1902-04-14

CHINESE-JAPANESE IMMIGRATION.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I beg to lay on the Table of the House the report of the Royal



Commission on Chinese and Japanese Immigration, second part.



REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Summary report of the Geological Survey for the calendar year 1901.-Hon. Mr. Sif-ton.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 53) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
On section 4,
Mr. McCREARY.: Mr. Chairman, before this clause passes, as we have now the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in his seat, and as that gentleman was not present during the consideration of private Bills on Friday night, I would like to state one or two objections I have to this Bill. In the first place, I object to the Bill on general principles. The Bill authorizes the construction of 5,000 or
6,000	miles of railway, and this power, to be given in any one charter, is altogether too great. I object also to the Bill because it authorizes the construction of certain branch lines, but the descriptions of these lines are so indefinite that we do not know where the roads are going to run. But, my most serious objection to the Bill is the fact that by its terms it entirely controls the only two available passes through the Rocky Mountains. These are the Pine River and the Yellow Head passes. There was an engineer who went through the Pine River Pass about twenty-five years ago, and a gentleman named Mr. Hunter also went through about twenty years ago. Neither one of these gentlemen reported on the feasibility of this pass for a railway. There is no information on that point as far as I can learn. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals should take steps to see, if any other transcontinental road should endeavour to get through the mountains as there are no other passes available, that they should have running powers over the line in one of these two passes. I notice that the Board of Trade held a meeting in Winnipeg a few days ago to discuss a resolution sent to it by the Halifax Board of Trade dealing with the Intercolonial Railway. I may say that the Winnipeg Board of Trade represents practically all the large and influential corporations loaning moneys on the prairies. That board took the ground that a commission should be appointed to look into the question as to whether the Intercolonial Railway could be made a factor in the transportation of that country, and if it could that it might be feasible on the part of the government to extend that system to the Pacific coast to serve as a feeder for the road. That proposition was very


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: fully discussed by several gentlemen who are deeply interested in that country, and the partner of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), Mr. Nanton, seconded the resolution. I am not going to say whether this is feasible or not, but, if it is feasible and if it should transpire that it should be necessary in the future for the government to extend the road to the Pacific coast, they should adopt the policy of reserving these passes with that end in view. But, there is another factor in connection with this charter to which I wish to draw attention. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, a bargain was entered into between the Manitoba government and the Northern Pacific Railway, which bargain was passed also by this government. That arrangement was something like this : The Manitoba government leased from the Northern . Pacific Railway Company for a period of years the company's lines in the province of Manitoba, having a mileage of 350 miles for which they were to pay an annual rental of $210,000. The Manitoba government released those lines to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and a bargain was made that on certain bonds issued by the Canadian Northern line the government were to guarantee interest to the extent of $20,000 a mile on 300 miles, and on certain other bonds covering 1,000 miles of road, the Manitoba government were to guarantee interest at the rate of $10,000 per mile. That is 1,300 miles in all on which interest is guaranteed. Out of the receipts of the railway company they were to pay, first, the running expenses of the road, secondly, the $210,000 rental to the Northern Pacific, and thirdly, they were to pay interest on these bonds, amounting to about $14,000,000, but in default the Manitoba government had to pay any arrears of interest accrued. Should there be a surplus at the end of two years that might be applied to a reduction of freight rates. This was the consideration for which the Manitoba government became the endorser of the bonds of the company so that the farmers of the western part of Manitoba should get a material reduction in freight rates. The reduction was to be 2 cents a bushel on wheat on the first year's operation. If the road proved a paying concern, there was to be a further reduction in the rates. This Bill goes on to say that they should have power to bond the road for $25,000 per mile, not only on any lines to be constructed, but also on the lines now constructed, and the question arises:	Is that $15,000 extra per mile to
be in addition to the 1,300 miles for which the Manitoba government are responsible as endorser ? If it is, it seems that in addition to guaranteeing the interest on what is provided for in the agreement now that government will have to become responsible for the interest on $15,000 per mile extra and there will be no opportunity of gaining any further reduction in freight rates.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What is the bonding power on the 1,300 miles that have been already constructed ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. gentleman the information he asks me for.


John Graham Haggart: If they bond it for $25,000 per mile and it is completed it would not affect the matter.


William Forsythe McCreary: I suppose not. But the Manitoba government assumed respons-bility for $10,000 a mile on a portion and $20,000 on another portion. I may not be correct in my contention, but I want to have It shown that I am not correct. I want to see that the Manitoba government will not have to guarantee interest on $25,000 per mile instead of $10,000. I want to see that the farmers of Manitoba who are supposed to get the benefit of that road will not have to pay interest on that extra bonding per mile. It is the duty of the Minister of Railways to clear up the point. He was thoroughly cognisant of the matter when it came before the Railway Committee and I have no doubt he will be able to explain.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The hon. member from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) has invited my attention to some provisions of this Bill, and he particularly mentions the fact that it is proposed to construct an enormous mileage which he thinks we are not justified in empowering the company to construct. The hon. gentleman said that if this Bill passes the company will have authority to occupy not only the Yellow Head Pass but also the Pine River Pass under existing legislation. It will be remembered by members of the Railway Committee that two or three times I called the attention of the committee to the extended character of this proposed undertaking, and I mentioned that the company were asking to occupy a very great deal of territory. As far as my observations then impressed themselves on the committee the result was that considerable lengths of mileage which were embraced in the original Bill were stricken off, and it appeared to be the sense of the committee that the balance of the Bill should stand. I did not carry the controversy further ; I do not propose to continue the controversy now. I called explicit attention to the very point which the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) has dwelt upon, and the committee after listening to the arguments on both sides concluded that it was not improper legislation. Considerable respect is due to the decision of the committee with respect to all of these Bills, and unless the circumstances are of an extraordinary character, or unless something has been done under a misapprehension of the facts I think it is better to consider the decision of the committee as approaching finality. What my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) has said with regard to the necessity of providing that running powers shall be secured to any 841
railway that may desire to use any of these passes, is covered by existing legislation completely. We would have added it to this Bill if it were necessary, but it is not necessary. The hon. gentleman seems to be under the impression that we have no information in the department as to the character of this Pine River Pass from a railway point of view. The hon. gentleman is not fully informed with respect to that, because my deputy tells me that the records of the department show that a very careful survey was made of the Pine River Pass, with the result that the opinion of the engineer, Sir Sanford Fleming was, that there was only room for one track through it. While that is the case, some one must build the track. It is quite immaterial it appears to me by what company the track is built, because there is ample power in the government under existing legislation to secure to any companies who desire to use the same pass, all the rights which they will need for such a purpose.
With reference to the effect of this legislation upon the contract entered into by the Manitoba government with the Canada Northen Railway ; that point occurred to my mind before this question was disposed of in the committee, and I made such inquiries that I felt were necessary. I did not see how it would be possible for this legislation to enlarge or to restrict in any degree the contract as it affects the existing bonds which were already issued ; and upon inquiry I was very well satisfied that my opinion in that regard was well founded. I think I can safely assure the hon. gentleman that he need have no anxiety on that account.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I would like to say that while I would be only too glad to accept the assurances of the Minister of Railways on the subject of the responsibility likely to be laid upon the province of Manitoba by this legislation it is not altogether clear to my mind that the province Is not placed at a disadvantage by it. J must admit my lack of legal training, and therefore that I am at a disadvantage in discussing this question. But it is an important question. We are going to do something that we cannot undo, and it is well that we should proceed with the fullest information, even to those of us who are not thoroughly versed in legal questions. The Manitoba government lies under its present responsibility in respect of the Canadian Northern Railway because of legislation by this parliament. That responsibility is limited to a certain amount. This parliament by legislation now in hand permits the adding of a certain load of responsibility, not on the province but on the company. This brings up the question as to whether the company, by reason of this legislation would not be at liberty to provide for the discharge of the interest upon the additional bonds before giving that advantage to the people of Manitoba which they

expect because of the responsibility they have assumed. That is to say, that the company being only allowed to provide for a bonded liability of $10,000 a mile ; this legislation will permit them to provide for a bonded liability of $25,000 per mile. It is an arguable question it seems to me, whether they will not be able to hold that legislation up as a defence for paying interest on that additional $15,000 per mile before discharging their obligations to the people of Manitoba in regard to the reduction of rates. The fact of giving them the privilege to place these additional bonds upon the road may be used by them as a protection against the terms of their present agreement with the province of Manitoba. I may be wrong in that and I may be right ; but I would make this suggestion :	That the
lines in the province of Manitoba, or the lines covered by the agreement with the province of Manitoba, be exempted from the provisions of this section. Then there will be no question about it. Then the province will be perfectly safe. We would know certainly that we had done no harm anyway, and I can see no objection to that provision being made.
Further I would like to say, that the idea that a railway company pays the interest on its own bonds is now exploded. The company does not pay anything. It is the people who use the road that pay the interest. They pay it through the rates which it costs them to have their traffic carried. If the company is permitted by parliament to bond its line through the prairies of the Saskatchewan valley at the rate of $25,000 per mile, the future population of that valley must pay that interest, if the interest is to be paid. The government in exercising Its authority as to control of rates must take into consideration the fact that it authorized the issue of these bonds to the amount of $25,000 per mile, and thereby became a party to the charging of rates sufficient to earn interest on that amount of bonds., I claim that it is the duty of parliament to restrict the issue of bonds on a railroad to the necessities of the case. It is necessary to do that if parliament is to exercise effective control of the rates to be afterwards charged on that road by means of a railway commission or by any other means. If the bonding power of $10,000 per mile is sufficient to construct the line of the Canadian Northern through the prairie sections of the province of Manitoba. $10,000 a mile should be sufficient to enable them to construct through the prairie regions of the Saskatchewan-if not absolutely then aproximately. The fact that they were willing to make a bargain with the province of Manitoba to build a line through the prairie sections of that province on a bonding privilege of $10,000 per mile is absolute proof that the bonding power of $25,000 per mile applied to prairie construction through the Saskatchewan valley is needlessly large, and as a matter of fact lays Mr. OLIVER.
a burden of future taxation upon the future population of that country, for which, they, nor we, nor any one else outside the men composing the company, receive any value whatever. I would ask the Minister of Railways and the House to protect beyond question the province of Manitoba against any additional obligation, and further to protect the future interests of the western country by restricting the bonding powers of this railway to the necessities of the case. The experience of this country in the past proves that such safeguard is necessary, in order that the country may get the proper benefit from the expenditure made in aid of railway construction.


John Graham Haggart: I was in the Railway Committee when this clause was passed, but I have just had the explanation of the Minister of Railways that it does not interfere with the bonds already issued. If that be so, there can be no objection to it. But taking the wording of the clause, * The company may from time to time issue and secure by mortgage, bonds, debentures, or other securities for the purpose of the acquisition by purchase, &c., there is nothing to show that the bonds so authorized to be issued will not rank; pari passu with those already issued.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Those already issued are secured by a first mortgage under the agreement with the province of Manitoba.


John Graham Haggart: I do not remember at present how these bonds stand, but I was simply pointing out what appeared to be the effect of this clause. Even if the bonds already issued be secured by a first mortgage, the House should still be careful to see that by this Act we are not in any way taking from their precedence. That could be guarded against by providing an additional clause, which would give these bonds already issued priority beyond doubt over those authorized to be issued.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see how there can be any doubt as to the position of the bonds now issued. They are the subject matter of a special contract between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern Railway. The papers were before us last session, and most of us will remember that a mortgage was executed by the company, whereby the bonds then issued, up to the amount of $10,000 per mile, were made the first lien on the road. No authority which may subsequently be granted by parliament to issue additional bonds could possibly change the position of those previously issued. The bonds now authorized will have to follow and be a second security. We have not, are not giving them any priority, nor are we putting them on an equal footing. Therefore, whoever holds the existing mortgage, holds the property in security for the bonds issued prior to

this arrangement. The Manitoba government no doubt have been made thoroughly acquainted with the character of this proposed legislation, and if there were anything in it which might infringe on their rights, they would have quickly called our attention to it.
In reply to the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) I may say that it was the understanding of the Railway Committee, when that committee agreed to report the Bill, that I should take the third and fourth clauses into my consideration. I had called the attention of the committee to the very large capitalization powers, and said that these two clauses might well receive further consideration, and that if the committee were content, I would look into the matter and suggest any change, and in the meantime they could report the Bill. My hon. friend is therefore right in asking me for some explanation why I have advised that the bonding power should be retained at the amount first stated. It is all very well for my hon. friend to talk about the cost of the construction, but taking the least costly of the railways mentioned in the present Bill, I had inquiries made by the best of my engineering staff, and they told me that to build this road and to bridge it- and there will have to be two very expensive bridges across the Saskatchewan river- and pay the cost of the rails and their transport and properly and adequately equip the road, would take in the neighbourhood of $15,000 to $20,000 per mile. When my hon. friend speaks of $8,000 or $10,000 per mile, he is entirely astray in his calculations. Take the matter of equipment alone. If the country through which this road is to run is as fertile as represented, it will soon be filled up with producing settlers, and to carry their crops which will have to be carried by that railway will require large quantities of freight cars and locomotives. It is not a trifling matter to equip a railway with sufficient freight facilities to carry a traffic such as has been produced along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and as will no doubt be produced along this line. And when you count the cost of the locomotives, freight cars and other equipment, I do not think that $5,000 or $6,000 per mile would be an unreasonable sum to expend in that way. Then when you come to realize on your bonds, what do you find ? I do not care how strong a company may be, or what may be its prospects, these bonds cannot be sold except at a considerable discount. Even bonds that bear the guarantee of the Manitoba government, when brought to the English market, have to be sold at a very substantial discount. I am not at liberty to say, but have been credibly informed what the extent of that discount is. If you undertakae to sell the bonds of a company with the brightest prospects in the world, in the English or any other market, not guaranteed by any government, and you have to submit to a
still larger discount. I do not believe that $25,000 of bonds will more that suffice to furnish the money necessary to construct and equip a road of this character, as it ought to be. Having that opinion, I did not think I should ask the committee to make any reduction of the bonding powers.
I would suggest that the following words be added to the last line of the fourth clause :	* Should not at any time exceed
$25,000 per mile on the government line of railway authorized to be constructed under this Act.' That will exclude the application to lines chartered under previous legislation and not chartered under this.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I would call attention to the fact that there is a section of the road from Winnipeg to the Northwest not authorized to be constructed under this Act, but under a former Act, which, possibly, is re-enacted by this Bill. I refer to the forty miles running north-west from Winnipeg.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If my hon. friend Mr. Hughes, (Victoria) will look at the sub-clause of section 1, he will find there mentioned and described all the lines authorized by this Act. The previous Act which he has in mind authorizing the construction of a line from Winnipeg West would also authorize the issue of bonds, and under that they could issue bonds without further legislation from us.


Samuel Hughes: Possibly that Act is being revived by this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, there is no reference to it or to this piece of road.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 4.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The language of this clause seems peculiar. It does not authorize the company to mortgage its railway, but authorizes it to mortgage vessels, hotels, terminals and other property required for use in connection with the undertaking of the company. If the intention is to empower them to mortgage this railway, the language seems peculiar. It may be that power is given to them to mortgage the railway under some other section.


Tne MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understand the section to mean that, covering any subsidiary undertakings they may take up, such as the building of hotels, &e., their total power of bonding for all purposes in connection with their undertaking under this Act shall not exceed $25,000 a mile.


Robert Laird Borden: They have power to mortgage the railway under some other statute ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. But this is their own language.

Ml-. BORDEN (Halifax). If they are satisfied with it, I suppose we must be.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am satisfied with it because it limits-I am not framing this legislation.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



MANITOBA AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 16) respecting the Manitoba and North-western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas.
On section 1.
Mr. DAYIS.: I wish to present here the resolution in amendment of which I gave notice the other evening, and which is to this effect-I wish to have inserted in this section the following, ' the company shall construct in the year 1902 thirty-five miles, and thirty-five miles in each and every year thereafter, including the year 190G.' I do not wish to take up time in discussing this matter for it was discussed fully in the Railway Committee. I brought this resolution up in the Railway Committee and they saw fit to disagree with me. Still I think it nothing but right to move it in the House. This company is in a different position from any other company that has come before the House asking for legislation. The Maui-, toba and North-western Railway Company was chartered in 1882, just 20 years ago. I have here copies of the statutes that were passed at that time and subsequently relating to this company. I find that in 1884, the company came back and received an extension of time. It was provided, however, that fifty miles of road should be built each and every year so long as the extension of time lasted. On the understanding that this would be done, a great many settlers went in on the proposed line. There was, in effect, a contract, with three parties to it- parliament, the promoters and the settlers. The settlers going in there figured that, under the arrangement made by parliament, the railway would reach them in a certain time. But the company did not build fifty miles a year-they did not built anything a year. At the end of the time to which their powers had been extended, they came and asked for another extension. Parliament in its wisdom, saw fit to give them a further extension, but inserted a clause in the Bill providing that the -company should _build twenty miles of road in each and every year. They came back again a few years after that, after they had built. I think, about 20 miles, and they got another extension of time for nine years, if I remember right, with the provision that they were to construct something like 20 miles a year. In an Act respecting the Manitoba and North-western Railway Company of Canada I find the following :


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: Section 2 of the Act passed in the 51st year of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 86, is hereby repealed, and the following substituted therefor :
The company shall complete during the calendar year 1890, the 17 miles of railway to the west of Saltcoats, in the territory of Assiniboia, partially constructed by it during the year 1889; and, in addition, the company shall complete not less than 20 miles of its railway, as described by the Acts relating to the company, on or before the 31st day of December, in the year 1892, and also during each calendar year thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council ; otherwise the power granted to the company to extend its line of railway then completed shall be forfeited.
Now, they oarne back again in 1893 and got a further amendment to their charter which provided that they should build as much of the road as the Governor in Council should prescribe. That was something like nine years ago, and there has not been one foot of road built there from the time they got that charter to the present time. It is true, we are told this is not the same company. The Canadian Pacific Railway only got control of this road three or four years ago. That is true, but at the same time when the Caudian Pacific Railway bought this charter, as I believe they did, and when they took over this road, they took it over subject to these conditions. They knew the conditions and knew they ought to be fulfilled, and therefore when they took it over they had no right to assume they could get an extension of time, and I think they should have shown their bona fides by building twenty miles a year for each year, and as this was four years ago, there would have been eighty miles built now. Two years ago they came back to parliament and asked for an extension of time. The Bill came before the Railway Committee and was rejected, because they had not built any road at all. They came back this year without having constructed any road at all, and the committee lias given them an extension of time for another five years. They told the committee, and I believe they informed the gentleman who is handling the Bill, that they had let a contract for thirty-three miles. Well, my eyesight may be very bad, but I don't see anything about thirty-three miles in this Bill. I suppose the hon. gentleman that is handling the Bill knows more about it than I do, but there is not a word about it here. It may be on the back of it, but it is not in the Bill. I would like to be sure that we are going to get something done this year. Surely after this charter Was been in existence for twenty years it is not a fair proposition to give them five years more, saying they must commence in two years and complete in five. As I understand this Bill, they might build one mile this year, and then they would have five years more to complete that road; and if they did not do it they could come back and ask for another extension

of time. The argument has been used that there were no settlers along that line. 1 say that there are a great many settlers going in there; but if there was not one settler there, the fact that immigration is pouring into that country at the present time necessitates the opening up and developing of all the vast portions of the country. This railroad charter runs through one of the most fertile portions of the North-west Territories; it covers 230 miles of the finest lands in the Saskatchewan valley. We know that immigration has turned in the direction of the Saskatchewan valley, and I want to ask the House if it is fair to tie up that district for five years by giving a charter of this kind without something being in the charter to provide that a certain amount of work should be done within a given time. If you provide that thirty-five miles should be built each year the settlers will go in there on the strength of that provision, for they will know that the company is compelled to build a certain amount of road every year. If you do not do that, you are going 'to injure that district. They say that they have already promised to build thirty-three miles, and if they want to hold this charter for such a length of time, they should be prepared to construct thirty-five miles this year, and thirty-five miles each subsequent'year, including 1906.
Amendment negatived.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 57) respecting the Ontario Power Company of Niagara Falls.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 59) respecting the James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. McCormick.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 66) respecting La Compagnie du chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.- Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 72) to incorporate the Pacific Northern and Omenica Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
On section 12,
Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The matter was considered in the Railway Committee and we felt that we had very little data to go upon to enable us to form a judgment as to what would be the approximate cost of railway construction in that country. I
take it that this will be an electric tramway, and the plant for such a purpose, getting in the rails, wages, and all the expenses incidental to the constructing, operating and equipping of railway there, are out of all comparison with what they would be in eastern Canada. We know that. We had occasion to examine into the question of the rates from the White Pass Railway not very long since and our officers had detailed information in reference to the cost of things there, showing that it was enormous as compared with the cost of the same articles in this part of the country or throughout our own North-west. The sum of $30,000 a mile I think would not be an exorbitant sum. I think they would require it-or at least they would require the proceeds of that amount in order to equip and complete their road.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



COSMOS COTTON COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Cosmos Cotton Company.- Mr. Flint.
On section 7,
John Graham Haggart: Why was the special provision stricken out of this Bill, that the majority of the corporation should be subjects of His Majesty.


Mr. FLINT.: This is frequently done in private Bills at the request of promoters, and the committee felt that it was very proper in this case.


John Graham Haggart: I have not heard of it before.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has been done, but I do not know why.


Samuel Hughes: Can the promoter of this Bill give one instance out of the numerous cases in which it has been done. My memory is that the practice of late years has been the very reverse.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I imagine that three out of every five private Bills have this clause. Based on broad ground, there is really no reason for the prohibition. At present such an enormous amount of foreign capital is invested in our enterprises that it is only proper that occasionally it should be provided that the directors need not be British subjects.
On section 8,


John Graham Haggart: This clause gives the directors the power. I think that power should be in the stockholders.


Thomas Barnard Flint: The next clause provides for that.


John Graham Haggart: The next clause requires the consent of the shareholders of

the other company to sell, but that has not the slightest application to section 8. Under section 8 one company can do this with the consent of the board of directors but they must have the consent of the shareholders of the other company.


Thomas Barnard Flint: The main object of this is to purchase the assets of the other company. This is quite an ordinary clause and is on the line of similar clauses in other private Bills. I really do not understand how any one can be injured in any way by this clause. The Bill was considered very carefully in the committee and no objection was taken to it.


John Graham Haggart: When they come to purchase it requires the consent of every shareholder of the company purchased, but the purchasing company can do so without the consent of any shareholder.


Mr. WADE.: Care is taken to safeguard the rights of the old company by requiring the consent of its shareholders to the sale, but if you were to pdt in any provision requiring the consent of the stockholders in the present company there might be difficulty.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not an unusual provision to enable the company to pay for property purchased by stock instead of money. Probably the objection of my hon. friend from Lanark is because we are enabling the purchase of a large property to be made without the consent of the shareholders.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I do not think that any difficulty need be anticipated on that account. The rights of the old company are safeguarded by requiring the consent of the shareholders, and the directors of the present company are simply authorized to issue paid up stock to the extent of the value of the property which they may purchase from the old company.


John Graham Haggart: I do not wish to offer any objections for the purpose of delaying the Bill. If the hon. gentleman wants to consult any one with reference to it, we will consent to pass the Bill through the committee, but not allow the third reading until another day. In the meantime my hon. friend may look into the matter, and we can see whether any amendment be required on the third reading.
Bill reported.



THE ROSS RIFLE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 70) to incorporate the Ross Rifle Company.-Mr. Thompson.
On clause 8, subsection 2,
John Graham Haggart: This section provides :
The aggregate amounts borrowed shall not at any time be greater than seventy-five per Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
cent of the actual paid up stock of the company, but this limitation shall not apply to commercial paper discounted by the company.
This is the first time I have seen such a clause in any private Bill. What does it mean ? There seems to be no limitations at all to the borrowing powers. Who is the member of the government in charge of private Bills ? This simply means that they can borrow as much as they like.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: So can any company.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that we ought to treat this question of the borrowing powers of companies in quite so frivolous a manner. Instances both here and in the old country will readily occur to the mind of every hon. gentleman showing the necessity of some restraint in the matter of borrowing powers of private companies. Some member of the government should be ready to answer questions put from this side of the House with regard to these masters. This question of incorporated companies should not be treated as if it had only a humourous side.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I understood the hon. exMinister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) to call attention to the borrowing powers given to the company under this clause. The committee unanimously agreed to the grant of these powers and we have not heard any reason advanced why the decision of the committee should be changed.


John Graham Haggart: If there is no limitation of the borrowing powers, what is the use of this clause ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think there are some limitations.


Robert Laird Borden: In what respect ?


Mr. RUSSELL.: The clause, it seems to me, is not an unreasonable one. I understand the limitation to be a limitation upon their making a permanent loan on the strength of stock. This is a commercial company; it will be buying and selling, and it will have notes given it which, in the aggregate, may be more than the whole amount of the stock. It is provided that notes of that sort which are discounted with the bank, and which are held against goods supplied by them, shall not be included in the proportion of their borrowing, based upon their capital stock. It seems a reasonable clause, and the limitation seems a proper one.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see the object of restricting it in one way only. I want to understand what the clause means, and I do not intend to enact it until I do understand.


Benjamin Russell: I suppose the promoters would be satisfied to have it struck out.
2673	APRIL 14, 1902	* 2674


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is the rule adopted by this parliament and in use for many years, in relation to joint stock companies. It has been applied in almost all Bills that have gone through. Personally, I never did agree with it, and do not agree with it now. But, until our general method of legislation in these matters is changed. I suppose this will be carried through in these special charters. There is this limitation of borrowing on debentures in the cases of borrowing in all commercial companies. My bon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) knows better than I do that it is a limitation in the Joint Stock Companies Act. As to this point with regard to commercial paper, I suppose the solicitor put it in to avoid doubt. But all companies can borrow all the money they can get the banks or other people to lend them.


John Graham Haggart: But this phrase ' commercial paper ' is a new phrase in legislation so far as I know. I do not know what the phrase means.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think there is no ambiguity in the expression, for it is an expression in general use, and the meaning is well understood. There is a clear distinction in everybody's mind between a debenture or bond issued by an incorporated company and business paper of that company, and it is that distinction which this section, I apprehend, is meant to deal with. My hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) asks the principle upon which this limitation of 75 per cent was introduced. Almost every one of these companies' Acts, both English and Canadian, contains such a limitatiou as this. I think the precise limitation in England is just this 75 per cent; I know it is in many of the provinces. I think parliament desired that there should be a limitation placed upon the formal and more solemn-if you may so describe it-obligations issued by the company, which go into the hands of investors and are held for a term of years, and obligations that are made to-day and that mature in a few weeks or months, and which are closely watched and turned over and over. I think there is reason why the enduring obligations in the form of bonds issued by the company should not be unlimited, and if there is to be a limitation, it is not unreasonable, I think, that it should be in the neighbourhood of this 75 per cent. People that would be asked to invest in these bonds would have a guarantee by reason of this legislation that three-quarters only of the capital could be encumbered by the issue of these bonds.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the statute is concerned, the expression ' commercial paper ' is mere slang, and nothing else. In the ordinary way of public business the expression ' commercial paper ' may be used among business people, but these
words are not used in statutes. The expression that should be used is ' negotiable paper ' or something of that kind, or ' bills of exchange, or promissory notes,' but commercial paper ' does not seem to be a very apt phrase to use in a statute. However, it is a matter of good taste, I suppose.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will admit that there is a legal slang in use as there is what we call a journalistic slang. But these words * commercial paper ' I find in the authorities. In a work entitled :
White, ' Treatise on Canadian Company Law
Section 40. The language of this section requires that before commercial paper is issued by the company the board of directors should pass a by-law designating which officers of the company shall sign such paper on behalf of the
company	The practice is to pass a
general by-law in regard to all commercial paper, designating the officers who are authorized to sign and execute these documents.


Robert Laird Borden: What I said was that I thought it was slang so far as the statute is concerned. I do not suppose my hon. friend would care to employ in a statute he was drafting every expression that could be found in a text book. I think if he will consult modern works on the drafting of statutes he will find that any principle of that kind would be rather dangerous. I admit that the expression ' commercial paper ' is used among business people, and may be used in text books ; but when you wish to be exact as you should be in a statute, it is not a very proper expression to use.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is a mere question of drafting. The first part of this section provides merely that the company shall borrow on its own security, that is to say, by way of mortgage, and the limitation is put of 75 per cent of the paid up capital stock of the company. With respect to their issue of commercial paper, to an unlimited amount, I think that is quite proper, because it is a well settled principle with us that commercial companies can issue negotiable paper to an unlimited extent. That is a mere matter to be settled as between themselves and their creditors. These words are used in this Bill to eliminate any doubt that might exist on the subject, and that is the only justification I can find for their occurrence here.


Robert Laird Borden: The limitation here is not to the extent or 75 per cent of the value of the property mortgaged, but it is a limitation to 75 per cent of the paid up capital of the stock, or something of that kind. The two things do not seem to have very much relation to each other. I can see the force of the suggestion of the Minister of Justice, but the statute does not seem to be in that form.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think if my hon. friend will read it over again he

will not find It open to liis criticism. It would be restricted as a matter of course, because subsection 2 provides that they shall not go beyond 75 per cent of the paid up capital stock of the company. It comes to the same thing.


Robert Laird Borden: I hardly think so, because 75 per cent or the paid up capital of the stock of the company might be much more or less than 75 per cent of the value of the property mortgaged.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INDIAN RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved that the amendments made by the Senate to* Bill (No. 14) to incorporate the Indian River Railway Company, be agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill will explain what the amendments are.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) is not here. But I understand that the amendment added to section 11 provides that this railway, which is only 20 miles long, may transfer its franchises, and that without this amendment it would be practically impossible to operate that railway successfully. The intention is to enable these corporators to hand over the franchises and privileges of the company to either one of the three or four railway companies mentioned in the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CALVERT (for Mr. Cowan) moved that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 24) respecting the Windsor and Detroit Union Bridge Company be agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman who has charge of this Bill explain what is the purport of the amendment?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The clause inserted by the Senate is similar to the clause which was adopted in another Bill, during the present session, of an almost similar character. We provided in that clause that the work should be commenced within two years after an Act of congress is passed. But there is a limitation providing that if such consent is obtained within five years after the passing of this Act, this legislation should be null and void. The same reasons which warranted us in passing this section in the other case would sufficiently justify us in adopting the amendment of the Senate in this case. I do not know any reason why there should be any Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
difference between the two. It only happens that the one came before us in this form and the other came before us in the other form.


Robert Laird Borden: It provides apparently that the work shall be commenced within two years after the Act of congress, or after the executive of the United States, or other competent authority, has consented, or approved of the work, but the period shall not exceed five years in all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We added that in committee.


Robert Laird Borden: And that the work must be completed within five years after its commencement ?


John Graham Haggart: I think that in the other Bill, there is a provision, not for the commencement of the work, but that the work shall be completed within a certain time after obtaining the consent of the American authorities to the building of the bridge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They had the other Bill when this amendment was made and it is taken from that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendment concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
' Bill (No. 80) to incorporate the Huron and Erie Canal Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 95) to incorporate the Penny Bank.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 96) to incorporate the Manitoba and Keewatin Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Montreal Subway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILMOT-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria)- asked :
1.	Why was Hiram Humphrey, postmaster at McDonald's Corner, Queen's County, N.B., removed from that position ?
2.	Upon whose recommendation was his successor appointed ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: '	-
1.	Because of political partisanship.
2.	The Hon. A. S. White.


CONTRACT WITH A. I. AUGER, QUEBEC.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)- asked :
1.	Has the government given a contract to A. I. Auger, of Quebec, for spruce planks of 2 x 6
[Stage Direction]
and 7 and 8 feet in length at a cost of $11.50 per thousand feet ?
2.	Did the government call for public tenders before granting the said contract ?
3.	What quantity of such planks should the said A. I. Auger furnish according to his contract ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: We cannot find any such contract in the department.


I.C.R.-DITCHING.
Mr. GAUYREAU asked :: Is the Department of Railways and Canals aware that damages have been caused to the lands of the farmers, particularly in Temis-couata, by the fact that the ditches along the line of the Intercolonial Railway have not, for several years back, been dug out ? If so, is it the intention of the honourable minister to give strict orders that the digging out of those ditches be, during this most favourable season, proceeded with as soon as possible ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The Department of Railways is not aware that damage has been caused particularly in Temiscouata county by the fact that ditches have not been cleaned out for several years back. The oflicials of the railway looked into this last season and it could not be seen that any ditching was necessary.
It is the intention to make the usual and customary examination of the ditches and to have any necessary work done after the working season begins.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-REPRESENTATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria)- asked :
1.	To what number of representatives in the House of Commons of Canada was each of the provinces of the Dominion found to be1 entitled, and given, as a result of the census taken in 1801 ?
2.	To what number of representatives in the House of Commons of Canada is each of the provinces of the Dominion entitled as a result of the census taken in 1901 ?
3.	What number of representatives will eacn
such province be given in the House of Commons of Canada, as a result of the census taken in 1901 ?	[DOT]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This! question is premature and cannot be answered now.


NORTH-WEST RAILWAY LANDS.
Mr. SCOTT asked :: 1.	What number of acres of land have been, to date, patented to railway companies, other than the C.P.R., and C. & E. companies ?
2.	What areas of iands which have been earned by such companies and by the C.P.R. and C. & E. companies, remain unpatehted ?
3.	Do certain of said companies and especially the C. P. R. company have lands held in reserve to fulfil tlxeir earned grants, .which lands such companies have not signified that they will accept, and which state of affairs prevents said lands being acquired by other persons or otherwise disposed of by the government ? If so, what steps does the government propose to take to end this state of aflairs, and when ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: In the absence of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), I beg to say :
1. That the total number of acres patented is 2,027,128 acres.
2.
Land Grant
Name of Railway.	earned and
unpatented.
Alberta Railway and Coal Co	 11,374
Calgary and Edmonton Railway..	..	479,043
Canadian Northern Railway	 1,597,920
Canadian Pacific Railway	 8,742,413
C.P.R., Souris Branch	 1,408,704
C.P.R., Pipestone Extension of Souris
Branch	 200.320
Great North-west Central Railway...	318,720


Manitoba S.W.: Col. Railway	 1,221,225


Manitoba N.W.: Railway	 876,328
Q.L.L. & Sask. R. & S. Co	 1,004,481
Sask. and Western Railway	 98,880
Total area .earned and unpatented.. 15,959,406
3.	In all cases where land grants have been secured by railway companies, areas containing a larger acreage than the amount due the companies have been ?et apart by Order in Council, within which areas the companies are entitled to select the odd-numbered sections. Large areas have been selected and the different companies are now engaged making further selections. The government is urging on this work as rapidly as possible.


POSTMASTER AT CRATHIE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SHERRITT-by Mr. Tolton-asked :
1.	Has the postmaster of Orathie, Ontario, resigned ?
2.	if so, has his resignation been accepted ?
3.	If so, has his successor been appointed ?
4.	If so, has he assumed the duties of postmaster at Cratliie post office ?
5.	Has a petition been presented to the Postmaster General asking that one Augustus Bur-chick he appointed postmaster at said office ?
6.	If so, is it the intention of the Postmaster General to appoint him ?
7.	Is it the intention of the department to grant a daily mail service to the Springbank post office ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Miss Margaret Brown, postmistress at Cratbie, has resigned.
2.	Her resignation has been accepted.
3.	Mr. Thomas Brenton has been appointed to the postmastership.
4.	The post office inspector has not yet reported whether he has completed the transfer of the office to the new postmaster.
5.	No such petition has been i-eceived by the Postmaster General.

2G80
7. The question of increased mail service is under consideration.


BRITISH ARMY PENSIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER-by Mr. Scott-asked :
What are the rates ot pension, under British army regulations, for disabling wounds, or to dependent relatives, in case of loss of life ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA xAND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden). I beg to refer the hon. gentleman to tile Army Pension Act of Great Britain, which will be found no doubt in the library, and in which he can get all the information on the subject of pensions.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER-by Mr. Scott-asked :
1.	Are horses for The fourth contingent to be purchased in tho North-west Territories ?
2.	If so, how many, and at what minimum standard, and maximum price ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: I am informed that a number of the horses will be purchased by the Imperial government in the North-west Territories. I am also informed that the minimum standard of size will be 14-2 hands. I cannot answer the hon. gentleman as to the maximum price.


IMPORTATION OF MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS FROM GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), asked :
1.	Wiiat are the quantity and value of magazines and papers published in Great Britain and imported into Canada for the years 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901 ?
2.	What are the quantity and value of magazines and papers published in the United States and imported into Canada for the years- above mentioned :
3.	What is the cost of postage or express for transmission of magazines and newspapers from Great Britain to Canada, and from the United States to Canada, respectively ?
4.	What concessions or arrangements exist between Canada and each of the said countries with respect to the importation of or postage and charges upon magazines and newspapers and are the conditions more or less favourable for the importation Thereof from Great Britain than from the United States ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: The department is not in possession of any figures which enable it to give an answer to the first three questions.
4.	The terms and conditions regulating the exchange of newspapers and magazines with the United Kingdom were fixed by the Postal Union Convention, and those with reference to the exchange of newspapers and magazines with the United States were Hon. Mr. MULOCK.
arranged by a special Postal Convention between the United States and Canada, both arrangements being prior to the present government taking office. According to the terms of these conventions, the rate of postage on newspapers from the United Kingdom is the postal union rate of 1 cent per 2 ounces, whilst the rate on newspapers and magazines entering Canada from the United States is the domestic rate thereof which at present is 1 cent per pound, if from the office of publication, otherwise it is the transient rate which is 1 cent per 4 ounces, and the rate on Canadian magazines and newspapers entering the United States is also the domestic rate thereof, which at present is one-half cent per pound when published in Canada and * sent from the place of publication, otherwise the rate is 1 cent per 4 ounces.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hou. W m. Paterson).: Perhaps I may be permitted to supplement the answer of the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), by saying that magazines and newspapers published in Great Britain or in the United States have been admitted into Canada free of customs duties under the present tariff and under preceding tariffs. As the magazines and newspapers are delivered free, without the formality of a customs entry, there is no customs record of the quantity and value of such magazines and newspapers imported into Canada from Great Britain or the United States for the years 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901, except when imported in bulk. The value of such importations (in bulk) including fashion plates appears, according to the Trade and Navigation Returns to be as follows :


From G.   B.@: From U. S.
1896	$22,303	$ 82,1221897	
21,618	100,0111898	
25,695	111,0201999.. -	
28,151	102,0001900	
27,589	107,3401901	
36,775	113,444


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Return showing :
1.	The number of seine licenses issued for the province of British Columbia for the year 1901.
2.	To whom the said licenses were issued.
3.	The number operated by those to whom they were issued, and by -whom.
4.	By whom those were operated which were
not used by the parties to wham they were issued.-Mr. Earle.	*
Copies of all petitions, correspondence and any and all other documents addressed by any person or persons to the Honourable the Postmaster General upon which he or the department acted in dismissing, or which led to the dismissal of David Clinton, lately postmaster at Wellington, Ontario.-Mr. Alcorn.

Mr.  E. F.@: CLARKE (West Toronto) moved for :
Copies of all memorials, petitions or protests received respecting the erection of a monument to General Montgomery at Quebec, with dates ; also, copies of replies sent thereto.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. _ Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There is no objection at all to bringing these papers down. I might intimate to my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) that the gentlemen in the city of Boston who asked from the city of Quebec the privilege of erecting a tablet commemorative of the death of General Montgomery, have withdrawn their application.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  E. F.@: CLARKE (West Toronto) moved for :
Return shewing :-
1.	Number of locomotive engines purchased for the Canadian government railways each year since 1st of Juily, 1896, and up to date, giving-
(a.) Date of purchase of each such locomotive engine.
(b.) Name and address of person or company from whom purchased.
(c.) Price paid for each such locomotive.
(d.) Whether tenders were called for in each case.
(e). How many of such engines were manufactured in Canada, and how many purchased in the United States.
2.	Also, number of railway cars purchased sine? 1st July, 1896, specifying the kind of cars purchased, the number of each kind purchased and the capacity; the price per car paid for each kind, the place where manufactured, and the total number of each kind manufactured in Canada and the United States respectively.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There will be no objection to this motion provided my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will consent to change the date to a more remote period. The hon. gentleman asked that this information should be furnished from the 1st of July, 1896, to the present time. If the hon. gentleman would consent to insert in the dates ' 1890 ' in place of ' 1896 ', I would consent to the motion.


Mr. CLARKE.: Would the hon. minister say 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I suppose the hon. gentleman would have no object in excluding ' 1890.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then we will say from the 1st of July, 1890.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Very well.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


THE ACTIVE MILITIA-TRAINING OF OFFICERS.
Samuel Hughes: That, in the opinion of this House, the system of training citizens of Canada for the positions of officers in the active militia should be such aa would furnish the greatest number of properly qualified persons in each regimental district necessarily required, upon a war basis, at the least possible cost consistent with efficiency ; and that all needless hindrances, customs and expense in the way of any and every citizen obtaining such military education should be removed.	.
He said : In presenting this motion to the House I am merely carrying out the policy that I have for the last ten or twelve years advocated in this House, namely:	That
the cost of training the officers in Canada should be reduced to a minimum, consistent with due efficiency being maintained. It is well known to every one connected with our militia force that the trained officers are not at all numerous enough in that force at present. There is in fact a dearth of officers, and it is no secret that in fitting out the few regiments we sent to South Africa, there has been considerable trouble in getting properly qualified and trained officers to accept these commands. It was my intention to bring this matter up in its present form last year, but I deferred it in the hope that the unfortunate and prolonged war in South Africa might be brought to a close. In view of the undoubted approach of peace now, I feel justified in laying before the House and the country my views on this question. The subject is not at all new to me. In England as well as in Canada I have noticed a deficiency in qualified officers to command the men who have voluteered to serve. I have visited on various occasions military centres in Canada and in Great Britain, and I found that a spirit had grown up and had been perpetuated among the regular officers of the Imperial service and of the permament corps-a spirit of, what they themselves call superciliousness ; a spirit which must bode ill to any nation perpetuating it. The officer who is merely an officer for the sake of the position it may confer on him ; the officer who does not give his whole heart and his whole soul to the cause he is engaged in cannot by any possibility be a proper officer to lead men on active service. The Montreal ' Gazette ' of to-day, commenting on a very carefully prepared article by the American Col. Charles W. Larned in the ' International Monthly,' says :
It is not, however, from the recognition of the long acknowledged merits of our soldiers, but from the admitted shortcomings of those who command them that the profitable lessons of recent warfare are to be drawn. Col. Larned finds the British officer of to-day pretty much what his predecessor was in the days of Frederic the Great-' without knowledge of war. without fear of death.'

Tliis, as we all know, is an extract from Thomas Carlyle. I do not for a moment pretend to say that the officers of the Canadian permanent corps and the British regular army are not In every sense of the word brave men, but I say that they are not thoroughly trained to command in the face of the modern conditions of war. That there is need of reform is admitted on every hand, and my only reason for taking the stand I do is to insist, so far as it lies in my power, that the required reform should be carried out, not only in our colonial system but in the Imperial system as well, because it cannot be too well understood that Canada is a part of the empire and purposes remaining so. We all know, however, that once war is over, things have a strong tendency to fall back into the old groove, and I have no doubt that unless the sturdy, intelligent commercial classes of England and the empire take this matter up, in a year or two you will find the Piccadilly ring in full sway again, and the zeal for reform completely set at naught, and it is in order to do what little I can to bring about reform and prevent a relapse into our old staid condition of apathy that I take this opportunity of placing myself on record.
In the olden time-and not so very many years ago after all-the weapon used by the British was a muzzle loader, with a range of from 250 to 300 yards. Frontal attacks were then possible, and in such attacks the stern, unflinching bravery of the British soldier was unexcelled. As soon as the enemy had discharged one volley and before they could reload, the British troops were into them with the bayonet, and the British bayonet invariably carried the day. Times, however, have since then changed. In the Crimean war many of the British regiments were armed with the Minnie rifle, which had a range possibly 150 to 200 yards longer. This struck terror into the hearts of the Russians and largely assisted in the demoralization of that force by greatly inferior numbers of British troops. In the American war, the Springfield rifle was chiefly used, but the Americans also purchased a large number of the Enfield muzzle loaders. In fact, very few, if any, breech loaders were then in use. Now, take any record you choose of that war, take the record of the proprietor of the Ottawa ' Free Press,' Mr. Chas. Mitchell, who fought gallantly through it, take the record of any historian and you will find that they all bear out this statement, that with the muzzle loading rifles, having a range of from 305 to 400 yards, a frontal attack is out of the question, and it is absolutely impossible to capture any position by such tactics. In the Egyptian campaign, we find the same conclusion borne out. And I do not know that I can do better than quote from an unbounded authority, Henderson's History of the American Civil War, to show the effect of the old muzzle loading rifles on troops advancing in frontal attack.
Mr. HUGHES 'Victoria).
And we must not forget that although in those days, a man could not load and fire more than two shots while the enemy was advancing against him, yet even then it was absolutely impossible for a frontal attack to succeed. Here is Mr. Henderson's description of how persistently the Northern troops endeavoured to drive the Southerners from their entrenchments, and how, though the Northerners were in overwhelming numbers, their attacks were repulsed :
Morell's attack was directed against Jackson's right. In the centre of the Federal line a mounted officer, whose gallant bearing lived long in the memories in the Stonewall division, rode out in front of the column, and, drawing his sabre, led the advance over the rolling grass-land. The Confederate batteries, with a terrible cross-fire, swept the Northern ranks from end to end. The volleys of the infantry, lying behind their parapet, struck them full in face. But the horse and its rider lived through it all. The men followed close, charging swiftly up the slope, and then the leader, putting his horse straight at the embankment, stood for a moment on the top. The daring feat was seen by the whole Confederate line, and a yell went up from the men along the railroad, ' Don't kill him 1 don't kill him 1 ' But while the cry went up horse and rider fell in one limp mass across the earthwork, and the gallant Northerner was dragged under shelter by his generous foes.
With such men as this to show the way what soldiers would be backward V .As the Russians followed Skobeleff's grey up the Moody slopes of Plevna, so the Federals followed the bright chestnut of this unknown hero, and not till the colours waved within thirty paces of the parapet did the charge falter. But, despite the supports that came thronging up, Jackson's soldiers, covered by the earthwork, opposed a resistance which no mere frontal attack could break. Three times, as the lines in rear merged with the first, the Federal officers brought their men forward to the assault, and three times they were hurled back, leaving hundreds of their number dead and wounded on the blood-soaked turf. One regiment of the Stonewall division, posted in a copse beyond the railroad, was driven in, but others, when cartridges failed them, had recourse, like the Guards at Inkerman, to the stones which lay along the railway bed; and with these strange weapons, backed up by the bayonets, more than one desperate effort was repulsed. In arresting Garnet after Kernstown, because when his ammunition was exhausted he had abandoned his position, Jackson had lost a good general, but he had taught his soldiers a useful lesson. So long as the cold steel was left to them, and their flanks were safe, they knew that their indomitable leader expected them to hold their ground, and right gallantly they responded. For over thirty minutes the battle raged along the front of the closest range. Opposite a deep cutting the colours of a Federal regiment, for nearly half an hour, rose and fell, as bearer after bearer was shot down within ten yards of the muzzles of the Confederate rifles, and after the fight a hundred dead Northerners were found where the flag had been so gallantly upheld.
I might refer to another battle, the battle of Sharpesburg, where out of 19,400 South-

era troops, 5,754 were placed out of action in the short space of three hours, while making a frontal attack in the face of muzzle loading rifles.
In the present day our rifles have a range five times as great as those with which Jackson's troops faced the Northerners at the battle of Bull's Run. But no account seems to have been taken of the changed conditions by our British oflflcers. In the face of this improvement in weapons, despite the great advantage of smokeless powder and the consequent impossibility almost of ascertaining exactly the enemy's position, we have seen in Africa frontal attack after frontal attack made by British troops. We have seen brave men storming the heights of Belmont-an acclivity steeper than the banks of the Ottawa river here- when they could have walked around the position, thrown up their entrenchments, and rested on the plains smoking their pipes, waiting for Cronje to be starved into surrender for want of food and water. We saw our troops advance on the Modder river in like manner. We saw them following the same tactics at Magersfontein, Oolenso, Stormberg, and Graspan. To this blundering system we can attribute a series of disasters. British troops, whose courage no man dare question, advanced fearlessly in the face of rifles, with a range at least five times as great as those used in the American war, and that was called generalship. It is time we should realize that the strategy and tactics of the old days are worse than ineffective at present. Greater attention must be paid to scouting. Formerly it would have been safe to march across country, with a patrol 400 yards distant on each side, because that was the range of the enemy's rifle. But to do so to-day would simply make one food for powder for an enemy occupying positions a mile distant on either side. But our British officer seems unable to recognize the changed conditions. As Carlyle says of them : He knows how to die, but not how to lead. With a rifle having a range of 3,000 yards, the old formation is absolutely impracticable. To face a line to-day, with each man distant fifty yards, is a much more dangerous performance than it would have been, with the old style of rifle to have placed the men only a yard distant. But this evidently has not dawned on many of the officers in South Africa at present, and you have distinguished generals placing their men almost in close formation, waiting for the Boers to round them up. and then you have another of these unfortunate surrenders that have saddened the hearts of so many in the empire. I have an extract here from a western Ontario paper, and it sums the matter up in very terse form :
In hand-to-hand fights the British have no equal. In brain-to-brain contests they appear to be seriously handicapped. Strategy counts in modern warfare. Our British officers do not
appear to be strategists. We must honestly confess that from what we have seen of the Englishman ' just out ' from England we have not been very favourably impressed with his tact or bis abilities. We are of the opinion that the British army needs a thorough re-organization, based on promotion by merit and not birth. When that system is introduced in the army we may then expect to see capable and efficient service on the part of the British military forces.
I have pointed out, incidentally, that no fault can possibly be found with the British soldier. In the war in South Africa he has been the marvel of the world for the bravery, endurance and heroism he has shown. The British soldier has never complained, he has done his duty on any and every occasion, and wherever he has been led he has followed. Nor can any fault be found with the bravery of the British officers I am free to say the British officer is a well-meaning fellow, as a rule, a very genial fellow. Still, the great weakness of the British army is the training of the British officers. No army hereafter can expect to have an officer for every half . company and have his men within reach of his voice, or to have a sergeant for every section. Training in the future must be in the direction of fitting every individual to control himself, subject to an elastic discipline covering the whole force. And, in this very excellent article by Col. Tamed to which I have already referred, it is pointed out that the logic of events has necessitated a further reduction, and, in the future, the fighting unit will be the individual soldier. With that conclusion any one who has studied the modern conditions will agree-that the object of the training must be to make each individual command and control himself, subject, as I have said, to an elastic discipline covering the whole body.
In discussing a question of this kind one is very liable to be misunderstood. My good and intelligent friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden), entirely misunderstood the tenor of my remarks in a recent discussion. And when an intelligent man and one accustomed to the discussion of these things, such as my good friend the minister is, will take one up wrongly-yet I thought I spoke very clear English-how much more easily may one be misunderstood by the uninitiated in the! country, particularly when his remarks go before them in partial form. However, I trust that on this occasion there will be no misunderstanding. No one, I trust, will run away with the notion, for instance, that I am, in any sense, a pro-Boer. At the same time I want to say that the Boer individually is a splendid fellow. As I reminded the House a year ago. the Boer is descended from two grand races, the Dutch and Huguenots of France, and finer men individually, considering the opportunities they have had, it would be hard to find. And when they have received the benefit of British civilization and British institutions, when they have

learned to be free men in the true sense of the term, I am satisfied that Britain will find very few of her colonists more progressive and more loyal than these Boers in South Africa. I trust that the day is not far distant when this result will be attained. While a man may respect an opponent he fights with, yet it is his duty to take every honourable advantage of him, that is, it is his duty to defeat him as speedily as possible and bring the war to a close. The greatest friend of the Boer I maintain has not been the Hollander, it has not been even the Irish American. And on that point I may say that those on the British side in South Africa have the highest admiration and respect for the gallant soldiers of the Irish race who fought so nobly and so well on the side of Britain in that war. And they had a complete respect for any soldier fighting against them who stood up and gave them a severe fight. But they have nothing but supreme contempt for the so-called Irish brigade led by Col. Burke, who ran whenever a shot was fired against them. The Germans were supposed to be friendly to the Boers. But that is a mistake, because the people of German birth in Africa, whether living among the Boers or among the British were almost unanimously proBritish. One would naturally expect the sympathy of these people to go with the Boers because of their smaller numbers in this war. But, Sir, the greatest friend of the Boers to my mind is the badly trained British officer. We all know that Britain has never been loved by foreign nations. Rivalry in trade, in progress, in civilization and liberty have made Britain more or less detested by other powers, yet she was always feared by other nations because of her supposed prowess in war. But I very much fear that to-day, owing to the number of failures in the field in South Africa, there is less of that tendency to respect Britain through fear than there formerly was. How ever, with proper reform in the army, with better training for her officers, she will be able to keep the proud position she has held in the respect of other nations. Here let me quote further from our American friend Col. Larned some words that will show the solidity of Britain's power :
No other power on earth could have placed an equipped army of 200,000 on another continent 10,000 miles away.
And he goes on :
And for that matter what warrior on the globe can show a 1 ke record of endurance ana glory in foreign climes as the British Grenadier who, fi'om equator to pole, has marched and bled and conquered, founded empires, overthrown despotisms and made ready the ground for an imposing structure of equity, order, sound finance and peace.
These are the opinions of an American critic, and I heartily endorse them. And when the British army is properly trained, that is when the officers of the British army are Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
properly trained, I am satisfied that the one weakness in that great body will have been remedied. There is a delusion harboured by many that an officer must be one of the aristocracy, that an aristocratic army is necessary to the up-building of a limited monarchy. People in this country will hardly have any such opinion. We have seen the sons of tailors, shoemakers and farmers rise to the proud position of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. We have seen these sons of the same class of men rise to the highest places in the commerce of the nation, and also in the church. I fail, then, to see why the sons of these same men, given the proper opportunity should not rise to similar positions in the army. As Mr. Hales, the very able correspondent of the Australian paper pointed out in an article which I see in the ' Montreal Star ' of January 18th, 1902.
I contend that there is nothing, or there should be nothing in a properly constituted army, to cause a man to lose caste by joining as a ranker. Put a gentleman and a farm labourer side by side in the ranks to-morrow, and the gentleman, if he is made of the proper material, ought to distance his opponent in every kind of legitimate competition. He starts the contest with all the advantages that an excellent education carry, he has knowledge of many things which must help him if he is an earnest soldier, knowledge which the farm labourer fcas had no chance of obtaining. If, with such a handicap as that, he cannot win his way above the heads of his fellows, win it fairly like a man, it must be because he is lacking in qualities which he should possess, and if he lacks those qualities the army is no place for him, because the Imperial army of the future must not be a hothouse for exotics. I would make no distinction. If the King's son desired to wear a soldier's uniform, he should first of all wear the humble dress of one of his royal father's privates. Why should he not. ? Is it a badge of disgrace, a mark of dishonour ? Have not thousands of well-bred men all over the empire donned the private's uniform, and fought in it during the present war, and are they any worse for having done so ? Have they contracted any moral leprosy. Have they forfeited the right to call themselves gentlemen V Personally I think not ; a gentleman can be a gentleman in a lance-corporal's uniform _juite as surely as in a Field Marshal's if he is made of the correct material ; if not, then why all this talk of native superiority ? Is it the Bond Street tailor who makes the gentleman and the East end sweater who makes the ' Tommy 7 ' I don't believe it, I won't believe it.
These are the words of Mr. Hales, the very able correspondent from Australia, who lias made himself a name throughout the British Empire in his criticisms of the Imperial army. Then we hear the statement made that the men prefer fighting under officers of the aristocratic class. I fail to see that that is the case either, and I maintain that tile history of the British Empire shows-that the men who fight under officers of their own class fight as bravely and as willingly as the men of any other corps in the-

service, and the same is time of Canadians. However, I do not object to the, officers of the British Empire being taken from the aristocratic class. By all means give them every opportunity; but first of all let it be required of them, as Mr. Hales says, that they should be equal in every respect, and superior in many respects, to any other type of men that they may seek to discipline. Let them be trained for the position of leading men, so that when they are placed in control of the lives of their fellow citizens they will not make the fatal blunders that have too often been made in the present unfortunate war in South Africa. A very eminent Dutch Reformed minister in South Africa, in writing to Mr. D. J. Malan, a pro-Boer of Wellington, Cape Colony, says :
I believe those who keep this miserable struggle going are the pro-Boers of England, and the merciless Kruger clique on the continent of which Paul Kruger is the head. They have not sent their people (women and children) one cent as far as I know ; while the British nation is spending thousands upon us.
This is an extract from an open letter of this very prominent Dutch Reformed minister to a pro-Boer living in Cape Colony. Now, the British pro-Boer is a man who should have some respect for his own mother, he should love his empire, he should back his own people against the enemy, come from what source they may. He knows, if he knows anything, that the British never fought in a more righteous war in the whole history of the empire; yet the British pro-Boer, for the object of gaining some political point, or to uphold some fad, and yet realizing the tolerance of i Jreat Britain, never misses an opportunity of helping the Boers. This man, Sir, I maintain is the most despicable of creatures,, and as this clergyman rightly says, is no doubt the cause of the war being prolonged.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the British pro-Boer has assisted the Boers in demanding a peace, which, in the opinion of the best men of the empire is not honourable. He has helped the Boers by condemning the humane action of the British in caring for the women and children of the Boer forces in South Africa. This is, 1 think, the first instance in the history of warfare where a nation which has conquered another has taken care of the women and children and thus relieved the enemy of one of the greatest burdens that any people could possibly have placed upon their shoulders. In this respect I have to point out that we find no commiseration from these British pro-Boers for the thous-85
ands and tens of thousands of loyalist women and children who have, since the month of October, 1899, been refugees, who have been encamped at various parts in the loyal districts in South Africa, refugees from the districts included in the war area of Johannisburg, Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Kimberley, north of Kimberley and the various centres where these people had, in thousands, to seek refuge in the concentration camps. You find no sympathy for these women and children on the part of these British pro-Boers. Yet, when you bring Boer women and children into one of your concentration camps you do something that shocks all these pro-Boers. In that way they have encouraged the Boers in the field and have assisted them in continuing the war. But, the British pro-Boer has also helped the Boers in arms by censuring the men to whom the British Empire owes so much in this matter-Mr.	Chamberlain,
Lord Milner, Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour. These men have been unstintingly condemned by the British pro-Boers. Money in thousands, I believe, has been expended by the Boer agencies throughout the world to create an adverse opinion to these men. But, on the other hand, it has assisted in creating a kindly sympathy' for them in South Africa and other British colonies. By these actions I claim the British pro-Boer has been disloyal to his country because he has encouraged the Boers to continue in the war. He has also been disloyal by giving assistance to the enemy, by encouraging the demand on the part of the Boers that in consideration of laying down their arms they should have certain concessions granted to them in the way of independence or semi-independence. This, I am satisfied, would be regarded with the greatest antagonism by all loyalists throughout the empire. The Boers from the outset have known the terms upon which they could obtain conditions should they surrender. 1 am not going to speak of any negotiations that may have taken place at one time or another during the war for a settlement honourable to both parties that might have been reached, but any settlement granting the Boers independence, or semi-independence, free from British supremacy, free from the British flag, could not be tolerated by the British Empire or by Great Britain as a unit. This district, as I have previously pointed out to this House, is absolutely necessary to be held for Great Britain as underlying the integrity and peace of South Africa. Great Britain must have her naval stations and coaling stations at the Gape. Therefore, I claim that those who have been instrumental in| encouraging the Boers in the field have been disloyal and are so still. The British pro-Boer also helps the Boer by holding out a helping hand of encouragement to those pro-Boer emissaries who have been roaming Europe and -the United States. Then, he has helped the Boers in the field by slandering



one of the grandest of men. I refer to Mr. Thomas Atkins. The British soldier has been unstintingly slandered in this war. Foreign nations have not hesitated to charge him with all kinds of atrocities. I venture to say that not one case of outrage or atrocity from the beginning to the end of the war has been proven against the British soldier. On every occasion, so far as any definite record can show, the British soldier has conducted himself towards women and children with the same kindness that always characterizes the British soldier. He treats the enemy just as he would treat a fallen friend; so that, there is nothing in that charge. I can give instances-in fact I have given instances-where attempts were made to assert that unkindness and harsher methods than were necessary had been resorted to by the British soldiers towards these people, but X am satisfied that these assertions find no echo in the hearts of any loyal persons or of any persons who understand the conditions of South Africa. The Boers have also been helped in the field by those who have been ever apologising for Boer outrages. I do not say that the Boers have been outrageous towards the loyalist women. I am proud to say they also have shown that magnanimity of spirit that characterizes the races from which they sprung and, from which the British soldier has sprung, but that they have been tricky, cowardly and brutal in the manner in which they have entrapped the British soldier no one can deny. They have again and again shown the white flag on one part of the field in order to decoy the British soldiers while they have had, on another part of the field, a force of men concealed ready to shoot down the British soldiers like so many rabbits. This occurred more frequently early in the war than during recent times. They have again and again held up their hands in token of surrender and as soon as the British would advance they would pick up their rifles, and shoot them down. They have been allowed through the kindness of heart of the British generals to retire to their 'farms when they saw the British advance and, taking up their rifles, which had been buried, they have waylaid and captured British convoys. When they would be waited upon by a British officer they would place their hands to their hearts, look the British officer in the face and say :	We
did hear some firing last night and they went away over there. I could give instancy after instance of this sort of thing. These British pro-Boers always have very great sympathy for that type of fellow. It is not my intention, in my criticism to build up that sort of man. My desire is to strengthen the bonds of the British Empire and the British army which has been weakened by the inferior training of the British officer. It is also my desire to make it clear that no one class in the empire is absolutely necessary to the building up of Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
the empire, that no one class has a monopoly of loyalty to this country. To pass through Britain and to listen to many of these gentlemen who constitute a large number of the army officers, one would imagine that the English army officer was himself the great bulwark of the British Empire and that he had a monopoly of loyalty. 1 wish it to be understood that the inhabitants of the farms in the back parts of Canada, of the remote stations in Australia, in New Zealand and in South Africa, the rank and file, have as high an appreciation of their duty to the British Empire and as great an affection for the old land as the most highly titled aristocrat in the empire, and his good will and assistance are just as necessary for maintaining the supremacy of the empire as are those of any one on the other side of the water. In speaking of the campaign in South Africa, I may be permitted to point out that the departments-I trust the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence'will make a note of this even if I do not go into that point in detail, and specify clearly as I can the particulars-that were brought in contact with the British business heart have been successful. The mobilizing of the troops, the merchant stations, the transport of troops, the merchant ships engaged in handling the freight, the supplies, the munitions of Avar, the transport of these commodities to the seat of war, by that magnificent Cape government system of railways-all those services have been a success. I hesitate to mention the name of any one officer above that of another who deserves credit, but I will mention the name of Mr. Price the assistant superintendent of the Cape system of railways. All these departments connected with transportation, organization, rations, equipment, supplies, the management of trains and of ships, all of these departments which came into immediate contact with the civil, commercial and business communities, hav^e been an entire success and only one department, the combatant department, has been found a failure. Do not misunderstand me, Sir, there have been found in the combatant department, in spite of the inferior system of training, men Avho have succeeded beyond all measure, men whose names will go down in history as having shed lustre on the British arms and men who invariably brought honour to her cause. In spite of the lack of training their innate adaptability has found A'ent and they have succeeded in retaining the prestige of Britain-names such as White, the hero of Ladysmith, French, whom I consider to be after all the most modern soldier, General Alderson, Lord Kitchener, Knox, Kelly-Kenny, Lord Roberts, Settle, Hunter, the Hamiltons, Brabant, Scobell, Smith-Dorrien, Dundonald, Pole-Carew, Rimington and some others. These men proved -that, despite the dwarfing system of Great Britain, the greatness of the names which they bear have sur-

vived and that they have made themselves an absolute necessity to the success of the British arms.
I did purpose speaking in detail in reference to the treatment of the colonial officers by the Imperial officer in Africa, and when I refer to Africa I would extend my remarks to include the treatment of the militia officer in Canada and the militia officer in the old country, by the Imperial officer generally. No one doubts that there is a very bitter feeling between the colonial officers in Africa to-day, and the Imperial officer. That goes without saying. It is dwelt on in every newspaper. The Toronto ' Telegram ' lias a long article on the subject from which I read the following extract :
The complaints which come from South Africa over the English officers' treatment of the colonial officers may be explained partially by misunderstanding and partially by the narrow intelligence of the worst sort of English officer. The cause of the trouble is deeper than the contempt of the Englishmen for the colonials. The real trouble is the arrogant intolerance which marks the attitude of the professional soldier tcward the amateur soldier.
This arrogance is a folly not peculiar to English officers. Hundreds of English officers are free from such a feeling, and Canada's permanent force has bred in many of Its officers as fine a line of contempt for the volunteer officer as any Aldershot Englishman can display.
It is not a question of old countryman and colonial. It is simply a question of brains or no trains.
The Toronto ' Globe ' has also commented on this matter, and the ' Mail ' published an article of considerable length in reference to it. These officers of the permanent corps have a kind of close corporation among themselves, and they fear that if any extension is encouraged in the militia it will threaten the permanency and the exclusiveness of their system. I have, 1 think, successfully explained to a number of those gentlemen that the result of the establishment of a large militia force along proper lines in the old country as well as in Canada, would be to immensely strengthen the hands of these officers, if these officers are what they should be, and if they are not, then they should be relegated to other walks of life where they will not he as so many pensioners on the pay sheet of the nation. I may point out that in the early part of the war, no colonial officer, no matter how high his rank or how great his experience, was given any post of command. At Belmont; at Gras Pan; at Modder river; at Maggersfontein; at Stormberg, there were no colonials, and there were but a few at Colenso, under Lord Dundonald. None of these colonial officers held commands and in many cases British officers of lower rank were placed over them. I trust that the Minister of Militia will take note of this. We have in Africa to-day, colonials who should be perfectly qualified to command these corps, and to command in action If 851
necessary; but yet, there is not one Canadian in Africa who has ever commanded a corps independently in an engagement. Col. Otter of the first contingent was never entrusted with a command. He planned the Sunnyside expedition, furnished all the data in connection with it, but when it came to carrying out the plan, an officer junior to him-a very good officer indeed, and 1 have nothing to say against him-but an officer the junior of Col. Otter was sent to command the expedition, and Col. Otter remained at the base to play second fiddle. In the advance on Stormberg, that memorable night when General Gatacre met with disaster; a colonial officer who had been born and brought up in the region and knew its dangers, ventured to caution General Gatacre upon the blunder he was about to make, but he got his dismissal there and then. That colonial officer showed me the note from General Gatacre dismissing him from his command, because, knowing the region, he dared to point out to the General that he was taking a wrong route and that danger lurked ahead. Where ever you go in South Africa you will find that no colonial officer got any prominence or any command in the field. If the British officer is at all competent, the colonial officer is, by hook or crook, put under him. The premier of New Zealand has taken a very pronounced stand upon this matter, and I trust that our Minister of Militia will look into it. Mark you, I have not changed one whit in my belief that it is Canada's duty under proper conditions to continue to assist Britain for the protection of the empire at large, but in all such matters as this Canada should see to it that her officers are properly commissioned and entrusted with proper commands in the field.
I now come to the discussion of the Canadian as well as the Imperial permanent forces. We are told that any departure from the present system would be the breaking up of discipline. I dare say many hon. gentlemen in this House have visited the barracks of a permanent corps, and have seen some illustration of what they call discipline. Let us take for example how our young fellows attend these institutions, and I have a case in mind now which will illustrate what their idea of discipline is. Three sons of a family go to the city of Toronto; one enters as a' private in one of the schools; one happens to be an officer, and the youngest attends the Toronto university. The private enters the school through a doorway guarded by a man with fixed bayonet; he is taken to the barrack room where he is made to sleep with a lot of fellows possibly congenial spirits and possibly not. His food and his clothing and his bedding are of the commonest kind. I find no fault with that, for if a fellow is going to be a soldier he should take soldiers fare. The other brother passes into the officers quarters; he has no fixed time to regulate him; he has not to turn his light

out and go to bed at a certain hour. If the young private wants to study he has to do so in a room where there are a great many others, but when the officer wishes to study he can retire to his room, although there is always more or less entertainment provided for him. The private must have his light out at a certain hour of the night the same as a penitentiary bird. Now take the lot of the young man attending the university. >
He lives where he wishes; he is a free man. The one is a young fellow with a desire to serve his country; the other is training to be a business man, but the latter is free and the other is not. I venture to say that the so-called discipline to which the private is subjected, unmans him and unfits him to as great an extent as the independent surroundings of the other tends to make him a good, and self-reliant citizen. There are 6,000 young men studying at the universities in Toronto, and I venture to say that they are better men in the end than if they were subjected to this so-called discipline of the military school. In the military school they call the rule and restrictions of prison life, discipline. Why, under the present ticket of leave system, the prisoners in Kingston penitentiary are not far removed from the discipline which the soldiers are subjected to in one of our permanent corps. The serfdom of the dark ages, they call discipline; the slavery of the old time and the subjection of the blacks, they call it discipline. The repressing of the human mind and of the human soul; they term discipline. The plebeian spirit which a great many endeavour to infuse into the people, (which we find unfortunately in the ignorant and the broken spirited poor) and the fawning of flunkies, that is what these gentlemen term discipline. They do not understand that anything which tends to unman a man, to humble and to humiliate him and to degrade him, is the reverse of discipline. Discipline to them is repression and not freedom. Discipline to them is fear and debasement, and not the ennobling or the uplifting of our fellow man. Their so-called system is control from without, without any self-control or control from within. One English paper speaking of the war says :
Battles cannot be won without systematic training in the science of war. But what is the science of war ? The Boers have made successful war without caring a fig for the so-called science that Europe has been slavishly and systematically following for generations.
I maintain that history proves that where an equal number of free men have met an equal number of these so-called soldiers of rigid discipline similarly armed, victory has invariably rested with the free men. Read history from the earliest days to the present, and you will find that wherever regular armies have met irregular armies equally equipped, the regular armies have always suffered defeat. Long before this Boer war began, I pointed out to the general
Mr. HUGHES fVictoria).
officer commanding in Canada, that unless the British tactics in the coming war were changed, disaster sure and dire would befall the British arms as it did in the African war of 1881.
The British system has the result of converting freemen into serfs or slaves, or men whose liberty is oppressed by so-called discipline. The discipline of these gentlemen belongs to the days when tyrants and divine right rulers held sway, which fortunately have gone by. It belongs to the period when manhood was considered a crime, when freedom and liberty were unknown, and human hearts ground down beneath oppression and repression. That form of discipline should long since have vanished from liberty-loving, self-governing communities. It survives only in prisons and similar institutions in the Dominion of Canada to-day, in the permanent corps, and in the British regular army. Let me give an illustration. Here are two young fellows in the city of Toronto. One is a university student, and the other is a private attending the school in order to gain his certificate. They both go to the theatre, and the one comes home just as sober as the other. The student sits up a good part of the night and studies and gets up and goes to lecture in the morning and nothing is said to him. But the other, because he arrived in barracks a few minutes late, is locked up in the guard room all night, brought before some officer in the morning, and treated with greater indignity than if he had robbed a bank. He is probably confined in barracks for a certain number of days. I remember in the old days, when our annual camps were surrounded by fixed bayonets, the young fellows used to break out at night on purpose just to start the guards and give them a run. I have often done it myself when a private, and when any of the boys got caught, they simply put it down to their bad luck. But there was always more disorder in the camp in those days, when surrounded by fixed bayonets, than in the camps we have had this last couple of years, where there are no guards except where the stores are kept. That goes to show simply that trained men can control themselves and that self-control is the highest form of existence.
A destructive critic, I may say, I regard as a nuisance, and I do not intend to put myself In that category. If I point out the failures in the system, I am always prepared to suggest a substitute. I have shown that I would give the greatest freedom to the young men in the permanent corps as well as to the young men attending the schools. To-day. when we want an officer to attend the military schools, what do we do ? We send in an application for such an pfflcer to attend a course at the permanent schools at a certain time. Let me give an instance that came within my own experience last year, to show how this system

works. A young officer was anxious to attend the school, but his business engagements prevented his doing so at any other time than the beginning of the year. He sent in his application to be allowed to attend at that period, but a few weeks later he got an order to attend the 1st of November-a thing which it was absolutely impossible for him to do. He therefore gave up all idea of attending at all. Two days, however, before the 1st of January, an order came for him to go to the school, but of course not having anticipated this, he had made other arrangements, so that it was absolutely impossible for him to comply with the order. Thus he lost his opportunity. I would pursue a different plan. Instead of educating a limited number of men herded up together in a barracks, subjected to the indignity of so-called discipline-the discipline of prison repression-I would allow these young men to board in and around the city. They would then report for drill at certain hours, and go through all the routine in barracks necessary for a soldier to learn. And let me tell you. Sir, that two-tliirds of the so-called training, practiced in the schools, is absolute nonsense. As described by a writer in the ' Free Press ' of Saturday last-a gentleman whose name I happen to know, and who is an officer occupying a very distinguished position-it is ' absolute rot.' 1 would have these young men board outside and report themselves each day. I would not have them there as soldiers, but as cadets, wearing a separate uniform from the regulars. They would have to report at certain hours, which in itself is great discipline, as they have to get up in the early morning and sometimes walk miles for the purpose of attending drill. .1 would have them go through their drill and routine, item by item, and let them fill position after position. I would even have them in the lecture room instructing their juniors and doing the same work in the field. In other words, I would have our permanent corps officers occupy a much more dignified position. Instead of storming around the barrack yard and bullying a few poor cadets, I would have them occupy rather the positions of lecturers or professors in a college, and all this routine of scrubbing floors and making up beds, which it is of no earthly use for men to learn, I would do away with altogether, and let these recruits attend the schools as students, learn everything they could, and then go home. How is it now ? We have a course amounting to usually three months for the privates and non-coms ; then we have a course for subalterns of another three months ; then there is another course for captains and field officers' certificates, and Commanding officers' certificates, and musketry instruction certificates. A man has to loaf around Ottawa five or six weeks in order to get a musketry instruction certificate, which any one of ordinary intelligence, and who has ever handled a rifle, could pick up in a day or two. Then there is the signalling course. But not one of these things is done systematically. A bit is done here and another bit there. The equitation course, the musketry course, the signalling course, the maxim gun course-all these various courses are scattered about, and instead of a young man being able to take the whole thing and go through it all in about fifteen straight months, he has to take them at intervals and breaks up three or four years in the work. All this instruction should be centralized. Let us have a school at Toronto, another at Ottawa, and so on, but have everything centralized in the one school. And I would have the young cadet enter at sixteen years of age or even younger. General Wolfe was an adjutant of his regiment, and a very good soldier, when sixteen years old. Nearly one-third of the men who stormed the heights at Alma were under twenty years of age. Nearly one-third of the men who stood in Wellington's veteran squares at Waterloo, were under twenty years of age, and had been enlisted less than six weeks. What we require is officers, and 1 would turn them out in unlimited numbers. And when they return to their homes you can always call on them again as part of the reserve. By paving these young officers trained, you would have a large number of men on whom you could call at a moment's notice, fit to command your troops and trained in the best way possible. I would have discipline from within- the unit controlling himself, rather than hampered and hedged in by these so-called disciplinary rules of the school. I cannot do better than quote from this very able article in Saturday's Daily ' Free Press.' I happen to know the pen of the writer as well as the young officer who edits the column in that paper. The writer, speaking of an article in the 'Canadian Military Gazette,' says :
These facts hold good under prevailing conditions. If the schools wore as efficient as they should be, a provisional school would not be the most suitable and would not give better results, but as things exist to-day there is no doubt but the advantages are in favour of local training.
Some time ago, I took the liberty of making a slight criticism on the schools, which excited some attention, and I was charged by the minister with wishing to abolish the schools entirely. Far from it. Ever since I have been in the House-some twelve sessions-I have brought this matter up and endeavoured to bring about reforms. And I am proud to say that the reforms I advocated many years ago, have, many of them, been carried out by this and previous administrations. What I ask is reform of the schools and not their abolition. The , writer in the ' Free Press ' goes on to say :

This is an exact statement of the facts and the only difference is that in both cases it is drill, drill, useless drill-one on twenty yards square of gravel, and the other on a boarded drill hall floor and the lectures and everything else are practically the same. In spite of the fact that at Toronto and Loudon there are large commons available for field exercises and ranges for practice, these are never used, but the time devoted to squad drills, company and battalion, including all those senseless movements which must be forgotten the moment fighting begins.
X trust the minister will note that these words are not from the man of the active militia, but from a gentleman who has in the past held one of the most distinguished positions in the permanent corps. He is replying to the ' Canadian Militia Gazette ' which is edited by a very able militiaman, also an ex-permanent corps man. But one of these gentlemen takes one view and the other takes the other view :
An oflicer joining any of the infantry schools

Listen to this Mr. Speaker,-
-is simply handed over to the drill sergeants,, who, forced to fill in the time, wire off reams of detail or how to ' stand at ease ' and * turn to the right or left.' If they took him out and gave him- some outside field work or musketry there might be some advantage in attending at the schools, but they don't.
He goes on :
' *
The editor of the ' Canadian Militia Gazette ' speaks of the ' discipline they learn at the schools.' What rot ! I suppose he thinks that visiting the men's dinners, dressing for mess, and seeing a few other obsolete customs gravely carried out in barracks imparts discipline. Bosh ! Of what use is it to the ordinary militiaman ?
This appears in the ' Free Press,' a journal supporting the government and it is to he found in last Saturday's issue. In support of my contention as to the manner of discipline from within I might point to our lumber camps. Throughout the length and breadth of northern Ontario there are thousands of men in these lumber camps tonight. There are no fixed bayonets over these men. Yet, you enter one of these camps and you find the order is as perfect as in room 16 or room 6 of this House. And the conduct of these men is just as proper as that of any member of parliament here to-night. Go into any of our railway camps where the roughest men in the community are to be found at work. Yet, in these camps where the discipline is from within, you find perfect work and perfect discipline. Only in the prisons and in the regular corps do we find this repressive discipline maintained.
On a previous occasion I entered into the cost to the country of the certificates given to these officers under the present system, so I shall not take up the time of the House with that to-night. But, I may say that if you figure out the cost for an officer to the Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
people of Canada-regarding the permanent corps as an educational institution simply- you will find that it amounts to far more than $1,000. One year I found, it amounted to over $3,000 for each certificate. Counting the permanent corps as an educational institution simply, we find that the cost is a little less this year. But I wish to be fair. I do not want to abolish the permanent corps. They have performed good work in connection with the schools and in connection with what you may call police service. And besides they are the nucleus of an army in case we are called upon to defend our frontier. But we must not depend upon this as an army ? We must have throughout the length and breadth of this country men trained for the officer's command and non-com. officers' position, and they must be ready at any moment's notice. And I maintain that this can be done at infinitely less cost and for infinitely greater numbers than under the present system. I again point out that in these schools I would have these men assembled more as they are in colleges and would have the young men treated as free men. I would have them uniformed in a special cadet outfit different from the soldiers, and I would have them perform certain evolutions of drill, ,but I would not have them perform drill that this writer in the * Free Press ' is pleased to call 'absolute rot.' I would not have them waste time with such absolute nonsense as that, but would train them along the lines of a regular college. In that way we could turn out these people at a minimum cost and we should have a proper reserve of Canadian officers.
I shall not enter upon the details of the arguments advanced by those who believe in the intra-mural residence as against the extra-mural, nor upon the points of decorum or etiquette that these young men shouhl learn. There are not many young men from our farms, and I fancy there are still fewer from our towns who could learn much in etiquette from these schools. Take the young men from our farms throughout Canada, today and, as a rule, for everything that makes up real etiquette, they can be placed side by side with our permanent corps officers. That is, even before they are trained. There are not many of them who eat with their knives, and fewer still who peel their potatoes with their fingers in these days. Even if they did these things, it would not take many lessons to teach i! em h< w to act in the company of such Hist" vguish-'d people, and also to impress them with the fact that they should be careful whether tuey pick their teeth with their forks or with their fingers.
Our good friend the editor of the ' Militia Gazette,' in discussing a former debate in this House, took me seriously to task for something which I never said. But I would call attention to toe fact tnat every contention I made on the former occasion as

well as on the one I am making to-night is admitted in the editor's own article. He admits that the schools have very serious defects and are in very great need of reform. He admits) that he has himself advocated reforms in these schools. And the only thing for which he criticises me is that I am in favour of the young fellows boarding out and attending as cadets rather than being inside and subject to this so-called discipline. On everything else that 1 said he agrees with me. Unfortunately, he accepts the minister's statement that my object seems to be to abolish the schools rather than to reform, them. He takes that as his text, and upon it he writes the homily. In the same issue of the ' Militia Gazette,' I find an article by a young officer. It is signed ' Full Marks.' The writer concludes his criticism of the school in this way :
I have just procured a fresh certificate, but if Sir John

Speaking of Sir John H. Macdonald, K.C.B., who recently delivered an address in Scotland.
-is right I fear it is of little good to me. I know how to open the breech of the Lee-Enfield rifle but have never fired even a blank cartridge out of it. I never saw the magazine of the rifle loaded. In fact, I could teach my men ' twenty-mine modes of forming battalion square ' and ' changing the front of a battalion in line,' but am absolutely ignorant of imparting any instruction in the actual working of the rifle, because I was never taught.
And he concludes with the statement:
' But I am qualified.'
That is from one of the officers trained in one of the minister's own schools, and trained under a system which some are endeavouring to perpetuate in this country to-day. There are other interesting points in the young fellow's letter. But I point out that, whether you take the minister's own officers or the permanent corps officers, the testimony is the same, and I am proud to say that many of the permanent corps officers understood perfectly well that in what I said I was not criticising them. There are men in that corps who would be a credit to any nation. I was criticising the fact that some had received full colonelcies who were no more entitled to them than scores of others, both in the permanent corps and in the militia. That is what I was speaking of at that time and not of the officers of the permanent corps of that time.
In Britain to- lay no one wjll gainsay the statement that the British government, in so far as the conduct of this war has been concerned has been more or less powerless in the face of the rings, cabals, sets, and cliques in connection with the army there. I shall illustrate that by reading an extract from the Montreal ' Star,' from the famous article by this Australian writer. Hales, an article which has attained exceedingly large circulation in the old land, and which has
aroused much favourable comment. He says :
We have first of all to purge the British army of abuses, to do away with her old, worn-out rules and regulations. The British home-bred stock constitute the heart of the empire, the heart pumps the blood and vitality through the whole circle of our dominions, and the heart must be pure from taint of all kinds, if the far spreading members are to be free from corruption. To this end, the purification of the lifegiving centres, our energies must be concentrated.
Now, will follow language which, if used in this House by myself, would have been termed extreme and extravagant. But it is written by this officer for the British public and the world public. This is what he says :-
To-day the army of Great Britain is rotten to the core, cliques abound, ' rings ' are rampant, there exist 'circles,' and inside each circle lesser circles revolve in varying degrees of magnetism ; men are made or crushed according to the power of dominant parties, not in accord with personal merit. Read the life history of Colville, Gat-acre and Buller, read the deeds they did for the nation in the field of battle, then turn the page and read their reward-not the reward of the nation, not the reward of the crown they served, but the reward of a clique, the vengeance of a coterie, the venom of a ' ring.'
Let in the Light.
Before we can hope to handle colonial armies satisfactorily, we must purge the * home ' army of all uaoleanllness, we must make it plainly understood that a spirit of unbending justice presides over the destinies of every man who wears the King's uniform, no matter whether he be a simple private or a full-fledged general. The first thing that should be abolished is the system of secret trials. No good thing ever came from behind closed doors-.
Let me urge upon the minister the importance of this matter-never to allow any one to influence him to condemn an officer under him upon a confidential report. I maintain, and I have always acted upon the principle that in the case of every officer in my regiment concerning whom I have sent a confidential report to the minister through the official channel, if it is not absolutely favourable to him he knows exactly what I have written. Never directly or indirectly did I ever send an adverse confidential report.
We Britons oppose that sort of thing in every other walk of life, why do we allow it in our army. If a man is accused of wrong-doing while wearing the King's uniform, let the charge against him' be made publicly, let the witnesses be heard publicly, let him speak in his own defence publicly: then, if he be guiltless, let the shame of a false accusation- fall upon the heads of those who are guilty of making it. If the soldier is guilty then let his disgrace be branded upon him under the gaze of the public, but once and for all time let us stamp out everything that savours of hole-and-corner work, for until this system of secret trial is abolished, no man can be sure of getting even-handed justice. It is useless to argue that an open court for soldiers would damage the service, that argument

can be advanced with just as much force by any other branch of the public service. If secret trials are right and just for the soldier they are just and right for the civilian. We must do away with the ' star chamber ' business, no matter by whom it is upheld : it is a relic of days that are past and gone, and the secret trial must go with the days that spawned it.
These are words that cannot be much better expressed. I shall read now from a famous writer on British constitutional law, Dicey, pointing out the danger that exists in the old land, has always existed, and will always exist in any free governed nation, from a standing army. Dicey says :
A permanent army of paid soldiers, whose main duty is one of absolute obedience to commands, appears at first sight to be an institution inconsistent with that rule of law or submission to the civil authorities, and especially to the judges, which is essential to popular or parliamentary government; and in truth the existence of permanent paid forces has often in most countries, and at times in England-notably under the Commonwealth-been found inconsistent with the existence of what, by a lax though intelligible mode of speech, is called a free government. The belief indeed of our statesmen down to a time considerably later than the revolution of 1689, was that a standing army must be fatal to English freedom, yet very soon after the revolution it became apparent that the existence of a body of paid soldiers was necessary to the safety of the nation. Englishmen therefore, at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, found themselves placed in this dilemma. With a standing army the country could not (they thought) escape from despotism ; without a standing army the country could not (they perceived) escape from invasion ; the maintenance of national liberty appeared to involve the sacrifice of national independence. Yet English statesmanship found almost by accident a practical escape from this theoretical dilemma, and the Mutiny Act, though an enactment passed in a hurry to meet an immediate peril, contains the solution of an apparently insolvable problem.
I want to point out that step by step tbe British war office and its satellites have gradually sought to remove from the Mutiny Act one of the safeguards that it was intended to convey to the free men of England, and we find to-day that the old civil officers of the war office are being dismissed and men under the absolute control of the commander-in-chief are placed in their stead. We find to-day, through the length and breadth of the regular system in England, that this branch of the service has obtained almost supreme control, that it can almost make and unmake governments, and that the Prime Minister himself is almost powerless to resist the influences I have just quoted.
Now, Sir, I have always been a great believer in the militia of a country. It was the militia that won the battles of Cressy, Agincourt and Poitiers In the old days ; it was the militiamen who won the battles of Waterloo and the heights of Alma-because, as I pointed out, a man who is only six Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
weeks in the army is nothing more than a militiaman. It is men such as these that have won Britain's battles through the long period of her history. Therefore, from various view points, I am greatly in favour of a strong militia force. It is the only way to keep down militarism in a country, it is the only way, under our modern conditions, to defend an empire. Speaking of the militia, Dicey says :
The militia is from its nature a body hardly capable of being used for the purpose of overthrowing parliamentary government. But even with regard to the militia, care has been taken by the legislature to ensure that it shall be subject to the rule of law. The members of the local army are (speaking in general terms) subject to military law only when in training or when the force is embodied. Embodiment indeed converts the militia for the time being into a regular army, though an army which cannot be required to serve abroad. But the embodiment can lawfully take place only in 'case of imminent national danger or of great emergency.'
I would respectfully draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in Canada certain militia officers-I do not refer to the present general officer commanding-have claimed and still claim that an officer of the Canadian militia is at all times subject to the Army Act under the King's regulations. I need not again point out to this House the utter absurdity of any such contention, and I trust the minister will have backbone enough, in framing his new Militia Act, to remove all possible ambiguity upon that point, and that he will lay it down clearly that it is only when militia men are actually called out by Order in Council, or by himself, that they are amenable to the King's regulations and the Army Act. I trust that he will allow nothing in the shape of British red tapeism to influence him in framing his new Militia Act, so that by no possible construction of it will an officer have any control of a junior officer when he is not actually summoned out under the law.
Now, there are a great many weaknesses in any system of a permanent corps, but those, as a rule, are well known to those interested. I may mention, though, that in this country it has been pointed out to us again and again as a thing to be greatly desired that we should do away with civilian control of our militia and place the absolute authority in the hands of tbe general commanding. I have always opposed that, and I incurred the enemity of that great and pious man. General Hutton, on that very ground. That gentleman offered great inducements to many officers to bolster him up in his demands on the minister that he should be made absolutely independent of the minister as regards the discipline and training of the militia of the country. I pointed out to him that this was a responsibly governed country, and that the minister was the only man who should be the master in the premises, that the minister un-

doubtedly should be his master, and that the general should be subject to his control. I may point out that the system which he wanted so much prevails in England; I want to tell you that there to-day, in the British regular army an officer who has a grievance dare not bring it to his superior officer. Under the law he has authority to do so. It has been shown to them again and again that they have the authority, but they will tell you : ' O ! certainly, we know that, but we dare not appeal under the law to our superior officers. The very officers who would pronounce us right in this instance would never forgive us, and they would regard our conduct as insubordinate.' One of these gentlemen who was labouring under considerable disability from a superior officer was asked :	' Then
how do you obtain redress ? ' O ! he said,
' my wife's aunt is a very intimate friend of General Wolseley, she is working the screws and it will come out all right.' There is the way justice is obtained, through rings, cabals and coteries, in the great heart of the British empire to-day. They have men that have given the world liberty, the brave bold men of Runnymede, those who have upheld the honour of the empire all through its history, are reduced to-day to getting their grievances redressed by pettyeoat influence and back door intrigue. I trust sincerely that the minister will not allow any such influences as these to be potent in the Militia Department of Canada, but that he will stand out above all that and treat every one upon his merits and according to the principles of parliamentary government.
I have previously referred to the feeling of Imperial officers towards the Canadian militia. I have before me an extract from the Toronto * Daily Mail ' in which it says :
The story ts an old one, and in the history of soldiering in this country many instances can be cited showing how the air of superiority often displayed by officers in the regular service has beer, the cause of much bad feeling, and has led to an estrangement that has impaired the efficiency of the individuals concerned. Colonel Denison, in his recently published book of renrniscences, has referred to a number of cases in which this peculiar trait in the regular was the cause of annoyance and offence to officers of the Canadian militia, and it is no secret that among the Canadians who have returned from the front there are many who, although they speak with the greatest satisfaction of the relations generally existing between themselves and the regulars declare that their patience was frequently severely taxed in their efforts to preserve amity and concord. It is not necessary to go away from home to find a similar strained relationship, and there is no reason for its existence.
Following upon this we notice that Lord. Roberts, himself, after the shooting of those Australian officers, of which I hope to have something to say on another occasion, was forced to come out and in order to placate the colonials after the gallant stand made
by the Canadians at Kleinhart the other day he issued an order-I have not seen the order but it will not amount to much, I can guarantee that-to which the following has reference :
Unstinted Praise.
London, April 5-The gallantry of the Canadian troops at the engagement with the Boers near Hart's river, South-western Transvaal, March 31, attracts unstinted praise from the British press. Their comments form a striking contrast to the recently printed notification that the attention of Lord Roberts, the commander-in-chief, had been drawn to various cases where colonials who had been awarded commissions were treated as inferiors by the regular officers and otherwise made to feed that they were only members of the mess by sufferance.
Lord Roberts, it was semi-officially announced, was making an investigation and intended to inflict the most serious penalties on any British officers found guilty of such conduct. Privately, and in letters to the press, many colonial officers have frequently complained that ' they are good enough at the front, but are not wanted at a Cape Town hotel or in a London drawing room.'
Personally I have no reason to complain of anything of this sort specially. I chanced to be a senior to most of these gentlemen and with that spirit of sycophancy and fawning, which I regret to say is a characteristic of the British officer, these men are always ready to fawn and cringe before any one who happens to wear an extra star or crown on his shoulder. The tendency of the British officer is towards sycophancy to a great extent but to those who chance to be of junior rank nothing could exceed the superciliousness of the British officer. This must all be changed. The British empire is going to hang together and the British officer must be taught that ithe empire is too great to tolerate conduct of that kind. Great Britain is g'oing to hang together and the supercilious British officer must disappear. The late Cecil Rhodes, after the relief of Kimberley, had the same complaint to make. There were from six to eight thousand brother colonials who did not happen to belong to the British ranks but who were fighting for the empire just as loyally as those in the British ranks were. I am not saying one word against one class or the other. The colonials fell day after day and no notice was taken of them in the lists that were sent out, but when a regular happened to he howled out his death was sure to be properly chronicled in the list. One day mule No. 6217 was chronicled as having departed this life because it belonged to the British regulars in South Africa, but those colonial soldiers who gave up their lives in scores never received a word of notice in the records from the commander in Kimberley at the time. The colonials form an important part of the empire to-day, they are as much interested in the welfare of the empire as the people of the old land, they are prepared to do their part for the maintenance of the em-

pire and it is just as well to give these gentlemen to understand that the army system of Great Britain to-day is not the British empire and it is not fit to stand in connection with the British empire. It is time that it disappeared. In the British organs items are appearing tin the papers now-a-days apologizing for certain victories which were won by the Boers over the British. You cannot point to a victory that the Boers have won in South Africa where, according to the British officer's statement, the British officer was at fault. It was always Tommy, or the yeomanry, or the militia or the colonials. At Belmont, at Modder River, at Magersfontein, at Stormberg, at Spion Kop and at Nicholson's Nek there were no colonials. These disasters occurred and they cannot attribute the blame to the colonials. In this connection I include the British regulars and that type of soldier. We find these British officers coming out and saying : Oh, you know, Tommy is from the slums ; .we can't trust him. He cannot be depended upon. You cannot show an instance in South Africa where Tommy has failed them. They say: We will have to pay him a little more. We will give him a penny a day more, cabbage and some potatoes extra per week. These are the apologies you find from the British officer to-day and the suggestions he makes for building up the great British army. I hope the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence will listen when I say that we must make the system of training British officers inexpensive and one that will develop all that is good and noble in him. I would ask hon. gentlemen not to run away with the notion that what I say applies to all of the British officers. I have given the names of a number of very capable generals who have distinguished themselves. I would ask hon. gentlemen not to run away with the notion that all these British officers are of the lawdy-daw type-not by any means. There are hundreds of these fellows who would, if they were allowed by the system, devote their attention to the upbuilding of their forces, so as to make themselves fit and proper men to lead their fellowmen in battle. Men intrusted with the lives of their fellow-* men should be properly trained and there are hundreds of these young British officers who would only be too anxious to improve their opportunities and their usefulness were it not that the system of repression, regimental messing and club work in connection with this institution drives the young man out of his regiment or forces him into a groove and he becomes a fit subject to be described by what is a general term in the old country a Piccadilly dude. At the beginning of this war General French, a man who has distinguished himself in South Africa, and who has never met with a reverse, was placed on the retired list because he did not happen to be of the school that happened to be dominant at the time. Many


Samuel Hughes: another good officer was placed where he would be of no use to his country until the stern needs of time brought him back again. Now, I have gone into this matter at more or less length but there are a few items which I have now here and which I propose discussing but which I will reserve until we come to the consideration of the supplementary estimates when we will have the opportunity of entering into the subject at greater detail than we will here to-night. I could refer to extract after extract from the leading newspapers of the country in support of the views that I have upheld here to-night- not only Canadian but English. I shall quote a brief extract from an article written by the Rev. Dr. G. M. Milligan, referring to a visit he paid to England last year. He said :
I found quite prevalent in Britain the feeling that social favouritism is responsible for much hurt done in military matters. Unfortunately the evil is not dead against which Carlyle declaimed when he wrote. Where now are your Hengists and Horsas shooting partridges ! '
' The flannelled fools ' are those who make pleasure a finality of their lives. Such are a danger to any community, when they affect to discharge important functions.
I could quote scores of articles from the leading editorials published in the best English newspapers, among them the ' London Times ' itself, a paper which is most favourable, as every one knows, to Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Alfred Milner in regard to the conduct of that war, but I have done enough to show that there is need of a revolution and that the old system of red tape must disappear and that British officers must be properly trained. We have the rifle shooting and the manouvering. These must of necessity be retained, but we must adopt some cheap system of training our officers and the only cheap system possible is the one I have pointed out. Star chamber methods must vanish. All these cabals and rings and sets ; political influence and stock gambling favours and their attendant weaknesses must be banished from the training of the British officer. The manhood of the old land must reassert itself, and in case that one department of the British army, the combatant officers training, is reformed, then the old empire will be in a position to deal with the world.
Go tell the world our watchword low,
Let deep proclaim to deep.
The crown that shines on Edward's brow,
His sons right hands will keep.
The empire that our fathers won Will still ha greater yet.
And on it as o'er shines the sun No sun shall ever set.
The (MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden). I am sure the House has listened, as I have, with a great deal of pleasure, to the very interesting address of my hon. and gallant friend

(Mr. Hughes). I had no idea, I am bound to confess, that the hon. gentleman's remarks would take such a very wide range. It would really seem as if his speech was one to be replied to by Mr. Broderick, the British Secretary for War, and not by the Canadian Minister of Militia, because his strictures were very much more severe upon the British army system than upon ours.
I presume that my hon. friend was endeavouring to illustrate what he considers to be the evils of the conditions which he disapproved of in Canada, by the effect of them on Great Britain; more particularly in the conduct of the war in South Africa. However, the House will hardly expect me to undertake the task of defending the conduct of that war from the British point of view. I was glad that my hon. friend was able to admit that in so far, at any rate, as the work done by the non-combatant or civil branch of the army in South Africa was concerned, he thought it was admirable, and indeed that it could not have been better. I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman in that. 1 would be inclined to go further. Although I confess I am not a judge of such matters, aud have not had the advantage that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) has had of being on the ground, X would be inclined to hazard the statement that no nation in the world could have coped with the serious difficulties which the British nation has had to meet in South Africa, as ably as Great Britain has done. That is my opinion after having given the matter as careful attention ns I have been able to. That mistakes, and grave mistakes, have been made there cannot be a question. But in the main, and -in view of circumstances of the most extraordinary difficulty, I think the campaign has been well conducted.
My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) finds fault with my having stated on a former occasion, that the observations he made on a kindred subject meant that he would wipe out the permanent force altogether. I did not intend to say that. What I intended to say was this : That the arguments which the hon. gentleman used were arguments which any one might use against the continuance of a permanent force, and I think any impartial listener to the statements made by the hon. gentleman to-day could draw no other conclusion from his arguments than that they were addressed against the system of standing armies and the system of permanent corps ; although he did say that he was favourable to the continuation of the permanent force in this country.
To come at once to the consideration of the question which more particularly directly concerns us, let me say a few words with refernce to our permanent force. Without making this in any way an excuse for existing conditions, if excuse be necessary, let me .first say. that the permanent force
has been in existence in this country for a good many years; long before I became Minister of Militia, that the very officers who are outside of the permanent force to-day and from whose writings my hon. friend has quoted, were members of the permanent force not so very long ago; spent many years in it; passed through it and came out of it without apparently having discovered, while in the force, the necessity for any great reform. It is only after they left the force that they were prepared to make criticism ot it. It seems to me that it would have been very much better for them to have addressed these observations during the time they were in the force, to their superior officers, and if they could not get their ear to have endeavoured to get the ear of the minister'of the day.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister permit me ? The officer who is outside of the permanent force to-day and who was formerly in it, defends the system. I hope I was not misunderstood in that. All the time that officer was in the force he took the very same ground that he takes to-day and did not hesitate to let it be known. The other officer to whom I refer, I think, is in the permanent force to-day, and is one of the best men in it. I may be wrong in that, but at all events I do not want to get that officer into any trouble.
The	MINISTER	OF	MILITIA	AND
DEFENCE. I think I know the officer to whom the hon. gentleman refers.


Samuel Hughes: That officer is one of the best men in the force.
The	MINISTER	OF	MILITIA	ANDDEFENCE. He is an able man, but I think he is a bit of a faddist and somewhat extreme. As to the condition of the permanent force I must take issue with my hon. friend on the picture which he drew of life in the barracks. He compared the existing conditions in the barracks of the permanent force in Canada to the conditions in a prison. I dissent absolutely	and entirely	from that statement.I have had the pleasure of visiting all the depots in Canada except that at Winnipeg. I have been in the men's rooms ; have seen them getting their food, have	been through the hospitals,	have
seen the men at their games, in their reading rooms, and I must say that I never met anywhere a more contented set of men than are to be found in our permanent force so far as appearances go, and so far as my observation could lead me to form an opinion. I have heard no complaints. The men of the permanent force in this country are nverage Canadians. They enjoyed perfect freedom before they went into the force; they know perfectly well what the laws and customs of this country are. and they have scores of friends outside of the force who, if they were being ill-used, would very soon make the fact known to the minister, or to

some superior officer. Nothing of this kind so far as I know has taken place, and it is therefore fair to assume that there is no serious grievance of the kind to which my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) referred. I think that the vivid imagination which my hon. friend possesses led him a step too far. If he had been content to stop at the point, which I think he was endeavouring to make: That the military system now in vogue in Great Britain and in the permanent force in this country, has a tendency to narrow a man's mind and ideas, X would be very much inclined to think that there was some force in what he said.
When my hon. friend says that there was a deliberate attempt to enslave the members of the permanent corps he is going entirely too far. We must not forget that in the British army and in the permanent force of Canada there is no conscription. The citizens of both countries are absolutely free to enlist or not, so that the system is entirely different from that on the continent of Europe, where conscription is the order of the day. It is not at all likely that men would voluntarily enter a system where they become enslaved. My hon. friend has found fault with the permanent corps because, he says, it takes too long for an officer to become qualified under our regulations. He seems to think that a man who wishes to become an officer has to attend different depots and different schools. If I remember right, this is not the case. An infantry officer can go to Toronto and become fully qualified, including the course of equitation, in from four to eight weeks, according to his ability and previous knowledge. I do not see any great hardship in that. A cavalry officer can do the same and so can an artillery officer in Kingston or Quebec. This objection of my hon. friend therefore is not well founded.
He also says that the cost to the country of every certificate to every officer in Canada each year is about $1,000. I have not made the calculation and am not prepared to dispute his statement. If he takes the total amount of money spent upon the permanent corps and divides it by the number of commissions issued, I do not know what that will give for I have not made the calculation.


Samuel Hughes: It was over $3,000 two years and it is now $2,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: But my hon. friend must not forget the work these depots are doing in the way of garrison duty.


Samuel Hughes: Did I not point that out ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The statement I took down was that each certificate cost so much money. But we should give the permanent force credit for the work done in garrisoning the Hon. Mr. BORDEN (King's).
different cities or places where these depots are located, and we must not forget also that these different depots are really the nuclei of an army in the case of sudden attack from within or without.


Samuel Hughes: I have pointed that out.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Then we agree on that point. My hon. friend referred to the permanent force officers' treatment of the men who come in from the country districts and take a course at the depots. I assure him that any such conduct as he describes, I should condemn quite as strongly as he. Possibly some weak-minded members of the permanent force may be inclined to act in that way.
Ml-. HUGHES (Victoria). They do it not only to those who come in from the country, but to those who are their superiors in knowledge and position and everything else in this country except military rank.
The MINISTER OF* MILITIA AND DEFENCE. If they do, it is a very strong indication that there heads are not very well balanced. I should hope that only a small percentage of the officers are guilty of any such contemptible conduct. Whenever I have had opportunity to visit the depots,
I have always tried to point out to the permanent force officers that they are militia the same as all the rest, the only difference being that they are paid for their whole time and are expected to give the best of their time and ability to the improvement and assistance of their brother officers in the country districts. That is the true spirit which should animate the force, and I hope it is that which animates the majority. Because, we can never get the most out of the permanent corps, we can never really have an effective militia unless there is the strongest bond of sympathy between the permanent force and the active militia. The very reason d'etre of a permanent force is to help along and support the active militia. Otherwise there would have been no permanent force thought of.
As my hon. friend has explained his object in bringing up this resolution and as I have assured him that I shall give the greatest attention to his many valuable suggestions, and in view of the statement I have had the honour to make, and of which he has no doubt seen an outline in the press, with reference to proposed changes,
I trust he will consent to withdraw his motion and wait another year, when, if we have not profited by the discussion which has taken place this afternoon, he can renew It.


Samuel Hughes: I warned the House when I began that I was likely to be misunderstood, and apparently have been so incoherent that my good friend the Min-

ister of Militia has completely misunderstood the views which I submitted to the House. He says that Mr. Broderick the English Minister of War would have beeu the one to reply to the strictures I made. But I pointed out that all the evils of the British service were being grafted on our Canadian system; and in criticising the Imperial army, I was simply aiming at the fountain head of all the iniquity. I cordially agree with my hon. friend, and so stated that Britain has no equal in the conduct of a war such as that in South Africa. I believe there is no nation in the world which possibly could have placed the men there she did in the field, feed them and maintain them there, but the mere fact that the men are well clothed and fed is no excuse for the incapacity of generals or officers, and is no reason why our soldiers should be buried in South Africa and the nation left to mourn their loss. Let the men be well fed, by all means, and well clad, but also see that they get the best of the enemy instead of the reverse, which has too often been the case in South Africa. My hon. friend took exception to my comparing the permanent force to a prison. I did not say that the discipline was exactly the same. I admit that it has a little advantage but not much over the modern system of discipline in an ordinary prison. But I say that in no other institutions, except prisons and the British and Canadian permanent forces, are men treated as they are, owing to the military discipline enforced in these services.
The minister spoke of the men in the permanent force being contented and happy. Well, the reply which he gave to a question I put to him not very long ago does not bear out his statement. I, asked how 'many courts-martial there have been in the corps, and the hon. gentleman told me that there were nearly two in the year for every man in the permanent corps and that the number of minor punishments numbered away up in the thousands. And this is in a force of a few hundred men. I fail to see how that force can be well governed or happy when courts-martial and punishments are so numerous. In a school where the teacher has to wallop, on a average, each youngster three times a year there is something radically wrong with his discipline or with himself. The youngsters are always all right. Then, this takes no account of the number of desertions and the number of men who are up for petty punishments, for they are not recorded. Now, the minister puts words into my mouth that I believe I did not utter -certainly did not intend to utter. He would have hon. members believe I said there was an aim on the part of the permanent corps officers to enslave the men. The permanent corps officers are merely carrying out the dark-age traditions respecting the management of men, that have been handed down from generation to generation.
And it has applied to all types of humanity. It is the only kind of discipline they know, poor fellows. Many of them, I have no doubt, would prefer carrying out a proper system of discipline, if they had been instructed in it rather than his repressive system. Then the minister refers to the point that it takes an officer too long to become qualified. But he must remember that, before an officer can go up for his certificate, he must have his non-coms' or private's instructions. He must come here for his musketry, he must go elsewhere for his signalling, somewhere else for his equitation and somewhere else for his maxim gun drill. My object would be to so arrange it that when a cadet comes up-and he would come merely as a young citizen of Canada-he could get the training at whatever place he was. And, moreover, he would be free to enter the school at any time he pleased, and not be obliged to await the whim of any officer in command. I shall not refer to the other matters touched upon by the hon. minister, as they are of no consequence. He agrees as to the cost of certificates, but I was particular to point out that in addition to doing educational duty, these corps performed police duty and also form the nuclei of a standing army for the defence of the country in case they should be called on.
Motion withdrawn.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm, Mulock) moved the adjournment of the House. .


Robert Laird Borden: .What government business is likely to come up tomorrow ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are very few government Bills. If they are ready they will be proceeded with ; alter that, Supply, the Minister of Agriculture proceeding with his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 15, 1902.