'923/ 
 
 A 
 
 ^peedl) of JV[t'. J. f). %A^ki 
 
 IN Tin- 
 
 CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS 
 
 In Suitokt of His Motion for a Committee to En(^)Uire into 
 
 THE ClIAKCiES ACiAINST SiK AdOLI'IIE CaKON, PoSTMASTER 
 
 General, 
 
 e_ 
 
 DELIVERED APRIL 27th. 1892, 
 
 "3 
 
 Ml'. EDGAR said : Mr. Sfwaker, 1 
 Htund here to-night to reiterate, with all 
 the emphasis of which 1 am capable, 
 timt I am prepared to prove by sworn 
 evidence the charges which 1 have njade, 
 and the impeachment which I have 
 levelled against a Minister of the Crown. 
 One word as to the arguments which we 
 have heard against this enquiry froui the 
 hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. 
 Dickey). He told us, to start with, that 
 this was a })ure matter of law. Perhaps 
 he is satisfied to take that view of it, but 
 I do think that the people in this coun- 
 try believe that there are some very 
 important facts at issue in this case and 
 not a mere quibble of law, as he wishes 
 to make it out. He began his speech by 
 treating it as if it were a motion I was 
 making to expel the Postmastcr-Ceneral 
 from the House. His quotations and 
 arguments were »gainst motions which 
 have been made for the expulsion of 
 members. Well, Mr. Speaker, 
 
 It may come to that later on, 
 
 but that is not what is before the House to- 
 day. Take the case last year, 'i'ltoc^un^^es. 
 were n)ade from this side of the hoiwc^ in 
 
 out of that, and there might be out of 
 this ; and there was a care which arose 
 out of that which was not an expulsion 
 from the House but was an expulsion 
 from office, and that I think at least would 
 follow the investigation of these charges. 
 The hon. gentleman told us, to my amaze- 
 ment, that I had made no personal 
 charge, no charge of a personal nature 
 against the Postniaster-General. Well, I 
 do not underetand the English language 
 if section 5 is not a charge of a i)er8onal 
 nature. I say that : 
 
 **Durinj5 tliis pericxl iiiul while the said rail- 
 way was Iteiiig con»triicte«l in part l)y inoann 
 of Huid subsidies, tlie saiil Sir. A. I'. Caron 
 corruptly received large su'iis of money out 
 ot the said suhsidies ; and from iiionioa rained 
 upon the credit of the same ; and from parties 
 bunetieiall interested in the same." 
 
 Now, if that is not a j»ersonal charge, 
 a specific charge, and a charge of 
 
 Corruptly receiving public 
 money, 
 
 I do no*^ ki\ow how the English language 
 can iu^k..' it su^ He also tells us that 
 Uiis.H.ou*). Jitw.ao eight to investigate a 
 
 connection with the Tart?! McGreovys /charge of. takipg.monoy from contractorB. 
 
 matter. There was one expUls'Qi' ;<^r\iHe-i Buti^. voqdeh w^iethoi the jurisdiction of 
 
 5713a 
 

 2 
 
 this House over its own members is any 
 narrower than the jurisdiction of the 
 Senate across the way over its meraberB, 
 I recollect that the leader of the Govern- 
 ment did last session advocate that that 
 House should investigate the charge of 
 taking money from contractors. They 
 did it, and did it very thoroughly and 
 profoundly. The lion, gentleman also says, 
 just as the Minister of Justice told us the 
 other day, that we must go to the courts to 
 have these charges investigated. He failed 
 to tell us, I was waiting to hear him tell us, 
 how you could frame a petition before 
 the courts of justice, now or at any time, 
 to attack the expenditure, by a Minister 
 of the Crown, of $100,000 in 22 con- 
 stituencies. Then there is another mat- 
 ter, and if he will consider it calmly for 
 a few moments, I do not think he will 
 hoar any other argument of that kind 
 brought forward in this debate. Out of 
 these 22 constituencies in which I charge 
 and believe that so much money was 
 corruptly spent on that occasion in 1887, 
 the Government, with all their efforts 
 and all their expenditure, were only able 
 to caiTy seven seats. Well, now, a 
 petition might have beuu filed against 
 tiiose seven members so elected, but [ 
 wonder how petitions could have been 
 filed by us against any of the 15 cases 
 where wo elected members. There is 
 only one way, under the electoral law, 
 of raising a petition against a successful 
 candidate, and that is for the siuiple and 
 Holitary j)urpo8e of disqualifying him. 
 Now, in those If) cases there is nothing 
 in my charge seeking to disipialify any 
 of the successful candidates, therefore, no 
 
 1»etition could lie for a charge of this 
 Lind, it is only 
 
 Made against the PostiiiaHter 
 General. 
 
 Therefore, to say that "wO should now, or 
 at any fornier time,.Uave 'Ikfwi i^legfttetl 
 to the co\irts to inve-vktiiyiiti' this charge, 
 is uiost unreasonable. / U he. hcit. Uvlubor 
 
 professed himself horrified at the unfair- 
 ness of our trying in this way to make a 
 one-sided investigation into election mat- 
 ters in those counties. I am sure if it 
 would please him, and if he will only 
 supplement this charge, or if the other 
 side will agree to it in any other way, we 
 will bo delighted to inveetigate all the 
 expenses on the Liberal side in those 
 counties on that occasion. Sir, I would 
 challenge him or them in any way they 
 choose, before even the tribunal appointed 
 by the majority of this House, to go into 
 Hn investigation of our election expend- 
 iture at any of those elections ref' ""d fr 
 here. So that we do not want t ' ^ 
 
 ex parte only, the hon. gentlem; ..lust 
 help us a little to carry out the investi- 
 gation if he wants it in that liglu. He 
 challenged me to produce 
 
 An English Precedent 
 
 for a course of this kind. Well, Sir, I 
 am sorry to say for the sake of Canada, 
 but proud to say for the sake of the 
 mother land, that I could not get any 
 precedent of this kind in England, if he 
 wants to know the reason why, let him 
 read the English press and their com- 
 ments upon the investigation that took 
 place before the Committee on Privileges 
 and Elections of this House last year, 
 and he will find out why I could get no 
 j)ecedent for any such case as this. .Fust 
 before he eat down he referred to the 
 fact of the (.Quebec enquiry. I wonder 
 ho was not ashamed, after the sjoech he 
 had made, to refer to the enquiries in 
 the Province of Quebec. Why, Sir, they 
 were not resisted there by his (conserva- 
 tive friends. The constitution was 
 strained to make these encpiiries, as he 
 knows; and I can toll him that ho and 
 his friends are 
 
 8trAil|lnK the €<»n8titation 
 to-night 
 
 io resist this enquiry; so I think he 
 sho>i>d not have referred to Quebec 
 
 B. Q. R. 
 NO. — * 
 
When I brought forwartl thete charges 
 I did not make any remarks in support- 
 ing them on the assumption that they 
 wo'ildbe at once acceeded to by the 
 House, by the Ministers, and especially 
 by the Postmaster-General himself. I 
 thought then, and I think still, that the 
 Postmaster General should have felt that 
 these charges were certainly of so serious 
 a character as to demand the most [)rorapt 
 and the most thorough investigation on 
 his own account. Can he say that they 
 are not serious ? 1 suppose if he took 
 the views of the hon. gentleman who has 
 ' "ill '' '•♦r)oken to-night, he might think they 
 }; J '^'-^ Vfi\y xxxatttiTH of law, but not sc^rious 
 'A«'.'i;V'' But I would call the attention 
 of the House to what the Minister of 
 Public Works, a colleague of the I'ost- 
 master-General's, said about these charges 
 the other day. He said : 
 
 "These are chiugos l»y whiuli, I l»flievu, it 
 ia intended to take away that gentleman's 
 honour." 
 
 That is the way the charges are looked 
 at by one of his colleagues, a charge 
 which would tiiko away t lie hon. gentle- 
 man's honour. I think the Minister of 
 Public Works was (juite right in his view 
 of the charges, and surely a charge that 
 would take av.ay 
 
 A €olleagiie*s Honour, 
 
 ought to be investigateil. Now, 1 r oticcd 
 shortly after making these charj.es, an 
 article in the (Quebec Chronicle, a Con- 
 servative newspaper, alu.ost an organ, as 
 I understand it, of the Postmaster 
 General himself : 
 
 "Mr. Kdgar has brought a fearful ai-cuHution 
 againHt tiie I'ostnniMter ( iennal wliich. if 
 ptovod, woui«l p'iull in his piMiiianent n-tire 
 Mient from public life." 
 
 That is the view lie took ot it, and 
 that, I think, is the view the public will 
 take of it, and tlie casuiatry of hon. 
 gentlemen opposit(t will never persuade 
 
 the public that that is not the true view. 
 What did the hon. member for Muskoka 
 (Mr. O'Brien) say ? The hon. gentle- 
 man very often, in his speeches, gives 
 oonsiderable support to the views on this 
 side of the House, but seldom goes so far 
 as to give us a vote. I suppose he con- 
 siders his tongue is his own but that hia 
 vote belongs to his party. However, 
 when his tongue got loose tl\e other 
 night, he said, although he is going to 
 vote against this encpiiry, 1 understand: 
 
 "If the stiitements wliich have been made 
 aio tiue there ha.** been a gross and outrageous 
 violation of tiUHt. " 
 
 •*A gross and outrageous 
 
 Violation Of Trust,'' 
 
 and still those charges arc too trifling to 
 be investigated by a com luitteo of Parlia- 
 ment. Most of us remember, Sir, an 
 investigation which was held here on a 
 comparatively trifling Kubjoct, when in 
 connection with Mr. Charles Rykort, and 
 which resulted very seriously to him. 
 I do not know that any of us consider 
 that his o}.inion of parliamentary honour 
 was too refiuf'd, but what did he say 
 about the charge from his place in the 
 House. He said : 
 
 "I ask hon. niend)erM to giv*- m«' an 
 
 ()|)poi-tunity of defending myself hefore tlu; 
 
 fonunittee, wliere I ean have the elwirgei! 
 inveHtlgatud. " 
 
 That is what Mr. Hykert said, hut a 
 Mininicr of the Crown today in this 
 Parliament thinks otherwise of infinitely 
 more serious charges. I see the hon. 
 Minister of Militia there, and I remember 
 and he reuioinbors, when some years ago 
 in this House, I mad« a charge from my 
 place with which his name waa con- 
 nected the hon. gentleman stood up in 
 his place like a man with th«^ courage 
 which he has, and he demanded prompt 
 investigation and he got it, although the 
 report has never been adoptcid by the 
 House one way or tlm other. That 
 
showed a sense of honour in another of 
 the colleaguoa of the PoHtmJister-(Jeneral. 
 1 thought, Sir, that if the PoHtruaster 
 General hmiself did not consider this a 
 proper case to investigate, that he would 
 have had colleagues who would have 
 insisted upon it, but what do we find / 
 I find that the Minister of Justice 
 solemnly stated in his place, on his res- 
 ponsibility as leader of the House, that 
 there was no allegation of any public 
 money having been appropriated. Why, 
 Sir, what does lie mean 1 Were not the 
 subsidies public money ; were they not 
 misappropriated'/ Oh, I see, Mr. Sj^eaker, 
 what the Minister of Justice means. 
 He knows they are public mo.neys, but 
 he thinks they were appropriated for 
 their proper purpose when they wore 
 
 Placed ill the Conservative 
 Fund. 
 
 I see it now, though I never could see it 
 before. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, from 
 that jwint of view these public moneys 
 were not misappropriated and the Minis- 
 ter of Justice is probably correct as usual. 
 These railways which are involved in this 
 "bi'rge were aided by the Dominion and 
 Provincial Governments, and what I 
 complain of is, the appropriation of 
 Dominion subsitlies by the Postmaster 
 General. I remember an occasion not so 
 very long ago, when it was thought that 
 the Parliament of Canada had jurisdic- 
 tion to follow up and hunt down the 
 expenditure of provincial subsidies of a 
 railway because the Dominion also had 
 contributed, or was going to contribute, 
 tjomething to the same road. What did 
 the leader of the Minister of Justice 
 say in the Senate on the question of an 
 investigation before the Private Bills 
 Committee on the Bale des Chaleurs 
 Kailway. Mr. Abbott, the Premier, said 
 ast session : 
 
 "This Doiiiiniou is engagcMl in ii sort of joint 
 account with the Province of Quebec in i-on- 
 atructiug whis road. There arc $175,000 of this 
 
 public money which'our co-partners have invest- 
 cil with onrwivcs, wliidi !iave been diverte*! 
 from the purpose of the grant, and arc we not 
 intcresteil in Hmling out what lias lieconie 
 of it ?" 
 
 lie goes on to say : 
 
 "Tliis matter is one in wliicli it strikcH me 
 we arc particularly interested, one that it is 
 particularly the duty of this House to invest! 
 gate, and I think that we siiould insist upon 
 nuiking tiiisenfjuiry as far as the law an<l tiie 
 practice of the House enables us to do so." 
 
 I could not use language more approjiri- 
 ate then this to the present occasion, if I 
 tried for a long time; but I could go a 
 great deal further and say that the.se 
 subsidies now in question are our sub- 
 sidies, and that we have a 
 
 Ten-fold greater duty 
 
 to find out what has become of them. 
 The speech from which 1 have (juoted 
 was the celebrated speech in which the 
 Premier wound up by appealing to the 
 public to assist him in punishing the 
 culprits, be they high or be they low, be 
 they rich or be they poor. I do not know 
 whether the Postmaster- General can 
 escajie from some of these descriptions of 
 his leader, but I would rather have 
 supposed that he was either high or low 
 or rich or poor, and that he should be 
 reached by the strong arm of Parliament. 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, remember that in 
 that Bale des Chaleurs matter there was 
 no misapplication of Dominion funds 
 charged as it is here; I'emember that 
 there was no member of the Senate 
 charged with misapplication of these funds 
 and that there is a member of this House 
 charged here: remember. Sir, that there 
 was no Minister or Privy Councillor 
 implicated there, when there is both a 
 Minister and a Privy Councillor implicat- 
 ed here. The Minister of Justice also 
 criticised these charges which T now 
 m^ke, and said that they were vague and 
 indefinite. Well, Sir, T will not repeat 
 what his colleague the Minister of 
 
'*. 
 
 Public Works said about thorn, or what 
 the C^ueljec Chronicle said about tliciu, 
 or what the member for Muskoka (Mr. 
 O'Brien) said about tiioin, and I will not 
 further arirue that lie can possibly con- 
 sider them vague, when the 
 
 Whole IntlepeiHlent; Press 
 
 of this country, without exception as far 
 as I have Leen able to learn, has said 
 that these charges are not rague, hat 
 that they are explicit and clear and 
 ought to be investigated. Perhaps I 
 had better allow the Postmaster-General 
 to draw up these charges himself and let 
 him have tliem just as he would like 
 them to be. I do not know how else I 
 can satisfy lion, gentlemen on the other 
 pide of the House, f dare say if the 
 Postma8ter-(reneral had the drawing of 
 tliese charges he would limit them, for 
 instance, to tlie charge that he received 
 from the Lake St. John Railway Com- 
 pany so ranch money out of the siibsidies, 
 and another charge that lie received from 
 the Temiscouata Railway Company so 
 much money out of the subsidies, and 
 then he would valiantly disprove those 
 charges, 1 imagine that these are i\ie 
 charges he would like to see there, from 
 the fact that although there is not a 
 syllable of allegation in the charge fiom 
 beginning to end that he received money 
 from either of these corporations as cor- 
 porations, still, when he got up he told 
 us with a great flourish of truraj^ets that 
 he had voluntarily received telegrams or 
 letters from the managei-s os those two 
 com])anies saying that he had never 
 received any moneys from those com- 
 panies. Why, Mr. Speaker, nobody said 
 he did. Does he imagine that any body 
 ' would think or believe th<it a railway 
 corporation like that of the Lake St. 
 John Railway, with a board formed, for 
 instance, of representatives of the City of 
 Quebec, would calmly sit down at their 
 )>o ird meeting and pass a formal res- 
 olution, or that a meeting of shareholders 
 
 would pass a re.solution to pay so much 
 money out of their subsidy to the lion. 
 Postmaater-C Jeneral for himself or his 
 elections ? No, Sir, it is absurd, and 
 the hon. Postmaster-txeneral when ho 
 made that declaration was simply 
 
 Settiiijj^ up a Man of Straw 
 
 and knoc'dug him down again. I think 
 one of the most refined and beautiful 
 arguments that I ever listened to in my 
 life, so delicate that it required the 
 greatest possible attention to catcli it, 
 was that of the hon. Minister of Justice, 
 when he .solemnly contended that we 
 could not be said to be charging a member 
 of Parliament with these political crimes, 
 because he had not the whole time been 
 a member of this House. That was a 
 most refined and delicate argument, but 
 the Minister of Justice forgot for the 
 moment that his colleague, if not always 
 a member, was always a Minister of state 
 and always a Privy Councillor, and that 
 during the whole of that time he was 
 either a member or a candidate I would 
 like also to draw the hon. gentleman's 
 attention to this fact, that tlie election 
 law is levelled against candidates more 
 than against members, and if he was only 
 a candidate and not a member he was 
 much more open to Hccusation. I do not 
 propose. Sir, to go into the proofs that T am 
 prepared to lay before a committee if I 
 get it, but I would like just to say that I 
 shall be able to prove that when the 
 Postmaster-General was a candidate, in 
 1887, for the county of Quebec, at which 
 election his agent returned his total 
 election expenses of every kind, personal 
 and political, at $004, the hon. Minister 
 personally snf)erin tended and directed 
 and authorized the expenditure for that 
 election of considerably more than 
 
 Ten times tliat amount ; 
 
 and I suppose that would be nothing 
 discreditable for a Minister of the Crown 
 to do. Perhaps it would not be dia- 
 
creditable to h Minister ur a member of 
 this House, but the statute makes it a 
 misdemeanour and a crime in a candidate. 
 Then, tiie Minister of Justice contended 
 that we must show, as if I liad not shown 
 or offered to show, that tho offence was 
 committed by the Postmaster-General in 
 his capacity as a member of this House. 
 I do not know what he means exactly by 
 that ; but, he cannot perhaps have seen 
 the case of Mr. J. W. Hastings, a 
 member of the English House of Commons, 
 who on the 21st of March last, was 
 expelled from that House unanimously 
 for doing something which certainly he 
 did not do as a member of the Hojise. 
 What was it that he did, Sir ? I tind 
 by the report of the occurrence in the 
 London Times, that Mr. Justice A. L. 
 Smith had sent a letter to the Speaker 
 reporting the conviction of Mr. Hastings. 
 The Times report does not give the 
 nature of that conviction, but a letter 
 which was read in the House, sent to the 
 Speaker by Mr. Hastings himself, and 
 which was commented upon and not dis- 
 puted by either Mr. Gladstone or Mr. 
 Balfour, stated the nature of the con- 
 viction. The letter is to this effect : 
 
 "I thought it right to plead guilty to the 
 iiulictnient preferred against nie, ay I did 
 undoubtedly dispose of trust property witli- 
 out due regard to the provisions of the will 
 under which it came into my hands ; never- 
 theless, it was without my intention of 
 appropriating the money to my own use, or 
 of wilfully defrauding any person.'" 
 
 Now, if the Minister of Justice can 
 show that this was done by Mr. Hastings 
 as a member of the House of Commons, 
 he will be a great deal more clever than 
 1 give him the credit of being. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN. That was the judg- 
 ment of a court of law. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR. That is not the point 
 which I am referring to, although I will 
 tell my lion, friend what I think about 
 that in a moment. What I said was 
 his. I said that the in Hansard report of 
 
 the speech of the hou. Minister of Justice, 
 you will see that he claims that I did not 
 show tliat the offence was committed by 
 the hon. PoHtmaster-( ieneral in his 
 capacity as a member of this House. I 
 say that has nothing to do with the 
 matter, and this caae of Mr, Hastings 
 and many other English cases on which 
 it is foumled, show that a member will 
 be 
 
 Expelled from the English 
 House 
 
 of Commons for an offence committed not 
 at all as a raeml)er of the House, and tho 
 comparatively venial offence of mis- 
 appropriating trust moneys under a will. 
 Now, Sir, surely the trust which the Lon., 
 Postmaster-Gencial had of the »^' '■'' 
 funds was infinitely more sacred tl wie 
 trust which this man had under k ill ; 
 and if he did what I charge him with 
 doing with those public funds, will the 
 hon. member for Muskoka deny what he 
 himself said the other day would be a 
 gross breach of public trust ? 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN. Undoubtedly the hon. 
 gentleman is correct so far as that goes ; 
 but he cannot avoid the distinction that 
 in any case, in which a felony lias been 
 charged and proved against a member of 
 the House of Commons he would be 
 expelled — 
 
 Mr. EDGAR That is not a felony. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN. Suppose the hon. 
 Postmaster-General had been tried at an 
 election court and there had been proved 
 guilty of conduct unbecoming a member 
 of this House, this House would be justi- 
 fied in expelling him. But that is a 
 totally different thing from this House 
 undertaking to investigate charges which 
 should be investigated in a different 
 court. , 
 
 Mr. EDGAR. I am very glad of the 
 interruption of the hon. gentleman be- 
 cause it will enable me to clear up that 
 point to his satisfaction. His claim is 
 that we cannot investigate* a charge of 
 that kind against an hon. member but 
 
that he muF.t be convicted by some court 
 ontHide. Very well. The 8adier case, 
 which has been quoted before in this 
 debate, is a well known case. It is not 
 in itself on all fours with the present one. 
 It was a motion for expulsion in the first 
 place, but in the arguments of eminent 
 men who spoke on that case, such as the 
 Attorney-General for Ireland and Lord 
 Palmerston, we find the principle laid 
 down, as the House will see by my 
 (quotation, that a man may be expelled 
 on conviction by a court, on his own 
 confession, or on 
 
 The Report of a Committee 
 
 '^f the House. In the ICnglish Hansard, 
 I' ,"*^ page 1402, Mi-. Fitzgerald, the 
 Alio \V General for Ireland, lays this 
 dowtf a.< his view of the law. He says in 
 1 703 Mr. Askill was expelled. The 
 resolution stated that the House had 
 examined several witnesses and found 
 that Mr. Askill, was the author of a certain 
 book and, therefore, ordered him to be 
 expelled. Now, that was not a court of 
 justice and,it was liot aconviction. It was 
 an investigation by the House of Com- 
 mons. In the same volume, at page 1,40a 
 Lord Palmerston, in the Sadlier case, 
 say: 
 
 "We should not take proceedings in the 
 nature of eypulsion without being able tf) found 
 them on soino formal indisputable ground, 
 such as conviction or confession or a report, 
 after due examination of a committee.'' 
 
 I hope the hou. gentleman will be 
 satisfied that we have English precedents 
 for examining into serious matters of 
 this kind. We have always done it. It 
 was never refused until last session, when 
 it was refused in the case of the then 
 Postmaster-General, now the Minister of 
 Railways, and that, he will find, started 
 them, and they propose to continue and 
 make precedents in this country which 
 he will not find in England, and which 
 were never found in Canada before. In 
 
 another volume of Jfansurd, the Sadlier 
 case comes up again, remember that was 
 a case of expulsion, that was a stage 
 beyond this ; and the argunicntH that 
 were advanced in favour of expulsion are 
 not necessary for an enquiry into the 
 conduct of a Minister and a member. 
 Mr. Koebuck firet moved it, and it stood 
 over, and then at a later day the Attorney- 
 General for Ireland, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
 moved ii himself. He said : 
 
 "I have h>okud into tlu' precedents and 
 they show the right of expulsion may be 
 exercised citlicr for (1) positive crime : (2) 
 otiVnce against House ; {'.\) acts bringing 
 religion into discredit; (4) or that were dis- 
 creditable ; (5) been guilty of fraudulent 
 practices ; or ((>) other acts which showed tiiem 
 unfit to exercise the trust which tlieir con- 
 stituents iiad reposed in them." 
 
 If proving these charges does not show 
 that the Postmaster-General is unfit to 
 exercise the trust which his constituents 
 have reposed in him, what; would it show ? 
 The Minister of Militia drew a nice point 
 when he said I had not, as I should have, 
 charged his colleague with public robbery. 
 Well, I did not put it those words, — but 
 in words which I certainly intended to 
 mean 
 
 Robbing the Public 
 
 If it is not public robbery for a member to 
 take money out of public subsidies, I 
 would "like to know what is. Then the 
 Minister of Public Works drew another 
 beautiful defence. He said that I had 
 failed to set out conspiracy, that coii- 
 spiacy was not shown in terms in my 
 charge ; and therefore it should fail. 
 The h(m. gentleman is a lawyer. Does 
 he 110^; know the law of conspiracy 1 I^et 
 him read up his Russell on Crimes, and 
 he will .see it is there declared that " an 
 unlawful conspiracy is to be inferred 
 from the acts of the parties." And I 
 have tried to make clear what the acts 
 of his hon. colleague were, and does not 
 Russell go on to say that, " not once in 
 
a tliousard times can it be otherwise 
 proved V So I think, if I get a chance 
 to go on and piove these charges, there 
 will he what is under the law, unless the 
 Minister of Justice should change it in 
 liis new criminal code, a 
 
 Most Ahoininaihle Coiispirdcy, 
 
 The Minister of Public Works was 
 perhaps more candid then any of thera. 
 • He said that I was trying to draw the 
 Conservative party into the mire, and they 
 were not ready to sul)mit the whole party 
 to investigation. We thus really find 
 the reason why the party is to be called 
 upo:i to vote down this enquiry. The 
 Minister of Public Works has stated it 
 squarely and frankly, and I have no 
 doubt it is the real reason. They fear 
 should they consent to an investigation, 
 the system of corruption of the Con- 
 servative party will be disclosed. That 
 part of the charge the hon. gentleman 
 thinks does not only involve the Ministre 
 or the (jrovernment but involves the 
 whole Conservative party well, if it does 
 involve one of the great pirties in this 
 country, it calls all the more for investi- 
 gation. I think the country will believe 
 that if the Minister of Public Works is 
 right in «aying that we are attempting to 
 drag the whole Conservative party into 
 the mire by proving the truth of these 
 churges the sooner we do so the better. 
 Perhaps the hon. gentleman is right. 
 Twenty -two counties are invlved, only 
 one-third of the Province of Quebec, and 
 one-tenth of the whole Dominion. And if 
 that district was attempted to be bought 
 Uf) by $100,000. a simple ruleof three 
 will show that it would require, what I 
 have no doubt it did, $1,000,000 for the 
 whole Dominion. Why Sir, after all the 
 expenditure of $100,000 in 22 con 
 stituencici they only carried seven or 
 eight of them, and I wonder how much 
 it cost them to carry the 1 30 or so seats 
 they carried at that election. That is 
 perhaps again a proof that the Minister 
 
 of Public Work-i was quiie right when 
 he thought that this investigation would 
 bring the whole Conservative party 
 
 Into the Mire- 
 Now, I think, and I thought that the 
 whole Government as a Government 
 ought to insist upon this investigation, 
 because it is not the matter of the Post- 
 master-General alone. Under our con- 
 stitution, the whole Government collect- 
 ively aro responsible for the act of a 
 colleague, and they are not going to say 
 or to pretend, I fancy, that they are not 
 the same Government, that the shuflle of 
 one or two seats which took place last 
 summer changes the Government. Why, 
 they are proud of being the same (Jovern- 
 ment, with the same policy, and, if they 
 are the same Government, tliey have a 
 retrospective responsibility for all the 
 acts of each colleogue unless they publicly ' 
 and specifically repudiate these acts when 
 they are first brought to their notice. 
 That there can be any doubt of that I 
 question. It is important enough, how- 
 ever, I think, to make it clear. Lord 
 Derbj-, on that subject of collective re'?- 
 ponsibility of the whole Cabinet for the 
 acts of a colleague, said, as reported in 
 the English Hansard, No. 150, on the 
 lUhMay, 1858: 
 
 "NFow with respect to the liability of all tiie 
 menibeis of a cabinet for the act of a single 
 member, I wish to say that no man can put 
 forth more distinctly or clearly than 1 do the 
 constitutional doctrine tiiat every member of 
 the Government is responsible for the acts of 
 every other member, whether these acts were 
 previously known or not, provided the members 
 of the (Jovernment continued to act together 
 as a (Government. Remaining in office and 
 acting togetiier all the members of the (iovern- 
 ment take upon tliemselves a retrospective 
 responsibility for wliat their colleague has 
 done which they can in no way attempt to 
 siiake off." 
 
 Now the Ministers are absolutely and 
 entirely just as responsible as the Post- 
 master-General is himself for the weight 
 
of theHe chargeH. unless they have i*e- 
 piuliated his conduct and disclaimed 
 responsibility for him and 
 
 Expelled him from the Cahinet, 
 
 The honour of one is in the l<eepinf^ of all. 
 There is a name they are accustomed to 
 conjure with on the other side of the 
 House, and I am sure they will not 
 dispute the view Sir John Macdonald 
 took in a rcry recent case indeed as to 
 what should be the attitude of his govern- 
 ment when charges were even indirectly 
 hovelled at them. Sir John Macdonald, 
 as reported in the Canadian Hansard of 
 1S90, page 450, when the Rykert case 
 was under discussion, said : 
 
 "I can oni^ sttitotliivt if that correspendoiu-e 
 ill any way, in any phrase or sentence, reflects 
 upon tlie liononr of the Ministry, or of any 
 member of it, we are<|uiti' ready todefeiul onr- 
 Helves, and to ask for t he asHiHtaiu'e of tlie hon. 
 gentleman opposite in the invetigation." 
 
 Perhaps these charges do not reflect 
 on the honour of the Ministry or any 
 member of it. I rather think they do. 
 I think the country will say so, and Sir 
 John Macdonald then said that he would 
 ask for the|assiHtance, as he did ask lor the 
 assistance, of members on this side of the 
 House in a 
 
 €oiniiilttee to Invcstiji^ate 
 
 those charges. Now, I think and I 
 thought that, for the honour, if not of 
 themselves, for the honour of the Crown 
 that they represent, they would have 
 instantly demanded this investigation. 
 They represent the historic dignity of 
 of the Imperial Crown of Kngland, and 
 surely the honour ot the representative 
 of that Imperial Crown in this country 
 should have been protected by these 
 Ministers. I am not saying that the 
 representative of the Crown should take 
 this matter into his own hands. I am 
 saying that the Ministers of the Crown 
 should have been the first to protect his 
 
 honour, and they are his sworn advisera 
 Then, what is more important, what I 
 feel more strongly about, is that this 
 Ministry represenis the 
 
 Honour of the Crown 
 
 which is the symbol of the diginity and 
 the power and the majesty of the {>eople 
 of Canada, and it is that which is insulted 
 by a charge of this kind remaining for a 
 moment uninvestigated. Why is it that 
 the Postmaster-General is defended so 
 strenuously, so bitterly by his colleagues ? 
 What is tlie reason ? It Is a little puzzl- 
 ing to us on this side of the House 
 certainly. He is not a man of pignal 
 ability. T do not think his friends will 
 say that. He is not a man of vast use- 
 fulness to the Cabinet as an administrator 
 or as a debater, but he is a man no doubt 
 of great boldness as an operator, and a 
 proof of it is in this transaction contained 
 in these charges. He is not as meek as 
 the hon. member for Three Rivera (Sir 
 Hector Langevin), he is not as meek or 
 as timid as that hon. member. I can 
 imagine the hon. the Postmaster-General 
 saying to his colleagues : Well, gentle- 
 men, what aie you going to do about it 1 
 We will h^ng together or we will hang 
 separately, and they had deterr'ned , 
 
 To hang together. 
 
 Why, after all, should they not defend 
 their colleague, looking at it from a 
 political point of view — a short-sighted 
 point of view, perhaps but one which 
 commends itself to most men on the 
 other side 1 They have a majority strong 
 enough, to vote down anything they lik<». 
 Aiguments are not necessrry. The 
 majority is large enough, and very well 
 under control. I am sure also that the 
 Ministers and their followers feel now, 
 and often shake their heads about it and 
 say, that the Tarte-McGreevy enqtiiry of 
 last session was a great mistake and 
 they should never have given it at all, 
 
U) 
 
 and they are determined that that 
 mistake shall not be repeated, that 
 they must put their foot down at last and 
 have 
 
 No more enquiries. 
 
 I can understand that position as one 
 that commends itself to their judgment. 
 Besides, nearly all those critical bye- 
 elections are passed and the danger is 
 over for about four years, and hon. 
 gentlemen can do just about as they 
 please, and trust to the shortness of 
 public opinion to torget all about it 
 before they oppeal to the country again. 
 Besides, a man who can raise the wind 
 election purposes so well as the Post- 
 master General, is invaluable to that 
 party, he cannot be spared ; they will 
 have more elections, and they will want 
 him again. How insignificant, after all, 
 were the efforts proved last session ot the 
 hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. 
 Cochrane) — here and there a miserable 
 $200 picked up from some bridge tender. 
 His intention was praiseworthy, I admit, 
 and he is to be commended for his good 
 intentions, but he did not go about it 
 with the hands of a master, as the Post- 
 master-General did, sweeping in his 
 
 Tens and liundretis of thou- 
 sands 
 
 out of the subsidies granted to these 
 great corporations. Why, over $1,000,000 
 was granted in one case, and $050,000 in 
 another case. During that time the hon. 
 gentleman was in the Cabinet and was 
 voting for the subsidies. How simple it 
 would have been for him to levy a toll of, 
 say 10 per cent on those subsidies. I am 
 just supposing the case, we have not gone 
 into the evidence yet, we will see that 
 more in detail when we get there. No 
 doubt the supporters of the Government 
 will consider, and even the Minister of 
 Justice, I suppose, with the casuistry 
 which distinguishes him sometimes, will 
 convince himself, that after all the end 
 
 justifies the means. And what is the 
 glorious end that is accomplished by this 
 boodling] Why, Sir, it is to maintain 
 the loyalty and unity of Canada to the 
 British Empire, to maintain the old flag 
 and the 
 
 Old Monopolists, 
 
 and surely that end justifies a great deal. 
 The means to that end are the votes of 
 public money, and what object could be 
 more patriotic then to allow a reasonable 
 and suillcient proportion of those public 
 moneys to tilt«r into tfie pockets of the 
 Minister and than be disseminated among 
 the electors for the good of the old flag t 
 Quite as honest as the Franchise Act, 
 quite as honest as the Gerrymander Act, 
 I do not see much difference myself. 
 But I understand now why thev are 
 stickinj; to it, and going to vote it down; 
 the country will understand it, too. Of 
 course, last session there was an enquiry j 
 into the charges made bv Mr. Tarte. , 
 They were not as direct as these, but 
 there was no quibbling about them, they 
 were allowed. The present leader of the 
 House was not the leader of the House 
 when that enquiry was begun ; but he 
 became leader of the House as the result 
 of that enquiry. The hon. member for 
 Three Rivers (Sir Hector Langevin) was 
 allowed by the majority on the other side 
 to escape with a very narrow squeeze. 
 He was just squeezed enough and 
 blackened enough to put him out of his 
 place in the Cabinet, and as leader of the 
 House, but he was not blackened enough 
 to put him out of his seat as member for 
 Three Rivers, and so he meekly and 
 mildly consented to retire from the 
 Ministry, continuing to support the 
 Government, grateful for having been let 
 off easier then his friend Mr. Mc- 
 Greevy. Now, I will not continue 
 my remarks any further. So far as I am 
 concerned I will leave this matter, as I 
 must leave it, in the hands of the 
 representatives of the people in this 
 House. I hope yet, before they vote 
 
this down, they \?ill hesitate longer, and 
 perhaps see new light ; but if they do not, 
 all I can bay is this ; that my convictions 
 are so strong, and my knowledge so 
 accurate, as to the truth of these all- 
 egations, that I shall, if the opinion of 
 this House is against me, 
 
 Appeal to the People 
 
 and to the press of the country to see 
 what they think about it. I hope it will 
 not be neces3ary to do so, but I give 
 notice to all my colleagues in this Parlia- 
 ment that I am not going to let this 
 thing drop, even if there is a hostile vote 
 on this motion to-night. 
 
 
of Mr. Edgar 
 
 -ON THE- 
 
 iliENDiENT 
 
 D 
 
 ROPOSED BY MB. BOWELL 
 
 MAY 4th, 1892, 
 
 To Kefkr Cf.rtain Altkred Charges Against Sir Adolphe 
 Caron to a kovAL Commission, instead ok Referring Mr. 
 Edgar's Original Charges to a Committee of the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 Mr. I'] DO A 11 said : I was prepared, 
 Mr, Spoiikei', for a j:(ood'many results of 
 this discussion, but I certainly was hardly 
 prepannl to hear the resolution as moved 
 l»y the Minister of Militia to-day. I 
 thought it was possible that the (Jovern- 
 nient might undertake to refer the 
 charges T had made to a roval commission. 
 That would have been a course exceed- 
 ingly objectionable on many grounds, but 
 they have, to a certain extent, a prece- 
 dent for that in this House on a former 
 occasion. In the 
 
 lliiutiiigtoii Case, 
 
 the cluirges made by Mr. Huntington, 
 which wen' not ne.irly as definite as these, 
 were refiu-rcd to a royal coniuiission for 
 investigation, but only on certain grounds 
 which 1 will state. As you, Mr. Speaker, 
 will remember, the charges were i*eferred 
 unaltennl to a parliamentary committee 
 first; ihat parliamentary counnittec held 
 its meetings and decided that it was 
 desirable to examine witnesses under oath, 
 and it was necessary to obtain an Imperial 
 Act of i^arliiunent to grant that power to 
 the committees of this House. Very 
 
 well, Sir. These charges were very 
 serious indeed, and the Governor-General, 
 under the advice of his Ministers, decided 
 that, in order to have them investigated 
 under oath and without delay a royal 
 commission should be appointed for that 
 purpose, and there was no other excuse 
 attempted to be given for the appointment 
 of a royal commission in that case excejit 
 the one I have mentioned, namely, that 
 parliamentary committees had no power, 
 to take evidence under oath. Well, Sir, 
 that power has since been invested in the 
 committees of this Parliament. It is 
 continually exercised by committees of 
 this Parliament. I propose to refer this 
 resolution of mine to the 
 
 Most important Coininittee 
 
 of this Parliament to investigate it under 
 oath — a committee composed two to one 
 of the supporters and followers of the 
 Ministry ; and yet, Sir, they are afrai<l 
 to face that tribunal with these charges. 
 Not only do they take this investigation 
 out of the hands of Parliament —a Minis- 
 ter afraid to meet his peers and to be 
 tried by his peers — but they have taken 
 my charges and 
 
13 
 
 Emasculated tliem, 
 
 weakened them and destroyed tliem, and 
 made them just to suit the views of 
 the accused Minister himself. I am not 
 in the confidence of the Ministers ; but 1 
 would almost be suspected of being in 
 their confidence, because a week ago I 
 told the House exactly what the accused 
 Minister would like to have done in tliis 
 case, and I will (juote to the House the 
 language I used. I said : 
 
 " Perhaps T luul oetter allow tlie Post- 
 iiuister-Oeiieral to draw up these oiiarges him 
 self and let him have tlieiii just as he would 
 like them to be. I do not know how else I can 
 satisfy hon. gentlenifn on the other side of the 
 House. I dare say if the Postmaster-General 
 had the drawing of these charges he would 
 limit them for instance, to tlie charge that he 
 received from the Lake St. John Railway 
 Company so much money out of the subsidies, 
 and another charge, that he received from the 
 Temiscouata Railway Company so much 
 money out of the subsidies, and then he would 
 valiantly disprove those charges. I imagine 
 that these are the charges he would like to ste 
 there, from the fact that altluuigh there is not a 
 syllable of allegation in tiie charge from begin- 
 ning to end that he received money from either 
 of these corporations as corporations, still, when 
 he got up he told us with a great flourish of 
 trumpets that he had voluntarily received tele- 
 grams or letters from the managers f)f those two 
 companies saying that lie had never received 
 any moneys from those companies. VVIiy, Mr. 
 Speaker, nobody said he did. Does he imagine 
 that any body would think or believe tiiat a 
 railway corporation like that of the Lake St. 
 John l:{ailway, with a board formed, for 
 instance, of representatives of the city of 
 Quebec, would calmly sit down at their board 
 meeting and pass a formal resolution, or that a 
 meeting of sharelioldcrs would pass a resolution 
 to pay so much money out of their sul»sidy to 
 the hon. Postmaster-CJeneral for hims(df or his 
 elections? No Sir, it is absurd, and tiie hon. 
 Postmaster General when he made tiuit dec- 
 laration was simply setting up a man of straw 
 and knocking hhn down again." 
 
 Why, Sir, 
 
 I was Prophetic 
 
 on that occassion. They ha\c done 
 xactly what I auticii)ated, but hardly 
 
 's 
 
 believed would ever be poH.sible. I have 
 exaniinotl carolully th«! Huunidnieut moved 
 by the hon. IMinislcr of .Militia, although 
 of course, 1 am sure he did not draw it* 
 I suppose it was drawn by tlio Minister 
 of Justice and tlie Postmaster- C I eneial. 
 What have they don»- with my charges ? 
 In the first place in the recital of what 
 my charges ar.', they unfiiirly 
 
 Omit entirely Claii.se 10. 
 
 They do not even state on the face of 
 the document that I have made that 
 charge, but drop it out absolutely and 
 ; eatirely. What is that? Are they so 
 I afraid of that charge i Is it not one of 
 jreat imi)ortance i Why, Sir, they 
 know that I can prove that charge. The 
 Postmaster- (j'eneral must have; told the 
 Minister of J ustice that 1 could prove 
 that charge, and that is why he ignores 
 it absolutely, oven in the recital. I do 
 not consider that this is treating Parlia- 
 j ment fairly. I do not think it is making 
 j the parliamentary record fair, that record 
 that will be appealed to as a matter of 
 i precedent and law in future years. I 
 I was amused at the hon. member for 
 Centrd Toronto (Mr. Cockbiirn) with his 
 gravity, his wisdom and his i- tentorial! 
 voice. He began by siying that in ciiiiso 
 10, I Wiis going into the trial of twenty- 
 two elections ; then he got the number 
 up to sixty-six, and before he .sat down 
 ha got it up to eighty-one elections cast s 
 which I was going to try. Why, Sir, the 
 hon. gentle-nan cannot have read this 
 amendment at all, from the way he talk- 
 ed about it. If he has read this section 
 10 — and I would recommend lum to read 
 tt before he speaks again — -does he not 
 know that in clause 10, I propose to try 
 only the Postmaster-General ^ In that 
 charge I say : 
 
 "That the .said sums of money hcreiiil)cfore 
 mentioned in paragiaphs (i ami !(, as paid and 
 contributed for elections purposes, uercsoused, 
 together with other sums contribut.xl by pul)lic 
 contractors with the Dominion (jovernmuut, 
 
14 
 
 and were controlled and distributed by the 
 direct authority and with the knowledge 
 of the said Sir A. P. Caron, in lavish and 
 illegal amounts for the purpose of corruptly 
 influencing the electors, and in the general 
 elections of 1887 alone upwards of $100 000 of 
 moneys so contributed were so used for the 
 purpose of conniptly influencing the electors in 
 the following electoral districts." 
 
 Mr. COCKBURN. That is trying an 
 election. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR. The hon. genthman 
 said he was a simple layman. Well, he 
 is 
 
 A very HimpEe layman 
 
 if he says that is trying an election. As he 
 is a s mple layman, I will let him of!', and 
 will not try to get that into his head. 
 Well, what else have they done ? In 
 their reference to the royal commission, 
 they have aboslutely omitted clause 2 and 
 clause 4 which involve matters of great 
 importance and are as follows, 
 
 2. Arrangements were entered into by the 
 said Railway Company whereby the expendi- 
 ture of said BUDsidies was made oy a 
 Construction Company through or in con- 
 junction with one H. J. Beemer, a contractor — 
 and the said Beemer and those who assisted 
 him in financing for the said railway works, 
 received the benefit of the said subsidies. 
 
 4. That the said Sir A. F. Caron was during 
 the whole, or the greater part of the saia 
 period, on« of the members of the said Con- 
 struction Company, and thus had means of 
 knowledge of, and did know of the dealings 
 with the said subsidies and their destination 
 after they were paid over by tiie Tiovernment 
 to the said Railway Company. *' 
 
 For instance, the hon. member for 
 Centre Toronto told us just now that the 
 charge that the Postmaster-General was 
 a member of the construction company 
 which received subsidies was a very 
 important oue. Why, Sir, I know that 
 the hon. gentleman had not read the 
 charges, because both of these charges 
 have been struck out absolutely by the 
 Government. Every word relating to 
 the construction company in those two 
 charges has been struck out. 
 
 Mr. COCKBURN. Will the hon. 
 gentleman allow me to explain 1 I am 
 a layman, but the hon. gentleman will 
 perhaps understand that I was dealing 
 with his charges, the charges which I 
 have before me, and therefore I deal with 
 paragraph 10, and all the crudities in it, 
 and also with the other paragraphs. I 
 was not dealing xvith the matter which 
 was brought before us to-day by the 
 Government ; but I was dealing with the 
 charges which the hon. me'^flber for "West 
 Ontario brought up, and showing the 
 absurdity of them. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR. The hon. gentleman 
 evidently admits that he did not know 
 anything about the charges of the hon. 
 Minister of Militia. He was only deal- 
 ing with my charsres, and he thought it 
 important that the connection of the 
 Postmaster-General 'with the construction 
 company should be tried ; but I tell him 
 now that is not to be tried at all. It ia 
 
 Absolutely struck out 
 
 in the amendment. Let him reflect over 
 that, and see how ho will like it and how 
 his constituents will like it after his 
 speech. I would also draw his attention 
 to something else that perhaps he is not 
 aware of. There is a charge 5 in my 
 charges, and X hope he has considered 
 that there is something serious in that 
 charge. And what is that charge ] 
 
 "That during the said period and while the 
 said railway was being constructed in parts by 
 means of sai«l subsidies, the said Sir A. P. 
 Caron corruptly received large sums of money 
 out of the said subsidies and from moneys 
 raised upon the credit of the same, and from 
 parties beneficially interested in the same." 
 
 They have quietly 
 
 Left that out too 
 
 in their reference to the royal commission. 
 The words " from parties beneficially 
 interested in the same, " do not appear 
 in the new charges from beginning to 
 
15 
 
 end. What doe». the hon. member for 
 Centre Toronto think of that in his caliu 
 moments whdn he knows it for the first 
 time ? Then how do they treat the rest 
 of it ] They go on, and in their clauso 
 No. 3, which seems to be intended to 
 take the place of No. G, in my charge , 
 v.'hat do they do ? Just as I said a week 
 ogo they would. They charged that 
 these moneys were received from the said 
 railway companies, the Lake St. John 
 Railway Company, or from the construct- 
 ion company, 
 
 Neither of which was charged 
 
 in m)' charge, because I knew, as I ex- 
 plained a week ago, that that was not a 
 charge which could be sustained or proved. 
 So, of course, especially after I had explain- 
 ed that a week ago, they take great care to 
 make that the greatest and mosc import- 
 ant of their charges. I find that in the 
 latter part of that charge they speak 
 again of the receipts being from the said 
 companies or one of them. Well, I am 
 sure they will be able to prove that there 
 were no receipts from those companies or 
 one of them. Then another clause of 
 the amendment, clause 5, seems to 
 embrace clauses 7, 8 and part of 9 in my 
 charges. They also say here that these 
 payments were from the said companies 
 or made by the company and so on, until 
 we come to the final wind up of their 
 charge 10, to which I will draw the atten- 
 tion of the hon. member for Centre 
 Toronto. The wind up of the whole 
 charge is this: "That the said A. P. 
 Oaron, by virtue of the fact so alleged, 
 entered into a corrupt conspiracy" — with 
 whom, Mr. Speaker — "with 
 
 The said Companies, 
 
 or one or more of them." Why, of 
 course, that is the only charge for a 
 Minister of Justice, as the guardian end. 
 responsible trustee for the adrainisLtation 
 of justice, to put forward agairtat' his" 
 colleague. But he knows perfeotiy ^v(,'l>^ 
 
 when he makes'that charge, as everybody 
 in the Hou.se and the country knows, 
 that it is not a proper administration of 
 justice, but is tampering with justice on 
 behalf of his colleague. A.nd they sup- 
 nose T am going to be dragged before a 
 commission of their appointment to 
 sustain such a trifling charge as that. 
 No ; T would be lost to all respect as a 
 member of this House and a citizen of 
 Canada if I would do so. That is just 
 the position they want. I see the hon. 
 Minister of Railways pleasantly smiling. 
 He thinks it is a neater way of getting 
 out of a scrape than the way he got out 
 last session. They afl'ect a little anxiety 
 to investigate matters, and then get the 
 person who makes the charge to say that 
 he will not go on with it in the altered 
 shape in which they put it. It is very 
 clever, but 
 
 It is too thin 
 
 and the people will understand it. The 
 members of this House before very long 
 will understand it. I am glad to see the 
 hon. member for Centre I'oronto confer- 
 ring with the hon. members for Albert and 
 St. John, and 1 hope before the vote that 
 they v/ill find out how they have been 
 bamboozled, as the hon. member for 
 Assiniboia in his blatant and turgid 
 eloquence stated earlier in the day. The 
 Minister of Militia to-day, quoted a 
 precedent for this course of action, not 
 as to the reference to a commission, but 
 as to the charges and bringing the charges 
 properly in the House. They quote the 
 case of Mr, E. B. Wood, in the Ontario 
 Legislature in 1872. Now. Sir, that 
 case was one which I wish they had 
 followed here. I would not have found 
 the slightest fault if they had. I tried 
 to follow it myself, and I think I did 
 follow it in the amended form, as amended 
 by Mr. Blake. What was the original 
 cbarg&l.. 5yh.at was t.lje amendment? 
 Did ]VIi-. (•JA.n6ron;iial:Ga charge? No ; 
 he took no r^spotisihllibyas a member of 
 ithti HoMsc (j£ mcafki5ig»a' iHiarge, but he 
 
 ■ • • 
 
10 
 
 started a dlHtiact fishing expedition, 
 without making any. That is not what 
 I propose to do here, and it is not what 
 I would ever do, I hope. I take the 
 responsibility, whatever it may be. Mr. 
 Cameron moved that a Helect committee 
 be appointed to enciuiro whether any, and 
 it any, what corrui)t inducements hud 
 been offered Mr. E. B. Wood to leave 
 the Ministry. An amendment was nat- 
 urally proposed to that as follows : — 
 
 "That a incinber of thia House, having statud 
 in his place, that a corrupt iiuluconienL or offer 
 was made to E. B. Wood, it should be investi- 
 gated." 
 
 And chat is what I did, I stated it 
 in my place, and I got a motion brought 
 forward based on that, with a great deal 
 of dilRculty, and in the 
 
 Face of every objection 
 
 that could po88i})ly be thrown in the way 
 by the gentlemen on the Treasury benches. 
 Then what else did Mr. Blake propose to 
 amend in that ? Why, the charge was 
 this : 
 
 "That a committee he appointetl to cuijuire 
 whether the don. E. Tilaku or any other 
 member of the present Administration made 
 these corrupt offers." 
 
 Well, the amendment was to enquire 
 whether the Hon. E. Blake made these 
 corrupt offers. No other name was 
 mentioned, and, therefore, the other 
 members of the Administration were 
 struck out. Why, if I had made no 
 chargeH at all but simply moved for a 
 committee to enquire whether any im- 
 proper conduct had been indulged in or 
 not, and if I had got up and said that 
 Sir Adolphe Oaron or some other members 
 of the Administration had done so and 
 so, I would have been likely to be checked 
 
 and corrected as Mr. Cameron was, but I 
 did not say that. I 
 
 Took the responsibility 
 
 myself of making the charges, and T 
 named the Minister who, 1 claim, was 
 responsible ; and that is exactly what 
 Mr. Blake did, hy his amendment in the 
 case referred to. Even then, with such 
 a slight change as that, such a change as 
 to bring it in conformity with the plan I 
 have adopted, even .'n the face of that, 
 was there not a great deal of objection 
 made by Mr. Cameron? The leader of 
 the Conservative party said he must 
 oppose the amendment with his utmost 
 endeavour because it did not provide for 
 a full enquiry, and he charge 1 the mover 
 with being desirous to stifle enquiry. 1 
 am not going to detain the House any 
 longer. I have no doubt the discussion 
 may be continued a little further. This 
 question is so important that I am 
 surprised we do not hear from any 
 member on the Treasury benches. We 
 have not heard anything in defence of 
 the rather weak state suent, if he will 
 permit me to say so, of the Minister of 
 Militia, and we have heard nothing in 
 reply to the amendment moved by the 
 hon. member for South Oxford (Sir 
 Richard Cartwright). If the other side 
 are satisfied, I think we ought to bo 
 satisfied from a political point of view, 
 and I desii e to repeat in my place in the 
 House that, if I am given a committee 
 of this House, I am prepared t bsolutely 
 to . : t 
 
 Prove under Oath 
 
 every word that I alleged in that charge, 
 and, if the Ministers of the Crown take 
 the responsibility of refusing that, it is 
 not mv fault. 
 
 
 ■.*-.T,^^>^'f*' 
 
 ' -tV.'* ' ■^'i^^'^>''