to form a new ministry.  He continued in office until April, 1896, when he retired in favour of Sir Charles Tupper, who resigned the position of high commissioner for Canada in England to enter public life as the recognised leader of the Liberal-Conservative party.  This eminent Canadian had already reached the middle of the eighth decade of his life, but age had in no sense impaired the vigour or astuteness of his mental powers.  He has continued ever since, as leader of the Liberal-Conservative party, to display remarkable activity in the discussion of political questions, not only as a leader of parliament, but on the public platform in every province of the Dominion.

During the session of 1891 the political career of Sir Hector Langevin, the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party in French Canada, was seriously affected by certain facts disclosed before the committee of privileges and elections.  This committee had been ordered by the house of commons to inquire into charges made by Mr. Israel Tarte against another member of the house, Mr. Thomas McGreevy, who was accused of having used his influence as a commissioner of the Quebec harbour, a government appointment, to obtain fraudulently from the department of public works, presided over by Sir Hector for many years, large government contracts in connection with the Quebec harbour and other works.  The report of the majority of the committee found Mr. McGreevy guilty of fraudulent acts, and he was not only expelled from the house but was subsequently imprisoned in the Ottawa common gaol after his conviction on an indictment laid against him in the criminal court of Ontario.  With respect to the complicity of the minister of public works in these frauds the committee reported that it was clear that, while the conspiracy had been rendered effective by reason of the confidence which Sir Hector Langevin placed in Mr. McGreevy and in the officers of the department, yet the evidence did not justify them in concluding that Sir Hector knew of the conspiracy or willingly lent himself to its objects.  A minority of the committee, on the other hand, took the opposite view of the transactions, and claimed that the evidence showed the minister to be cognisant of the facts of the letting of the contracts, and that in certain specified cases he had been guilty of the violation of a public trust by allowing frauds to be perpetrated.  The report of the majority was carried by a party vote, with the exception of two Conservative members who voted with the minority.  Sir Hector Langevin had resigned his office in the government previous to the inquiry, and though he continued in the house for the remainder of its constitutional existence, he did not present himself for re-election in 1896 when parliament was dissolved.

Unhappily it was not only in the department of public works that irregularities were discovered.  A number of officials in several departments were proved before the committee of public accounts to have been guilty of carelessness or positive misconduct in the discharge of their duties, and the government was obliged, in the face of such disclosures, to dismiss or otherwise punish several persons in whom they had for years reposed too much confidence.