IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) / A O Q, 1.0 I.I 1.25 !fri:i IIIM i? lis IIIIIM 1.4 1.8 1.6 P: <^ /y 7 y /A PhotDgrapliic Scieiices Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 iV A \ ^9> V u O^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/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 the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D >^ D n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Cou'«erture restaurie et/ou pellicul^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur ti.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 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 ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires 8uppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet 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^thode normale de filmuge sont indiquis ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolories, tachetdes ou piqu^es I I Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire rW] Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ 7 s T VI h d e bi ri r< nn I I Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies A nouveau de fa9on A obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X e §tails 8 du lodifier r una \wnqe IS Th« copy filmad h«r« has baan raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Library Division Provincial Archives of British Columbia Tha ImaaM appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia consldaring tha condition and iagibliity of tha origlnai copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Originai copias in printad papar covars ara fiimad baginning with tha front ';ovar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or iilustratad impras- slon. or tha back covar whan appropriata. Aii othar originai copias ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or iilustratad impras- sion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad or iilustratad imprassion. Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol —^ (maaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (maaning "END"), whichavar applias. Maps, platas, charts, ate. may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too iarga to ba antiraly Includad in ona axposura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar iaft hand corner, laft to right and top to bottom, as many frames as raquirad. Tha following diagrams iilustrata tha method: L'axampiaira film* fut raprodult grAca i la gAnArosit* da: Library Division Provincial Archivas of British Columbia Las images aulvantas ont 4t« reproduites avac la plus grand soln. compta tenu de la condition at de la nattet* da I'exemplaire film*, et en conformiti avac las conditions du contrat da filmage. Les exempiairas originaux doi.t la couverture en papier est imprlmie sont filmAs en commen^ant par la premier plat et en terminant solt par la darniire paga qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iliustration. soit par la second plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exempiairas originaux sont fiimis an commen^ant par la premiere paga qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par la darniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparaltra lur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: la symboia — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", ie symbols V signifie "FIN ". Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fiimAs A des taux de reduction diffirants. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul ciichA, il est fiimA A partir de I'angia supArieur gauche, de gauche A drolte, at de haut en bas, en prenant la nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iiiustrent la mAthoda. irrata to pelure. n A □ 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 (^yVazt/uvest CoUectio/v I A'W t 97^ 1?Z G b'2 »s SPEECH or Mr. GIROUARD, M.P., ON THE EXECUnOJsT OF LOUIS RTEL. HOUSK OF COMMONS, MARCH 2 4Tn, 1886. Mr. GIROUARD. After this protracted debute and the expression of the desire which han been made that the vote should be taken thiw eveniijt]f, I do not intend to make a long Kpcoch. 1 wi^h only to otier a few remarks lo explain the vote I ara going to give against the Government. I made up ray mind to cast that vote on the 13th of Novem- ber last, when I joined with Hixteen friends and snpporte'H of iho Goveinment in the Province of Quebec, m trana- mitling to the hon. Premier the following telegram :— " Uader the present circumstances the execution of Louis Riel will be an act ufcrueltj, the responsibility of which we refuae to take." Having bean elected as a Conservative, and a Conservative in principle, 1 thought I couk' not come to that con- clusion without conbulting my constituents. I did so at the first opportunity, on the i5th of November, the day before the execution. 1 told them that under the circumstances there was no party tie strong enough to hold me in face of the execution of Louis Kiel, and 1 offered them my seat. The answer was not only their unanimous approbation of the course I had taken, but the immediate tiansmission of a telegram to the hon. Premier in Ottawa intorming him that the course I had followed was unanimously approved by my constituents. While voting against the Go- rn- inont and thus obeying the express desire of my constitu- ents, I do not intend to change my political opinions. I am a believer in the National Policy and in the policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway. To quiet the mind of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Rykert), I may even tell him that I do not intend to take back one proposition of the six hours' speech of last Session. Were I of the opinion that the Govern- ment of the day wore primarily responsible for the rebellion in the North-West, as the Liberals of the Province of Quebec stated at meetings before the execution, I would blame the Government, not only for having executed l\iol, but for not having granted him a full pardon ; but I never held that opinion. I never contended that Eiel was a hero ; I always looked on him as a lunatic ; and I blame the Government for not having ircattd him as snch. That is the reason why 1 took part in the agitation in the Province of Quebec — an agitation which was condemned the <">thor day in such strong langnage by the hon. member for Kent, New Bruns- wick (Mr. Laiidry), becaur^e he had no accurate idea of its true character ami lordeiicy. Jf he had been at those meet- inge, as 1 wah, although 1 was not at many of them, he would be in a position to say before the llouheaud the country that there weio never any meetings in the iJominion ol Canada more orderly, more constitutional and more lo3'al. The hon. membei for Kent has referred us to the example of the good people of Acadia. Everybody knows that the poor A^adians, from the time they were tJisperi^ed like slaves all over this continent to a very recent period, if not to the present time, had been a long-f^utfeiicg people. The hon. gcnileman told us that these Acndians suf- fered quietly the dispos^ebsilln of their land sifter seventy years of jjo-scsnion. lie could also have told us that to-day ihcy are sufl'ering in sile»»ce the closing of a college— if I inistako not, the St. Loais t'olletre — because the French languaije was taught in it. The Acadian ])eoplo have been, and, no doubt, are yet very ])utient; but I am veiy ncuch afraid that under thoc-e circnnistances their patience is not a virtue but a necet^sity. I wiil tell the hon. gentlen-an that whenever the rights of the French popula- tion ol the Province of Quebec are atHiiilcd ; wherever iheir nationality, their language, their religioi', their institutions or their laws are attacked, he will find protests from the Province of Quebec; he will find agitation and resistance by all legal and con^tllutional means. We had an agitation, one perhaps more important than that which has brought about the present crisis, in the years 187^ and 1873. At that time the members from the Province of Quebec had the humiliation of standing alone. The hon. member for Victoria, New Brunswick (fir. Costigan) asked the censure of this House on the Government for not having disallowed the New Brunswick school law. The French, I may say the Catholic members from the Province of Quebec, stood alone, except that they bad the I support of the hon. inoini ar for tho county of Ottawa (Mr. Wright) ; but f Hay now, since tho spooch of the loader of the Op|)ositiou and tho other Hpeeches deli- vered by hon. gonilemon representing Kngliah constituen- cies, I can no longer say that this crisis is one of race or religion. In 1872, we were agitating for religious liberty for the PVonch Acadians and the Catholic minority of Now Brunswick. Today, as far as I, at least, ana concerned, I am protesting on behalf of personal liberty; I am urging the importance of showing respect for those laws which have heen enacted in this country for the protection of life. To-day the man who is the occasion of this debate may be a poor, miserable lunatic, to-moirow ho may be any other member of (he community. If 1 had boon calleti upon to draft tho motion of the hon. mem- ber t)r ^ontmagny (Mr. Landry), T would have worded it ditt• iiionce of Louis Kiel whould have been allowed to huvo been carried out ; but I would have asked the House to conjure tho Government, not for having allowed the sentence to be carried out, bat for having ordered the execution. If Eiol had been convicted under the laws of the Provinces, the question would have been properly put as it is ; hut as he was convicted under the special con- stitution of tho North- West, as he was convicted under a law which stiys that no sentence of death -hall be carried out unhss an order bo given by tho Executive. 1 say tho question is whether tho (Tovernment was right or wrong in ordering tho execution of Louis Eiel. The mode of administering criminal justice in the North- West is very different from the ro.ode which prevails in tho rest of tho Domitiion. In all tho Provinces tho presiding judge is independ'jnt of the Crown, and has nothing to expect from Lhe Crown ; the jury is composed of twelve members, and if it is the wish of the accused ho may have, in the Pro- vinces of Quebec and Manitoba, six of his own language or nationality on tho jury. In all the old Provinces, there is a regular mode provided by law of summoning jurors; but what do we see in the North- West ? In the first place, tho magistrate who iw called upon to preside is only a stipendiary magistrate, and holds his office during the pleasure of the Govi-rnment; in the second place, we have only six jurors; in the third place, the accused is not entitled, as a mat- ter of right, to a mixed jury ; and fourthly, the judge is entrusted with the summoning of the jury. It is perfectly evident that the trial which took place under these laws, although a legal cne, was not a fair one, was not British, as we understand the principles of British criminal justice 14 173525 But, Sir, tho conbtitution of the North-Went, Hpecial as it is, has provided for certain guarantees again^-t a miscarriage of justice. In the first place, there is an appeal given to the Court of Appeals of Manitoba, an appeal which doos not exist ill tho old Provinoen; in tho second place, there is a final aj)p(al to the Executive. Section 76 ot iho North-West Act ot 18S0 said : " Whf n any person baa been convicted of a crtpitnl offence and is sentenced to death, ibe Stipendinry Mflgistmte shall torwaid to the Minister of Justice full iioiet* of the evidence, with his report upun the case ; and the execution plirtll be postponed from tiriie to time by the Stipendiary Magistrate, if lound necessary, until such report is received and the pleasure of the Governor thereon is communicated to the Lieu- tenant-Governor." It is perfectl}'^ clear, therefore, that the review made by the Executive of Louis Kiel's case, was a matter of right defined by the C('nhtilution of the North- West The aci^used, wh >fl brought before the liogina tribunal, only raised two issues: the first one was the jurisdiction of tho court, and the second tho plea of insanity. The Manitoba Court of A]»pcals has pronounced upon both pleas and dismissed them. Tho Privy Council diNposed only of the question of jurif^diction, but their Lordships took very good care to state that no argument had been off'eied on the plea of in- sanity. Tho case being thus disposed of in the courts, it then came, in the regular order of things, to tho Executive. What was the duty ot ihe Excciilive ? I say that tho ver- dict was wrong, if ihero wiis a doubt as to the just ce of tho verdict, if there was a doubt that the verdict was against the evidence, it was the duty of the Government to commute the sentence. In tho examination of tho case, the functions of tho Executive are judicial, but after having arrived at tho decision that tho verdict was wiong, then tho functions became administrative ; that is to say, in finding out the means of preventing a miscarriage of justice. The Executive, in examining the case, is not a court of appeals in the sense that it can order a new trial as can the court of Manitoba ; but in the sense that the duty of the Executive is to examine every part of the evidence, and see whether the verdict be correct or not. This propositior, I contend, Mr. Speaker, is the necessary consequence of the constitution of the North- West. If, as laid down by the hon. the Minister of Justice the other evening, the Government should not go beyond the verdict, if the Government has no right to examine the evidence and see whether the verdict is correct or not, then where was the wisdom, where was the reason of the law which says that all the notes of the evidence should be transmitted to the Executive, and, more than that, that the e±eoutibn 't it i cannot take place unless the good pleasure of the Govercor General has been transmitted to the Lieutenant Governor r But, even if the Government viewed this case as an ordinary cane of clemency, even if the case had come from the old Provinces, ray contention is that the (rovernment were wrong in takinu^ the view that they had no ri^'ht to examine the evidence and po beyond the verdict. What is the practice of the Home Offife in those ca^eK ? Lord Carnarvon said, before the Houise of Lords, in 18' 4 : *' At present the prerogative of mercy was vested in the Crown, anil administered tinder ih^ advice of the Hecretary of State. In the exercise of that prerogative the Secrptary of State was called upon to pay regard to the moral aspect of the case, as contrasted with the legal. He had to deal with the ri preseniatioria made to him with '•aspect to undue in- fluence having bt'-n allowed to particular facts -that some particular facts had been withheld— that fresh evidence had been discovered, and that, in short, there had been a failureot justice. As matters at presen t stood, the Secretary of State was iu tUe paailioa of a court of criminal appeal." I know that some high authoritior^ have objected to the wordu " (Jourt of Appeal " being used when npoaking of the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, because the Homo Secretary can order no now trial; but it is admitted all round, by all those who are more familiar with the matter, that, if not in i.ume, the jurisdiction of the Homo Secretary is virtually a c ra^e ; tu have a n^port from the judge of the evidence ; to lay before the judge any new facts or any facts which bad been brought tinier tn" nutice ot the Secretary of State, and to reques^t from the julg'i a report >i^ to his opinion upon that new evidence or upon the miiier. U,.ou all iht'S'>i uiateriaU being brought before the Sf'Cretary if State, h' wa^ th'-n in a p-^siti >n, not in the least degree to re-hear the ca«e, but simply toad vi.^e the Crown whether there were any circumstHUces Avhirh wouli juHify the exercise of mercy, either in an absolute or a qualified seuse — ihat is to say, either pardon or commutation. " Q. When you say that It is not th"^ practicp rf the Secretary of State to re-hear a Crtse, does not the Secnnnry of .Siat- g.jintu the evidence ? — A. Every atom of it. The Secretary HiS;;mes th;. r, the trial having been conducted before a competent trihunitl {thiot to have tliP disianc'f3 mt'A^nrcil, to show whether th'^y were in con- formity with ttie evidence which wiig impugned uitou that, f^routid ?" — A. OertHinly I did. Sir S. II. Walpolc continues biis ovidonco : "Dr. Lushing^on. — Q. But sometimes it operates as a court ot ap- peal ; lake ameihurbt'a caae ?--A. It muy operate as a court of ap- peal. " Dr. liushinf^ton.— Q. In a few ea'es where thf> question is one of (?uilt or innocence, it must act as a court, of appeal ? — A. Vea ; aot judicially, hut of necessity. Q. It must advise the Crown whether the case is sufficiently ch'ar to justify the .sentence beinp curried out?— A. Quite so. * * * Mr. Neate — Q. in your experien-e is it not very unusual for the Home Secretary to act at variance with the recoraniendatiou of the judf^e who tried the case?— A. I do not think it is usual to do so in one sense, because I really believe, frc tn my experience at the Home Office, that there is no necessity to difl'-Tfrim the judfjft who tried the case. Now and then there is such a necessity, and then the iSecretary of Stale does take upon himself the respoiisibilly of differing. Q. There is no settled rule* at the Home Office that you will not act flt variance with the recommendation of the judge after you have put the case before him ?— A. Certainly not. " The Duke ot Richmond. — Q The judgment ( f the Secretary of State is entirely unfettered ?— A. Absolutely unfettered." Sir George Grey, who was Secretary of State at that time, i«i 1864, was also examined before the same commission, and he said : "I see that there is an impression, from what is written upon this matter, that the duty of the Secretary of State is to sit a.- a court of review, and to re-try cases and set aside verdicts. The c«s'S ot that kind are extremely few. There was Smethurst's case, whi. h was not decided by me. There the facta of the trial were re-opened ; and one case occurred certainly to myself, which was a case of medical evidence, in which I had a great deal of communication with the jiidge. I did not think it altogether satisfactory, and I think that the judge was of the aame opinion." Since 1864 the practice of the Homo Office has not become more rigid. In fact, if we judge from the statement of Sir William llarcouii, quoted by my friend the honorable menihor for Eouvillo (Mr. Gigault) in his very al»le speech to the House, it has become .-itill more liberal ufd indulgent, following, no donb', the influence of the age, which is more and more agaiuht capital punishment: " In the practice of the Home Office, where the jury recomraeaded to mercy the capital sentence was never executed. « • ♦ There was the case of difficulty, however, where the jury recommended mercy and the judge did not second the recommendation, and in that case it remained tor the Secretary of State to torm his own judgment on the subject." Speaking of the jurisdiction of the Home Office, when hav- ing to deal with a ca^o just like the ])re-ient one— a case of insanity— Sir William iiarc uit .-^ay-s : I 1 % M ap- ap- i *' TliPfP wcro casf'S in hi; esperionco wlioro tln^f^vilenop of in'Hnity wai not brouglit bfl'oro Uie judt^pand iIh- jury • • • ilin Si-rrt'tary ot State had power to send mi^ilical ni«n of ejit>erience and exumirie into the condition (^f the piiriO'ier, and whoii the-e incdiral nwn rcpoited, an they had donf oc''a?i(iiially, thai Ih^'y did not ifijani the jn-isoiier as rfSponaible tor his aftior s, either at. ih^ time of the cunimi-sion ('< the otfeuce or suhdcqueully, th« capital seuteuce wad not carried out.'' And Sir R AsHbotoii Cro!.H, alno owvo, a Sirrotary of Stale, Raid (in tho saiiuww'C'ibion, whilo diM-ussifii;, in 1881, tho Capital Puriir^liinoiit Abolition Bill: •' The right lion and h-arned pentleman (Sir Wm Hses could bo sum- moned, but that they did not summon them. Tho name of Dr. Howaid has been mentioned during this debate. I am sorry, indeed, that the hon. member for Montreal Centre (Mr, Curran), sitting here, a** ho does, as a judge, went to a man, whom he con^idered to bean important witness, and asked him his opinion on the case. He knows very well that is not the way cases aie coudu«'ted by judges, or even by lawyers. I would have been very glad indeed if tho Government, in issuing the medical commission, had given instructions to examine Dr. Howard, to have him cross-ex- well amined, and alno to examine Dr. Valleo, of the Boau> port Lunatic Ahylutn, who had Louis Kiel under hiH trer*- ment for two yearn, and who was unable to attend the tri/'l becauBe he was Hick at the time. Sir, 1 blame the Government for not having hoard those witnossos who wore Hpoeialiy aware of the facts concerning the plea of insanity. There has been a diversity of opinion exprossod on the floor of this House as to the value of the evidence adduced during the trial concerning the mental condition of the prisoner. I do not intend wearyin^' the House by making quotations from that ovidonco. Kvory portion of it has already been quoted, pro and con, and is familiar to all the members. But, Mr. Speaker, the way I road the ovidonce I am convinced that the verdict was against that ovidonco, so far as the plea of insanity was conoornod. It is bald thai the Court of Appeals in Manitoba was more compotoni to express an opinion as to whether that verdict was well founded or not tha; ' * this House. It i",evcn naid we havo no jurisdiction in the Matter; but I boliovo [ have disposed of the latter point, +hi.t it is our duly to examine whether the verdict was suj'ported by tlie evidence. Let us see whether there is any expression of opinion, either from the Jury, the judge, or from the Court of Appeals of Munitoba, or from the i^rivy Council in England, so far ms the plea of insanity is coucorned. IL is true tho jury brought in a verdict of guilty ; it is true we should take that verdict as it is — that it means that Riel was not so insane as lo e(^c:t))e conviction. But the jury undoubtedly consi lered the question of irisanity when ihey recommended him lo n.oicy. Are wo to bo told that the jury really meint notiiiiig by it ? What were the ])lea8 of the defence f Thoj' were: tirst, want of jurisdiction by the court; and second, the ] man in a position to judge of a ca-^e like this, but he is forced to admit that he had not the necessary time to give it justice. We have aUo the evidence of Dr. Jukes, who became acquainted with the accused only after the rebellion was over — after the excitement which brought his partial mania into operation was over. More than that, we have the admission by Dr. Jukes, that he is not a com- petent man. W^hat does the rest of the evidence for the Crown coLsist of? We have the te>timony of ( ^apt. Young, Rov. Mr. Pitblado, Capt. Deane and Cap . Figoit. Many ot those men never had any conversation with Kiel, as far as those particular subjects are concerned, on which his mind was diseased, and theie is a remarkable fact that all these witnesses never had any acquaintance witn Riel before the rebellion was over. J think the('rowti must have been very hard piessed to jirovc the sauily of Kiel when they felt forced to examine General Miadloton, Could they 173525 12 expect that General Middleton, just coming from a victory, was going to say that he had been fighting a ijo\ ? Cer- tainly not ; he was not going to hurt his own reputation in that way. You may judge of the character of the evidence by the additional fact that Captain Young and another captain iu the army that went to fight Riel and his follow- ers, were among the witnesses. By this you may judge of the character of the evidence that the Crown brought for- ward in order to destroy the legal presumption that when a man is once a lunatic, once crazy, once a maniac, he is always a lunatic, always crazy, always a maniac, in the oyes of the law. Under these circumstances, I consider it was the duty of the Government to appoint a medical com- mission. This duty was so clear — I am not going to refer to private conversations — that we were led to understand by members of the Cabinet themselves that a medical commis- sion would bo appointed, and, in fact, the promise was made publicly and reported in all the ministerial organs in our Province. Under the circumstances, the least wo could expect in view of — to u. e a very mild expression — the doubts which the evidence left on the public mind, as regards Riel's mental state, in face of the numerous pre- cedents in England, it was the cuty of the Government to appoint not a lew medical men to examine the mental state of Kiel since the sentence had been passed according to the rules stated by Blackstone, but to examine his state of mind in accordance with the praciico of the Home Office. Black- stone, quoted by the Minister of Justice the other evening, did not mention a case where the Executive of the day had to consider whether there had been a miscarriage of justice, where the insanity of the prisoner before the sentence is at stake, but several Homo Secretaries of State have provided for tbat case, and thoy contjide'" it to bo their duty in such 3a«o to appoint modical men of experience to examine the mental »iate of the prisoner not only since the sentence, but also at the time of the commission of the olfonce. The Government wan strengthened in that position, not only as a sense of duty, but also by the numer- ous pt'titious which had been sent from the Province of Quebec and other parts of the Dominion asking for a medi- cal commission. Sir, that commission was never appointed ; and I blame the Government for not having done so, for not having fultilled the promises publicly made that one would be appointed. What did they appoint instead ? They appointed three medical men to ascertain the mental state of Louis Riel since the sentence. The jurisdiction of these men should have been larger; and, defective as these men were as far us their competency is concerned, they 13 I victory, )1? Cer- itation in evidence another is folio w- jad^e of ught for- at when ac, he is I, in the insider it ical corn- to refer stand by commis- as made •gana in east wo ession — nind, as 'Oils pre- ment to tal slate g to the of mind Black- »voning, day had justice, CO is at rovided duty a nee to y since Tiission in that numer- nce of raedi- 3inted ; so, for at one stead ? mental ion of these they n should not have been limited to an examination of the mental state ot Louis Kiel only since the sentence was pro- nounced. The first objection I have to the appointment of these men was. that they were servants of the Government. I feel certain that if these men had been independent of the Government, caring more for their reputation as practi- tioners than as servants of the Government, the original telegrams which have disappeared would never have dis- appeared. I also object that some members of that com- mission at least were incompetent. Dr. Luveil may have had some experience, but there is not a shadow of doubt — it was never pretended that Drs, Jukes and Vulude had any. I also complain that this so-called corami^^sion — because they are not properly called a commission — were not allowed sufficient titiie to enable them to })ronounco an 0])inion on the case. The eminent phyi^ician, E.>quirol, says: •' There are aome insane persons so reasonable that it is necessary to live with them and to follow them in every action of their lite before pronouncing them mad.' ' Dr. Hood says : " Ho^i' impossible then is it for casual visitors in passing throiigh the wards of a lunatic asylum, to form a correct judgment of the real mental state of any of the inmates around them.' Beck, in his Medical Jurisprudence, says : " It is his (physician's) duty, and should be hia privilege, to spend several days iu the examinatiun of a lunatic before he pronouii'ies a de- cided opinion. If thi8 be allowed to him, and also if he be enabled to obtain a complete history of the antecedent circumstances, much may be effected towards forming a correct opinion." This is also the opinion of Mr. Justice Johnson in the case that I have alluded to, and I believe that no authority can be quoted in t?upport of the contrary view. Take, for instance, the celebrated case of John Trith, decided in 1790. He was charged with atterapling an assault on His Majesty the King. His friends pretended that he was insane. He was brought before all the Ministers of iState, and was examined and cross-examined by the Attorney-General. There were so many doubts as to his mental state that he was sent to Newgate, and there remained under the imme- diate surveillance of two eminent medical men — not for two or three days, ncl for one month or several months, but for two years, and it was only at the end of those two yearn that those eminent medical men were able to come before a court of justice where the man was tried for high treason, and to swear that, knowing the habits of the man so well as they did from such long observation, they had no doubt he was insane, and the result was he was acquitted of the crime and sent to a place of confinement. That is the way that the laws relating to personal liberty and the pro* 14 tection of life are undeirttood io tho old country. Is it only on this conlinont of America, in this Dominion of Canada, where our iii>titutionH are aupposod to be model- led after the institutioni- of the Mother Country, that we may see the example of a man alleged by his friends to be insane, having his fate decided in a very few days — in iact, in a very few hours — and being sent to the gallows ? In this Parliament, wheio there is a good deal of legal talent and as much impartial it" as you will find in any court, we find the opinion freely expressed by hon, gentlemen of different races and religions, that that man was insane. Sir, it is a dip^rnce to this Government and to this country that an injustice of that kind could be oven suspected. AnoiluT objection I have with regard to the appoint- ment » i' iboBo medical men, is, that their appointment and all then- ])roceediiig8 were kept secret. The reason given is that It was the only way to arrive at the truth, as Kiel would bo more clever th^n the doctors, and might make titcm find him insane although ho would be sane. This contention is altogether unfounded. Dr. Wiuslow — and his remarks apply to the witnesses who contended that Kiel's insanit}' was simulated — says : "Is the ins \nity simulated? Persons conversant witli the peculiari- ties of disonleretl minds, who have been in the habit ol observing the manner of the insane, will have but liitle dilHcultj in detecting real from feigned derangement. Georget maintains that it is impossible for a person v. ho has not made ihe insane a subject of study, to simulate madness ^o as to deceive a physician well acquainted with the disease." Now, ti.e proceeding of the medical commission is contrary to the « vperience ot our laws. A year or two ago we had u celebr-i! cd case of insanity in Montreal. I refer to the case of Mrs. Lynam. Tho judge, alter having examined many wit- nesses, had doubls as to whether she was sane or insane, and he referred the ca.«e to a man of experience, Dr. Vallee, one of tho superintendents of the Beauport Lunatic Asylum. How did Dr. Yallee proceed ? Wiinesbes were heard ; he ex- amined tho evidence that had been adduced ; counsel, I believe, were also heard ; the proceedings were open, be- cause, as Dr. Winslow and all the great medical authorities say, it is impossible for a man to deceive experi . td medical men in this matter ; and on a certain day Dr. Valle) came before the court with his report, which was immediately read. It was not kept back for some weeks by the parties interested, but it was at once opened and delivereu to the public in order that the public mind might be satisfied whether justice had been done in the case or not. What did we see in the case of jRiel 1 Not only the proceedings of the medical men were kept secret, but even the report of 4 ■4 ,1 ■n 15 country. Dominion be model- lat we may be insane, iact, in a 1? In this talent and irt, we tin d of different atie. Sir, is country BU8j)ccted. e appoint- itmont and ason given the truth, and mi^ht fiune. This w — and his that Kiel's the ppculiari- jbiserving the electing real mpossible for , to Bimulate the disease." is contrary ) we had a the cajte of many wit- insane, and ^^allee, one G Asylum, ird ; he ex- counsel, I open, bo- auihorities xperi . ed in day Dr. \7hich was )rae weeks )ened and liod might the case of fliel? leal men eport of man was suffering matter complained mania or not, ho two extreme opin- that so-called commission was kept secret for a long time aftei by the Government. If the report of the medical men had been in favor of the Government, as is contended to-day, why wan it not delivered to the public, in order that the public might be satisfied that justice had been done in this case ? I cannot conclude my remarks without otfering my view of what is insanity. There is a great deal of diversity of opinion, it is f.aid, on this subject between lawyers and doctors. A long time ago Lord Mansfield, in the colebralod Bollingham case, laid down the law to be that, no matter how a man may be suffering under delu- sion, he should not escape responsibility unless it could be proved that he could not tell the difference botwoon right and wrong. The doctors went just as far in the other direction. They hold that if a under mania, no matter whether the of had iv.y connection with the was not responsible. Bolweeu those ions public opinion accepted the principle that a man suf- fering from a ditseai^e knowu as monomania, or is deluded on one or two subjects, is not guilty, if any connection can bo shown between the crime complained of and the mania under which ho suffers. It will not, porhaps, bo uninteresting to show how far the medical profession goes in this respect. 1 will simjjly read a resolution unani- mctusly ado})tod at a meeting of the Association of Medical Officers of Asylums for the insane in the your 1865. It was as follows : — " That so Dnjch of I lie legal test of the mental condition of an allepod criminal lunatic has rendered him a resp )nsible agent bacause he knows the dilference between right and wrong, is inconsistent with the facu well known to every member of lliis meeting, thit the power of tedly insane, and is often associated with da igers and uncontrollable delusion." Tho case of MacNaghten, which was the occasion of the expression of opinion from tho English judges in 1843, will not support the contention of this Government that it is sufficient for the criminal to know the ditierence between right and wrong. Their Lordships, alth^mgh giving no opinion upon any case before them, but upon abstract ques- tions of law, always a dangerous thing to do, stated that a man suffering from monomania to be held irresponsible, must not know the nature of his act, or if he does, must not know that that act is wrong. Such was the opinion of the English judges in the Mac- Naghten case, but even their opinion in that case has not been considered as settling the question in bJogland. Chief Justice Cockburn, in a letter, sent in the year 187^, on the Criminal Code (Indictable Offencea) Bill, said : 16 "The language of the judges ia the House of Lords has no doubt been repeated ua of general application, but erroneously. Their answers bad reference to the specific questions put them by the House." And immediately afLer, he goes on to say : " The point has not come under judicial decision ia a case •which really raised the question." This was Kaid in 1879 The answers given by two learned Judges of the Exchequer C'ourt in England, before the Capital Punishment Commission, in 18b'4, shows that really the lawyers and doctors are not so very far apart on this quoHtion of insanity. Lord Cranworth, a long time Eaion of the Exchequer Court, answered : " Is there not a variation between the medical opinions and the legal definitions upon the subject ? I am not able to answer that question; very likely it is so." Take the opinion of Baron Bramwell, another Biron of the Excheque' C^urt, on iho same question, which is to be found on pages 23 and 24 of the report of that commission : "Mr Neate. — I observe that in your last letter to the commissioners, as thp result of your experience, you use these words : ' Six prisoners in six cases were acquitted on the ground of msanity, and rightly. 1 do not mean that the prisoners were insane as the law requires.' 1 observe that you say that they were rightly acquitted, although they hardly came within the limns of legal insanity. Have you alterations to suggest in the legal definition of insanity ? — A. No ; 1 think that the legal defini- tion is perfectly right. " Q. But you say that they were ri .htly acquitted, although their insinity wns not to the extent which the law requires? — A. I will explain that obdervation, wiiich is, no doubi, an apparent contradiction. What I mean if, that according to the practice of juries, which has met with the sanction of judges, or which has been without any reprobation from the judges, and which is in accordance with public feeling, these prisoners were rightly acquitted." So much for the doctrine of iuvsanity, and I believe that the law upon that point was rightly laid down by Lord Erskine as early as the trial of James Hadfiold for firing at (jroorge the Third. He said: '• To deliver a lunatic from responsibility to criminal justice, the rela- tion between the disease and the act should be apoarent. When the connection is doubtful, the judgment should certainly be most indulgent, from the great difficulty of diving into the secret sources of a disordered mind." This is what the Government should have done, and what they huvo nut done, lor there is a doubt, and there is more than u d'>ubt — there is, in my mind, ample proof — that this man waet insane; but if some hon. members are not willing to go iijat far, I claim there is more than a legitimate doubt in their minds that the man was insane, and tfie proposition of Lord Erskine, as to the difficulty of diving into the secret fiources of a disordered mind, should be acted upon. I will not trouble the House with citing more authorities. Aq hoD. MEMBER. Hear, hear. I V. S 17 10 doubt . Their by the e which learned "ore the t really Da this e Baion the legal [iuestion ; Q of the is to be nisdion : liaaicnerSi igonera iu . 1 do not serve that :dly came suggest in al defini- gh their I will radiclion. has met probaiioa mg, these hat the ji skioe George the rela- Vhea the ndulgent, isordered nd what is more that this illing to doubtin sition of le secret n. I will Mr. GIEOUATID. I hoar an hon. gentleman ^ay " hear, hear." I think he deserves to be afflicted with u six hotiPrt* speech, but I have too much consideration for the rest of the House, though I may not have much for him, to in- dulge in a speech ol that length. I am not going to trouble the House with reading the repor: of the medical men, Dr. Ijavoll, Dr. Valade and Dr. Jukes. In ray mind their conclusions are that this man wan insane. Drs. Lavoll :ind Valade said he was suffering from monomania on religion and politics. Does it require long comment to show Uiere was connection between the rebellion and the mono- mania on politics and religion. I look upon another Dor- tion of the conclusion of those gentlemen as more sophistry, namely, that with the exception of the^se two points, mono monia on religion and politics, this man knew the ditfer- ence between right and wiong. It is not within the pro- vince of medical men to testify to that tact. Their pro- vince is only to state the fuiture of the disease under which the man wa?* suffering, atd let the jurors, court or Govern- moni draw from that statement whether thepiisonor ki-ew the diflference between right and wrong. Dr. Haslam, on that point, says: '* It is not the province of the medical witness to pronounce an opinion as to the prisoner's capability of distinguishing right from wrong. It ia the duty of the medi' d man, when called upon to give evidence ia a court of law, to state whether he considers insanity to be present in any given case, not to acertain the quantity of reason the person imputed to be insane, may or may not possess. • * * It is suflBcient," continues Dr. Haslam, "for the medical practitioner to know that the person's mind ia deranged, and that such a state of in- sanity will be sufficient to account foi the irregularity of his actions." I Will conclude these remarks, in order to give more Lime to other hon. gentlemen who wish to explain their position. I heaid, (he other day, the Minister of the Interior say that it was a matter of very little importance whether petitions were sent from the country or not to the Govern- ment, on the question of the proper exercise of the preroga- tive «^f aiercy. I was never so much surprised as to hear that the Government are not in duty bound to consider such petitions • In most cases they are the only mode that can be adopted to show the Government what public feel- ing is on a particular case, in order to induce the Govern- ment to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Was the public feeling which prevailed throughout the whole Dominion with regard to the fate of this unfortunate man in favor of his execution? It was thought at one time that strong influence was brought from an influential body of men ask- ing for Kiel's blood. When the papers were brought down, we found only three petitions from the whole Dominion call- ing for his execution: one from the Orangemen of the 18 1 wostorn district of Toronto, and two from the citizens of the Dominion living in Eeginaand MooHomin. No one else asked f r tho life of this man; but, on the other hand, we find, at the luHt pa<^«'of the report, that there were 75 to 100 petitions asking that his life should be spared, if he were not alto- golhor puidoned. As far as I am concerned, my con- siituonts sent petitions to the Government, not asking for pardon, because, like myself, they were not in lavor oi giving liberty to this dangerous lunatic, but asking lor commutation. Where was the clamor asking that this man should be executed ? It is not to be found anywhere, except, perhaps, in the arti- cles of the Globe and the Grits ot Ontario, but since when has it happened that the Government of this country are to be dictated to by the Globe and the Grits of Ontario ? Why did they not take public opinion as represented by the Mail and by their own friends.and by the Conservatives of Quebec, uti well as the Liberals of that Province? Why did they take the view of the Grit party ? I cannot understand it. 1 say ihat, in view of the exhibition of public opinion to-day in this House, when wo see that an important portion, the Grit party at least, has changed its mind, when we see that tho Globe shows that it was not serious m making representations asking for the blood of that man, it is perfectly clear that the whole public opinion of the Dominion was in favor of the commutation of that sentence, and I blame the Govern- ment for" not having understood that public opinion. Now, before taking my seat, I wish to refer to a statement made at the opening of the Session by the right hon. the Premier of this Dominion. He stated that, when he was banquetted by the St. George's Club in London, he was forced to testify in favor of the loyalty of the French Canadians. I am sure that more than one of us last December was surprised to see that the Premier was placed in that inexplicable position. As to a man having a language different from the language of the English people, having a religion different from the majority of the English people, having a veneration for institutions which may not be the institutions of Great Britain — are the people of Eng- land not aware that such a man can be a loyal man ? Look at France ; look at Alsace and Lorraine — German Lorraine ; has France ever found within its dominions men more loyal, although they were Germans, although they spoke the German language, and although most of them professed a religion different from that of the French people, than the inhabitants of those Provinces ? Look at Great Britain herself, look at the French population of the Islands of the British Channel ; are they not faith- H I ki^ 1 1 DB of the Ibo asked find, at petitions not alto- my con- king for in lavor asking asking not to le arti- ice when ry are to ? Why the Mail 'Quebec, did they [•stand it. opinion mportant iged its ; was not he blood e whole r of the Govern- opinion. er to a he right I at, when adon, he t French us last as placed tiaving a h people, ) English may not e of Eng- n ? Look jorraine ; en more 3y spoke professed pie, than kt Britain of the lot faith- 19 ful to their language ? Do they not love their language, their laws, and their institutions; and has Great Britain any more loyal subjects than the French inhabitants of those islands ? Taking the Scotch, the Irish, and the English people, do we not see different nation- alities and sometimes different local laws ; and who can pretend that those different nationalities are not devoted to the British Empire and to the British Crown ? Are we going to be told that, in England, they do not know the history of the French Canadians ? That might be said, perhaps, somewhere on the continent, but it cannot be said in Groat Britain. They know there as well as we know in this country that in ITTG the French Canadians of that day had to fight General Lafayette and oflScers under him who had been in the Canadian army a few years before. These French Canadians fought for the glorious British flag, which was then deserted by many of England's own sons. Look at 1812 Was i* not a French Canadian — Colonel DeSalaberry — and his throe hundred braves who repulsed the invasion of the Americans at Chateauguay ? Look even at IBS'?, which^ perhaps, will be quoted to us as a sample of disloyalty. We were not then disloyal to the Crown or to the British Empire. It was only an uprising for the redress of grievances and against a tyrannical Canadian Government. We wore then fighting for tho privileges of responsible government, and without that fighting I doubt very much whether the pri- vileges of responsible government would have been given so soon to the Canadian people. Look, later on, to the year 1865 or 1866, when we were threatened with a Fenian in- vasion. Were the French Canadians behind their fellow- countrymen of other origins. No, they were to the front ; and I recolleet well my hon. friend from Montreal East (Mr. Coursol) taking the musket in his hand in defence of the Canadian flag and British institutions. Look, later on yet, to 1869 and 1870. There was then a rebellion in the North- West, which has been brought under the notice of hon. members so often during this debate. Then, as in 1837, the French half-breeds were fighting for liberty, they were fighting for the privileges of responsible government, and against the tyranny of the Canadian Government. I said so last year during that six hours' sp«ech, and the facts cannot be controverted, and they were not contradicted during that debate, that when the rebellion took place the Government had not a particle of title to the lands in the North- West. These men, in the absence of any local auth- ority, took the law in their own hands in order to secure for their people political liberty, and we have to-daiy tho testi- 20 mony of oven the enomiefl of the half-br«eds of that time — the towtimony of a man like Mr. McArthur, an officer of the Hudson Bay Company, who wan himself a priwoner of Louin Riel in thoHe dayw, in a Htatement which he made at a public lecture in Winnipeg, that to the firmneHH of the half-btee s in IhTO the people of Manitoba were indebted for the privileges of responsible government. And, last year, (lid our countrymen remain behind? Notwithstand- ing anything which may have been said, I do not think it can bo protended that our men did not go to the North- West for the purpose of defending the Dominion flag and the Dominion authority ; and if all the French Canadians did not see tire, there were at least two companies who went in pursuit of Big Bear under Colonel Strange, and Colonel Strange was the first ma,n to admit that he never wished to see bolter soldiers. Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of all these facts we believe that Sir E. P. Tache was right whe: he said that the last shot fired for British connection on the American continenL would be fired by a French Canadian. Why is it, then, that the hofl. Premier, in diecussing Cana- dian affairs at u banquet given by the St. George's Club, had to defend French Canadians against the imputations which wore then made upon their loyalty ? Ji was in consequvinco of the utLeiances of the organ of the Conserva- tive party in tho Province oi Ontario, the Toronto Mail, who should have known the H'rerich people better. That leading paper was not satisfied with deuouncing us as bud party men — I would have allowed him to do so in fiace, oorhaps, of some provocation which the Mail received from papers in the Province of Quebec — but when the Mail branded us as rebels, and threatened us with a second conquest, saying that at that time there would be no Treaty of Paris, 1 i-ay then there should have been a protest, not only from the hon. Premier, but from every member of his Cabinet, to show that the Mail was not expressing the opinion of the Conservative party of the Province of Ontario. Why threaten us with no seoond Treaty of Paris ? I ask the English minority of the Province of Quebec if they ever suffered from any bad treatment or injustice at our hands ? Have they not received fair play from the French Canadians ? If there is one who can say so, I would like him to rise and say BO. No, Mr. Speaker ; we have respected the feelings of the English minority of the Province of Quebec — not only their feelings but their prejudices ; and, Sir, occupying in this Dominion the position that the English minority occupy in the Province of Quebec, we expect, we have a right to expect, that they will respect our feelings and even our prejudices. ■^ ■3, t ^M lat time n officer priHoner he made w of the indebted .Dd, last thHtand- think it i North- lag and tiansdid went in Colonel ished to ill these it whei Q on the inadian. ig Cuna- '8 Club, utations was in )n8erva- 'ail, who leading i party jeihaps, I papers nded us , saying is, J t«ay •om the inet, to 1 of the Why ^sk the ey ever hands ? adians ? rise and ed the Quebec nd, Sir, English )ect, we feelings