Orangeman the hon. member for Kingston. The hon. member for Montreal Centre had pressed them to accept the motion of the Government, because if they refused it Lord CARNARVON would refuse an amnesty. He did not think this would be the result. He believed if the House of Commons of Canada would say that the circumstances of the country, its quiet, its peace, its prosperity, required that an absoÏute amnesty should be granted, and if at the same time we took the trouble to send

correct information on the subject, so that he would see and understand the facts more fully, he was sure that Ministers in England would at once comply with the request. One word more and he would finish. He would take another ground. He would state that everybody from the Province of Quebec, and everybody representing the Half-breeds of Manitoba, everybody representing the French minority in this Dominion, if he voted for these resolutions was committing himself to the entire endorsation of the insults of Lord CARNARVON to the whole Province and the whole race. He therefore moved in amendment to the motion of the First Minister, that the three last paragraphs of the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor :

The language of Lord CARNARVON | weak to exact an amnesty from that great was insulting to the whole nationality, and was based upon incorrect information or ignorance, instead of being an opinion framed fairly and honestly with the whole facts that were before him. There was one view of the question which was entirely omitted from the despatches, and which did not appear to have received sufficient attention at the hands of the Government. The subject to which he referred was the result of the Manitoba Act, which included the demands of the half-breeds, as laid down in their bill of Loid CARNARVON more complete and rights, as accepted by the people and the Provisional Government, and so commited to the delegates. There were many authorities he could quote in justification of his opinion of the regularity of the proceedings of the half-breeds in forming the Provisional Government; but he would content himself with choosing one which bore directly upon this subject. That authority was Burlamagin's "National and International Law," Vol. 5, page 266: "Another question is to know whether a Sovereign or a State must keep the treaties of peace and settlement made with rebel subjects. I answer first, when a Sovereign has reduced his rebel subjects by the force of arms, it is his business to see how he will treat them; but, second, if he has entered with them into any conciliatory arrangement, he is by that mere fact alone deemed to have forgiven them all the past. He could not, therefore, with any reason dispense with keeping his engagements."" to grant a complete pardon to Mr. A. D. The Manitoba Act covered this ground entirely. It was a regular treaty between a Sovereign and her subjects; it was the concession to the inhabitants of the territory of their unequivocal, entire and complete claims, and of all their civil rights and privileges. The Federal Government having assented to these claims, and the Imperial Government having also assented to them, a claim to a complete amnesty was also established. He thanked the Government for the tribute paid by them to the late Sir GEORGE CARTIER in having based the resolutions now before the House upon a promise he was said to have made of an amnesty. He thanked the Government for at last acknowledging the great services rendered by the deceased baronet. They must of course remember their battles with him, and the great cries they raised against him because he was too Mr. Mousseau.

"That, regretting that the Ministers "did not admit it to be their duty to advise "His EXCELLENCY the GOVERNOR GENERAL

"LEPINE, this House is of opinion, as an "obvious consequence of the principles laid "down in the same motion, that it would "be proper that a full amnesty should be

granted to all persons concerned in the "North-West troubles, and for all acts "committed on the occasion of the said "troubles."

He

Mr. LAURIER said it was not his intention to enter into any discussion of the question now before the House. considered that the question had been fully discussed, and the points fairly and exhaustively laid before the House. His sole object in rising was to answer the challenge thrown across the floor of the House to the French members of the Liberal party, to the effect that they were voting a complete amnesty and supporting a limited one. Last year, when a similar motion was presented to the House, by the

The

hon. member for Bagot, the Liberal party session circumstances had altered. had voted against it, not because their committee had sat, and they had the reconvictions were averse to the principles port before them, and they were now in of the motion, nor because they had any full possession of all facts connected with hesitation as to the real merits of the ques- those unfortunate events. Now the time tion, for they thought then, as they had come to discuss that question, and tọ thought now, than an amnesty ought to be consider what was necessary to be done to proclaimed covering all the offence con- settle it at once and forever. But pernected with the troubles of 1869-70. But haps, in making use of those expressions, the circumstances under which they voted he might be in error. The question would were their reason, and their only reason, be decided at once and forever if decided for the course they took. A Committee in a sense of leniency; but if decided in a had been appointed to investigate whether harsh sense, in a sense of mistaken justice, an amnesty had been promised to the pro- for there was no more certain fact, as moters of these troubles and the actors proved by the most unerring testimony of therein or not. The motion for the historical events than that political offences appointment of that Committee had been must sooner or later be forgiven. History adopted unanimously by the House, and has proved to us that there has never been it would have been a strange contradiction peace or harmony in any country until a indeed if the House had stepped over the free pardon has been given for all offences head of the Committee without waiting for of this kind. Those who oppose Mr. the result of the evidence which might be RIEL and his associates most bitterly produced before them. There was could not expect that they would continue another reason for their action. The to remain cut off from society, however members from the Provinces of Quebec odious the part might be considered and Ontario had taken a deep interest in that they took in the troubles referred to. the troubles in Manitoba; they had each It would be an easy task to show such followed them closely as they occurred; men and everybody else from historical their opinions had been gradually formed, records that men charged with crimes of and were more or less irrevocable. But this nature were invariably restored to the there were members from the Lower and place they originally held in society. We Western Provinces who had not formed are told upon this occasion that the quesany opinion, and who would not form any tion was a national and religious one, and until the evidence was before the House. the hon. member for Hastings stated that Although he fully sympathized with the an amnesty was proposed because RIEL spirit of the motion of the hon. member and LEPINE were of French origin. for Bagot, for these considerations, he was would commend this opinion to the conbound to vote against it. He recalled sideration of the hon. member for Terrethese things for the purpose of setting bonne, and those who acted in concert with himself and his party right before the him. Perhaps the hon. member for North House and before the country. He Hastings who did not tell them that the charged hon. gentlemen opposite with amnesty was granted because RIEL and endeavoring to raise an undue influence LEPINE were both French, would excuse and excite the prejudices of the Province him if he said he did not share his views of Quebec. When the House was not in and if he only thought the hon. member possession of the facts, he wanted them to was serious in making the allegation, he vote upon an amnesty; and now that the might be permitted to ask whether he House was in possession of the facts, and was not himself opposed to the amnesty also in possession of despatches from the because those to whom it was proImperial Government which plainly indi- posed to be granted were French. cated the only course that was open to Now, he (Mr. LAURIER) recollected those them, he again desired them to vote upon facts, and also the expression that had the question of a complete amnesty. Was fallen from one of his colleagues, that this not this attempting to raise undue preju- was simply a religious and national quesdices and influences in the Province tion. He repelled that idea. The Liberal of Quebec? He charged the hon. gentle-party of Quebec did not make it a question man with endeavoring to make political of race or religion, but dealt with it solely capital out of the question. Since last as a question of justice. For his part he

Mr. Lauri‹r.

He

the chasm and reap a great benefit. He
desired to answer the challenge which had
been brought against them by the hon.
member for Terrebonne for the course
that they followed. The hon. member
told them they should separate their alle-
giance from the Government, because
they would not grant a complete amnesty,
at the same time pointing to the fact that
he had threatened to sever his allegiance
from the late Government under similar
circumstances. That threat was made at
a time when the late Government were
under trial for a great crime, of
they stood accused.
(Mr. LAURIER) was not at all
prised that the hon. gentleman threatened
to desert them under such circumstances,
and his only surprise was that he did not
do it at the time. If ever this Govern-
ment should stand charged of the same
crime, he (Mr. LAURIER) would at once
withdraw his allegiance from it uncondi-
tionally and absolutely. Suppose they
should follow the advice of the hon. mem-

which

He

sur

regretted that it was so often deemed necessary to remind the House that our nation is composed of different creeds and races, and that the law gives to each and all in this Dominion a full and equal share of liberty and happiness. It was true they were separated by their origin and religion, but he claimed they were united by a common aim and common interests. They were united by this, that everybody should have a full and equal share of justice and liberty, and in that respect all the creeds and races of this country had an identical interest, for if the liberties of one were to be invaded in any way, the liberties of the others would be jeopardized. He was here as a delegate of the Canadian people, to give justice to those to whom it was due, without bias or favor. He was French, and he did not claim to be free from preferences. He was not an angel, and though he professed to respect and love all the races of this country, yet there was one for which he felt a kinder sympathy, but he would scorn to be led away from the path of duty on account of that preber, the consequence would be they would ference. He had laid down this confes- be in this House without any other base sion of principle purposely, because he than a distinction of race. So that the knew they were the principles of the Liberal party of Quebec would never be great French Liberal party to which he a party. Suppose it should have the effect belonged, and they intended not only of upsetting the Government, they would upon the floor of this House, but also be in the same position as the Conservathroughout this Dominion, to make away tives from Quebec who were lashed yeswith questions of race and religion. He terday by their chief to be told that no was ready to admit that on the question promise of amnesty had been given-that before the House there had been bitter the House of Commons had no power to feelings aroused in Quebec, where a cer- grant one; and be told as the people of tain portion of the press went so far as Toronto were recently—that the commuto say that the killing of SCOTT was no tation of LEPINE'S sentence was a disgrace murder at all. Gentlemen from Ontario to the country. The hon. gentleman would admit that equally bitter feelings | might follow that policy, but the Liberals had been aroused in that Province, and from Quebec would never do so. They even in this House it had been said that could not, in view of Lord CARNARVON'S blood must be shed as an atonement for despatch, do better than accept the Govthe death of SCOTT. He was sure moder-ernment's offer; and he was somewhat ate men would seek a medium course for justice and truth. His views had not been changed on the subject since last session. He still believed that a full amnesty should be given as promised. But the Imperial Government said that a complete amnesty was out of the question, and therefore nothing more need be said on that point. He was disposed to think that out of this great evil some good must arise; that the two great Provinces of Ontario and Quebec would be drawn nearer together, would shake hands over Mr. Laurier

;

He

surprised that such a strong Conservative
as the hon. member for Bagot was willing
to commit himself to the course of de-
manding that which Earl CARNARVON
declared to be out of the question.
(Mr. LAURIER) never called the hon. gen-
tleman a demagogue, but he could not find
an expression to characterize one who pro-
fessed to be a strong Conservative, and yet
wanted to commit the House to a policy
opposed to that of the Imperial Govern-
ment. He (Mr. LAURIER) was not a
Conservative, and he would not do