and justice took its course, at least an im- at length upon the reasons which induce mediate pardon would ensue, as many me to say that M. LEPINE is not a people, in the Province of Quebec espe- murderer in that sense. The position at cially, were led to understand would be which the Government have arrived will the case. Sir, this unfortunate expression necessarily be the subject of discussion will cause, I will not say discontent-no; before this House, and I still hope the but it will cause deep sorrow and grief question will come before the House in among the loyal French population of Mani- such a form that all sides may be able not toba, who, notwithstanding the very strong to discuss the question but to congratulate charge of the judge, and notwithstanding them upon the decision at which they have the verdict of a packed jury-I hold myself arrived. But I will take up this letter entirely responsible for every word I say itself, and whoever is responsible for it who notwithstanding the verdict of a pack- bore on its very face a contradiction ed jury still consider that M. LEPINE is Look at the second paragraph:—“It furentitled to the respect, the esteem and ther appears to His Excellency that the the love of all that population. It will case has passed beyond the province of also cause grief and sorrow to the numer- Departmental.Administration." Why has ous petitioners from all parts of this coun- it passed beyond the province of Departtry who have respectfully approached His mental Administration? Was it because Excellency and asked him to extend to of the enormity of the crime? There is LEPINE that mercy which is the noblest no crime however enormous which is prerogative of the Crown. Those thousands beyond the noble prerogative of mercy of of petitioners, those thousands of loyal sub- the Crown, and I may say more, the more jects of HER MAJESTY will not be able to enormous the crime the easier it will be avoid feeling that if state reasons or poli- for the Governor General to adopt a tical difficulties connected with this vexed course upon the subject, because the easier question rendered it necessary for the Gov- it will be for his Advisers to give advice ernor General to adopt the course that he upon it. Is it because it is beyond the has adopted they might at least have been function of HER MAJESTY'S Constitutional spared the humiliation of it going to the advisers? No. The offence is one which whole country, that they have interested has been adjudged by one of our own trithemselves for a man who is nothing but bunals, and consequently our Minister of a criminal, guilty of a crime so cruel, so Justice can advise His Excellency upon unjustifiable, that perpetual deprivation of it, and if the Governor General is obliged political rights, that is to say eternal to act upon his own responsibility it is degradation, is not a punishment in pro- because he himself feels that there is someportion to the guilt that he has committed. thing in the offence, which takes it beyond Sir, we may say what we please, but if an ordinary offence. If the sentence which the action of M. LEPINE was not the con- was passed upon M. LEPINE was for a sequence of the organization of a govern- common crime His Excellency would have ment which he thought had the real found all his advisers ready to give him authority in the country it was a crime advice upon the subject. Sir, this letter such as to deprive those who were guilty is unfortunate on another score. His of it of any sympathy. But notwithstand- Excellency states But notwithstand- Excellency states that he is of the ing the verdict of the jury, notwithstand-opinion "that subsequent circumstances, ing this letter which I have read and which grieves me and grieves a majority of the population of Lower Canada and which must grieve I know a majority of the wellthinking English population of this country-notwithstanding that verdict and this letter from such high authority, I still maintain as a petitioner myself, and the petitioners and the loyal population of Lower Canada still maintain, that M. LEPINE is not a murderer in the sense of the word which carries with it degradation, shame and humiliation. I will not dwell Mr. Masson.

and notably the relations into which the Provincial authorities of Manitoba entered with the prisoner and his associates, are such as in a great degree to fetter the hands of justice." Now, I think any gentleman in this House who wishes to examine the question fairly and impartially will say that this paragraph says a great deal too much, if the action of the Provincial authorities was not approved by the Federal Government, and will also admit that it does not go far enough if the action of the local authorities was approved and

endorsed by the Federal Government. | grief and sorrow by the great majority of What are the facts ? The country was the people of this country. I readily unthen threatened with an invasion. It was derstand I who know the circumstances, considered then in that country that un- who know the country and the people, who less the French population came forward know Mr. LEPINE himself—I readily unand offered themselves to defend the coun- derstand that he who is the father of eight try, the country would be lost to us. children, the responsibility of whose supWhat did the Lieutenant Governor, the port and education rested upon him, will representative of HER MAJESTY in that feel that the sparing of his life is a great country, do? He appealed to RIEL, LE- boon, because, notwithstanding the humiliwhether PINE, and others, to come forward in ation that he will have to bear, defence of their country. Did they refuse? he remains a patriot in his country or an No, they immediately came forward, and exile for ever, he will always be in a posieverybody who has read the evidence be- tion in future years to support his family. fore the Committee of Enquiry, knows But I say as a political man, and regardthat if that country has been saved to ing this as a political question, this verdict Canada we owe it to the efforts of the of HIS EXCELLENCY is a step backwards. parties implicated in that unfortunate Mr. SPEAKER, I must give the reasons affair, and the good will of the French why I now ask for these papers. I have‹ population of Manitoba. This being the thought it my duty to enter my protest, fact, what is the consequence? Can you because I know the whole population of appeal to any man who is not a subject of Lower Canada and of Manitoba, and I HER MAJESTY, to take up the sword in de- may say the whole thinking population fence of the country, and when he comes of Canada protest against the course which forward receive him and treat him as one has been adopted. I ask for all the docuof HER MAJESTY'S loyal subjects, and ments to be laid before the House,because entrust him with the sword in defence I see in the letter of His Excellency the of the country, and at the same time Governor General a reference to some decide that that man shall pass two years documents which are not before us; also, in gaol as a common criminal, with there is a sad rumour-it is more than a thieves, robbers, and burglars, and for the rumour-circulating among the public rest of his life condemned to the loss of that the papers conveying the Act of his political rights. There is no use Clemency, so called, by His Excellency, referring to the authorities on this reached Manitoba after the time appointsubject. The best authority is our own ed for the execution. Explanations have feelings, our own judgment, our own com- been given of the fact that the documents mon sense, and our feelings, judg- relating to that subject had been presentment and common sense tell us it is ed privately to Lieutenant-Governor impossible to consider the man that you MORRIS three or four weeks before. have entrusted with the defence of the it will be interesting to the House to country as a common criminal. I come know that a public print, an organ of the now to the last paragraph of this docu- Government, announced that it was authment. I will not touch upon the subject orized to say that the instructions on the of the third paragraph, which certainly subject of the commutation of LEpine's places HER MAJESTY'S advisers in this sentence had been in the hands of Lieut.House in a very awkward position, and I Governor MORRIS long before the date hope as I have said that such a course of the execution, of the execution, and consequently will be taken as will not necessitate the LEPINE ran no risk of being executed. recurrence of this question in the future. It is important to the House to know by The last paragraph is as follows : whom this journal had been authorised to make such statement; also, how it “I have it, therefore, in command to inform occurred that, if His Excellency the you that it is His Excellency's pleasure that the Capital sentence passed upon the prisoner Governor-General had come to the deterLepine be commuted into two years' imprison-mination to issue this commutation of ment in gaol from the date of conviction, and sentence, notice thereof did not reach the permanent forfeiture of his political rights." Manitoba in time to avoid all difficulty, Now, sir, I suppose I need not say that and how it is that these papers, which this verdict will be received with immense were written weeks ago, are only published Mr: Masson.

Sir,

in this country after the elections in | Ontario. If Lieutenant-Governor MORRIS had been notified over a month ago that the sentence was to be commuted, how is it that the papers were only signed a few days after the elections in Ontario; and who advised the Governor-General to delay the issuing of the proclamation, when His Excellency had resolved four weeks ago to commute LEPINE'S sentence. The effect has been to keep LEPINE in hot water during one month longer than was necessary. The Government will well understand that the members of the House are entitled to know how it occurred that the decision of the Governor-General, which had been determined four weeks before the matter was known to the public, was kept back from the public until after the Ontario Elections. I beg to move the resolution which I have read.

Mr. MACKENZIE BOWELL,-Mr. SPEAKER, before the motion is put I think it well that some one should object, and it is only that which I propose to do at this moment to the strong language used by the hon. member for Terrebonne in reference to the Judge and Jury which tried this case. It is not my purpose now to discuss the question before the House; I think that can be much better done when we have all the papers before us, but I simply rise to protest against the bold declaration on his part that the Jury was a packed one. I also desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that on that Jury there were only two men of purely white extraction, four being of Anglo-Indian origin and six being French half-breeds. I don't think that at so important a trial any criminal could have been placed at the bar in a more favorable position than was LEPINE, so far as the Jury was concerned. The language used by the Governor General in his letter is fully in accord with the charge of the Judge who tried the case in passing sentence. Having entered my protest against the use of this strong language, I have no desire to discuss the general question at present; no doubt it will come before the House in another shape when the papers are before it, and we can then enter fully into the question and the responsibility of the Cabinet Ministers in tendering, as I presume they did, the advice they did to His Excellency the Governor General in reference to this matter,

M.. Masson

Mr. MASSON desired to offer a few remarks in reply. He denied that he had used too strong language in respect to the Judge, who made a strong charge. When the whole papers were submitted to the House he would show, by documents fyled in Court, that the Jury was a packed one; that a very learned criminal lawyer who went from Quebec to Manitoba protested against the packing of the Jury, by which the lists were not followed, but the names of persons favorable to the prisoner and adverse to the Crown were passed over. That fact could be proved, and if all the papers were laid before the House they would on their face establish the charge that the Jury was a packed one. Mr.

SCATCHERD - I rise, Mr. SPEAKER, for the purpose of taking exception to that portion of the address of the hon. member for Terrebonne in which he stated that it was the opinion of many people in this country that the NorthWest would have been lost to Canada if it had not been for the action of some of the parties that were implicated in those troubles. Now, sir, I believe it was never the opinion of any member of this House, or of any number of people outside of this House, that either RIEL or any of the people concerned in the first insurrection there, by anything they could do, or by any assistance they could give, either in the North-West or outside, could have severed that country either from Canada or Great Britain. I believe, sir, it never was the opinion of any of the members of this House or people of this country that anything LEPINE or those concerned in those troubles afterwards, when the Fenians attempted to invade that country, could have severed the country either from Canada or Great Britain. I protest against it being thought for one moment that those people saved the country to Great Britain, because we found, although they were quite ready to fight against defenceless inhabitants, they had not the courage to face the troops which went up under Sir GARNET WOLSELEY, but ran away.

Mr. MOUSSEAU-It has been said by no less a personage than Lieutenant Governor ARCHIBALD that the action of the French half breeds had saved the country.

Mr. LAURIER said he rose to call attention to the fact that the House was

The

entering upon a very irregular discussion. | spectfully, to discuss such an important
The time had passed for recriminations, State document. A few days ago a
and in view of the praiseworthy action of gentleman who had been recently appoint-
the Government in endeavoring to healed
the wound caused by a wrong policy, the
only step the House had to adopt was that
of burying the past. He was exceedingly
sorry to have listened to the language
used by the member for Terrebonne. He
(Mr. LAURIER) was a French Liberal, and his
party was called the party of demagogues.
It would not be the ungracious duty of
one of the party of demagogues to criti-
cise the action of His Excellency the Gov-
ernor General. That duty had apparently
devolved on a member of the Conservative
party. He regretted the tone of the de-
bate, and hoped that on Thursday they
would hear the last of the North West
troubles.

Mr. MASSON desired to explain his position.

Mr. CAUCHON raised a question of order, that the member had already spoken.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said, as the hon. gentleman from Quebec persisted in his objection, he moved the adjournment of the House.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said that nothing but personal explanations would be permissable. There must be an end to the debate.

Mr. MASSON observed that as there was a motion now before the chair,he would speak to it. He did not wish to impose himself upon the House, but at the same time he would state that it was not a personal explanation that he wished to make. The hon. member who raised the objection | knew the answer he was going to make. Mr. SPEAKER ruled that as a motion for adjournment had been made, the hon. member for Terrebonne had a right to speak.

a Senator, made use of language respecting His Excellency, which he (Mr. MASSON) would not dare to repeat to the House. He would not read the language, but he would try to remember it. document to which he referred was, he believed, the production of a gentleman occupying a high representative position in this country. It stated that the Governor General had up to this time been a popular representative of HER MAJESTY, but by his action in this matter he has inscribed his name behind those of Our most execrated Governors.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE rose to a point of order. The whole of the hon. gentleman's speech and his quotations were most disrespectful to. HER MAJESTY'S representative in this Dominion, and he was sorry that he should have considered it not beneath his dignity to attribute the expression of the sentiments alluded to to any one, seeing that he knew nothing of their origin.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD said, while he was sorry that the language in reference to His Excellency the Governor-General had been repeated, he was bound to say that his hon. friend from Terrebonne was quite justified in the course he had taken, in view of the language made use of by the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, who had used the term demagogue.

Mr. LAURIER No.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD said the hon. gentleman had remarked that the whole Conservative party of Lower Canada were demagogues, and that his (Mr. LAURIER'S) party were not demagogues at all.

Mr. LAURIER denied that he had used the language.

Mr. MASSON then proceeded with his reply. He denied that he had acted as a Sir JOHN MACDONALD said such demagogue, or had treated His Excellency was the substance of the hon. gentleman's disrespectfully, either in regard to the remarks, if they had any substance at all, Pacific Railway, or any other subject. The and his hon. friend from Terrebonne was name of His Excellency had been brought quite justified in quoting the language of before the House, and he was compelled a gentleman who certainly belonged to the to refer to it in the course of his speech. party of the hon. member for Arthabaska, His Excellency had stated in his letter and who had been raised to one of the that he was alone responsible for the com- highest legislative positions in the Domimutation of LEPINE'S sentence, and it was nion. His hon. friend from Terrebonne absurd to argue that members were not to was quite justified in resenting the indigbe allowed honestly, honorably, and re-nity and obloquy thrown across the floor, Mr. Laurier.