Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

I wish to call the attention of the government, Mr. Speaker, to the question of the representation of St. James division, and if necessary I shall conclude with the usual motion. In a number of constituencies vacancies occurred since last session, and in all these the vacancies have been filled. There were the division of Argentueil, the north riding of Grey, the district of Maison-neuve, the district of Yarmouth, the north riding of Ontario, the division of Durham and the electoral district of Maskinonge, in which vacancies occurred from various causes, and under your warrant, Sir, writs were promptly issued and these vacancies filled. With regard to the electoral division of St. James, on the 16th of March you, Sir, communicated to the House the report of the judgment rendered upon the contestation of election in that division, and in your communication to the House you stated that ' the trial judges having reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in the election, I have, in conformity with section 48, chapter 9, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, withheld the issue of my warrant for a new election pending action to be taken by the House in the matter.' Subsequently, on the 3rd of April last, and in conformity with the provisions of the statute cited by yourself, a motion was made in this House for the issue of your warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for the purpose of holding a new election. This was done under sections 46, 47 and 48 of chapter 9 of the Controverted Elections Act, Revised Statutes of 1886:

Section 46. The Speaker shall, at the earliest practical moment after he receives the certificate and report or reports, if any, of the court or Judge,' give the necessary directions and adopt all the proceedings necessary for confirming or altering the return, or to except as hereinafter mentioned, for the issuing of a writ for a new election (for which purpose the Speaker may pddress his warrant, under his hand and seal, to the Clerk of the Crown iu Chancery) or for otherwise carrying the determination into execution as circumstances re-auire.

Section 47. When the judge in his report on the trial of an election petition under this Act states that corrupt practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the petition relates, or that he is of opinion that the inquiry into the circumstances of the election has been rendered incomplete by the action of any of the parties to the petition, and the further inquiry as to whether corrupt practices have extensively prevailed is desirable. no new writ shall issue for a new election Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

in such case except by order of the House of Commons.

On tbe 3rd of April I moved, seconded by Mr. LSonard :

That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Cilerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ for a member to serve in this present parliament for the electoral division of St. James, in the place of Joseph Brunet, whose election was declared void.

That motion was agreed to unanimously. That was a very considerable time ago, and it seems to me a manifest injustice not to have proceeded to execute the order of this House, especially in a matter of this kind. That it was not carried out is not due to any cause existing in this House. You, Sir, issued your warrant in conformity of the House, agreed to unanimously, and if the election has been delayed, if the writ has not been issued by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, that is due entirely to the action of the government. In other words, the cabinet, which, under tbe modern interpretation of our constitution, is purely and simply a committee of this House, has judged fit to delay the issuing of the writ and to prevent the electoral division of St. James from being represented during this most important session. As an elector iu that division, and as one living in it and knowing public feeling there, I am prepared to state that this delay of the government is condemned by tlie electors. In common with other electors of this Dominion, they claim tbe right to have a representative here, particularly in view of the fact that that claim has been upheld by the order of this House. Since the beginning of, this session we have had under our consideration measures of particular interest to the division of St. James, which is one of the most important of the city of Montreal. It is a division in which there is a large number of representatives of every class-professional men. university men and labour-men-and each of those classes, more particularly the third, is deeply interested in the questions we have had under discussion. Among these 1 might mention the improvement of Montreal harbour, in which the St. James division is particularly interested : the Bill with respect to insolvency, which I have had the honour to submit to tbe consideration of this House, because that division has very large commercial interests ; the Railway Bill, in which it is interested in a very particular degree ; the Bill concerning the Montreal bridge, which touches on the north side of the St. Lawrence, St. James division ; the transcontinental railway line, concerning which we are to have soon a communication from the government, and the Redistribution Bill. In all these measures St. James division is interested in common with other divisions, and in some of them it has a particular Interest. And there is no reason whatever why the election in that division should have been de-

layed for three months and the division deprived of representation in this House and of an opportunity to take part in the discussion and decision of this important question. It is needless for me to say that, under the present custom of parliament in England, the withholding of a writ of election from an electoral division is a very grave punishment of the division, and is very rarely resorted to in modern times. Formerly the Crown abused the privilege of withholding the writs. In times of great corruption, when parliament sought to bring a remedy, writs were withheld by the Crown ; but, in modern times, that extreme punishment, the putting of this stigma, this mark of ignominy, upon a constituency is a very rare thing indeed, though the right still exists.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

And is only exercised in cases of corruption on the part of the people.

Mr. MONK.

Yes, and as my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) very justly says, it is exercised only in cases of very general and wide spread corruption. In the very recent case of Colonel Arthur Lynch, who represented the division of Galway, a very interesting debate took place in the British parliament as to the propriety of issuing the writ. I have not the report of that discussion here, but hon. members who refer to ' Hansard ' will find that the opinion was very generally expressed in the House that the case of Colonel Lynch was not a case for the punishment of the constituency in general. The opinion was also expressed once in the House that the withholding of a writ of election was an extreme measure to which the Crown could resort only under circumstances of very general corruption. These circumstances do not by any means exist in the present case. The story of the election in St. James division, Montreal, is pretty familiar to most, if not all, the members of this House. It amounts to this : A few men-a very few, when you consider the large number of electors in that division -conspired to prevent the free expression of the peoples' will, conspired to seduce and buy some of the agents of one of the candidates, and, having secured the silence, the acquiesence, of these agents in some fifteen or twenty cases, they contrived to destroy the ballots deposited by the electors, and, in most cases, substituted ballots of their own. And there is no doubt in my mind that, had that fraud not been perpetrated the result of the election would have been largely, if not totally, different. That is a fact that is well recognized by those familiar with that election campaign. Why, I ask, should the vast mass of the electors be practically disfranchised through the wilful neglect of this government ? The reason is not far to seek ; it is that there are from eight or nine to a dozen aspirants to the nomination among the Liberal supporters, and the rivalry of these possible candidates, and the difficulty the government find in establishing harmony among them and their factions, is the sole, the unique cause of the disfranchisements of the electoral division of St. James. So, whereas, in the first instance, the will of the people was denied expression by a certain number of unscrupulous supporters of the government, at the present moment the peoples' desire to be represented in parliament is defeated by a group of men who find it impossible to agree upon a candidate for parliamentary honours. Under these circumstances, I think the protest which I have taken the liberty to place before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the House is well based, and should receive the immediate attention of the government.

I am sorry to be obliged to observe to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that I think his memory is somewhat at fault on this occasion. It is quite true that at the opening of the session, some time after the courts had passed finally upon the election in the St. James division, my hon. friend moved for a writ to be issued for a new election. And my hon. friend should remember that upon that occasion not the slightest exception was taken to the motion, which was passed unanimously, not only without a word of dissent, but even without a word of debate. The long disquisition upon which my hon. friend has entered as to keeping the constituency disfranchised had, therefore, no application whatever. There never was in the mind of anybody on the floor of this House any intention to disfranchise the electoral division of St. James. If there had been any such intention, if it had been supposed that the constituency was in such a position that the Crown would be obliged to apply the punishment which is sometimes applied to the constituencies in England, disfranchisement, that would have been the time to make the observation, and press the exception. But, when the motion was passed without a word of dissent from anybody, that was clear evidence to the mind of everybody that there was no occasion to disfranchise the constituency. Therefore, all the observations which my hon. friend has indulged in, so far as that part of the question goes, are absolutely and entirely without foundation-he has not the slightest cause or justification for them. The reason why the writ has not been issued for the constituency of St. James is rather in the conduct of my hon. friend himself. My hon. friend will remember the motion he moved to have the writ issued, t >

which motion I have just referred, and which was granted. He cannot have forgotten, I am sure, that sometimes afterwards, a couple of weeks afterwards-I have been looking over the debates, bat I have not yet found the e-tact date-my hon. friend gave me

notice from his place that, as the writ had not been issued, he would call the attention of the House to that fact on a subsequent day.

Mr. MONK.

My right lion, friend is mistaken, I have never referred to the subject since.

I beg my hon. friend's pardon. He certainly referred to the fact that he would call attention to it on a future day, and I have been waiting for him ever since. That is the reason why no action was taken. The reason why the writ was not issued at the time my hon. friend made the motion was this : I inquired as to the particulars, and I was told then that the lists were being prepared by the municipal authorities in Montreal, and therefore, I thought it was better not to have the writ issued at the time. My hon. friend said he never called my attention from his place to that question. I do not accuse my hon. friend of wilfully forgetting-on the contrary. But, perhaps, I may mention a circumstance which will, I am sure, bring the matter to his recollection. He will remember that he crossed over here to tell me That he would not bring that motion just then, but would wait a little longer ; and I have been under the impression that he would move it.

Mr. MONK.

I must correct my hon. friend. He refers to the motion I made on the 3rd of April for the issue of the writ.

No.

Mr. MONK.

Yes, and I have not referred to that subject since.

Either he or I am mistaken. At all events, the hon. gentleman, having called the attention of the government to that matter, we shall give it immediate attention, and see whether the condition of things in Montreal is such that a writ can be issued.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman is joking or in earnest in putting forward some of the reasons that he has just mentioned. I suppose one of the reasons was a joke, and the other one apparently was intended as a real reason. A writ was moved for in this House and it passed unanimously. That was on the 3rd of April, and three months and a half have elapsed. It would have been possible to have a member elected for that constituency by the middle of May. But during two months and a half and well on to three months that constituency has been unrepresented because the right hon. gentleman did not know the condition in which the iists were. With all the powers at his disposal, with all the resources of this government at his disposal, he was not able to ascertain the condition of the lists in St. James division, Montreal, to know whether he should bring on an election. He Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

is inclined to blame my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for the fact that this election has not been brought on. I suppose the next thing we shall hear from tlie right hon. gentleman is that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is to blame for the fact that the government's railway policy has not been brought down after the session has been going on four and a half months. Such a reason would be about as good in the one case as in the other. Now, this constituency has a right to be represented, unless the government decide, and they say they have not decided, that is should be disfranchised on account of the corruption which prevailed in the last election, and which was wholly due, I am glad to say, to the efforts of some persons in that constituency whose aid has been very much relied upon by the government. From the 10th of May up to the present time, as I am informed, the lists have been ready, and that division has been in a position to have an election properly and regularly conducted. During the whole of that time until near the end of July, the hon. gentleman and ins government have not been able to ascertain that they are in a position at any moment to bring on an election in that constituency. I think we shall lie more inclined to rely upon the reasons which have been suggested by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, and to believe that certain difficulties which are said to have arisen in that constituency with regard to the selection of a candidate are the real reasons for this delay, rather than those which the right hon. gentleman has advanced in the House to-day. There were certain difficulties, we are reminded, in that division just before the last election, and I suppose it is to avoid a repetition of those difficulties, and to arrange the claims of friends who are aspirants for this position, that the constituency of St. James has been without representation in this House of Commons for the last two and a half or three months.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I beg to say a word in answer to the hon. gentleman for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who spoke of the corruption which lie alleges took place in the St. James division when the last election occurred. As a matter of fact, the only corruption which was proved happened in just one poll, and there has been no proof at all that corruption took place in any other. This corruption was of course wholly unwarranted, and was not the act of the Liberal party as a whole. In fact, it was condemned during the election by several speakers belonging to the Liberal party ; and after the election it was also stigmatized-I may use that vigorous term-by the then recognized organs of the Liberal party. As to the present divisions in that constituency, I may say that if an election took place to-morrow, the hon. gentleman would find the Liberal party united and

ready to meet tlie foe. In speaking about Mr. Brunet, who has been unseated, the hon. gentleman might perhaps take the House into his confidence so far as to tell us whether he did not agree to support Mr. Brunet at the beginning of the campaign. For I am told that in the early days of the campaign the hon. gentleman was ready to lend his very valuable assistance to Mr. Brunet.

Mr. J. E. EMILE LEONARD (Laval).

(Translation.) 1 was greatly pleased to hear the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) speak of corruption. The Liberal party are resorting once more to their old tactics. Towards the close of the Hon. Mr. Mer-cier's administration, all the Liberals who had benefited by its mismanagement, forsook him when they perceived that his downfall was inevitable. Now, that the ex-member for St. James (Mr. Brunet) has been disqualified by the courts, the hon. member for GasptS would take the same stand his party has always taken when Liberal scandals were exposed.

As regards the question whether the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had decided to support Mr. Brunet or not, in his electoral contest, I may say that the statement made by the hon. member for Gaspe is wholly incorrect. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, as leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, never even suggested that the Conservatives of the province of Quebec, or of the Dominion, would support Mr. Brunet's candidature. If the hon. member for Gaspe will take the pains of inquiring from his immediate neighbours, he wfill become acquainted with the circumstances which brought about Mr. Brunet's candidature.

When the hon. member for Jacques Cartier moved for the issuing of a writ for a new election in St. James division, some time past, nobody objected on the other side of the House, and the motion was agreed to unanimously. Since that time we have not heard anything of that writ in the House. However, members who reside in Montreal, and myself, for one, have heard the ex-member for St. James himself state that the right hon. Prime Minister, or some of his colleagues, had promised him that there would not be any election; giving him to hope that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) would introduce a bill cancelling the judgment which disqualified him. I cannot say to what extent that statement is correct; but, at all events, Mr. Brunet states freely that he has the promise from the leader of the government that he will once more be the liberal candidate in St. James. Of course, liberal promises are not to be much relied upon, and I assume that this promise was made for some particular purpose, and in view of that, the issuing of the writ is being delayed.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will

be agreed to and that the government will soan have an election in St. James division. This is the more desirable that the government of the province of Quebec will soon have several electoral contests going on. If the statement made by the hon. member for Gaspe has some" foundation, that is, if the government is quite sure of carrying the election in St. James, then that victory will comi>ensate them for the four or five defeats which are awaiting the government of the province of Quebec, a pupil of the federal government.

Mr. MONK.

One word in reply to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. LemieUx). Surely he cannot have followed the contestation of the St. .Tames election when he says there was no proof of corrupt practises except at one poll. If the hon. gentleman will read over the evidence he will find the clearest proof disclosed that the agent of Mr. Brunet, in poll No. 37, as to which the revelations were complete, stated to Mr. Bergeron's agent at the time he succeeded in obtaining the good graces of that young man, '.You need not mind acceding to my proposal, because we have carried out the same scheme in fifteen or eighteen polls.'

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Is that evidence '/

Mr. MONK.

I think it is and most conclusive. It was a general scheme and not confined to that poll. My hon. friend suggests that I promised Mr. Brunet to support him in that election. It is true that at the time that Mr. Drouin was the adopted candidate of the government a very considerable number of the friends of my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) prospective candidates, came to me and assured me that they had become alienated; from the Liberal party on account of its failure to fulfil its pledges and that they had determined to come forward in St. James division as opposed to the government and as supporting the Conservative party. To these gentlemen I stated that if they maintained these good sentiments, if they sincerely had these convictions, we would give them some encouragement. But, I regret to say, that a great change came over the spirit of their dream. Mr. Drouin disappeared, Mr. Brunet came forward as the government candidate, Mr. Bergeron came forward as the true candidate of the Conservative party and I have no doubt that if these frauds had not been carried out to the extent to which they were carried out Mr. Bergeron would have been sitting in this House to-day.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) take us a little more into his confidence and tell us if he did not agree to support Mr. Brunet as against the other Liberal candidate on condition that Mr. Brunet would vote, at all events, against the government on its policy in regard to the relations between Canada and the empire ?

Mr. MONK.

If my hon. friend insists 1 must tell him frankly that I never agreed to support Mr. Brunet. Although I had the greatest respect for Mr. Brunet I did not think he was qualified to represent that important division in this House, but the approaches were made to me by several confreres of my hon. friend who are professed Liberals to-day and who were opportunists at that moment.

Motion (Mr. Monk) to adjourn, negatived.