I am not going to denounce anybody. The question is whether we are going to submit to malicious argument, by gentlemen who are endeavouring to convict a man who is not guilty. I sat in that committee; I listened to the evidence, and there was a denial of the matter by Mr. Murdock. The only trouble is that these gentlemen who tried the case would like to call Mr. Murdock a perjurer and they dare not do so. The answer he gave when he was asiked if there was any other information is unequivocal. He said that he had received no further information from any other source. These gentlemen would like to say that he is a perjurer; but they dare not say that because James Murdock is too well known throughout the country, and the people know , that he would not perjure himself. But these gentlemen desire to take a roundabout way of saying that. If what they argue were the case, two members of parliament would not be able to speak together, or two -members of the cabinet would not be able to consult one another about private -business without trespassing -on the dignity of parliament. Such arguments are childish. If -the hon. member for Dorchester, (Mr. Cannon), as the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has said, has spoken barnyard stuff, I say that this is childish stuff that is being spoken, and if I were allowed by the rules of the House, I would say in some cases, dishonest stuff, and wilfully dishonest, but I am not allowed to say it.