.^^J^n%. % v^ \^ ^> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) /. <° 1.0 I.I Li 128 w m^ IHHi — M IIIII2.0 12.2 L8 ||l.25 1.4 1^: ^ 6" - ► "/F w ^> c*? !V;> -p^ ''J / Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WMT ..U(f S'llKf WEBSTER, NV. MSSO (716) 872-4503 4^ ^ Ui CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIriM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in ths reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D D Couverture endommagiie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculie □ Cover title missing/ Le tit itre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli4 avec d'autres doeumants Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou da la distorsion l« long da la marg« intiriaure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutias lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cala 4tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmsntaires; L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-^tre uniques du point da vue bibliographiqun, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thoda normals de filmage sont indiquAs oi-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages da couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagios D i/ D Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tacheties ou piquees r^ Pages detached/ Pages ditachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible r7~] Showthrough/ r~| Quality of print varies/ r~~| Includes supplementary material/ r~l Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une peiure, etc., cnt iti filmies A nouveau de facon ^ obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 13X \m am 24X 28X 32X Th« copy >Mimcd hmtm has b««n raproducad thanks to tha ganarisdty of: Library of Parliament and tha National Library of Canada. L'axamplaira film4 fut raproduit grica i gifiArositi da: La Bibliothique du Parlement et la Bibliothk|ue national* du Canada. Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha baat quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy and in kaaping with th? filminc contract spacifieationa. Original copiaa in printad papar eovara ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last pago with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copias ara ftiniad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion. 4nd ending on tha laat paga with a printad or illustrstsd imprassion. Tha laat racordad frama on each microfic^a shall contain tha symbol — ^(maaning "CON< TINUEO"). or tha symbol V (maaning "END"), whichavar appiiaa. Laa Imagaa suivantaa ont 4t« raproduitaa avac la plua grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at w eonformiti avac laa conditions du contrat da fllmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la eouvartura 91% papiar aat imprim4a sont filmte an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la damlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'Impraaaion ou d'llluatration. soit par la sacond riat, saion la eaa. Tous las sutroa sxamplairos originaux sont filmto sn commandant par la pramiAra paga qui comportf« una amprainta dimpraaaion ou dlllustratton at 9n tarminant par la damiAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un daa symboias suh/ants spparaltra sur la damiAra imaga da ehaqua microficha. salon la eaa: la symboia •-» signifia "A SUIVRE", la symboia ▼ signifia "FIN". Mapa, platas. charts, stc.. may b« filmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thosa too larga to ba antiraiy includad in ons axposura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand comar, laft to right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illustrata tha mathod: Laa cartaa. planchaa. tablaaux. ate. pauvant Atra fiimte A daa taux da rMuction diffAronts. Lorsqua la documant aat trop grand pour Atre raproduit an un saui clichA. 11 ast film* i partir da I'angia supMaur gaucha, da gaucha i droita. at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra dimagaa nteassaira. Laa diagrammas suivants illuatrant la m^hoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 6 THE PACIFIC RAILWAY SCANDAL: ]:h :,: ADDRESS BY DAVID MILLS. ESQ.. M. P. -»** DELIVERED AT AYLMER ON THE UTH OCTOBER, 1873. .-<*.-"%»"" ■«*•«»> S'i. THOMAS: HOME JOURNAL STKAM PRESSES PRINT. 1873. 1 :iiiT ;-i^H>J KIA .t/j. ',XJ t )'T "A,^:!. 1 jVi . \ : ? i" ^O \i i h i :ivM^.fVA '?/ fri>f,-r7; ''((j .^ — ADDRESS \ I I BY MR. MILLS, M. P., AT AYLMER. Mr. Mills delivered |hu iipeecli in the Ayl- mer town Hsll on the 14th October, 1873, at a meeting called to eonnder the Pacific Rail- way SoMulal. It is republiahed from the 84. Thomas Some Joumatt report. Mb. Mills wm received with hearty cheers. He said : I have been invited here, Mr. Obairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, to address yoa apon the ^etj grave state in which we now find the affurs of the country. There have been many public measures of a most objectionable character pressed upon the attention of Parliament at ite last session, wh'nb, under ordinary circumstances, would call "orth adverse criticism, and which de- serve reprobation. Returning ofDoers, too, have been iniilty of gross fhiuds, deprivins the people of thdr proper representation, and violating the privileges of Parliament itself. We have had the committee of privileges and elections reftising, at the instigation cf Ministers, to enquire into these frauds, ap- parently for no other reason than this, that thev were unwilling to rectiiy the mischief which had been done, because, in doing so, they would have been depriving the Gov- ernment of two supporteis from this Pro- vince. But scandalous as have been the out- rages perpetrated by the connivance, and under the protection, of Ministers, by oilSciala whose sworn duty it was to retnra the men whom the people bad chosen as their repre- sentatives to the House of Commons, they have been in the public mind completely overshadowed by the high crimes committed by Ministers and by other persons who had conspired with them against the public wel- fare. I say in all seriousness that I regret to feel myself compelled *'i spealc, not of rumors but of facts. 1 trust that I am not ignorant ot the full measure of responsibility which I assume towsrds the public in making this statement. He who, upon iosufficient evi- dence, brings charges against public men iDCODsistent with their honor or their in- tegrity does a ereat wrong not only to the persons accused, but to the country. The man who does so is nut only robbing othors of that which enriches not himself, but h" is robbing the country of its public spirit, be- cause be is lowering the motive from which the electoral body of the country 6hould act Pure government under the representative system can only be maintained by a healthful ^jublic spirit. Men must take a lively inter- est in public a£Eair»7-they must fbel strongly and act vigorously— if the political atmos* phere is to be kept pure; they must believe that those who represent them have, like themselves, a political faith that is living and by which they live. Create a suspicion in any portion of the electoral body that you are not sincere in your political professions^ that you are not reallv ttriving to give effect to any principle which would make them wiser or the country more prosperous, aod von have done those persons a positive in- Jury. If such great mischiefi result from groundless accusattoos, how much greater are the evils flowing from the wrongs when actually done! You may be sore of this, that the public man who has resolved to make use of any means inconsistent with a high sense of honor, or the most strict up» rightness of purpose, in older that he may gain power, will seldom go down the hill alone. He is sure to make use of all the ap« pliances he can command to drag others with him. Once he has resolved on the course, be finds the descent easy. He goes down from point to p«int by insensible gradations until he is fitted, by this bard> ening process, to do in the end what he would shrink flrom doing at the begiuLAug. The man who does this succeeds in teaching those who follow him to admire success. They learn to look at the possession of power not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. Now the leader who does this can have no public policy for the promotion of which he is ready to abandon place. What great end can he aim at? What great questions born out of the events of his own time has he made his own, by which he has drawn his fellow countrymen out of them- selves, and made them feel that they were acting a noble, a disinterested partr Tou may depend on this, that he who does so, although there may b^ no practical advant- age in the issue which he has presented, if he has succeeded initouohing the hearts of men, and making them feel and act from no selfish motive, be has done a great positive good. A healthful public spirit is not bnrn in a day. The leaders of men in the cause of freedom and good government are not indolent per* Kons; they are not simply soldiers of fortune fighting for piece. They think deeply, tha'k they may understand the requirements of their ase, — that they may know what is demanded by justice and truth. It is only among Buch men that Btateamen can be found. Tbey are toiling upwards wbiie the rude tricliater who has reached the treasury bench by a tricicBter's arts is giving bis mind a bolidav, having accomplished ,tba& which be considers his most important worhir It Is ' impossible in a progressive age HkeY)nrs -tblit' the public mind should be at res^,. It is eminently an age of material progress. Men are not only seeking to convert the baser metals into gold, but they do expect by some kind of magic touch to convert all tbines into gold. They see the goldeo braseh ob- tains admittaoce to everf place, afid^ like .^neas, they are anxious to pluck it. We are warned as to the dangers of our own timfcs, and we must exercise a sleepless vigilance in preventing seats in Parliament and seals in the Privy Council from becom- ing articles of merchandise. It is easier to debauch than to invigorate. The wrongs of the past oast their shadows upon the future. The achievements of tti^ past are taken up in the form of permanent results. I know it is sometimes said that the importance of many great measures has been exaggerated, — that those who have taken part in the struggle have labored for an illusion. The bill at whose base you stand seems higher than the one that skirts the horizon. There has been DO illusion. The benefits may not have been of a kind anticipated, but they are not the less real. It Is of inestimable advantage to bave climbed the summits of your own time, and to have seen the heights of the future risinjt in the distance before you. I can under- stand the man who, worn and sobered, after a long, contest has been decided in bis favor, covered with tbe dust of life and fatigued with its labors, wishes to sit down by tbe wayside to rest and be thankful ; but I can* not understand him who insists upon resting not when new problems demand solution, but when great wrongs are unpunished, and when the highest places in tbe state are be- come the sources of corruption, from whicb its springs flow not to fertilise but to de- stroy. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not going to detain you by the discussion of political ethics. You are aware that, at an early period in the late session of Parlia- ment, Mr. Huntington charged the adminis- tration of Sir John A. Macdonald with bay- ing 8old the charter for the conet'-uction of tbe Canadian PaciSc Railway to ISir Hugh Allan and others fur a large sum of money, advanced for tbe purpose of aiding the elec- tion of Ministers and their supporters at the late general election ; and that he demanded a oommiltee for tbe purpose of investigating these charges. Mr. Huntington declared on bis responsibility as a member of Parliament his ability to prove them if the House would grant him a committee. These accusations of Mr. Huntington, which, in law, amounted to a high crime if proven, and would have dis- qualifled those accused from either advising the Crown or from sitting,' in Parliament as the representatives of the people, if followed by the punishment usually awarded to such offences, were voted down liy a majority of thirty-one. For such a proceeding no justiQ- cutiun whatever can be found. It is true that the Premier has said that he "Understood tbe motion to be made as a motion of non- confldence in the administration, and m sach be was JuBtiflod In dealing with it. He re- ferred to tbe view expresaea in the Olob* and other Reform Journals in JUBtfflcation of him- self. |Taw I would here observe that when Mr. IfiinUnjtton gave notice to Minleters and the Honie-^f his mtention to make a motion in relalian to the Pacific Railway, he did not disclose the character of the motion that he proposed to make. It was very natural, then, that both the members and the presB should have supposed that the motion was to be one of aimpU noo-confldence in the Uov- crnmenL ' Upoh '-bo '^rarf ■•W matter Mr. Huntington did not feel called ipon to make known beforehand the nature of his motion, aud anything said by newspapers supporting the Opposition before the motion was made could, in the Judgment of no candid man, justify the conduct of Ministers after the nature of the motion became known. It is true, too, that every motion censuring the Government Implies a want of confidence in the Government on the part of iiim who makes It. But when Ministers are accused of what every one must admit is a crime, and when members have no means of know- ing, without inquiry, whether the charge so made be true or false, it is a highly improper proceeding to treat such a proposition as an ordinary motion of non-confidenoe. Impro- per, however, as the proceeding was, it was taken. Ministers, as I have stated, led their supporters, sincerely or Insincerely, to antici- pate a motion of Don-confidence^ They had marshalled their forces by Provinces to fight us upon this ground. Tbey had counted the vote ihat they coald command. Th«y had calculated the Influeuce of that vote upon parties for the remainder of the session. They knew they would thereby have an im- plied pledge of support from men who were unwilling to join the ministerial ranks ; and being thus assured of future advantage, tbey declined to forego the opportunity. And to gain this advantage Sir John A. Macdonald and his colleagues felt justified In stifling all enquiry. I do not seek to conceal tbe fact that on tbe next day be himself proposed the committee asked tor bv Mr. Huntington. Whether he was induced to take this course by pressure from his Iriends, or by a sense of the grave suspicions which would Inevitably attach themselves to Ministers, and which, in the public mind, would be but little short of a proof ot guilt, it is not now important to enquire. We do know that many ot those who supported the Government in rejecting Mr. Huntington's motion were ill at ease on account of the vote which they had been called to give. Tbey bad been asked to op- pose a motion which they were led to be- lieve was to be one censuring the railway policy of the Gcvernment ; and they support- ed the Government when the motion was made, reluctantly, in fulL.ment of this pledeu. It was well known to both sides of tbo House that the Reform members from Nova Scotia felt no very ardent attachment to the Government, nor had they implicit confidence In Dr. Tupper. Before Mr. HuDttugton's motion was made these mem- bers were called together by Mr. Howe. They were informed by him of his intended retirement from the Government within a ' J ' *m i» few weeks, of bis promised appointment to the Kovernorabip of Nova Scotia, and of bis inability tu accept this place from the Op- poBltinn even if offered it ; and be asiced tbem not to witbdraw tbeir support from Ihd ad- ministration wbile he was a member. It is not surprising tbat a minority of ihose who, in former years, bad recognized bim as tbeir leader complied with bis wisbes on this occasion ; and tbis they did, not because of his present position, but from a kindly re- membrance of past public services. I think it may be fairly said, then, tbat in proposing a committee such as Mr. Huntington bad de- manded the Government acted, under the cir- cum6tance8,Got so much from choice as from necessity. And I may say further that if you bear in mind that Sir John Macdonald bad seen the correspondence between Sir Hugh Allan and his American associates, and that he was informed by Mr. McMullen that if the Government gave the charter to Sir Hugh Allan the public would certainly be informed of the nature ot the negotiations which had' been carried on, and the con- ditions upon which the contract was obtain- ed, you can scarcely doubt that Sir John A. Macdonald must have from the begin- ning surmised the true character of the mo- tion Mr. Huntington intended making. When he received assurance of support against the motion as one of non-confidence, he must have felt tbat be had no very strong claim upon those who voted with him should the House be called upon at some future day to recon>°'der the vote which had been given. I neeu day nothing further to satisfy you that the proposal of the commit- tee by the Government is not by any means conclusive evidence of their willingness at tbat time to have the charge investigated. Sir John A. Macdonald had suggested tbat a Commission would be issued, if necessary, for the purpose of taking the evidence upon oath, and Mr. Joly intimated that the witnesses ought to be sworn. The issue of a Commission never received the slightest countenance from the House. The House showed no disposition to abdicate one of its most important functions, — the exclusive right to enquire into the truthfulness of charges of crimes committed by its members in contravention of the law and usages of Parliament. As to how that evidence should be taken, was not, in the first in- stance, determined by tlie House itself. The committee of enquiry was appointed, and the subject of Mr. Huntington's motion was referred to them. They were not instructed by the House to swear the witnesses, and the motiob to introduce a bill authoiizing the comniit'tee to do so was made by the chair- man. You will see, then, that the par- amount consideration with the House was, not in what form, or with what solemnities, ohtill witnesses be examined ; but it was this, that the enquiry shall l)e conducted under the supervision and instruction of the House itself. The Oaths Bill was proposed and carried through Parliament; under the im- pression that the House of Commons had not the power to administer an oath. This opinion the House derived from Sir Erskine May's work on the law of Parliament. May says, "From what anomalous cause and at what period this power, which most have been originally inherent in the high coart of Parliament, was retained by one branch of It and severed from the other, cannot be satis- factorily established ; but even while the Commons were contending most strenaously for their claim to be a court of record they did not advance any pretensiona to the right of administering oaths." Now there cannot be a dcjubt that May Is mistaken In saying that the Commons have never claimed the right to administer an oath except during the period of the Commonwealth. In Floyde's case, in the reign of James 1st, which win be found in Glanvllle's Reports, in which a dispute as to jurisdiction arose between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, after a conference the Lords resolved that, "Having considered the pre- cedents alleged by the Commons at the last conference do find that they tended to prove —-1st, that the House of Commons Is a court of record j 2nd, tbat they have administered an oath m matters concerning themselves; 8rd, that they have inflicted punishment on delinquents where the cause has concerned a messenger of tbeir House or the privilege thereof. And in the same reports. In the County of Cambridge election case, it la affirmed by the House of Commona Itself tbat although the House has very much ab- stained from administering oaths It neverthe- less has the power. It is true that the power to administer an oath has been at times denied, and this denial has been seem- ingly acquiesced in by the House Itself ; but the failure of the Heuse from the ignoi-ance or supineness of its members could not de- prive It of any ol the high trusts with which, as the representative body of the nation, it stands seized. Mr. Ferrall, a very high au- thority, in his work on ibe Powers and Privileges of the House of Commons, after citing a number of precedents for the pur- pose of showing that the House of Commons is a Council of State and Court of Record, says, "The House of Commons must then possess, in addition to its own extraordinary powers, every species of authority that the highest ordinary court of record in the kingdom is clothed with. It can commit for contempt; can fine and iiuprison; can ad- minister an oath ; can interrogate the party delinquent ; and being the highest court of record its acts are not subject to the revision of any other court." He also observes that, "In examining witnesses there is a difference beiwcen the present practice of the two Houses. The Lords examine upon oath ; '.he Commons do not use that solemnity. Yet it is manifest they might use that or any other solemnity they thought fit; but they do not do so because, possessing greater powers, and more unlimited control over the wkole commonalty, it would be beneath the dignity of that House to resort to any other means than the terrors of its transcetidant jurisdiction to induce witnesses to speak the truth. Their right to administer an oath when exercising their judicial or inquisitorial functions is undoubted, as we find by the journal of the 4th of May, 1621, tbat right is claimed by the Commons and the claim was admitted by the Lords to be justified by pre- cedent." 1 say, then, if the Comjoaous has 6 this power the diaallowance of the Oaths Bill has not at all taken it away. The House ot Commons, in proceeding with the Bill, went upon the assumption that the power to ad- minister an oath was not one of its attri- butes. At the time the Bill was under dis- cp^sion the Premier expressed some doubts as to whether Parliament bad the power to pass such a measure. He did not, however, resist the measure on the ground of its un- constitutionality, nor do I well see how he could have done so, as be himself proposed and carried through Parliament a measure in 1868, authorizing the Senate to administer oaths in certain cases ; and it must not be forgotten that the same section ot the British North America Act places the same restric- tions upon each House in this particular. The section which it has been held diequali- fles Parliament trom passing such a measure reads as follows : "The Privileges, Immu- nities and Powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof re- spectively, shall be such as are from time to time denned by act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that the same shall never ex- ceed those at the passing of this act held, en- jeyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the mem- bers thereof." Now, as the Parliament ot Canada had already passed a Bill defining the privileges, immunities and powers of the Commons House of Canada to be the same as the Commons House of the Imperial Par- liament, it is clear that if, by the law of Par- liament, the Commons House there had the power to administer an oath, as maintained by Ferrall, we possess that right here. If the House of Commons at Westminster could not, at the passing of the British North America Act, administer an oarh, it does not in my opinior necessarily tollow that the Parliament of Canada, under the section which I have just read, is disqualified from passing a Bill authorizing the House of Commons to do so here. It to authorize the Commons to administer an oath confers upon it any power, immunity, or privilege, then the Oaths Bill was unconstitutional. But I am inclined to think that whoever will take the trouble to consider what is meant by powers, immunities and privileges, as used in the law of Parliament, will have some difficulty in satisfying himself that the Oaths Bill, which has been disallowed upon the advice of the law officers ot the Crown, did any one of thede things. It did not increase the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It did not confer on it the power to deal with a (;^uestion with whicli it was not al- ready seized. If Parliament had proposed that its members should not bo amenable to the ordinary tribunals for breaches ot the peace ; that privilege from arrest should ex- tend throughout the year ; that any crime committed by a member ot Parliament should be tried by the Commons, such pro- posals would be in reality proposals to in- crease the immunity of members and the powers and privileges of the Commone. But can it be said that a mere change in the mode of procedure in any case increases th^ power of any body havmg a right to deal with the case? Suppose the constitutioa had said that the powers of no one of the superior courts shall be increased, will any one in bis senses seriously arsue that the Legislature would have been inhibited for- ever from altering or amending the laws of Procedure and Evidence ? And if this can- not be maintained, I do cot well see how the right to swear a witness whom the Com- mons has the right to interrogate about a matter within its exclusive jurisdiction can be denied. The power of the House ot Commons to punish any person who has given false evidence before the House, or be- fore any of its committees, is unlimited ; and if such false evidence was given upon oath, and the party made subject to the penalties which the law attaches to wilful and corrupt perjury, he would then be subject to a less severe punishment than the House of Com- mons can now, by the law of Parliament, in- flict. I may here say a word in reference to the disallowance of the Oaths Bill. By the 66th section of the B. N A. Act it is made the duty of the Oovernor-Oeneral, on the first convenient opportunity, to send an authentic copy of each Act to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State. It is said that this Act was not authenticated in the proper way, and it certaialy was sent in much greater haste than is usual in forward- ing Colonial laws for Imperial considera- tion. There was nothing in the nature of ^his measure to call for haste. It related to h domestic matter. It did not jeopardize, much less take away, any personal right of any of Her Majesty's subjects. The subject to which it referred was of great consequence to all Canada. It was of no consequence to England. It neither directly nor remotely affected any question of Imperial policy. It is difficult, then, to see upon what ground Imperial interference can be defended. I, tor one, am not willing to accept the dicta of the law ^officers of the Crown as the su- preme law of the country. Such a practice is in direct conflict with the principles of English jurisprudence. In ordinary cases ot litigation an extra-judicial opinion, how- ever eminent may be the standine of the Judge who delivers it,i8 not accepted as law. In the case of Banks v. Qoodfellow the pre sent Chief-Justice of England, Sir Alexander Cockburn, after referring to two decisions as not conclusive, said:— "But in both those cases the wide doctrine embraced in the judgment was wholly unnecessary to the de- cision, and we, therefore, feel ourselves war- ranted, and, indeed, bound to consider the question as one not concluded by authority and upon which we are called upon to form our own judgment." If, then, the judges ot our courts have felt it necessary to hear argument tor and against different construc- tions of the law, and have carefully confined their authoritative interpretation within the narrowest limits compatible with the deter- mination of the rights of the parties before them, how much more necessary is it that important questions of constitutional law shall be considered with at least equal care, and determined only after the full- est argument? I do not believe that the people of this country will, and they would be recreant to their own rights if they did, ... k ■mamnH^H i i\ ♦ • I "I Bubmit to have the powers ot the Parliament of CanaJa improperly eolarged iti tbia direc- lioD, or impropvrly rvatricied in that, by the liasiy and ill-considered opinions of Her Majesty's law officers in England. There is everywhere prevalent in uiis counlry an opinion, whethei well or ill founded i shall not pretend to say, that the extraordinary precipitancy with which the Imperial Gov- ernment acted in disallowing ttte Oaths Bill was caused by urgent entreaties from this Bide of the Atlantic, and it will be diffloult to convince those who entertain this opinion that it is not well founded. Interference with Colonial matters, in which the Imperi- al Government have no concern, has not of late years been a marked characteristic of Imperial policy. But when we consider how far Sir John Macdonald went in sacri- ficing the rights of this country to serve the exigencies of the Gladstone Government, we need not be surprised that they, in turn, i,;- norant of the facts, have served him. But let me remind you that there was ample time to have proceeded with this enquiry after the Bill became law, and while Parlia- ment was still in session. I shall pass by ail consideration of the delays in carrying the Oaths Bill through Parliament. You are aware that about a month elapsed from the time it was introduced by Mr. Cameron until it became law. It must strike every one of you as a singular thing, when such a serious charge was made against the administration, that they should have themselves caused un- necessary delay. Innocent men do not usu- ally preler to rest under a grave accusation when the opportunitv of a fair trial and a speedy acquittal is afforded. But in this case the delay was caused by the accused parties themselves ; and instead of any indication of a desire to meet the accusation lairly and fearlessly, we have had all along the clearest raanitestation of a desire on the pari of the Government to shiik the investigation. This dislike was not made the less apparent by the invectives of the Premier against Mr. Huntington, and by his earnest asseverations of bis iunocence, witnessed by very high au- thority. After the Bill was carried no inti- mation was given by the Government of their unwillingness to proceed with the in- vestigution on account of the absence of Bir Hugh Allan, Sir George Carlier and Mr. Ab- bott. It was not until the list of some of Mr. Huntington's witnesses were seen that it oc- curred to the Government bow unfair it would be to those geiiilemen who were ab- sent to proceed then with the enquiry. This charge had been made by Mr. Huutiugton in the beginning of April, and that Sir Hugh Allan and Mr. Abbott were inculpated was as well known then to Sir John Macdonald C:ud his colleagues as on the 5th of May. when he proposed an adjournment. The House, too, kni'W of their absence, and in appointing a committee to proceed with the invesiigation it did so well knowing that these uentlemen were not iu the country. Can it, then, for one moment be believed that the absence of these gentlemen was the true reason fur declining to proceed with the in- vestigation ? 1 he committee was a commit- tee or the House, appointed by the House, witli instructions from tlie House to report from time to time to the House its proceed- ings, and It was as palpable a violation of its instructions as the cumnfiittee could well be guilty ot to resolve to adjourn. There was no Tact made known to the committee that was unknown to the House, and I cannot well conceive of a more irregular pioceeding than for the Premier to come before the committee and argue in favor of an adjourn- ment. The committee was a mere servant of the Houpe, uud it the Premier desired ad- journment bis motion should have been made in the House. The Premier knew that tlie committee was to meet on the 6tb of May. He knew that the House bad asked the Senate to permit certain of its members, on that day, to attend as witnesses. He had theu an opportunity to delav the proceed- ings by inviting the action of the House it- self. Why was it not done? In this, as in all subsequent proceedings of this Pacific Scandal, there are obvious manifestations of the duplicity and the coward' je which are inseparable from guilt. Sir John A. Mac- donald had known for five weeks that such an enquiry was to take place. Why did be not at once inform Mr. Abbott and Sir Hugh Allan ot the fact? Perhaps be did. But why did he not insist upon their immediate return ? It was known in England that such accusatioub were made against the Govern- ment and against these gentlemen. What liindered them from returning? Did they — did the Government — cling to the vain hope that they might succeed in their negotiations, and that success would enable the Govern- ment safely to stifle all enquiry ? It is now worthy of note that the committee, which at the special request of the Premier adjourned because they said, as he had said to them, that it was impossible for the investigation with which the committee was charged to be carried on or completed in a proper or satis- factory manner without an opportunity being given to^ir Hugh Allan and Mr. Abbott to be present and to hear the testimony. There could be but one object in those gentlemen being present — to cross-examine the witness- es and to furnish rebutting eYideoce. Well, there has recently been an opportunity af- forded tor snowing the insincerity of the Pre- mier in the reasou assigned for an adjourn- ment of the committee on the 5th ot May. Sir Hugh Allan is now in Canada. A Com- mission Las been issued upon the advice of the Premier and his colleagues for the os- tensible purpose of inquiring into these charges. Sir Hugh Allan appeared by a gentleman of high standing of the Quebec Bar for the purpose of cross-examiufng the witnesses, and the right was denied him. Why was this done ? Can there be a doubt in the mind of any one as to the motive ? It is a well settled rule of evidence that where a number of independent tacts tend to the same general conclusion they furnish evi- dence of a very high character in favor of the truthfulness of that conclusion. Agreement between independent facts as to truth is prol)al>le, but accidental agreement in a false- hood is an impossibility. If any one man out of a hundred, says Dngald Stewart, throw a stone and Strike a certain object, there is but a slight probability from that fact alone that he aimed at that object; but it all the fi m hundred throw Btoues whicb Biruck the same ol)Ject, no one W4)uld doubt but that it must have been aimed utby eacli one of them, be- cause no one can believe that such general concurrence can take place by mere accideiii. Now I think it can be conciusive'iy emab- lished by evidence of thlskiud, aa well as by direct evidence, that the cbarueH made by Mr. Huntington against the adnriinistration are true. All the acts of the Government, from the time that they a<;reod to admit British Columbia into the Union to the pre- Bent hour, concur in establishini; (liese charges against Ministers. Why was iliero such haste in pressing forward the project of a Pacific Ilnilway? Why was it proposed that the country sliould be pledged to ilie construction of this road within ten years, when British Columbia asked that it should be done witliin twenty years ? Why should Buch extraordinary terms of admission be pressed upon the immediate attention of Par lament when the people bad never been called upon to approve or disapprove of the measure? Or iiad it been known with cer- tainty that such a measure would have met with their approbation, wliy should Minis ters ask Parliament to pledge the country to the construction of this railway before the vast territory through which it was to run bad been explored, and before it was known whether it was possible to build it or not? The theory of our Government is, that it shall be carried on according to the well under- stood wishes of the people, and members are elected for a definite period of time so that the popular will may be always fairly reflec- ted by the Commons House of Parliament. But if the people are not to have an opportu- nity of pronouncing for or against so impor- tant a measure as the construction of a rail- way across the continent, it is difficult to see why we should have an election at all. Then when we consider the character of the legis- lation proposed by the Government, we find that it points in tlie direction of giving mem- bers of Parliament a personal interest in the road. Enormous grants of land and enor- mous sums of money were proposed as sub- sidies, and no man could be a stockholder in this Pacific Railway and a member of the House without placing his duty to the public in conflict with bis own personal interests. And yet the Government legislated so as to promote, rather than to prevent, this state of things. This baste, this proposal to do more than was required, this proposal of an enor- mous subsidy, this proposal to admit mem- bers to share in the profits of the enterprise, and to open wide the door to a corrupt alli- ance between the Government and members, and railway jobbers, and speculators, are so many concurrent facts consistent only with the intention on the part of Ministry to im- properly maintain themselves in power. Let me next allude to the manner in whicb the Government met Mr. Blake's Bill for the trial of controverted elections by the judges. It was not denied that such a measure was necessary. No one pretended to say that the present mode ot trial was either efficient or satisfactory. No one agreed that it ever had or would result m justice being speedily done. Every one knew that the present system was expensive as well as inefficient. The system of trial proposed bv Mr. Blake was one that had been adopted in the British LegiBlalurc, and in tlie Province of Ontario, and wherever tried it lully met the just expectations of its supporters. Why, then, was it re8ii>ted by Hir John Macdonald and his colleagues? Why did they defeat thi') measure before the elections, and after the elections were over, and it could not be made available for tlie trial of any controverted election, propose the same measure? Aye, further, why did they propose to delay its operation for seve- ral months? Why this change? What new light had Sir John and his colleagues re- ceived ? Did lie intend that improper means should be employed to secure the election of his friends and supporters which an efficient law would liave made a dangerous proceed- ing? If nut, why did be oppose tlie passage of tliis measure ? Can anyone assign any other intelligible reason for the conduct ot the Government than that tbey liad reso\ved to do what tliey are charged with doing? Can anyone deny that if the Government wished to make use of improper means for tlie piu-pose ot influencing the elections that it was for their interest to resist the proposed changes in the law for the trial of controvert- ed elections? There was another measure pressed tt. )rm tl ^'Ir own Company, that a kind of I. ^jtiatinn waation in the same connection to Mr. McMullen ? Every member of the Governaieut seemed, by some fatality, forced to speak of election expenses when tbe subject of the Pacific Railway was referred to. It was a siugular- ly unfortunate thing lor them that they did this, if there was no connection in their own minds between the Railway charter and an election fund. I sha.i cow say a few words on tbe subject of the prorogation, and the issue of the Commission. You are aware that Sir John Macdonald had announced to the House before the adjournment in May that the meeting in August would be a meet- ing for the purpuse of prorogation merely. But Sir Jobn Macdonald bad declared to the House that be was innocent of the ebuve* which had been made against bim. He Sid this with tbe most solemn asaeverationi, calling God to witneaa bis innocence, and declared that Mr. Huntington would find ha bar*: been wofblly deceived. Now, although it is true Sir John Macdonald was leader of the House, it is not true that the House conld be held as having anented to a mere pro forma meeting in August except upon the one condition, that the facts were as he bad stated, and that tbe Committee upon inves- tigation obtainec* evidence of such a charac- ter as to show that the allegations were wholly untrue. Will any one pretend for one moment to argue that had the Commit- tee proceeded with the investigation, and found that the evidence sustained tbe charges, tbe Parliament should have been piorogued without any action being taken on the report of the Committee f If this is an untenable position, then tbe aivument based upon any statement made by Sir Jobn Macdonald in tbe House goes for nothing ; and no one, I apprehend, will have the har- dihood to maintain that had such a report been made tbe Ministry ought to have been permitted to administer tbe affairs of the country until Pebruary Dext. I have said that the statement of Sir Jobn Macdonald in reference to prorogation was based upon tbe assumption that tbe innocence of himself and his colleagues would be clearly estab- lished before the Committee. This assump- tion proved to be untrue. The Committee made no report; no evidence was taken; but a number of the most extraordinary let- ters from Sir Hugh Allan were made public which, according to the admissions of even Ministerial journals, established a strong prima facie case against the Government. What, 'ihen, was the duty of the House in the premises? It was to meet on tbe 13th of August, the day to which it bad adjourned. It is to be presumed that every member saw this correspondence, and can it be believed that there is to be found a member in the Commons of Canada who could seriously en- tertain tbe conviction that the matter did net require the immediate action of Parliament f I may except those gentlemen who hold their seats in consequence of the expenditure of Sir Hugh Allan's money. Well, ninety- six members of Parliament, learning of the intention of the inculpated Ministers to ad- vise prorogation, protested to His Excellency against bis acting upon tbe advice. It may be, had there been four or five more names upon tbe list. His Excellency would have de- clined to prorogue. I do not pretend to know how that might be. I make oo com- plaint against the conduct of Lord Dufferio. Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues were his advisers by the sanction of Parliament. I censure not His Excellency, but his advisers. By the law of Parliament His Excellency ia nut supposed to know what transpires in the Huuae of Commons, except in so far ns be is informed by the Oommons itself; and the Commuus had not informed him thai Mr. Huntington had brought charges which, if proven, must disqualify Ministers from any longer serving either the people or the Crown. This brings us to the consideration of the I >il '•> .•it- \-r :' 'm£t:Mi3 \ -i^fWMksi-it ■liillttiii ■^ -""-^ 11 '1 II CommlMdon. I do not betlute to declare that tlie iHae of % Royal CommiMion, to en- quire into the allegation that Mr. Hunting- ton bad made from hU place in the House of Commons, upon the advice of the accused, is not only contrary to the principles of Justice nniversally recognised, that no man shall Judge in his own case, but it is a gross attack upon the privileges of the House of Com- mons. I have been reminded by some of the Ministerial Journals that this Commission was issued unc^er the authority of an Act of Parliament; but I deny that there is any Act of Parliament which can give validity to such a Commission. It might as well be said that the Crown could issue a Commission to try a Minister of the Crown for felony under this statute. The obvious intention of the law WHS to enable the Admioistratiou to inquire into the conduct of its subordinates, and into any matter where they thought inquiry would enable them to suggest a beneficial reform. The object of the law was not to aid either House in the discharge of its duties, where ne aid liad been sought, but to aid the Crewn. Every law muEt be construed in such a way as to make it ccnsistent witti common sense. Will it be said that a Min- ister may advise the Crown to exercise the power of pardon in hie own behalf? Every one will admit that although generally !ie may advise the Cro'vn upon the subject of pardons be could not do so in his own case, l^ow the law authorizing the issue of a Com- miesioa was never intended to abridge the powers of Parliament. It never was intend- ed to constitute a new tribunal to deal with matters falling within the exclusive jurisdic- tion of either House any more than it was in- tended to enable the Crown to assume to create a Commission to iry causes of which the ordinary courts have Jurisdiction. Lord Dnfferin, upon the advice ot Ministers, has done what Charles I. did upon the advice of Buckingham, — he has interfered with the freedom and privilege of debate. The Bill of Rights provides that ''Freedom of speech and the debates and proceedings in Parlia- ment ought not to be impeached or question- ed in any court or place out of Parliament." It was for this principle that Sir John Elliott, and Oliver St. John, and Pym, and Coke contended. Charles I. violated this princi- ple whet> he sought to arrest the five mem- bers. Oa more than one occasion it was violated by his son, James the 2nd, and it was a part of the solemn pact which made William and Mary king and queen of Eng- land. Will it be believed that the Parlia- ment of Canada intended to disregard a prin- ciple for wh'cb our forefathers fought ? that they intended to put it in the power of the Minister^) of the day to call a member to ac- count, for what he said iu Parliament, by the issue of a Boyal Commission ? No one who takes the tronble to serionaly consider the matter wili believe tlua. On more than one occasion in England have judges been pan* ished for interfering in a leas offensive way with the rights and privileges of the Com* mens. Mr. Mills here referred to several cas- es in point, and went on to say that this ab* solute freedom in Parliament u a high trust from the people. He said there was a custom among the Romans that onoe a year a feast was held for their slaves, at which the slave had liberty to speak freely and with impunity whatever he saw fit. This was to him a day of liberty. We have, under ^e British con- stitution, our day of liberty and immunity of speech. It is enjoyed and exercised in the high court of Parliament. Here I am res- trained by law. Here I may say something for whicn I may be called to answer before some other tribunal But in the high court of Parliament I am only responaime to the august assembly of which I am a member. — But Sir John Macdonald says otherwise. Look at this Commission. Upon what is it based ? Upon something said in Parliament, under the protection of the Bill of Rights — Why did tney not order Mr. Huntington into custody for contempt of court T What an- swer could have been given had Mr. Hunting- ton been arrested, and had he been brought up before one of the Superior Courts of Que- bec on a writ of habeas corpus, bad Sir John Macdonald or his Commissioners been called upon to show cause why he should not be set at liberty ? Do you thmk any court would have for one moment recognised a Commission based upon a violation of the privileges of Parliament? Sir John Macdonald knows the law too well to have submitted his Commis- sion to such a test. We have had a few faint attempts by the Tory press to get up the cry of loyalty, and a little small talk about the Opposition insulting Lord Dufferin ; but the people of this country are too well informed to be misled by false issues. They know that when we are standing by the rights and pri- vileges of the Commons we are standing by the rights of the people. It is the only high court Known to the law, created directly by the people themselves. The day is gone by when they put faith in greatness borrowed from pedigrees and tombstones, and they laugh at the man who fancies he can impress them with an idea of his own superiority by tricking himself out with the barbarous titles of a bygone age. Whatever view may be taken by Parliament, which must shortly meet to consider these charges, I have no doubt that the country is not wUIing to disgrace it- self by approving of the conduct of men who have given a stab to Parliamentary Govern- ment in Canada. (Mr. Mills, having spoken nearly two hours, resumed his seat in the midst of loud and continued cheers.) 'ti