Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

the County of Marquette East. The law | upon the strength of that record that RIEL provided that a month's delay should take was an outlaw. place between the proclamations, in order to give the fullest opportunity to the accused party to appear. COKE in his second Institutes, page 47, stated: "As the punishment under outlawry is very severe,the law has provided and takes care that no person shall be outlawed till he has had all due and proper notice of the proceedings." It was evident that the provisions of the statute in this respect had not been followed in this case, and as the law required that every step in outlawry should, on pain of nullity, be taken in strict accordance with the law, there could be no doubt that this sentence of outlawry was void. He could cite a case in which the mere change of a single letter had been held enough to upset the process of outlawry. There was another objection to the proceedings, and that was that RIEL was outlawed in the wrong court. He could only be outlawed in the County Court, but according to the record he was outlawed in the Court of Queen's Bench, sitting as a Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery. The law was clear upon that point, and if it was necessary he could cite numerous authorities. He could quite understand the argument that would be raised against his position, namely, that the House had no right to constitute themselves a court of revision or appeal to sit upon this sentence of outlawry. But the House was dealing with the rights and liberties of the people, and with a constitutional question, and he held they had a right to deal with objections to this sentence of outlawry which appeared on the face of it, and which showed that it was entirely void. His position would not be misunderstood in this matter. He had voted last session for the expulsion of RIEL from this House, and he would do so again, but not upon the ground that RIEL was an outlaw, because he held that RIEL had never properly been pronounced an outlaw. If it was proposed to go behind the record, and inquire into facts not apparent on the record, then he could understand the objection that might properly be taken to such a course. But the House was asked to take action upon the record, which, upon its face, he held to be void, and therefore he could not vote for the motion of the Premier, and declare Hon J. II. Cameron.

[ocr errors]

Hon. Mr. FOURNIER contended that the whole criminal law of England, including outlawry, had been introduced into Manitoba, and therefore the objection to the course proposed by the Premier was narrowed down to the question of the legality of the proceedings that had been taken in this matter. It might perhaps be difficult with the existing organization of the courts in Manitoba to follow strictly the process laid down in the statute, because the organization of the courts in Manitoba were different from the organization of the courts in England; but that was not a matter for this House to consider. This House did not sit as a court of revision or appeal to declare whether the proper formalities of the law had been complied with or not. They had no right to look behind the judgment of the court. Whether the court was competent or not, it was not for the House to decide. If they were satisfied that outlawry existed under our law, and that a regular court of the country had decided that RIEL was an outlaw, then they must abide by the decision. He would not contest the allegations of the hon. gentleman with regard to the mode of procedure. He admitted that it was very precise and special, and that it was requisite that all the formalties should be complied with, but that was not an argument to be taken here. He had no doubt that if LOUIS RIEL engaged the hon. gentleman as counsel, and availed himself before the court of the irregularities referred to, referred to, he might, perhaps, get rid of the sentence of outlawry. No doubt the sentence of outlawry was a very severe one, but at the same time the person of RIEL was protected by law, and no one could touch him, and if he was apprehended he might take advantage of all the informalities mentioned by the hon. gentleman. But what he (Mr. FOURNIER) contended was that this House had no right to pronounce upon these irregularities, and were bound to take cognizance of the record of outlawry now before them, seeing that prima facia a regular and proper sentence of outlawry had been pronounced by a competent court. He might say, moreover, that this sentence was the strongest evidence that could be adduced that LOUIS

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said he quite agreed with the conclusion of the Minister of Justice, namely, that there was sufficient evidence before the House on which to expel LOUIS RIEL. At the same time he held that the member for Cardwell had conclusively established that these papers establishing outlawry were mere waste paper. He was inclined to believe that it was almost impossible on this continent without a new law to place any of HER MAJESTY'S subjects in the position of an outlaw. We had not the requisite machinery. The process of outlawry was only to be obtained by virtue of the importation of the English law, and the law relating to outlawry was so utterly inapplicable to the organization of our courts that he did not believe a valid judgment of outlawry could be obtained against any person for any crime. The Minister of Justice had held that the House ought not to go behind the sentence, but the objection taken was due to the jurisdiction in the beginning. If the court had no jurisdiction in the matter the House was bound to know it. Supposing that the court for the trial of small causes in Quebec issued a decree of outlawry against a man who was elected a member of this House, would this House be bound to act upon that decree and expel the man so sentenced? Or supposing the Court of Chancery undertook to act in criminal matters this House would be bound to say that that court had gone beyond its jurisdiction. He held that the seat was not void, that it was absolutely necessary to expel LOUIS RIEL, beeause until he was expelled he had the same right to take his seat in the House as any other member had. He agreed with the Minister of Justice that the record before the House was sufficient to establish that RIEL was a fugitive from Justice and that the same cause of expulcause of expulsion existed now as existed last session. He would vote for expulsion, but he did not think the seat was void by this sentence of outlawry.

[ocr errors]

:

RIEL was a fugitive from justice-stronger | the impropriety of the course they had evidence than that upon which the House recommended. Those hon. members had expelled him last session. discussed the question precisely as if the House was a Court of Appeal for the consideration of the legality of the judgment of outlawry which had been pronounced, a copy of which had been laid on the table of the House. Now, they were not called upon, as the hon. member for Cardwell had said, to declare that RIEL was an outlaw there had been no such proposition submitted to the House. They were called upon to declare that RIEL had been adjudged an outlaw, and evidence of his having been so adjudged had been laid on the table of the House. If they followed English precedent, he thought it would be found that there were two cases in which Parliamentary law had recognised a right in the Commons to enquire into a judgment of the court, viz.; when the court was charged with either corruption or incompetency. It was only when a Judge was attacked that the House of Commons had any right to enquire into a judgment. Here, however, there was no charge made against the Judge-he was not impeached or proceeded against. That being the case the House had no right to review hisjudgment, to enquire whether it was valid or invalid, or whether it was one which, if taken before the court on writ of error, it might be well for the court to reverse. He would not enquire whether the court was a proper court to pronounce the judgment of outlawry; he did not think the House was competent to deal with the matter. The highest court of Manitoba had assumed it had jurisdiction, and he did not think the House was competent to say by its voice or vote that the highest court of that province had erred. case of Lord COCHRANE afforded the strongest possible evidence of the impropriety of the course suggested by the member for Cardwell and the hon. member for Kingston. Lord COCHRANE was accused of making certain false representations, and improperly dealing with certain stocks, and was found guilty by the Court of Queen's Bench. He appeared in his place in the House of Commons, and when the motion was made for his expulsion; he contended that the judgment was an improper one, as he had been improperly joined with other parties, and that in consequence of that he was

Mr. MILLS said it appeared, to him that the line of argument pursued by the hon. member for Kingston and the hon. member for Cardwell was the strongest possible evidence the House could have of

Hon. Mr. Fournier.

The

not allowed to produce evidence which | RIEL should be banished from this country was necessary for his exculpation. Lord for five years. The House had decided, COCHRANE asked the House to make consistently, on the advice of the Prime an inquiry itself, declaring his readiness to produce such evidence as would beyond all question establish his entire innocence of the charge made against him. What was the answer of the Attorney General? Why, that the House was not a judicial tribunal for reviewing decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench; that if any improper act had been done by the court, the party should adopt the legal course and seek the proper remedy; that the remedy was not to be sought in the House of Commons; that the House was precluded from entering into the merits of the question by the judgment of the court itself. Now, this House was in precisely this position they had nothing to do with the regularity or irregularity of the proceedings against RIEL. They knew that he had been accused of murder, that he was a fugitive from justice, and because he was such they expelled him. The House was not called upon to review the judgment of the court, but simply, in consequence of that judgment, to take the necessary proceedings for the election of another member in the place of RIEL, whose seat in consequence of that judgment whether it was valid or invalid was vacant,—and until it was set aside it must be assumed to be valid by the House. The House should not be misled by the arguments of the hon. member for Cardwell and the hon. member for Kingston, which might be very proper and pertinent if addressed to a court reviewing the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, but which were entirely out of place, under the circumstances in this House.

Mr. MASSON said that he and those on that side of the House with whom he worked and with whom he fought the question of amnesty up to that time were comparatively indifferent to the present discussion. It had been decided against everything they had said and done that they had lost the battle, and that RIEL must be expelled the House. The only difficulty now was to find the proper way of turning him out. The majority of the House had decided, upon the advice of the Government, that the settlement which they had offered the House was a final settlement, and that Mr. Mills.

Minister, that RIEL should be banished, in order to mark the enormity of the crime, and now they should be asked, on the strength of the evidence before them, to vote for the expulsion of RIEL, irrespective of any legal proceedings that might have been taken. A more manly course to have pursued would have been to declare that RIEL, being guilty of a crime which necessitated his banishment from the country, he had no right to sit in this House. He had told hon. members when the question was previously before the House that in voting for the resolutions of the Government they voted that RIEL should be expelled from the House, and his predict tion was that day verified. The Government did not go to the logical conclusion of their position, but they told their friends, "You are not voting for the expulsion of RIEL because he deserves to be expelled, but because he has been outlawed." The Minister of Justice had told the House that the reasons which induced them to expel RIEL last year were stronger now; that last year there may have been a doubt; that the Minister of Public Works was wrong perhaps last year in voting for the expulsion of RIEL, but this year he would be right in doing so because RIEL was outlawed. Why was RIEL an outlaw? RIEL was an outlaw because all along he (RIEL) and the people of Lower Canada had been led to understand that the whcle of RIEL's case rested on the point, whether an amnesty had or had not been promised him. RIEL had been led to believe, as he (Mr. MASSON), and all those who had taken an interest in the subject had been led to believe, that an amnesty would soon be granted. At the time of the last elections it was proclaimed through Lower Canada that now that this Government had taken the place of the Government of the member for Kingston the amnesty would be sure to come.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON-The hon. member for Kingston denies that the amnesty was promised.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD-I said the amnesty was sure to come.

Mr. MASSON-- A few months before the meeting of Parliament last session they were told that if an amnesty had been promised, it would be granted and

that it was the intention of the Gov-| to believe that the question of amnesty ernment to appoint a Royal Commission was being honestly and fairly discussed to inquire into and ascertain whether a with a view to ascertain whether he was promise of amnesty had or had not been entitled to an amnesty or not. Months made. Before the opening of the Session afterwards, the papers had not been sent to the Government decided not to appoint a England, and up to the commencement of Royal Commission, but to charge a com- this session the people of Quebec were led mittee with the duty of ascertaining to believe that, on the evidence taken by whether an amnesty had been granted, the committee, RIEL was assured of his which, if promised, would surely be amnesty. The question had only been granted. Were they to believe that RIEL decided a few days ago, when the House did not know the intentions of the Gov-resolved that so far from RIEL being entiernment from those who were speaking tled to an amnesty, he was entitled to banfor the Government through the Press. ishment. The logical consequence of the RIEL very properly said: "There is to be vote of the House, given a few days ago, a Committee of Inquiry; I will not, was that RIEL should be expelled. The therefore, submit myself to be tried for an only thing that remained for him (Mr. offence when it is at this moment under MASSON) to do was, to be consistent with discussion as to whether I shall be tried himself. In the first place, there were for it or not." Because the House should doubts about the outlawry. In the second remember that an amnesty is not a place, he considered that RIEL was entipardon; it was more than a pardon. A tled to his seat in this House, as he was pardon comes after the offence; an entitled last year, and consequently he amnesty comes before the offence. The was determined to vote against any motion meaning of the word amnesty was not that would have the effect of turning RIEL pardon, but obliteration; and the authority out of the House, and in favor of any granting the amnesty forgets, as it were, motion which would have the effect of that the act has been committed. retaining RIEL in his place.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE — Because it is impossible to forgive what has not hap pened, so the amnesty does not precede the offence.

Mr. MASSON—The House decided to have a Committee of Inquiry. In the face of that decision, was there a fair minded man who would say that RIEL was bound to come and offer himself for trial when at that very time they were enquiring into the question, whether he was entitled to a complete amnesty, and whether he should come to trial at all. RIEL, very properly, did not come forward at that particular time. During the session of Parliament could RIEL, who was a member of the House, come forward and deliver himself to the tribunal ? They were told that it could clearly be proved that an amnesty had been promised. After the evidence was taken by the committee, the people of Lower Canada were told that they must not hurry the question, because the evidence must be sent to England, so that the Imperial authorities might see it. He (Mr. MASSON) was not casting blame on the Minister of Justice, but was showing that the action of the Government from the very beginning had been such as to induce RIEL Mr. Masson.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON hoped the hon. member from Terrebonne did not claim for himself all the consistency and patriotism there was in the House. The hon. gentleman complained that he was abandoned by those around him, but he had been abandoned before when his chief failed to vote on a resolution for a complete amnesty. The hon. gentleman contended that the proceedings of to-day were a consequence of the vote of the other day, but was it the same last year when LOUIS RIEL was expelled from the House. The hon. gentleman's object was to quash these proceedings in order that RIEL might be expelled a second time and that hon. gentleman opposite could go to the country and declare that they had done a very patriotic thing. The question was this whether this judgment should be discussed. The House was not

If

a court of error, and even though it was
the party affected by this judgment was
not here to ask revision.
to ask revision. The English
course was the proper one to pursue.
this was a judgment at all, LOUIS RIEL
was no longer a member of this House and
a writ must be issued for the election of a
member to represent Provencher in this.
House, Otherwise the constituency would

remain unrepresented in this House for | but a complete amnesty for Louis RIEL, four years more. He was sure that when but being in power accepted a mongrel both sides of this question were laid amnesty. The hon. gentleman pronounced before the people, and the passions which it the Quebec members of the late governaroused were swept away by time, the ment and their supporters traitors to the country would judge it in its true light. Metis, because they did not insist upon He had no objection to vote for the a complete amnesty, at the same time that motion as it stood. The amnesty question his colleagues, the present Premier and had nothing to do with it. The fact was the hon. member for South Bruce, were before the House that Provencher was not offering a reward for the arrest of RIEL. represented because LOUIS RIEL had been Now, who were the traitors to the Metis ? declared an outlaw and it was their duty The hon. member for Terrebonne refused to have a representative elected. a seat in the late Cabinet because his leader would not promise a complete amnesty: did the hon. member for Vercheres exact such terms when he became a member of the present government? He (Mr. BABY) was sure the hon. gentleman did not, for he would have kept his word and resigned his portfolio when the Government measure was brought down. He concluded by contending that the House had a right to examine the judgment and

Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION said the hon. member for Terrebonne had contrasted the position occupied by Quebec members of the Cabinet on this question now, with that which they held when in opposition, but he should remember that they were not responsible for LOUIS RIEL's outlawry. It was the personal friends of hon. gentlemen opposite-Messrs. RoYAL, GIRARD and DUBUQUE, members of the Manitoba Government. It was by them that proceedings were taken against Louis RIEL, and if steps were not taken to sel aside the judgment of the Court it was the fault of his legal advisers there and of nobody else. He (Mr. GEOFFRION)and his colleagues were responsible for the policy of this Government on the RIEL question. He noticed the hon. member for Joliette smiling, but he was prepared to meet the hon. gentleman in that constituency and show that while hon. gentlemen opposite were trying to excite popular feeling against the Government for not giving RIEL a complete amnesty. their friends in Manitoba, Messrs. ROYAL, DUBUQUE and GIRARD were declaring him an outlaw. This Government was merely pursuing the course necessitated by the action taken in Manitoba by the friends of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The only course for this Government to pursue was to receive the judgment of the court of Manitoba.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD-A court without jurisdiction in this case.

Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION contended that this House was not a Court of Appeal, and could not enter into the question of the validity of the judgment.

Mr. BABY, in reply to the personal reference made to him by the hon. member for Vercheres, said his smile was at the enthusiasm of the hon. gentleman who, while in opposition, would accept nothing

IIon. Mr. Cauchon.

whether it had been rendered by a legally constituted tribunal or not.

Hon. J. H. CAMERON rose to move an amendment, but was ruled out of order, as he had already spoken on the question. He handed the amendment to Mr. PLUMB and resumed his seat.

Mr. PLUMB moved that all after the word "that," in the original notion be struck out and the following inserted :"It appears on the face of the record of proceedings brought before this House that no legal or valid judgment of outlawry has been rendered against the said LOUIS RIEL, member for Provencher, and it also appears from the same record that the said LOUIS RIEL, having been indicted for murder, has not been arrested nor appeared nor pleaded to said indictment nor surrendered to take his trial thereon, but has been and continues to be voluntarily absent and a fugitive from justice from the Province of Manitoba. Be it therefore resolved, that the said LOUIS RIEL shall be and he is hereby expelled from this House."

Mr. MASSON said he had no doubt, when the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue had time to reflect upon the speech he had made, he would regret it. There was nothing said by any hon. member in this discussion which would justify the hon. Minister in making such an onslaught upon persons not in this House, whose he conduct had not approved of. He

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »