the hands of judges and means were pro vided for the speedy trial of violations of them. What he asked now was whether hon. gentlemen were prepared in reference to elections for the House, to give the same inducements to the electors and to the candidates, which it was in the in terest of all of them to give, not only of preventing bribery and intimidation, but of affording a satisfactory mode of trying violations of the law. He argued that the expense of trying a controverted election would be no greater under the new than under the old system. Then, if the sys. tem he proposed was adopted, as he contended it was specially adopted to a country covering so vast an area as this, it should be adopted. The great satisfaction which the people would derive from the trial being conducted in an open Court be fore themselves, from the witnesses being examined in their presence, from the facts being stated in the hearing of those who were best qualified to judge of them, from the truth being got out before them, and from the decision upon those facts being given by Judges whom they knew, whom they trusted, and whom they were accustomed to have to decide in the other affairs -if it was a system of that kind then he said that, important as were the measures of amelioration which might come before the House, there was none of so great im portance as that which he was the humble medium of bringing under their consideration. No greater blow could be struck against corruption and intimidation than would be struck by the bill, and the only ground upon which it could be opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite-would be a des Jiberate intention on their part to use that patronage with which they had been entrusted for the benefit of the whole country, to use the influence they had as gov. ernors of the country, to exercise the con trol they had over the administration of the public affairs of the country, as means and levers for improperly influencing the popular vote at the approaching elections, and to do all that, to use even the powers which the legislation of this session would put in their hands, as well as to avail themselves of the purses of their friends throughout the constituencies, without in curring the exposure, the confusion, and the difficulty which would follow a trial of these matters before a proper tribunal. (Hear, hear.) Those who were against the present system, and in favor of that purity of election which its abolition had secured in Ontario would vote for the bill. Those who were in favour of bribery and corrup. tion being practised, without any eflectual check being placed upon them—and he

characterized them in advance—would reject the bill; and he trusted that, if they rejected and again became candidates, the people would reject them. (Hear, hear.)

Hon. Sir J. A. MACDONALD said that, instead of arguing the bill on its merits, the hon. gentleman took occasion to threaten those who held different opinions from himself. The hon. gentleman would find that that language would meet the fate it deserved, and that in adoping such a tone he would not increase his influence in the House or the country, or his usefulness in any way. The hon. gentleman had cast a deliberate slander on every member of the House when he said that the continuance of the old system would be a practical inducement to bribery and corruption. What was the law that now existed? It was that five men should be chosen by lot out of the House-not chosen by the majority-but chosen by chance; and the men who had been chosen by the people of the land to pass all the laws and to deal with all the subjects of public interest were to be stigmatized as men who countenance corruption; and the committee, sworn solemnly to try each case according to law, was termed " corrupted," and was charged with committing perjury. That was the necessary inference of the hon. gentleman's language, and no other conclusion could be drawn from it. In either case, whether before a judge or a committee, there was no doubt that the tribunal would be honest, and would do their duty; and his experience in Parlia ment had been that Committees on the whole had given decisions, as fair, as honest, as bench or Judges could give, however elevated. He did not deny that some argument might be made from consideration of convenience, had that line been taken by the hon. gentleman. It was unworthy of him to hold out a threat of the kind he had used; and for that reason, if for no other, the bill would be rejected. He objected, however, to the bill being passed now, for two reasons. In the first place the House should respect its own legislation. Did Parliament act with deliberation, or did it not, when the subject was before it last year? Did it not provide then that there should be a certain system for the trial of controverted elections? There had been no change of circumstances, and no election had taken place since the Act passed, and any change would be resented by the Senate, for they would say, "We passed the Act last year at the request of the House of Commons, and there has been no change of circum stances since." There was another ground of objection which, to his mind, was con

clusive on the subject, and that was that until they they had Dominion Judges they had no right to force the trial of controverted elections on the present Judges. If any hon. gentleman would consult the British North American Act he would see that this was the case, for it was provided that the constitution of the courts, their organization, and their duties were to be uttered by the Local Legislatures. The general Government had the power of appointment and the fixing of salaries; but it had no power, and ought not to assume the power, of throwing upon the Judges other duties than those provided by the local acts. If they could order the Judges of the Superior Court to try election peti. tions, they could order them to act on commission on any public subject what ever, and to perform duties altogether in consistent or at variance with their proper duties as Judges. It was unconstitutional in spirit to throw on the Judges duties other than these imposed on them by the Local Legislature, and the House would see the inconvenience of it. What security could there be that the Administration of Justice would be satisfactorily carried on, or how could the Government of any Province see to the proper economical administration of Justice if the judges could be dragged away from their duties and their courts, and be compelled to set aside a whole circuit because they were ordered by the Dominion Government to leave their bench and go away east, west, north or south to try election petitions. It was a step which would strike a serious blow at the very root of the satisfactory performance of the ordinary administration of justice. There were 200 members in the House. Supposing that there were fifty disputed cases at the next election; fifty judges would have to be taken away from their ordinary duties. When next year the Dominion had Judges of its own sitting as a Court of Appeal, if it should be found, after a fair and full consideration of the whole subject, that the Dominion Judges could, without interference with their ors dinary duties, have these duties imposed on them, it would be time enough to act. Under the present law, the Dominion Parliament had no power to control the num ber of Judges, or to increase them, and yet they were asked to throw additional bur dens on them without concert with the local Governments in that behalf. This argument, in his opinion, was conclusive against the bill. The two grounds on which he took objections to the matter were that, after the legislation of last Session the Statute then passed should be allowed.to remain, as no new circumstance

had arisen; in the second place, that they were entering on a dangerous path if they assumed the power or authority of imposing any duties on the Judges other than those imposed on them by the Legislature of the Province of which they were Judges. He moved that the bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time that day three months.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said, the first reason given by the hon. gentlemen, was that the mover of the bill had threatened the House. That reason was unfounded and improper. As to not passing a new law until the old one had been tried, the argument was fallacious. The House had imposed duties on Judges on several occasions. If they imposed duties on them respecting the Insolvency law, why should they not do the same with the Election law. Again, Parliament could impose the duty of trying divorce cases, and several other matters. As to the question of convenience, it would not take nearly so great a number of Judges to try the cases. The usual proposition of Contested Elections was about ten per cent, and seven Judges, at the outside would be able to dispose of the cases. Suppose there was a Court of Appeal, that court would sit at Ottawa, and did the hon. gentleman propose to send these judges all over the Dominion? It was proposed to make up the court with seven jndges, and yet the hon. gentleman proposed to give controverted elections into their hands, and yet he said that 50 would be neces. sary. The arguments were wholly against the grounds taken by the First Minister. He could understand that it might be con. sidered preferable to commit election cases to a committee of the House instead of to courts, though he could not agree with that view. He remembered a case in which a member in an election committee had remained out of the way purposely to avoid a decision, and gentlemen engaged in party strife might imperceptibly be influenced by their party feeling. The very process of the appointment of the commi. tee involved the view that it was necessary to guard against party influence. maintained that the trial by Judges was British and commended itself to the Judg. ment of all men of any long Parliamentary experience, and should support the bill with the greatest eagerness.

He

ing of distrust that the law would not work and after a year's experience the Legislature repealed it. He did not blame hon. gentlemen opposite for their views, but a great majority were opposed to the princi ple they held. He was in England some time after the passing of the law placing the matter in the hands of the judges, and several judges who had been called on to administer the law condemned the policy of taking them away from their ordinary duties to try controverted elections. That principle was merely on its trial, yet, and it was almost a certainty that the next Parliament would be called upon to adopt a uniform election law for the whole Dominion. It was impossible to do this last session on account of the accession of British Columbia, as in order to a proper decision, it was necessary to have representatives from each portion of the Dom. inion, The present law was only applicable to the next general election, and it would afterwards be necessary to frame a uniform measure. It would be more than unwise and imprudent at that moment to substitute an untried system for one that had been tried, and until a uniform measure could be adopted. The experience of the first few years had brought about the conviction that the electoral basis should be uniform throughout the Dominion. He hoped the House would see that it was not expedient to impose the duty in question on judges under the control of the local Governments, in addition to their ordinary duties, and for this rea. son, and for the want of proper experience, the bill ought not to pass. The question was an immense one, and could not be properly considered at the fag end of a session, and Parliament next year would be in a proper position to deal with the matter.

Mr. ANGLIN did not understand the argument that the measure of last year should not be changed, if there was sufficient reason for such a change. He believed that the system of trial of elections before judges was recognized as the best, from the experience of the provinces that had tried it; and there was no doubt of its being the most convenient. The most important consideration was that bribery and corruption had been greatly discour aged by the system of trial before judges. In addition, losses could be decided much more rapidly by judges than by a committee, and indeed all facts, arguments, and experience concurred to support the measure now before the House. It had not been proved that the proper discharge of the ordinary duties of Judges had been interfered with by the imposal on them

of the trial of election cases, and he believed that if there were payment attached to controverted elections, no Judge would object to the work. The first consideration was that justice should be done.

Mr. RYMAL had had much experience in matters of contested elections, and had known days and days taken up in trying the cases before a committee. He desired that Justice should be done, and there should be no unnecessary delay, and he believed justice would be more certain under the system proposed than under that now in force.

Mr. IRVINE had a strong conviction in favour of the principle of the proposed bill and should vote for it. He referred to the election law as a mere dead letter, and believed that there was great corruption at elections. The reason of the law being imperative was that it was impossible for a committee to unseat a member for corrupt practices. He did not agree with the statement that Election Committees were influenced by party feelings, and referred to a case in which a Conservative had been unseated by a committee a majority of which were conservatives. He believed that the present tribunal was proved to be unsatisfactory, and especially so to the gentlemen unfortunate enough to be chosen on the committees. He believed they could not do better than entrust the matter to the judges of the land, and thought that system had worked very well wherever tried. He never understood that the motion last year was to be permanent, and he could not agree with the argument that the House had no power to impose duties on judges, for every law passed im. posed on them the duty of carrying out the law. If it was important that corrupt practices at elections should be put down, and if the present tribunal was unsatisfactory, the only alternative was to place the matter in the hands of the Judges.

Mr. STREET said the question was one of principle. They had long experience of the present system, and he did not desire in any way to reflect on the Committee, but he believed trial by Judges was most likely to ensure justice and right. It was not a question of imposing too great a bur. den on the Judges, for if the burden was too great the allowance could be increased. The subject was that justice should be attained, and that should be the first consideration. On the score of convenience also the present system was undesirable, for it would be most incorrect to try a case from British Columbia or Manitoba under the present system, and it was desirable that all investigations should take place as early as possible. He was decidedly in