(Mr. MASSON) supposed the hon. gentleman and his friends had in this matter acted quite conscientiously, and that they desired to do what was right. They seemed to feel that the position in which they were placed was not exactly what they could wish it to be; and their conduct reminded him of the husband who went home late, and in order to be saveda scolding began himself to scold his wife. The hon. Minister knew that the solution of the question proposed by the Government would not please his friends in Lower Canada, that there was a strong feeling existing there against their policy on the question now before the House, and he (the MINISTER) desired that something should be said or done which would remove the remembrance of these things from the public mind. His plan appeared to be a general attack upon the Conservative party in Manitoba and Lower Canada. He (Mr. MASSON) had avoided reproaching gentlemen upon the other side of the House, and had indeed been guarded in what he said. He did not make any attack upon hon. members, or if anything he said had been so construed, it was quite foreign to his intention. What he had said was that if Mr. RIEL did not come forward for his trial, it was due to the action of hon. gentlemen opposite themselves. They had promised that an am nesty would be forthcoming, as Hon. Mr. FOURNIER said he had not been quite fairly represented by the hon. member for Terrebonne. What he had said was that, while in no measure receding from the position he, like other hon. members, had taken on this question last year, the position in which Mr. RIEL was now placed, and the position in which the House found itself in regard to him, was entirely different from what it had formerly been. The law now pointed out the course they were bound to pursue. There was to be found upon the records of this House a precedent for the action about to be taken. An hon. member had in that case been expelled because he was a fugitive from justice. Outlawry amounted to the same thing as a conviction, and involved the same consequences. The motion before the House was based upon the legal consequences of the sentence of outlawry, by the operation of which Mr. RIEL hac become disqualified to hold a seat in this House. He did not believe there was a single member in the House prepared to deny the legal proposition that Mr. RIEL, being outlawed, he was disqualified from taking his seat. Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said he understood the Minister of Justice to mean that if the House had expelled Mr. RIEL last year, there were greater grounds for his expulsion this year. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER repeated that he had not departed from the position he took last year, but the fact of RIEL's outlawry left no course except that which it was proposed the House should now take. gentlemen upon this side of the House had promised an amnesty, and in consequence of that statement Mr. RIEL had not come forward. Surely that was no attack upon the hon. gentleman or his friends. He (Mr. MASSON) had referred Mr. MACDONNELL (Inverness) said. to the outlawry because the Minister of there were two points which it was the Justice had argued that those who had duty of the House to consider. First. voted against the expulsion last year-and there were the facts and the evidence would have a difficulty in voting other-which were before them, and in the second wise this year-could vote for the issue of a new writ consistently, and thus relieve themselves from the consequences which a direct reversal of last year's vote would necessarily entail in Lower Canada. He (Mr. MASSON) believed that members on the other side of the House from the Province of Quebec wished for a complete amnesty, but preferred to vote for what had been described by an hon. member as a "mongrel motion" rather than permit the gentlemen upon this (the Opposition) side of the House to go over to that. Mr. Masson. place there was the authority of the court before which the process of outlawry had been taken. The question of fact and of evidence was not one for this hon. House to consider. He to consider. There was but one tribunal which could take cognizance of the matter, and until the sentence had been reversed by that tribunal, it stood good in all tribunals. So far it had not been set aside, and the House was bound to regard it as legal and proper. With regard to the authority of the tribunal, the case quoted by the right hon., the leader of the Opposition, was not in point. The Court of Chancery was not a court of criminal jurisdiction. It had not, now, and never had, the power of taking cognizance of processes of outlawry. Hon. members were aware that the Court of Queen's Bench, and that court alone, had jurisdiction. In all countries processes of outlawry were taken before the Court of Queen's Bench. Sir JOHN MACDONALD—They never are. Mr. MCDONNELL explained that he meant that the Court of Queen's Bench originally had cognizance of all matters of crime. It being six o'clock, the House rose for recess. ++) +: AFTER RECESS. Mr. MACDONNELL (Inverness) said that since the House rose he had referred to the criminal statute of 1869, and he found that the process of outlawry was recognized by that statute, which being passed after Manitoba was united to Canada, extended to that Province. That being the case the next question was whether the proceedings in outlawry had been regularly taken. He contended that was not a question for this House at all, because the House must act upon the maxim that what was done by a public official must be presumed to be rightly done until the contrary is proved. Mr. FLESHER said he had listened attentively to the debate, but there were still one or two points he was not quite clear upon. The Minister of Justice had not met the argument of the member for Cardwell to the effect that the machinery for carrying outlawry into operation was defective, and that the proper formalities had not been observed. Surely this was a matter that the House should take cognizance of. Supposing a case was brought before a magistrate, it would be his duty to inquire whether the case was one which should properly come before him, and whether the warrant was regularly made out. If this was done in small matters, how much more necessary was it for the House to follow the same principle in dealing with so grave a matter as the expulsion of a member on the ground of outlawry, especially when it was remembered that the House was acting ex parte in the matter. Supposing that Mr. MacDonnell. this sentence of outlawry should be set aside subsequently what position would the House be in after having declared that the outlawry was valid and had expelled RIEL on the strength of it. There was no reason why the course proposed by the Premier should be taken in preference to the course taken last session. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said hon. gentlemen opposite had argued that there was no machinery for giving effect to outlawry in this country. Chief Justice WOOD sitting judicially had declared Louis RIEL to be outlaw in a judgment which was now before the House. Hon. J. H. CAMERON-No, no! That is a mistake. The Chief Justice has nothing to do with the judgment of outlawry. All that he had done was to certify that the record was the record before the court. Hon. Mr. HOLTON-It is quite clear that a machinery for this purpose has been found and has been certified to by the Chief Justice sitting in his judicial capacity. Hon. J. H. CAMERON-No. Hon. Mr. HOLTON went on to say that the whole scope of the argument on the other side was that the Chief Justice was wrong, and that this House was sitting as a court of revicw upon the action of the court in Manitoba. He maintained that they must accept the judgment of the court for Parliamentary purposes. If the party interested felt aggrieved, and if there were these irregularities that had been pointed out, he could seek redress from the courts; but for all Parliamentary purposes they had ample evidence that LOUIS RIEL had been declared an outlaw, and the effect of that declaration was to void the seat. He would not go into the political aspect of the case; he simply desired to point out what he believed to be the only question before the House the sufficiency and the authenticity of the judgment of outlawry for the purpose of governing their action. Whether the proceedings were regular or irregular, it was quite incompetent for the House to decide. With all his respect for the legal abilities and Parliamentary experience of the hon. members from Kingston and Cardwell, he would not accept the doctrine of either of them as to the regularity or irregularity of the proceedings, the net namely; result of which they had now before the | House. That judgment properly authenticated was, he maintained, all that they required to govern their Parliamentary action. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said the certificate of the SPEAKER, or of the Clerk of the House, accompanying the proceedings of the House, would only mean that it was certified that the copies were true copies. So in this case Chief Justice WOOD certified that the papers now before the House were the papers connected with this case, and being so certified they must be held by the House to be true copies. But as the SPEAKER'S or the Clerk's certificate would go no further than to certify that the copies were true copies, so Chief Justice WOOD's certificate went no further than to certify that the documents were true copies of the papers that appeared in the court in Manitoba. It did not in any way give a character to these documents. They must stand upon their own merits. If defective they must fall; if sufficient they would be maintained. Yet the hon. gentleman said that for Parliamentary purposes these must be held to be correct, and a member of this House must be expelled on them whether correct It was said he could go to the | Court of Appeal of it was incorrect, but suppose the appeal should be successful what satisfaction would it be to be told "You ought to have sat for four years." In the case in which Lord DENMAN and the Court of Queen's Bench decided against the jurisdiction of Parliament, Sir ROBERT PEEL rose in his place and appealed to Parliament against the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. He said no matter how the law might have been construed, the House of Commons could not be denuded of its jurisdiction; and that was a case in which the lawyers in the House of Commons did not say that the Court of Common Pleas was wrong. or not. In this case, the House was asked to declare a seat vacant on a document that was rotten, on its face; that was not worth the paper it was written on. There was no legal man in the House who would venture to say that the judgment of outlawry, as declared in these documents, would be sustained where British law existed, yet the House was told that for Parliamentary purpose this rotten, illegal paper must be accepted as correct. The House should take the Hon. Mr. Holton. course which honest, straightforward Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE was surprised that the hon. gentleman should use such vehement language as to call the judgment of a court a rotten document. It was not respectful to the court or to this House. The mere fact that the hon. gentleman characterized these documents as rotten did not make them so. The sentence of outlawry was equal to conviction of crime, and that having been pronounced. the House was not to go behind the record, but simply to accept the judgment of the court and act accordingly. The right hon. gentleman seemed to be extremely anxious that this man should be expelled from the House; the hon. members for Bagot and Terrebonne wished that he should not, but they were all working most harmoniously in order to obtain a common ground upon which they could vote. A great blunder had been made in framing this motion, and he was anxious to see how the hon. gentleman to whom he had alluded would vote on it. They were all exceedingly anxious to put members on the Government side of the House in an awkward position, but they would not accomplish their object. The motion before the House was based upon the procedure of the English House of Commons, and no one would venture to say that Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not quite as good an authority as the hon. member for Kingston. He defied the hon. gentleman to find a single instance where the House of Commons had ever gone behind a verdict of a court to criticise it. The verdict of the court in the SMITH O'BRIEN case was sent down to the Commons from the House of Lords. It might have been competent for any member of the House of Commons to raise an objection to that judgment and state that the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal were wrong, but no one thought of such a thing, and it had been left to a Parliamentarian in Canada to impugn the judgment of a court and characterize it in such strong language. Sir JOHN MACDONALD pointed to the case of Mr. JOHN MITCHELL, in which At 8:30 the members were called in and a vote was taken on the amendment, which was rejected on the following division — YEAS: such a great authority as Mr. GLADSTONE ( the correct one. This was a precedent objected to a summary decision upon the which the hon. Premier could quote. ground that the conviction of Mr. MITCHELL was not sufficient to remove him from the House at once, and asked for a postponement in order that the whole question might be discussed and not decided as it was attempted here, upon the mere production of a paper. These were parallel cases. In each the document was laid upon the table. Hon. Mr. HOLTON-What document? Ferguson, Flesher, There was only a telegram. Jones (Leeds), Kirkpatrick, Sir JOHN MACDONALD said there was more. The judgment paper was laid before the House, and the question about the subsequent escape was discussed. The two cases were altogether similar. Bowell, Cameron, (Cardwell), Little, Macdonald (Kingston), Appleby, Borron, Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the return had not been received, but the intelligence of Mr. MITCHELL'S election was received by telegraph. Proceedings were at once taken, and Mr. GLADSTONE urged that such precipitancy was not desirable. It Béchard, was not pretended that the judgment of Bernier, the court was not sufficient evidence of the disqualification of JOHN MITCHELL. Mr. ROSS (Prince Edward) said he did not want to argue legal points. He would merely mention the fact that in 1871 he drew the attention of this House to the Scott murder, and had always advocated the punishment of the perpetrators of that cruel deed. The other night he voted against amnesty and partial amnesty. To-night he would vote for the strongest motion condemning Louis RIEL. The amendment declared there was no proof of outlawry, and if it were carried RIEL could again become a candidate, and be elected a member of this House. motion of the Minister of Justice would prevent that, and as it was the strongest, he would vote for it. He took an independent position in this House. Bertram, McQuade, Monteith, Orton, Platt, Rochester, Stephenson, Thompson (Cariboo), Tupper, Wallace (Norfolk), Cauchon, Moss, Charlton, Cheval, Church, Hon. Mr. BLAKE said the hon. member for Kingston had called attention to the fact that in the most recent case of which we had cognizance, Mr. GLADSTONE asked for delay. The House had to attend not to what a fallen leader (who fell without dishonour, however,) had to say, but to what the House of Commons did. They did not listen to the appeal of Mr. GLADSTONE. On the contrary, by an overwhelming majority they determined that Mr. GLADSTONE was wrong, and that the proposition to proceed immediately, was Dymond, Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. De St. Georges, De Veber, Devlin, Murray, Norris, Oliver, Quimet, Paterson, Pelletier, Perry, Pettes, Pickard, Pinsonneault, Pouliot, Power, Pozer, Ross (Durham), Burpee (St. John), Cameron (Ontario), McDougall (Renfrew), McGregor, McIntyre, McKay (Colchester), Mills, Burpee (Sunbury), Campbell, Carmichael, Hurteau, Jones (Leeds), McDonald (Cape Breton) Mitchell, Montplaisir, Wallace (Norfolk)—31. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved that Mr. SPEAKER do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to issue a new writ for the electoral district of Provencher, in the room of LOUIS RIEL, adjudged an outlaw. Mr. SPEAKER-I am not sure that this motion is in order. I have not looked at the statutes, but my impression is that the SPEAKER issues his warrant without any motion. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said under the Controverted Elections Act the House had not divested itself of the control over the issue of new writs, except in certain specified cases, such as the death or resignation of a member, or the return Colby, Coupal, Domville, Flesher, Gaudet, Gill, Harwood, |