he fell into the hands of the law and before he became reconciled at all to thom— the condnct which those gentlemen exhibited towards him, the efforts which were put forward in his behalf, were charai^terised not merely by generosity, not merely by sympathy, not merely by mercy, but I might almost say, as rega.rd.s some of them, by active partisanship on his behalf. I have been citing not the testimony of witnesses against Kiel, but the testimony of men wiio in spite of every degradation, iueult and outrage that could be heaped on them and their religion, struggled to the Tery last to save him. Bishop Grandin says: " It is well known by all who closely studied this movement that a minereant abusing a certain amonnt of knowledge, tnakiiiB use it a falso and liypooritioal piety, and by manaoes and threats of inevitaUe destraotion. deceived the lialf-breods and toroed them to lake up arrv^.s against the Government. Ihe ascendancy whieh he had gained ovecthem was such that the greater part oould not and dared not resist him." Father Fourmond, after the trial and before the publication of the statement which was read to the Honao by the hon. member for Montreal Centre (Mr. Cuirau), said in a depoaition : " ' Louis David ' Riel in bis strange and alarminc fMIJ" fksotnated our po'>r half-breeds as the innke is said ta fitscinateits victims, abusing, for bit own euds, the great cunfldenee that all the hAf-breeds reposed in hitai,a Siifidenoe founded upon bu influenoe over their minds through bis great and impassioned langnage, Wd db«v» 1 by the anpearanoe of his prufoimd re'igious feeling and devotion, whieh he displayed in tb»most llarlMtipA ]i7l>ocritio)«i manner, vhioh was rendered so conviooing to tiieir minds hs his pubiio prOAlamibtion ofbU alsma M an inspired prophet, whioh he foreed upon their imuginiuionin the most insiduuus and diabo iMl nMUnMNr* * * Xa impress the people and keep them within his power this man Kiel rasorted to all kinds of triskery." 15 ircat Britain^ I'M that wlien sdsnd jaitljr nr friends in far an wc can Father Fourmond farther statea: "Oh, mvpoorpeopU, loould not raatrain th«ni, they were uidnr tbt infatuation of thii aroh traitor and iriok*<*r till he roI thorn oommittnJ by th< effUnion uf blood, then they were in hi« power, add he u«ed tbivt power with ...any feeling ot meroy. « • • I alio deoiare that dnrloK the trouble I had con vorHHtionf with MverMi of the pemdnit who were in the rebel uamp, aiul I found a Inrt* number of tbem there nRainat their will, and only remained there l>ecauii« of the fear of being ilut down, did tliey try to eeoape or deiiert." Had we no right, in conaidering the appfials of this man's {\-iends for clemency, to cousiiier the stutonieota whii h show that he did not come ipto this oouiitry with any willingness whatever to coudnct or allow a conatitutional agitation, hut that from the very tlrnt this "aruh-traitor and trickster" kept thoHC men in his camp undur iieril of their liyes. Mr. MILIjS. Will the hon. gentleman allow me to 'ask him one question. Under what circuin- stonoes was tnat paper prepared! '.Vc huvo not seen it. " Mr. THOMPSON (Antigouish), Thewi papers wore laid hel'iiro the Govemmeut in connection with many others asking for commutation of the sentence on other ha!f-breed prisoners and Indians. They wore part of the materials which were before the Government, and which had been laid before them at & time snbfleqtieut to Kiel's condemnation and before his execution. Father Andr^, in his deposition in the caM of Joseph Aroaud, sayp; " I most solemnly deolaro from my own personal knowledao, that with the' exception of Gabriel Diimont, Napoleon ^ault pml Damase Carriore, now dc.coa.''ed, not one of the Lulf'-breeds had tbu loitst idea ur <4U8pioioa that there wns any probability of danger of rebellion until they were no completely involrod in the toils uf Kiel, and he led them on until they were bu compromised that there was no escape for them. • • • • • •« • " They were made to reliKtously believe that they bad no moVoy to expect at the hands of the soldiers, polioe, er frr onseoted to act as secretary." As to Baptiste Vandal, he soya; "He resisted for a long time before ho oould be forced to join Kiel, and did so only from fear and com- pulsion. " As to Joseph Delorme, he says: " It was only by force and threats he was compelled to take part with the rebels." As to Alexandre Cadianz, he says: " He w 18 seised by Riel and foroed into his service." As to Josepli Pikn, he says: " He was ordered by Ri^l to oomo into oamp or ho would force him to come. • • • Pilon, when he was threatened by Kiel, oaine to the prie^it and cried when telling what was wanted of him. Kiel, by force and threats against bis life, compelled bim to serve his pt^rpose." Father Andr6 thus refers to the case of the Tourond brothers: " The orafty Riel tried efrery way to induce the boys to join him, bat without success. • *. • Riel went day after day to their poor widowed mother and with devilish cunning played on her superstition and credulity. He told her of his holy vision.^, etc., • • • and the poor woman in her simple faith in his divi>je mission, prayed cf her fine young sons to go forth aud battle under the banner of heaven." Ecforring to the priaonera generally, he aays: "They were misled by one who thoroughly knew their weak minds and their hearts. They were called on in the name of God and of the Holy Saints, by one who declared himself ordained by God to do a grmit and good work. ITiey were blinded by pretended visionb and messages trom the Holy Ghost; poor people, in their trusting oonfidenoe they were led on to desolation, misery aij^ death." These were the statements of persons who, as 1 have said, were not willing to give testimony against Riel, but they are statements which confinned the evidence, which conlinucd everything known as to liis con- duct; and although the (luestion of the hoti. memiter for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) seems to imply that Btat<'ment8 of this kind should not have been used against Riel— for I can understand his interruption in no other way— would not this House have rung with denunciatious if the Govemmeut, disregftrding all these considerations, had exercised clemency to so unworthy an applicant, and had told the House that at the time they had this evidence of his conduct in their possession. I nave still a few observations to make as t«> the weight of criminality which is disclosed in the evidence in this case and in the documents which were laid boFort) the Government. I de»ir« in the first place in dealing with the remainder of my arguments on that question to take np a branch of it oi>on which J think a very singular doctrine has been propounded. I mean that branch of the argument with relation to this having been a second oflfence of this convict. The argument was n«ed here that if the fiwjt of bis having committed an offence previously in any way affect«d the commtttstion of the sentence for the crime for which ho eventually suffered, then he was executed for the first offence. I think every person wlio has had any legal training will admit on a moment's refleotioa th»t Uiis is an unsound view to take of the oonaequences of a previous conviction as. >;*| le :| cj ■ i'-' to Biiy criminftl iirocefiding. 1 think that those who hayo not hod the benefit of a Irgal training will •dcnil, Sir, aft* r the ft-.w wonla of uxjiluniitimi I havo to iimke, that it i* au unphilotJophiiHl and unreason* •bhi Hew to take, ev»n if it were not uiiHouml in jv 'nt of law. The iwHoy of ooi mi doling, not only when a in the llrst conviction, but in intiny of tlnin that it mu-^l. bo heavier, (ind the discretion of the judge \h to a \Mp,('. extent taken nway, and int is pirvmted, in the eiixe of the second and subsequent otbuouH, from dealing out such a puniMlimcnt on the law allows him to deal out with regard to a first olfence. We all know with regard to the criminal legislation of tlie mot'-r couutry, that nut only tire longer sentencee jmiwsed and lieavier punishments inllicteuvieted ol a first otfeuce is allowed to go with a tine or au imprisonment or both, that in some ca^es flogging is provided on the second occasion, notwithstanding that on the first conviction the convict has •itlier sulfered the puialty or has been pardoned. It is quite tiue, as was stated by the hon. member for "West Durham, that after a man has sutl'ereda penalty for tho first otfenoe he is to be considered a new nan, as if lie had been pardoued or amnestied. But the moment he commits a seeoud ott'enuc, whether he has suil'ered the j)euiuty of the first or was exoneiiited by {)»rdon or amnesty, it is not only legitimate but it is incumbent, according to the practice of the courts end according to tlie practice of the Executive in dealing with the prerogative of mercy, to consider the past histoiy of the offender. So fully ha« that policy been recognised that, in resiHJct of many oirencos and orimes, the prosecution is allowed to give in evidcucse the fact of the otfendur having been convicted before, with a view to increasiiig the weight or •hanging the kind of thy punishment, notwitliitauding that in relatica to that previous olfence thiae may Ijave been a commutation orapanlon, or what has served the same pmpose, an expiation of the full penalty for that fir.it olfpuce. On the 81st October, ]88'2, tliis question came up in the British House of Commons in relation to a sentence imposed upon a female — a very long sentence of imprison- ment for a comparatively slight olfence. The Home Secretiuy had declined to interfere with the Bentenoe, and, so tar from its being Hucceasfully contended on that occasion that the Executive was uot justified in looking at the previous history of the oriuiinal. Sir William liaicourt said: " I would venture to subrait to those who criticise sentences of this kind ihiit the i revious history of offBiiders should bu iiKiuircil int'i, bucuusc II false impressiun is proiluced wiieu it is fuppu.'ed that a Kuman ii4 sun unued to a Dovero |ninl.-ihinmit lor what aripour-' lo ue it sligUt nffuiiCH, when tbo lact is thut she is hd iuearablo oflonder with whom It i-i iiupohnible to deal withuut kcupiug her in prison." Chandng tbi- illustration from tho kind of case in hand, let us suppose, in the case of a prisoner con- ricteu of ordinary murder, that he has bieu sentenced to death but bus prcvaileij on the F,xecntive to exercise clemency, and has liad his sentence commuted either to life servitude or a long term. Let ns Bupiwse that after the expiration of that term he has committed anotiier murder, and again applies to the Executive for clemency. 1 address myself not only to memberis of the legal profession in the House, but to laymen as well, and I ask if there would be anything unreusonablo or unjust in the Executive •oiuiidering the fact that ou a previous occasinii this c.nvict had committed the »ame offence and that the - punishment which the Executive thought sufficient to deter him for all tiiue to conic from repeating it had uttt.rly failed of its purpose 1 Whether the Executive would not be censurable, as we arc asked lo be ceiiHured now, if for the second time tliey treated that oflenUic, turning l)ark to the 11th of Fi-bruary, IHTTi, k possioutn oiiunoiations of OninKC lodges iufl:\iucd against this man on account of his race, his religion, his aniinosty towards one of tlirie brcthem, and they wore evidence wliich tho Executive could not liave overlooked if it had Iwen noccssary for them to go hoyond tho evidunoe in the case, or tlin docuutcuts before them in relation to the recent ontbrenk, and to cnq^uire what thu previous history of this criminal wiw, as the Kritish Home Secretary docs, and as every man who has aujrthing to do with tlie prerogative of elomcncy in this country is )> nd to do before advising the Crown to exeroise that clemency. 1 projKxio norr to pass for a few momei^ to that bruucli of tlin subject relating to Qeneral Middletou's negotiations with regard to Riul. The i > t has iMM-n developed now, by ilie speenli of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, tliat although Louis IMel bad been invited to surrender by General Middletou's letter, that invitation was never accepted, it has been develo|^d now^ ittat Louis Kiel was oaptured, and capttircd, r.ot because he allowed liiniself to be captured, but Iwcause tho district in wliich he was, being sun'oundcd with troops, there waa no chance 6f escape uxoept to o6e mounted and skilled in the country, as Oaliriel Dumont was. lie did liot, tlieu, comply with that invitation; he was oaptured; and lie had tho ar-t and cunning — not such us a lunatic would eliow, but the art aud cunning he had exhibited all through his cr.reer — of producing the letter and claiming safe conduct under it. But every innn who has read the history of this ease knows that legal proceedings were not those that Louis Kiel feared, and in relation to which he asked tho protection of General Middleton. He knew perfectly well that General Mim the patriotism with which they were , inspired by the oircum^tancea of the country, were induced to follow their leaders into actp of rebellion; but, it may be that in the oooiae of the rebeUion offences were committed which were very different from political offoaoM in the iKdinaiy Benn of the term. We must in all these cases look at each indiriduft]; V.%f'i 3 :^l ■'<4 f M h: I 15 caae, ami iMh-nrUln whether the overt nets wJiltih «'ouittitut« the tmmon or truiuwu-rdoiiy am thi.iiiHulvOii political ollciKii'H ill till' iTiliiifiry Mime of tii-' rule 1 huvo nientitueil; although, taking Ji htri^tly tmhulcal or Icgul viiw, 111. y minht all he <'l;is.st'(l in that ciittigoiy. To show yon tlml llii* in no new or lliiely Hpuu thworv, I will refer you lo tlie ileKnte whiih took ))laiu' in the BritiHJi Wmm of Cninnioiiii, Ironi which the hoii. "ii'ii.uihei from WeHt Diirhiuii (Mr. lUake) miulo Heveral quotatuMis the dehatn in enunection with the Feiiiiiii jirisoiiera wlio were luueerneil in the iuukUt of cQiiatttblu Unit. In the first pUioe Iho men were uii'ler i oiivirtioii for treiieoii-felonv. In a slrietly teehnical Heuw, that ia aa iiiiich a political offence iM higli ♦iviiHoii, ivjiil if their >'m! hud to be looked at aiinply uiuUr the legal claBBiflcstioii of ths crime, unihiul lly it would he ..oimidei.^d NJiiiply m m, politieiil oll'euf e. The pri«oner» wero all uiembem of the I'enian ilherluKKl, bound, f the ablest jurists of the mother oonntry, and upon it were' some of the able.tt theorists of the mother country with regard to the question of capital punishment. Some gentlemen went on that commission because they were the advocates of the abolition of ojipital puniiilinient, aiid notwithstanding that, we have the report of that commission plainly expressed; and I cite it with the more emphasis and the more confidence because the lion, member for West Qtlrham • (Mr. Blake) insisted, in a long and elaborate argmncnt, that the Executive, m dealing with 'Cit{>ital ^'^•11 \ I lU tinhuicAl iM'ly Himu wliicli th() tiou with tho melt i?al otr«noe thn crime, K'nt of the HM>n every ^aiino. In I they had I' t)it: Mme jt to rawuH for trtMou- I the erime >art of tbon nee beoauie le ni»n who al ofTenoe I ar." tone Boid*. every other tese men are It oharaeter. untry and a I indiviauals «, individual! Tith." 3rpt that he ) the North- to th« half- tliey never ^lem, as was at of exter- itted in the md thai he ment of the ed to follow Iready cited ho onthreak extradited ked iu rela- Bometbing iou ; and he But we do said there, d:. ed that sneh fence which mency is to ntry in the it tho heads law on the OBsible th»i it amounts it must be kin, but the |he Commis* quoted' bo Lcr country, [n of CA|>ital Tie abolition ' exprcBsed; et U!ikrh«tm irith capital *ffeii.>p«, Mifflit to ill- fuldi-d by thfi r«'coiniiiiiiil(»tion« of thnw* f(iinmii«1on»'iii. The recommendation of thoB«' (omiiiissionera with tf^iird In timuidiiin !.• jijuclicf h in thin; " Wn havn.lhen.flriit to ooiixiilnr wlielher,nii«uii)inR capital I'liniiilimeiit lo l<« retalnud, wnnhoiild reoomineDd any «ihiiiiKit in |t» iiroiunt Biitilii-iiiinn tn the oriiim of irKii»i,n, umi ui.on (hi« point w« Imvu eumo to tho ounflluiloo that IK. ftltoriition in i»i(,iiircij. 'I'lic iiiiixitiiini iMiiilxInnuiit iiiiJor th<. Tr«n»oii-Fploiiv Act, if I'oiial norvltiiile lor lire, wliinti KiiniK Hiifllciently »evcrp In ciihch dI lonHtructlvB treamm uniiocompaiiieil bv overt anlit of rebellion, MMiiKiuiition or oih«r violoiico. With rii»|M)r( to treason of tlie latter oharuoler, wo are of opinion that th« '/jjttreioo penitlty inunt remain." The hrni. ueutliMnan tohl u», ae 1 alicndy iiifiiiiated, tlmt it wa« the duty ol the Kxocutive to b« guided by the Immune and «nliglit<«ii»'d vicwn of tliia cfjumiirtaidn. Morw th»»n that, it wae nrged in other d under examination aa follows; ' . . " Q* Am 1 to undernland your Ijordship to oonBne your view with regard to the application of capital pnn- iRhmcnt to ouseg ol murder?— A. Wh, and treason. 1 think tbar trcanon certainly ouiiht to he plaoM la fho saniu pategort-; booau;tci, althoiiKh there may be hoiuo oa«eii of treaHoo which, aM hiin been iaia, if iuooaiiftal, coaneii to be erimei, yet you must treat treahon as the hitibost crime known to tho law; and if people ar«to M punished capitally for murder, I think that thoy should be puiilihed capitally for hish treason." I>ortl Bmniwell wa« next lunler examination, and this question was put to him: t " Would you deem it adviHablo to retain capital puniihiuent in oases of treason ami iniirdor?— A. I eertainly should think it advisable to retain eupital punishment for murder. As to treason. I oontesi* that it has never oeoarrp'l to me to speculate on it. It i>erhtip8 is a wurtiu ofleuce in soiuu fospeots than even murder, beoauM it involves the akinR of Irle auJ the alarmiiiR ol the whulu oountry, but kIIII 1 uan hue that it may not be an expedi- ent nunishinent in that case, beuause it is not a case in which tho publio feeliofr goes with the infliction of oarital punishment as it does in eases of murder. It is in vain to have a law in the administration of which the public dll- txtsition wi'l not fairly nsKint. As reirnrds trenHon, I think that if U wore liuiited to mure conspiracy, without an actual forcible outbreak, it would then not be a desirable IhinK to infliot capital punishment upon it, but whei« Uiere is an actual outbreak, it it ditferont." The cuBC of Smith O'Brien was alluded to at aii early ])art of this debate, aud again on Friday evening, aa tui instance of clemency on the part of the Kxeeutive of Ureat IJritain. This is what Lord HramwoU soya about it: "Take it even in the trumpery case of Smith O'lirien's treason in Ireland. That man was guilty not merely of treason, but he was guilty of aot.-i whieh were very likely to take away hiinniTi life, and ho wan in that happy eitua- tien in which traitors olten are, that is to sny, ho hail a proat deal of public syniiiathy with him, instead ot havinc itaKsinslbimas the common iniirdeier has. If be hud sncooeded, inuteadof beiiiB tried, he might have been kingoT Ireland, I suppose, or coraetliing of that sort, and when the commission of a crime is so profitable and adraiitage- ons as that, if you suoceud, you ge a great advantatre, and, if you fail, you have an iininenie quantity of publio sympathy, one would think it would be reiisomible that this law should stop in and nay: We will endeavor to deter you from the commission of so tempting a orime; but still it is to be borne in mind that public opinion would ooi fio with punisliiiig a man for ' reat tho puniihment shonld not bo -apital?— A. I think so." And nearly all tho judges of the three kiugdoins who were examined as witnesses before tliat commission gave it ii« their opinion, founded on cxperituce aud observation, that capitfd punishment should ftdt be abolished in cases of treason. If we look at the condition of the country in which this crime was coW,- mitted, we sec peculiar re isons why we sliould hesitate to tiasert that tlie crime of hij.;h treason should never be puuished with capital puuisbment there. The reason why, in some older countries, the Exeon- tive can alford to be liberal iu extending clemency to what arc called, in the widest acceptation of the term, political otfences, is explained by the fact that the country is well settled, that the (Jovcrnment it cstabbsbed on a strong basis a- id supported by standing annies and by great bodies of police, as well aa bj tribunals which exist in every section of the couptry to administer and enforce the law. But the isorth-west is remote from the seat of (joverniueut, tire law is weak; it has a population the most easily excited of any population in the world; it has an immense frontier, oti'ering advantages to those who, from the vilest motives, from a desire to inlliet a grcjit injury upon Canada, can at any moment cross the border and commit acts of depredation on our tenitory and incite to re1)ellion, and go back to comparative im> unity. All these reasons are reasons why the (toveriiuicnt of tliat country rfiould Ic a Oovcium«nt wi I strong hand, and why it would be most unwise, in relation to the otfence of high tnaaon or any ot). ilfence known to the law, for the executive to dci laie in advance, as it is proposed to be d<;olared iK>w, that political offenders, in the widest acceptatiou of the terjn, shall never be refused Exeoutivo clemency. A good deal has been said with regard to the conduct of the authorities of the United Stat^a '^tiring the civil war. It seems to me that no comparison less parallel could pcssibly hrve been suggested. ^ :^ -^1 \ i 21) fhem civil w»r IumI rnK(i.l for ypHnt; thn twojwi'tiotu hud Urge Ht«ndin;( artnie% und tfie Fcilrral author- ttiiw hail Iroin t'lDit'to \mi rxt'ncletl iIm< riKhm of IwllignruDts to the retielii, »nd onfomu'l their rtKhU agkiuHt them m Imlli^^rniitii, by thn bloi kaile, liy thn exuhan/ym of priiioiierB, hy ii.7^i)tiatiou« for truoa*. Mtd by iipurly uvirytliiiin that wiiit on tor a wrli>a of yt^ara. Hnt, Mr. Hiieaki-r, to ouijuun tbfl inreiuHary outbniak whith wni coimnitti^d In the Nortlt-wj-Ht to thn dvil war in the UniU-d Statns, to » <»niparti the man who aet tire to thut inagM/iii United Hlatoa that in a Htnto uiiditr tlic fodii-al tiyHtem a man who, in obodience to the lonatitiiUoti of hi» own Ktati! — and thnae Statia hud a right to oliivngi> thfir couatitntitu from Uine to time — tlie man who gofH into the tield, or by any ntlur act (;ondni;t5 liiiiiwdf in accordauo«i with th" lonatitution of hie own State, aflta in oi)-op«Mftti«n with thu iviiuli-a of hia own Statt), and opix)«ee in that way and to that dcweo tho Federal authority- -it hiu* nnvur yul been dmadod, I aay, although there aro dicta to that eifcot, that U ia high tn-iiaon, in th« «eu»»> in which high troaaon ahould be piuiiahed hy tlie Fxdorol Uovernment of the Uuitod Statctf. Bni, oir, when w(i come to doiil with other claaaea ol i»oliti{ inaila. pwt lniiriti(( nut of coiiHi(l<*r«tU>u lh« incrfl <|iM*ati»ii of iiiiNtRlcn, tli't |iriii(U|il<: tviu Iftiil |i]iortuuity Iim h< i-n ;.>;ivi>n for < atuNt of ihn |ih«ou«r't luiud, and lliat cui|uiry )im tuki ii uhwr, llu verdict im to Iw nonduaivr m tu tlic '■miditiou of thd prlaoner'a mind down tu tlutt tiiuo. The Imu. iiitinibrr for lti>)lAchMa«^Mr. Ainyut) aaiu \m) wnm not In a (KWition to tell tli«» HouM that tho jnry w<>rr told to aotpilt th« |)riaoner it tlu< priaoncr 'vaa inauut). Tha hon. niombar of roui-m mnde that ntati-iiiftiit )>> iuHdvArlruuf, bccaunn th"iH)'ly tlio ohargu of the jud^r. I>ut iiiiin« thou the rbarftn of thi* Jud^f hna Im^'mi laid on thcTalu 'if tiu' II, and thia hon. gentloman iihould nortiunly witltdraw ilia objudtiou when I read to him tho worda of iLu jiid({«'a ohargn. Judf[a Uichardaou aaid: "It uiiiit ba urovrnl tha> at tha tiiiia hu ooinnltteil the aot bo wan Vahorlnc uador nuoh Jafeotlvn raanonloc froni a di««RM(l mind hk nut to know Iho natiirn aird quality of iha aot ho «rai cominlttlnft, ur (hut if Im did koow It he ro|i»uiid to you a* Ihn law. If the I'vlaanoe ooiivinc«i yuu, tiA oonvinnea you eouoluilrely, that muoIi wa« ih*.' ciiif, th^n your duty la to auiiuit the priKoner." I inuat repoat now in (tonuottion with I liiH braiw h of thi- argument, that the priaonnr hud a {MtculUt adTAUtagn at Ucgina whitdi do«a not apjiiy lo a priaoncr coiiviutvd in the l*ruv{nc<-H. I(n had an app««l on that very nuestion na to whcthor tii<' jury vicre, wright or wron^ in their verdict, to thf full (jueoifl liench of Manit(d)n. In giving jud^^nout on Aiat auhjimt chief Justice Wolhridga aaid: " Tt IH anld the prisoner Iabtirn4l under tlin iniiime drIuKlori tlinl hit wan a pmphet, and that he had a million to fulfll. When did this mania flmt neize him, "r when did it manitVut iltielf? 8li(irtlv betore he name loHunkutohewUi lie bad baon tcachinic »ohool in Montana '• •- ~* •'■'" —-••'" *'■-» '•"-"ii—i i-i— ».. ~ — ~ •!.- i- — ui-w endud in the clmrgo at iiatoohe." <<1 VTllvIt tliu II III nil I IV ni iiciDii i i:7iiifi Li T ijvivio HIT uniliv I VI naUHIllUIIVWMll it will not tkli mania that impollod him tu oommenoe the work whiah We have heaid a gmat df^iil Haiiug a prophet and the proceediuga which teruiinated at Untoche, "Fie wiiHinvited by a deputation, who went for him tu Montana The original idea wai not hi»— did not oritinata wi(n him. ItianrBiied, however, that hii demeanor chanRed in March, juit before the outbreak. Before then hn had been boliJinB meoLiii(ii,addrufHina audieiioci, and uotinit«B a mne tiemon. Illi uorreipon* denoc with Oeneral (now nir Krodoriok) Middleton ne okons no nifrnH of either woitlato, the bare oontradietion cauMi irritability." And then the cliiof justice cites a long pimsage from the evidence of Father Andr6 for the purpoae of ahowing that liis dcluaious were not irrepreasible ones, but thivt Kiel pro^Kised to rcaiat and control them ttt.thu price of $3r>,()00. The Chief Juatiue said: "A delusion must bo flxod, anted upon, and believed in as real, overoome and dominate in the mind of the iniane pernon. An intmnity which oan l)0 put on >>r off at tho will ut the iimauo perion, itooording to tho uediual tODtimony, in not inaanily at^tll in tho Huiiria of mania." Taylor, J., says; "After a oriticnl examinatiim of tho evidcnoe, I And it impossible to onnu- to any otiinr oonolufoin (ban that, at which the jurv nrri ved. The appellant ie, beyond all doubt, a inau of inordinate vanity, oxoi table. Irritable And lin|iiiii«nt otuoiitriidiotion. lie HteiDH to hnvo at tiinos acted in un ox rucrdinary manner: to have laid many HtraiiRo (liinK*. and to have entained, or at loaBt proteiwed o entertain, absurd vlowa cii rellRlom and l>olitloal subjects. But it all stops far short of ostubUshlncr siioh unsoundness of mind as would render him rrreiponsible. not accountable for his actions, ills ooiirso nor insane. I O'lnnot see '.hat any impon c attaehod to tiiis. I have read very carefully tho report of the change ot the mtigierrate, and U ap(>ears to have iportanoe oan be ■been so clearly put that the jury could have no doubt of iheir duty in case thoy thought the prisoner insane when he committed the act? in question, Thoy could not have hstpned to that obarf ■> without understandUit •iuUy that to bring In a verdict 0! guilty was to declare emphatically their disbeliei in the insanity of theprii- oner. The reoinimendation maybe aeoonnted form many ways not connected at all wi h the question of the insanity of the {>ri80Ber. .ifli'vVit\« !* tl. 82 "Th« itl|)iiri.lUry m»«UfftW ailiipK, In hii <-hnriri> to «H« hir», »»ui Utl lii»«titewii In MMNimhUn'i f » M, ll F.iiitliiiKl. ol III* ll««, l«> th« IJAttM of Lord*, it «*!!,• fi"t »« (I.II18 III luiy imrili'uUr iittio. wiiKili w»» b»»oni ' " '" --•-■" - ■ • (Itoilliin nbiolu •!} btmiilifr t I lid Lord*, it wi!.« fi"t »it done ill ikiiy imrtliMiltr >iafi<, wliinli wit» b«tni'uiiiil lur it<1iu*1l«ii(t(ii>, kinl il poura BMly b'j Doiutilnred im • (l«oiilon aLkIu •!} btiniiiifr ut>nti Kuy isuiirt. I nhuulrf (!oii«iti«r Ibii oourt fully juilt-- iiMlln (Jepurtlng frutu it, irfoixl jrriMiiil were ihoviii ih«r»lor, or. If f«r«n wliiiout ■rviimant of oimnNtl. n«MlnM 11,11 *i>pii»ri»il to (hit court itwir to b» IniprDiwr nit afi|ilt«'i«i«. In •«•' nreiool IMtaiio*, auiiui)«l lor thM i>ri«utii-r ill) not Attttiniir. tc. iiniMiHii tli* i>iu|irl> I cuii tln>l, hauri ovvrniled, ihouKJi it iimy lu aom* »tl»Bt IIM* bfon i|a»«tlonaii. Thi« ruli> Ik, tlml 'nolwUhntmiJinK Ilia purty did lh« not uompliiliied nf with n vioir, SiMrth* liifluMHui ot liiMri* ilAlu*fon,orrrdro»i>lriK or rnvnnvintr Mtinai iiui>tM>K«td arlovitnue or Injniy.nr V' Rro- aiiic»(im« iiubiio Ixmunt. bu i« nvvcrlbfltiii imiiiahnoJa accordiiiK Iv ho iiuturit nl tlitorliua oommittan, if b« aw ftt llie timii ufeoiuuilttinii vuoh (.'rtinn tbiit bo uvt«d auntrury lu Inw.' " After ikMni' furtUor dcvi'Iojiiimnt of that (iu«'«tioii, hn najrii: " I h«toii tba avidanoa on thn quciMoii uC iMintIr I bnva rand ovar vary imrelully all tho «vid> mia that aui Inid bafora thu Jury, And I ooald lay iiothlnf tKi would mora fully ex|>r«iii tha opinloni I bnva tormvd frntn it* |>arnaMl thitn what ia nx|>ra»tad bv him. kgrae with hiui alto In nnying tlmt tJin priiijnrr bna li»»n ably mid uaaloiiii y d't'anded, iiihI tliKt nuthiiiir,tbat appoitrt to hava bui-n left iintouolmd. , If I n or preludlf'p, or otherwi'o, liud ilopided i . _ „ . ^ iihiiuTd ile*lri< liiflriU thnt ibuoourt oould *» inlrrprat ilinntnliitii ni lo lia iuntiilad liioiiuatnir oonld aaalst bl* i^naa appnitrt to hava liut-n left untounliod. , If I oould at^x Hiiy raanoii tu bullava ibat ib« iuUTr wlMUtar frotn foiimion or pr«iu(llinal ilio wiiubt of ihn tividajiof upon tn« fiiaenaa to ha liiiiflalore aiiothxr Jury for tli«ir oonnldorKtion, ai ihartnly l>a iiiHa we can hitvo towtrda ti fallow yrMtiira who hMN hu«n dvprlvad of the rouron whiob place* iii ftborn thn brutim, ar« linoara pity and a dcilra Uy Ava auuia attauipt inada to raitore biro to thi< full onio) mnnt of » «ound mind. IhapriKoni'i- in evidently a man of more than ordiiople, and not Louis Jliel's at all; and I think I am justified in iusking the House to coubiJor whether the people upon whom he imposed his rule, his leader* •hip, and his tyranny, by the pretence that he was a prophet and had a divine mission, were aU insane. If not, then the fact that ho adopted a device of that kind, and that it succeeded, was ev'donce certainly that it was not such an insane thing to do in that comntry and among that population after aU. KiO statements which were given in evidence by Noliu with regard to his claim to have th« gift of prophecy, the bodily symptoms, which exhibited themselves sometimes in his person, were- commented on by the hon. member for West Durham. The refutation of all that is contained in Louis Kiel's speech at the trial, in wliich he says there was nothing so insauet about that conversation after all, "because," he said, "it is a little saying we have in that, country; it is a Uttlw popular superstition; and sitting at the fireside in ordinary, con verwat ion, a man says, partly in humor and partly in earnest "—I am only paraphrasing his words but stating them in substance— "A, )u«n says, now I can prophecy." I shall be told presently, as I was told before, that the fact of hia-. having made such a suoech itself indicated insanity. It might hare been so if he had not announced and declared that he had another and better hope than that— that he Iwd little reason to believe that Mi laitned breeds ling to urie ask was not ey were forced' dy hoii. admits k I am leader- insane, ertainly Iter all. ive th« , ■wore, ntained ■ut that ■; it is rtly in oe— "A. of hia ounced T« that thoM who iind«>ntonli«d oil tli>> p«iliti>;«t haritii((U)< h>- in«it« tt'i'r<>, uiioriiinK to tiio atatiimi'iit hi- initilc In Nullii at llMt'H h>til thn «iii)(tilar arui.iiiitiit front thu ium. nii'iiitx r fm <^ti>'li«'i< i'lutlMi. Laiiri'i) that li>' whn iinuiio' Ihimmma Im ap|Miint«ii Tni l(H4>ii liU wrri'lnry, ikiitl JaokMoii wan a iiiailinan. Vit th*' lioii, iik iiilxt lir Wmt l)wiliNin (Mr. lUako) iMi4>> Uv ulitit JmkNon up a« a itiailina'i. ThrMi tHo arfniiiiinta aiimkv I'aitiiot l>oth h*> K'"d' It <:iinii<>t Ih' tlint hfl wiut iitwl to a|iiMiiiit a iiiaddciu lu hiN winl'ii}, and l>'»t li(i wna mad to tr«iiimIiiiuii aftiTwrndt. I think tliitre i« i'< 'IhUIc laldi- vvtitrti'ii Hgiiiimt thx > a- iiifiitof hii iiiMtiiity UN di'rivi'l t'lom tin- ti|i|>fliiitiii)*nt »l .larkiinii aa hu Hcrri'taty. .laikHoii haa proved liiin[k'(1 tiiaanity, U« tiKik vny ntuA • are to look him up. It waa aaid liki'wutn that wliun llo' pi|wra tuktu at lialiKdm wttm liroviicht down, it arntild api>«ar that lx>uia Ui«sl waa totally miwt iMwuuao tin liad a MtlioniR for ihatiffing tlio namea of tha day* of tho wrok. It ia tnui that partly (n carryiuK out tliv Mi'hfim) ot iiia n> m ri'li»{ioii, w h" railed it, lifl did pro}Mia<' to ohanx" t'l" nautna of tliu dayx of Ihn wi>ek, and to alijuru tlui hialliiuiah nauica by which wo arn phmNod to i;all thoni. Now, iudfrdinarya( to ili-ludo and cntaut^lo thai |H)upl«, ami tin* waa a uluuiay imitatiou of tliH great rovolntion whiidi took plaox a oentury »g<> ou auothfr (loutiuiMit; hut 1 ii«vi>r heard it imputed to insanity lu ) lioae who o«rriod out tii" Kicnoh revolution, that thry uhani;od the nainns of tlin months, and I do not a«i why IiOuia Kial ahould be conaidnrud mad i 'oauaa be Vialiml to leave hix inlluonce (snd his traue un Ibe North-Weat iu lliat way. But it la a*i breeds are a peoi'ln who need rulltriini. Ketision had a sreai inHuniiflo on tboir mind. The witiieii is aakeit if without Toliviou the uri^unar could have nuototided iu bringiiia ilin li'ilf-lireado wiili liiiii. and thn witness answerH no. It would uerer have Hucueeilud. 11' the pr»-)ti«r u:iU nut made bioiieU' appear as a iiropbet, hs would Dover havs sucoeedad In briiiKiiig the half brattds with biin. • " Ujr Mr. Lemieux, rsoroas-examinalion. " The witneoB ie asked if the priaonor did not lo«e a rreal deal of hii influence in that way by the Taot that ha lost the iniinenoe uf the clergy, and ho Nayii that at the time be gained intiuonce \>v working against the ulergy iind by making hiiiisell' out a« a prophat. The wiiiioHR iM.iirtked if he mean* thai tiie people did not ha>'e ecnll- denoe in their elergy.and he sayt ao, but he sayii they were ignorant aud be waa taking advantage of their ignorance and their ainiplioity." lliiB is from Father Andre's uxami nation: " Q. Is It not trii that religion haii a great influence ffpon them ?— A . YeS. " Q. Is It not trui that a man who tried to govern tbeiu by inducing them to o<>int>lotely change their religio'-j or to do away with it, .ould have nu influence with thoiu at all ?— A. Kxaotly; it whh Juit heoauxe he was to religtuui and appeared so devout that he exorui.sod tiuch a great infliieiioe upon theiu. F wiiih tu explain tibis point, beoauao it is a great point. With half-breeds he nevOr wan contrHdiiuod, »ii>l ui'niiei(U(intl.v, he whh rarer exoited with them, iind he appeared in hix natural Htate with them. fl« dnl nut ndinil hii ttiniriKO viiiwM a; flrst, it was only after a time that be proclaimed thoiu, and enpooially after .he provincial government had iiei n pro- olaiined." Mr. MILLS. Ifear, hear. Mr. THOMPSON (Antoj/ouiali). The hon. gentleman who says "hear, hear" really fin^i.s*, I sup- pose, that tills is an explanation why tin; balf-brreds did not observe bia iiiaanity, but we are told by the lion, membei for West Durham that tliesi; half-breedfl joined bim in an act nf insanity when they pro- claimed him a.prophet. True, the speech at the trial is to be taken to some extent aa some sliglit eviden«!'; of doran{{ement of mind because be thought to diwpel then the impression that he was iiisaiv!; but, aa I hare h iid, he had definitely formed plans before that with relation to bis line of defence and ^vith relation to bia appeal to the Executive for clemency, lie had conceived the idea in expressing tlui phrase that " politics would save him," that the term "jwlitiral offence" was large enough to cover »V. the crimes he bad committed, as well as it did the dolilH.rate and shocking murder he liad committed iu 1869-70, and would also cover his criminal and openly avowed intention of bringing foreign trooiw into the country. He thought tliat the clemency which was large enough to cover the crime of 1869-70, which the lion, member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) had declared "a damnable murder," would sun ly Im) large ^uiongh to cover the criminal otfence of exciting half-breeds and tempting foreign forces into the countiy. It ia said that the evidence produced at the trial proves conclusively that this mm hnd delusions. So he had. So have fluuiy persona who have committed crimes, and it is the opinion of some inedical writers that all persons who commit crimes, against the moral law at , any rate, are more or less under the iuHuence of i.l i w I Ueluaioiis; but we shall have to go further than that bofore we m^ko up our minds that thii man i»««. ftither irK'sponaiblo ou the ground of thcHf diilnsions, or that th« moml guilt of.hig offfnoi! was lessened bj those delusions. A man may have strong jwlitical delusions, but it does not at all follow that the ucla he «owmitfi, Huch as incondiorisin, uiurder, or intuiting others to commit murder, are at all tlie consequence t)f these delusions, or that his d»>lu8ioiiH have so mastered him that he is unable to resist the impulse to t!0iAmit crime. Stephens, in hifl HiHtory, from which the hon. member fpr West Durham cited so largely the other night, and m regard to whiuh 1 endorse all he baid as to the weight of the authority, says; " Parts of the eonduot of mad ponplc are not affeotod by their raadnesti, and if auoh parts of their oonduet are original they ought to be punitihod lor it." I admit that when a man hns political deluHions, there may be a connection between Ids delusions and hi« orimes, but that is a question to l)e submitted to the jury. In this case it was submitted to the jury with the most liberal inatructions by the judge, and the finding of that jury, sustained by twp judgments in appeal, was that ho wus undoubtedly the subject of political delugions, but that his conduct wat not eo , oOQiHicted widi them as to lessen his culpability. I admit that a jury ought to be careful in such cases tO> aaoertain that there is no connection between the delusion and the crim«, but in this case the greet pati^ce exercised by the jury in sifting the fact, and the careful scrutiny this case reoeived on appeal, show that the jury discliarged their duty carefully and conscientiously. Upon that subject I might cite at %ome length, but 1 refrain from doing so, the cele])ruted case which was tried in the UnitedBtatet tki few yeara ago, and in relation to which the man who was condmned, if the evidence is to be believed, had, , a ten-fold stronger ca8 ekutioiu were ii«t oonneoted with the crimes of which he wm convioted. The rc{iort8 then showed thftt the eondition of the man's mind had not changed, and it waa fully apparent, even from the memorials submitted in his bolialf, that he knew in what condition his ease was and under8tor. Lavell's report most be viewed with great suspicion, because, iu this ease of Michael Lee he had testified tiiat ho was perfectly sound in mind when iic wns convicted at Nkpaaee, while ICiohsfll Lee had afterwards l)eea found to m undoubtedly iuaone, and that • oromutatiou was granted beeause Dr. Lavell was entirely wrong. That statement, I observed, created an impnwsian upon the House. Tlie bun. mntleman Imd not asked for the papers in that taso of Michael Lice, exoept- ing to state in his^speeoh: "I ask for them now." The hon. gentleman c«n have them, and any hon. ioiember ofut have them if he desires, hut 1 say now that the rebuke which the hon. member passed upon the hon! member for Ottawa (Mr. Mackintosh) for not statinfr the case of Midiaol Lee in the list which he gave, was soikr fh>m being a just one that, instead of Dr. Lavell having testified that that man waM sana when ho waa perflBotly insane, I find, after having-read the case, that Dr. Lavell woe never examined At tl'e trial at all. Mr. BLAKE. I never said so. Ux. THOMPSON (Antigonish). It is cinite true that at a sub8ec(nent stage of the cane— — Some hon. MEMBEBB. Hear, hear. , «« ' Mr. THOMPSON '(Antigonish). Hon. gentlemen shall have all the mtisfaction they can derive from that. Mr. BLAKE. That is wh&t T said. Mr. THOMreON (Antigiioish). The hon. gentleman said, if I remeiubcr correctly, that the trial- Mr. BLAKE. No; I did not. Mr. THOMPSON (AnH|foui8h),— that, at the trinl, Dr. Lavell pronounced him perfectly saue, and he was found to bo perfectly maane. Mr. BLAKE. No; I did not. Mr. THOMPSON (Antigonisb). If he did not^— and, of course, I accept the statement of the hon. 4;enfleman — I withdraw the contradiction I made as to what he said of Dr. Ijavcll's statement at the trial, but I will quote, for the benefit of those hon. gentlemen who cheered so lustily ji At now, what the report was which Dr. Lavell afterwards made, in order to show that it was no such report as the hon. member for West Durham supposed it to bo. I>r. Lavell was called to examine Loe, and was called in conjunction with another physician. The other physician ditfered fi'om him so for as to think that Lee was insane and irresponsible, and what Dr. I^voll said in his report was not that he was perfectly sane, but: " In view of his weakueas of Intellotft, moral obtusenoFS and ignorance, it in not an caay uialtnr to arrive at a positive conoluHiou. It Ih » kind of'cuKu that I think reauiros a more lengi honed expert observalion. Tlio gravity of Uie ease I have oonaidered in al iia hearings, imd, if pres.sed for an iiniundiate opinion, my coneluMouB are that Michael Lee, thoush h. man of low intellect, having no proper moral Bnnxe and dej)lorahly iKnorant, in never- theless in a condition to distinKuiah between right from wrung, and that any pooulianties manifested, luudiug to the auspioiou of insanity, may bo attributed to his low habits of lifo." ^0%, hon, gentlemen who cheered me so loudly a few moments ago, will see that Dr. I^avell did not' pronounce Michael Lee to be perfectly sane, but declined without further investigation to pronounce upon the qu^tion whether he was insane or not, but, if pnisscd for an immediate opinion, heboid he would fp so far as to say that he knew right from wrong; and the physician who ex.nmincd the cose with hiu\ did ■ not deny that, although he thought his conduct was such as to tiirow some doubt upon it. 1 think the House, however, will agree with niCthat hia report, guarded us it was—"! will only report him as know- ing right from wrong if pressed for an immediate opinion, or i before going further I muBt have a •further investigation " — is not sufficient, to justify tlie imputation passed by the hon. gentleman upon the reliability of Dr. LavoU as one of the officers who made the investigation. The hon. member for We."5t Dcrhant contradicted me a few moments ago, when 1 said that, in the case of Michael I/'c, he intimated t|btat Dr. Lavell reported hiju at the trial as being perfectly sane. The hon. gentleman will allow me to 4[1lote from Bantard the words which 1 was mx^ fell from his lips at that time: .*' When the trial of Michael Lee for murder took place at Nananee ">ome time a«to, Dr. Metcalf , of Rookwoo^, • Dr. Qlarki of TorontStLDr. Lavcli, of Kiogslou, examined him. vn. Mstoalf and Oiark pronounced him insane ; Or. Lavon<|)roa«uuoea hitu perfectly sane." '''i m mm/f^mi^ ipt i mf i 26 It tony be tli.Li th() hoii. genUeman meant to refer to the subscquout investigation, unij'not t« that whioh took ploceat the irial, Imt I think tliat he will agree with rce tnat these worda justiticd ine in forming the imprcdsion I did. If the hon. gentleman intiui«ic«, as 1 suppose he deaireti to intimate, tliat ho did not uiean that Dr. F.iivell wivs a witncas at the trial, I do not desire to assert that he meaut to say, what.Ii supjiose from Hamard he did intend to say; but the whole point of my arg\iment ia not to whow that thie . hoD. g«ntlemau "Ic.Divfld Iho House, l>ut to si. . olasion has been arrived at, unless it can be pointed out to him that there was something on which that tribunal erred." Now, Sir, as the hon. member said practically the penalty of capital punishment i« only applied in the worst cases, because, in accordance with the report of the Comuiissioners on Capital Punishment, which I ri rred to a few mometlts ago, it was stated that a largo number of tho urimes which technically came within the decription of murder did not involve the full moral culpability of murder ; as, for instance, th^ (Time of infanticide, in respect of which it is of late years the rule always to commute the sentence ; witli res^wct also to those luuruers which arc committed under strong provocation which does not amouij^^ to an excuse in law ; and with respect to those murders which are committed without any actual intention to commit murder, but in the attempt to commit some other felony, as in the familiar and often quoted case of tho man who sUoots a tame fowl for the pui'pose of stealing it and in so doing kills a human being. In all those cases it is abundaiitly recognised that tho Homi Secretary interferes for the purpose of a coxor mutation, and it is because, as Sir Fitzjames Stephen says, in the passage which the hon. gentleman- <^uoted, the crime of murder is one with very many shaae8 and variations, th^t thC; statistics referred to by the hon. member show that so many commutations take place. But those statistics do not prove, that report does not prove, the conduct of the Home Secretary from time to time in pursuance of that report^ does not sustain, I ttiiak, the hon. gentleman's position that it is the Executive which pronounces the,, capital sentence and not the law. It is simply that in a well recognised class of cases the Executive will interfere, wliile in all others it will leave the otfender to the law which he himself deliberately violates, and it docs so in .ill ca.ses where the crime has been deliberate and willful in intention, as every step of this crime was. I think tho hon. gentleman will be puzzled to find such a case in w^ich thi^Executive clemency was successfulljjr claimed. Mr. Walpole also said : "I think it right • • • to state speeifloally what were the reoommendatiods of th() royal comraissions, which I have endeavored humbly and faithfully to act upon. Those recommendations were three:— "(1). That the punishment of death be retained for all murders deliberately committed with express malioo aforethought, such malioo to bo found as a fact by the jury ; "(2). That the punishment of death bo also retained for all mnrdors committed in or with a view to the per- petration, or eieape after the perpetration, or attempt at perpetration of any of the following felonies . Murder, anon, rape, burglary, robbery or piracy ; ' '(3). That in all other oasen of murder the puni.shment be penal servf'^de for life, or for any period not less than seven years, at the discretion ul the court." These recommendations were unanimously adopted bv the committee. Mr. Bruce, Home Secretary, said, on the 28th Julj', 1869: "His bon. friend had referred to the recommendations of the royal oommission ; but many of those jreoom- nienaations had been attacked by «ome of the ablest writers on criminal law, and bis own opinion was that, if legislation were possible, as he believed it to be, they must not follow too closely the recommendation of the loyal oommissioners. , So that instead of a departure from the recommendations of the royal commission being made a matter, wliich would justify a vote of want of confidence, it Avas stated on the authority of the Home Secret«i^i_ that although he generally 'followed those recommendations, their wisdom had been disappioved by some of the best writers on criminal law, and that if legislation were invited, it would not dp for legislation tp follow them verj' closely. Sir George Campbell, too, speaking as an Indian oiRcial 8»id, cm iQth May, 1882 : • " Speaking as an Indian official^ who has had, perhaps, more experience in regard to gpostions oflife«nd death wan any other moinber of the House, he thought there was a universal ooncurrenoe of oplnioB that nothing eoold, be more otjjectionable than the present system, under which the Home Secretary ooaltf d«ei' .-»:■' 27 xeoom- I that, if i of the _^d death tgooald, oapilal^; in India the praotioo had been to throw on the jud^eR the OBOI of what ihould te done in partiocs so far as to say that the existenci; of delu- aipufl, even though they be iioAhown tooause irresponsibility, should bo allowed to be given in evidence for the purpose of enabling the juiy to find yea or nay upon the question whether responsibility ex isted or not.. That is the utmost length to w)r h he goes in stating the law, but in stating how it, would be desirable to amend the law he takes a 8tc> further and pro^^oses that the law should be so amended that the jurora should be instructed not only to find the prisoner guilty, if they find him to be responsible as far as sanity is concerned, but that they should then be asked whether the delusions under which he was laboring afiPected his capability of resistance. The hon. gentleman should not, however, press upon the House thkt suggestion of Mr. Justice Stephen, becatise it is a suggestion to amend the law, and until the law is amended an Executive surely cannot be charged with~ violating any principle in not acting upon it. But so far from laying down the principle that until the law is changed in that respect, that rule should be followed out by the Executive, Judge Stephen lays down a very ditfereut proposition, which I shall pres- ently read. Even if that rule were iu force, the matter was so put to the juiy by the course which the evidence took, inasmuch as it was clearly proved that Bid's criminal acts were noi; the results of his delu- sions, but that ho had abundant self-control over and above the force of those delusions to enable "him to govern his own conduct, to carry out the campaign, to entice otiers into the rebellion and to guide his con- . duct in a very different way if he should receive a recompense for doing so. Jn view of the evidence then, submitted, in view of the ground on which the Court of Appeal sustained that verdict, we can come to., no other conclusioii than if that rule which Justice Stephen tiiinks should be adopted, but has not yet been adopted, should be applied by the Executive, and it was om' duty to enquire whether Biel wa^j .under such delusions as weakened his self-control, anyone must come to the conclnsion, not only that he waa responsible, but that he was capable of so cuntrolling himself as to bo beyond the reach of his delusions. If we come to that conclusion, the case of Louis Riel is not at till within the hon. gentle- man's rule, the nile which he says ought to be followed by the Executive, but which is not recognised as a rule binding the Executive, and the Executive iu the case of Louis Kiel gave him the full benefit of all the evidence given in his favor, and were justified iu coming to the conclusion not only that he waa responsible, but that his delusions did not affect his criminality and that his self-control was not in any material degree affected by his delusions. But the hon. gentleman himself has supplied me with the strongest evidence on that point. Down to that period of the debate it had been urged by hon. mem- bers who had spoken on that side of the question that the jury must have come to the conclusion that Kiel's self-control was lessened by his delusions or they would not have recommended him io mercy. But it now transpires out of the mouth of the hon. gentleman himself, and by a piece of testimony which he adduced for the purpose of attacking the Government on a very dififerent question, that the jury entertained no doubt whatever on that subject, and that when tliey went to their room, every man of them voted not only that the prisoner was guilty of the charge iu the indictment, but that he was. perfectly aane. The hon. gentleman read that letter becau.se at its close it stated that the jury made' the recommendation to mercy on account of the mismanagement by the Government of the North- West. Very little weight can be attached to that, as there was not a tittle of evidence produced on that sebject at the trial; and when the hon. member for West Durham admits it could not have_^ legally been produced, no oiie will say on the other side of the House, that although it was not proved at the trial, they oould act on public ruinour, or a public impressioa which may have prevailed in that country tluii grievances existed. The man who wrote that letter was sufficiently intelligent, if we can judge by hi* "^^1* ..^ ^ '*•'' 28 t compMition a» teitd to thig Houka, to know that he took an oath that he wopld try the c&bc accordins to thfl evidenco, and if he undortakua to stute to the hon. gentleman, and through him to tho Ilouie, tnat the recommendation of tho jury was basocl upon an impressiou that the (Government had been culpable and that the prisoner should on thnt ground receive the clemency of the Crown, I tuke ^he lil ■ rty of decunii.'g to believe the statouieut oi a man who declares that he has so little regard for his oath. Stephen, who is regarded as suoli ii high uuthority by tlie hon.. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), dcajs with this very subject of the trtiatuient of persons under delusions: " It iindoubtodly is. and I t.itiik it \» eaiially clear that it ought to be tho law thnt the mero oxistenoe of an Insane delu8ion which dooa not in fuot influence particular parts of the conduct o( the person affected by it has no effeot upon their leiful oharaoter." ' i I have already addressed myself to the hon. genMeman's statistics and shown they w^ not applicable in this cose mid this country, because we had in tlie North- West a Court of Appeal for reviewing onestious of fact, while in tjiglaud they have only the Home Secretary for doing that work. But when tne hon. gentleman pressed upon us the great weight of autiiority of Mr. Justice Stephen, for'thepurpoee of convincing this House that a man subject to religious delusions or political delusions ought to be a subject fisr £xeoutivc clemeucy, it flashed upon my mind at onoe that there was a paaaage very near where tliQ hon. " My own opinion, however, is that it' a npcoial divine order were given to a man to oommit murder, I sboald 'Oertainly hantr him for it unless I got a special divine order not to hang him. What the effect of getting sueh an -order would be is a qiiostiun difficult for any one to answer until he gets it." There is another passage from tho same author at page 176 which I shall quote. I use It to show that the doctrines which are laid down by this high authority, and most rcceftt authority, are inconsiat- ent with the doctrines whicli have btsen laid down in some works en medical jurisprudence and insanitr, and that even sorje who hold the most advanced views with respect to humanity and philosophy in legis- lation are unwilling at this day to go the length which hon. gentlemen say we should be censured for not going : " Dr. Msiidsley's illlustration does not come up to bis principle, because he Bupnosos the madman to act under a delufciun which would weaken his power of self-control. Suppose a case in which vhere is no delusion at all, and no connection at all between the madness and the crime. For instance, there are two brothers, A. and B. A. is tho owner of a large eittate, B. is heir-at-law. B* suffers to some extent from insanity, and is under care at a urivato lunatic asy um where bis disease is going off and there is every prospect of his cure. A. oomcH to see 'lim ; and B., who knew of his intention to do so, and who apart fmm his ma.lness is extremely wicked, contrives to poison hira with every circumstance of premeditation and deliberation, managing artfully to throw the blaniB on another person who is hanged. B. completely recovers and inherits the estate. Why, when tho truth cumes to light, sliculd not B. bo hanged? His act, by the supposition, wns in every respeota sane one, thoufih he happened to be mad when he did it. the fact that he was mad ought to be allowed to be relevant to his guilt, and to be left to the jury ae uvidenoe as far as it went in favor of a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity, or ranwoith said in his testimony before that oom- miMion on the 29th of iNovember, 1864 : " The Jury now praotioallv recommend tu muro^ on the Kroand of neat provooation, or from whatever euuses ther may think proper tu maue that reoumnieudution, wbigh, oi° oourae, ia always oonveyed to the Crown, but it still raata with the Crown to act on it or not." Vow, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Oigault) the other day made a citation froin the Englitdl Baruard which impressed the House as being of great foroe, and which fell upon my ear as somewhat novel dootrine. He cited a passage from u speech ot Sir William liarcourt to the effect that when there was » recomxaendation to mercy, the extreme penalty was never enforced. Now, for the satiHfaction of that hon. gentleman I beg that he will refer tn the context again, because he will scf that the subject of dkonssion then was the propriety of ohaiip' the law wit.h regard to muider, for the purpose of exempt- ing from the extreme penalty those catu hich there is provocation, and it was in relation to those cases that Sir William Harcourt said thai tuu jury had it in their power t' \tend clemency by re- commending mercy, and that when they did recommend mercy the ext-ime i).,iaity was nfiver carried out — tlie hon. gentleman will Und if he looks up the speech that it i.- in relation to those cases of murder in which there has been provooatiou that any Home Secretarj ^.aa evoi lidd down the lule that recommendation to mercy must be regarded by the Executive. Sir Wm. Harcourt, speaking of the attempt made before the commission of 1866 to (Jjgtinguish between deliberate murdei-s and those under provocation said : "The Home Oflloe did diatiDKuish between I lie murders which were those which ought to be treated as murders with matioe aforethought t'ruio thoae which, aooording to the ovmmission, vhould uo put in the Heound oatogory." How T ■'";:■;■■:;,;" " The jury had power to rooommend meroy in oases where there was provocation, and which did not, in the Ukw of Hngland, oonvert the crime iuto maiiiilaughter. iu the praotioe oltiie Home Umoe, where tliu jury ruoom- meuded meroy the capiial sentenoo was uever executed." These were .he words the hon. gentleman relied on, but they were qualified by what went before : " And in point of fact they had then! the second category given effect to." - And he shows that it meant that, and that only, when he goes on to say : " There was the case of difficulty, however, where the jury recommended moro^, and the Judge did not ueeond the reoomn< "^ndalion." The hon, member read this passage, but he did not seem to see the force of it as qualifying what went before, and limiting its meaning : " And in that case it remained lor the Secretary of State to form his own judgment on the subieot. He must form it on his own responsibility, ard with all the assistance he might receive from the sourco-i he had access to." Sir George Grey, who had been Home Secretary three times in fifteen years, in his evidence before the commission, said, in reference to the recommendation to mercy: " I have no means ol knowing what passes in a jury-box, but that may possibly be in some oases (we can hardly account for it in anv other way than upon that supifosition), because there has been some diit'erence of opinion among the jury, and unanimity has been obtained by a verdict, of guilty, acoom)>anied by a recommenda- tion to meroy, where there were really uo grounds for that recommendation. Judges frequently aek for the f rounds of the recommendation, and the jury frequently give some, or some which have w tjeaririK on the ease. n those oases I think that that may account for the belief that there has been an indisposition tu fiiu! ;i. verdict whioh would necessarily consign the prisoner to execution. I have no doubt that there are nuinbcm i>t oases la which executions have taken place in this counlry in which extenuating circumstances would have been tuuud by juries in France, and to allow them to do so would lead to great unoertanity. It it was controlled by the dis- cretion of the judge, it would realjy amount to nothing but what takes place now in a reeommendation to meroy by the jury. If the judge is satished ttiat the grounils of their recommendation are reasonable, he reports it to the Secretary of State and the sentence is generally commuted." But the hon. member will find, if he cares to make sure, that recommendations are not neoossarily acted upon. He will find, in the evideuce'given by Judge Hill and by Mr. Beggs, before the Koyal Commis- siou, in 1866, many oases in which juries made recommendation to mercy, which were not acted U|)on by the Executive. Now something was said to the House on Friday Tast, for the purpose of showing that another claim for Executive clemency might be put forward on the ground of the reprieves that took place in this case. The lipMSb has been put in possession of the facts which enable it to see why those reprieves were granted. In the first place, an appeal to Manitoba was being prosecuted; in the naxt place, an appeal to FiUgland was being prosecuted; and, in the third place, an application wa^ made bf the counsel for the prisoner feen extended to it, it would have been inconsistent with that view that Kiel should have been long detained in prison. If he were confined in a lunatic asylum, how long. I ask, with the power the evidence showed be had during the outbreak of controlling his own conduct and of getting possession of his senses when he wanted them — with the power of controlling his action and recovering ids balance when be wanted it — how long would it have been deemed just by, the humane sentiment of tho country to keep him in confinement'i He would have Ijeen set at liberty^ under the report that he was cured and no longer mad, and he could have established a cure whenever he chose; and what theu would have been the security for life and property in the North- West? 1 think that Louis Kiel's next exclam&tion would have been, not that the rebellion ol 1869-70 was not a patch u|)on that of 1885, but tlmt both together would not be a patch on the rebellion he would raise the next time. I think that to have exercised the Executive clemency in a case like that, would have been in the words I have quoted from Mr. Jiostioe Stephen, "not benevolence, but cowardice." But let me ask attention to . another point eonnected with this branch of the subject. Let me call attention to the fact that the Indians, who this man incited to rise, perpetrated some very cruel raunlers at Frog Lake, which called, in every sense of the word, loudly for the exenution of tlie supreme penalty of the law against the Indiaits concerned in that massacre, not only because they committed great crimes, but on other grounds on which it is deemed proper to inflict capital punibhmeut, namely, that it is absolutely necessary, by making a great example through the infliction of such punishuieii*, to deter people disposed to crime from commit- ting it. How could the peipetrators of the ' Frog Lake massacre have been punished, if the niau who incited tiiem to rebel — and the massacre was to them the natural result of rebellion— had escaped ? How could the punishment of the law have been meted out to them, or any deterrent effect have been achieved; if " the arch- oonspirator," the "arch-tiaitor" if the "trickster," as he has been called by men who did him their) best service, waa allowed to go free or kept ia a lunatic asvlum un,.il ke chose to get rid of his temporary delusions ? It w;w absolutely necessary, as I liave said, to show to those people, to those Indians, and to every smtiou of the country, and to every class of the population there, tbat the power of the Government in t\€ North- West was strong, not only lo protect but to puulsh. In the administration of justice with regard to those territories iu particular, it was absolutely u nessary that the deterrent effect of capital punishment should be called into play. Remote as that territory is, strong .•« ^he necessity is for vigopo'is government there and for the enforcement of every branch of the law, I am not disposed to be « imrSthi.Tl^WH^''" ".'*•''*•" ^^^ -f thepeualtto. which the Uw pronouacs ; but iu reUtim K^r^i^i" "!!!^, «M?' ""^ «^in. hav. \mn c*udiaat.« for the extreme penalty of the law wS SL^^begS^ *^ ^^ ' '"P^"*' P«ni.hnf«,t,iu Fruuoe: -Wrr we 1, bu VtlJe