Ministry. He was not prepared to fight against the British flag or sever the colonial tie just on that question. This was not the course that could be taken by loyal subjects. As far as the present constitutional law bound the country, they had to submit to it. He would vote against the amendment, because he did not think it a proper course to obtain what they always desired, and he would vote for the partial amnesty porposed by the present Government. was Mr. DE COSMOS wanted to offer a few words of explanation as to why he should cast his vote in favor of the resolutions moved by the First Minister. He was one of the twenty-seven members who one year ago voted in favor of a complete amnesty for all those who were concerned in the North-West troubles some few years ago. He was still prepared to vote for a complete amnesty, if he believed it could be carried at the present time. But so far as he could gather from the opinions of members, no such vote could be carried in the House, nor would it be at the present time endorsed by the country. He, therefore, reserved his right in case this question should be brought forward during a future session to vote with those who might be willing to move a resolution for a complete amnesty to those whom it now proposed to banish. With respect to the amendment proposed by the member for Bagot, the first portion alluded to the act of the Cabinet in not recommending HIS EXCELLENCY to grant a full and complete pardon to LEPINE. He (Mr. DECOSMOS) was at one with the mover in that particular. He did not believe in any office in this country who was independent of the people who created that Ministry; and when the time should come when Parliament and the country should act upon this principle involved in the statement of the member for Bagot, he would be found on the side of those who would maintain that no GOVERNOR GENERAL could act unless by and with the consent of his constitutional advisers. He reserved his action on this point to some future period. He advised the friends of RIEL, and those implicated in the North-West troubles, that the true policy for them to adopt was to see how much they could do to relieve those men of the disability under which they labored. M. DESJARDINS. Avant de donner Mr. Frechette. mon vote je veux faire voir que les prémises posées par le Gouvernement justifient. la position que nous avons prise. L'enquête a établi que cette position était la plus juste et la plus vraie. Je félicite le Gouvernement sur les prémises de ses résolutions. résolutions. Je le félicite aussi d'assumer la responsabilité d'une politique distincte et si je ne puis voter pour ceite résolution je n'en félicite pas moins le Gouvernement d'être entré dans cette phase. Elle justifie la position que j'ai prise depuis quatre ans. Je dirai pourquoi je ne puis voter pour la résolution du Gouvernement. Si l'amnistie a été accordée à la population métisse c'est grâce à ceux qui en sont exclus. Et ce sont ceux là même qui ont mérité l'amnistie par la défense du territoire et qui doivent l'avoir par le droit des gens, qui sont privés du bénéfice de leurs actes! Je ne puis admettre une pareille proposition; et malgré le regret que j'éprouve, malgré la répulsion que je ressens de me joindre à nos ennemis acharnés, je suis obligé par cette politique mitigée du Gouvernement d'accepter la position qu'elle me fait. Dr. ST. JEAN (Ottawa). Je n'avais pas l'intention de prendre la parole, mais comme canadien-français habitant le Haut Canada, je dois expliquer mon vote en comparant la position de l'année dernière et celle de cette année. M. l'ORATEUR, ces messieurs de l'autre côté de la Chambre remercient le Gouvernement pour ce qu'il a fait, et, cependant, ils votent contre! Le député de Terrebonne a voulu nous faire croire à son patriotisme, et c'est lui cependant qui a fait faire, l'année dernière, à RIEL un pélérinage si dangereux. Ces messieurs veulent tout ou rien. Quant à lui, il remercie le Gouvernement d'adopter les mesures nécessaires à la pacification du pays. Le député de Bagot a combattu, malgré lui, le député de Kingston. L'opposition lui fait l'effect de deux personnes tenant une corde et tirant chacun son bout pour les amener ensemble au moment du vote. L'année dernière l'amnistie était prématurée. Cette année c'est la barrière de lord CARNARVON qui nous arrête. Mais je suis heureux que le parti libéral ait. trouvé le moyen de régler la question d'amnistie et ce n'est que par inconsistance et par esprit de parti, et pour faire de capital politique, que le député de Terrebonne et ses amis refusent de se rallier à ce mouvement sage et patriotique en disant que Mr. PICARD said he intended to vote against the amendment, and support the resolutions of the Government, because he wished to see this irritating question settled, and he was glad the Government had faced the difficulty and proposed a mode of settlement. He did not fully endorse everything that was said in the resolutions, but he believed that it was perhaps the best settlement that could be effected, and he would therefore vote for it. M. GAUDET dit qu'il n'est pas défendu de prier et de demander l'amnistie entière. Il reproche au Gouvernement d'avoir retardé l'envoi des documents de commutation. Il se réserve, en votant contre la résolution, le droit demander une amnistie complète à une prochaine session. Les hommes du passé ont fait des fautes, mais leur successeurs peuvent en faire aussi. Il désire cette année comme l'année dernière, l'amnistie complète, et il votera pour l'amendement. Mr. MACKENZIE (West Montreal) said he desired to explain the reasons for the vote he intended to give in view of the pledge he had given to his constituents in regard to this subject. He had decided to vote for the resolutions, and he held that in doing so he would not break the pledge which he had given. He wouldnot discuss the transactions connected with the NorthWest troubles, but he would advert to one fact—a fact which was disclosed after he had given the pledge he had referred toand that was that the British Government positively refused to entertain for a moment the idea of a complete amnesty. If therefore we wished to obtain a settlement of this question we must abandon the idea of an unlimited amnesty. That was forced upon them by the despatch of Lord CARNARVON. Then we were brought face to face with this difficulty. Ontario, to a great extent, held one opinion on the subject and Quebec another, and England refused to intervene between them. What were we to do? Did the hon. members for Bagot and Terrebonne propose to take up arms against the Mother County? He (Mr. MACKENZIE) held that the only course now open to those who had taken the position he had taken was to support the proposition for a conditional amnesty, Dr. St. Jean. as the best settlement of a very vexed M. COUPAL dit qu'en votant pour l'amendement il ne donne pas un vote de | in the North-West troubles from the vengeance, parceque le Governement a opposé sa candidature. S'il vote ainsi c'est parcequ'il a fait à ces électeurs lw promesse fermelle de voter pour l'amnistie entière. J'ai confiance dans le Gouvernement, et si l'amendement n'est pas emporté je voterai pour la résolution. country for the next five years. What There was no reason why they should be persecuted if the country would gain nothing thereby. He trusted the Premier would see his way clear to accept the amendment. Hon. Mr. POPE said that after the sudden conversion of the hon. gentleman from Montreal West and the remarks of gentlemen opposite, he could not give a silent vote on this question. He should be delighted if the prediction of his hon. friend from Montreal West, should be fulfilled, and that the passage of these resolutions would be a final settlement of the question, but he did not believe that it would. There was no guarantee that next session the question would not again be brought before the House and the agitation continued, and therefore the excuse which the hon. gentleman from Montreal West gave for breaking the express pledge he gave to his constituents was of no avail. Referring to the position of the Government on this question, he said there seemed to be a readiness on their | part to yield to the dictates of a Minister in a foroign land--to yield to the express wishes of a Minister in the British Cabinet. It was really refreshing to find gentlemen opposite quite ready to accept the dictates of Lord CARNARVON upon this question. His hon. friend from Drummond and Arthabaska said he would vote for the resolutions because Lord CARNARVON declared that a complete amnesty could not be granted; but was his hon. friend honest in the conclusions he drew from Lord CARNARVON's despatch? Did not Lord CARNARVON state in distinct terms that RIEL never should be allowed to exercise political rights in this country? His hon. friend either went too far or did not go far enough. If Lord CARNARVON'S despatch was to be conclusive then a greater punishment should be inflicted on RIEL than the one now proposed; while if His Lordship's despatch was to be disregarded to the extent of giving RIEL more favorable terms than His Lordship considered right, it might be disregarded still further. It was evident that his hon. friend was actuated by some other motive than a desire to please Lord CARNARVON. It was proposed by the resolutions to banish the leaders assertion. Mr. Coupal. Mr. CURRIER desired to explain briefly his reasons for the vote which he intended to give. The reasons given by the First Minister for introducing a series of resolutions, namely: that the time had arrived when this great difficulty should if possible be removed, was a sound one. The House was, no doubt, convinced that the time had arrived when the question should be settled at the earliest possible moment. If he thought the adoption of the resolution would finally settle the question he would certainly be inclined to vote for them. But he was not of that opinion. The member for Terrebonne would not allow the subject to drop, and every session the question would be brought before the House; therefore the adoption of the resolutions would prove no settlement of the difficulty. He would support the amendment, for he believed that a complete and full amnesty would prove the only solution of that difficult question. Mr. SCRIVER desired to reply to what he conceived to be a very broad and unwarrantable assertion made by the member for Terrebonne, namely, that he had not only the support of the French Canadian population, but also the whole British population. Mr. MASSON-I did not make that Mr. SCRIVER-My friend suggests that he used the words "well thinking peeple." I am sure he spoke of the British people of Lower Canada. Mr. MASSON—I said I think that the totality of the French and the totality of the English population of Canada are united on this, that the supreme penalty of the law should not be exercised. That is their opinion. That is what I meant to say at all events. had reason to believe that if the resolutions met the views of the majority of the people the policy they endorsed would be accepted by the extremists. Holding those opinions, he was prepared to vote in favor of the resolutions. Mr. RYMAL said that reference had been made to a motion which he had submitted to the House on a former occasion respecting the murder of SCOTT. At the time he offered that motion he had come to the conclusion that the then Government were trifling with the best interests of this country, and that we were drifting into serious troubles on account of their negligence. The motion which he had moved was, however, voted down, and now the House was called upon to consider the question from an altogether different standpoint. He found by the evidence taken by the North-West Committee that certain promises and pledges had been made to the people of the North-West who were impli Mr. SCRIVER accepted the disclaimer made by the hon. gentleman; at the same time he felt bound to say, that so far as he knew, the large majority of the English speaking population of Quebec did not sympathize with the extreme views of the hon. member from Terrebonne. They were disposed to make a distinction between the offences committed in Manitoba. While all the British speaking people of the Province of Quebec were quite prepared to condone anything like political offences in Manitoba, they were not pre-cated in the troubles through Archbishop pared to say that those who were guilty of crime, should have that crime condoned altogether, that anything like a complete amnesty should not be granted to those who took part in killing ScoTT. During the last session of Parliament he voted with the majority of this House for the expulsion of RIEL. He still entertained the same views in regard to the crime charged against RIEL, but he believed like many others that the time had come when something should be done to obtain a settlement of the question. A compromise of some kind had become necessary. He was quite prepared to say that he did not accept in its entirety the conclusions which had been reached by those who framed the resolutions. He did not think they were in every respect logical, or that the conclusion reached was a logical deduction from the premises laid down. Nor was he prepared to say that anything like an official promise or engagement on the part of the late Administration was entered into by them, that a complete amnesty should be granted. Looking at the evidence impartially, he had not reached that conclusion. At the same time he was free to admit that Archbishop TACHE supposed that he had power to announce a complete amnesty. Whether the effect of the resolutions, if adopted, would be to settle the question or not, he was not prepared to say; but he Mr. Scriver. G TACHE. He was bound to believe that so shrewd a man as the Archbishop was not mistaken in his appreciation of what the Ministers of the day had communicated to him. Cunning as they were and deceitful as they, they were not sufficiently cunning to deceive so shrewd an observer as Archbishop TACHE, and the Archbishop was justified in the conclusions which he drew from the conversations and correspondence he had with the Government. Believing that, he (Mr. RYMAL) held that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to bring about a settlement of this longvexed question. There was great difference of opinion among the members of this House on the question, particularly among the members of the Opposition. Reference had been made to the Angel of Mercy and the Minister of Vengeance who surrounded the hon. leader of the Opposition. But the hon. member for South Norfolk did not appear to range himself under the former or either of those Angels; he scarcely knew how to classify that hon. member, but he supposed that he must be "the nice little cherub that sits up aloft and watches the fate of poor Jack.' However, notwithstanding that difference of opinion upon the manner in which that vexed question should be settled, they were unanimous in their desire to have it settled as speedily as possible in some way or other. For his part he believed that the resolutions submitted by the Government would bring about a settlement of it; at any rate he sincerely hoped they would, and that no attempt would be made in the future to revive the agitation. If any such attempt should be made to again bring the matter before Parliament after the passage of these resolutions, he would feel it his duty to oppose on every occasion any further treatment of the question. Expatriation for five years was as small a punishment as any one would desire should be meted out to RIEL, and he sincerely hoped that no attempt would be made at a future day to obtain a remission of that slight punishment. It was not with any very great degree of pleasure that he supported the resolutions, holding that it would have been a wiser course to have allowed the ordinary administration of justice to take its course, and those men be brought to trial, and then the royal clemency might possibly have been exercised in their favour; had such been the case he would not have raised any objection, because the attribute of mercy was GoD-like. But in view of all the circumstances connected with this case, he thought that the course proposed by the Government was the wisest that could be adopted, and he appealed to the House to deal with the question, not as partisans, but as lovers of their country, who desire to see this unfortunate and irritating question settled for ever. Mr. BROOKS said he looked upon this question as not one of party politics. Party ties and relations had nothing to do with the consideration of this subject. If the House really desired to approach the matter in the spirit in which it ought to be approached, they should forget all that had been done in the past and deal with the question as it now stood in the country. He desired to see the sponge passed over all that had been done in the past. For five years the country had been disturbed with this question, and he would be wanting in his duty if he did not approach its settlement with the most ardent desire that we might in the future be relieved from the agitation and heart-burning which had arisen from the unfortunate circumstances connected with this matter. He thought they must be all satisfied from the discussion that had taken place that there was no other possible solution of the matter Mr. Rymal. He than by mutual concession. A large portion of the French population took one extreme view, and a very considerable portion of the population of Ontario took another extreme view, and therefore the only practical mode in which they could arrive at any solution was by mutual compromise and concession. was prepared to vote for anything which reasonably might tend to obtain the object they all desired. He would have been much better pleased if the resolutions had been framed without any reference to the antecedents of this matter. He would have preferred if the absolute bare statement had been made which was contained in one. of the paragraphs of the resolutions, namely, "That in the opinion of this House it is not for the honor or interest of Canada that the question of amnesty should remain longer in its present shape.” He thought that bare statement would have been sufficient to justify the Housepassing upon this question, but if any of the facts were to be recited he must frankly say that all should have been recited. But they were there to legislate for a practical purpose, and not to determine abstract questions of right and wrong; but believing that the resolutions would accomplish the end which they all desired he would vote for them. With regard to the amendment, he had always said that if it was possible to obtain from the Imperial Government an amnesty he would have approved of it. But he took it that when they voted on this question they voted for a purpose, and it was evident that at the present time it would be impossible to obtain a complete amnesty. At the same time while voting against the amendment on this occasion, he would hold himself free to support an absolute amnesty if at any future period it was demanded and he should consider it in the interests of the country to do so. There was a constitutional question raised last night by a gentleman of high authority on such questions (Sir JOHN MACDONALD) which at the time he thought of considerable force. It was with regard to the pardoning power, and he had taken occasion to examine the authorities upon the point. He must say with all deference that he had not come to the same conclusion that the right hon. gentleman had come. The cases cited by Mr. TODD with refer |