MR. FLESHER withdrew his amend ment. Amendment (Sir John A.Macdonald) agreed to. House accordingly resolved itself into Committee. (In the Committee.) donald) in regard to the civil cases where the same kind of law applied. In a case of damages for assault and battery, the wife was a competent witness against her husband and was a compellable witness, and he had never heard that this law was unsatisfactory in its working. He thought his hon. friend had drawn on his imagination in Bill, as amen led, ordered to be his account of the evils which might reported. House resumed. Bill reported. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD moved in amendment: "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have power to amend the said Eill by striking out the second clause.” He had said the other day that, in these matters of common assault, it was inadvisable that the husband should give evidence against the wife and the wife against the husband, as it would induce a life long quarrel perhaps. It was much better that the complaint of assault should fail for lack of such evidence than that for the trial of such a small offence the husband and wife should be set against cach other. He thought she would have a good many summary trials in her own house after giving evidence against her husband, and that she would have a good many common assaults. IR. MACKENZIE: She can give evidence in her own behalf. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: That flow from the adoption of this clause. He (Mr. Guthrie) considered such a clause absolutely essential. There were many cases in which the only witness present, in addition to the parties in the affray, was the wife of one of them, and her evidence would be of value; for it was not to be supposed that the wife was to commit perjury to clear her husband, nor was it to be supposed she would suffer at her husband's hands for telling the truth. The wife now was a competent witness in every description of civil cases, and was a compellable witness against her husband. He was not aware, as a lawyer, of any of the evils pointed out having arisen from the existence of this law. MR. PALMER said that, as far as his experience went, he did not think the reformation of the laws ought to begin with this little Bill. The second clause, however, did not compel the wife to be a witness, therefore, he thought that was right and that the Bill was best as it was. MR. DESJARDINS said he was will not remove the black and blue against the second clause, and failed marks. MR. MACDOUGALL (East Elgin) said the defendant, when giving evidence for the Crown, was practically giving evidence for himself. The principle had been admitted in the first section that the defendant should be a competent witness on his own behalf, and he did not see why objection should be raised to the wife or husband of the defendant also being competent witnesses. It was the same in the Ontario Act and also the English Act. to see its utility. The wife might refuse to attend to give evidence against her husband, and among respectable. members of society-from which, according to the hon. member for North York (Mr. Dymond) these cases were generally brought, though he did not agree with him-there would be an unwillingness to bring their wives into such contests as cases of common assault or such matters of the kind. MR. KERR said that, in nine cases assault, both parties were out of ten, in these charges of common about equally guilty, and it seemed to MR. GUTHRIE said that, in his him that, if the wife of the defendant legal experience, he had observed none was not a competent witness for her of the evils predicted by the hon. mem-husband, the wife of the combor for Kingston (Sir John A. Mac- plainant ought not to be a competent witness for the complainant. Instead of this clause being struck out he would like to see it amended so that both the wife of the defendant and the wife of the plaintiff should be competent witnesses for both partics, and that all four of them should be competent to give evidence. This would make the Bill more efficient, more full and competent than at present. Amendment negatived on a division. MR. TASCHEREAU moved in amendment: That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have the power to amend it by adding line 13 after the word witness' the following words 'for the prosecution or."" Amendment agreed to. on it affected a large number of gentlemen belonging to the legal profession, ascribing to them motives that seemed to him to be extremely dishonourable, he would read the article, which was supposed to have been written or inspired by a member of the House If this was the case, the gentleman to whom it was imputed would have done better if he had made the statement on the floor of the House rather than anonymously. The article referred to a matter of very great interest at the present time-the independence of Parliament in Quebec. It was as follows. "Recent revelations have shown that a considerable number of the Quebec representatives in Opposition in the House of Commons have solid reasons for condemning the action of Lieut-Governor Letellier, House accordingly resolved itself into and for feeling very sorely, and resenting Committee of the Whole. very strongly, the presence of a Liberal Administration in Quebec. There were several nice pleasant places occupied, till recently, by several of those patriotic gentlemen when they were removed by Mr. Joly. Here are some of them, it being as yet impossible to ascertain the ramifications of the DeBoucherville system of patronage: Messrs. Bill reported read the third time and Baby, Macdougall (Three Rivers), Mousseau, passed. Brooks, Caron, Colby, Hurteau, Gill and Ouimet, all Crown prosecutors in their several districts, getting from $1,000 to $4,000 per year apiece. He had taken the opportunity of investigating the Public Accounts for the Province of Quebec for the last two years, or rather for the years 1875 and 1876. He had been unable to find in the library or any of the Departments the Public Accounts of Quebec for 1877. He found that nine gentlemen were here charged with being directly in the pay of the Local Government, and with receiving large sums for services said to have been rendered by them to that Government -all alleged to be members of the legal profession. He himself was perhaps the principal offender, and he was quite willing to admit anything that could be fairly charged against him in this respect. For the last seventeen or nearly eighteen years, he had acted as Crown Prosecutor in the Judicial District in which he resided. His first appointment to that position was under the late Sir George Cartier, it was continuel by his successor, the present Chief Justice of the Court of !! Appeals, Sir Antoine Dorion, and also by the successive Attorneys-General up to the present time. When he first received the appointment, it was an office of some emolument, but, owing to a change in the local laws, and the appointment of District Magistrates, during the last ten years since he had been in Parliament, it had been of little importance, and the emoluments had been almost nominal. During the year 1875, instead of being in the pay of the Local Government, and receiving $1,000 to $4,000 from it, he had received $193, for services performed, and in 1876 he received $244.50 for such services, which were performed for the Government as in the case of any other client. He would appeal to any one acquainted with the onerous nature of these duties, and the small compensation granted by the Local Government, whether this money was not fairly earned, or whether it was to be imputed to any gentleman of an honourable profession that he was supposed to be influenced with regard to his seat in this Parliament by having accepted a retainer, either from a private individual or a Government. It was not his province to speak for the other gentlemen mentioned, but he found, on examination of the examination of the Public Accounts, that, during the two years instanced, seven of these gentlemen had never received one cent from the Provincial Treasury. These gentlemen were Messis. McDougall, Mousseau, Caron, Colby, Hurteau, Gill and Ouimet. He was authorized to say for his hon. friend the member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby), who resided in the same judicial district with himself, that, for the last fifteen years, he had not been actively engaged in the practice of his profession, and, consequently, had not been retained in any way, either for or against the Provincial Parliament., and could not have thus been influenced in any way in the course he had taken in Parliament. He was informed with regard to Mr. Hurteau-though he was not personally aware of the fact-that he did not belong to the legal profession, but was a notary public, and hence he could not have been employed by the Provincial Government in the manner stated. He thought it his duty to refer to this article, because if, in regard to politics, attempts of this kind were to be made, and the public was to be influenced by such charges, and if, in anticipation of any discussion there might be with reference to a matter that was of very serious importance to them in the Province of Quebec, the public mind was to be prejudiced by such charges, there was an end to all fair and free discussion, either in this House or elsewhere. MR. MCDOUGALL (Three Rivers) said, as far as he was concerned, he could make a clean breast of it. He did not think that the House would find that he had been influenced much by immense sums of money received from this Government or the Local Government. In his district, about six years ago, the gentleman who formerly conducted the Crown prosecutions died,they were all liable to die now and then-exactly as the term was coming on. He was the only Queen's Counsel in the district, and, naturally, the nomination came to him. He was written to a very few days before the term came on about it; as there was nothing illegal or improper in accepting the appointment, as far as he could make out. In fact, if he had objected to it, the Crown would have been without a representative, for these nominations only came within a day or two, or within three or four days, of the opening of the term. With respect to the present term there, which was to open to-morrow, the Joly Government had only named their legal adviser yesterday, as he had been informed, being interested in an insolvent case which was to come up. They thus saw how these things were done. He had then considered it his duty, being the only Queen's Counsel there, to conduct the Crown business, and he did so. If the gentleman who had written this article would use his ordinary diligence in looking over the Public Accounts, he would find that, in all his (Mr. McDougall's) lifetime, he had never received more than $80 from any Government whatever. When the right hon. member for Kingston was in power, some seven or eight years ago, one or two years, he believed, after he came into Parliament, the right hon. | yet. He might say that, when be gentleman had a claim against the joined the firm to which he belonged, postmaster in his district, and sent it to it was thought a sufficient reason why him, naturally enough. He (Mr. Mc- the Inland Revenue cases which had Dougall) collected and transmitted the been given to that firm should be money, but made no charge; so his moved away from that office. As far record was clear in this respect. He as the $140 was concerned, he would defied anybody to say that he had so leave it to any gentleman to say received anything beyond the $80 whether such a consideration would mentioned. He thought that the effect interfere with his freedom in voting in of the law relating to the independence this House. He hoped that was not of Parliament, introduced by the hon. the amount that could secure the serthe Minister of Justice, would greatly vices of any writer on the Globe. He tend to exclude a considerable number could say for the profession that it of good men from Parliament. If this certainly would not interfere with a Bill was not changed a little in Com- gentleman performing the duties which mittee, they should have either a he owed to his constituents and his House composed of millionaires or of country, and he was sure that, if some beggars; and, in this country, it was hon. gentlemen who were absent more likely to be the latter than the heard what he said, they would agree former. With regard to his political with him. His hon. friend the memcareer, the balance of the account was ber for Hamilton (Mr. Irving) was in his favour, in connection with the absent, at the present moment, on proQuebec Government. If the North fessional business which he had a right Shore Railway ever existed, it was to conduct, and he (Mr. Caron) was largely due to the efforts he had ex- certain that the hon. gentleman perpended, the time he had given, and formed his duty to the Local Governthe money he had spent out of his ment of Ontario as faithfully as he did own pocket. He was a Director of to any other client, and, whatever a this road for several years, during writer on the Globe might do, there which time he had lost two whole was no reason to suppose that Mr. years of his time in advocating the Irving would allow himself to be inconstruction of the road. He had also fluenced by such a consideration. The worked industriously in order to secure charge was an insult to the legal prosubscriptions to the scheme. fession, and, as such, should be resented by that profession. MR. OUIMET said he had never, since he had been in Parliament, received a single penny from the Local Government or any Government in this Dominion. MR. CARON said one would fancy that a paper pretending, as the Globe did, to occupy a respectable position in this country would, before it made any statement affecting the position of any gentleman in this Parliament, have taken the trouble to investigate it. As far as he was concerned, he could only say that when he, for the first time since he had belonged to the legal profession, conducted any business as Crown prosecutor for the Local Government of the Province of Quebec, instead of $1,000 having been paid to him, his whole account for acting jointly with the previous Crown prosecutor was $140. The account was sent in, and he was not certain that it was paid MR. BABY said that, as his name had been mentioned, he might be allowed to say that he had never been influenced by the paltry sum he might have received as Crown prosecutor, either in favour of or against any Government. About the time that the hon. member for Sherbrooke was appointed a Q. C., he (Mr. Baby) also received the appointment, and he had had the honour of conductingCrown business ever since. He had been appointed by Sir George Cartier, and the appointment had continued under Mr. Sicotte and Mr. Dorion, who did him the honour of having sufficient confidence in him to know that he could conduct the Crown business without being influenced by the sum he received. repudiated the charge that he had been so influenced, and said that nothing could induce him to do anything else He than follow his political principles, House. In making this explanation, which were well known. he believed he was only doing his duty; as far as any further apology was concerned, his duty must end here. MR. DESJARDINS: A similar charge has been brought against me. I must say this: that I despise the accusation as much as I despise the accuser in that matter. I have nothing I have nothing more to say. MR. DYMOND said his name had not been mentioned, but, perhaps, he might be allowed to say a few words. He would have kept his seat, but for the numerous references made, during the present Session of Parliament, to his real or supposed connection with the Globe newspaper. He was not sorry that this matter had been brought before the House, because it gave him an opportunity of saying what, in deed, he had said before, that he never wrote anything which he could not and would not defend. Had he written the paragraph in question, he would have been prepared to defend it, but he had not the slightest idea of the information upon which it had been founded. He neither inspired it nor wrote it, nor did he know anything at all about it till the arrival of the Globe in Ottawa on the previous evening; and he must say it was a paragraph which ought not to have appeared unless on the most substantial information. He had no doubt it was contributed by a gentleman who acted as correspondent for the Globe in Ottawa, and who, on his own responsibility, sent a great deal more which appeared in that paper. When hon. gentlemen felt so keenly charges or insinuations made against them unjustly, they ought to be a little more cautious as to how they made charges against him (Mr. Dymond). A newspaper was the product of many minds, and he was no more responsible for a large portion of what appeared in the Globe than his hon. friend the member for Sherbrooke. It was scarcely to be expected that he should enter into details as to what his precise functions were in connection with that paper, and he would content himself with saying that, not only did he disapprove of the article in question, but he regretted exceedingly that any pain should have been inflicted on those gentlemen who had addressed the MR. MITCHELL said there was, and he wished to say that, having been assailed in the Globe newspaper, he had the right of explanation. In his opinion, the best way to treat that or any other newspaper was with contemptuous silence. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD was glad to hear the hon member for North York (Mr.Dymond)condemn the article in question in language stronger even than that employed by those hon. gentlemen who were the subjects of the attack. What, he would ask, could be the character of the attack denounced in such strong language by the hon. member for North York? As far as the Globe newspaper was concerned, he agreed with his hon. friend from Northumberland in thinking that the most dignified way to treat it was with silent contempt. A story was told of a young Scotch advocate who, in his zeal for a client and his disappointment at the judgment given, used strong and, perhaps, contemptuous language, saying he was surprised that the Court should have given such a decision. Of course he was charged with contempt and, finding himself in a difficulty, he appealed to John Clark of Elgin, afterwards Lord Elgin, to apologise for him. Clark very kindly did so, informing the Court that the offence arose out of the young gentleman's inexperience. "If," said he, "he had known the Court as long as John Clark of Elgin, he would not be surprised at anything." Just in the same way. he (Sir John) was not surprised at anything published in the |