AFTER RECESS.

which took place between Archbishop TACHE and Mr. LETELLIER, and would have read to the House the telegrams then which their late colleague, the Minister of Justice, sent to Governor MORRIS in order to induce RIEL to retire from Provencher. They might have gone further, and told the House, because the evidence showed it, that Archbishop TACHE through Governor MORRIS informed them where they could find Mr. RIEL, and hold communication with him, and discuss the question of his running for Provencher. They could have even gone further, and stated that Father LASCOMB Wrote to Archbishop TACHE and told him that he had an interview either with the late MINISTER OF JUSTICE, or some one in his behalf in reference to this matter. He repeated that had the Government been desirous of making their case stronger, and of reciting all the facts. connected with the promise of amnesty and the negotiations that had been carried on with those connected with the troubles in the North-West, they would have placed upon record their own utterances in this matter. He found on reading the evidence, in addition to that recited in the resolution and read to the House, that Archbishop TACHE stated in his evidence that on the 25th November he had an interview with Mr. LETELLIER in his office, and that Mr. LETELLIER said to him: "I think (or I hope) that we shall be able to give the amnesty to our Lower Canadian friends as a New Year's gift." This was, he thought, about as strong evidence as any produced, and if the Government had, he would not say the political courage, but the moral courage which they should possess as responsible Ministers, they would have come down to this House and asked for an amnesty pure and simple. He would say further that if there was any logical deduction to be drawn from the utterances of the PREMIER to-day, basing as he did his whole case upon the promises or supposed promises or utterances, official or unofficial, he (the PREMIER) should say at once that these parties were entitled to an amnesty pure and simple. But it did surprise him that in this resolution any allusion to the utterances of the members or ex-members of the present Government was studiously avoided by the PREMIER. How

Mr. MACKENZIE BOWELL, in resuming the debate, said he rose with considerable diffidence to discuss a question of such momentous importance as that now before the House, more particularly as it had fallen to his lot to follow the First Minister of the Crown. He must, however, express astonishment at the manner in which this question had been brought before the House. Taking the resolutions as a whole, he thought they were unparalleled in the history of any legislative body. It did seem to him that they had been framed-he thought he might safely say with the malignant ingenuity of a subtle mind, other than they might expect of the gentleman who proposed the resolution-for the purpose of relieving the Government of the great responsibility which they should not hesitate to assume as the responsible advisers of the Crown in this country. It seemed to him that they had adopted this course for the purpose of erecting a barrier behind which they could retreat, no matter from what quarter they might be attacked. If from an Ontario standpoint, they would say that, notwithstanding the extreme utterances which they had made for the last three or four years, they had effected a compromise of this kind, and relieved those whom they declared in the past should be hanged or gibbetted. If attacked from a Lower Canada standpoint they could plead that they had placed RIEL and LEPINE, and those who were acting with them in the events which occurred in the North-West, in a much better position than they would have been had they been let alone. If this were not their policy, why, he would ask, had they not given a fair résumé of the evidence that bore particularly upon this subject? Why had they studiously left out of the preamble—if he might so term it--every word that referred to the action of their colleagues in connection with the presumed promise of amnesty. Had they not desired to throw the whole responsibility upon the Government that had passed out of existence, and had they not desired to inflict a stab on the right hon. member for Kingston, and those who supported him at the time, they would have added to these resolutions the action of the late Minister ever, of Justice, Mr. DORION, and the interview point, Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

when he came to that he would discuss it further.

Then on the 30th of the same month | our interview of that day, which was my last Archbishop TACHE states in his evidence interview with them. that he saw the Hon. Mr. DORION and Hon. Mr. LETELLIER, and this was the evidence he gave of the result of those interviews :

Next sentence, "Communication received" "To ALEX. MORRIS,

(same meaning), matter under consideration" meaning "that the amnesty was under consideration by the Ottawa Government;" "you may expect early decision" meaning its inherent sense as bearing on the secret meaning of the prior part of the sentence.

It was agreed that he would add to the latter sentence the name of the month in which he expected the thing would be settled.

The date is marked on the back of this

memorandum. It is November 30th. The memorandum was written about the close of Mr. Mackenzie Bowell.

"I confess I do not think that His Lordship's arguments can be sustained. In the first place, the Archbishop's claim to such extensive powers is certainly invalid." Again, he says in the same despatch, paragraph 13:

silence, in the promise which the Arch- "I may observe, in the first place, that bishop had made. Lord DUFFERIN it is obvious that neither the proclamation. also said in reference to the Archbishop's intended to be issued, but from certain argument in which he laid very great causes not published, at Fort Garry, in stress on what he said were promises made 1869, nor the correspondence cited in to them: paragraphs 4 to 7 of your despatch, are in any way applicable to the condition of affairs which arose when, some time subsequently, the atrocious murder of SCOTT was committed. Nor can anything good faith) by Archbishop TACHE, nor any promised to the murderers (although in impression or understanding that he or others may have formed of the purport of conversations or communications with individual Ministers, be deemed to have in any way pledged the Crown to extend an amnesty to acts which had not even been heard of by the Dominion Government, when he received the letters instructing him as to his proceedings at Fort Garry,

and which on full examination could not

fail to appear to be such as the QUEEN (if the Imperial Government should be required to act) could not be advised to leave unpunished. As Archbishop TACHE'S

"There is certainly no intimation in his instructions that he was authorized to promulgate a pardon, in the QUEEN's name, for a capital felony, still less could it be contended that he was empowered to expunge, of his own mere motion, a principal term from a Royal Proclamation." Upon this same question Lord DUFFERIN proceeds as follows, in the same despatch : "It would seem impossible to expand the permission thus conveyed to the Bishop by permission thus conveyed to the Bishop by Sir JOHN, to promise the rebels protection Sir JOHN, to promise the rebels protection from the monetary demands of the Hudson Bay Company, into an authority first of the five reasons alleged for to condone such a savage murder as that of SCOTT's. But even were this point to be amnesty, I will now dispose of it by conceded, there would still remain an in- observing that with all respect for his conceded, there would still remain an in- honesty and good intentions, it is impossurmountable difficulty in the way of prov-sible to admit that he had any sufficient ing Monseigneur TACHÉ's case. The terms of pardon, both in Lord LISGAR'S Proclamation and Sir JOHN's letter, were made conditional, in the one, 'on the immediate Ed peaceable obedience and dispersion of the insurgents,' and in the other on the restoration of the Company's Government.'

It must be borne in mind that the GovERNOR GENERAL had given this matter a very great deal of attention, and if we are to suppose that this despatch was written without the knowledge and consent of his Council, he supposed they might argue they were responsible also for the utter

ances made in it. In paragraph 19 they found the following strong language:

"Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that the Crown is not committed to the pardon of the murderers of SCOTT, upon the ground that the Archbishop was in any sense authorized to made a promise to that effect."

Lord CARNARVON took the same view of this question. On page 37 of the blue book the following language appears -Mr. Mackenzie Bowell.

connection with this affair constitutes the

ground for believing that the Crown, or Crown, did or could delegate to him, or to the Colonial Government acting for the any other unofficial person, or indeed to anyone, as to a Plenipotentiary, an unlimit

power of pardoning crimes, of whatever atrocity, not even known to have been committed. And your opinion that the Crown is in no way committed by any promises given by Archbishop TACHE is the only one which I can consider tenable."

Upon this question it appeared to him that the whole argument of the first Minister was based on the presumed promise which had been made by the Ministers of the Crown, officially or otherwise, to the delegates from the North-West, and this declaration sets the whole matter at rest. Lord Carnarvon is fully in accord with the GOVERNOR-GENERAL in his declaration that the Crown could not be held to any such promise. He had laid before the House the deliberate opinion conveyed in a state paper sent by the GOVERNORGENERAL, it was to be supposed with the

consent of his advisors, and the reply of one of the few portions of the evidence the Colonial Secretary thereto, which which was not given in narrative form. should of themselves be sufficient to con- He believed the question was put by the vince the House, no matter what conversa-member for South Bruce; it appeared in tions had passed between Ministers and the following form: delegates from the North-West, that the Government were not justified in asking the House to adopt the resolution submitted to it. Let them now turn to the declarations of the Ministers themselves. Mr. LANGEVIN, who certainly urged on his colleagues the granting of an amnesty, if they were to accept his statements, and who threatened to resign if it were not granted, said in his

evidence:

“I am not aware of any promise of amnesty having been made by the Government of Canada further than that contained in the proclamation of 6th December, 1869, or of any promise by any member of the Government on behalf of the Government."

This was a sufficiently explicit denial. But Mr. LANGEVIN went further, and said:

"I had not at any time, nor, so far as I am aware, had any of my colleagues, made any promise of an amnesty to Archbishop TACHE, Father RITCHOT, or any other party. I do not know of anything of the kind, and this statement covers the whole ground since the 6th December, 1869." Mr. LANGEVIN then proceeds:

"In every conversation I had with Archbishop TACHE, he always stated to me that Sir GEORGE CARTIER and Sir JOHN MACDONALD, when they received, on behalf of the Canadian Government, the delegates from the people of the NorthWest, had promised an amnesty, but on enquiry of my colleagues, Sir GEORGE CARTIER and Sir JOIN MACDONALD, I must say that they always told me that no such promise was made."

It was quite clear that Archbishop TACHE, in giving his evidence, told what he thought was correct, and the ARCHBISHOP and Father RICHOT became so anxious about the amnesty that it became a monomania with them, and they believed that during the conversations which had taken place between Ministers and themselves, promises had been made. On page 106 of the Blue Book, the evidence of Sir JOHN MACDONALD was printed, and it was Mr. Mackenzie Bowell.

Question.-Did the Canadian Government or you, as a member thereof, hold out to the delegates that the Government would use their good offices in endeavouring to secure an amnesty?

Answer. Neither the Canadian Government nor I gave any such assurance to the delegates.

There was no unofficial expression of a desire that the amnesty should be granted by the Imperial Government. On the contrary, the opinion had been expressed to the delegates that the state of public feeling was such as to render the granting of the amnesty impossible.” On pages 100, 101 and 102 there were the following portions of evidence given by Sir JOHN MACDONALD :

"All requests to the Government on this subject were pressed with a view to include those parties who were charged with complicity in the death of SCOTT. The GOVERNOR GENERAL and his advisers held that the amnesty as proclaimed did not cover that charge; and it seemed to be the opinion of every one interested that a proclamation expressly excluding the parties last referred to would do more harm than good.

*

*

"The proclamation was called a general amnesty, but we understood it to mean a promise of amnesty for the offences referred to in it. I do not think the contingency of a death having occurred before the date of the proclamation was contemplated when it issued, and I do not think its terms would have covered a capital felony. The proclamation would not have covered such a case as the death of Scott." Now, placing these positive declarations of Ministers, together with the deductions. which were drawn from them by the GOVERNOR-GENERAL in his despatch, and Lord CARNARVON's answer to it, it clearly appeared that no such promise as that mentioned by the First Minister in his speech on the resolution now before the House could by any possibility be deduced from them. There was, however, perhaps a more important point in connection with that question, and one of a more serious character, viz. the affidavit