IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

1.25

!fri:i IIIM

i? lis IIIIIM

1.4

1.8

1.6

PhotDgrapliic

Scieiices
Corporation

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4503

^9>

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagie

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Cou'«erture restaurie et/ou pellicul^e

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

Cartes gAographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur ti.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int6rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires 8uppl6mentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m^thode normale de filmuge
sont indiquis ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous.

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages dicolories, tachetdes ou piqu^es

I I Pages detached/

Pages ddtachdes

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Quality inigale de I'impression

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire

rW] Showthrough/

I I Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

s
T

h
d

e
bi
ri
r<
nn

I I Only edition available/

Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totaiement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 filmies A nouveau de fa9on A
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

aox

24X

28X

32X

§tails
8 du
lodifier
r una
\wnqe

Th« copy filmad h«r« has baan raproducad thanks
to tha ganarosity of:

Library Division

Provincial Archives of British Columbia

Tha ImaaM appaaring hara ara tha bast quality
possibia consldaring tha condition and iagibliity
of tha origlnai copy and in Icaaping with tha
filming contract spacifications.

Originai copias in printad papar covars ara fiimad
baginning with tha front ';ovar and anding on
tha last paga with a printad or iilustratad impras-
slon. or tha back covar whan appropriata. Aii
othar originai copias ara filmad baginning on tha
first paga with a printad or iilustratad impras-
sion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad
or iilustratad imprassion.

Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha
shall contain tha symbol —^ (maaning "CON-
TINUED"), or tha symbol V (maaning "END"),
whichavar applias.

Maps, platas, charts, ate. may ba filmad at
diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too iarga to ba
antiraly Includad in ona axposura ara filmad
baginning in tha uppar iaft hand corner, laft to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
raquirad. Tha following diagrams iilustrata tha
method:

L'axampiaira film* fut raprodult grAca i la
gAnArosit* da:

Library Division

Provincial Archivas of British Columbia

Las images aulvantas ont 4t« reproduites avac la
plus grand soln. compta tenu de la condition at
de la nattet* da I'exemplaire film*, et en
conformiti avac las conditions du contrat da
filmage.

Les exempiairas originaux doi.t la couverture en
papier est imprlmie sont filmAs en commen^ant
par la premier plat et en terminant solt par la
darniire paga qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration. soit par la second
plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exempiairas
originaux sont fiimis an commen^ant par la
premiere paga qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par
la darniire page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboies suivants apparaltra lur la
dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le
cas: la symboia — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", ie
symbols V signifie "FIN ".

Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
fiimAs A des taux de reduction diffirants.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul ciichA, il est fiimA A partir
de I'angia supArieur gauche, de gauche A drolte,
at de haut en bas, en prenant la nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
iiiustrent la mAthoda.

irrata
to

pelure.
n A

□

32X

(^yVazt/uvest
CoUectio/v

I A'W

97^

1?Z
G b'2 »s

SPEECH

Mr. GIROUARD, M.P.,

ON THE

EXECUnOJsT OF LOUIS RTEL.

HOUSK OF COMMONS, MARCH 2 4Tn, 1886.

Mr. GIROUARD. After this protracted debute and the
expression of the desire which han been made that the vote
should be taken thiw eveniijt]f, I do not intend to make a
long Kpcoch. 1 wi^h only to otier a few remarks lo explain
the vote I ara going to give against the Government. I
made up ray mind to cast that vote on the 13th of Novem-
ber last, when I joined with Hixteen friends and snpporte'H
of iho Goveinment in the Province of Quebec, m trana-
mitling to the hon. Premier the following telegram :—

" Uader the present circumstances the execution of Louis Riel will be
an act ufcrueltj, the responsibility of which we refuae to take."

Having bean elected as a Conservative, and a Conservative
in principle, 1 thought I couk' not come to that con-
clusion without conbulting my constituents. I did so at the
first opportunity, on the i5th of November, the day before
the execution. 1 told them that under the circumstances
there was no party tie strong enough to hold me in face of
the execution of Louis Kiel, and 1 offered them my seat.
The answer was not only their unanimous approbation of
the course I had taken, but the immediate tiansmission of
a telegram to the hon. Premier in Ottawa intorming him
that the course I had followed was unanimously approved
by my constituents. While voting against the Go- rn-
inont and thus obeying the express desire of my constitu-
ents, I do not intend to change my political opinions. I am
a believer in the National Policy and in the policy of the
Canadian Pacific Railway. To quiet the mind of the hon.
member for Lincoln (Mr. Rykert), I may even tell him that

I do not intend to take back one proposition of the six hours'
speech of last Session. Were I of the opinion that the Govern-
ment of the day wore primarily responsible for the rebellion
in the North-West, as the Liberals of the Province of Quebec
stated at meetings before the execution, I would blame the
Government, not only for having executed l\iol, but for not
having granted him a full pardon ; but I never held that
opinion. I never contended that Eiel was a hero ; I always
looked on him as a lunatic ; and I blame the Government
for not having ircattd him as snch. That is the reason
why 1 took part in the agitation in the Province of Quebec
— an agitation which was condemned the <">thor day in such
strong langnage by the hon. member for Kent, New Bruns-
wick (Mr. Laiidry), becaur^e he had no accurate idea of its
true character ami lordeiicy. Jf he had been at those meet-
inge, as 1 wah, although 1 was not at many of them, he would
be in a position to say before the llouheaud the country that
there weio never any meetings in the iJominion ol Canada
more orderly, more constitutional and more lo3'al. The hon.
membei for Kent has referred us to the example of the
good people of Acadia. Everybody knows that the poor
A^adians, from the time they were tJisperi^ed like slaves all
over this continent to a very recent period, if not to
the present time, had been a long-f^utfeiicg people.
The hon. gcnileman told us that these Acndians suf-
fered quietly the dispos^ebsilln of their land sifter seventy
years of jjo-scsnion. lie could also have told us that
to-day ihcy are sufl'ering in sile»»ce the closing of a
college— if I inistako not, the St. Loais t'olletre — because
the French languaije was taught in it. The Acadian ])eoplo
have been, and, no doubt, are yet very ])utient; but I am
veiy ncuch afraid that under thoc-e circnnistances their
patience is not a virtue but a necet^sity. I wiil tell the hon.
gentlen-an that whenever the rights of the French popula-
tion ol the Province of Quebec are atHiiilcd ; wherever iheir
nationality, their language, their religioi', their institutions
or their laws are attacked, he will find protests from the
Province of Quebec; he will find agitation and resistance
by all legal and con^tllutional means. We had an agitation,
one perhaps more important than that which has brought
about the present crisis, in the years 187^ and 1873. At
that time the members from the Province of Quebec had
the humiliation of standing alone. The hon. member
for Victoria, New Brunswick (fir. Costigan) asked
the censure of this House on the Government for not
having disallowed the New Brunswick school law.
The French, I may say the Catholic members from the
Province of Quebec, stood alone, except that they bad the

support of the hon. inoini ar for tho county of Ottawa
(Mr. Wright) ; but f Hay now, since tho spooch of the
loader of the Op|)ositiou and tho other Hpeeches deli-
vered by hon. gonilemon representing Kngliah constituen-
cies, I can no longer say that this crisis is one of race
or religion. In 1872, we were agitating for religious liberty
for the PVonch Acadians and the Catholic minority of
Now Brunswick. Today, as far as I, at least, ana concerned,
I am protesting on behalf of personal liberty; I am urging
the importance of showing respect for those laws which
have heen enacted in this country for the protection of
life. To-day the man who is the occasion of this debate
may be a poor, miserable lunatic, to-moirow ho may be
any other member of (he community. If 1 had boon
calleti upon to draft tho motion of the hon. mem-
ber t)r ^ontmagny (Mr. Landry), T would have worded
it ditt<Monti'y ; 1 would not have put the quo^tion whether
the >• iiionce of Louis Kiel whould have been allowed
to huvo been carried out ; but I would have asked the
House to conjure tho Government, not for having allowed
the sentence to be carried out, bat for having ordered the
execution. If Eiol had been convicted under the laws of
the Provinces, the question would have been properly
put as it is ; hut as he was convicted under the special con-
stitution of tho North- West, as he was convicted under
a law which stiys that no sentence of death -hall be
carried out unhss an order bo given by tho Executive.
1 say tho question is whether tho (Tovernment was
right or wrong in ordering tho execution of Louis Eiel.
The mode of administering criminal justice in the North-
West is very different from the ro.ode which prevails in tho
rest of tho Domitiion. In all tho Provinces tho presiding
judge is independ'jnt of the Crown, and has nothing to expect
from Lhe Crown ; the jury is composed of twelve members,
and if it is the wish of the accused ho may have, in the Pro-
vinces of Quebec and Manitoba, six of his own language or
nationality on tho jury. In all the old Provinces, there is
a regular mode provided by law of summoning jurors; but
what do we see in the North- West ? In the first place, tho
magistrate who iw called upon to preside is only a stipendiary
magistrate, and holds his office during the pleasure of the
Govi-rnment; in the second place, we have only six jurors;
in the third place, the accused is not entitled, as a mat-
ter of right, to a mixed jury ; and fourthly, the judge is
entrusted with the summoning of the jury. It is perfectly
evident that the trial which took place under these laws,
although a legal cne, was not a fair one, was not British, as
we understand the principles of British criminal justice

173525

But, Sir, tho conbtitution of the North-Went, Hpecial as it is,
has provided for certain guarantees again^-t a miscarriage
of justice. In the first place, there is an appeal given to
the Court of Appeals of Manitoba, an appeal which doos not
exist ill tho old Provinoen; in tho second place, there is a
final aj)p(al to the Executive. Section 76 ot iho North-West
Act ot 18S0 said :

" Whf n any person baa been convicted of a crtpitnl offence and is
sentenced to death, ibe Stipendinry Mflgistmte shall torwaid to the
Minister of Justice full iioiet* of the evidence, with his report upun the
case ; and the execution plirtll be postponed from tiriie to time by the
Stipendiary Magistrate, if lound necessary, until such report is received
and the pleasure of the Governor thereon is communicated to the Lieu-
tenant-Governor."

It is perfectl}'^ clear, therefore, that the review made by the
Executive of Louis Kiel's case, was a matter of right defined
by the C('nhtilution of the North- West The aci^used, wh >fl
brought before the liogina tribunal, only raised two issues:
the first one was the jurisdiction of tho court, and the
second tho plea of insanity. The Manitoba Court of
A]»pcals has pronounced upon both pleas and dismissed
them. Tho Privy Council diNposed only of the question
of jurif^diction, but their Lordships took very good care to
state that no argument had been off'eied on the plea of in-
sanity. Tho case being thus disposed of in the courts, it
then came, in the regular order of things, to tho Executive.
What was the duty ot ihe Excciilive ? I say that tho ver-
dict was wrong, if ihero wiis a doubt as to the just ce of
tho verdict, if there was a doubt that the verdict was
against the evidence, it was the duty of the Government
to commute the sentence. In tho examination of
tho case, the functions of tho Executive are judicial,
but after having arrived at tho decision that tho verdict
was wiong, then tho functions became administrative ;
that is to say, in finding out the means of preventing
a miscarriage of justice. The Executive, in examining the
case, is not a court of appeals in the sense that it can order
a new trial as can the court of Manitoba ; but in the sense
that the duty of the Executive is to examine every part of
the evidence, and see whether the verdict be correct or not.
This propositior, I contend, Mr. Speaker, is the necessary
consequence of the constitution of the North- West. If, as
laid down by the hon. the Minister of Justice the other
evening, the Government should not go beyond the verdict,
if the Government has no right to examine the evidence
and see whether the verdict is correct or not, then where
was the wisdom, where was the reason of the law which
says that all the notes of the evidence should be transmitted
to the Executive, and, more than that, that the e±eoutibn

cannot take place unless the good pleasure of the Govercor
General has been transmitted to the Lieutenant Governor r
But, even if the Government viewed this case as an
ordinary cane of clemency, even if the case had come from
the old Provinces, ray contention is that the (rovernment
were wrong in takinu^ the view that they had no ri^'ht to
examine the evidence and po beyond the verdict. What
is the practice of the Home Offife in those ca^eK ? Lord
Carnarvon said, before the Houise of Lords, in 18' 4 :

*' At present the prerogative of mercy was vested in the Crown, anil
administered tinder ih^ advice of the Hecretary of State. In the exercise
of that prerogative the Secrptary of State was called upon to pay regard
to the moral aspect of the case, as contrasted with the legal. He had
to deal with the ri preseniatioria made to him with '•aspect to undue in-
fluence having bt'-n allowed to particular facts -that some particular
facts had been withheld— that fresh evidence had been discovered, and
that, in short, there had been a failureot justice. As matters at presen t
stood, the Secretary of State was iu tUe paailioa of a court of criminal
appeal."

I know that some high authoritior^ have objected to the
wordu " (Jourt of Appeal " being used when npoaking of the
jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, because the Homo
Secretary can order no now trial; but it is admitted all
round, by all those who are more familiar with the matter,
that, if not in i.ume, the jurisdiction of the Homo Secretary
is virtually a c<mrt of review. Sir S. II. Walpole, seveml
times Secretary of State, and who Avas (pu tod by the Minister
of Justice, said before the Oapitiil Punishment Commission
that the practice of the Home OilU'o was :

"To examine the memorial which wis s^nt with ref-'rence to the
cage; to CDtisult the judge who ha I trit-d tht;> ra^e ; tu have a n^port
from the judge of the evidence ; to lay before the judge any new facts
or any facts which bad been brought tinier tn" nutice ot the Secretary
of State, and to reques^t from the julg'i a report >i^ to his opinion upon
that new evidence or upon the miiier. U,.ou all iht'S'>i uiateriaU being
brought before the Sf'Cretary if State, h' wa^ th'-n in a p-^siti >n, not in
the least degree to re-hear the ca«e, but simply toad vi.^e the Crown whether
there were any circumstHUces Avhirh wouli juHify the exercise of mercy,
either in an absolute or a qualified seuse — ihat is to say, either pardon or
commutation.

" Q. When you say that It is not th"^ practicp rf the Secretary of State
to re-hear a Crtse, does not the Secnnnry of .Siat- g.jintu the evidence ? —
A. Every atom of it. The Secretary HiS;;mes th;. r, the trial having been
conducted before a competent trihunitl {thi<t la a tr'bu'ial constitutfil
according to British principle), a right cotichHuui li^s been arrived at,
unless it can be pointed to him that there is arnu-Uiing upoa which that
tribunal has erred. But in the majorit}- of cases even that point does
not arise, because in the majority oil' casts the question submiited to the
Secretary of State is whether there are not certain circumstances which
have not been sufficiently brought before the jury which palliate the
matter considerably, and which ought to induce the Secretary of State
to recommend to the Crown an alteration or mitigation of the sentence.

" Q. And do you remember," continued the Commission to Sir S. H.
Walpole, "that yoa there authorised an intelligent person upon the

B{>ot to have tliP disianc'f3 mt'A^nrcil, to show whether th'^y were in con-
formity with ttie evidence which wiig impugned uitou that, f^routid ?" —
A. OertHinly I did.

Sir S. II. Walpolc continues biis ovidonco :

"Dr. Lushing^on. — Q. But sometimes it operates as a court ot ap-
peal ; lake ameihurbt'a caae ?--A. It muy operate as a court of ap-
peal.

" Dr. liushinf^ton.— Q. In a few ea'es where thf> question is one of
(?uilt or innocence, it must act as a court, of appeal ? — A. Vea ; aot
judicially, hut of necessity.

Q. It must advise the Crown whether the case is sufficiently ch'ar to
justify the .sentence beinp curried out?— A. Quite so. * * *

Mr. Neate — Q. in your experien-e is it not very unusual for the Home
Secretary to act at variance with the recoraniendatiou of the judf^e who
tried the case?— A. I do not think it is usual to do so in one sense, because
I really believe, frc tn my experience at the Home Office, that there is no
necessity to difl'-Tfrim the judfjft who tried the case. Now and then
there is such a necessity, and then the iSecretary of Stale does take
upon himself the respoiisibilly of differing.

Q. There is no settled rule* at the Home Office that you will not act
flt variance with the recommendation of the judge after you have put
the case before him ?— A. Certainly not.

" The Duke ot Richmond. — Q The judgment ( f the Secretary of
State is entirely unfettered ?— A. Absolutely unfettered."

Sir George Grey, who was Secretary of State at that time,
i«i 1864, was also examined before the same commission,
and he said :

"I see that there is an impression, from what is written upon this
matter, that the duty of the Secretary of State is to sit a.- a court of
review, and to re-try cases and set aside verdicts. The c«s'S ot that
kind are extremely few. There was Smethurst's case, whi. h was not
decided by me. There the facta of the trial were re-opened ; and one
case occurred certainly to myself, which was a case of medical evidence,
in which I had a great deal of communication with the jiidge. I did
not think it altogether satisfactory, and I think that the judge was of the
aame opinion."

Since 1864 the practice of the Homo Office has not become
more rigid. In fact, if we judge from the statement of Sir
William llarcouii, quoted by my friend the honorable
menihor for Eouvillo (Mr. Gigault) in his very al»le speech
to the House, it has become .-itill more liberal ufd indulgent,
following, no donb', the influence of the age, which is more
and more agaiuht capital punishment:

" In the practice of the Home Office, where the jury recomraeaded to
mercy the capital sentence was never executed. « • ♦ There
was the case of difficulty, however, where the jury recommended mercy
and the judge did not second the recommendation, and in that case it
remained tor the Secretary of State to torm his own judgment on the
subject."

Speaking of the jurisdiction of the Home Office, when hav-
ing to deal with a ca^o just like the ])re-ient one— a case of
insanity— Sir William iiarc uit .-^ay-s :

ap-
ap-

*' TliPfP wcro casf'S in hi; esperionco wlioro tln^f^vilenop of in'Hnity wai
not brouglit bfl'oro Uie judt^pand iIh- jury • • • ilin Si-rrt'tary ot State
had power to send mi^ilical ni«n of ejit>erience and exumirie into the
condition (^f the piiriO'ier, and whoii the-e incdiral nwn rcpoited, an
they had donf oc''a?i(iiially, thai Ih^'y did not ifijani the jn-isoiier as
rfSponaible tor his aftior s, either at. ih^ time of the cunimi-sion ('< the
otfeuce or suhdcqueully, th« capital seuteuce wad not carried out.''

And Sir R AsHbotoii Cro!.H, alno owvo, a Sirrotary of Stale,
Raid (in tho saiiuww'C'ibion, whilo diM-ussifii;, in 1881, tho
Capital Puriir^liinoiit Abolition Bill:

•' The right lion and h-arned pentleman (Sir Wm H<ircourl), in his
(Sir H. Assheton OrD^rf'd) <ipiiiii)ti. most correctly stated what were the
true functions of a Secretary of State in this niatler."

Such were the dutien of the (rovorrment tin ler theCjtnadian
Statute coiicornini^ the Nnrlh-Wost, or at romm<.ii law, as
difipennatorrt ofthe ptei'OLfiitivo of mcircy. Have they com-
plied with those tribulations? The tirst mistaUo 1 iiutico is
the miHapproben^ion they have inade of their duty. I was
PurpritJed yesterday to hear it stated by the hon. Minister of
Justice, who is certainly an able lawyer, that in dealinir with
this Cttse tho Government had no power to tjo beyond the
verdict. Then what was tho ^ood of that Canadiar Statute
whi( h says that tho execution of a man sentoriccd to death
shiill not take place without an order of the Kxetutive ?
Then, Mr. Speaker, what is the meaning of all
tho rule^ laid down by the Home Oitice. which
say that the Crown shall examine into a case like this,
regarding the insanity of the prieoner, either at the time of
the commission of the otl'ence or subsequently ? It is
the duty of the Executive to examine every particle
of the evidence, to weigh it, and even to afford a chance
to bring fresh evidence in order that there may be
no mibcarriage of justice. 1 blame tho Government
for not having complied with these rules. I biame the
Government, in the first place, for having no report from
the judge. I have read all the proceedings in this ease, and
have looked in vain for a report of the judge to see \7hether
he was in a position to agree with the jury, in order that
mercy might have been exercised by the Government ; and
I am surprised the (Tovernment has ordered the execution
of tho man without asking whether the judge who presided
&t the trial agreed with the jury. 1 blame tho (TOvernment
for having ordered the execution of Louis Kiel because
fresh evidence was adduced, the evidence of the three
medical men, after sentence had been pronounced, and
had not been referred to Judge Richardson for his report
thereon, contrary to the practice prevailing in the Home
Office in England. It was the duty of the Government
to ask tho opinion of Judge Richardson upon the value

of this frosh evidence, to eeo whether, in view
of it, he was in a poHition to recommend the prisoner
to mercy. Mr. Speaker, wo find another ground for clemency
in the undue influence which was allowed to prevail during
the trial in some particular facts. All the witnosfleH who were
examined on the part of the Crown, or a grent many of them,
attributed the insnnity plea to a purpose. They stated that
Eiel was not really insane, but that ho was teigning and
simulating insanity for the purpose of succeeding in his
rebellion. This opinion, which was expressed by so many
witnesses, was due to the great intluenco which prevailed in
that portion of the conimy against Louis Kiel ; the witnesses
had no reason to suppose tha^ the insanity plea was only put
up by coun.-cl, and th;it the prisoner was feigning insanity
for a pur|.(isv. When wo consider that this trial took place
under mililarj^ guaid, to protect the prisoner against public
indignation, wo can eusily imagine the great undue influence
that was allowed to prevail against tho accused; when
we examine tho petitions which were sent to tho
Governmeiit ut-king for tho execution of Louis Kiel, we
are surprised to see that not a single petition came from
the whole Dominion except from Kegina, where the man
was being tried and convicted, and another from Moosomin,
a short distance a'vay — all cominL' from tho very district
whence the jurors wore taken, where the judge was sit-
ting, and where, within a short distance from tho place,
even the judges in appeal were sitting. I also blame the
Goveniinent for not having exercised cletnoncy, because tao
judge refused to allow some particular facts to bo
proved. 1 do not agree with the loader of tho 0))po.-ition
that ibo State papers which wero asked for had no
bearing upon tho car-e, because they could not justify
rebellion. I do not pretend ihat these pa]KM's would justify
rebellion; 1 know they would not justify i-ebL-llion, but at
the same time I think they mi^ht have gone a long way
with the court in mitigating tho set. fence, if not in altering
it. i blame tho Ciovei nment for tho execution, because
they were aware that important witne>ses could bo sum-
moned, but that they did not summon them. Tho name of
Dr. Howaid has been mentioned during this debate. I am
sorry, indeed, that the hon. member for Montreal Centre
(Mr, Curran), sitting here, a** ho does, as a judge, went to a
man, whom he con^idered to bean important witness, and
asked him his opinion on the case. He knows very well
that is not the way cases aie coudu«'ted by judges, or even
by lawyers. I would have been very glad indeed if tho
Government, in issuing the medical commission, had given
instructions to examine Dr. Howard, to have him cross-ex-

well

amined, and alno to examine Dr. Valleo, of the Boau>
port Lunatic Ahylutn, who had Louis Kiel under hiH trer*-
ment for two yearn, and who was unable to attend the
tri/'l becauBe he was Hick at the time. Sir, 1 blame the
Government for not having hoard those witnossos who wore
Hpoeialiy aware of the facts concerning the plea of insanity.
There has been a diversity of opinion exprossod on the
floor of this House as to the value of the evidence adduced
during the trial concerning the mental condition of the
prisoner. I do not intend wearyin^' the House by making
quotations from that ovidonco. Kvory portion of it has
already been quoted, pro and con, and is familiar
to all the members. But, Mr. Speaker, the way I road
the ovidonce I am convinced that the verdict was against
that ovidonco, so far as the plea of insanity was conoornod.
It is bald thai the Court of Appeals in Manitoba was more
compotoni to express an opinion as to whether that verdict
was well founded or not tha; ' * this House. It i",evcn naid
we havo no jurisdiction in the Matter; but I boliovo [ have
disposed of the latter point, +hi.t it is our duly to examine
whether the verdict was suj'ported by tlie evidence.
Let us see whether there is any expression of opinion,
either from the Jury, the judge, or from the Court
of Appeals of Munitoba, or from the i^rivy Council
in England, so far ms the plea of insanity is coucorned. IL
is true tho jury brought in a verdict of guilty ; it is true we
should take that verdict as it is — that it means that Riel
was not so insane as lo e(^c:t))e conviction. But the jury
undoubtedly consi lered the question of irisanity when ihey
recommended him lo n.oicy. Are wo to bo told that the
jury really meint notiiiiig by it ? What were the ])lea8 of
the defence f Thoj' were: tirst, want of jurisdiction by the
court; and second, the ]<loa of insanity. 1 do not agree
with the leader of the Opposition that a juror should
explain the inlo'ilions ot the jury. That is not
the way a vor.lict should be attacked. 1 am more
inclined to believe thut the recommendation of the
jury to mercy w;is based on vvli li was before the
court. What was bet'ore "ho court? Were the grievances
of the half-breods brought to the notice of the
jurors ? Not at all. Evidence oti tuat point was not allow-
ed by the judije. The i)nly point bi ought to the notice of
the jury was the plea of ins-anity, and whatever msiy have
been the views of that particular juror who wrote to the
leader of the Opposition, my conviction is that the recom-
mendation to mercy can havo no other legal meaning ex-
cept that the jury had doubts as to the sanity of Riel, not
strong enough to acquit him, but strong enough to cause

them to rccomnnerid him to merry atid wavo him from the
gallows. What has been the posiLioti of Jud^^e Richardson?
Wo know Iho fteiirg of the jury, that it was a feeling of
mor<'y. Did the jud^'O refuse to agree with the jury ? I
have already mentioned that the Goverrmont did not even
tioublo thempelvcH by anking his opinion. The Statute says
lie phall forward the evidence with a report thereon. There
isnoBuch report. The practice of tlie Home OflSce of
England is that the judge shall be consulted upon the evi-
dence. He should have boen consulted in this case as to
whether he agreed with the ponition of the jury in their
recommendation to mercy. Ilo was not consulted, and it
cannot be said to-day that the j'ldge was against the opin-
ion of the jury. I will not say anything as to the
Privy Council because they were not called on to
examine this question — was the Court of Appeals in
Manitoba called upon to give a decision as to the
propriety of exercising mercy ? That court was called
on to express an opinion as to whether a correct verdict
had been found ; but certainly they never expressed any
opinion that there was not sufficient ground ior the Gov-
ernment to exercise the prerogative of clemency. I hope
the Hou-Jo will pardon me if I offer one or two more remarks
upon thi- plea of insanity, which 1 believe is the great
question in the case, in fact it is the only point at issue, so
far as lam concerned. Was Kiel really insane? As I
have said, I do not intend to trouble the House by reading
extracts from the evidence; but 1 find in that evidence an
important fact, which is most important in helping us to
decide the case. I find the fact establithed beyond doubt
that Kiel was confined in a lunatic asylum in the Province
of Quebec by order of the Quebec Government. That he
was insane at one time, there is no doubt ; he was suffering
from monomania on religion and politics. This fact is
established beyond a shadow of doubt. He was in the
Beauport Lunatic Asylum for nearly nineteen months, and
was there when no reason existed for simulating insanity.
What could he expect to gain by making such a pretension ?
He could have lived in liberty if he were sane. I am going
to read from medical as well as legal authorities bearing on
this case. Dr. Winslow says :

** In cases of murder, when insanity is urged as an extenuating plea,
it is necessary to enc|uire whether the person has on any previous
period of his life manifested any signs of mental derangement. If Buch
be the fact, it ought to constitute a,prim& facie case in his favor."

Taylor on Evidence, vol. 1, p. 204, says :

" If any derangement or imbecility is proved or admitted at any par-
ticular period, it h pie&umea tu continue, till disproved."

Best

the ft

Bost on Evidence, ]). 372, ed. 1883, nays :

" Although the law in peneral presumes ngfi'u st insanity, y^'t where
the fact of insanity has beeu shown, its continuauce will be presumed."

Let me quote specially fiom a recent authority. In the
case of Close vs. l-'ickson ei al, Superior Court ot Montreal,
1872, Mr. JuHtice Johnson said :

"The law generally presumes all persons to be sane, and that pre-
sumption only disappears u])Ou conclusive proof to the contrary; but
when a person is once plainly jjroved to be insane, as this man was, the
existence of a lucid interval require a the most conclusive testimony to
establish it. * * * i have followed the rule laid down in
Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence and also in Wharton and Stille's work:
'Testimony to establisb lucid intervals or partial or general insanity
rou3t possess iwo characteristics— first, it should come from persons of
general capacity, skill and experience in vpgard to those subjects in all
its bearings and relations ; second, it should come as far as practicable
from those persons who have had extensive opportunities to observe the
conduct, hftbita and mental peculiarities of the person whose capacity is
brought in question, extending over a eonsiderable period of time, and
reaching back to a period anterior to the date ot the malady.' "

Then what becomes of the proposition laid down by the
Government, that the onus of proof fell upon the prisoner?
This fact being established beyond doubt, that Kiel was a
lunatic at one time, the onus of proof fell upon the Crown,
and I say the presumption of insanity has not been rebutted
by the evidence produced in the case. We have, on the con-
trary, sufficient corroboration of that presumption, at least
80 far as the state of his mind is concerned, as to leave no
doubt that the verdict was rendered against the evidence.
I refer especially to the evidence of Father Andre, Garnot,
Father Fourmond, l)rs. Roy and Clark. Where i9
the evidence of the Crown to destroy that presump-
tion ? Dr. Wallace is, no doubt, an able man, and
a> man in a position to judge of a ca-^e like this,
but he is forced to admit that he had not the necessary
time to give it justice. We have aUo the evidence of Dr.
Jukes, who became acquainted with the accused only after
the rebellion was over — after the excitement which brought
his partial mania into operation was over. More than that,
we have the admission by Dr. Jukes, that he is not a com-
petent man. W^hat does the rest of the evidence for the
Crown coLsist of? We have the te>timony of ( ^apt. Young,
Rov. Mr. Pitblado, Capt. Deane and Cap . Figoit. Many ot
those men never had any conversation with Kiel, as far as
those particular subjects are concerned, on which his mind
was diseased, and theie is a remarkable fact that all these
witnesses never had any acquaintance witn Riel before the
rebellion was over. J think the('rowti must have been
very hard piessed to jirovc the sauily of Kiel when they
felt forced to examine General Miadloton, Could they

173525

expect that General Middleton, just coming from a victory,
was going to say that he had been fighting a ijo\ ? Cer-
tainly not ; he was not going to hurt his own reputation in
that way. You may judge of the character of the evidence
by the additional fact that Captain Young and another
captain iu the army that went to fight Riel and his follow-
ers, were among the witnesses. By this you may judge of
the character of the evidence that the Crown brought for-
ward in order to destroy the legal presumption that when
a man is once a lunatic, once crazy, once a maniac, he is
always a lunatic, always crazy, always a maniac, in the
oyes of the law. Under these circumstances, I consider it
was the duty of the Government to appoint a medical com-
mission. This duty was so clear — I am not going to refer
to private conversations — that we were led to understand by
members of the Cabinet themselves that a medical commis-
sion would bo appointed, and, in fact, the promise was made
publicly and reported in all the ministerial organs in
our Province. Under the circumstances, the least wo
could expect in view of — to u. e a very mild expression —
the doubts which the evidence left on the public mind, as
regards Riel's mental state, in face of the numerous pre-
cedents in England, it was the cuty of the Government to
appoint not a lew medical men to examine the mental state
of Kiel since the sentence had been passed according to the
rules stated by Blackstone, but to examine his state of mind
in accordance with the praciico of the Home Office. Black-
stone, quoted by the Minister of Justice the other evening,
did not mention a case where the Executive of the day had
to consider whether there had been a miscarriage of justice,
where the insanity of the prisoner before the sentence is at
stake, but several Homo Secretaries of State have provided
for tbat case, and thoy contjide'" it to bo their duty
in such 3a«o to appoint modical men of experience to
examine the mental »iate of the prisoner not only since
the sentence, but also at the time of the commission
of the olfonce. The Government wan strengthened in that
position, not only as a sense of duty, but also by the numer-
ous pt'titious which had been sent from the Province of
Quebec and other parts of the Dominion asking for a medi-
cal commission. Sir, that commission was never appointed ;
and I blame the Government for not having done so, for
not having fultilled the promises publicly made that one
would be appointed. What did they appoint instead ?
They appointed three medical men to ascertain the mental
state of Louis Riel since the sentence. The jurisdiction of
these men should have been larger; and, defective as these
men were as far us their competency is concerned, they

I victory,
)1? Cer-
itation in
evidence
another
is folio w-
jad^e of
ught for-
at when
ac, he is
I, in the
insider it
ical corn-
to refer
stand by
commis-
as made
•gana in
east wo
ession —
nind, as
'Oils pre-
ment to
tal slate
g to the
of mind
Black-
»voning,
day had
justice,
CO is at
rovided
duty
a nee to
y since
Tiission
in that
numer-
nce of
raedi-
3inted ;
so, for
at one
stead ?
mental
ion of
these
they

should not have been limited to an examination of the
mental state ot Louis Kiel only since the sentence was pro-
nounced. The first objection I have to the appointment of
these men was. that they were servants of the Government.
I feel certain that if these men had been independent of the
Government, caring more for their reputation as practi-
tioners than as servants of the Government, the original
telegrams which have disappeared would never have dis-
appeared. I also object that some members of that com-
mission at least were incompetent. Dr. Luveil may have had
some experience, but there is not a shadow of doubt — it was
never pretended that Drs, Jukes and Vulude had any. I
also complain that this so-called corami^^sion — because they
are not properly called a commission — were not allowed
sufficient titiie to enable them to })ronounco an 0])inion on
the case. The eminent phyi^ician, E.>quirol, says:

•' There are aome insane persons so reasonable that it is necessary to
live with them and to follow them in every action of their lite before
pronouncing them mad.' '

Dr. Hood says :

" Ho^i' impossible then is it for casual visitors in passing throiigh the
wards of a lunatic asylum, to form a correct judgment of the real
mental state of any of the inmates around them.'

Beck, in his Medical Jurisprudence, says :

" It is his (physician's) duty, and should be hia privilege, to spend
several days iu the examinatiun of a lunatic before he pronouii'ies a de-
cided opinion. If thi8 be allowed to him, and also if he be enabled to
obtain a complete history of the antecedent circumstances, much may
be effected towards forming a correct opinion."

This is also the opinion of Mr. Justice Johnson in the case
that I have alluded to, and I believe that no authority
can be quoted in t?upport of the contrary view. Take, for
instance, the celebrated case of John Trith, decided in 1790.
He was charged with atterapling an assault on His Majesty
the King. His friends pretended that he was insane.
He was brought before all the Ministers of iState, and was
examined and cross-examined by the Attorney-General.
There were so many doubts as to his mental state that he
was sent to Newgate, and there remained under the imme-
diate surveillance of two eminent medical men — not for two
or three days, ncl for one month or several months, but for
two years, and it was only at the end of those two yearn
that those eminent medical men were able to come before a
court of justice where the man was tried for high treason,
and to swear that, knowing the habits of the man
so well as they did from such long observation, they had no
doubt he was insane, and the result was he was acquitted
of the crime and sent to a place of confinement. That is the
way that the laws relating to personal liberty and the pro*

tection of life are undeirttood io tho old country.
Is it only on this conlinont of America, in this Dominion
of Canada, where our iii>titutionH are aupposod to be model-
led after the institutioni- of the Mother Country, that we may
see the example of a man alleged by his friends to be insane,
having his fate decided in a very few days — in iact, in a
very few hours — and being sent to the gallows ? In this
Parliament, wheio there is a good deal of legal talent and
as much impartial it" as you will find in any court, we find
the opinion freely expressed by hon, gentlemen of different
races and religions, that that man was insane. Sir,
it is a dip^rnce to this Government and to this country
that an injustice of that kind could be oven suspected.
AnoiluT objection I have with regard to the appoint-
ment » i' iboBo medical men, is, that their appointment and
all then- ])roceediiig8 were kept secret. The reason given
is that It was the only way to arrive at the truth,
as Kiel would bo more clever th^n the doctors, and might
make titcm find him insane although ho would be sane. This
contention is altogether unfounded. Dr. Wiuslow — and his
remarks apply to the witnesses who contended that Kiel's
insanit}' was simulated — says :

"Is the ins \nity simulated? Persons conversant witli the peculiari-
ties of disonleretl minds, who have been in the habit ol observing the
manner of the insane, will have but liitle dilHcultj in detecting real
from feigned derangement. Georget maintains that it is impossible for
a person v. ho has not made ihe insane a subject of study, to simulate
madness ^o as to deceive a physician well acquainted with the disease."

Now, ti.e proceeding of the medical commission is contrary
to the « vperience ot our laws. A year or two ago we had u
celebr-i! cd case of insanity in Montreal. I refer to the case of
Mrs. Lynam. Tho judge, alter having examined many wit-
nesses, had doubls as to whether she was sane or insane, and
he referred the ca.«e to a man of experience, Dr. Vallee, one
of tho superintendents of the Beauport Lunatic Asylum.
How did Dr. Yallee proceed ? Wiinesbes were heard ; he ex-
amined tho evidence that had been adduced ; counsel, I
believe, were also heard ; the proceedings were open, be-
cause, as Dr. Winslow and all the great medical authorities
say, it is impossible for a man to deceive experi . td
medical men in this matter ; and on a certain day Dr.
Valle) came before the court with his report, which was
immediately read. It was not kept back for some weeks
by the parties interested, but it was at once opened and
delivereu to the public in order that the public mind might
be satisfied whether justice had been done in the case
or not. What did we see in the case of jRiel 1
Not only the proceedings of the medical men
were kept secret, but even the report of

■4

■n

country.

Dominion

be model-
lat we may

be insane,

iact, in a
1? In this

talent and
irt, we tin d
of different
atie. Sir,
is country

BU8j)ccted.
e appoint-
itmont and
ason given
the truth,
and mi^ht

fiune. This
w — and his

that Kiel's

the ppculiari-
jbiserving the
electing real
mpossible for
, to Bimulate
the disease."

is contrary
) we had a
the cajte of
many wit-
insane, and
^^allee, one
G Asylum,
ird ; he ex-
counsel, I
open, bo-
auihorities
xperi . ed
in day Dr.
\7hich was
)rae weeks
)ened and
liod might
the case
of fliel?
leal men
eport of

man was suffering
matter complained
mania or not, ho
two extreme opin-

that so-called commission was kept secret for a long time
aftei by the Government. If the report of the medical men
had been in favor of the Government, as is contended
to-day, why wan it not delivered to the public, in order that
the public might be satisfied that justice had been done in
this case ? I cannot conclude my remarks without otfering
my view of what is insanity. There is a great deal of
diversity of opinion, it is f.aid, on this subject between
lawyers and doctors. A long time ago Lord Mansfield, in
the colebralod Bollingham case, laid down the law to be
that, no matter how a man may be suffering under delu-
sion, he should not escape responsibility unless it could be
proved that he could not tell the difference botwoon
right and wrong. The doctors went just as far in the
other direction. They hold that if a
under mania, no matter whether the
of had iv.y connection with the
was not responsible. Bolweeu those

ions public opinion accepted the principle that a man suf-
fering from a ditseai^e knowu as monomania, or is deluded
on one or two subjects, is not guilty, if any connection
can bo shown between the crime complained of and the
mania under which ho suffers. It will not, porhaps, bo
uninteresting to show how far the medical profession goes
in this respect. 1 will simjjly read a resolution unani-
mctusly ado})tod at a meeting of the Association of Medical
Officers of Asylums for the insane in the your 1865. It was
as follows : —

" That so Dnjch of I lie legal test of the mental condition of an allepod
criminal lunatic has rendered him a resp )nsible agent bacause he knows
the dilference between right and wrong, is inconsistent with the facu
well known to every member of lliis meeting, thit the power of <lis-
tioguishing between right and wrong exists fre juenily among those
■who are undoul>tedly insane, and is often associated with da igers and
uncontrollable delusion."

Tho case of MacNaghten, which was the occasion of the
expression of opinion from tho English judges in 1843, will
not support the contention of this Government that it is
sufficient for the criminal to know the ditierence between
right and wrong. Their Lordships, alth^mgh giving no
opinion upon any case before them, but upon abstract ques-
tions of law, always a dangerous thing to do, stated that a
man suffering from monomania to be held irresponsible,
must not know the nature of his act, or if he
does, must not know that that act is wrong. Such
was the opinion of the English judges in the Mac-
Naghten case, but even their opinion in that case has not
been considered as settling the question in bJogland. Chief
Justice Cockburn, in a letter, sent in the year 187^, on the
Criminal Code (Indictable Offencea) Bill, said :

"The language of the judges ia the House of Lords has no doubt
been repeated ua of general application, but erroneously. Their
answers bad reference to the specific questions put them by the
House."

And immediately afLer, he goes on to say :

" The point has not come under judicial decision ia a case •which
really raised the question."

This was Kaid in 1879 The answers given by two learned
Judges of the Exchequer C'ourt in England, before the
Capital Punishment Commission, in 18b'4, shows that really
the lawyers and doctors are not so very far apart on this
quoHtion of insanity. Lord Cranworth, a long time Eaion
of the Exchequer Court, answered :

" Is there not a variation between the medical opinions and the legal
definitions upon the subject ? I am not able to answer that question;
very likely it is so."

Take the opinion of Baron Bramwell, another Biron of the
Excheque' C^urt, on iho same question, which is to be
found on pages 23 and 24 of the report of that commission :

"Mr Neate. — I observe that in your last letter to the commissioners,
as thp result of your experience, you use these words : ' Six prisoners in
six cases were acquitted on the ground of msanity, and rightly. 1 do not
mean that the prisoners were insane as the law requires.' 1 observe that
you say that they were rightly acquitted, although they hardly came
within the limns of legal insanity. Have you alterations to suggest in
the legal definition of insanity ? — A. No ; 1 think that the legal defini-
tion is perfectly right.

" Q. But you say that they were ri .htly acquitted, although their
insinity wns not to the extent which the law requires? — A. I will
explain that obdervation, wiiich is, no doubi, an apparent contradiction.
What I mean if, that according to the practice of juries, which has met
with the sanction of judges, or which has been without any reprobation
from the judges, and which is in accordance with public feeling, these
prisoners were rightly acquitted."

So much for the doctrine of iuvsanity, and I believe that the

law upon that point was rightly laid down by Lord Erskine

as early as the trial of James Hadfiold for firing at (jroorge

the Third. He said:

'• To deliver a lunatic from responsibility to criminal justice, the rela-
tion between the disease and the act should be apoarent. When the
connection is doubtful, the judgment should certainly be most indulgent,
from the great difficulty of diving into the secret sources of a disordered
mind."

This is what the Government should have done, and what

they huvo nut done, lor there is a doubt, and there is more

than u d'>ubt — there is, in my mind, ample proof — that this

man waet insane; but if some hon. members are not willing to

go iijat far, I claim there is more than a legitimate doubt in

their minds that the man was insane, and tfie proposition of

Lord Erskine, as to the difficulty of diving into the secret

fiources of a disordered mind, should be acted upon. I will

not trouble the House with citing more authorities.

Aq hoD. MEMBER. Hear, hear.

10 doubt

. Their

by the

e which

learned
"ore the
t really
Da this
e Baion

the legal
[iuestion ;

Q of the
is to be
nisdion :

liaaicnerSi
igonera iu
. 1 do not
serve that
:dly came
suggest in
al defini-

gh their
I will
radiclion.
has met
probaiioa
mg, these

hat the
ji skioe
George

the rela-

Vhea the

ndulgent,

isordered

nd what
is more
that this
illing to
doubtin
sition of
le secret
n. I will

Mr. GIEOUATID. I hoar an hon. gentleman ^ay
" hear, hear." I think he deserves to be afflicted with u six
hotiPrt* speech, but I have too much consideration for the rest
of the House, though I may not have much for him, to in-
dulge in a speech ol that length. I am not going to trouble
the House with reading the repor: of the medical men,
Dr. Ijavoll, Dr. Valade and Dr. Jukes. In ray mind their
conclusions are that this man wan insane. Drs. Lavoll :ind
Valade said he was suffering from monomania on religion
and politics. Does it require long comment to show Uiere
was connection between the rebellion and the mono-
mania on politics and religion. I look upon another Dor-
tion of the conclusion of those gentlemen as more sophistry,
namely, that with the exception of the^se two points, mono
monia on religion and politics, this man knew the ditfer-
ence between right and wiong. It is not within the pro-
vince of medical men to testify to that tact. Their pro-
vince is only to state the fuiture of the disease under which
the man wa?* suffering, atd let the jurors, court or Govern-
moni draw from that statement whether thepiisonor ki-ew
the diflference between right and wrong. Dr. Haslam, on
that point, says:

'* It is not the province of the medical witness to pronounce
an opinion as to the prisoner's capability of distinguishing right
from wrong. It ia the duty of the medi' d man, when called upon to
give evidence ia a court of law, to state whether he considers insanity
to be present in any given case, not to acertain the quantity of reason
the person imputed to be insane, may or may not possess. • * * It
is suflBcient," continues Dr. Haslam, "for the medical practitioner to
know that the person's mind ia deranged, and that such a state of in-
sanity will be sufficient to account foi the irregularity of his actions."

I Will conclude these remarks, in order to give more Lime
to other hon. gentlemen who wish to explain their position.
I heaid, (he other day, the Minister of the Interior say
that it was a matter of very little importance whether
petitions were sent from the country or not to the Govern-
ment, on the question of the proper exercise of the preroga-
tive «^f aiercy. I was never so much surprised as to hear
that the Government are not in duty bound to consider such
petitions • In most cases they are the only mode that
can be adopted to show the Government what public feel-
ing is on a particular case, in order to induce the Govern-
ment to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Was the public
feeling which prevailed throughout the whole Dominion
with regard to the fate of this unfortunate man in favor of
his execution? It was thought at one time that strong
influence was brought from an influential body of men ask-
ing for Kiel's blood. When the papers were brought down,
we found only three petitions from the whole Dominion call-
ing for his execution: one from the Orangemen of the

wostorn district of Toronto, and two from the citizens of the
Dominion living in Eeginaand MooHomin. No one else asked
f r tho life of this man; but, on the other hand, we find, at
the luHt pa<^«'of the report, that there were 75 to 100 petitions
asking that his life should be spared, if he were not alto-
golhor puidoned. As far as I am concerned, my con-
siituonts sent petitions to the Government, not asking for
pardon, because, like myself, they were not in lavor
oi giving liberty to this dangerous lunatic, but asking
lor commutation. Where was the clamor asking
that this man should be executed ? It is not to
be found anywhere, except, perhaps, in the arti-
cles of the Globe and the Grits ot Ontario, but since when
has it happened that the Government of this country are to
be dictated to by the Globe and the Grits of Ontario ? Why
did they not take public opinion as represented by the Mail
and by their own friends.and by the Conservatives of Quebec,
uti well as the Liberals of that Province? Why did they
take the view of the Grit party ? I cannot understand it.
1 say ihat, in view of the exhibition of public opinion
to-day in this House, when wo see that an important
portion, the Grit party at least, has changed its
mind, when we see that tho Globe shows that it was not
serious m making representations asking for the blood
of that man, it is perfectly clear that the whole
public opinion of the Dominion was in favor of the
commutation of that sentence, and I blame the Govern-
ment for" not having understood that public opinion.
Now, before taking my seat, I wish to refer to a
statement made at the opening of the Session by the right
hon. the Premier of this Dominion. He stated that, when
he was banquetted by the St. George's Club in London, he
was forced to testify in favor of the loyalty of the French
Canadians. I am sure that more than one of us last
December was surprised to see that the Premier was placed
in that inexplicable position. As to a man having a
language different from the language of the English people,
having a religion different from the majority of the English
people, having a veneration for institutions which may not
be the institutions of Great Britain — are the people of Eng-
land not aware that such a man can be a loyal man ? Look
at France ; look at Alsace and Lorraine — German Lorraine ;
has France ever found within its dominions men more
loyal, although they were Germans, although they spoke
the German language, and although most of them professed
a religion different from that of the French people, than
the inhabitants of those Provinces ? Look at Great Britain
herself, look at the French population of the
Islands of the British Channel ; are they not faith-

ki^

DB of the
Ibo asked

find, at
petitions
not alto-
my con-
king for
in lavor
asking
asking

not to
le arti-
ice when
ry are to
? Why
the Mail
'Quebec,
did they
[•stand it.

opinion
mportant
iged its
; was not
he blood
e whole
r of the

Govern-

opinion.
er to a
he right
I at, when
adon, he
t French

us last
as placed
tiaving a
h people,
) English
may not
e of Eng-
n ? Look
jorraine ;
en more
3y spoke
professed
pie, than
kt Britain
of the
lot faith-

ful to their language ? Do they not love their
language, their laws, and their institutions; and has
Great Britain any more loyal subjects than the French
inhabitants of those islands ? Taking the Scotch, the
Irish, and the English people, do we not see different nation-
alities and sometimes different local laws ; and who can
pretend that those different nationalities are not devoted
to the British Empire and to the British Crown ? Are
we going to be told that, in England, they do not
know the history of the French Canadians ? That
might be said, perhaps, somewhere on the continent,
but it cannot be said in Groat Britain. They know
there as well as we know in this country that in
ITTG the French Canadians of that day had to fight
General Lafayette and oflScers under him who had been in
the Canadian army a few years before. These French
Canadians fought for the glorious British flag, which was
then deserted by many of England's own sons. Look at
1812 Was i* not a French Canadian — Colonel DeSalaberry
— and his throe hundred braves who repulsed the invasion
of the Americans at Chateauguay ? Look even
at IBS'?, which^ perhaps, will be quoted to us
as a sample of disloyalty. We were not then disloyal to
the Crown or to the British Empire. It was only
an uprising for the redress of grievances and against
a tyrannical Canadian Government. We wore then
fighting for tho privileges of responsible government, and
without that fighting I doubt very much whether the pri-
vileges of responsible government would have been given
so soon to the Canadian people. Look, later on, to the year
1865 or 1866, when we were threatened with a Fenian in-
vasion. Were the French Canadians behind their fellow-
countrymen of other origins. No, they were to the front ;
and I recolleet well my hon. friend from Montreal East
(Mr. Coursol) taking the musket in his hand in defence of
the Canadian flag and British institutions. Look, later on
yet, to 1869 and 1870. There was then a rebellion in the
North- West, which has been brought under the notice of
hon. members so often during this debate. Then, as in
1837, the French half-breeds were fighting for liberty, they
were fighting for the privileges of responsible government,
and against the tyranny of the Canadian Government. I
said so last year during that six hours' sp«ech, and the facts
cannot be controverted, and they were not contradicted
during that debate, that when the rebellion took place the
Government had not a particle of title to the lands in the
North- West. These men, in the absence of any local auth-
ority, took the law in their own hands in order to secure for
their people political liberty, and we have to-daiy tho testi-

mony of oven the enomiefl of the half-br«eds of that time
— the towtimony of a man like Mr. McArthur, an officer
of the Hudson Bay Company, who wan himself a priwoner
of Louin Riel in thoHe dayw, in a Htatement which he made
at a public lecture in Winnipeg, that to the firmneHH of the
half-btee s in IhTO the people of Manitoba were indebted
for the privileges of responsible government. And, last
year, (lid our countrymen remain behind? Notwithstand-
ing anything which may have been said, I do not think it
can bo protended that our men did not go to the North-
West for the purpose of defending the Dominion flag and
the Dominion authority ; and if all the French Canadians did
not see tire, there were at least two companies who went in
pursuit of Big Bear under Colonel Strange, and Colonel
Strange was the first ma,n to admit that he never wished to
see bolter soldiers. Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of all these
facts we believe that Sir E. P. Tache was right whe:
he said that the last shot fired for British connection on the
American continenL would be fired by a French Canadian.
Why is it, then, that the hofl. Premier, in diecussing Cana-
dian affairs at u banquet given by the St. George's Club,
had to defend French Canadians against the imputations
which wore then made upon their loyalty ? Ji was in
consequvinco of the utLeiances of the organ of the Conserva-
tive party in tho Province oi Ontario, the Toronto Mail, who
should have known the H'rerich people better. That leading
paper was not satisfied with deuouncing us as bud party
men — I would have allowed him to do so in fiace, oorhaps,
of some provocation which the Mail received from papers
in the Province of Quebec — but when the Mail branded us
as rebels, and threatened us with a second conquest, saying
that at that time there would be no Treaty of Paris, 1 i-ay
then there should have been a protest, not only from the
hon. Premier, but from every member of his Cabinet, to
show that the Mail was not expressing the opinion of the
Conservative party of the Province of Ontario. Why
threaten us with no seoond Treaty of Paris ? I ask the
English minority of the Province of Quebec if they ever
suffered from any bad treatment or injustice at our hands ?
Have they not received fair play from the French Canadians ?
If there is one who can say so, I would like him to rise and
say BO. No, Mr. Speaker ; we have respected the
feelings of the English minority of the Province of Quebec
— not only their feelings but their prejudices ; and, Sir,
occupying in this Dominion the position that the English
minority occupy in the Province of Quebec, we expect, we
have a right to expect, that they will respect our feelings
and even our prejudices.

■^

■3,

lat time
n officer
priHoner
he made
w of the
indebted
.Dd, last
thHtand-
think it
i North-
lag and
tiansdid
went in
Colonel
ished to
ill these
it whei
Q on the
inadian.
ig Cuna-
'8 Club,
utations
was in
)n8erva-
'ail, who
leading
i party
jeihaps,
I papers
nded us
, saying
is, J t«ay
•om the
inet, to
1 of the
Why
^sk the
ey ever
hands ?
adians ?
rise and
ed the
Quebec
nd, Sir,
English
)ect, we
feelings