Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the Ottawa ' Free Press ' and I understand in some other papers of recent date there appears an item, trival it is. true, but still more or less important, to the effect that I had apologized to the legal gentleman in the city of Montreal who had defended the prisoner in the recent Masonic trial in that city. I thought I was very fair to that gentleman in explaining to the House, and the country that he had not appealed on his own account to religious fanaticism in order to defend the prisoner. I think I went much further than I might have been expected to do. He explained, as I stated to the House, that his object in referring to religious fanaticism in the trial to show that the prisoner had no intent to commit robbery for the sake of robbery itself, but was carried away by the spirit of fanaticism characteristic of all religious fanatics. I made no apology to any one. I merely recited the statement in fairplay to the gentleman who conducted the defence on that occasion. The object of the barrister was to show that the prisoner was carried away with fanaticism, and had no intention to rob. That was the reason why he brought it in. The fanaticism was admitted as regards the prisoner, but not on the part of the lawyer further than to explain that the prisoner had no intent to commit robbery for his own advantage.