Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

told by the opponents of that system were beginning to develop themselves, and, in fact, had been developing themselves almost from the start. But opposition to a measure at its inception, and the entire abrogation of it after it had been for several years in operation, were two very distinct things. We were not at all now in the position that we were in when he opposed the introduction of the legal tender system. We had to deal with existing facts, and in the light of existing facts he was disposed to regard this measure which he conceived to be merely provisional with a good deal of favour. It would be the duty of the Minister of Finance he thought to consider the whole question of legal tenders at a very early day. He did not propose to raise a discussion on the introduction of this Bill, but he felt it his duty to take this early opportunity of stating that as a provisional measure the Bill now introduced was one worthy of the favorable consideration of the House.

not propose to return to the limit originally fixed by Sir FRANCIS HINCKS, because the business and trade of the country, the number of banks and the volume of their liabilities, had increased considerably in the meantime; but he had proposed to fix a certain limit beyond which they should hold dollar for dollar. That limit was $12,000,000. For notes below $12,000,000 and above $9,000,000 held by the Government it was proposed to hold 50 per cent., instead of 35 per cent., as at present. He was inclined to think from his own experience that if this modification were adopted in the future very little inconvenience would be felt from these periodical drains on our specie. Whatever might be the ultimate decision the Government might arrive at on this whole question, it required the most careful consideration. While on this subject he might say that it must be obvious to the House that when this gold drain to which he had alluded should exceed its ordinary proportions when it would be necessary to send several Mr. PLUMB said no one could object millions of dollars to England to pay our to any measure that would give greater remittances—rather serious inconvenience stability to our financial position; but he might occur. It was quite clear that if failed to see that any of the evils referred the present system were continued, and to by the hon. member from Chateauguay the reserve were maintained at 35 per had followed the introduction of the legal cent., these gold drains would go on from tender system. He hoped, therefore, that year to year, and, as it was quite impos- this proposed measure would not be merely sible for the Government to protect thema provisional one, for it was better to put selves against such drains except by call-up with a few evils than to have an unseting in deposits, which would hamper the tled financial system. commerce of the country, the limit proposed at which dollar for dollar should be held should be fixed. He had had some considerable doubt in his own mind as to whether there should be two-thirds held between $9,000,000 and $12,000,000, but his object was to hold no more than the necessities of the case required. was willing to give the 50 per cent. reserve a fair trial before asking for further legislation on the subject. The only pro

He

visions in the Bill were those to which he alluded.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said he was disposed to regard with a good deal of favor the proposition which the hon. Minister of Finance had just submitted to the House, but he presumed his hon. friend regarded this measure as only a provisional one. The hon. gentleman, like himself, was opposed in toto to the introduction of the system of legal tender. good many of the evils that had been foreHan. Mr Cartwright.

A

Bill read a first time.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

The following Bills were introduced and read a first time:

Mr. DEVLIN—To amend the act incorporating the Montreal Board of Trade.

Mr. MURRAY-To incorporate the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company.

PENITENTIARIES.

Hon. Mr. FOURNIER introduced a Bill respecting penitentiaries, and the inspectors thereof. He explained that the chief amendment proposed to the existing law was to substitute for the present Board of Directors, an Inspector who should be an officer of the Department of Justice acting under the immediate control of the Minister of Justice. The clause embodying this alteration was as follows :—

"It shall be the duty of the Minister of Justice to require and obtain from the Inspector an

annual report on or before the first day of January in each year, to be laid before Parliament at the then next session, which report shall

contain a full and accurate report on the state, condition and management of the penitentiaries under his control and supervision, and inspected during the preceding year, together with such suggestions for the improvement of the same as he may deem necessary and expedient, and accompanied by copies of the annual reports of the officers of the penitentiaries, and by such financial and statistical statements and tables as the books kept by them may supply; and which report shall also comprise and embrace the following particulars, viz :—

1. Any facts which may have come to his knowledge with respect to the working of the laws and penal system of the Dominion, or any injustice or hardship which, in his opinion has arisen therefrom, and such suggestions for the improvement or amendment at the same, and for the prevention of crime, or for the reformation of criminals, as he may deem expedient;

2. An inventory and valuation of all the property belonging to the penitentiaries respectively, moveable and immoveable; distinguishing the estimated value of the several descriptions of property;

3. A statement of all debts due by the penitentiaries, showing the names of the parties to whom each is due, and showing also the debts, if any, due to the institution, with the amount and nature of each debt ;

4. An estimate of the expense of the penitentiaries for the ensuing year, distinguishing the ordinary from the extraordinary.

"In case the Inspector finds at any time that any Penitentiary is out of repair, or is, or has become unsafe or unfit for the confinement of prisoners confined therein, he shall forthwith report the fact to the Minister of Justice, and shall at the same time furnish a copy of such report to the Minster of Public Works.

"Another important change proposed by the Bill was to place the construction and repairs of buildings and others works in connection with penitentiaries under the control of the Depart

ment of Public Works."

Sir JOHN MACDONALD said he had paid much attention to the subject, as it came within his department when Minister of Justice, and he would, therefore, look with great interest at the Bill. He did not at that stage propose to discuss whether the amendments proposed were such as should receive the sanction of the House, but ventured to hope that if existing interests were affected, compensation would be provided to the parties suffering.

The Bill was read a first time.

Mr. MOSS introduced a Bill to amend the act of incorporation of the Great Western Railway Company.

Mr. MOSS said the object of the Bill was to change the number of directors, and to apply to the Great Western Railway Company certain clauses relating to sidings, and other matters which are found in the General Railway Act of 1869.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE asked if the Bill contained anything affecting the financial affairs of the company.

Mr. MOSS-Nothing whatever.
The Bill was read a first time.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING,

Mr. ROSS (Middlesex) presented the fifth report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on Printing.

THE OUTLAWRY OF LOUIS RIEL.

On question being called,

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said-Mr. SPEAKER: Before proceeding on to the regular business of the day, I propose to move in the matter of which I verbally on Monday. I then laid the gave notice record of the judgment of outlawry, in the case of LOUIS RIEL, the member elect for Provencher, upon the table, and intimated my intention to move, in pursuance of the Parliamentary course pursued in England upon a similar occasion, or one as nearly parallel to it as any case that can possibly be found. I propose to move in the same sense as the leader of the House of Commons moved in the case of SMITH O'BRIEN, who was convicted of felony when he was a member of the House, being advised-for I do not prethe matter that the sentence of outlawry sume to enter upon any legal argument in is equivalent to a conviction by the Court of the crime charged in the indictment. In that case Lord JOHN RUSSELL simply moved, in the first place, that the record

laid on the table be read. I have

I

private notice given me by the hon. member for Cardwell that he intends to dispute both the motion and the premises. Í am not quite sure that I am doing quite right in anticipating his own statement of the case, but it is necessary in submitting my motion to do so to some extent. He disputes that a legal outlawery has been pronounced at all; he disputes the legality of the proceedings, and proposes that this House shall constitute itself into a Court of Review of the proceedings of the Court

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE asked the in Manitoba. I am not aware that any object of the Bill.

proceeding of that kind was ever under

Hon. Mr. Fournier.

[ocr errors]

mons.

taken or was indeed ever proposed by any member of the English House of ComThere is no case where anything of the kind has taken place. He also proposes, as I understand from him, to establish the point that outlawry in this country is entirely foreign to our own criminal procedure for the reason that in our Act of 1869 at the 82nd section, it is stated that any person indicted for any offence made capital by any statute should be liable to the same punishment whether it be a conviction by verdict or confession; and therefore the omission of the term outlawry in a particular section of our criminal procedure operates as setting aside all the outlawry proceedings in criminal cases. I will not venture for a moment to discuss the legal aspects of the case. They will be discussed, no doubt, by the gentlemen learned in the law on both sides of this House. I simply take the ground that I think I am entitled to take by enquiries on the subject, that the law of England still prevails throughout these territories, and in Canada where it has not been specially repealed by special enactments. That the law of England does extend to these territories in this respect in this particular instance there can be no doubt whatever, and if it be disputed there is abundant proof of the allegation that it is. In the 78th section of the Act relating to criminal procedure, we find that our own act does contemplate a verdict by outlawry, and it is tolerably clear to my own mind, looking at the question from a common sense point of view; that the ground proposed to be taken by the hon. gentleman is not tenable, so far as the enactment is concerned, upon which he intends to found his objection. I do not propose to enter upon the question as to whether it is so or not. I simply state these facts in order that they may be. dealt with by gentlemen who were to follow him conducting the legal part of the argument. The question may possibly be raisel as to whether the document laid before the House is precisely the kind that it should be. I do not know whether it is or not. In the O'DONOVAN ROSSA judgment the document itself was not laid on the table, but a certificate from the officer of the court stating that such a decision had been rendered. In the present case the document itself is laid on the table, and it is competent for this House to

Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

question the legality of it. I shall, therefore, move in the first place, "That the record in the case of LOUIS RIEL, laid on the table of the House on the 22nd inst., be now read." Ifollow, as I said before, very closely the precedent in the SMITH O'BRIEN case, in which the motion was that the decision be entered as read.

now

The motion was carried, the House dispensing with the reading of the document. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I move "That it appears by the said record that LOUIS RIEL, a member of this House, has been adjudged an outlaw for felony."

Mr. MASSON suggested that it would be well to know if there was anything before the House to prove that the LOUIS RIEL who had been adjudged an outlaw was the LOUIS RIEL who was a member of this House.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon. gentleman must judge for himself. The document was on the table making that statement, and the House had dispensed with the reading of it.

Mr. MASSON asked that the document be read.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is now too late.

Mr. MASSON-The hon. gentleman should not take shelter behind forms.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I do not go behind forms. The hon. gentleman should have called for the reading of the document at the proper time.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD-The honmember for Terrebonne says the fact that LOUIS RIEL is an outlaw in Manitoba is no proof that he is the LOUIS RIEL who is a member of Parliament. That is the point the hon. gentleman makes.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-If the hon. gentleman has any doubt of it he will vote against the motion.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD said that was to a certain extent an answer to the objection, because the Premier in his reply had by inference stated the two were one and the same person.

Hon. J. H. CAMERON quite agreed with what his hon. friend said; that there was enough to bring before the House the fact that the person charged with outlawry was a member of this House. The Premier had partly stated his (Mr. CAMERON'S) objection to the House, but not being a lawyer he could not be expected to remember exactly what was said. His (Mr. CAMERON'S)

objection was not merely with regard to the criminal law of the land, not having process of outlawry in it, but that so far as this particular case was concerned, in the Province of Manitoba, whatever it might be elsewhere, the process of outlawry did not exist, and that the proceedings in outlawry upon an indictment for felony could not be had in the manner required by the law of England. He would endeavour to explain to the House the ground upon which he had taken that view. No one for a single moment would imagine that he (Mr. CAMERON) had the least desire that RIEL should remain a member of this House, because if he was not to vacate his seat he (Mr. CAMERON) would be prepared to move that he be expelled. The position that should be taken with regard to constitutional forms and rights was one that should not be given up if they had strong convictions on the subject. He (Mr. CAMERON) had very strong convictions on this point, and felt bound to offer for the consideration of the House the grounds which had influenced his mind in saying that upon the face of the records of this proceeding there was no valid judgment of outlawry. Those who were versed in the law were aware that certain proceedings must be taken in reference to outlawry in England. They go back to a very remote period, except recently, when a change was made in civil procedure by what was called the "Common Law Procedure Act." They dated back prior to the existence of Canada as a colony. From the times of HENRY VI. down to the last act passed in the reign of WILLIAM and MARY. They explained the manner in which proceedings were to be taken in criminal and civil cases tending to outlawry. While in common law proceedings for initiating outlawry might be taken upon an indictment, for criminal proceedings the manner in which these proceedings were afterwards carried on, and the ceremony to be observed in respect to them were pointed out. Now, when they had before them a record of judgment, and there was either in the law with regard to it, or on the face of the judgment itself, that which invalidated it, he thought they were not precluded from declaring that it was not a record of outlawry. They were not in the least degree precluded, as they would be in

Hon. J. H. Cameron.

dealing with a question of fact, from examining the record. They could not be prevented any more than a court could, from declaring from the face of that record that there was no outlawry, and that the House could not, therefore, take proceedings upon it. Now, in the proceedings to be taken in outlawry, though to most persons they might appear to be merely technical, involved rights and privileges, and an explanation of them, therefore, might be interesting to most of the hon. gentlemen present. Upon an indictment for a felony punishable with death, if the accused does not appear, a writ called a bench warrant is issued at the time of the Assizes, which is the same as a writ which is called capias ad respondendum. That writ requires to be issued once, twice and three times in some cases and once or twice in other cases. The sheriff of the county where the party dwells or of the county next to it is required to return the writ, declaring the party is not forthcoming, and for each writ a similar return is made. He is required to make proclamations at the seat of the County Court for five different times, and a writ was required to be issued called a writ of exigent. That writ and the proclamation bear the same date of issue and the same date of return. The time which must by law elapse between each of these proclamations is a month. The last day-the quinto exactus-when the proclamation of declaration expires, is the day on which the party is required to appear, so that, in fact, the outlawry shall not take place until the day in which the party has been required to appear shall have passed. So much was this the case in England, where this system had been in use for so long a period of years, that if there happened not to be a coroner in a county, there could be no judgment of outlawry pronounced. The law was plain upon that point, and the authorities distinct. If there were no sheriff in the county for over a year,proceedings could not be taken until a new sheriff was appointed, and so long as there was no coroner in the county, no sentence of outlawry could be pronounced. The proceedings to which he had referred had every one of them to be taken in the order in which he had referred to them, and if that order were departed from in the slightest degree, the record might be treated as null and void.

on the day he was required to appear. The case on that point was as clear as it could be, and the authorities as plain. In a case where an offender was outlawed on the day of the quinto exactus, the outlawry was set aside because he had all that day in which to appear before the Court, and by no possibility could he be outlawed until the following day. The cases reported in COKE JAMES, 160, and PALMER,

For instance: the

Although in most cases writs of error and motions to set aside could be entertained in cases of this nature, if any error of informality were apparent on the face of the proceedings, outlawry could be of no efect. In the Province of Manitoba there could be no outlawry. In the first place, there were no sheriffs of counties, for there was but one sheriff, and in the second place, there were no coroners of counties, for there was only one coroner. | 280, were clear upon this point, As these first instruments to outlawry did not exist according to the law, the means of taking the course dictated by the law of England did not exist, and that course could not therefore be taken. The form of proceeding was a peculiar one, but it was required to be carried out with the strictest possible exactitude. The result of carrying out these proceedings in England was that, if the man did not appear within the time stated, and judgment of outlawry were pronounced, he might be executed without any further proceeding. Therefore it was that the law was so particularly observed as in favor of life, and matters which under ordinary circumstances would be looked upon as mere irregularities were in this regard treated by the law as defects. Outlawries had over and over again been reversed upon grounds which in other cases would be of no force at all. For the reasons stated, therefore, no judgment of outlawry could have existed in the case of RIEL at all. In reference to the record before the House, the difficulties that might occur, and did occur in many cases in England, appeared to be multiplied tenfold. He thought it would be almost impossible to produce any record of outlawry with so many mistakes in it as there were in this. There were no less than ten or a dozen grounds, upon the face of the record, why judgment should be reversed. There was one ground, at least, upon which not only could no legal man, but also no layman in the House, fail to see that the outlawry was null and void. The quinto exactus was the 10th February, the 10th of this present month, and that was the very day upon which RIEL was required to appear in Court. He had the whole of that day in which to appear, and therefore he could not be outlawed by any possibility until the next day. Yet on the very face of this proceeding it appeared that he was outlawed Hon. J. H. Cameron.

and the reason of the thing was quite as
evident as the law; because if a man had
the whole of the 10th of February to
appear, it was quite clear that he could
not be outlawed on that day. And yet
the record upon which the House was
called upon to act declared that LOUIS
RIEL was an outlaw on the 10th of Febru-
ary, and was certified to by the Clerk of
the Court of Queen's Bench on that day—
the day before RIEL could possibly have
became an outlaw. In addition to that
point there were other objections which
might be taken, and which would on the
face of the record be sufficient to void the
sentence of outlawry.
statute which the sheriff professed to
follow was the 31 ELIZABETH, and that
statute declared that there should be no
outlawry unless three proclamations were
issued, the first in the County Court, the
second in the Quarter Sessions, and the
third at the door of the parish church of
the place where the party lived, one
month before the outlawry. But on the
face of the record in this case it appeared.
that the first and third proclamations took
place on the same day, 4th January, and
the second immediately afterwards, and
not at the Quarter Sessions, but at the
County Court. So that the very statute
that had professedly been acted upon had
not been acted upon. This was not his
own reasoning merely, for he had authori-
ties, and could give an adjudged case
for every point he took. Moreover, it
could not be controverted that one month
must elapse between the issues of the five
proclamations in the County Courts
required by law. What time had been
allowed to elapse in this case? The first
proclamation was issued on the 4th of
January, 1875, in the County of Selkirk ;
the second on the 7th of January, in the
County of Lisgar; the third on the 11th
January, in the County of Provencher;
and the fourth on the 13th January, in

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »