by France on Canadian-built ships, would always bear the appearance of direct and positive bribery, offered to an entire constituency by the Government, which desired to have one of their number, who had been defeated, elected by these means. It was not the first time during this Parliament that he had had occasion to see practice placed in opposition to theory and those famous principles especially that principle which related to the raising of the standard of public morality. He had heard in the House in 1874, during his first Session. Major Walker explained to the House, with great show of indignation, how he abandoned Sir John A. Macdonald, and how he had separated himself from the Conservative party. Major Walker had spoken in magnificient terms of the great extent to which corruption was practised by all the Conservatives, and had said that they,in effect,infected the whole of public life by the corruptions which they practised in the carrying on of the elections and elsewhere. This was during the Session of 1874; and a few months, if not a few weeks afterwards, that same gentleman was proven before a court of his country to have freely expended some $30,000 in the carrying on of his election. This, he had no doubt, was expended in order to raise the standard of public morality. That same gentleman who had spoken in such strong terms in the House in favour of upholding the public morality, and in announcing the corruption alleged to have been practised by others, had got his deserts and was disqualified. But, nevertheless, that gentleman did not lose in the estimation of his friends, the hon. gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches, and he (Mr. Mousseau) understood that this Major Walker had, since that time, obtained promotion in the militia; and that those who had pre-eminently aided him in his election and used direct bribery, had received excellent appointments of lucrative births under the Administration. Another illustration and exemplification of the manner in which public morality was vindicated by the hon. gentlemen had also been witnessed in the county of Chambly, which at the present time was so ably repre

sented by his hon. friend Mr. Benoit. An election had taken place in that county, as everybody was aware; first two or three elections, and we have contested them all, and he thought it required a third election before his hon. friend had succeeded in turning the former member out (Mr. Jodoin). The first election had been decided before the courts, and thorough investigations had taken place, exhibiting a vast amount of corruption and bribery. They would see how at the beginning of the new reign of the Liberals in the Province of Quebec, and they had tried to imitate the Grits of the Province of Ontario in the manner of carrying elections and in their manner of raising the standard of public morality—a cardinal principle of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The principal witness heard in the contestation of the election was the brother of the respondent; and the following comprised the small amount of money which he had expended in order to raise the standard of public morality in the county of Chambly :

“I am the brother of the respondent; I took an active part in the contest; a central committee was organized at Longueuil; I went there frequently; I expended money of which the committee and the respondent were ignorant; I gave $500 to M. Auguste Beaudry, $400 to M. Antoine Rochelau, $400 to M. Hilaire Benoit, $100 to M. Luc Champagne, 100 odd dollars to M. P. G. Charlebois, about the same amount to Chas. Poirier and François Poirier, $400 to Isaïe Lespérance, $250 to Dr. Roy, $100 to Nazaire Charron, $200 to Thos. Gréfontaine, $50 to Laurent Achin, $200 to M. Duchatel, $150 to M. Lemoine, $50 to one M. Perrault, $40 to another Perrault, $75 to M. Leduc, $75 to M. H. Vian, from $75 to $90 to Joseph St. Germain, $100 to M. Chaffer, $100 to M. Robert; I gave I gave after the election $300 to Jos. Pattenaude, $300 to Andre Ste. Marie, $300 to Jos. Richard, $1,000 to Eusebe Gibeau, $900 to Auguste Beaudry; I paid Chas. Racicot $40, Chas. Charron $20, Auguste Dufort $20, Alf. Longpré $15, Abraham Deragon $60, Jos. Allard from $125 to $160, Louis Birs from $60 to $75, Joseph Boyd $12, Toussaint Lespérance $30, Albert Lapointe $200, Eucher Lavoie from $6 to $8, Jobin Deloge $6, J. B. Fausse $20, Albert Morin $6, Nazaire Morin $6. The total of the disbursement for the election was $9,000." The number of electors to whom money had been given was very numerous, and in toto the small sum of $9,000 had been spent with a view of

Montreal East and in the counties, and in fact throughout the Province. He would not assume to say that they were wrong at the time; but at the time when, in 1875, the hon. gentlemen opposite had consented to grant merely a partial amnesty, he thought they were in the wrong, if they knew anything of the politics and anything of the great difficulties which we had first in this country, in the solution of such difficult questions. The hon. gentlemen opposite had either acted in bad faith in 1872, or they had acted in bad faith in 1875. For if it was impossible to grant a complete amnesty in 1875, it was still more impossible to grant it in 1872, when, owing to the use which had been made of the question in the Province of Ontario and in some parts of the Province of Quebec, and in the Maritime Provinces, a great state of public indignation existed on the subject. Hence it is no excuse for the hon. gentlemen opposite, to now come before the House, and say that they had done their duty in this particular instance. "No," as in all other circumstances, the hon. gentlemen opposite had also in this case been false to themselves, and unfaithful to the promises which they had made to the electors. In this particular they had acted as they had done under other circumstances, and that was in bad faith; curiously enough the hon. mover of the Address, the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue, and the hon. the Minister of Justice had fallen into the same contradiction. They tried to assume a strong position against the right hon. member for Kingston and the late Sir George Cartier. They had denied the correctness of the allegation that an amnesty had been promised, and then they denied having done so; and in 1875 these hon. gentlemen voted precisely the contrary in this resolution which was so carefully and accurately drawn. He believed, that by the then hon. Minister of Justice, the hon. member for South Bruce, a partial amnesty was granted, based upon the famous promises which were alleged to have been made by the right hon. member for Kingston and the late Sir George Cartier. This was positively set forth in the preamble of the resolution, which was as follows:

"That from the evidence reported to this House by the Committee appointed last Session on the questions arising out of the North-West troubles, it appears that the late Sir G. E. Cartier, Minister of Militia and Defence, and during Sir J. A. Macdonald's illness, acting Minister of Justice, leader of the Government, and its representative in its negotiations with the delegates from the North-West, at various times gave divers persons of prominence in the North-West, amongst whom were Archbishop Taché, Father Richot, the Hon. M. A. Girard, and the Hon. J. Royal, assurances that a complete amnesty would be granted by the Imperial Government in respect of all acts committed by all persons during the North-West troubles, and requested that these assurances should be, as they were, communicated to the interested parties, etc."

He said he left gentlemen to try to make that fact agree with their professions of to-day. Another inconsistency of the party of the gentleman opposite, and especially of the Liberals of the Province of Quebec, was their policy on the economical matters of Free-Trade and Protection. He was fairly surprised when he heard the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue try to prove or, at least, assert that the party, as a party, had not promulgated the doctrine of Protection in 1872. He did assert most positively, and it could be proved by everybody who is familiar with our history, and especially with our struggle in 1871 and 1872. that the old Liberal party and the old National party did have as a feature of their principal platform, Protection all through, not only in 1872, but in 1871; during the campaign of 1871, during the local elections for the Province of Quebec, when the National party was beginning to form at that very time, although it was at that time not the proper opportunity. They tried to inculcate in the minds of the electors for the Province of Quebec, that all the blame was to be laid at the door of the late Sir George and the hon. member for Kingston. If there was so much emigration from the Province of Quebec; if there were so many French-Canadians in the United States; if we were poor; if we had no manufacturers, it was the fault of those two statesmen. He said he had read here one of the best speeches delivered by the hon. member for Montreal East (Mr. Jetté) against the lamented Sir George Cartier in 1872. It was an inflammatory speech; there

was one column of that part reported in the National of the 25th of July, 1872, in which there was a long demonstration tried to be made by the hon. member for Montreal East (Mr. Jetté). He was then a candidate. He tried to show that all the evils that we suffered in the Province of Quebec; that there was a want of manufacturers and a migration of French-Canadians to the United States which was due exclusively to the Conservative party, to the lamented Sir George and the hon. member for Kingston. If that migration did take place; if we were poor; if we had no manufactures, it was because we were afraid of the English, and the best means to get manufactures would be either to get them from England or by some other mode. But it was the chief platform of the hon. member for Montreal East with which he succeeded in defeating Sir George Cartier. He said that during the late election he went into many counties of the Province of Quebec, and wherever he met a Liberal or a National it was the same platform protection in order to start the manufactories of this country; the means how to provide the funds to start a national industry. And there were loud complaints against the Conservatives, against the lamented Sir George, and against the hon. member for Kingston, because they did not raise enough to protect our struggling industries, and it was of the same sort, later, too. It was but too well known that in the programme of the National party it had not been included. Well, we know why it was not included. The nestor of the young and rising party, the hon. member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. Holton) had always been a Free-trader, and as they could not bind him, they tried to conceal that principle of theirs under the disguise. He was sure he read it in the first programme published. He thought the word protection to all manufactures was one of the arguments; however, he had not had time to search and look through the papers to find it. As it was read yesterday, or rather in the book which the Hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue held in his hands, there was found an article which he did not dare to read.

As it

was, it was sufficient for those who understand the French language or the English language to know that it meant protection to manufactures; to regulate our sales, our commercial relations, so as to provide for the

establishment of our manufactories. If that did not mean through the independence of other's territories, or the independence of some one or another,

that we will be the masters of our position and of our tariffs and our trade, he did not know what it could mean. But he would go further and would tell them that it was one of the platforms which had been accepted by all the French Nationals and French Liberals of Quebec. At the time of which he was speaking, in 1871 and 1872, it was a very good argument and a very good pretext against the Conservatives, and against Sir John, and against Sir George. If it were not put in the article in words as complete as it was in the speeches, it was to keep good company with the Liberals of Ontario and the hon. member for Chateauguay. It was not to disturb the peace of the party at that time. It was not to peril by the platform the arriving of that party to power. But there were documents which could bear out exactly what he had said. The leader of the Liberal party in the Province of Quebec did understand it that way. He did understand that party as a National, or Liberal if they liked-he should have a word to say about that in a few minutes-was pledged to the policy of that party; that the party was pledged to the protection of manufactures, and this he had spoken at the time in their own party. They knew what they were about. They had studied and knew about all these mechanical questions far more than is known either by the hon. the Minister of Justice, or the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue. They knew very well that there were years of prosperity. They knew very well that there had been times of the greatest prosperity we had ever known in this country, and they knew, as had been admitted by his hon. friend himself, that their imports had become 80 much in excess of their exports that it was necessary to stop that, and the only means to stop that

was to try and encourage our manu- | facturers in order to keep here the money sent every year to England. QUEBEC, 24th March, 1876.

"G. T. ORTON, M.P.,

"Chairman Agricultural Committee. "MY DEAR DOCTOR, -I only received today a printed form of questions from your Committee, in the labours of which I take a deep interest, and hasten to send you my answers. I am afraid they are rather lengthy, but I must acknowledge that I feel some satisfaction in being allowed to give my views on the subject, however little weight they may carry. It is a sort of protest against the accusation of inconsistency which has been brought against me during this Session of the House of Commons, and in the press, for having given up the main plank of the platform of our Parti National. We claimed, above all things, a National Commercial Policy. My friends have been twitted with having given it up, and I was brought in as the leader of the Parti National; but I have not given it up. Ifl remember correctly, you helped me in 1873 to obtain the exemption of the duty for the beet-root sugar manufacture, and I hope you will approve my views on the subject. "I remain, my dear Doctor, "Yours sincerely,

"H. S. JOLY." Here was the leader of the National party himself coming to protest; and what did he say in that letter? First, that it was an article of the National party's programme, and for a National policy, which he explained in his answers, as could be seen in the Bluebook. There the leader the leader of the National party (Mr. Joly), admitted positively that one of the articles of the programme of the National party was protection to manufactures, and that article, that part of the programme, had been given up by his friends, whilst he himself was still adhering to it. But other measures, other pretended reforms, were brought forward during those elections in those times. One of them, with which they did a great deal of mischief to the Conservative party, was the question of the New Brunswick schools. He had already said that in Montreal East, in 1872, inflammatory speeches had been made, both by the actual member and by his friends, on two questions the question of emigration and protection to manufactures-because they attributed the diminution of manufactures and the great emigration of

Canadians to the United States to the policy of Sir George Cartier. But at the same election there was another question raised, and which was made use of in the most dishonest way, as was confirmed later by their own conduct, for which hon. gentlemen opposite, especially the Liberals of Quebec, would never be able to meet their electors. They reproached Sir George and the whole Conservative party with not having come to the aid of these Catholics of

New Brunswick. He would quote one of the speeches made at that time, and these speeches he read in every county he happened to be in; they were used in every county, in every parish, and at every church door during the year 1872. Having read the speech in the French language, the hon. gentleman went on to say that the quotation was too long to be translated, but it might be summed up in this way: He explained that the Catholics of New Brunswick were ill-treated by the leg. islation which had been passed through in 1871 and 1872; and that the Catholics of New Brunswick, being thus_prosecuted, had appealed to the Federal Government, and that they (the Conservative party), led by the hon. member for Kingston and the lamented Sir George, refused to come to their aid, and had refused to make use of or employ the clause of the constitution which allowed local legislation, and by refusing to make use of that law they had in fact refused to come to the aid of the Catholics of New Brunswick. Everybody knew what these gentlemen, when in power, did to come to the aid of those Catholics. When they were brought face to face with their past promises, which they did not fulfil, and with their past principles, which they had betrayed, they had an answer ready, and would say that they would not mingle politics with religion. That was the only answer that could be got from them; that was the only answer that could come from the lips of two Ministers of the Crown. When told, with much solemnity and indignation, that the Conservatives wanted in the Province of Quebec to form a Catholic party, he was ashamed that such an accusation should be brought before this House by a member of the position and standing