MR. SPEAKER said that, if he permitted the hon. member for Victoria to offer an explanation, the hon. member for Yale would have the opportunity of replying. He had prevented the hon. member from proceeding so soon as he observed the drift of his obser

vations.

MR. DECOSMOS said that, as an insulting charge had been deliberately made against him by the hon. member for Yale, common justice demanded that he should be allowed to offer some justification of his conduct.

MR. SPEAKER said he did not allow the hon. member for Yale to produce evidence, and it would be well if the hon. member for Victoria did not claim the right to enter into any justification.

MR. DECOSMOS said that, in order to meet the views of Mr. Speaker, he would put in a simple denial, and, as between the words of the hon. gentleman and himself, his would be preferred. With respect to the defence entered by the hon. member for Yale against his remarks regarding the exorbitant charge of $3,000 for coach hire and $900 for a steamer between Savona's Ferry and Kamloops, the hon. member had stated that the coaches were used for 500 miles. He (Mr. DeCosmos) denied that they could have been used that distance, for it was only 140 or 150 miles from Yale to Savona's Ferry, and, beyond that, a steamer was taken. That was the information they had in Victoria, and he believed the correspondent of the Toronto Globe would confirm its accuracy. That was only one of a number of charges which appeared in the Bluebooks, made against the Government of the Dominion, in 1875-6, by the personal and political friends of the hon. member for Yale, amounting to $83,497. It was quite natural for the hon. gentleman to be engaged in defending contractors.

MR. SMITH (Selkirk) said it was very unfortunate that this lengthened and somewhat angry discussion had taken place on a subject re specting which the House and the country had good cause to congratulate themselves-namely, the visits of the Governor-General to the distant

| Provinces. He believed that, had the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) been in those parts of the country during the visits of His Excellency, the present motion would not have been made. If ten times the amount had been expended, it would have been amply repaid. The visit of the Governor-General to the North-West would do more to settle that country than a whole army of emigration agents

sent to the other side of the Atlantic. With regard to the expenses incurred, whatever might be the extravagant charges made elsewhere, of which the (Mr. DeCosmos) had complained the Government could have no hesitation in bringing down the statements of expenditure in Manitoba, as of course they would do, and he was quite confident they would be found moderate in the extreme. Having seen somewhat of the management of the expenditure of the Governor-General in that Province, he believed that the very greatest care was exercised that no payment that was not absolutely necessary for the proper progress of His Excellency through the country was made. With respect to the parting speech made by the Governor-General in Manitoba, picturing in such eloquent terms the resources and great future of the North West, a friend, who happened to be on the other side of the Atlantic last autumn, and who was in a position to meet a great many business men in London and on the Exchange, told him (Mr. Smith) it was no unusual circumstance to see gentlemen take out of their pockets a copy of that speech, and make further enquiries about the North-West, of which they had heretofore heard so little, but which they felt must be an admirable country for the emigrant, when so spoken of by the Governor-General of Canada, and doubtless deserved all that had been said about it by His Excellency.

hon. member from British Columbia

Motion, as amended, agreed to, as follows:

"That an Order of the House do issue to the proper officer for a return of the expenses of the trip of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral to Manitoba, similar to that contained in the Public Accounts, with respect to His Excellency's trip to British Columbia, be laid before the House."

House adjourned at
Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, 26th Feb., 1878.

The Speaker took the Chair at Three o'clock.

PRAYERS.

THE CASE OF JUDGE LORANGER.

EXPLANATIONS AND REMARKS.

MR. SPEAKER said that a communication had been addressed by the Hon. the First Minister to Mr. E. U. Piché, Assistant Clerk, who was alleged to be the author of a letter that had appeared in the Minerve, and Mr. Piché had sent a letter in reply.

MR. MASSON said that the first letter in question was not before the House, as it had not appeared in the Journals of the House. If the reply of Mr. Piché was to appear on the Journals, so should the letter which pro

voked it.

MR. HOLTON said that, if the hon. gentleman wanted to place the letter in question in any way on the records of the House, it was for him to take the proper steps to effect such a purpose. Meanwhile, he did not think it was exactly in accordance with the fitness of things that the hon. gentleman should seek to intercept the correspondence that had ensued in consequence of the statement which he (Mr. Masson) himself had made in bringing this matter before the House.

MR. MASSON said that he was not trying, nor did he desire, to intercept anything. He only wished that action should be taken in accordance with the rule of Parliament, which required that every paper read before the House, relating to any person in the House, must or should be laid on the table of the House. It was for the hon. gentleman opposite to ask that the letter should be so placed before the House. This had not been done.

quent action could be taken before the House relative to a fact which was not really before it.

MR. HOLTON: But it is before it.

MR. MASSON said the hon. gentleman might carry his point; but he did not think this could be done on good grounds. He contended that everything Mr. Speaker read from that Chair must be laid on the table and appear in the Journals of the House. It was impossible for Mr. Speaker to take cognizance of anything, in his capacity as Speaker, which was not on the Journals of the House; and this would not be admitted in England. He felt confident that he was right; but he had not the slightest objection to the paper being read.

MR. KIRKPATRICK said he would

suggest that, as the first letter was read by a private member, and was not on should be read by the hon. the First the Journals of the House, the reply

Minister. This would avoid the neces

sity of inserting this reply in the Journals, under the then circumstances.

MR. MACKENZIE said the position of the matter was this: A letter had been received by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Masson) purporting to have been written by the Assistant Clerk of the House, and the hon. gentleman had directly interpellated him to know what he proposed to do.

MR. MASSON: The leader of the Opposition did so.

MR. MACKENZIE: Some one, at all events, did so; and I said the most natural course to be pursued was to give the person accused an opportunity to make an explanation to the House.

MR. MASSON: I beg your pardon —to yourself.

MR. MASSON said not at all. He had had no occasion to do so. He had only desired an explanation. He contended that, there being no paper before the House in this relation, no subse

It

the House by natural implication. was not for himself that he was to ask an explanation from the official in question. As leader of the House, he had addressed a letter to Mr. Piché, calling his attention to this matter, but

offer me, that I shall take advantage of it, not to obey an order, for you do not give me one, but in order to fulfil, sponta ceously and freely, a duty, which his honour imposes on every gentleman, even though he may be only suspected of being the cause (involuntary) of mischief worked out by others, and is only the victim of a publication at the very least unlawful, and for which he could not in any case be held responsible.

"I ought, at first, to explain that several of my communications with Mr. Brousseau,very lengthy on account of details on points of law and procedure, were almost always written, I will not say in haste, but rather like lightning (comme à la vapeur) without my being able to revise them, and not remembering at the end what I had written at the beginning or even in the middle.

Consequently there crept into those communications many imperfections of language, and more than once my idea and my wish were greatly misrepresented.

"And if, in truth, the letter which is attributed to me contains all the long, incoherent, and even contradictory expressions, which have been read from it, it is the best proof of what I have just advanced.

"However, to the impartial reader this long letter, when it is first analyzed and then considered as a whole, may be reduced,

so far as the Honourable Mr. Blake is concerned, to saying he had his own secret about it.'

These words, which are there to speak for themselves, assuredly do not mean to imply that he had revealed his secret or his thoughts on the subject to any one.

"Moreover, I was writing to a colleague and friend who, in frank and unrestrained converse, had too thoroughly learned what I thought and knew of the Hon. Mr. Blake and of his character, not to attribute to an unfortunate slip of the pen, in extreme haste, a word, a phrase, of a nature to cast the slightest doubt on his impartiality and his honour.

"As regards the Hon. Mr. Laflamme, who, it must be remembered, was not a Minister at the date attributed to the letter in question, we had been acquainted from the very outset of our professional career, and the familiarity, nay, the intimacy of our relations, during many years was, in my humble opinion, sufficient to justify the unrestrained freedom of my language in a private letter, a friendly chat, which never should and never could, except by a shameful profanation, get beyond the friend to whom it was addressed. But it is my duty to add that, if I ever complained of his absence, I never intended to allude to his attendance in the House, or to the discharge of his parliamentary duties; and, in relation to the proceedings in Parliament against Judge Loranger, I heard him say: That he did not like to take it up or to meddle with it, because Judge Loranger had been one of his patrons in law.'

"Finally, in order that this explanation may not run on to an excessive length, and

convinced as I am that, if it be a good thing
never to commit a fault, it is still nobler to
make an honourable reparation; permit me
in conclusion to say that, whether the letter
in question be or be not mine, and if it con-
tains one word or sentence implying the idea
that the Hon. Mr. Blake or the Hon. Mr.
Laflamme have ever, in any manner in
relation to Judge Loranger, done or said
anything whatsoever derogatory to honour or
to duty, I hereby repudiate and disown every
such sentence, every such word, as not
having been, as not having been possible to
be, and not being, the expression of my
thought, of my will, or of the truth.
"The whole humbly and respectfully
submitted.

"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your obedient humble servant,
"E. U. PICHE,

(Signed),

"Clerk-Assistant,

"House of Commons of Canada."

MR. TUPPER said that, when this matter was first brought under the notice of the House, the hon. the First Minister had stated to the House that they would see the propriety of no step being taken until he, as leader of the House, had had the opportunity of placing himself in communication with the party inculpated who was not in a position to defend himself or offer an explanation on the floor of the House; then inform the House what course he and that he (Mr. Mackenzie) would proposed to take. He would now like to enquire what was so proposed. He was quite certain he need not say it was impossible that this matter could rest where it now stood. The letter which had been just read did not pretend to deny the genuineness of the letter that had been read to the House in the first instance. In the latter

letter an hon. gentleman who held at the time the very highest and most important position in the House-that of Minister of Justice, was thus referred to:

"But he has your requisition (not as Minister of Justice but as the political friend of those who showed it to him) he appears struck with it, and has regretted that all requisition presented him. these details were not put in the first

It was impossible, having reference to the very high position the hon. members mentioned in this letter held, who were referred to there in terms utterly inconsistent with anything

like due regard for their own self-respect, or the respect due to this Parliament,—that the explanation which had been offered could be accepted as any justification. He would like to ask the hon. the First Minister what steps he proposed to take? He took it for granted that measures would be adopted to put so important a matter as this on the Journals of the House, and that the Government would take such means as were in their power to obtain the original of which the letter in question purported to be a copy, and of which it was not denied, or pretended to be denied, that it was a copy. There was abundant admission in the statement just read to the House to show that there was too good reason to believe that letter which had been read was a copy verbatim et literatim of the letter in question.

MR. MACKENZIE said he thought that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tupper) was a little precipitate in asking this question. The letter in explanation had only just been read; he had had no opportunity of seeing it before, as he had already mentioned.

MR. TUPPER said that he was not in the House at the time. If he had heard the statement, he would have, at once, felt the propriety of allowing the hon. gentleman time to consider the paper which had been read to the House, before making any such

the whole thing was not so much an accusation against the Assistant Clerk as a direct accusation from this Clerk against the hon. member for South Bruce especially. There was no equivoque in the letter in question; and Mr. Piché said therein that the ex-Minister of Justice had a certain petition in his hands, not as Minister of Justice, but as a political friend. If the hon. gentle

man (Mr. Blake) was willing that this matter should not be placed on the Journals of the House he was quite willing that this course should be pursued.

MR. SPEAKER said that the matter had better be left over for two or three

days for consideration.

PAYMENTS FOR PRINTING CONTINGEN

previous evening, and he thought hon. gentlemen would agree that as it was a matter of account it had better go straight to the Committee.

MR. HOLTON said it was usual to refer these returns to the Committee. There was no notice, and it was not usual to give notice, but to refer these returns from the Departments to the Committee.

MR. KIRKPATRICK said that notice of motion ought to have been given. If any motion of that kind had been made from his side of the

House, it would have been met with an objection.

Several HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. KIRKPATRICK said no hon. member knew better than the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) that the rules of the House ought to have been observed. He did not know