Mr. LAURIER thought the matter | Drummond and Arthabaska had shown should be discussed dispassionately, very strong reasons why they should and he proposed to deal with it in this proceed in this connection with a great spirit. He had not seconded the deal of care. He quite agreed with motion in order to gratify spite against what the hon. member had said; this. any one, but with the view of doing question was not to be approached in a his duty towards his Province. The party spirit. The statement read by statement which the hon. gentleman the hon. member for Two Mountains had submitted disclosed facts which revealed facts, not one of which was should go before the Committee of disputed, that required the House to Privileges and Elections, in order to pause before it took action. ascertain the legal and responsible position of the member elect. The hon. member had certain rights and privileges, but these might couffict with those of the House. He had been indicted for the committal of two forgeries, and found guilty on one accusation; on the second, he was acquitted. A new trial was granted; but afterwards this ruling had been set aside. A technical question arose ; it was said that a part of the decision of Judge Mondelet had not been overruled by the Court of Appeals, but simply the portion which granted the new trial. This was technically and substantially true, but when the order granting a new trial was set aside, did not this also do away with the ruling concerning the verdict? He could not conceive that a judge could set aside a conviction and not grant a new trial; if he could do one he could do the other thing, or if the latter was beyond his authority so was the former. These facts had been laid before the House by the Attorney General of Lower Canada, the late Sir George Etienne Cartier, and the papers being submitted, the hon. member only three days afterwards resigned his scat. The hon. gentleman had been since elected, it was true, and no steps had been taken in the matter. But what was the legal aspect of the case at present? Any Crown prosecutor acting in the District of Montreal could at any time move for judgment against the hon. member. The Court of Appeals declared that the conviction remained in full force, and the question was, whether a man so liable was fit to sit in the House. In this a technicality was involved, but it was quite clear that the circumstances should be referred to the Committee mentioned. Hon. Mr. CAMERON (Cardwell) thought that the hon. member for If the witness who had came forward on the occasion of the second trial had been heard on the first, without doubt a verdict of acquittal would also have been given in the former instance. Mr. Johnson, the Counsel for the Crown, who conducted the two trials, as appeared from the papers on the Clerk's table, had at once consented to a new trial being had; this being the case, it struck him that in Upper Canada, under such circumstances, the Crown would have intervened. The whole proceedings in Lower Canada in connection with the verdict had been entirely contrary to law. Judge Mondelet had clearly no power to grant a new trial, as the law did not provide for cases of surprise, error, or mistake. It was also clear that the Judge made two orders, or one order combining two propositions; one quashing the verdict, and another, according a new trial. He could not say, owing to unfamiliarity with precedence before the courts in Quebec, but if there was power for the issue of the two orders, no appeal could certainly be taken against one of them. The steps taken with regard to the appeal had been absolutely contrary to law, and without precedent. The judge who reserved a case under the Criminal Appeal Act, was the judge who tried it; and Judge Aylwin before whom this case came for a new trial afterwards, had as much power to send it before the Court of Appeals as his hon. friend or himself, and no more. It was however so transmitted; and the judgment there pronounced was really in controvention of all provisions of the law. Beyond question, the verdict of guilty still stood against the hon. member for Two Mountains. What did the Crown say? It could at any time, before a verdict was given, according to the practice in Our Courts, enter a nolle prosequi; and this could be done even after a jury was sworn to try a case. The jury gave a verdict, and a nolle prosequi being entered, the Crown could not interfere except by granting a pardon or bringing forward a new indictment. In the case of the member for Two Mountains a verdict had been given, but no judgment entered, and none of the consequences which were involved in a judgment could by any possibility come against him. They could not sentence him because the time gone by would require that a record of conviction should be first had, and after the statement of the facts which had been presented to the House the Crown would never allow a judgment of record to be given. The Crown had the right both before and after conviction to pardon the accused if it thought proper, but in the event of the latter the stigma remained. Now, in this case the stigma of conviction should not be allowed to remain. The hon. gentleman had sat in the House several years since the conviction, and after an interum of a few years he returned, and was arraigned on a conviction which had never matured into a judgment, and of which, if the facts stated that day in the House were true, he ought to have been acquitted. He (Mr. Cameron) considered that it would he more to the hon. gentleman's advantage to have this case go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, from which it would return exonerating him from the whole procedure if there was nothing to contradict what he himself had stated. He was perfectly certain that the gentleman who was implicated in the matter would receive at the hands of the Hon. Minister of Justice as much consideration and tenderness in the administration of the duties of his office as though he were the hon. gentleman's warmest political friend. Hon. Mr. BLAKE said the House would readily understand that when the hon. member for Two Mountains rose to make his statement it would not have been generous in him (Mr. Blake), to make the suggestion he was about to offer. It would not have been right to have prevented an hon. member standing in his position from making a statement, although he might have thought it a little premature. His hon. friend the member for Montmagny, who made the motion, pointed out that he intended to follow it with another, and that he would reserve his remarks until the papers were read. The hon. member for Two Mountains followed that motion with his simple statement. He agreed with the hon. member for Cardwell as to the spirit in which they should approach the consideration of this matter, but it seemed to him that in entering upon a grave judicial investigation of this character the first thing to be done was to have the papers before the House. He begged to submit to the consideration of the House whether it was not proper in the interest of the hon. member for Two Mountains that the papers should be read without further discussion. Mr. MASSON thought the Hon. Minister of Justice had misapprehended the position in which his hon. friend previous day was accompanied with was placed. The motion made on the friend from Two Mountains, and he expressions bearing heavily on his hon. (Mr. Masson) considered he should take the first opportunity to make the statement he had made. He thought the hon. Minister would see that the hon. member for Two Mountains had acted as he should have acted, by laying his case before the House. Hon. Mr. BLAKE said he would be sorry to think that the House understood him to call in question the course the hon. gentleman had thought proper to pursue. He merely wished. to point out that it would be more formal and regular if they first permitted the formal motion to pass, and then go on. The motion was adopted. The papers were then read in French, The reading in English being dispensed with. Mr. SPEAKER-The Clerk informs me that in connection with a case of this kind, it is the custom of this House to enter the statement of the member on our Votes and Proceedings. I do not know that this is done in the English Parliament; but I think that if it is to be so entered, it would be more in order if it came after the entry of the reading of the papers, than if it was inserted previous to them. Yesterday I called on the hon. member for Two Mountains to make statement and withdraw, because the hon. mover in this matter a chose while asking for the reading of the papers, to go somewhat into the merits of the case. To-day I thought that it was an entirely new proceeding; and proceeding more regularly, a motion was merely made that the papers should be read. As this did not of itself convey any charge, I did not feel that it was the time to call on the hon. member to make a statement and withdraw. He however volunteered to read a statement before the papers were produced; and, I think that with the consent of the House, I would instruct the Clerk to record the state ment as having followed the reading of the papers, as it may form a precedent hereafter. Without this precaution some confusion might result. May tells us :-The practice on learning the charge against him, after being read in his place, is for him to withdraw from the House. The precise time at which he ought to withdraw is determined by the nature of the charges; when founded on recorded petitions or other documents, or on words spoken, and taken down with sufficient explanation of the charge, it is easy to have them read, and for the member to withdraw before any question is proposed. The papers have now been read, and if the hon. member were in his place, it would be quite in order for him now to make a statement and withdraw. If the House will consent, I will direct the record to be prepared in that way. Mr. MASSON—Two years ago, Mr. Delorme, the member for Provencher, was assailed in the House, and it is recorded simply on the Journals that he made a statement. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Perhaps the matter may be left over for a short time, and then definitely settled. Hon. Mr. CAMERON (Cardwell)— If the papers are entered on the Jour nals, I think that the statement should also be entered. Mr. MASSON-I contend that the statement then should not be placed on the Journals verbatim; but only the part the hon. member may require. Hon. Mr. BLAKE-It is to be observed that almost the whole of the statement, with the exception of one point-the denial of the truth of the accusation-may be said to be argumentative; probably the suggestion of my hon. friend the First Minister should be followed. Mr. SPEAKER-I see it recorded that "the said Pierre Delorme having stated in his place, that the said charges were utterly unfounded and untrue." Mr. MASSON-These words were inserted, but not the statement he made. that was his whole statement. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Probably Hon Mr. BLAKE-This was the substance of the statement. Mr. SPEAKER--It occured to me as a matter of justice to the hon. member whose character is impugned, this statement should appear. Mr. TASCHEREAU wished to correct his hon. friend from Cardwell regarding certain points. On the back of the indictment were these entriesafter the words true bill-arraigned 8th of March, 1865; trial fixed for the 30th March; trial had same day; verdict guilty, and recommended to mercy. The Court had simply granted the motion for a new trial, but the first conviction had not been actually quashed. Judge Mondelet had differed from all his colleagues in the Court of Appeals regarding the question. Judgment was given on the 8th June, 1865, and when the matter came up again in September 1866, the only thing that Justice Mondelet said was, that he had not changed his mind, and that, according to his opinion, he could Desforges denied that he had given not pass sentence on the first trial. the hon. member any authorization to sign his (Desforges) name. It was strange also that the line of defence in the first case was this-that tion was favorable to the prisoner, but the signature was genuine and no for necessary for Upper Canada, it is still more necessary here, for it is plain that if an applicagery. It was said the Crown prosecution for a new trial were allowed, it ought to be made to the Court of Queen's Bench sitting in appeal, held by at least four judges, and not to the Court of Queen's Bench on the Crown side, usually beld by one judge. And it is equally plain that under the existing law such an application could not be made to the Court of Appeals." The Court will probably consider that for the prosecution was not encountered by It had also been said that the ruling "The first question submitted to us by the to change the law in this respect, and those at- Canada the distinction between misdemeanors and crimes of greater magnitnde has been done obtain a new trial; but this has been done by statnte, and if legislation for that purpose was The notes which formed the basis of the two indictments were signed at two different dates and were for two different amounts. The evidence in the second trial was quite different from the testimony in the first. It did not appear in the second trial Desforges was a witness as to the question of authority, but he was in the first trial that he never and gave evidence authorized the prisoner to sign his name on a note of any kind. Having stated these facts he (Mr. Tascherau) moved that the case be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. MOUSSEAU congratulated the Hon. Minister of Justice on the liberal spirit in which he approached this question. He desired to make a statement of the facts which had not yet been placed before the House. It was a fact very well known that the hon. member for Two Mountains and his brother-in-law had been in the habit for four or five years of endorsing one another's notes. About eighteen months previous to the conviction the hon. gentleman's brother-in-law authorized him to sign his name to notes for an amount not exceeding $1,000. The former in civil suit denied a signature to a bill for $500, and the hon, member for Two Mountains was of course arrested on the of forgery. He charge tried and found guilty, and the news of the trial immediately spread over the whole country. One of the witnesses, who was present when the hon. gentleman's brother-in-law authorized him to use his name, then came forward. A new trial took place, and the hon. gentleman was triumphantly acquitted; the judge had not the slightest he was hesitation in declaring that entirely innocent of the charge brought against him. An application was at once made for a new trial. The application was granted, but the next term This gentleman raised objections to the the same judge was not on the Bench. was new trial, and at the same time took it upon himself to make up a case and submit it to the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Appeals had confirmed the opinion of Mr. Justice Aylwin. The weight of authorities in favor of new trials was very great indeed. In most parts of the United States, in connection with felonies, these were granted. There was considerable analogy between this and the French system, which gave recourse against judgments in certain cases. They possessed in this regard the requete civile, under which decisions delivered in the Civil Courts could be set aside, either on the ground that they had been based on false evidence or given in the absence of authorative documents which had been concealed, or missing, or discovered after judgment; this practice was founded on the great principles of justice and equity. In this relation new trials should always be treated from a very liberal point of view. The prosecutor, at the time of the trial in question, although a Conservative, and though the accused had rendered great service to his party, had treated him most severely; no hesitation was shown, and the non-member had been speedily found guilty. This proved that the parties concerned in the case were high-minded men, who were not inclined to prevent justice being done. On the occasion of the second trial the same judge presided, the same Crown Counsel appeared, and the same advocates conducted the defence. He must make especial allusion to Judge Mondelet, who stood very high in the esteem of his fellow citizens; though some did not always approve of that gentleman's doctrines, his high sense of duty and his great impartiality were well and generally appreciated at the first trial. The Judge hal charged very severely against the prisoner; but when the missing witness, a brother-in-law of Desforges, who was interested in obtaining a conviction in order to save himself the necessty of paying $800, appeared and gave his testimony, His Honour instructed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, being very strongly impressed with the innocence of the hon. member. The remarks of Judge Mondelet touching the case, when brought before the Court of Appeals, were to be found in the Lower Canada Jurist, Vol. 10, and page 221; the judgment was delivered on the 9th of June, 1866. This was an extract: "MONDELET J.-At the March Term, 1866, of the Court of Queen's Bench, at which I presided, Daoust was tried on an indictment for forgery of an endorsation of a promissory note. From the evidence adduced at the trial, there seemed no doubt, and I charged the jury-as I never shrink from doing where my conviction is strong to return a verdict of guilty, and the jury did so. The most important evidence was that of Desforges, who stated that he had never authorized the prisoner to sign his name. The prisoner was subsequently put upon his trial for forging the same name on another note, and this time the jury found a verdict in his favour, on evidence tending to show that the prisoner had been authorized by Desforges to sign his name. The prisoner stood between two fires-between a verdict of guilty and a verdict of not guilty. Towards the end of the term, Mr. Ouimet, the prisoner's counsel, moved for a new trial on the first indictment, in order that the witness Legault, who testified that Desforges had authorized the prisoner to sign his name, might be heard. Mr. Johnson, who then represented the Attorney General, said that under the circumstances he did not think proper to oppose the granting of a new trial. I, having presided at both trials, and being au fait with the cirthat Daoust either believed himself authorized, cumstances of both, having no possible doubt or was really authorized to sign the name, considered it not only justice, but an imperative duty to grant a new trial. I wish to be clearly understood on this point. First-because an imperative sense of duty urged me to it; and secondly- because I believed the Court had ber Term, Mr. Justice Aylwin, who was then power to do it. In the following Septempresiding, reserved the case for the consideration of the full Bench. It will be understood that my conviction must be very strong, when I still adhere to it; though I find four Judges, for whose abilities I entertain such profound respect, differing from me in opinion." the He (Mr. Mousseau) had received a letter from a gentleman in Montreal who was present when the judgment was rendered, mentioning the following circumstance which did not appear on the record. When the judge decided that no new trial should be granted, Mr. Ouimet rose and said "What is my poor prisoner to do? You give no new trial and his innocence is per fectly proved." Judge Drummond said "You need not trouble yourself, no Government in the world will do anything against your client." The following Term the Crown prosecutor moved that sentence be rendered on the verdict. Some astonishment had been expressed by hon. members opposite that |