IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 IIIM I™ 2.5 
 
 IIIIIM 
 
 IIIM 
 
 :.i i 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ^ 6" 
 
 
 ► 
 
 "/) 
 
 <? 
 
 /}. 
 
 VI 
 
 e". 
 
 <r2 
 
 '^1 
 
 
 v^ .>; 
 
 ^\ 
 
 '% 
 
 & 
 
 o 
 
 / 
 
 ///. 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
Qx. 
 
 fr" m. 
 
 w- 
 
 'Q>.r 
 
 v\ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
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 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couieur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couieur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches at/ou Illustrations en couieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es 
 tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couieur 
 
 Q^i 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( 
 Pages d^colordes, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qutl'^d in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materia 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~X Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I I Only edition available/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partieilement 
 obscurcies par an feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t^ film^es d nouveau de fagon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 r~y This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 L ^ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 12X 16X 20X 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
 
ails 
 
 du 
 
 difier 
 
 jne 
 
 lage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^' (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce d la 
 gdndrositd de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 fiimage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le c^. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux soni filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d dos taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en ur seul clichd, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 rata 
 
 3 
 
 lelure. 
 
 J 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
«f 
 
 I 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ON 
 
 (Bn0»h f arliamjtttayjj WuMmU 
 
 AS AFFECTING THE 
 
 CANADIAN PMMtQ SCANDAL. 
 
 BY 
 
 " PA RLI AMENTUM/' 
 
 .. t 
 
 1 I 
 
 Let none be for a Party, 
 
 Let all be fof the State; 
 Let the great man help the roor man, 
 
 Let the poor man help the great ; 
 Let rights be eve^ porMoned,. I : 
 
 Let Charters not be sold, 
 Let Canadians aim to equal 
 
 All that's good in days of old. 
 
 Uf*?l^^^ 
 
 . . v.. 
 
 ssssc 
 
 T9 RO NTp, 
 
 1874 
 
 / 
 
■ .ijp(«»M».tJ»ij<fr^j««gj«u:«,it!>« Ktt»i>rj v«»»- ■■■«»*»' »»■. Jw «n> « Tj ^« u ^ >»»»t . ■■»••«■ s"" 
 
 tx -J. ■ — 
 
 <....:- -^ ■ -m^ 
 
 
 • .. V- ' • *.-*.&» . 
 
 ..1. » » «-l "'t J , »}. 
 
 V 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ON 
 
 (Bn0$h §M\immtm^ WtmAmH 
 
 AS AFFECTING THE 
 
 CANADIAN PACIFIC SCANDAL. 
 
 BY 
 
 *' PARLIAMENTUM.' 
 
 Let none be for a Party, 
 
 Let all be for the State; 
 Let the great man help the poor man, 
 
 Let the poor man help the great ; 
 Let rights b« even portioned, 
 
 Let Charters not be sold. 
 Let Canadians aim to equal • 
 
 All that's good in days of old. 
 
 TO RO NTO. 
 1874 
 
w^fovj- , . immsirnKsmm* 
 
 FC 512, 
 
Vv*- 
 
 •si- 
 
 These Letters were originally published in the 
 Globe newspaper durii g the discussions on the 
 *' Pacific Railway Scandal " last summer. 
 
 At the request of some political friends, I have 
 re-published them in pamphlet form f6r use during 
 the present election campaign. 
 
 THOMAS HODGINS. 
 
 Toronto, 17th January, 1874. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ON 
 
 X^Uf 
 
 'mUimmtmt^ WmdmU 
 
 AS AFFECTING THE 
 
 CANADIAN PACIFIC SCANDAL. 
 
 POLITICAL OR PARLIAMENTARY VERDICTS 
 
 " The Court of Star Chambtr became a Court of State, not a Ceurt of 
 Law. By an extension of its jurisdiction it, for a time, superseded the 
 exercise of th« more legal proceedings of Parliament against similar 
 offences, and which would otherwise have become the object of Parlia- 
 mentary prosecution.' —//a^se^rs Precedents of the House of Commons, Vol. 
 IV., p. 7'3. 
 
 Sir, .:•'" 
 
 ■■'■■' 
 
 Every historical incident bearing upon the consti- 
 tutional question involved in the Pacific Scandal enquiry, 
 is instructive to all who are conservative of constitutional 
 practice, or students of Parliamentary Law; and in that 
 view, few will read the references I give in this letter 
 without feeling how aptly they apply to the present posi- 
 tion of affairs. 
 
 The statesmen of the reign of William III. cannot be 
 charged with unfaithfulness to the constitutional rights of 
 the people, or to the privileges of Parliament. Their 
 views then — expressed after the contests between the 
 
■n> ^i ' : ' i:iJn!DJWm'7i"lTr 
 
 Crown and the Commons had ceased, and when our 
 present system of Parliamentary Government was estab- 
 lished — have a pecuHar force and interest to all concerned 
 in public affairs. 
 
 During a conference between the Lords and the Com- 
 mons, on the 13th January, 1692, on certain clauses of a 
 Bill to regulate Trials for High Treason, the Managers on 
 the part of the Lords made the following observations: — 
 
 " Suppose an ill Minister should apprehend an impeach- 
 ment in Parliament ; what Tianner of way could he hope 
 better to come off by than by being tried before Parliament 
 sits, and when his judges may be chosen so partially that 
 he shall come off; and then it shall be said to Parlia- 
 ment, no man shall legally undergo two trials for the 
 same offence." 
 
 To this the managers for the Commons replied: — 
 "They thought it a strange and foreign supposition that 
 a great and guilty Minister, finding himself liable to an 
 inpeachment in the next session of Parliament, should by 
 his power procure himself to be tried and acquitted by a 
 inquest of persons appointed on purpose; and then by a 
 plea oi atitevfoits acquit (formerly tried and acquitted for 
 the same offence), prevent a second and true examination 
 of his crimes in Parliament." And then, as if to give 
 force to their argument, the Managers add : — 
 
 "There is no example of this kind; and if such an 
 unheard of proceeding should happen, it is left to considera- 
 tion whether a Parliament would not vindicate the King- 
 dom against so gross and fraudulent a contrivance.^^ 
 
 Who could have supposed, when these observations 
 were read in the Parliament of England in 1692, that 
 another Parliament of British subjects, with a " Consti- 
 tution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom,"' 
 'J^Ald in 1873 be brought face to face with the policy thus 
 discussed ; and have to consider how best to " - Indicate 
 
the nation" against a "contrivance" and " unheard of 
 proceeding," which these far-sighted statesmen denounced 
 as "gross and fraudulent." 
 
 It may be that the Canadian Ministerial pohcy of 1873, 
 will be found forcshadoived in the remarks of the Lords 
 and Commons at this conference : — But if so, then on the 
 Commons of Canada will rest the fulfilment of the promise 
 made for them by their great prototype, in the reign of 
 King William III ; and, in vindicating the nation, they 
 will declare, as did the Managers of the Commons in the 
 Conference referred to : " The Commons of England 
 would insist upon the old ways ; would keep the balance 
 of the Constitution as they found it ; and not change 
 the laws and customs of England, which hath been hith- 
 erto used and approved to the benefit of the Kingdom." 
 
 PARLIAMENTUM. 
 
 THE "SOUTH SEA" AND "CANADIAN PACIFIC" 
 
 SCANDALS. 
 
 " The House of Commons, — an excellent conserver of liberty,— is solely 
 entrusted with the first propositions concerning the impeaching of those, 
 who for their own ends, though countenanced by any surreptitously-gotten 
 commands of the King, have violated that law which he is bound (when he 
 knows it) to protect; and to the protection of which they are bound to ad- 
 vise him, — at least not to serve him contrary to the law." — Commons lie- 
 port on Impeachments, and the Invaliditij of Lord Danb'/s Pardon, 26th May 
 1679. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 About one hundred and fifty years ago, England 
 was excited ove^- a public scandal as disastrous to the 
 public honour of many of her chief Ministers of State, as 
 the Pacific Railway scandal is to some of ours. But the 
 House of Commons, "that excellent conserver" of the 
 
8 
 
 li 
 
 1/ 
 
 national honour, acted promptly and vigorously in the 
 punishment of tLt guilty statesmen and officials who had 
 brought discredit on the English name, by what became 
 known as the *' South Sea Bubble ;" and the precedent 
 has a lesson for Canadians. 
 
 The South Sea Company owed its prominence in his- 
 tory as a purely financial corporation ; its great project 
 being to undertake the National Debt, on being guaranteed 
 5 per cent. But its proceedings, in placing the equivalent 
 of money — paid up stock — under the control of Ministers 
 of the Crown, and members of the House of Commons — 
 as well as its short-lived existence — furnish, in some 
 measure, a similarity to the Public Scandal of our own 
 day. -■ • - 
 
 The Bank of England and the South Sea Company 
 were competitors before the House of Commons in 1720, 
 for the financial scheme of funding the National Debt ; 
 but the dazzling gold of the Company won for it the 
 prize. Eight months afterwards, the Bubble (like our 
 Pacific Company), burst ; Parliament was hastily sum- 
 moned and entrusted with the task of dealing out justice 
 to the nation — a task which it pursued with such earnest- 
 ness that, although Parliament commenced on the 8th 
 December, 1720, some of the guilty members were expel- 
 led on the 28th January following. 
 
 No Royal Commission there invaded the Parliamentary 
 jurisdiction of the House of Commons. The King, his 
 Ministers, and the natio. , all acknowledged the rightful 
 supremacy of Parliament ; nor would the temper of the 
 House of Commons have permitted any such illegitimate 
 offspring of inculpated Ministers to deprive them of their 
 constitutional birthright. Mr. Lechmere (whose name 
 has already appeared i^ these letters),''^ in reply to the 
 
 * He had been Attorney and Solicitor-General. See t&S^ 'O- 
 
argument that relief could be had at law, stated that, 
 " they could seek for relief nowhere but in Parliament, 
 and that it was a duty incumbent on the Legislature to 
 relieve against this great evil." 
 
 The investigation disclosed that, while the Company's 
 Bill was being promoted in Parliament, about ^'170,000 of 
 South Sea stock had been placed to the credit of members 
 of the Government, and of the House — without payment 
 or valuable consideration — in fact as a " gift," without 
 any "agreement" or "understanding" whatsoever. 
 The Ministers implicated were, the Earl of Sutherland, 
 First Lord of the Treasury ; Mr. John Aislabie, M.P., 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer ; Mr. James Craggs, M.P., 
 Postmaster-General ; and Mr. Charles Stanhope, M.P., 
 Secretary of the Treasury. Of these, the Earl of Suther- 
 land, and Mr. Stanhope, were cleared by a very narrow 
 majority, or as a writer observed, " by the unworthy par- 
 tiality of Parliament." Mr. Craggs died pe'nding the in- 
 vestigation, but his estates were confiscated ; and Mr. 
 Aislabie — who vehemently denied any corrupt bargain or 
 intent in the matter — was expelled under the following 
 resolutions : — 
 
 " That certain stock of the South Sea Company was 
 bought (in the name of one Knight) for the use and on 
 the account of Mr. John Aislabie, a member of this House, 
 and then Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exche- 
 quer, and one of the Commissioners of His Majesty's 
 Treasury — after the proposals of the Company ivere accepted 
 by this House, and a Bill ordered to be brought in there- 
 upon — without any money paid or security given by the 
 
 said Mr. Aislabie for the said stock 
 
 That the takin 
 
 g 
 
 and holding the said stock, was a most notorious, danger- 
 ous, and infamous corruption in the said Mr. Aislabie." 
 After reciting further wrongful acts, the resolutions 
 proceed : — " That the said John Aislabie be, for his said 
 
lO 
 
 offences, expelled this House, and be committed prisoner 
 to his Majesty's Tower of London." 
 
 Equally effective were the proceedings taken against 
 the five implicated members of the House of Commons. 
 All were expelled the House, were committed to the 
 Tower, and had their estates confiscated towards making 
 good the losses of the Company, in the following sums : — 
 Sir Theodore Janssen, M.P. for Yarmouth, ;^ 200,000 ; 
 Sir Robert Chaplin, M.P. for Great Grimsby, ;^35,ooo ; 
 Mr. Jacob Sawbridge, M.P. for Crickdale, ;^72,ooo; Mr. 
 Francis Eyles, M.P. for Chippenham, ^45,000. Another, 
 Sir George Caswell, M.P., who had been knighted three 
 years before for the financial assistance he had rendered, 
 in " having loaned to the Government large sums of" 
 money at 3 per cent., when they could get it nowhere 
 else," was, notwithstanding his great services and the 
 strong arguments urged in his behalf, made liable for 
 ;^250,ooo, in addition to expulsion and imprisonment. 
 
 The Ministers of the Crown and the M.P.s involved in 
 these corrupt practices were further restrained from 
 leaving the Kingdom; and an act w-as passed (7th Geo. I., 
 c. 28) disabling them from holding any office or place of 
 trust under the Crown, and from sitting or voting in Par- 
 liament in future, to " deter all persons from committing 
 the like wicked practices for time to come." 
 
 The petitions presented to Parliament on the occasion 
 may be reri ' as the expression of the widespread public 
 sentiment of our own times : — " We are sharers in the 
 national calamity which involves all, the wicked authors 
 alone excepted, whose successful crimes have raised 
 them above the rea» . 1 of ordinary justice, and left them 
 nothing to fear, or us to hope, but the power of Parlia- 
 ment." ' . . 
 
 With these Parliamentry examples before them, we 
 look to the House of Commons +0 show how far the sen- 
 
I't 
 
 Dner 
 
 linst 
 ions. 
 
 the 
 .king 
 IS : — 
 ,000 ; 
 ,000 ; 
 ; Mr. 
 Dther,. 
 three 
 iered, 
 ms of 
 where 
 id the 
 Die for 
 nt. 
 
 ved in 
 from 
 jreo. I.» 
 lace of 
 in Par- 
 mitting 
 
 ccasion 
 public 
 s in the- 
 authors 
 I raised 
 ift them 
 f ParUa- 
 
 hem, we 
 the sen- 
 
 II 
 
 timents of the petitioners against the pubUc scandal of 
 1721 indicate public expectation in 1873 : — " Your petiti- 
 oners are persuaded, from the firmness and vigour of your 
 Honourable House, that no difficulties will obstruct the 
 glorious steps you are pursuing to bring t3 punishment 
 the authors of this misery, let the offenders be ever so dis- 
 tinguished by the greatness of their stations; so, we hope,, 
 from the justice of your honourable House, such examples 
 will be made as shall free us from the terror of such ap- 
 prehensions for the future." 
 
 PARLIAMENTUM. 
 
 ENGLISH POLITICAL HONOUR AND CANADIAN 
 POLITICAL PRACTICE. 
 
 " To exercise corruptive political influence to any amount, all that is. 
 necessary t» the ruler is, on every occasion that presents itself, to yiclJ to 
 the appetit" oi money, or benefit, in ti.e breasts of any individuals con- 
 nected with his in the way of interest or sympathy; for the purpose of 
 their individual gratification the money or benefit is given ; thereupon, by 
 the eventual expectation of the like benefit from the like source, corruptive 
 political influence is produced." — Bentham on Constitutional Code, Works, 
 Vol. IX., p. 66. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 We are so accustomed to refer to England on ques- 
 tions of constitutional practice and Government, that an 
 illustration from an English Parliamentary precedent on 
 a question of political honour in the public men and 
 rulers of the nation, may be useful to all who are watch- 
 ing the pending struggle of national honour against 
 national dishonour with feelings of painful suspense. 
 
 It may be in the recollection of politicians of both 
 sides, that during 1872, Sir Hugh Allan was not only a 
 competitor for the contract for building the Pacific Rail- 
 
12 
 
 ■: I / 
 
 I J 
 
 way, but that he was also a contractor with the Govern- 
 ment for the carriage of the mails from Quebec and 
 Portland to Liverpool ; that he was seeking a renewal of 
 that contract, and that his contract was actually renewed 
 under an order in Council dated the 28th January, 1873, 
 at the rate of $126,533 33 per annum, three days before 
 he obtained the charter for the Canada Pacific Railway. 
 The illustration I am aboat to give, will show how the 
 English House of Commons, and a Conservative member 
 of Lord Derby's Government, acted tow rds a public 
 contractor who occupied a similar position to Sir Hugh 
 Allan. The facts are taken from Hansard's Parliamen' 
 tary Debates^ 3rd series, vol. 157, p. i, 331, and are as 
 follows : — 
 
 Prior to 1859, the contract for carrying the mails from 
 Dover to Calais, was held by Mr. Churchward, a Conser- 
 vative, and an influential elector in Dover. His contract 
 was about expiring, and negotiations commenced be- 
 tween him and the Government for its renewal. Lord 
 Derby was then in power, and Captain Carnegie, R.N., 
 was one of the Lords of the Admiralty. Sir John Pak- 
 ington, the first Lord, was anxious that Captain Carnegie 
 should contest Dover in the Government interest, and an 
 interview was brought about by Sir John's private Secre- 
 tary, between Captain Carnegie and Mr. Churchward. 
 The conversation which then took place between them is 
 thus given by Captain Carnegie in his evidence, before 
 the Committee of the House of Commons, on *' Mail and 
 Telegraphic Contracts :" — 
 
 *' Mr. Churchward spoke to me on the subject of the 
 pending election for Dover ; and, having volunteered his 
 support, and promised me his assistance in general terms, 
 he made an allusion to his anxiety to obtain a renewal of 
 his contract; and he said that they (the Government) 
 were anxious to defer signing the renewal of his contract 
 
 I 
 
13 
 
 vern- 
 : and 
 val of 
 lewed 
 
 i873» 
 before 
 
 Lilway. 
 
 ►w the 
 
 lember 
 
 public 
 
 Hugh 
 liamen- 
 
 are as 
 
 lis from 
 Conser- 
 :ontract 
 ced be- 
 . Lord 
 e, R.N., 
 hn Pak- 
 :arnegie 
 :, and an 
 :e Secie- 
 rchward. 
 1 them is 
 ;e, before 
 Mail and 
 
 jct of the 
 eered his 
 ral terms, 
 enewal of 
 /ernment) 
 3 contract 
 
 until after the election was over ; but he felt that would 
 be too hard upon him ; that he would prefer voting for 
 Mr. Bernal Osborne (the Whig candidate), and for myself, 
 inasmuch as he would have a friend in power, wh ever 
 was in office. He also added that they wished him to. 
 return two Government members for Dover, and if they 
 did ?D, he should be obliged to comply with it." 
 
 A further question was put by Mr, Cobden : •' The 
 words used conveyed the impression to your mind, did 
 they not, that there was i. negotiation going on ; on the 
 one siae Mr. Churchward insisting on having the contract 
 signed before the election, and on the other side the 
 Party insisting that the support should be given to the 
 two candidates before the election came off ? Was that 
 the impression upon your mind ?" To which Captain 
 Carnegie answered in the affirmative. 
 
 The action of Captain Carnegie after this interview ia 
 stated by Captain Leicester Vernon, a Conservative, in 
 the debate on the question which took place on the 27th 
 of March, i860, as follows : 
 
 " Captain Carnegie believing, as he says, that the vote 
 and interest of Mr. Churchward, at Dover, was only ta 
 be obtained by his, (Captain Carnegie's) vote and interest 
 at the Admiralty, he declined to stand for Dover. So he 
 informed the Committee." 
 
 Lord Clarence Paget, another Conservative, stated : 
 " Captain Carnegie came to consult me, and informed me 
 of this conversation, and that it was quite impossible for 
 him to accede to the proposition with regard to his stand- 
 ing for Dover — that the proposals were of such a nature 
 that they would get them all into a ; crape." 
 
 But the matter did not rest on the refusal of Captain 
 Carnegie to place himself under obligation to the Contrac- 
 tor who had offered to become his " powerful constituent." 
 The matter became public, and was investigated by the: 
 
/ 
 
 14 • 
 
 Committee on Mail and Telegraphic Contracts, and not- 
 withstanding Mr. Churchward's denial, the Committee 
 made the following report : — 
 
 '* It is in evidence before your Committee that Mr. 
 ■Churchward, one of the contractors, on the eve of the 
 last general election, at the time when the extension of 
 his contract was under consideration at the Treasury, 
 volunteered his support, as an influential elector for 
 Dover, to Captain Carnegie, one of the Lords of the 
 Admiralty, if he should become a ( andidate for that 
 borough, on the e-.pectation that his contract was to be 
 extended ; and expressed his intention, if required, to 
 vote for two Government candidates for Dover." 
 
 The report then states that this contract had been 
 recommended by the Admiralty six weeks before the con- 
 versation with Capt. Carnegie, and it then proceeds : — 
 
 " While most anxious for the fulfilment of all engage- 
 ments entered into in good faith between the Government 
 and individuals, the Committee submit for the considera- 
 -tion of the House, whether Mr. Churchivard, in having 
 resorted to corrupt expedients, affecting injuriously the 
 character of the representation of the people in Parliament^ 
 has not rendered it impossible for the House of Commons^ 
 with due regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sum 
 of money necessary to fulfil the agreement to extend his 
 contract." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone during the debate supported the report 
 of the Committee with these observations : — 
 
 " Mr. Churchward did resort to expedients affecting 
 injuriously the dignity of Parliament. I ask, can a pro- 
 ceeding be justified where parties attempt to enter into a 
 contract by the use of means which may h< neld to con- 
 stitute a breach of the privileges of the House, tending to 
 degrade it and the representation of the people." 
 
I:i 
 
 and not- 
 Dmmittee 
 
 that Mr. 
 ve of the 
 tension of 
 Treasury* 
 ector for 
 ds of the 
 for that 
 was to be 
 quired, to 
 
 had been 
 -e the con- 
 eeds : — 
 ,11 engage- 
 overnment 
 
 consider a- 
 
 in having 
 yiously the 
 Parliaments 
 
 Commons f 
 ote the sum 
 
 extend his 
 
 the report 
 
 ;s affecting 
 can a pro- 
 inter into a 
 eld to con- 
 , tending to 
 
 15 
 
 Several otlier members took part in the debate, but the 
 report of the Committee was sustained by a majority 
 of 45. 
 
 Comment on the above facts is needless. They show 
 how sensitive the public men of England are in protect- 
 ing themselves and the nation, from even the shadow of 
 an imputation upon their political honour and personal 
 integrity. And if such are the sentiments of public duty 
 entertained by English statesmen, by what code of politi- 
 cal morality shall we judge Canadian Ministers and Privy 
 Councillors who admit on oath that, prior to the elections 
 of last year, they agreed amongst themselves to apply for 
 money to one wlio was then a public contractor, like this 
 Mr. Churchward, and who was pressingly anxious to 
 obtain another large contract from them. One Minister 
 admits that the intent in his mind was to bring the influence 
 of the Pacific Railway project upon Sir Hugh Allan, to 
 induce him to give money to Ministers. Be states that 
 about the middle of Jul}^ when himself and colleague 
 were about going to the elections, he suggested that his 
 colleague should apply lo their public contractor and 
 other friends for money to help in the elections. ••' I said 
 that Sir Hugh Allan was a rich man, and greedy inter- 
 ested in the enterprise which the Government were bringing 
 foriuard.'' And when asked his special reason for such 
 advice, he repeated his idea in these words : — " I had 
 thought that Sir Hugh Allan zefas speii'dly interested in this 
 iv y project which we had brought forward.'" 
 
 At that time, the "special interest" Sir Hugh Allan 
 had in the railway project was to get control of it ; — to 
 prevent it going into the hands of the Inter -Oceanic 
 Company^ and, therefore, in applying to Sir Hugh Allan 
 for money, with the intent mentioned, he must have 
 understood the intent Sir Hugh Allan would have in 
 giving the money. 
 
— Ttl iii^ B 
 
 A :i 
 
 ^ 
 
 i6 
 
 This contrast between English political honour and 
 Canadian political practice, is suggestive to the people 
 and their representatives. It is not an agreeable task to 
 review the melancholy scene of our highest functionaries 
 — the leaders of the people ior so many years — appealing 
 to a public contractor for money to assist them in main- 
 taining place an 1 power. The task has to be undertaken, 
 but to the Houss of Commons, and to every elector wha 
 is contending for a purer honour in our public affairs, the 
 nation looks with anxiety and hope. 
 
 PARLIAMENTUM. 
 
 THE PREROGATIVE OR PARLIAMENTARY 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 " The King suggested a Commission to examine upon oath all who could 
 speak on this business, but Sir Edward Coke cautioned the House 'to take- 
 heed this Commission did not hinder the manner of their Parliamentary 
 proceedings against a great delinquent,' whereupon the House of Com- 
 mo-s declined iX."— Trial of Lord Bacon, i6ao. 
 
 " No instance has ever risen in England where our ancestors had per-, 
 mitted a prosecution against the Highest Ofifenders to be carried on any- 
 where but in full Parliament. — Hansards Debates, Vol. VII. p. 233. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 The recent'!' declaration of Her Majesty's Repre- 
 sentative to the Parliament of Canada, that he had 
 thought it expedient, on the advice of his Ministers, ia 
 issue a Royal Commission to enquire into certain charges 
 against those high officials, and the actual issue of that 
 Commission, have raised some questions of constitutional 
 law and practice which are worthy of discussion before 
 
 *This letter w»s written immediately after the prorogation of the 13th, 
 August, 1873. 
 
 I 
 
I'< 
 
 Dnour and 
 the people 
 ble task to 
 nctionaries 
 -appealing 
 m in main- 
 indertaken, 
 elector who 
 affairs, the 
 
 iNTUM. 
 
 iNTARY 
 
 th all who could 
 House ' to take 
 Parliamentary 
 
 rtouse of Com- 
 
 estors had per- 
 carried on any- 
 p. 233- 
 
 sty's Repre- 
 hat he had 
 Ministers, to 
 tain charges 
 issue of that 
 onstitutional 
 ission before 
 
 ition of the isth 
 
 17 
 
 the Commission can be accepted as clothed with legal 
 powers to prosecute the enquiry. I propose, therefore, 
 to discuss these questions by the light of English Parlia- 
 mentary precedents, that the candid reader may draw 
 his own conclusions as to the constitutional rule in such 
 cases. . , 
 
 The charge against Mini^iers is two-fold — First: That 
 they took money from an applicant for a public charter; 
 Second: That the money so taken was used in promoting 
 the election of their supporters. There can, then, be no 
 evasion of the fact that this is a charge (to use an old 
 Parliamentary phrase) of " high crimes and misde- 
 meanours" against the chief functionaries of the land, 
 for the trial of which Ministers have advised the Gover- 
 nor General to exercise his statutory power in appointing 
 a Royal Commission. 
 
 The Statute 31 Vic.,, c. 38, authorizes the Governor in 
 'Council to issue Royal Commissions to enquire into any 
 matter connected with the good government of Canada, 
 or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof, 
 where such enquiry is " not reguUitcd by any special lawJ" 
 Now, if this enquiry is "regulated by any special law," 
 the Commissioners' warrants will be powerless. 
 
 The offence charged is one against the law and privi- 
 leges of Parliament, and is not one new to its jurisdiction, 
 ''ears ago, in England, chief Ministers of State were 
 implicated in similar offences; and the Parliamentary 
 listory of that country is full of trials by which we can 
 test the jurisdiction by which alone the charge must be 
 tried. 
 
 " Custom is held to be law," or, in law Latin, Consududo 
 
 \ro lege servatiir; and, if so, then the custom or usage of 
 
 |he English Parliament in the trial of such charges will 
 
 irnish a " special law" regulating this inquiry. Courts 
 
 \i law have held that " the constant declaration, by the 
 
■■ 
 
 x8 
 
 High Court of Parliament, of a privilege belonging there- 
 to, is evidence of its existence." Since the early part of 
 the seventeenth century, the Commons of England, by 
 resolutions, debates, and impeachments, have furnished 
 that '* constant declaration " which is declared to be law. 
 ' The first and only instance where the Crown tendered 
 a Royal Commission for the trial of a great offender, re- 
 ferred to in one of the head notes, was in 1620 by James I. 
 when the Commons preferred charges against Lord 
 Chancellor Bacon. By the advice of Sir Edward Coke, 
 the House declined the Commission, lest it should inter- 
 fere with their privileges, and the parliamentary trial 
 proceeded. 
 
 Six years afterwards the Commons, in their Rcmon- 
 strance, declared "That it hath been the ancient, con- 
 stant, and undoubted right and usage of Parliament to 
 question and complain of all persons of what degree 
 soever, found grievous to the Commonwealth, in abusing 
 the power and trust committed to them by the Sovereign ; a 
 course approved of by frequent precedents, in the best 
 and most glorious reigns, appearing both in records and 
 histories." — Rushworth's Coll., vol. i.p. 67. 
 
 In 1681 one Edward Fitzharris was impeached before 
 the Lords on a charge preferred by the Commons, but 
 the Lords refused to proceed on the impeachment, 
 whereupon the Commons resolved, "That it is the un- 
 doubted right of the Commons, in Parliament assembled, 
 to impeach before the Lords any Peer or Commoner 
 for treason or any other crime or misdemeanour; and 
 that the refusal of the Lords, to proceed in Parliament, 
 is a denial of justice and a violation of the constitution 
 of Parliaments. That for any inferior Court to proceed 
 against the said Edward Fitzharris, or againsc any 
 other person lying under an impeachment in Parlia- 
 ment, for the same crimes for which he or they stand 
 
19 
 
 impeached, is a high breach of the privileges of Parlia- 
 ment." Several of the Lords entered a protest on their 
 journal concurring in the above, whereupon the King 
 dissolved Parliament. — 3 Margrave's State Trials, p. 236. 
 
 Another instance of the assertion of the privileges of 
 the House] was made in 1716, by Mr. Ex-Solicitor- 
 General Lechmere, in moving the impeachment of the 
 rebel Lords. He said: — "The Commons of England 
 would not permit the fate of those prosecutions to 
 depend on the care or skill of those who are versed in 
 the ordinary forms of justice. No instance has ever 
 risen in the English history, where our ancestors had 
 permitted a prosecution against the chief offenders to be 
 carried on anywhere but in full Parliament. In justice to 
 the King as well as to the people, we ought to take this 
 into our own hands, and not to entrust it to any other 
 body. It was the greatest ease, security, and support 
 of the Crown, that no power should be lodged there to 
 prevent the Commons from examining iniio the offence 
 or to defeat the judgment given in full Parliament. 
 And he took it to be the greatest advantage to the 
 Crown that the Constitution of the kingdom had not, 
 he thought, invested it with such power ; and on the 
 other hand it would clearly nppear that such a poiver ivas 
 utterly inconsistent with thefundamcntalrights of Parliament.'' 
 
 The Ex-Solicitor-General was fully borne out by 
 every precedent to be found in English Parliamentary 
 history ; and it will be with some curiosity a precedent 
 would be studied which bends or breaks the strong 
 pillar of parliamentary privilege which is so firmly built 
 on these declarations of the *' sole and undoubted 
 right and us.ge of Parliament to try all persons found 
 abusing the power and trust committed to them by the 
 Sovereign." ; 
 
 The instances of the exercise of this power by the. 
 
20 
 
 Commons are abundant in English history, and need 
 not be referred to at length. For Treason, IJribery, 
 Malversation in OfHce, Selling Offices, and other public 
 crimes, Parliament has impeached nobles, judges, com- 
 moners, bishops and clergymen, as well as high officers 
 of State, and members of parliament as less conspicuous 
 offenders. Throughout the long chain of trials, since 
 Parliament asserted its privilege, we find only a few cases 
 in which the Crown interfered — one where James I. re- 
 commended a Royal Commission for the trial of Lord 
 Bacon, which the Commons declined ; another, the 
 trial of Fitzharris, where Charles II. dissolved Parlia- 
 ment pending his impeachment. Lord Danby's case 
 may also be mentioned, where the King granted a par- 
 don under the great seal, pending his impeachment, but 
 it was held to be no bar to the prosecution of the 
 Commons. 
 
 Apart from other considerations, then, are there not 
 grave doubts but that this Royal Commission may be 
 found to be beyond the scope of the statute, should its 
 authority be impugned by any proceeding in any of our 
 Courts of Law ? 
 
 But the anomaly that the Ministry charged with 
 these high crimes and misdemeanours have created a 
 court and named the Judges by whom they are to be 
 tried, has to be reasoned out to its legitimate conclusion. 
 Apart from the Ministry of the day, the Crown has no 
 independent authority in governing. All the acts of the 
 Crown are the acts of the Ministry; and the Crown is 
 only recogniied as the head of the State guiding the 
 Government of the country as advised by the Ministers 
 of the day. A writer in the Canadian Monthly suggests 
 that " the Governor-General must take the prerogative 
 into his hands " with reference to this scandal. Acting 
 upon such advice brought English kings into grave con- 
 
31 
 
 flict with their Parliaments and people; and, in later 
 days, in Canada, brought Governors into conflict with 
 our system of Responsible Government. Nor can the 
 writer have realized the effect of his other suggestion, 
 that '• a Royal Commission appointed by the Governor- 
 General himself— not by the Minister using the 
 Governor's name — is probably the best tribunal avail- 
 able in the absence of any proper provision for such 
 cases in the Constitution." Such a proceeding could 
 not take p ace without violence to the law. Apart 
 from the rule that no Commission under the Great Seal 
 can issue without the signature of one of the advisers of 
 the Crown, the Act 31 Vic. c. 39, charges the Minister 
 of Justice, as Attorney-Generai, with " tlic sdtlcmcnt and 
 ap/^rovid 0/ all iusti'iiments issued under the Great Seal of 
 Canada'' — which of course includes the Royal Co-.-nmis- 
 sion just issued. Besides, should the Governor take 
 such a step, it would indicate a withdrawal of con- 
 fidence from his Ministers, or would be an anomalous 
 act of State, for which Ministers would no-: be responsi- 
 ble to Parliament, nor could the Governor-General — for 
 " the Crown can do no wrong " 
 
 As before remarked, this Commission is a Court to 
 try a charge of high crimes and misdemeanours. It is 
 not, therefore, one which can be left to the unaided or 
 spasmodic efforts of the Commissioners, who know 
 nothing of the details of the charge, and who are not 
 (to use a legal phrase) instructed for the prosecution. 
 The law has rightly entrusted to the Executive the pro- 
 secution of all persons charged with offences ; and for 
 the proper adininistration of the law, the Executive 
 is responsible to Parliament. The law officers of the 
 Crown in Canada, having advised the Governor to pro- 
 secute this charge, must take their proper position as 
 the only recognized public prosecutors ; and therefore 
 
22 
 
 ;i I 
 
 I 
 
 the Attorney-General, or some gentleman of the- long 
 robe deputed by him, must prosecute the charge, and 
 must enforce the law against disobedient witnesses. No 
 private prosecutor has invoked the jurisdiction of this 
 Royal Commission ; and the prosecution must therefore 
 remain in the hands of the parties who have created 
 this anomalous jurisdiction. As in ordinary prosecutions, 
 so in this, neither the Crown nor the Royal Commis- 
 sioners should allow any private prosecutor to interfere 
 with or control the clear duty of His Excellency's Minis- 
 ters in the premises. 
 
 The suggestion that Mr. Huntington should prosecute 
 cannot be entertained. Were he to do so he might, ac- 
 cording to Ei^^dish prjcedents, be guilty of a breach of 
 privilege of the Commons. Outside of Parliament he is 
 a private individual. The law officers of the Crown 
 could not retain him unless he resigned his seat in the 
 House ; while to sanction his appearance as private 
 prosecutor wouLl be to revolutionize our system of 
 criminal procedure, and upset all established rules for 
 the orderly conduct of public business. And iHie could 
 appear and prosecute, why may not every private person 
 in Cana'la, who desires to bring the offenders to justice 
 (and are there many?), appear and urge an equal right 
 to conduct the prosecution in person or by counsel ? 
 What a Babel the Court of the Royal Commissioners 
 would exhibit if such license were permitted, or such an 
 innovation on established rules allowed, as is involved in 
 the suggestion referred to ? 
 
 And, again, how are the Royal Commissioners, or any 
 prosecutor appearing before them, to know what branch 
 of the case each witness is intended to sustain ? 
 
 Thus, then, from its inception to its close, this Koyal 
 Commission will be beset with difficulties as to its juris- 
 diction, procedure, witnesses, &c. To get on in any 
 
23 
 
 other than a blundering way, even with the best inten- 
 tions, is impossible : and, at the end of it all, nothing 
 will have been accomplished except — Delay ! — for the 
 right of the Commons to investigate the charge, in their 
 own way and according to their own rules, will remain as 
 free as ever; and Parliament may, next session, ignore 
 the questionable legality of this Royal Commission, and 
 like its great old prototype in 1681, declare " That 
 for any inferior Court to proceed against any person 
 lying under an impeachment in Parliament, for the same 
 crimes for wh.ch they stand impeached, is a high breach 
 -of the Law and Privileges of Parliament." 
 
 PARLIAMENTUM. 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS QUESTIONED 
 BY THE PREROGATIVE. 
 
 " Freedom of speech, and the debates and proceedings of Parliament 
 ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of 
 Parliament." — Bill of Rights, i Win. III. and Mary, sess. 2, ch. 2, sec. g. 
 
 *' Constitational law has for its object security against misrule; security 
 against those adversaries of the community in whose instance, while 'heir 
 situation bestows on them the title of ' rulers,' the usp they make of it adds 
 the adjunct 'evil,' and thus denominates them 'evil rulers' " — Bentham's 
 Works, Vol. IX. p. 9. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Ordinary spectators at the opening of a new Par- 
 liament rarely consider that when the Speaker claims 
 from the Sovereign's representative " all the undoubted 
 rights and privileges of the Commons, especially freedom 
 of speech in their debates," he is presenting the histo- 
 rical claim of a privilege which is founded upon the 
 ancient customs of Parliament, and confirmed by the 
 
24 
 
 statute law of the land. And in view of this historical 
 claim, it may be a startling proposition to consider 
 whether, as charged by Mr. Huntington, it is " a breach 
 of the privileges of the House that a Royal Commission 
 should take cognizance of, or should assume to call 
 upon him to justify words spoken upon the floor of the 
 Commons." 
 
 No rule is more plainly written in the Constitution 
 than that the Crown cannot notice any matter in agita- 
 tion or debate in Parliament, until it is brought before 
 the Sovereign in due course by address or otherwise. 
 From Henry IV. to William HI., successive Parlia- 
 ments fought for this undoubted privilege, until its 
 victory was inscribed in the famous Bill of Rights, of 
 1689. Since then great judges have recognized the 
 privilege, and authoritatively declared it to be law ; and 
 since then, as each new Parliament in presenting its 
 Speaker makes the historical claim, the Sovereign's 
 answer — " grants, and upon all occasions will recognize 
 and 4II0W these constitutional privileges " of the Com- 
 mons. 
 
 No one in perusing the Royal Commission can fail to 
 perceive but that it is based entirely upon " proceedings 
 in Parliament," without any recital of an address or 
 resolution of the Commons praying the interference of 
 the Crown, or submitting that the subject-matter of 
 these " proceedings in Parliament ought to be ques- 
 tioned in any court or place out of Parliament." 
 
 It recites that the Hon. L. S. Huntington, " a mem- 
 ber of the House of Commons, in his place in Parliament,^' 
 on the 2nd of April last, made a statement " that he 
 was credibly informed, and believed that he could estab- 
 lish by satisfactory evidence," the charges set forth in 
 a proposed resolution, and moved "that a Committee of 
 seven members should be appointed to enquire into the 
 
25 
 
 same," which resolution was lost. That on the 8th of 
 April last, the Right Hon. Sir J. A. Macdonald, " also a 
 member of the said House of Commons, in his place in 
 Parliament,'" moved that a Select Committee of five 
 members be appointed by the House" to enquire into 
 and report upon the several matters contained in Mr. 
 Huntington's statement in Parliament ; which resolu- 
 tion was carried. It then refers to the Oaths Bill 
 passed on the 3rd Alay ; and further recites that on the 
 said day the Hon. J. H. Cameron, " also a member of 
 the said House of Commons, in his place in Parliament," 
 moved "that the said Select Committee should examine 
 witnesses on oath." Then referring to the disallow- 
 ance of the Oaths Bill, "whereby one of the objects 
 desired by the said House of Commons cannot be 
 attained," it makes a further recital that full enquiry 
 should be made on oath, and declares "that the 
 Governor in Council has deemed it expedient such en- 
 quiry should be made." It then confides the enquiry 
 on Mr. Huntington's Parliamentary statement to the 
 Commissioners to report the evidence, with any opinions 
 they may think fit to express. No reason for taking 
 the enquiry out of the jurisdiction of the House of Com- 
 mons, appears on the face of the instrument, save that 
 one of the objects desired by the House of Commons could 
 not be attained. 
 
 It is needless to recount the frequent collisions be- 
 tween the Crown and P rliament on the immunity 
 claimed by the latter for anything done or said in the 
 House. The many precedents collected by writers on 
 Parliamentary law, will show how essential to a free 
 legislature the House of Commons have held this 
 privilege. About the earliest acknowledgment of their 
 right occurred on the accession of Henry IV.. One 
 Haxey, a member, had been called to account by the 
 
26 
 
 ! 1 
 
 preceding Sovereign for certain statements in Parlia- 
 ment ; but the Commons petitioned the new king that 
 such proceeding " was against the law and course of 
 Parliament, and in annihilation of the customs of the 
 Commons." The King, after taking advice of the 
 Lords, assented, and thus all the branches of the legis- 
 lature affirmed the privilege. 
 
 In 1621, after succeeding Sovereigns had violated 
 the rule thus acknowledged, the Commons of England, 
 in clear and explicit language, declared their privileges 
 in the famous " Remonstrance " which King James I. 
 tore out of the Journals. In it they claimed the rights 
 of the Commons in Parliament, and of every member of 
 the House, to have freedom of speech to propound, 
 treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the making of laws, 
 and the redress of mischiefs and grievances which daily 
 happen in the realm ; and that any matter or matters 
 touching Parliament or Parliament business dene in 
 Parliament should only be shown to the King by the 
 advice of all the Commons. '■''- 
 
 Twenty years later the Lords and the Commons united 
 in a declaration of their privileges in the petition and 
 remonstrance presented to Charles I. in 1641. They 
 affirm "That it is their ancient and undoubted right, 
 that your Majesty ought not to notice any matter in 
 agitation and debate in either House of Parliament, but 
 by their information or agreement. That your Majesty 
 ought not to propound any condition, provision, or limi- 
 
 * " Mr. Francis Nevill of Yorkshire, a member of the House, was (4th 
 Feburary, 1640), questioned for breach of privileges in the preceding Par- 
 liament, by discovering to the King and Council, what words some mem- 
 bers did let fall in their debate in that House, whereby two members had 
 been committed to the Tower by the Council. And Mr. Nevill, being 
 brought to t e Bar, was, by order of the Hous:, committed a prisoner to 
 >the Tower of London.' — Lex Parliamenti, p. 37S. , i_ 
 
27 
 
 
 'tation to any matter in debate or in preparation in 
 either House, or to manifest or declare your assent or 
 dissent, approbation or dislike, of the same, before it be 
 presented to your Majesty in due course of Parliament. 
 That it belongs to the several Houses of Parliament re- 
 spectively to determine such errors or offences, which — 
 in words or actions — shall be committed by any of their 
 members in the handling or debating of any matters 
 there depending." Such was the claim of the ancient, 
 lawful, and undoubted privileges and liberty of Parlia- 
 ment, which have ever since been recognized as part 
 of the lex d consudndo PavUamcnti. 
 
 In the reign of Henry VHI., statutory recognition was 
 given to this privilege by the Act, 4th Henry VHI., c. 8, 
 passed on the occasion of one Richard Strode, a member 
 of the Commons, having been fined and imprisoned by 
 one of the Courts of Law for certain proceedings in Par- 
 liament. After declaring the proceedings of the Court 
 null and void, the Act provided : — " That all suits, charges, 
 &c., put or had, or hereinafter to be put or had upon any 
 person or persons that now of this present Parliament, 
 or that of any parliament thereafter, shall be, for any 
 bill, speaking, reasoning, or declaring any matter or 
 matters concerning the Parliament, to be commenced 
 or treated of, be utterly void and of none effect." Thirty 
 years afterward (says May) the Speaker of the Commons 
 (Thomas Moyle) in addressing the King at the opening 
 of a new Parliament, appears for the first time to have 
 claimed this privilege. 
 
 Every student of English History knows of the Par- 
 liamentary contests which resulted in the passing of the 
 Bill of Rights of William HI., in which the constitutional 
 guarantee of the privileges of Parliament is declared to 
 be " the law of this realm for ever." " That the freedom 
 'of speech and the debates or proceedings in Parliament 
 
■^ 
 
 28 
 
 ill 
 
 hi 
 
 11 I : i ! 
 1 ji ; 
 
 ! I 
 
 ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court 
 or place out of Parliament." 
 
 In Lex Parliamenti, p, 376, it is stated that i."! 1629 " alT 
 the judges agreed, upon questions propounded to them, 
 * that regularly a parliament-man cannot be compelled, 
 out of Parliament, to answer things done in Parliament,, 
 in a Parliamentary course.' " And in the celebrated 
 case of Stockdale v. Hansard (9 Ad. & Ellis i), in which 
 Parliamentary privileges \ve"e strongly assailed, the law- 
 was clearly explained by exj. erienced judges. Lord 
 Denman, C. J., said "The priv'ieges of having their de- 
 bates unquestioned was soon clearly perceived to be 
 indispensable and universally acknowledged. By con- 
 sequence, whatever is done within the walls of either- 
 assembly must not be questioned in any other place. 
 For speeches made in Parliament by a member, to the 
 prejudice of any other person, or hazardous to the public 
 peace, that member enjoys complete immunity." Mr. 
 Justice Littledale concurred in these views; and Mr. 
 Justice Patteson added : — " Beyond all dispute^ it is 
 necessary that tlie proceedings of each House of Parlia- 
 ment should be entirely free and unshackled ; whatever 
 is done or said in either House should not be liable to 
 examination elsewhere." 
 
 Now, looking at the terms of the Royal Commission, it 
 cannot be denied but a Court has been established to en- 
 quire and report upon the truth of what was " said by a 
 member in his place in Parliament ;" and if this Com- 
 mission can lawfully issue because one of the objects 
 desired by the House of Commons cannot — according to 
 the views of the Ministry, not the views of the Commons 
 — be attained, why may not other pretexts be availed of 
 by future Ministries to officiously intrude the prerogative, 
 instead of allowing the will of Parliament to be declared ; 
 and that too in what is a matter of procedure or of 
 
 ! 1 
 
29 • 
 
 directions which the House had given a Committee for 
 the conduct of enquiries within its undoubted juris- 
 diction. 
 
 It is satisfactory to find the constitutional question so 
 fully sustained by all who have viewed it in the light of 
 history and Parliamentary law ;' and, although I cannot 
 yet agree with the writer of " Current Events," in the 
 Canadian Monthly, in his suggestion that "the Commis- 
 sioners should be nominated, not by the accused, but by 
 the Governor General himself, with such disinterested 
 advice as he may be able to obtain," meaning that of 
 " Privy Councillors who are not Ministers" — a suggestion 
 which i.o Ministry could submit to ; — yet the general 
 tone of his argument in favour of a purer honor in public 
 affairs commends itself to all '* who are now watching 
 the triumph of iniquity with a swelling heart." And 
 in such accord, his remarks on Mr. Huntington's 
 letter declining to be a party to the removal of the 
 impeachment from the jurisdiction of t*arliament to 
 that of the Royal Commission, may appropriately con- 
 clude these observations: "The letter appears to be 
 plainly in accordance with the principles of constitu- 
 tional right, of the common'law, and of common justice, 
 and to entitle the writer, as the defender of these prin- 
 ciples against a misuse of the prerogative by the ofificers 
 of the Crown, to the sympathy and support of the 
 nation." 
 
 PARLIAMENTUM. 
 
30 
 
 THE CASE OF LORD MELVILLE, 1805. 
 
 " Over the acts, and thereby over the persons of the possessors of the 
 powers belonging to the Administrative Department of Government — the 
 person of the Monarch alone excepted — the House of Commons possesses 
 that control and superiority which is constituted by the direct as well as 
 exclusive right of prosecution, and the virtual power of dismission: — in- 
 cluding to the extent of the suffering the loss of office and emolument." — 
 Sentham's Works, Vol. V., p igj. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Reference having been made to the case of Lord 
 Melville, and the proceedings taken by the Crown 
 pending his impeachment, I am induced to give a short 
 sketch of these proceedings, taken from Cobbetfs Parlia- 
 mentary Debates, for 1805. 
 
 Lord Melville's career in Parliament prior to this, 
 date had been highly successful, though not very credit- 
 able to his political consistency; but, during this year 
 (1805), ugly reports affecting his administration of the 
 Navy Department — of which he was Treasurer and 
 First Lord — assumed a tangible reality ; and the Whig 
 party pressed them upon the consideration of the House 
 of Commons, and finally carried his impeachment. 
 
 On the 8th April, 1805, Mr. Whitbread moved a series 
 of resolutions in the House, in which the gravamen of 
 the charge against Lord Melville was thus stated : — 
 
 " That the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Melville, having 
 being privy to and connived at the withdrawing from the 
 Bank of England, for the purpose — as stated by Lord 
 Melville — of private emolument to Mr. Trotter, sums, 
 issued to Lord Melville, as Treasurer of the Navy, and 
 placed to his account in the Bank, according to the 
 provisions of the Act, has been guilty of a gross violatioa 
 of the law, and a high breach of duty." ' r 
 
 
 
31 
 
 t 
 
 This resolution was supported by Mr. Fox and the 
 leading Whig talent in the House, and though opposed 
 by Mr. Pitt, Sir William Grant, the then Master of the 
 Rolls, and others, was carried. 
 
 On the loth April Mr. Pitt announced to the House 
 the resignation of Lord Melville of his office of First 
 Lord of the Admiralty, and that His Majesty had ac- 
 cepted the same; and immediately thereafter Mr. Whit- 
 bread moved an address to the Crown, praying for the 
 removal of Lord Melville, "from all offices held under 
 His Majesty, and from his councils and presence for 
 ever;" but, after a debate, he withdrew his proposed 
 address, and moved " That the resolution of the 8th 
 instant be laid before His Majesty," which was carried. 
 
 The King returned a non-committal reply to these 
 resolutions, merely saying — " I shall, on all occasions,, 
 receive with the greatest attention any representation 
 of my Commons, and I am fully sensible of the import- 
 ance of the matter which is the subjedt of your reso- 
 lutions." 
 
 This ansv/cr not being sufficiently satisfactory, Mr. 
 Whitbread, on the 6th of May, was about to move that 
 His Majesty's answer be taken into consideration, in- 
 tending thereafter to propose an address to the C'-own,, 
 that Lord Melville's name might be erased from thf, list 
 of Privy Councillors, when Mr. Pitt interrupted him, to 
 announce the proceedings the Cabinet had felt it to be 
 their duty to take against their late colleague. After 
 referring to the resolutions which had been laid before 
 the King, he thus proceeded : — 
 
 •' I have — however reluctantly from private feeling — 
 felt it incumbent on me to propose the erasure of the 
 noble lord's name from the list of Privy Councillors. I 
 confess, Sir — and I am not ashamed to confess it — that 
 whatever might be my deference to the House of Com- 
 
Ill 
 
 II I! 
 
 'li 
 
 ii 
 
 Ml! 
 
 34 
 
 mons, and however anxious I may be to accede to their 
 wishes, I certainly felt a deep and bitter pang in being 
 compelled to be the instrument of rendering still more 
 severe the punishment of the noble lord. This is a feel- 
 ing of which I am not ashamed. It is a feeling which 
 nothing but my conviction of the opinion of Parliament, 
 and my sense of public duty, could possibly overcome." 
 
 After further debate Mr. Whitbrcad withdrew his 
 motion, and proceedings for the impeachment of Lord 
 Melville then proceeded. 
 
 Other illustrations — and they arc fortunately few — 
 notably that of the famous Admiral, Lord Cochrane, 
 (afterwards Earl of Dundonald), who on being convicted 
 of complicity in stock-jobbing transactions in 1814, was 
 deprived of his K.C.B., of his rank in the navy, and ex- 
 pelled from the House of Commons, — illustrate that stern 
 adherence to public duty in the statesmen and people 
 of England which has made them the guide and example 
 of Canadians. 
 
 PARLIAMENTUM. 
 
 1 1 
 
 Miii 
 
 i I '1 1 1 
 
i'i 
 
 '':)' 
 
 V,'. 
 
 ■■-::r-:W'U'^ 
 
 ^^'.'■-r 
 
 .i*; .- -'' 
 
 '- •::3:^i^-'- 
 
 .'■ •■'/'Ti 
 
 ♦»» 
 
 ' < ■• # i • '^» : 
 
 
>«M«MW<w«aMMMir>rni 
 
 i mmn mim ■■»i|» tft^n»<'-mtlf^m'mttt U >» dl . * m M .MM 
 
 11! i 
 
 ♦:^ 
 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 
 "■'■ PAGE 
 
 Political ,9r, parliamentary Verdicts 5 
 
 " South Sea " and " Canadian Pacific " Scandals 7 
 
 English Political Honor and Canadian Political 
 
 Practice ix 
 
 The Prerogative or Parliamentary Trial 16 
 
 Parliamentary Proceedings Questioned by the Prero- 
 gative 23 
 
 Case of Lord Melville 1805 30 
 
 ■ ■m — ift r M.M 
 
 111 
 
 
 1 - - _ 
 
 
 »."*v.'Aa:s.. 
 
itmtr HU-.W 
 
 PAGE 
 
 5 
 
 idals 7 
 
 Political 
 
 II 
 
 i6 
 
 e Prero- 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 i 
 
 t^mttM^r.MtsI ct^tru