friend has very properly submitted, as dealing with the pressing grievance to which he has made allusion. I do not think, Sir, that there will be any difficulty at all in acceding to the third clause, or, at any rate, to its principle; but with reference to the other clauses, I have given my unreserved opinion that these are not the only questions open for consideration.

The Bill was read the first time.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-I beg leave to introduce a Bill making more effectual provision for enquiry into corrupt practices in connection with Elections for the House of Commons.

There has been, Sir, for a long time upon the Statute Book of England, as a part of the legislation with reference to elections, a provision for enquiry into corrupt practices in cases in which Committees of the House-at that time the tribunals appointed for the purpose-reported that there was reason to believe such practices were general at the elections. The functions of these Committees have been extremely important and useful. When the legislation was introduced into this country by which enquiries into elections were transferred to the judges, so much of the English law as had regard to the judges reporting to the House of Commons that there was reason to believe corrupt practices were committed at elections was retained, and such reports are at present required but there is no provision for any action being taken on them, and they are consequently nugatory. We have recorded on our journals numerous reports from several judges concerning cases in which there were corrupt practices. We have one case, I remember-and there may be more— in connection with which it was reported there was reason to believe that corrupt practices prevailed to an extensive degree, but with reference to none of these has anything been done. In addition to this legislation in England, subsequent measures where passed, providing for cases with regard to which there has been no enquiry into such practices upon a petition-permitting a petition being ent to the House by a certain number

of electors within a certain time after the election, representing the existence of general corrupt practices, with a view to empowering Parliament to pass an Address to the Crown for an enquiry into the facts. These two provisions are still found not to meet the question completely; both in England and here, the difficulty has been found to exist to which my hon. friend the member for North Hastings referred on more than one occasion during the last Session, and also other members, and for which the remedy they proposed was felt by myself and others to be inapplicable. I think my hon. friend for Cardwell will be of the same opinion. The attempt made was mainly to cause the petitioners, against their will, to enter into a more prolonged investigation at their own cost; and I had no hesitation in saying to the hon. member for North Hastings and my hon. friend coincided with me

that if this would not be, practicable: first, because it is very difficult to make men do what they do not wish to do; and secondly, becaus a serious evil is threatened with regard to these petitions, owing to the large costs they involve. The addition of unnecessary or inequitable charges to those which are inevitable would render less efficacious our system for the trial of controverted elections; this would be another ground for apprehension to petitioners, and therefore I would be unable to accede, regarding these two main grounds to the view which, in such a way, would tend to prolong these investigations. But, Sir, as I have said, the difficulty of making investigations for the purpose of ascertaining whether general and extensive. corrupt practices have prevailed has frequently prevented them in England as well as here. At the last Session a Select Committee was struck to enquire into the operation of the Act for the trial of controverted elections, which Committee made several recommendations. Amongst them was one, the substance of which I propose for the consideration of the House as an additional ground for authorizing an Address for the issue of a Commission; and that is, to add to the duties of the election judges the duty of reporting whether they are of opinion that the enquiry into a con

That additional report is to be made by the judge under the Controverted Elections Act. Then we will have the judge reporting, when corrupt practices extensively prevail, whether in his opinion the enquiry into that matter has been rendered incomplete by the action of any parties, and that further investigation is desirable. Upon any of these three grou' ds, or upon a petition of a certain number of electors, charging the existence of corrupt practices, being presented, trial may be had.. Hitherto the ground was usually a petition for enquiry. Before proceeding to advert to the effects of that procedure, I may state that I propose to ask the House to provide that wherever a Judge has reported, as he is authorized to report by the existing and proposed law, that corrupt practices have, or that he has reason to believe they have, extensively prevailed, or that the enquiry was incomplete and further investigation is desirable, no new writ should issue except by order of the House, which has the matter in its own hands upon meeting. My hon. friend from Frontenac suggested something of that kind last Session, and I myself put a resolution on the paper that it was desirable. It is highly important that the process should extend to the constituency, which should understand that a temporary disfranchisement may follow-that it will certainly take place--in case it has disgraced itself by permitting extensive corruption to prevail at an election. There are obvious reasons why the provinces should have power to mitigate the effects of any trial. Our Federal constitution is one of those. Under that constitution a certain strength is given to our provinces, and it would be essential, although there is no reason to expect any considerable number of cases in which writs will be delayed, to provide that the provinces should be able to give additional representation to other constituencies, in order that the proper quota of representation may be preserved. This, although an unlikely

I

Having made these observations, Sir, may say that the Bill in its details is founded upon the English Act. I hope, however, that in its language it may be found to be somewhat improved. I have endeavored, as in some other cases where Bills have been based on English legislation, to follow a more modern and sensible form of phraseology, and if possible to simplify the language. I have had to consider what the English Parliament had also to consider, what alterations were necessary as to Commissioners. I am proposing to the House to provide for a commission to issue 10 one or more of the Judges of the Supreme Court, or to one or m re of the Judges of any Provincial Court competent to try election petitions, or to one or more persons appointed by the House itself, being advocates or barristers of not less than seven years s anding in the Provinces. The-e provisions are elastic, and give the House power to deal according to circumstan es with the class of persons to whom the commission is issued. I think it is obvious that, while it is desirable to avail ourselves of the services of the Judges of the Supreme Court for this purpose, their other judicial duties may be such as to render it impossible for them to be utilised. Similar observations apply with very great force as regards the judges of two of the larger Provinces. It is desira ble in all cases to utilize a judge, but it is probable that it will often be found impracticable, without detracting from the efficient administration of justice, to call upon them to enter into what might be a protracted investigation. Therefore, provision has been made for the House to select advocates or barristers to conduct the enquiry when it is deemed necessary.

The Bill gives full powers for the calling of witnesses and for punishing those who do not attend, and contains also a very ample clause for indemnifying those witnesses who may have answered truly, in the opinion of the judges, all questions put to_them on the subject of the election. I may say that the earlier Act of England con

tains a more limited clause, and it was found wise afterwards to extend it. The object one has in view in an enquiry of this description, where corrupt practices appear to have extensively prevailed, is to get at the proof, to search to the bottom, and ascertain how far corruption has prevailed in the constituency; and I think it is wise under the circumstances that a very liberal indemnity clause should be placed in the Bill.

A different view-it may be open to question and argument-but a different view may be taken in reference to the class of witnesses examined on

cases of election petitions. The House will remember we have adopted a rule that the answers of a witness shall not be used in evidence against him; but he is still exposed to the apprehension of what the consequences may be of an acknowledgment of his guilt. We can see very clearly what the consequences of this may be. In the first place it adds strength and vigor to his testimony supposing he was guilty; in the second place it proves the fact, morally at any rate, that he is guilty, and is consequently some argument in favour of a more extensive indemnity clause. But, whatever the argument may be, it is absolutely essential for this part of the investigation that there should be a clause to indemnify witnesses who attend and give evidence, but not for witnesses who refuse to speak or who cannot claim a certificate of indemnity on other grounds. The provisions of the Bill are such as to have an extensive enquiry first of all into the election complained of, and secondly into any elections prior until we come to some election at which we can find corrupt practices, but those provisions don't require further explanation at my hands.

Hon. J. H. CAMERON asked whether the clause relating to constituencies was taken from the English

Bill?

be filled in if the House demands a petition of a larger number of electors. The Bill was read the second time.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-I beg to move the first reading of a Bill to provide for the more effectual administration of the laws relating to corrupt practices at Elections. I have already observed that we have found upon the reports presented to us by the judges under this Act, numerous names of persons reported guilty of corruptions. In the English law a provision was made that under certain circumstances, and with reference to certain corrupt practices, it should be the duty of the Attorney-General to consider those cases, and, if the evidence is sufficient, to cause a prosecution to be instituted. Complaint has been made, and I think rightly, of the practical working of the present election law in this particular. Gentlemen who are candidates for election to the House of Commons, as a rule----invariably scrupulously abstair.ed from any act which might be construed into a corrupt practice, yet numerous other persons have been found guilty of such offences. Notwithstanding that legislation has imposed upon those acts the stigma of crime, and fixed a penalty for their commission, there has not been a single instance of

I won't say conviction---but any attempt to prosecute. Now, Sir, the observations which my hon. friend made in regard to the law on another subject apply in their spirit to this also. It is our duty, if we do consider those Acts to be crimes, and if we find our law remains a dead letter, to endeavour to take some steps to make it a living letter--to arrange it so that there may be an effective administration of that law which we maintain in our Statute Book. I think that the suggestions of the Select Committee t› which I have referred as having sat last Session upon this subject are worthy of attention in this particular. don't profess to quote literally, but to One was that wherever the judge----I give merely the substance----upon the trial of an election petition, should find that a person was guilty, or that there was sufficient evidence to put him on