1903-03-31

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 54) respecting the Canada Permanent and Western Mortgage Corporation; and to change its name to the Canadian Permanent Mortgage Corporation-Mr. Clarke.
Bill (No. 55) respecting the Central Ontario Railway.-Mr. Clarke.
Bill (No. 56) to incorporate the Quebec. Saguenay and Gulf of St. Lawrence Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Bill (No. 57) respecting the Niagara Grand Island Bridge Company.-Mr. German by Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Edmonton Street Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 59) respecting the Ottawa Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Monk.
Bill (No. 60) respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Ross (Ontario).
Bill (No. 61) respecting the Winnipeg Western Land Corporation, Limited.-Mr. McCarthy by Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Ontario and Qu'Appelle Land Company, Limited.-Mr. McCarthy by Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 63) respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Guigan.
Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy by Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 65) respecting the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Bruce.

Mr. MONK.: On Friday next, when motions are called, I will move the following : That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ for the election of a member to serve in this present parliament for the electoral division of St. James, Montreal, in the room of Joseph Brunet, whose election has been declared void.



MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S. Fielding) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows ;-
[Stage Direction]
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons supplementary estimates of sums Mr. MONK.
required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending 30th June, 1903, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, March 31, 1903.
I he MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the message of His Excellency and the estimates he referred to the Committee of Supply.	#
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons. He said : I rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of presenting to the House a measure for the redistribution of the representation in the House of Commons, rendered necessary by the last census. Perhaps before proceeding any further it might not be amiss if I would remind the House that in introducing this Bill, the government is not acting in any discretionary sense, hut is performing an imperative constitutional duty, the constitution having provided that after each decennial census there should take place a redistribution of the representation of the different provinces in this House. Three years ago I introduced a redistribution measure, but that was very different from the one I am now submitting. That was simply a partial measure of redistribution, a discretionary measure, one which we had the option of presenting or not, and our object then was not to frame a general scheme of redistribution, but simply to correct certain errors-or to use perhaps a more severe but more appropriate term-certain injustices which had been perpetrated on the province of Ontario by the Redistribution Act of 1882, and on the province of Quebec, by the Redistribution Act of 1892. The motive therefore and the provisions of that measure were very different from those of the present one. Perhaps also it would not be amiss for me to inform the House that the distribution of population, as revealed by the census of 1901, will cause some disturbance in the proportion of the representation now held by the different provinces of the Dominion on the floor of this House.
Let me read a statement showing the increase in population in the Dominion as a whole, and in the various provinces, comparing 1891 with 1901, when the last census was taken.
1891.	1901.
Dominion of Canada.... 4,833,239	5,371,31 ="Prince Edward	Island ..	109,078	103 289Nova Scotia	
450,396	459 574New Brunswick	
321,263	331'doProvince of Ontario	
2,114,321	2,182,947Manitoba	
152,206	255,211British Columbia	
98,173	178,657North-west Territories., 66,799	158,940Province of Quebec ______ 1,488,535	1,648,898
The province of Quebec, I need hardly remind the House, is the pivot of representation, on which depends the proportion of the representation to be allowed each province. The population of the province of Quebec being 1,488,535, and its representation being limited, under all circumstances to 65 members, it follows that the representation of the province of Quebec in this House is in the proportion of 25,367 for one member. This number therefore, 25,367, being the unit of representation of the province of Quebec, becomes the unit of representation for the rest of the Dominion, and according to this unit the province of Prince Edward Island will only be entitled to four members in this House, and thus lose one. The population of Nova Scotia being 459,574, the unit of representation would give it a total representation in this House of 18 instead of the 20 members it now has. New Brunswick, having a population of 321,220, the unit of representation would give it 13 instead of 14 members as at present. And the province of Ontario having a population of 2,182,947, would have a total representation of 86 instead of 92 members. All these provinces east of Lake Superior, therefore, except the province of Quebec, whose representation must remain stationary, will lose a part of their representation.
On the other hand, the population of British Columbia, which at present has six members, will be represented by an additional one, and have seven instead of six. The province of Manitoba will have its representation increased by three, and have ten instead of seven. In the case of the North-west Territories, we have made special provisions, the territories not being bound by the letter of the constitutional law, to which I will allude later on.
Upon the exact proportion of the representation allotted to the several provinces there can be no possible controversy. Everybody is aware that in those provinces which, according to the new redistribution must lose part of their representation, there has been some flurry of excitement, and well inten-tioned and well disposed persons have been making endeavours to convince themselves that by torturing the letter of the law, the law itself might be made to express the reverse of what it actually expresses. Unfortunately, the letter of the law is such as not to allow of any doubt. Three redistributions have already taken place in this Dominion- in 1872, 1882 and 1892. In almost every one of these redistributions, the same thing has occurred. Certain provinces have been forced to lose some part of their representation, and naturally protests were made, but the matter has been debated and discussed 23*
and determined by such able jurists and eminent men as Sir John Macdonald, the Hon. Edward Blake and Sir John Thompson, and it is not possible-for my part I am indeed sorry, and I express my sorrow very sincerely that certain provinces will have to lose part of their representation in this House-but it is not possible to avoid this. We have to abide by the law and to apply the law, and in applying the law the question is more of mathematics than of anything else. We have only to take the provisions of the constitution, section 51, and the figures of the census, and find the result. In this matter parliament is not a free agent. It has no discretion to exercise, but is simply the instrument and creature of the law, and in this particular Bill we have only to take the result of the census and make the redistribution accordingly, giving to each province the number of members to which it is entitled, some having less, others having more, but all being bound by the same rule. So far, as I say, the powers of parliament are limited; but in the creation of the constituencies which are to elect members to this House, the powers of parliament are unlimited; and those powers can be used either for good or for evil, either for very much good or for very much evil. We, on this side of the House, have always complained, that, in previous redistributions which have taken place-and which have taken place always under the same party, the Conservative party, now in opposition-the opposition of the day were unfairly treated. I grant that this is a matter in which the temptation is great to the party in office to abuse its power, to take an unfair advantage of its opponents, and to so arrange the constituencies as to secure the return to parliament of more members of its own political faith than the actual political opinion of the country at large would warrant. I would avoid, if possible, upon this occasion, which, in some respects, is a solemn one-I would avoid, as fai| as I can, any recrimination concerning the past. But, without any recrimination, and referring to the past only for illustration, let me call attention to a list of forty-two constituencies in Ontario created by the redistributions of 1882 and 1892, in which the total of the popular vote recorded gave a clear Liberal majority, but in which, notwithstanding, there was a clear Conservative majority of members elected. The names of these constituencies are as follows :
Brant South, Bruce West, Bruce South, Durham East, Durham West, Elgin East, Elgin West, Essex North, Essex South, Hastings North, Hastings East, Hastings West, Kent, Lamhton East, Lambton West, Leeds and Grenville, Leeds South, Grenville South, Lanark North, Lanark South, Northumberland East, Northumberland West, Oxford South, Oxford North, Ontario North, Ontario South, Ontario West, Perth North, Perth South, Peterborough East, Peterborough West, Renfrew North, Renfrew South, Victoria North, Victoria South, Waterloo North, Waterloo South, Wellington
[Stage Direction]
Centre. Wellington North, Wellington South, Wentworth North and Brant.
Here we have forty-two ridings. The popular vote for the Liberal candidates in the last election was 88,303; and the popular vote in favour of the Conservative candidates was 86,392, a clear Liberal majority of 1,973. The result in these counties which thus gave a clear Liberal popular majority was that twenty-five Conservatives were elected and seventeen Liberals, a clear Conservative majority for these constituencies of eight in this House. Now, I presume there is not a fair-minded man in this House who will not agree with me that such a condition of things is| not fair or just. It is a condition of things not conducive to good government, and should not exist under our free parliamentary constitution. That we should desire to correct that evil goes as a matter of course. We certainly intend to undo this evil, but while that is the case, let me say at once that, though we intend to undo the injustice perpetrated at the expense of the Liberal party, it is not with the view or intention of perpetrating a similar injustice at the expense of our opponents. What we have in view and what we desire is to introduce a fair measure that will give all parties an equal measure of justice, freedom and responsibility. The Liberal party has always contended that the redistribution that must follow each decennial census should take place under certain rules, well understood, well defined, and which everybody could appreciate. These should be the unwritten law of the country, and apply wherever and whenever a redistribution takes place, and should be applied, whichever party is in power. We have always maintained that the guiding principle in this redistribution should be that county boundaries should be preserved. And we lay to-day as the basis of redistribution, which we hold ought to be accepted and adopted on this occasion, that the municipal representation of the country ought to be the basis of the parliamentary representation. The position we take is that we should take the map of the municipal organizations of the Dominion and make it the basis of the parliamentary representation. There are countries for which one man is sufficient. The unit of population-which, of course, cannot be followed with absolute exactness would not warrant any more. There are other counties in which there may be two or three members to be elected. There arei certain cities in which there must be more than three or four members, whereas there are other municipalities whose population is so small relative to the unit of population that they should not be allowed to send even one member here. This, therefore, involves the work of selecting, of dividing, of uniting. And the question arises now-and, perhaps, it is the most delicate of all the questions with which we have to deal-by whom is this work to be effected ? Who is to make this division of counties-if counties are to Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
be divided; who is to direct this union of counties if counties are to be united '! This is a question of great moment; and, after having given it the best consideration we are able to give it, we think that, in this, as in mostly all matters, the best policy to follow, the best and safest rule, is to follow the policy and the rule, which, under similar circumstances prevails in that country which has been the mother of all free institutions- Great Britain. We propose, therefore, on this occasion, as we did on a former occasion when the last Redistribution Bill was before us, to propose to the House to follow the British precedent. The last redistribution which took place in England took place in 1884, under the government of Mr. Gladstone. On that occasion, Mr. Gladstone, before making his Bill, adopted the policy which we intend to follow on this occasion. The Bill was prepared, at the invitation of Mr. Gladstone, by a conference of the two parties in the House of Commons, by a conference of the government and the opposition. Mr. Gladstone invited Lord Salisbury, who was then the leader of the opposition to meet with him and discuss with him the details of the Redistribution Bill which he had to introduce, following consequent upon the new Franchise Act. This conference took place, and, as a result a measure was introduced which proved satisfactory to both parties. Let me quote to the House what took place on that occasion-and I quote from a well known book, ' The Annual Register ' of 1884. After having stated that Lord Salisbury had been invited by Mr. Gladstone to meet him and discuss the details of the measure with him the author goes on to say :
During the next fortnight the process of arrangement was steadily pursued. Lord Salisbury and Sir S. Northcote attended the meetings of the cabinet, and conducted the negotiations with the specially selected delegates of that body.
So, there was a eonferencee between members of the government and the leaders of the opposition in order to frame a measure which would be satisfactory to both parties. When the last Bill was introduced in this House in 1892, we were sitting in opposition, and we proposed to our opponents to adopt the same methods. When the Bill came up for its second reading I. sitting where my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr." Borden, Halifax) now sits, moved the following :-
That Bill No. 76, an Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons be referred to a conference or committee to be composed of both political parties to agree upon the lines or principles upon which the Redistribution Bill should be drawn.
Unfortunately, this proposition was not accepted. But, though our proposition was not accepted, still, we do not intend to depart from the principle we then laid down. What we claimed for ourselves when we were in the minority, we are now ready to

grant to our opponents when they are in the minority. We intend, therefore, to have the details of this measure submitted to our opponents, if they will agree to our proposal. From some remarks which I understand fell from the lips of the hon. gentleman opposite, even that measure of justice is not acceptable to him. It is very difficult to satisfy the hon. gentleman; but whether he is satisfied or not, I doubt if anything can be more fair than what we now offer to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
Mr. SPROULE.: If the right hon. gentleman refers to me, I beg to say that my opinion is the very reverse. I am well satisfied, and was commending the government for proposing to carry out the platform which they laid down when in opposition.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am satisfied with the spirit in which my hon. friend receives my remarks ; I apologize to him, and hope to have his support for this Bill. The Bill which I have the honour to introduce will be in these words :
Act to readjust the representation of the House of Commons.
Whereas the results of the census of 1901 necessitate a readjustment of the representa tion in the House of Commons, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, and the other statutes in that behalf, and it is expedient at the same time to provide for an increased representation in the said House of the North-west Territories : Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :
1.	The House of Commons shall consist of 211 members, of whom 86 shall be elected for Ontario, 65 for Quebec, 18 for Nova Scotia, 13 for New Brunswick, 10 for Manitoba, 7 for British Columbia, 4 for Prince Edward Island, 10 for the North-west Territories and 1 for the Yukon Territory.
2.	The said provinces and territories respectively shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the said House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts and be represented as provided in the schedule to this Act.
3.	Every town, village, township, parish or place lying within the territorial limits of any electoral district, and not specifically included In an37 otiisr electoral district by liie said schedule, shall be and be taken to be part of the electoral district in which it is so locally situate.
4.	Wherever in the said schedule any word or expression is used to denote the name of any territorial division, such word or expression shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as indicating such territorial division as it exists and is hounded at the date of the passing of this Act.
5.	This Act shall take effect only upon the dissolution of the present parliament.
Now, this is the Bill which I intend to move. There is no schedule attached to it. If this Bill is accepted by our friends on the other side, we intend, after it has been debated and read the second time, to refer it to a special committee composed of seven
members, on which the opposition will be represented by three, to be selected by themselves. The object of the committee will be to create the constituencies which will be allowed to elect the members of this House. In other words, we do not present to the House to-day a scheme cut and dried which has to be swallowed bolus bolus by our friends and by the opposition, whether they like it or not; no, we propose to invite our friends now sitting on the opposition benches to meet us in the committee room and there discuss with us the division of the constituencies, and in fact the creation of all constituencies which shall be empowered to elect the members of this House. We propose to do what has been done in England by the government of Mr. Gladstone. We believe that if our friends opposite will meet us in this way, we can prepare a measure which will be at all events fair to all parties. We believe that we shall be able to bring into this House a measure which will be free from those blemishes which are to be found in the Redistribution Acts of 1882 and 1892. We believe that if they will agree to meet us in committee, to discuss this Bill fairly, without trying to take an undue advantage over each other, we shall be able to present to the House a measure of which every Canadian will have reason to feel proud, a measure which will be free from those contentious elements which characterized former Redistribution Acts which have been passed in the history of the Dominion of Canada. We intend to do this as a basis to be followed not only upon this occasion, but upon all occasions.
Now, I have to say one word with regard to the North-west Territories. The population of the North-west Territories was 158,940 according to the last census. According to the unit of representation, they are entitled to only six members. But we are not bound by the letter of the constitution so far as representation of the North-west Territories is concerned. Therefore, we propose to give to those Territories a representation in this House of ten members. The population of that region to-day is at least 250,000, which, at present, is no doubt sufficient to entitle them to ten members. It is increasing by leaps and bounds, and in a few years that population-


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Provided they are British subjects.


The PRIME MINISTER.: They cannot vote unless they are British subjects. That is the reason why we want to give to the North-west Territories very extensive representation in this House, because we want to make it an object for all these newcomers to take the oath of allegiance, and to become British subjects, to take upon themselves the advantages and responsibilities of Canadians. These, Mr. Speaker, are the chief features of the measure which I have the

honour to propose to the House. I hope that they will commend themselves to the unbiased judgment of all the members of the House, whether on this side or the other side.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I may say in the first place that I do not think my right hon. friend has pursued his researches into the constituencies of Ontario very far. If he had done so he would easily have found twenty-five Liberal constituencies and seventeen Conservative constituencies in that province which would have presented, not only an equal, but a greater anomaly of an exactly opposite character to that to which he drew the attention of the House. I hardly think that an argument of that kind was worthy of my right hon. friend unless he is prepared to look at the question from all possible aspects. Before he charges injustice against the Conservatives in respect to the Bill of 1892, it would have been proper for him to examine more closely all the constituencies, in that province, the results in all the constituencies, to ascertain whether as great an anom aly might not be found in the opposite direction as that which he presented to the House to-day. We all know that under any possible system it is necessary for these things to be. We cannot devise any system under which anomalies of that kind cannot be discovered; and the mere fact that you can find twenty-five constituencies and seventeen constituencies presenting the condition of affairs which the hon gentleman speaks of, is no legitimate argument whatever in favour of the contention that he has made unless he goes further and examines the results in the constituencies from every possible standpoint.
Now, I do not know that I have fully apprehended all the details of the Bill which my right hon. friend has presented, but, when it is printed, and before it comes up for the second reading we shall have an opportunity of considering what its provisions really are. Speaking offhand, I may say that the proposal for a conference for the purpose of determining the boundaries of the different constituencies would impress one as having the merit of fairness although we recognize that by means of the committee holding a majority from the other side of the House, that fairness might not in the end be so real as suggested by my hon. friend. However, I am bound to assume that my right hon. friend means what he says when he declares that the proposal is to make a fair Redistribution Bill. It will be, of course, open to us to bring the results of the committee's work before the House and have such a discussion as we may think necessary in case we do not conclude that the action of the committee partakes cf the fairness which my right hon. friend promises.
There is one point, however, upon which I would like to say a word or two and upon which I would like to have some informa-


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: tion from my right hon. friend before this Bill goes to its second reading, and that is whether or not there have been any representations made by the governments of any of the provinces in regard to the proposed reduction in the representation of the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and whether or not the opinion of the law officers of the Crown has been given in respect to the contention made by these provinces. My right hon. friend has suggested to-day that there is no possible question upon this subject. I understand that the law officers of the province of New Brunswick have given an exactly opposite opinion to that which my right hon. friend expresses today. I have not seen their opinion, I do not know of it except by mere report, but this is what I understand. I do not propose to-day, to make any argument upon the question but merely to bring to the attention of the House and of my right hon. friend what I understand the question is which has been presented from certain quarters in regard to the reduction in the representation of the provinces I have named. Section three of the British North America Act of 1867 provides :
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one Dominion under the name of Canada ; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one Dominion under that name accordingly.
Section four of the Act is as follows :
The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied] commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking effect in the Queen's proclamation ; and in the same provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
Now, take the case of the section that immediately follows by way of illustration and what do you have ? Section five provides :
Canada shall be divided into four provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
It is perfectly obvious that the word ' Canada, as used in teat section, implies and includes only the four provinces that have already been named. The next section to which I would invite the attention of my right hon. friend and of the House, is section thirty-seven, which declares as follows :
The House of Commons shall, subject to 'he provisions of this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia and fifteen for New Brunswick.

Then, the next section to which I would invite the attention of the House is section fifty-one, which reads as follows :
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules :-
(1)	Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members ;
(2)	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained);
(3)	In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded ; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number.
Fourth, and this is the important subsection :
(4)	On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province as ascertained at the then latest census be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards ;
(5)	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
There is another section whicli is important to be considered in this connection. It is section 146, which provides as follows :
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of the parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the union, and on address from the Houses of the parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the North-western territory, or either of them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act ; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Now, it is important to observe in construing this Act, in the first place that it contemplates the incorporation of other colonies and provinces into the Dominion which are referred to in section 146 of the Act and it is important to pay particular attention to the language of section fifty-one, because section fifty-one says that:
Representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority

And it uses the word ' Canada,' in subsection 4. What the word ' Canada ' means has
been defined by section four of the Act. Canada in all the subsequent provisions of the Act means * Canada as constituted under this Act.'
What is the meaning of the expression ' as constituted under this Act ' ? Certainly it means, in section five, simply the. four provinces of Canada, because that section provides that:
Canada shall be divided into four provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The suggestion is that section fifty-one constituted a compact between the four provinces which was not to be disturbed by the admission of any other colonies, that it constituted a compact under which t l>roviuce of Quebec should never at any time have less than sixty-five members and under which the other provinces should never have a smaller number of members than the proportion they were entitled to according to the population of Quebec, and there was the further provision that their representation should at no time Be reduced unless the population had been diminished by one-twentieth part as compared with the total population of Canada.
I know that there are important provisions affecting this question in the shape of the addresses which were subsequently passed by the legislatures of the different provinces afterwards admitted, and which were passed by the parliament of Canada. And also I do not put out of my mind the legislation passed by this parliament and ratified-if that is the proper expression- by the imperial parliament, with regard to tbe admission of Manitoba and Rupert's Land. But the argument which I think may be fairly made is this : That if you once regard section 51 as a contract between these provinces, fixing as between themselves the terms upon which their representation shall be had in future, then you must find very clear language indeed within the addresses or within subsequent legislation such as I have spoken of, if you are to depart from that contract so established between the four provinces which constituted Canada in the first instance. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is a fair subject for inquiry at the present time, as to whether or not any representations have been made with regard to this by any of the provinces; and whether the opinion of the law officers of the Crown has been had with regard to it. I think it is also right, that the opinion of the law officers here, if any lias been obtained, should be laid on the Table of the House and should be printed for the information of all hon. members who may desire to address themselves to that subject.
I may only say further in dealing with the matter at the present time, that my right hon. friend in introducing the measure which was brought before this House in 1S99 laid down the principle that any division of counties should take place by means

of a judicial commission. I will quote to my right lion, friend the language which he then used and I may say that I did not gather from his remarks to-day any special reason why the principle which was laid down then should he departed from now. The right lion, gentleman said :
Whenever a county is to be divided into ridings ; whenever a county which up to that time is entitled to one member becomes entitled to two or three members; the division should take place by judicial decision and authority. This is the second principle upon which we base the Bill that we introduce to the House now.
I suppose it is in view of the departure from that principle, that my right lion, friend speaks of the measure now introduced as a measure of a different character from that which he then laid down before the House. I do not know in what respect it differs. This measure is of course wider reaching in so far as, being based upon the results of the last census it gives a very much increased representation to Manitoba and the North-west Territories; but apart from that, the principle which is proper for one Act would seem proper for the other, although I do not wish in saying this to qualify in any respect what X have already said with regard to the proposal which the right hon. gentleman has made. I therefore will not take up the time of the House further at present, but I will ask my right hon. friend or the Minister of Justice to inform the House upon the matters which I thus briefly bring to their notice in order that we may be able to more intelligently discuss this Bill when it comes for its second reading.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I do not rise for the purpose of entering into any lengthy discussion of the measure now before the House, but merely for the purpose of asking my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, if he commits himself definitely to the opinion which has been expressed, to the effect that the word ' Canada ' in subsection 4 of section 51, means not the Canada of to-day but the four original provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, and that the proportion referred to under this section is to be estimated with regard to tlie aggregate population of these provinces, and not with regard to the population of the Dominion as it now exists ?


Robert Laird Borden: I expressly said when I rose to speak that I did not propose to argue the question at the present time; that I proposed to state for the information of the House the point as I understood it which had been made by the law officers of the province of New Brunswick, and to inquire whether the executive of Canada had obtained the opinion of its law officers, and to ask that we might be favoured witli a perusal of that opinion in case it had been obtained.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I may say for the information of my hon. friend Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
and of the House, that an opinion was expressed by the law officers of the crown in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, somewhat on the lines suggested by the hon. gentleman. 1 think it would be proper to have the representations made by these governments to the federal government, and also the answer which I made thereto. Possibly after my hon. friend has seen-because after all to discuss these representations one has to see the words in which they were made-after my hon. friend has seen the representations and the answer, he may possibly think that there is considerable opinion in favour of the position heretofore taken at the time each Representation Act was introduced.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, what boundaries it is intended to adopt ? Under the Bill they appear to refer to the electoral districts. It says : The boundaries may be the electoral districts, as described by this House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is to lie determined by the committee or the conference.


John Graham Haggart: I understood from the Prime Minister that there were going to be some fixed boundaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No boundaries are fixed.	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: County boundaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is what we propose the conference for. We intend that municipal boundaries should be observed.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman used the words ' municipal boundaries.' That does not mean county boundaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Municipal county boundaries.


John Graham Haggart: Then that is not in the Act. The hon. gentleman spoke of a schedule. Has he laid the schedule on the Table of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No; I stated that the schedule was in blank.


John Graham Haggart: That is to be made at the conference.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.) I rise, Sir, for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the motion that you leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply. I believe it is unnecessary for me to say
that in proposing tliis amendment I am not proposing it as an amendment of want of confidence, or as an unfriendly motion against the government. But, I avail of this opportunity to bring before the parliament of Canada a subject, in which I may be pardoned for saying, that I have always taken a very deep interest, and I think I am justified in stating that I intend to discuss a subject which is of great importance not only to this House and to this parliament; and not only to the people of Canada, but a subject which is to-day engaging the serious attention of the best minds of the empire. I beg to place in your hands, Mr. Speaker, the following amendment which I move, seconded by my lion, friend Mr. Hackett, of Prince County, P.E.I. :
That an humble address be presented to His Majesty as follows :

We, Your Majesty's dutiful aud loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, desire most earnestly in our own name and on behalf of the people whom we represent to renew the expressions of o-ir unswerving loyalty and devotion to Your Majesty's person and governmmt. .
We would respectfully represent to Your Ma -jesty that in 1882 the parliament of Canada adopted an humble address to Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen expressing the hope that a just measure of home rule would be granted to the people of Ireland, and that in the year 1886 by resolution of the House of Commons the sentiments of the said address to Her Most Gracious Majesty were earnestly reiterated and the hope again expressed that such a measure of home rule would he passed by the imperial parliament.
That the years that have elapsed since the adoption of the aforesaid address and resolu-. tion to Yourv Most Gracious Majesty's illustrious and ever-to-be-lameuted predecessor have but served to emphasize the blessings which accrue to this Dominion from the federal system under which the people live, the benefits of which the Commons of Canada rejoice to see are about to be shared in by their fellow-subjects of the Australian Commonwealth, and therefore this extended experience which Your Most Gracious Majesty's subjects have had of the inestimable benefits resulting from the said government bestowed on the whole of British North America hut intensifies their desire to affirm through their representatives in parliament the sentiments expressed in the said address and resolution with regard to the bestowal of self-government on Your Majesty's subjects in Ireland.
We have observed, may it please your Majesty, with feelings of profound satisfaction, the evidence afforded in the debate in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on the Speech from the Throne, of a sincere desire on all sides to usher in a new era of lasting peace and good will in Ireland; and this House congratulates the people of the mother country on the legislation just and equitable, which it is believed will follow the recent conference on the land question and hopes for an early and lasting settlement fair to all of that long vexed and troublesome problem, the solution of which has for so long taxed the powers of British statesmen.
Mr. Speaker, twenty years is a considerable period in tlie life of a man. It is a
considerable period in the life of a parliament ; and if we look back over the last twenty years since, on an occasion similar to this, I bad the honour of moving a resolution, tlie first of its kind, inviting the parliament of Canada to express its sympathy with tlie people who ask for tlie blessings which are so highly appreciated by ourselves here, we can see tlie changes which have taken place and the progress which has been made in that time. We can see that tlie Canada which we were all so proud or then has made giant strides in the path of progress and prosperity ; we can see tlie advantages of that wise policy which has extended to this country, that measure of liberty which makes every Canadian proud to boast of his Canadianship ; and wo can see that, to my mind, greater change of feeling which has taken place in Great Britain itself. We are all, I am sure, proud of that feeling, and I hope that to-day no word will escape my lips that might arouse recrimination or anything but the kindest spirit of harmony in this parliament as it is now maintained in the parliament of Great Britain
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh. Rats.
['I do not suppose the House would have any desire to go on with further\t\nbusiness to-night, so\tI move that the House\nwill, at its next sitting, go into Committee of\t\nSupply.']
Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.: Oh, I know where that comes from.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Costigan: I merely notice those cries and slurs. If they please the hon. gentlemen who utter them, they do not hurt me ; I rise above them, I stand above them, and the Canadian people stand above them. The people of the empire stand above them. These old slurs, which did service in tlie years gone by, have no more power to-day. * The intelligence of tlie people is what sways the people to-day. not these bugbears that are raised. What is there, Sir, to bring forth the cries of some hon. gentlemen who interrupt me when I make an honest appeal ?-and I have never made any but an honest appeal. What is there to justify the insinuation implied by these sneers, that I am not speaking the honest sentiments of my mind, from my own light and judgment ? I have never given any indication of anything else. Is it because twenty years ago I entertained the same warm feelings on this subject that I do today ? I am proud to say that those feelings, which were not then shared in so largely by tlie people, are to-day shared in by nearly tlie whole people. In ail that time have I or hare the men behind me, those descendants from the land of my forefathers shown any lack in the proper discharge of their duties as citizens of this country ? I say no. We have expressed our sympathy with the mother land ; but in expressing that sympathy from 1882 up to tlie present day, the men who sneer cannot point to an act on our part indicating any want of loyalty to the land in which we live or to tlie empire to which we belong. Then, let them sneer.

For one, I hope we shall have no more of that. I hope I may appeal to this House for a fair, calm hearing on a subject which I think well deserves the serious attention of the people of Canada to-day.
X may say, in advance, Mr. Speaker, that if I should drop one word that might fairly be construed to be offensive to any member of this House, or unworthy of the dignity of this parliament, I would feel that I was doing my cause an injury and committing an offence against the rules of propriety and the rules of this parliament. Sir, what is the object of the resolution which I have just placed in your hands ? Its object is that this parliament should give expression to the feelings of satisfaction which I know pervades every mind and heart at the bright prospects of the pacification of the empire, and the pacification of Ireland, which has had cause of complaint, as is admitted frankly and honestly by the British government to-day. But I understand, though it has not yet been said, that I am to be attacked because I couple the subject of home rule with that expression. It is said, Oh, these Irish will never be satisfied ; the government of Great Britain proj>oses to pledge $500,000,000 of its credit and to make a direct grant of $60,000,000 more, and still the people of Ireland are not content; this member for Victoria is not willing to accept the settlement, but must rise and obtrude this question of home rule.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I suppose you do not mean me when you say the member for Victoria ?
Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria, Ont.) Nor do I suppose the hon. member means the member for North Victoria, Ont. ?


John Costigan: I mean the member for Victoria, N.B., I stand corrected. My reference to the former action of this parliament seems to me to be quite legitimate and easily understood. In 1882 a resolution not only suggesting that home rule might properly be extended to Ireland, but covering the release of the prisoners at that time, was introduced into this parliament. Evidently none of the gentlemen who appear to be unfriendly to my position to-dav were in parliament at that time, or if they were, they did not vote against that proposition. The proposition was carried by the unanimous vote of the House of Commons and in the Senate it was carried with only six dissenting votes. In 1886 and 1887 similar resolutions were again introduced and received the generous support of this House. Let me say that I think it is unfair to jump at a conclusion and take such a different tone here from what is taken in England on this question. Why should it be any great offence to make in this parliament a reference to its action in past years, in 1882, 1886 and 1887. in favour of home rule ? At Ithese different periods parliament was asked to express its sympathy with home rule, and asked on what ground ? On the ground


John Costigan: that we were a portion of the British Empire and had been given the privilege of selfgovernment, and having had the experience of its happy operation and good effects in this country, we thought that we might very reasonably ask this House to express its opinion that what worked so well in this country might well be tried as an experiment in Ireland, and this House generously responded to the appeal. Parliament took that view-a very fair and moderate view- and so expressed itself on several occasions. I am simply asking the House to reiterate the expression of parliament on those occasions. With reference to the land question and the bright prospects of the settlement of that question, had I the eloquence of a Gratton or a McGee, I would use it to praise the generous spirit in which the British government have come forward to-dav to grapple with this problem and settle it. I have no desire to cavil or to minimize the liberality of the British government as shown in this broad measure which, as far as can be seen at present, involves $500,000,000 of its credit and $60,000,000 of a bonus to bring about a peaceful settlement of the land question in Ireland. I am moved by as deep gratitude to the government which has introduced that measure of reconciliation as any man in or out of this parliament.
Why should the mention of home rule be a bugbear ? Has it grown so obnoxious in this country or the motherland as to justify any hostility or opposition to the mention of or any reference to it here today ? Certainly not. Why, the question of home rule is to-day an imperial question. It has assumed broader proportions than ever before. The best English minds to-day are engaged on it. They say that they are not going to confine their attention to Ireland alone but will give home rule to Scotland, England and Wales as well, and I am proud to know that the experience of Canada is the great object lesson cited to show the desirability of granting local self government to the different portions of the United Kingdom. I shall quote in a few minutes the words of a prominent English statesman who is in favour of home rule all around. Our parliament, the British parliament, he says, ]s overburdened with legislation that should not belong to it. _ Its time is so much taken up with local affairs, that it is unable to properly deal with matters of imperial concern. What is the remedy ? There is but one and that will be found on Canadian lines. Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, the men in the empire to-day who are conducting the business of the United Kingdom, who are considering the changes that require to be made in the British government system- these men say you must provide for Scotch affairs being settled in Scotland by a local parliament, for Irish affairs being settled in Ireland by a local parliament, and English affairs by an English local parliament, and

Welsli business, if necessary, by a Welsh parliament, thus relieving the great Imperial parliament of those burdensome subjects which could be much better passed upon and disposed of by local bodies, thus enabling the great central body to deal with the problems that affect the empire at large. Just imagine in what a position this Dominion of Canada-a young giant, surprising the world by its rapid progress-would be if all our local legislatures were swept away and if all the local questions now dealt with by these bodies had to be settled by this parliament ? Why,, we would then And it impossible to deal with Dominion matters at all. If such a condition of things would be the result here, what must be the condition of that parliament -which has to regulate the affairs of the greatest empire in the world ? Det me just read a note which I received a few days ago and which justifies me in saying that the question of home rule is not a bugbear any longer either here or in; England, Ireland. Scotland or Wales.
I have a letter dated March 15, 1903, and written by the Hon. T. S. Brassey :
Dear Sir,-I observe in to-day's paper, the Daily ' Chronicle,' that you intend to raise the question of home rule in the Canadian parliament. You may, therefore, be interested to hear that there is a movement on this side going forward, the object of which is to educate public opinion to the view that the settlement of the great question of home rule is to be found on Canadian lines. I inclose a leaflet giving an article and speeches on the subject and an account of the work done.
Yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
What is the work done over there ? Let me quote from a sheet published by a regularly organized committee in England :
At present the English, Irish and Welsh members have ail to be consulted on Scottish affairs, about which they know and care nothing.
If Scotland wishes a reform of the land laws or the liquor laws, or any other laws, it must be submitted to the English voter, who knows 1 little and cares less about the people and condition of affairs about which he is voting.
If Edinburgh wants to get a new water supply ; if Glasgow wants to license its newspaper boys ; if a little railway is going to be constructed in the Highlands, the matter cannot be settled in Scotland. It has to be decided on by the parliament in London, at tremendous cost of money and trouble to the Scottish people, and the frightful waste of time of parliament.
There is so much to be done that very little is done. Many laws which every one agrees should be passed are not passed because there is no time to consider them. How can we get out of this mess ? There is only one way, and that is the way proposed by the Liberals : Scottish affairs should be managed in Scotland: English affairs should be managed in England; Irish affairs should be managed in Ireland ; Welsh affairs should be managed in Wales.
I could give other quotations if I were not afraid of taking up too much of the time of the House, from the speeches of Mr. Brassey made at several meetings under the
auspices of this committee, which was organized for the purpose of educating public opinion in the mother country in favour of the policy of giving home rule all around. And they pay us the compliment of saying that the system of government for the old country must be upon Canadian lines. I say that that is a great compliment to the Canadian people ; it is an acknowledgment of the freedom of Canada, than which no country in the world enjoys more. It is a justification of our pride in our system that the leading men of the imperial parliament from which we take example, declare : We have reached the stage when imperial legislation is blocked, when the hands of the British parliament are tied, when it is impossible to do justice to great questions of imperial policy, when a solution must be found and we believe that that solution lies in following the precedent set by Canada.
I dare say it will be said by some : We all hold up our hands in favour of the settlement of the land question, but you should not couple home rule with that question. I believe that a time will come when the parliament of Great Britain will give its sanction to home rule. But even after home rule has become the law of the land, when it has been enacted by parliament and assented to by His Majesty, when it is put forward as the law of the empire, there will still be found croakers to question its expediency and justice. That is but natural. I have no fault to find with any gentleman who expresses an opinion simply because his opinion does not agree with mine. But, while I take that position, I believe that the arguments of those who hold views against home rule should not prevail against the reception of this resolution which I hold to be a very moderate one. It cannot be condemned on the ground that it calls upon the British parliament to suspend its action upon the Land Bill and press forward at once a home rule Bill. There is no such demand here. There is no command in this to the British parliament. There is simply a reiteration of the declaration made by this House in favour of home rule as approved by Canadian experience. I hope to see the laud question settled and settled this session. But Ireland, through its leading men, through its press, through its sons all over the world, is showing to-day its appreciation of the olive branch that is held out. The people of Ireland show their appreciation of the change of policy from coercion to conciliation. And we also delight in the changed attitude of the British government upon that subject. We believe-all free men believe- that legitimate conciliation is more powerful than coercion can be. Therefore, when I say that I rise in sympathy with the movement in favour of a measure of relief for Ireland and the settlement of the land question. I nm moved by the belief not only that that movement is best in the interest of Ireland.
[Stage Direction]
72S
but tliat it is best iu the interest of the empire. While we view with admiration the generosity, the wise generosity, of England towards the conquered people of South Africa in voting money and doing everything else to establish peace and harmony there, to reconcile those people to English rule and make them loyal citizens of the empire, do you think we can feel less sympathy for that generous policy when it is extended to the people of Ireland ? No people in the world can be more grateful than the Irish people can be, and will be for this new policy in Ireland ; but not even Ireland will reap more benefit from that conciliation than will the empire itself broadly considered. I do not minimize the importance of gaining the good will of the people of South Africa now that they have been conquered, but I do say-and I hope I am not saying too much or going too far-that to reconcile the Irish people and satisfy their reasonable aspirations is as greatly in the interest of the empire as is the conciliation of the people of South Africa. I do not criticise that liberal policy or haggle over its details as applied to any other country, when I say that I am delighted to see the extension of a liberal policy to the people of Ireland.
I think I ought to mention here that, ns it has been known generally that I would move a resolution on this subject during this session, I have received communications from different parts of Canada all in favour of the attitude I have taken. Not one single letter, not one word of advice have I received to the contrary. I may be permitted to read the list of the most prominent bodies that have sent forward resolutions :
No. 1 Division, A. O. H., Hochelaga.
County Board, A. O. H., Hochelaga.
County Board, A. O. H., Elgin County, Ont.
Quebec Branch United Irish League, Quebec.
Division No. 1, A. O. H., Quebec.
Division No. 1, A. O. H., Ottawa.
Division No. 6, A. O. H., Douglastown, N.B.
Division No. 2, A. O. H., Carleton County, Ont.
County Board, A. O. H., Carleton, Ont.
Ottawa Branch United Irish League, Ottawa.
No. 1 Division, A. 0. H., Toronto.
Central Branch United Irish League, Montreal.
St. Patrick's T. A. & B. Society, Montreal.
Arnprior Branch U.  I. L.@: , Arnprior.
St. Bridget's Court, C. 0. F., Ottawa.
St. Patrick's Society, Montreal.
Young Irishmen's L. & B. Ass., Montreal.
There are many others, and I have also received letters innumerable upon this subject.
I hope that, in view of the fact that I seldom claim much of the time of the House, allowance will be made, even by those lion, gentlemen who do not feel as I do upon this subject, and that I shall be excused for taking up the time of the House upon this occasion. For. as one of the oldest members here. I think lion, members will bear me out in saying that I have not imposed myself unduly upon the attention of the House. I may add this too, as an old man, that if I have any feeling Hon. Mr. C08TIGAN.
of pride or consolation at this time of life, it is that I can look around upon both sides of the House and say to hon. _gentlemeu : Whatever our differences have been, can you point out a single instance when I intentionally showed discourtesy to any member of this House ? It is a great satisfaction to me that I can claim that position. I do not seek honour or promotion ; I am not so selfish as many people sometimes think I am. I have been accused a good deal in that way, but I think that I can satisfy any hon. gentleman who will sit down to a quiet conversation with me, that I am about as disinterested a person as can be found in this parliament. But I have pretty strong convictions, I am firm in my convictions ; still, I can appeal to the House whether I have ever been offensive in the proper discharge of my duties and the proper support of the principles in which I believe. I think I have always shown a readiness to meet my fellow members on equal terms, and accord them the same rights which I claim for myself.
We all know what the position of the poor Irish has been for years, indeed I may say for centuries, but to-day that term no longer applies. To-day, to repeat a saying which may sometimes be heard in convivial gatherings, ' there is nothing too good for the Irish.' I think that sentiment is becoming true. But that was not always the case, and I am sure that no one in this Chamber will regret that the contrary condition is passing away. It is a great gratification to every man of Irish origin that this great change has come about. We know that for a long time the prejudices of the whole world were against our race. The policy was to educate the world in prejudice against us. History slandered the Irish, the theatres slandered the Irish character. We know that It has always been admitted that the Irish excel in natural wit; but how often has that feature of the Irish character been misrepresented in vulgar and unworthy caricatures, instead of reproducing the genuine brilliant wit that every man admits is natural to the Irishman.
Ireland was never a land of ignorance. Ireland can claim a history in progress and civilization second to no other nation. Let me quote a few words on this point from the Honourable Colin Lindsay, a leading English historian, who, in well measured words, bears testimony to the high degree of civilization in Ireland. Speaking of the period when the Normans came there he said :
Before England was born into the family of nations, Ireland was an autonomy, recognized as such by contemporary races. When Albion was inhabited by a barbarous and savage people, Ireland was in the height of prosperity. When Anglo-Saxons were teariDg each other to pieces, Ireland was possessed of a settled government, and administered by wise laws, so ancient that no one knew precisely the period of their first promulgation. When this country

(England) was remarkable lor its ignorance, Ireland was celebrated lor her culture ami civilization. When St. Augustine was preaching to the heathen, when Ethelbert was receiving baptism, when Alfred was a wanderer, Ireland was sending forth her missionaries ali over the world, spreading everywhere the gospel and civilization. When the foundations .if the universities of Cambridge and Oxford were laid, the colleges of Ireland had long been flourishing seats of learning, imparting to all who came to her schools knowledge and truth. Ireland can assert what no other existing kingdom or state can say: That the history is lost in the mazes of antiquity and that her era of barbarism belongs to pre-historic times.
Therefore I say that we feel a great relief in viewing present conditions ; we have reason to feel a great deal of consolation in finding that public opinion, not only in Canada, but throughout the empire, has changed. We see to-day in that great parliament of Great Britain, men who, a few days ago, were sneered at, as some lion, gentlemen would sneer at me because of my sympathy with this question-we see the Irish parliamentary party, once represented as a set of demagogues living upon the charity and subscriptions of poor people, to-day taking their rightful place in the esteem and consideration of that great parliament. There is one thing that the Canadian people ought not to forget. They ought to all feel proud of the system of government established in this free country, they ought to feel proud that the doors of this parliament are open to any man who possesses the confidence of his fellow citizens, even though he has not a dollar in his pocket. The condition of things in the old country was different. On account of the great wealth of that country, the representation fell naturally into the hands of wealthy men who could afford to give their entire time without any remuneration to meet even their current expenses. It was felt that the men who were going there to fight the battles of their country ought to receive some aid to enable them to meet their expenses. The money they received for that purpose was a free donation. Well, I say these men were slandered. By whom? They were slandered the world over by those who did not agree with their views. What do we find to-day ? We find the government of Great Britain holding out the hand of conciliation, of peace and welcome to those very men who were formerly regarded with aversion. To-day we find the Irish parliamentary representatives treated as they ought to be treated, as men standing on an equal footing with every other member of that great parliament. This change shows the present tendency of public opinion in the empire towards that great reform which recognizes the people at their true worth, that reform which proposes to extend to the people the fullest measure of control of their own public affairs and their own destiny.
Mr. Speaker, I could quote other authorities besides the one I have given, besides that letter of Mr. Brassey and the extract from the historian Lindsay. Let me refer to a Canadian paper, the T. ronto ' News,' and in its issue of the 28th of March what does it say ? It does not seem to be scared about the bugbear of mentioning home rule. One would imagine that there had been a secret compact made some where that there has been some hole and corner understanding. If you Irish only keep quiet we are going to do a big thing with the land question, but you must keep quiet and not say a word about home rule at all. We will blind the other fellows and they will not know what is going on. If you do not say anything about home rule at all the other fellows will be willing to support the deal. I do not believe there is any such hole and corner business about the question at all. I thing this is a broad policy and that it should be treated in that light. This article, published in the Toronto ' News,' says :


HOME RULE IS COMING.
[Stage Direction]
The second and salient fact
[Stage Direction]
In speaking about the Land Bill-
-is that even Mr. Wyndham, though expressly declaring that he spoke only for himself, foreshadows Irish self-government, and sees the desirability of the creation of an Irish representative authority with real responsibility for and the permanent interest in a successful working of the measure.
Mr. CLARKE.: That is an Irish Committee for the administration of the land law.


John Costigan: I do not differ with that at all. I do not think it is necessary to make any argument in favour of home rule. This is not the time. My argument has not been one in which I thought it necessary to establish the claim of the people of Ireland to home rule. I have been trying to give reasons why I was justified in bringing this resolution forward and congratulating the English people upon the evidence of progress towards the settlement of the land question, and still keeping consistent with our expressions of opinion heretofore in favour of a measure of home rule. We do not dictate that measure; we do not say what the extent of it shall be. That is a thing to be worked out practically by the people of England with the approval of the people of Ireland. The question of home rule is not dropped at all. As to the extent of the measure we do not attempt to decide that any more than we attempt to deal with the financial aspect of the land bill itself. They are dealing with that and we hope satisfactorily. The prospect looks bright and I am sure that every Canadian, whatever his feelings may be in regard to Ireland itself and home rule, will

rejoice at a settlement which will be in the interests of the empire. Now,' I will not trespass upon the time of the House any longer. There are other hon. gentlemen who will follow me on both sides. I would have expressed the hope that there might have been a unanimous vote upon this question but I may not be justified in anticipating that favourable result. However, I will conclude by asking the House to give this matter, fair, honest consideration, not to allow any side issues, not to allow any unreasonable arguments to sway hon. gentlemen in expressing their opinions upon this, what I call, reasonable proposition that they are asked to give their opinion on. Mr. Speaker, I leave the question in the hands of the House feeling confident that the Canadian parliament will not go back upon the record it made in 1882, in 1886 and in 1887.


Mr. E. HACKETT (Prince West).: Mr. Speaker, about one hour ago I was told that I would be called upon to second the Tesolu-tion proposed by the hon. member for Victoria, N. B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan). I regret that I did not know this at an earlier date, in order that I might have been prepared to speak upon such an important question. However, I will do the best I possibly can under the circumstances. I am in favour of home rule for Ireland. I believe that constitutionally the parliament of Canada has the right to pass a resolution of this kind advising the imperial government as to the wishes of the people of Canada and thereby strengthening the hands of the statesmen in the mother country. Last year, in my opinion, a resolution of this kind should have been introduced into this House. The hon. gentleman who moved the resolution this evening informed me at an early period of last session that he intended to introduce a resolution similar to those he introduced in former years, but the session passed and nothing was done in that connection. I believe that last year, when the conference of the premiers Of the empire met in London to discuss matters affecting the different colonies, was the time when the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) should have had in his hands a resolution passed by this House In favour of home rule for Ireland, but the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Costigan) for some reason known to himself, did not think proper to bring forward this resolution. On this occasion he says that he brings it forward in no unfriendly spirit to the government. I say that is not the proper manner in which to approach an important question like this which affects the people of the whole empire. The question of home rule for Ireland is above all considerations of whether the government be friendly or unfriendly. If the government to-day desire to vote this resolution down let them vote it down; but Sir, I challenge the government to-day to vote against this resolution.


John Costigan: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Hackett: lias it come to this point at last ; That this great question; this cause of home rule so dear to the hearts of Irishmen all over the world, is to be made a football to be kicked at by designing politicians for their own personal advantages and for party purposes. Sir, I have been a member of this House of Commons for a number of years. In 1882 when the homo rule resolution was introduced by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Costigan) it received the support of the Liberal-Conservative party in the House, and the resolution was forwarded through the proper channels to the authorities in Great Britain. Again in 1884 I had the honour of voting for a similar resolution, and Sir John Macdonald, who was the highest constitutional authority, said that the parliament of Canada had a right to pass such a resolution and he again forwarded the resolution to England. In 1886 and 1887 the same thing was done. I am a Conservative now; I was a Conservative in 1882; I have not changed like some other people; I am a Conservative still and I stand here thankful to the old Conservative party that forwarded this resolution in favour of home rule for Ireland to England in 1882, 1S84, 1886 and 1887, and had it placed at the foot of the Throne.
Sir, this question is too dear to the hearts of the Irish people to be bandied about in any way. What does it mean ? It means autonomy for Ireland, and when in 1SS6 Mr. Gladstone received this resolution from the Canadian parliament, that great statesman declared in the imperial House of Commons :
The most important declaration, the most important message that ever crossed the Atlantic is the voice of the Canadian parliament in favour of home rule for Ireland.
Mr. Gladstone therefore constitutionally lavoured the passage of this resolution. Home rule means self-government for Ire-laud. H e in Canada who enjoy every freedom; we who have perfect autonomy in our government; we above all others should wish to see the same measure of liberty accorded to our fellow-citizens in that other portion of the British empire, which is the native land of the forefathers of many of us. Home rule means self-government; it means autonomy; it means a parliament selected by the Irish people sitting in Dublin to legislate on and administer Irish affairs. I claim, Sir, that we in this parliament have a right to pass this resolution in order to strengthen the hands of the men who are fighting the battle of home rule for Ireland. Now. Sir. there were three essential points in the Home Rule Bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone-there were five that he claimed to be essential, but there were three which I believe to be absolutely essential. The first was the unity of the empire. I believe, Sir, that the granting

of liome rule to Ireland would mean a closer union of the empire and greater unity and greater strength in the empire. We know that when any part of the empire sutlers under a grievance and is in distress and trouble, and is discontented with its political condition, there cannot be the same sympathy or the same support from that part of the empire as there would be if the people were happy and contented. As my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Costigan) has said, the Irishman is denied that liberty at home which he enjoys in other parts of the empire. That seems illogical, but it is nevertheless the fact. We know, Sir, that the Irishman is always ready at the sound of the bugle to take up arms and fight valiantly under the old flag for the advancement of imperial interests. All over the world wherever the British flag waves may be found the bleached bones of Irishmen who died in defence of the British empire. To have a really united empire, and in order to have the sympathy and support of the people of Ireland, this measure of home rule is absolutely necessary. When home rule is conceded there will be added to the strength of Britain the noblest force that can be rallied to the support of any empire.
Another point that Mr. Gladstone spoke about was political equality, and he contended that if home rule were granted political equality would follow. That is a very important point. What is the meaning of political equality ? There is no man who can speak more feelingly on that question than an Irish Roman Catholic. It means that the Protestant of the North and the Catholic of the South shall have the same political rights under the constitution. For centuries the Catholics of Ireland were denied the right of the franchise. Through the efforts of Daniel O'Connell, ably supported by Canning, Wilberforce, Macaulay and other great statesmen of that date, the manacles were stricken from the wrists of the Catholics and to-day Catholics have the same franchise as their Protestant fellow-countrymen. That was the political equality for which O'Connell fought and won. Although it takes people of different classes and different religions to make up a great nation, we must remember that although we are Catholics and Protestants and do not kneel at the same altar, yet we adore the same God and we should have the same feelings of charity and respect for eacli other. Another point which Mr. Gladstone emphasized was that home rule would be a measure of protection for minorities. There is no doubt that some of our friends in this House, coming from the north of Ireland, do feel that the province of Ulster might not be properly protected under home rule. But let me point out to them that the Catho-lies of Ireland have never abused their pri- 1 vilege of equality of franchise and have never deprived their Protestant follow-citizens of one iota of the rights which they ' enjoyed before Catholic Emancipation. In 1
our discussion of Irish home rule lo-uuy we should not forget the important lanu measure recently introduced in the imperial House of Commons by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. For many centuries the Irish people have suffered from the oppression of absentee landlords and extortionate agents. To-day there is a measure before the imperial parliament with the object of doing justice to the tenantry, of Ireland. Coming as I do from a province of Canada where for a hundred years or more the people suffered as the Irish people did, from absentee landlords, I can speak feelingly on this question. At the time of confederation a measure was introduced in the Prince Edward Island legislature which afterwards received the assent of the Dominion government, allowing the tenantry of my province to buy from the landlords their right in the land. That measure proved to be a most successful one, and the men who fifty years ago were tenants in Prince Edward Island, are to-day enjoying the blessings of free men and are contented owners of their own holdings. When Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister he sent to the government of Prince Edward Island for a copy of the Act passed at that time, and from what I can gather from recent despatches, it would seem that the land measure introduced by Mr. Wynd-liam is based on the lines of the Prince Edward Island Act. Well, Sir, if the Irish Land Bill is properly carried into effect, I believe that it will be as great a relief to the people of Ireland as our Laud Act was to the people of Prince Edward Island.
As I said at the outset, Sir, I was not prepared to make a speech on this occasion. These few ideas occurred to me as I went along. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Costigan) has gone so fully into the question, that it is unnecessary for me to take up further the time of the House. The descendant of an Irishman, as I am, who learned the traditions of the old land in my very youth, although I have never viewed her green fields or rippling streams, I still have a reverence and respect for that old laud; that land of heroes and martyrs; that land that has struggled so long for liberty. Her sons and daughters, the sturdy race of Erin, are scattered the world over like autumn leaves before the winter's blast; strangers in the land of their nativity but princes and lords in every other land where merit is the measure of the man. I hope, Sir, that this resolution will pass unanimously, or if not unanimously, as near to unanimity as is possible in a parliament constituted such as this is.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker. I do not rise for the purpose of combatting the views presented by the hon. member for Victoria. N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) in moving this motion or the views presented by the hon. member for West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hackett) in seconding it. I can concur

most heartily with many of the statements made by both of these hon. gentlemen. I believe, and I have no doubt that belief is shared in by every member of this House, that the Irish people are a noble and a generous race. I believe there have been in Ireland in the past abuses which required to be remedied, that there have been grievances of which the Irish people had just cause to complain. I have the warmest feelings and the best good wishes towards the Irish people ; I wish them prosperity and the removal of all the grievances and burdens which rest upon them. But, Sir, I am impressed with the belief also that the removal of those grievances, so far as political action is concerned, must come from the government that exercises sway and control over Ireland. My hon. friend from Victoria, in the course of his speech, informed us that this is an imperial question. I quite concur with him in that statement ; and as it is an imperial question, it is not one in my opinion for colonial interference ; and for that reason, admitting all that may be claimed for home rule, admitting, as I do. that some system of home rule and local self-government for the four Kingdoms might be advantageous. I still take the position that this is a question with which we have nothing to do, and which this Canadian House of Commons ought not to pass upon. The resolution passed in 1882. to which my hon. friend from Victoria refers, was in due course transmitted to the imperial authorities. In due course also we received a reply to that address. It is unnecessary to recount the terms of that address, or to take up the time of the House by reading it. It was simply an expression of the opinion of the Canadian House of Commons that Ireland was entitled to a just measure of home rule. It passed the House on the 20th April, 1882. and was transmitted earlv in May to the imperial authorities. On the 12th of June of the same year the following reply was transmitted by the Earl of Kimberley to the Marquis of Borne, Governor General of Canada :
My Lord,-I have received and laid before the Queen the address to Her Majesty from th-Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, which was transmitted in your Lordship's dispatch of the 16th May. I am commanded by Her Majesty to request that you will convey to the Senate and House of Commons her appreciation of the renewed expression of their unswerving loyalty and devotion to Her Majesty's person and government. Her Majesty will always gladly receive the advice of the parliament of Canada on all matters relating to the Dominion and the administration of its affairs; but with respect to the question referred to in the address, Her Majesty will, in accordance with the constitution of this country, have regard to the advice of the imperial parliament and ministers, to whom all matters relating to the affairs of the United Kingdom exclusively appertain.
Now, this was an answer which we would be entitled to receive again if the resolu-


John Charlton: tiou which my hon. friend has tabled should pass this House. It was an answer amounting to an intimation to the parliament of Canada that we had been guilty of an impertinence and had meddled with matters that were not within our province, and did not belong to us to express an opinion upon in an official manner, that opinion being for transmission to the imperial government. A similar motion passed again in 1886, and again in 1887. The motion passed in 1S86 was transmitted in a somewhat different form from that passed in 1882. It was sent to the Canadian High Commissioner for the Information of the members of the British House of Commons. Whether the members of the British House of Commons profited materially from that source of information I have not been informed. In 1887 the Curran motion was passed. In 1889, Sir. Cook, then a member of this House, who had given notice of a motion upon going into Supply, on the 11th of April moved that motion, and it was lost. In 1892 we had a motion introduced by Mr. Devlin substantially on the lines of the present motion of my hon. friend. We had an amendment to that motion, moved by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. I). Tisdale), the purport of which was that the motion was not called for. We had an amendment to the amendment, introduced by Sir. SIcCarthy, which asserted that the motion was undesirable, that the wisdom of our course in 1882 and in 188C was doubtful, and that the motion should not pass. A debate arose on these amendments ; the debate was adjourned ; it was never resumed ; and that closed the action of the House of Commons on the question of home rule up to the present date, from 1882 to 1903. Now, the renewal of the question after the lapse of eleven years I think it would be difficult to show cause for. In the meantime the condition of Ireland has improved ; great exertions have been made by the imperial government, not only to remove causes of complaint, but to go beyond that, and to deal with the utmost generosity with the Irish people. In the meantime, the sensitiveness of the British government about colonial interference has remained ; and while there is infinitely less cause for this expression of opinion on the part of this House of Commons to-day than there was in 1886, there is the same objection to impertinent interference 'with something that does not belong to us. Since then we had the Gladstone Bill, a Bill framed for the benefit of the tenant, a Bill which gave Ireland exceptional treatment, which gave its peasant class favours which were not enjoyed by that class in any other of the four Kingdoms. We have now pending the Wyndham Bill, a measure so comprehensive. so far-reaching, and involving such an extent of self-sacrifice on the part of the British taxpayer, that one stands astounded at the courage and the generosity of the ! government that has introduced it.

That Bill proposes to give a bonus of from 360,000,000, to $75,000,000 for the settlement of the land question, and admits to participation in the benefits which it will confer on the tenant class, even evicted tenants, comprising all who have been tenants in the past twenty-five years. It puts upon the British government the assumption of liabilities amounting to more than $500,000,000. All this is done to pacify Ireland by removing causes of complaint. All this is done in a spirit of the utmost generosity and good will. Under these circumstances, what reason exists for the introduction of this motion ? What reason exists for demanding in addition home rule for Ireland ? Are we convinced that home rule would be a blessing ? Is there any reason for giving to Ireland exceptional treatment as regards the institutions of the country ? Is Ireland entitled to home rule and Scotland, Wales and England not entitled to it 1 Is there any reason for presenting in this House a motion asking exceptional treatment for the one country and leaving out the three others from participation in any of the benefits to accrue from the adoption of the federal principle ? The time may come when home rule may be adopted in Great Britain. If thdt time ever does comes, it will be home rule, impartial in its application and applicable to the three other divisions, and not to Ireland alone.
Now, the home rule agitation has been looked upon, I apprehend, by the British authorities with some degree of suspicion. The agitators for home rule could witli difficulty, I believe, give conclusive proof of their entire loyalty and devotion to British institutions. The British authorities were justified in entertaining some doubt as to whether a portion of the kingdom, with an autonomy of its own, with power of its own, the leaders and population of which express disloyalty to the nation which granted these privileges, would not be a source of danger, and so naturally there was some hesitation, and Ireland has been herself to blame, to a large extent, perhaps for the withholding of some concessions which were demanded. But whether that were the case or not, and whether it was wise, whether it would be wise for England to give to Ireland the home rule demanded or not, is a question on which we can exercise our individual opinions, but on which we are not entitled to thrust our opinions, as a government or as a parliament. on the British government, because that is beyond our province. I have the same sympathy for Ireland that I have always had. and that is a warm active degree of sympathy. This degree of sympathy led me to vote for the Curran resolution in 18S7. Perhaps I had no reflection-I know I had not reflected at that time upon the constitutional significance of the Act-and I was governed by my feelings with regard to a
generous people who had my thorough and entire sympathy then as they have to-day. Anything that can be done for Ireland I am willing to do. Anything that lies within the control of this House to do, I hold up my hand for. But I cannot on this occasion repeat the mistake of 1887 and vote for a resolution which is beyond the province and powers of this parliament, which can do no good and which would be received by the imperial government as an impertinence. It is not proper to refer to a past debate, but I have the right to refer to past actions of the government, and I refer to its action yesterday which bears out my contention in this regard, when papers were refused upon a motion hy an hon. member of this House bearing upon imperial actions and interests, upon tlie ground that they concerned matters which were beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament. I think that the position taken was a correct one, and that the same position should debar us from accepting tbe motion of tbe hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan).
There are a good many phases to this Irish question. There is a large Irish population in this country and in the United States. In the United States, almost as long ago as I can remember, the prejudices of Irishmen against Great Britain were the stalking horse of unscrupulous politicians, and the Yankee demagogue twisted the tail of the British lion in order to secure the sympathy and support of Irish voters. In ninety-nine out of one hundred cases, the most effective of all appeals were these appeals concerning the wrongs which Ireland had suffered at the hands of the British government. I do not know whether the same spirit exists in Canada. I do not know whether the same methods and motives would have the same force here. I do not know whether appeals to tlie Irish vote may happen to he concealed beneath the assumed reasons which induced the hon. gentleman to take the course he has taken in introducing this resolution. Perhaps it may he possible that on rare occasions tlie idea may flash through his mind incidentally that there are a number of Irish voters in his riding and that he will stand better with them by taking this course. I do not know but that might be the case with myself. I have a good many Irish voters in my constituency-several hundred of them -but I think as a rule they are nien with sufficient degree of intelligence to accept the situation and to realize that the passing of this motion for home rule is an net which exceeds our power as a parliament, and is a course of conduct which is not advisable, and I am confident that it will not receive their sanction and support.
We have a good deal of business here to attend to and we do not need to attend to the business of our neighbours, especially when they inform us that they do not want us to attend to it and will resent our inter-



ference. We have half a continent to lick into shape. We have almost unmeasured resources which, when developed to their full capacity, will provide ample scope for a population of one hundred million souls. We have transportation to provide for the great region of the North-west-one of the most gigantic problems that ever confronted any government. We have a great immigration pouring into the country from the United States and from Europe. We have heard the low wash of the waves for years past, which will soon he followed by the rushing in of a vast human sea. All these problems have to be met, emergencies have to be provided against, the foundations of an empire have to be laid and the superstructure erected. This enormous task is on our hands, and we can afford to let Great Britain do her own business without our interference. If England chooses to give home rule to Ireland on to refuse to grant Ireland home rule, we are not in a position to discuss her policy. It is not our business to do so. Besides if we take the course which my hon. friend proposes, we shall establish a precedent that may re-act upon us. If we are entitled to formulate and solemnly pass a resolution advising and informing Great Britain wliat in certain cases and under certain circumstances she should do, what is there to prevent the parliament of Great Britain acting upon that precedent and passing resolutions informing us what we had better do ? What is to prevent the parliament of Great Britain acting upon the precedent that we have created passing resolutions informing us what we had better do ?-telling us that we had better get ready to come into an imperial federation, for instance, and have an organic union and a parliament at Westminster to control the affairs of the British colonies ? Such a resolution could be passed by the parliament of Great Britain with just as much propriety, with just as much reason, with just as good a foundation of sound constitutional principle as the motion proposed by my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Costigan). Suppose that the British parliament should pass a resolution with regard to an imperial Zollverein, and inform us that, in their opinion the time had come for ns to fall into line and have universal free trade and a Zollverein for the British empire ? Suppose they should undertake to inform us of our duty in regard to an imperial preference, its limits and the scope of its operation ? Suppose they should inform us that they have taken care of us long enough, that we have profited by their generosity and fostering care, that they have given us naval protection and military protection. and that now we must become partners and participants in a scheme of imperial defence, paying our quota of taxation? Suppose they should take it into the'r heads, ns we are in danger of taking it into ours, that they could give advice out-Mr. CHARLTON.
side their sphere with regard to the political, social, and ethnic conditions in this country ? Suppose they should tell us :	You
have had the dual language in your deliberations and in the publication of your laws about long enough; it is time that you had a more thorough system of assimilation, time that the French race was absorbed ? They have as much right to make that suggestion as we have to make suggestions about home rule for Ireland. And we would resent it in the same way that they will resent the suggestion that my hon. friend proposes to make. Suppose they should make a suggestion about any question of our domestic policy ? In these things we have, and expect to maintain, autonomy, as all the self-governing independent colonies do. We do not expect to permit any interference with that autonomy, and we will resent any such interference. That being so, we had better refrain from a precedent that may give colour to the assumption on the part of British statesmen that they have right to interfere with us.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we must carefully preserve our autonomy. We are building up a nation, we have the material to build it with, and we must have a free hand in the job. And, as I said before, it is business enough for us, without attending to England's business in Ireland. We must scrupulously respect the rights of Great Britain to manage her imperial affairs in any of her colonies and in all the realms of Ireland. Scotland. England and Wales. This resolution enters upon a field of action where we have no place, -where we are interlopers, where we are not welcome and had better not intrude. As I have said, it would furnish a precedent for interference with us; and the prudent and proper course, I would say in conclusion, is to refuse our concurrence with this resolution.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Before recess I rose to say a few words on the motion now before the Chair. I understand that the question introduced by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) is not new to this House, although it is new to me. I think it is to be regretted that every session of this parliament resolutions are introduced into this House that do not concern the people of Canada. It is my opinion that the people of Canada have enough trouble and difficulties of their own to settle, without dragging the affairs of Great Britain and Ireland into this House. The people of Ireland have less grievances than the people in many other places. The English church has been disestablished, courts of arbitration have been formed for the settlement of all disputes between land-

lords and tenants. Now a land purchase Bill is before the British parliament which, if it is carried, it is estimated will cost the British people over $400,000,000. Still, we have hon. gentlemen getting up in this House and saying that the British government is doing nothing for the Irish people, and asking this government to pass resolutions in their favour. Perhaps hon. gentlemen are not aware, when pressing these buncombe resolutions, how much they cost this country, or how much they cost the Dominion treasury. I do not think they realize, nor do their constituents realize, that every minute of time wasted in this House costs the country the sum of $2S. The hon. member for Victoria is not the only sinner in this respect. If I remember right, last session the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) introduced a resolution that the House took all day to discuss, and it was just about as relevant as the one we heard this afternoon ; consequently you see the sinners are not all on this side of the House. Now if it costs $28 a minute, some of you can reckon how much that resolution was worth. Now I have not one word to say against the Irish people, nor against what the English people are doing for the Irish. I know they are a warm-hearted, industrious people. Many of them are my neighbours, and there are no better people under heaven than some of the Irish people. At the same time, when they want to get justice they must go the right way about it ; and every Irishman in Canada will get justice, no doubt about that. I told a story once in this House, I do not know whether it would be advisable to tell one now or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Jabel Robinson: Well, some months ago I happened to be in the neighbouring state of Maine. I went into a post office to buy some stamps and envelopes, as I wanted to send some letters and papers to Canada, and the young lady from whom I was purchasing was as handsome as any of the Canadian girls. I suppose she was an American. She was surprised when she learned that my letters and papers were going to Canada. She said ' Surely you are not a Canadian ? ' I said, ' Oui. mademoiselle.' and she rather doubted it then, she could not believe that I was a Canadian. She said, ' You don't speak like a Canadian.' ' Well,' I said, ' you must not say too much about the Canadian people, perhaps some of you young ladies will want to form alliances with the Canadian people.' ' Oh, for pity's sake don't say that, we don't want to marry any of those Canadians, we don't like them.' ' Why,' she says, ' I would rather a thousand times marry an Irishman.' * Well,' I said, ' I am not surprised at that.' ' You are not surprised at it ? '	' No, indeed,' I said. ' You
remember Samuel Lover said that an Irishman is always in one of three things. He 24}
is always either in love, in liquor or in a row. But in this state of Maine it is not possible, under the law, for an Irishman to get liquor, and if he cannot get liquor he is not likely to get into a row ; consequently he must always be in love. So you young American ladies can never resist the advances made by a warm-hearted and enthusiastic Irishman.' So I come to the conclusion that is the reason why there are so many O'Donohue's and O'Elaherty's and so on in that country. You know statistics say that one half of the people of the state of Maine were born in Canada. Now, Sir, I just want to say that the Irish people can take care of themselves, I think, both in Ireland and in this country ; and I am sure that the English people are doing everything possible for them at the present time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Naturally, I had some curiosity before speaking to know what position the government would take on this question, because, it being an amendment to a motion to go into Supply, it would be regarded under ordinary circumstances as a motion of want of confidence. But the government have not given any intimation of what they are going to do about it. If it was a motion regarding the embargo on cattle, of course they would regard is as a motion of want of confidence as they did a day or two ago. Are they going to place the Irish in the same position ? So far they have not given us any intimation of what they will do. I do not propose to talk at great length on this question, because I imagine no good purpose would be served by so doing. I wish to say a few words with regard to the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan), who introduced this question. He told the House that twenty years ago he had introduced a similar resolution, and had supported such resolutions at various times since, and had not changed his mind. Well, evidently twenty year's experience in this House has taught him nothing with regard to the wisdom or unwisdom of frittering away the time of this House to no good purpose. The hon. member said, when some evidence of dissent was given regarding his resolution, that he recognized it came from both sides of the house, that he did not regard with favour such sneers against the Irish people. I was watching very attentively at the time, and that was not the interpretation that I put upon the dissent that was offered from both sides of the House regarding this motion. There was no intention to sneer at the Irish people, nor to offer any insult to them, but the dissent was rather an expression of opinion of the unwisdom of the hon. member in introducing such a resolution into this House. The hon. member stated that parliament had expressed itself on several occasions regarding this question. It did. that is true ; but not always in the same direction. The

history contained in the * Hansard ' shows that the question was before this House at different times, and was dealt with in various ways. It is true that the hon. member brought it up twenty years ago, and then, out of the generosity and kindness of heart of members on both sides of the House, they allowed the resolution to pass without much comment. At the same time many of them, doubting the wisdom of that action, came to the conclusion that if it did no good it would do no harm. But the reproof that was given to the Canadian parliament then, and which I will read later on, gave parliament a lesson which I am sure many of us have profited by ever since.
The hon. member went on to say : ' Has home rule become so unpopular in this House that the mention of it provokes dissent from the people ? ' It was not the question of home rule, or the wisdom or unwisdom of giving home rule to Ireland, that provoked dissent on the part of some members of this House ; it was rather the unwisdom of introducing such a question into the Canadian parliament. The hon. member said later on :	' Gladstone said
that the most important message that ever crossed the Atlantic was the resolution of the Canadian parliament regarding home rule.' I thought at the time it would be interesting if the hon. gentleman had read the reply given by one of Mr. Gladstone's colleagues in the cabinet, Earl Kimberly to the resolutions sent home in 1882, and if he had done so, it would have been a fitting answer to the allegations that the hon. gentleman made.
I have only to say that home rule, and analagous questions have been introduced into this House at various times and they have been discussed-I think unwisely introduced and unwisely discussed, because I have always regarded it as entirely out of the line of our duty, or of our right, or even of the part of wisdom that we should introduce and discuss these questions. It is neither our duty nor our right to advise the imperial parliament regarding the government of any portion of Great Britain or Ireland. That is the duty of the imperial parliament. We are not charged with that responsibility, we are not charged wifh that duty ; we are here to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada and not for Ireland, and therefore I have always regarded it as very much out of place that we should deal with such questions here. I have a high authority, the authority of a very eminent man in England for saying so. I have the authority of the Earl of Kimberley for saying so in the answer which he gave to the resolutions which were sent home in 1882. But, before dealing with that I want to speak of other questions, because I put all of these vexed questions on a par, all these analogous resolutions which are of an inflam-atory character and which tend to arouse Mr. SPROULE.
animosity and discord between two classes of people in this country, between Homan Catholics and Protestants. What is the history of these resolutions ? Let me refer to them for a short time. In 1869 the first resolution introduced into the Canadian parliament was in regard to the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish church. That was a question which, like the home rule question belonged only to the imperial parliament and the imperial parliament was charged with the responsibility and duty of settling it and was endeavouring to settle it at that time. I notice that some of the present hon. members of this House took part in that debate. Looking back over ' Hansard ' I see that some very pertinent remarks were made in reference to that discussion which I intend to refer to very briefly. I shall take those of the late Sir John Macdonald who was a very high authority. Pie went on to say that it was imprudent to introduce these questions and that it was wrong and proceeded :
Now, surely, it was an extraordinary course on the part of the hon. member who had introduced the resolution

That was the Hon. Mr. Holton who had introduced the resolution.
-to ask the House to deal with a matter with which it had no concern, and render itself amenable to the answer that ' It should mind its own business.' The hon. member acknowledged that our parliament should not deal with such a matter, except in a case of supreme necessity.
And Sir John Macdonald said :
There was no supreme necessity for the motion.
Then we have a statement by the Hon. Joseph Howe, a statesman whom I have always regarded as one of the very ablest men that Canada has produced. I shall read his remarks. He said :
This House had lately been increasing its sphere of labours enormously, and its responsibility was now greater than ever rested upon any other one hundred and eighty men since representative institutions began to exist. When he looked at the work before them, at the responsibility they were about to assume he thought that if they did not want to make themselves a laughing stock before the world they should at least mind their own business. He did not hesitate to say that as an individual he favoured the measure now before the imperial parliament

Tlmt was the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish church.
-and in his own province he had always stood up for equal rights to all sects and all nationalities. If they, with all the responsibility resting upon them, with all the work before them, were to meddle with affairs across the Atlantic, they would exhibit a spectacle to the world that he would be very sorry to see. He did not doubt that the hon. gentleman from Chat-eauguay was actuated with a good motive in offering this resolution, but he believed the effect of the motion would be bad. He found

in this country Protestants and Catholics dwelling together in accord, and he believed this motion was calculated to cast a fire brand among them.


Hon. Mr. HOLTON.: Explain why ; I deny that.


Mr. COWAN.: What is the date of that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was in 1869. These words of wisdom are from one of the ablest men, I think, who ever occupied a seat in the Canadian parliament.


Mr. FRASER.: The ablest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of that and in view of the answer that we got to our resolution in 1882, I am inclined to the opinion that we do an improper thing to introduce these questions. When the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) made a statement that Mr. Gladstone said the most important question that had ever crossed the Atlantic was the Canadian home rule resolution, I said I would like then to have the reply of Mr. Gladstone's minister-no doubt concurred in by Mr. Gladstone himself-to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Victoria in 1882 when the House was-I was almost going to say-cajoled into passing it almost unanimously out of good nature so that it might not become a political question. In 1882 the reply sent to the Marquis of Lome, the Governor General of that day, by the Earl of Kimberley reads as follows :-
My Lord,-I received and laid before the Queen the address to Her Majesty from the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, which was transmitted in your lordship's despatch of the 16th of May.
I am commanded by Her Majesty to request that you will convey to the Senate and the House of Commons, Her appreciation of the renewed expressions of their unswerving loyalty and devotion to Her Majesty's person and government.
Her Majesty will always gladly receive the advice of the parliament of Canada in all matters relating to the Dominion, and the administration of its affairs, but with respect to the questions referred to in the address, Her Majesty will, in accordance with the constitution of this country, have regard to the advice of the imperial parliament, and ministers, to which all matters relating to the affairs of the United Kingdom exclusively appertain.
These questions exclusively appertain to the imperial parliament and we are numbered amongst those who are excluded from dealing with them. That was the answer that came from Mr. Gladstone's cabinet to the resolutions that were sent home in 1882. Ever since that I regarded the rebuff which we got as well merited and I have ever since that opposed the introduction of such questions into the House of Commons because I thought that-


Mahlon K. Cowan: Where could that statement be found ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That can be found in [DOT]'Hansard' in the debate on the home rule
resolution iu 1880. The impropriety of this will be apparent if we think for a moment that England ought to have as good a right, yes, even a better right, to^ give advice to us than we have to give advice to her. Let us suppose that England was, to interfere in our business with her advice. There are a number of people in "the province of Quebec, and outside of it tco, who think that there are existing conditions in that province which do not tend for the welfare of the country. Suppose the English parliament should say :	We think in the
interest of the country that you should amend your system of government in Quebec. Let that advice from England refer to the church, and I merely mention this by way of illustration. I understand that there is a great deal of land and property belonging to the church in Quebec-I speak of the Roman Catholic Church and with no disrespect to it-that church has the right to take a tithe out of its own people and apply it to the wants of the church, and iu other ways they have control over the people which a great many think is not for the best interest of the people of the province. Suppose that the imperial parliament should ask the Canadian parliament to amend that condition of things! by legislation, how would the people of Quebec like it, or for that matter how would the people of Ontario like it. Would we not regard it as an unreasonable interference with the rights of the Canadian parliament ? I might quote other examples but that will suffice. If we have a right to advise England with regard to what legislation she shall pass on Irish affairs and as to what form of government she should have, then I say/ that England has as good a right to advise us as to what particular form of government we should have in the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, or any other province of the Dominion. Let us apply the same rule to England that we wouid like England to apply to Canada. And, could we not with equal propriety advise the government of Great Britain as to what form of government she should establish in the South African colonies. We do not interfere in that case because wo know that it is the right of the imperial parliament and of the imperial parliament alone to be charged with that responsibility. So it is in the case of the government of Ireland. If we have the right to advise England as to her policy, then we have equally the right to advise the government of any other British colony as to what they should do, and I suppose that no one in this House would think it the part of wisdom to interfere in such a direction. I have always held the belief that we in this Canadian parliament should address ourselves to the duties for which we were elected, and which appertain to the government of the Canadian people. On different occasions this parliament has wasted its time

debating questions analogous to the one before us. In 1869 Mr. Holton introduced a motion here with regard to the disestablishment and disendownment of the Irish church. That was to no good purpose for the imperial parliament dealt with the question and dealt with it satisfactorily quite regardless of anything which we did in the Canadian parliament. The wisest of our statesmen thought in 1809 that it was an impropriety for Mr. Holton to introduce that question here. In 1882 we had a home rule resolution introduced by the Hon. John Costignn and it was debated at great length. In the generosity of our hearts we allowed him to carry that resolution, and I am sorry to believe that it created the false impression on the mind of the imperial parliament that the Canadian parliament was unanimous on the question. 1 know1 as a fact that it was no such a thing, but out of generosity for the Irish people and the hon. member, and so as to prevent it being made a political question the motion was allowed to be carried almost unanimously. I do not regard this as a political question, Sir;
I never did, never shall or never will. In 1884 another home rule resolution was introduced. In 1886 a similar resolution was introduced by the Hon. Edward Blake. I was glad to know that Mr. Blake has gone to that arena where his great powers and his great ability might be used to better purpose in advocating Ireland's wants than in the Canadian parliament, but I noticed that he has made few of the long speeches over there on that question that he treated us to in the Canadian parliament. There are some people who are uncharitable enough to suggest that at times this question has been introduced in the Canadian parliament for political purposes. I will not say that is the case, but I will say that it is most unfortunate that for that or some other reason it is constantly cropping up here. Again in 1887 we had a home rule motion introduced by the Hon. Mr. Curran who is now a respected judge. It was debated by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) and there was a vote on it. After 1882 when we got that reply from Mr. Gladstone's cabinet there was always a dissent in this House to the discussion of such a question, and so in 1887, forty-seven members voted against it, and a great many more would have voted against it but for the fact that they thought a wrong construction might have been put upon their vote. This resolution in 1887 was sent to the High Commissioner in London, but whether it ever got to the imperial government we do not know, because it has never been resurrected out of the archives since. In 1889 the home rule question was introduced and debated here. The motion was defeated by an amendment, and it was not carried. In 1891 we had another proposal 1 to debate such a resolution in this House, 1 but accidently or for some unknown reason 1 Mr. SPROULE.
it was dropped, and very suddenly dropped at the time. That motion was introduced by Mr. Cook. Now for the sixth time we have it introduced again. Surely in the light of the experience of the past, we have reached that period in the history of the Canadian parliament when we should keep such questions out of the arena of this House. The rule was laid down in 1869 by Sir John Macdonald and by the Hon. Mr. Howe, that such questions as this ought never be imported into the House of Commons of Canada except on two grounds. One of these was, the supreme necessity at the time being, and as he declared there was no supreme necessity for it then. The other ground was the question of supreme importance to the empire, and in his judgment he thought it came within neither of these justifiable reasons. It was neither of supreme necessity nor of supreme importance.
In my judgment, such a resolution'is especially inopportune just now, and why ? Because at the present time the imperial parliament is dealing with the Irish question in a way that is commanding the respect and admiration of the world. The imperial parliament is prepared, in order to relieve Ireland of her embarrassment and settle her troubles, to grant $60,000,000 as a free gift to help one class of the Irish tenantry, and in addition to that is prepared to pledge the credit of Great Britain to the extent of $750,000,000 as an evidence of her good will and her desire to settle this vexed question in a way to make Ireland contented, loyal and happy. Great Britain is doing this at the expense of the British taxpayer, and she is doing it of her own free will and accord, without any pressure being brought to bear upon her from any quarter of the world. In view of that fact, am I not justified in saying that the hon. member for Victoria might well have let this question rest at the present time, and have waited to see whether this great measure which Great Britain is adopting would not result in satisfying the Irish people and making them loyal, contented, peaceable and happy, as she desires to have all her subjects in every part of the world.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the question whether or not home rule would be a blessing or otherwise for Ireland. I do not think it is germane to the purpose of this resolution. I am not here to debate that question. But I may say, in passing, that it is a debateable question; and the very fact that there are two sections of the community who hold views diametrically opposed to each other witli regard to that question, ought to be sufficient to restrain this House from adopting any resolution of this kind. While one portion of the people of Ireland think home rule would be a blessing-and I am free to say that I think they are the majority-still I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that a very large and respectable minority hold that it

would not be a blessing for Ireland to have home rule and prefer that it should be governed from Downing street. While a majority may say yes, a large and respectable minority will undoubtedly say no, and they hold this view because of what past history has taught them. Whether they are right or wrong, their conviction in this respect is very strong, and we ought to respect their conviction. The injustices which they claim were done to them when Ireland had home rule were such as to make them look with disfavour on a renewal of the conditions which then existed. They dread the return of those conditions, and can you blame them ? I say we cannot. Each of these divisions of the Irish people have their adherents and sympathizers in this country. If I hold the view that home rule would not be in the best interest of Ireland, that is my right. If, on the other hand, my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen hold that home rule would be in the best interest of Ireland, that is their right. I have no quarrel with them. But so long as these divergent views are held, and we are not charged with the duty of settling this troublesome question, we should not allow it to interfere with our work here. It is said that the minority are so small in numbers that their views should not be taken into account. What is the relative strength of these two sections of the people of Ireland ? According to the returns of the last election, they are about G5 per cent to 35 per cent. About 05 per cent hold that home rule would be good for Ireland, and about 35 per cent hold that it would not, and these people have sent members to the imperial parliament to represent their respective views. It is not my purpose to inquire whether, in view of the seditious and disloyal utterances of many advocates of home rule, it would be right to entrust to them the power of governing Ireland. I refer to such men as Dillon, Redmond, O'Brien and Devlin. I do not refer to the Devlin who was once a member of the Canadian parliament, because I am bound to say that I never heard very much from him along that line; but I refer to the disloyal and seditious utterances of these other men when travelling in the United States. Whether it would be right to permit a class of men holding such seditious and disloyal views to govern Ireland, I am not going to say. but it is the view of some that it would not be right.
I say it is not the part of wisdom to import questions of this kind into this parliament. On the contrary, I hold that it would be the part of unwisdom, because they are disturbing questions which tend to divide the people instead of helping them to live in peace and harmony together. We desire to live in peace and harmony with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, and to see them work out the problems of life with their families in happiness and prosperity. We wish them success in all the pursuits of life; but it does not tend to promote that
feeling of amity, friendship and goodwill between the two creeds in this country to be constantly introducing these vexed questions. Suppose that a member of this House were to be constantly introducing here certain questions in the iuterest of his friends in Ireland that were not agreeable to the Roman Catholics in Ireland or in Canada, what would our Roman Catholic friends say ? They would say he was doing a very improper thing, and I am bound to say that their conclusion would be correct. Then, I ask them to apply the same rule to themselves that they apply to me. I say that if any Protestant in this House were disposed to introduce such a question, I would be inclined to tell him at once that he was doing a very improper and unwise thing. As far as my influence would go, I would endeavour to prevent his doing it, because I do not think it would tend to increase the harmony and good will which ought to exist between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Holding that belief, I am justified in condemning any man who is constantly importing these troublesome and vexatious questions into the House of Commons, questions which tend to excite acrimonious debate and weaken those feelings of amity and love which we are all anxious to see prevail. There are many people in* Canada who share these views with me. I shall not say that the hon. member who introduced this motion was actuated by any political motive, because the rules of the House do not allow us to impute motives, but there are many people in Canada who, when they consider the circumstances and the manner in which this agitation is introduced from time to time, will be uncharitable enough to believe that there are political motives behind it, and will have consequently the less respect for the party who introduces such resolutions, no matter to what side of the House he may belong.
Some hon. members may ask me what does the minority see in home rule to be afraid of ? I have already given my opinion on that point. They are afraid that it would not be home rule they would have to contend with, but rule from some other quarter of the world, which would not be the best kind of rule for the people of Ireland. Our desire is to live in peace and harmony with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens and to see them enjoy to the fullest extent the blessings of a free country and a responsible government. May we not hope that they will join us in that ambition ? We ought to have good ground for the hope, but I regret to say that all do not share with us in those opinions, and among them is the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution. I am opposed to this resolution, and shall vote against it, and I ask those who oppose it for the same reasons that I do to give expression to their dissent. I am not asking any man to give a vote on the merits or demerits of home rule, but on the unwisdom of bringing that question into the House of

Commons. If the imperial parliament should see fit to give home rule, that is their concern, and we have no complaint to make or advice to give, but I am opposed to this resolution because the introduction into this House of such vexed questions, with which we have nothing to do, disturbs the harmony and good fellowship which would otherwise exist between Protestants and Roman Catholics. I am opposed to this resolution because it is no part of our duty to advise the mother country as to what kind of government she should give Ireland or any other portion of the empire, nor have we any mandate from our constituents to fritter away the time of this House and spend the money of the country discussing such questions, with which practically we have no concern.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure).: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, with the last speaker (Mr. Sproule) in his remark that he would regret the introduction into this House of any question which would be of a nature to disturb the good feelings and relations that exist between Protestants and Roman Catholics in this country. Far be it from my intention now, in speaking in support of this resolution, to say one word which would tend to creating ill-feeling between the various elements of this country. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) seems to fear that because England has at last undertaken to mete out a measure of justice to one of the three countries constituting the union, there is danger that the good feeling which exists in this country among its various communities may be disturbed. I have no such fear, Mr. Speaker. The last census of Canada shows that there are in the Dominion at present 998,000 people of Irish origin, close upon one million, constituting almost one-quarter of our population. There is not a county, there is hardly a village in this Dominion in which you will not find citizens hailing from the old country or whose fathers came from Ireland. Our Canadian parliament represents that million of people. I have the honour in my own constituency of having 1,500 people who look to Ireland as their mother country, and in their name I know that I am fulfilling my duty when I raise my humble voice in support of this motion, and to congratulate the statesmen of the British empire on their having undertaken at last to carry out a measure of justice and fair play to the Irish race. Canada, Sir, owes a great deal to Ireland. It owes a great deal to the hundreds of thousands of Irish .immigrants who came to this country. This confederation was largely brought about by the efforts of one of the greatest men Ireland ever sent to Canada, if our Canadian provinces are represented here to-night, we all know that that is largely due to the labours of the late Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who devoted his Mr. SPROULE.
powerful and eloquent influence, energy and ability to bringing about union on this side of the water, and that union which exists in Canada we, as citizens of the British empire, wish to see established on the other side. We are, Sir, loyal subjects, we are loyal to the empire, we are interested in its progress and prosperity, matters are daily brought before us which tend to increase the prosperity and the strength of the empire. We have voted money in this House to send troops to South Africa in order to maintain the integrity of the empire. We have voted money to lay cables beneath the Pacific Ocean and are subsidizing steamers on the Atlantic-all for the purpose of strengthening and consolidating the empire. I claim that we have equally the right at this moment to congratulate the government of His Majesty King Edward VII. upon the measure of justice which that government has now submitted to the British parliament, and which has certainly commanded the approval of the whole civilized world. We are told that in 1882 the Earl of Kimberley informed the Canadian parliament that home rule was not a matter of our concern. Well, those views may have prevailed in England at that time, but twenty years have since elapsed. Barely three years after the Earl of Kimberley had written this famous despatch, the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone rose in the House of Commons to propose home rule for Ireland. And upon what did he rest his chief argument ? Upon file resolution adopted in this House. Twenty years have passed since then, and in that time we have heard often in this House- I think I have heard it myself-that it is the admitted right of the colonj to give an opinion upon any question which concerns the interests of the empire at large. And surely this question of the settlement of Irish grievances concerns the empire, concerns every subject of the King who takes an interest in the empire's welfare. Surely, this question which has been discussed for the last one hundred years should now be settled. And, if any action we can take can bring about a settlement, I believe there is no man in this House who will regret that he has done something toward so desirable an end. Events have advanced mpidly during the last two or three years. During the last two months we have seen taking place events undreamed of but a few years ago. The land conference which met in Dublin in December last was composed of landlords and of representatives of the Irish tenants. Such a conference would have seemed almost impossible twenty years ago. These men met, they discussed the land question and they arrived at a conclusion. That conclusion is known to the world to-day. Allow me to read a few words concluding the report, showing how a settlement of the land question can be brought about:-

We wish to place on record our belief that an unexampled opportunity is at the present moment afforded His Majesty's government of effecting a reconciliation of all classes in Ireland upon terms which, as we believe, involve no permament increase of imperial expenditure in Ireland; and that there will be found on all sides an earnest desire to co-operate with the government in securing the success of a Land Purchase Bill, which, by rapidly and effectively carrying out the principles above indicated, would bring peace and prosperity to the country.
Hr. Speaker, we as British subjects cooperate with the efforts the British government is making to bring about an amicable settlement of this question. We believe that this land question in Ireland once settled, the granting of local autonomy, as we have it in our own provinces, would follow as a matter of course. Canada has often been quoted as an example for British statesmen to imitiate in their dealings to Ireland. We had, in former years, a land question in the old Seigniorial Tenure. Fifty or sixty years ago that was settled very easily by a tribunal, much more easily than the Irish land question can be settled. The autonomy which was granted to us has certainly proved the wisdom of the British statesmen who granted it. So long as England follows towards her colonies the broad-minded policy she has followed towards Canada, she will have no reason to regret it. But danger will come if British statesmen revert to the policy which brought about the loss of the thirteen colonies to the south of us. So long as the broad-minded policy adopted toward Canada is carried out toward tlie Irisli people, I am satisfied that tlie reign of King Edward VII. will be quoted in history as having brought about a consolidation of the empire which will add glory to his reign for all time to come.
Mr. Speaker, this question is now before tlie parliament of Great Britain. The Irish people have honoured us by electing seme of our own men as some of their representatives. Tlie former leader of tlie Liberal party now occupies a distinguished place in tlie ranks of the borne rule party ; and tlie late member for Ottawa lias been elected for Galway, being truly ' The man for Galway.' This is an honour that is done to the people of Canada, and I am sure that the majority of tlie Canadian people would be both satisfied and delighted if this question should lie at last settled. I have no intention of entering into tlie merits of the case more than to state that a settlement of tlie land question would probably bring about the settlement of the political question by the granting to Ireland of a provincial parliament, and then the work which has been done during the last few years will have brought forth fruit, for Ireland will occupy in tlie empire tlie place to which she is entitled. I ask to be allowed to quote the last words of Right Hon. Mr. Gladstone in introducing his Home Rule Bill barely sixteen years ago, to show how prophetic that grand old man was when he took the stand he took in asking for Ireland the autonomy to which she is entitled :-
You have power, you have wealth, you have rank, you have station, you have organization. What have we ? We think that we have the people's heart:	we believe and we know wo
have the promise of the harvest of the future. The ebbing tide is with you, the flowing tide is with us. Ireland stands at your bar, expectant, hopeful, almost suppliant. Her words are the words of truth and soberness. She asks a blessed oblivion of the past and in that oblivion our interest is deeper than even hers. We are asked to abide by the traditions of which we are the heirs. What traditions ? Why the Irish traditions ? Go into the length and breadth of the world, ransack the literature of all countries, find, if you can. a single voice, a single book-find, I would almost sav, as much as a single newspaper article, unless the product of the day, in which the conduct of England towards Ireland is auywhere treated except v'ith profound and bitter condemnation. Are these the traditions by which we are exhorted t,o stand ? No, they are a sad exception to the glory of our country. They are a broad and black blot upon the pages of its history : and what we want to do is to stand by the relations with Ireland, and make our relations with Ireland to conform to the other traditions of our country. So we treat our traditions-so we hail the demand of Ireland for what I called a blessed oblivion of the phst. She asks also a boon for the future; and that boon for the future, unless we are much mistaken, will he a boon to us, in respect of honour, no less than a boon to her in respect of happiness, prosperity and peace. Such, Si", is her prayer.
That, I believe. Mr. Speaker, is also the prayer of the majority of the people of this country. We ask for no disturbing scheme ; we ask only for justice for our fellow citizens. We remember what the generous Irish nation has done for the empire at large. We remember what she has done for Canada. to whom she has sent illustrious Governor Generals, great statesmen, men eminent in all ranks and walks of life ; and we hope that, at last, the boon which lias been given to Canada will be extended to her, and that Irishmen, who have been so Illustrious in tlie Senate, at the bar. and in the liberal professions, who have fought in the armies of Great Britain and have led her soldiers to victory in the dark days of triai, will at last attain the share of justice for which they have so long, so consistently and so patriotically laboured.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House long upon this question. I think the present is rather a time for moderation than for agitation on the Irish question. In reviewing the past, in looking over the debate of 1882, I find that the Hon. Edward Blake, for instance, who made one of the strongest appeals in this House on the subject of home rule for Ireland, based his main argument in favour of home rule on the idea


Mr. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa).: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, discussing the Land Purchase Bill which then engaged the attention of the British House of Commons and of the British people, expressed himself in these words :
Perhaps I may he allowed to add a word or two as to my present position. I am afraid that the opposition which I feel to the proposals contained in the Land Purchase Bill cannot be met. X think the Bill is a bad one. I would sooner go out of politics altogether than give my vote to pledge the capital of the country, and the future earnings of every man and women in the United Kingdom, in order to modify the opposition of a small class of Irish proprietors to a scheme which, if it remains in its present form, will, I believe, infallibly lead to the separation of Ireland from England. I ob.iect in this case to the risk which we are asked to incur. I object also to the object for which we are asked to incur that risk. But as regards the Home Rule Bill, the Bill for the better government of Ireland, my opposition is only conditional.
Such was, a few years ago, the language of the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, who, to-day, is probably the most prominent and most aggressive member of the Unionist government which has introduced into the imperial parliament the Land Bill and of the government, which, I have no doubt, will secure its adoption. The Land Purchase Bill which was the subject of discussion in the words I have quoted was a Bill in many respects similar to the present Land Bill. It was dissimilar in this that it did not afford anything like the large measure of relief

that the Land Bill now proposes to accord to the Irish tenant. The change of opinion on the part of the right hon. gentleman, is indicative of the change of opinion that has taken place on this question throughout the whole of the British empire. No wonder then that the cherished hopes and legitimate aspirations of the Irish people have been revived and stimulated, and that those who for such a long time have so energetically, so heroically continued the struggle, begun shortly after the abolition of the Irish parliament in 1880, have seen their hopes renewed, and when this long cherished aim of the champions of home rule for Ireland shall have been accomplished, it will be found that outside of the granting of household suffrage to the inhabitants of the green isle, nothing will have contributed so much to its accomplishment as the present Land Bill, the adoption of which now seems very close at hand. The granting of the household suffrage, the recognition and sanction of the principle by which, to use the apt and expressive language of the Irish tenantry, a vote was conferred ' on every smoke ' which has rendered the people supreme in parliament, and in the country alone has rendered permissible and possible the long continuous constitutional agitation, perhaps at times violent and offensive, but on the whole brilliant and legitimate, which has brought about the introduction of the Land Bill and which makes possible at a future date the settlement of the question of autonomy for Ireland. This constitutional agitation renders possible the settlement of the land question, which as I have said, is so close at hand and it will pave the way for a permanent and satisfactory measure of self-government for Ireland. The settlement of the agrarian question on the broad, just, humane and generous basis by the Land Bill which is now engaging the attention of the British House of Commons, will I am sure, produce the complete regeneration of Ireland. It will replace the unwholesome and unsound system of dual ownership by a just and true system of private ownership ; it will inspire thrift, it will promote a spirit of individual enterprise, it will stimulate improvement and produce contentment and prosperity, but most important of all, it will restore peace and harmony among all classes in Ireland. Distrust and hatred will give place to mutual confidence and a spirit of common pride and common interest in all that concerns the Irish people. Factions, feuds, the dissen-tions of centuries shall disappear and we shall see inaugurated in Ireland a reign of peace, contentment and prosperity. To some this may seem to be altogether too optimistic a view to take of the future, and it may be that I shall be taxed in some quarters with exaggeration. But, have we not in our own country the most conclusive proof that such" will and must h" the result of the settlement of these
two great questions. Fifty years ago Canada was disrupted with racial dissensions; her people were discontented, disloyal, and in fact in open rebellion. To-day, Canada is contented, her people happy and prosperous from ocean to ocean. And why this change ? It is simply because the people of the Dominion of Canada and the provinces which compose it, have been granted that measure of home rule which has been so long, and so heroically demanded by the Irish people. What an encouragement, what a lesson, what an inspiration does not the introduction of this measure of justice and of generosity afford to the world, and more particularly to those who have practised and preached the principles of constitutional democracy, that to-day we see introduced into the English parliament a Land Bill which gives to the industrious peasantry Who till the soil, the right to reap the full fruit of their labours. To the Liberal party of Canada this spectacle is especially gratifying, and does it offer an inspiration and an encouragement, because it has ever believed in, ever practiced and ever preached the efficacy, the virtue, the eternal right of self-government, and the encouragement of national sentiment and solidarity. For no pinciple has the Liberal struggled more resolutely and more constantly than for the recognition of the popular will constitutionally expressed and urged. No class of His Majesty's subjects will rejoice more sincerely and more thoroughly, Mr. Speaker, than the gentlemen who sit to your right, and with them the whole Liberal party of Canada ; that the day has at last come, when with the settlement of the agricultural question in Ireland, we soon shall see adopted a measure of self-government in respect to all manors of special concern to the Irish people. I have ventured into this debate, not with the delusion that I could add anything of value to what has been said in support of the resolution, but merely for the purpose of affirming and of emphasizing the incontrovertible truth, that the introduction of the Irish Land Bill and the hope of its speedy adoption, is the immediate result of Liberal policy. Although that measure has been introduced by a Liberal-Unionist government composed largely of Conservatives, yet Sir, the credit for the changed opinion of British statesmen and the British public, is due first and above all to the greatest of great Liberals, the illustrious Gladstone.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: What a pity that Gladstone is not to-day alive to witness the triumph of the cause which he so courageously espoused and which he so brilliantly and so enthusiastically advocated and defended on every occasion. What a pity that Gladstone is not alive to see the Liberal vindication and triumph of the great Liberal policy which he enunciated on these


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: question^. But, Sir, I have no tear that history, which is not always just, will do full justice to that great statesman. But while we claim that the greatest share ol' praise is due to Mr. Gladstone and his followers for what we now see, yet we on this side of the House do not for a moment wish to minimise or to withhold from His Majesty's present advisers that share of credit to which they are entitled. We all recognize the spirit of generosity which has inspired the Land Bill, and the courage which was required on the part of the British cabinet to submit it to the imperial parliament. We accord to them full praise for this very wise, this very humane, this very just and very generous measure, and I take it, that is, the object, the very raison d'etre of the resolution now before us. This resolution is not a resolution of demand ; it is not even a resolution of advice, but it is a resolution of hearty congratulation and thankfulness that ^ at last some measure of justice to the Irish people has been submitted for the approval of the British parliament. We express the hope that such a measure will be followed by one granting self-government to Ireland in all matters of special concern to the Irish people, and, Sir, our experience in Canada teaches us that such a measure will not only tend to the prosperity and contentment of the Irish people themselves, tout that it will add to the peace and happiness of His Majesty's subjects throughout his wide Dominions.
Nor must it be assumed, Sir, that we on this side of the House are unaware or oblivious of the share of credit which it is generally believed is due to His Gracious Majesty personally. We on this side, by supporting the resolution, extend our congratulations to His Majesty's advisers, and while doing that, if it is permitted to do so, we also extend to the person of His Majesty humble and respectful thanks and congratulations that he has taken such a personal interest in the preparation and promotion of this great and generous measure of relief to the Irish people.
Such being my view of this resolution, and since we have on a recent and solemn occasion created a clear precedent for such an expression of opinion on the part of this parliament, I shall give it my cordial support.


Mr. M. K. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: If the resolution were such as has been described by the last speaker, namely, to tender the congratulations of this House to the British government for introducing a measure with the object of allaying all disaffection in Ireland, I would have found myself in the fullest accord with it. I approve of some of the sentiments expressed in the resolution, but inasmuch as it affirms and endorses the language of former resolutions, from which I dissent, I cannot support the resolution now before the House. Much time has been spent to-night in expressing the pleasure which I believe is general throughout the House, that the Irish Land Bill has been submitted to the British parliament. I am sure that every lover of Ireland rejoices that such a generous and magnanimous step has been taken with a view of removing the disabilities which may exist in Ireland. We congratulate our brethren across the Atlantic that they have met this issue in such a noble spirit, but we naturally asked ourselves, what is the object of this resolution ? Can it in any way facilitate the legislation which is now before the British House. Can it in any way strengthen the hands of the true friends of Ireland in the imperial parliament. From our experience of resolutions of this kind in the past, I am of opinion that it is mischievous in its character, and that it may come hack to us with a rebound as it did before. I yield to no one in this House in my admiration and appreciation of all that is great and noble and brave and chivalrous in the Irish character. We have seen it not only in Great Britain and in Canada, but all the world over ; we have seen Irishmen attain for themselves a name for everything that is great and noble. It is a pitiful thing that in the home of Irishmen, a land so dear to Irishmen and to others that are not Irishmen, things have been in such an unhappy condition in the past. But, Sir,
1 hold that the worst enemies of Ireland have been those of her own household. An unfortunate reference was made to that grand patriot, D'Arcy McGee, a Canadian Irishman.
When mention is made of his name, we naturally ask how did D'Arcy McGee meet with his tragic end ? From what source did it come, by what means, and through what organization ? I will not refer to that further than to say that it was an unfortunate reference. We have seen the sad spectacle in years past of men revelling in luxury at the expense of the peace and happiness and prosperity of Ireland. Not many years ago. when the Fenian organization was strong in the old country, I recollect a man of the name of Stephens, called the Head Centre Stephens, being sent over to this country. When lie landed in New York, a reporter of one of the city dailies had an interview with him which went somewhat as follows : 1 We found Head Centre Stephens at Delmonico's fashionable restaurant suffering the wrongs of Ireland on canvas-back duck and other delicacies. It is sad to think that there have been too many of that class of men, not caring much for Ireland, the happiness of Ireland, the peace of Ireland or the prosperity of Ireland. but simply exploiting all these things for their own personal benefit and luxury. I will not impute a ny sinister motives to the bon. gentleman who has introduced this motion in the House to-day. I am bound

to believe that it is 1iit result of an exuberance of love to Iceland, for Irishmen and the Irish institutions. But I am also bound to say that the hon. gentleman has not a monopoly of that. Many of us who will be compelled to vote against his resolution have as much love for Irishmen and Ireland as he has, and we feel that the spectacle which is presented in the old country to-day is one of the most magnificent that has ever been presented in any British parliament anywhere in the world. We find our brethren across the sea, with all the heavy burdens resting upon them, with the enormous debt left by the South African war, facing this great problem, not in any niggardly spirit, or in fear or truculeney, but boldly and generously, in the face of British securities dropping down from day to day. Under these circumstances, far from our taking any action in this parliament that will tend in the least to embarrass the mother country in the step she has taken, we should stand aside, and let her manage her own affairs in her own way as she is well capable of doing. I do not intend to occupy the time of this House at any length; but I will say that we find Englishmen everywhere turning to Irishmen and reaching out their fraternal hand and saying : ' We are your brothers, and there is not a cause of dissatisfaction, real or imaginary, in Ireland to-day that we are not prepared to meet in a generous, kind, and brotherly spirit ' ; and in the face of that, we in this parliament of Canada would stultify ourselves if we were to send across to the British parliament such a resolution as that which has been proposed. I hope the resolution will not be adopted, but will receive the fate it deserves at the hands of this parliament.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate; but I feel that it is the duty of other representatives of the French Canadian element to express their views on this question, and their thorough sympathy with the motion that has been introduced by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Cos-tigan). If there is an element in the British empire which is especially entitled to speak in favour of self-government, which is able to present examples taken from its own history of the benefits of self-government and to prove what it is for a free people in the British empire. I think the French Canadian element is especially entitled to do so. Throughout the British empire there were, so to speak, three alien groups : the French Canadian element, the Boer element in South Africa, and the Irish element in the United Kingdom ; and what is the common history of these three elements ? Taking first French Canada, we find that the principles which have unfortunately obtained for too many years in Ireland obtained also in Canada and what was the result ? As my hon.


Matthew Kendal Richardson: 
Mr. A. II KEMP (East Toronto).: I shall take up but very few minutes, Mr. Speaker, in continuing this debate. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) referred to the fact that according to the recent census there appeared to be about one million of Irish in this Dominion, and that suggested to me the. conclusion that our census returns seem to have been taken from a very wrong standpoint in this respect. I cannot understand how in this country there can be one million of Irish people. If there be, there must also be a considerable number of English and Scotch. Where are the Canadians to come in ? It seems to me that the time has come when we should call ourselves Canadians and be prepared to be considered as such and not as Irish, Scotch, English, French or anything else. The hon. member for Labelle who has just taken his seat made a reference which I very much regretted. He referred to alien elements- the French Canadians in Canada, the Boers in South Africa and the Irish in the United Kingdom. I wish to resent that sentiment on behalf of my French Canadian fellow countrymen of English (rigin.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman has misunderstood me. When I spoke of alien elements I meant that at the time of their original entrance they were certainly aliens.


Albert Edward Kemp: I must have misunderstood the hon. gentleman and accept liis explanation. At any rate I consider my countrymen of French origin just as much Canadians and just as much on a level with me and other Canadians as I do my fellow countrymen of English or any other origin.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Thank you.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is not necessary for me to express my respect for the Irish or my loyalty to the British Crown to which this resolution refers. But it seems to me this resolution is inopportune, more especially because it comes in at this time when a Bill dealing with the Irish land question which is intended to settle the agitation for home rule is before the British parliament. This question of home rule has been debated many years, and there have [DOT] been in the past great differences of opinions regarding it. and its discussion invariably gives rise to great divergence of sentiment. I am not going to discuss home rule on its merits at all. I think that we should not allow this question to be introduced into this House, and I think that I am expressing the sentiment of the rising

generation in this country when I say that they are not in sympathy with this kind of thing. We have differences of our own to contend with without importing others, and we would resent very much the interference of Great Britain with regard to any of our local matters. But if we pretend that we can interfere in a question, which has to do entirely with the internal domestic economy of Great Britain, how could we resent any tendency on the part of British statesmen and parliamentarians to interfere and advise us regarding matters which particularly affect us and concerning which they are not in a position to know as much as we do ? It seems to me that the British parliament has given the greatest evidence of a sincere desire to treat Ireland generously by bringing down this Land Bill, and it seems to me that we would be interfering in a most unwarrantable manner if we were to pass this resolution advocating home rule. Are we prepared to vote one dollar towards retaking the land and putting it again into the hands of the tenants of Ireland, and thus in a practical way show our sympathy with the Irish cause. This resolution does not state exactly what we are required to pass upon. It refers to resolutions which were passed as far back as 1882, to something which took place in this House twenty-one years ago. It seems to me that the hon. member who introduced the resolution should have been more explicit, and should have stated in the resolution exactly what he wanted. We cannot give Ireland home rule as they wanted it in 1882. It seems to me we should not look lightly upon this question. If we were empowered in this House to give Ireland home rule by our votes, I venture to say, there would be many who will cast their votes in favour of the resolution who, with power to actually give home rule, would give their votes the other way. That is why I say we are insincere in the course we are taking. I think the parliament of Great Britain will resent our action if we carry this resolution. We have great questions at issue between this country and Great Britain, and it is our interest to cultivate their good feeling and good will. I trust that this resolution will be withdrawn, that it will not come to a division. I feel satisfied that if it is passed it will be looked upon by the British people as a hollow mockery and will be treated by them with scorn as other matters of a similar kind have been treated by them in the past. I protest against the introduction into this House of these questions with which we have nothing to do, and I shall vote against the resolution.


Mr. THOMAS MURRAY (Pontiac).: I onlv desire to say a few words, and to declare m'y self in sympathy with the resolution. I should be very sorry to see the resolution introduced, if it would create a spirit of religious acrimony or any feeling of that Mr. KEMP.
kind. I do not consider that the resolution is an absolute necessity. I am pleased to see the state of things now existing with regard to a settlement of Irish grievances. But I consider the resolution quite simple. I do not think it has the features it has been represented to have, or that it will be regarded as offensive by the English authorities. We merely express a conviction that a state of things exists in relation to the settlement of this vexed land question which never existed before. The hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan) who introduced this resolution, has thought it consistent on his part to embody also the question of home rule, and so his resolution expresses a hope that home rule will follow the settlement of the land question. Well, we know how the question of home rule has occupied the parliament of Great Britain. We know the part that Mr. Gladstone took on that question ; we know the part that Edward Blake is taking now that he is a member of the imperial parliament. We know that it is a question that enlists the sympathy of every Irishman in Canada, of every Irishman on the globe, or, at the very least a great.percentage of them. The hon. member for East Grey appears to lay great stress on the minority. He has a fear that the interests of the minority will not be sufficiently protected. I think, if a measure of home rule is adopted by the English parliament, surely they will protect the minority. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) appears to ignore the majority. It is the great majority who are asking the attention of the English parliament to the question of home rule. I say I do not think that there should be dissension. I am sorry to see it. I approve of this resolution in all good faith, thinking, in fact, that it would receive the unanimous approval of the House. I am sorry to see there is such opposition. The gentlemen who oppose it are those who tell us that there should be unity; but I say that the stand they take is not consistent with their statements. Too many representatives of the people would rather cater to their constituents than look at these questions in a broad light. As I have already said, I would be very sorry to feel that a feeling of religious acrimony was raised in this House, and I trust this resolution will not have that effect. I was not prepared to make a speech, but simply give you a few of my ideas on the question before the House. I trust the discussion will go on in a proper spirit, with a view, not of creating disunion among ourselves, but of establishing a better condition of things in Ireland and in Canada. I am a Canadian of Irish descent, and I repeat would be very sorry to see anything arise in this House that would create disunion among us as Canadians. But I think I shall be borne out by others when I say that a great many of the Irish people who would have been in Canada to-day have been driven to the United States on account of

the unhappy condition of affairs in Ireland. It is manifest that the Irish people have a grievance and have good reason to complain. But the land question once settled with a system of local self-government such as we have in Canada, the Irish will be a grateful, happy and prosperous people adding lustre to their race.


Samuel Hughes: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the addresses on this subject, especially to those in favour of the passing of this amendment, and I have yet to hear one solitary word, either by the mover of the resolution (Hon. Mr. Costigan), or my friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), or my friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Murray), or any other hon. member, attempting to point to a solitary grievance under which the Irish people labour. That has not been attempted, and could not be attempted successfully. The hon. member for Labelle said that they were aliens. I wish to say to my hon. friend that they are the same race, people of the same blood as are the people of England and Scotland. In the western part of Ireland we have the Celtic, in the northern, eastern and southern parts the people are Saxon or Scandinavian, except where the blood has undergone a mixture with the Celtic. It is the same blood that flows in the veins of the people of England and Scotland. I speak ethnologically. Hon. members opposite may wag their heads, but I am ready to prove before a committee of this House, or before a commission, that the blood flowing through the veins of the people of Ireland is the blood of the people of the other British islands. In discussing this question, we are apt to regard the British islands as a unit, and not as we regard the Dominion of Canada, as a series of disintegrated provinces. We hear a great deal about the Dominion of Canada being held up as a model for the people. A great many people living in Canada, regard the federal union of the provinces as a very serious mistake. What have we in the provinces to-day ? There are no great issues dividing the people, and history tells us that where there are no great issues dividing the people oligarchies arise, corruptionists obtain control. And we find the people of the provinces debased from one end of the Dominion to the other, through the fact that we have federal union, instead of a legislative union with great county powers.
Now, I am ready to endorse any principle in this House or elsewhere-I do not take exception to the resolution on the ground that we have no right to discuss these things-I would endorse my principle by which the British government gave greater county powers, or what you may call provincial powers, to the various parts of the British empire, including Ireland. I think the time of the British parliament is taken up with a great deal of business that should 25
be relegated to town councils and county councils. Had we , in Canada given our counties or districts larger powers, and had no provincial parliaments at all, I believe that it would have been better for Canada. This Dominion would have been better off had we had, instead of a federal union, a legislative union with more powers for the counties. I again ask any hon. gentleman who may rise to defend this resolution to point out where are the Irish grievances.
I want to tell my hon. friends how this agitation in Ireland commenced. We find in looking over history, that the agitation against landlords in Ireland began years before the time when the landlords were Protestants and the tenants were Catholics; it began when all were Roman Catholics, it began away back in the twelfth century, when landlords were placed in that country in the time of Henry the Second. The consequence was that the tenantry then took a very strong stand against the landlords, and that agitation was continued all through the centuries until the period that all northwestern Europe joined in the Reformation, and Ireland was the only country that stood out. Undoubtedly the great reason why Ireland did not follow the movement that spread over north-western Europe was largely on account of the influence, political and social, of the landlords, that is the reason Ireland did not swing in with the general movement. The landlords sided with the Sovereign and became Protestants, and from that time onward, as before, agitation in Ireland has been so-called religious as well as a landlord and tenant grievance.
But is the Irish tenant under any disability that the English tenant is not under? I beg to point out that in the city of New York alone, rich landlords, men who left the bogs of Ireland and came to America, have turned out on the streets of New York for nonpayment of rent, 29,000 people in one year. Under the law in that city, if the rent is not paid on the first of the month, the next morning the tenant is bundled out on to the streets with all his goods. That number of 29,000 in one year is ten times as many as have been evicted from Ireland in any five years of its history. In Ireland no tenant can be evicted from his property short of a year's notice, and even then he has to be paid for every improvement he has made upon the land. The Irish tenant is the most nursed man in the world. England has listened to agitators of this kind too long. The Canadian parliament has listened to agitators of this kind too long, men who have no other recommendation to bring themselves before the public than that they cater and bow to some Irish home rule Pope, or some Orange Pope, or some Roman Catholic Pope. We have had too much of that in this country and in other countries. It is time that we settled down and attended to our own business. I ask



my hon. friends on either side to rise up and point out any grievance the Irish tenant has that the Scotch tenant, the English tenant and the Canadian tenant has not to a tenfold greater degree.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) says that Mr. Chamberlain had admitted that the trouble in South Africa was brought about by British tyranny over the Boers. Sir, Mr. Chamberlain has never given expression to any such idea. The trouble in South Africa was brought about by the determination of the British government to give British subjects in Africa the same rights as the Boers, to give every man in the Transvaal equal rights. That is the reason that war was begun. The policy of Great Britain was on the side of liberty and opposed to tyranny. I want to tell my hon. friend for Labelle, who seems 'to take pleasure in toying with race cries, all over the British empire, I waut to tell 1 him, and this House, and this country, that had Britain taken a firm stand with the Boers at the time of the emancipation of the slaves instead of pandering to the Boer people in her own dominions, in her own colonies, in Natal and other parts of South Africa, there would have been no Boer war. But she pandered to them, she truckled to them ; and when she sent 5,000 Scotch colonists to South Africa, and the Boers resented their coming, in place of sending another 5,000 the next year, and another -5,000 the year following, she yielded to them, as she has done in all parts of her 'dominions. She has done too much yielding to fanatical cries. Britain has too often forgotten that five grasshoppers in a field will make more noise than 100 fat oxen that are peaceably grazing. That is the reason why we have so many agitations of this kind. I would be pleased to see a more extended principle of county home rule extended to Ireland as well as to England and to Scotland. I would be pleased to see Britain divest her present cumbersome parliament of a great deal of the details of business that properly belong to village, city and county councils. Then we might look forward to the day when representatives from all the colonies might assemble in one great imperial council, one great imperial parliament, where the whole British empire would stand united before the world.
I do not agree with the remarks made by one speaker who said that the election of the present member for Galway was a great compliment to Canada. I do not take it as a compliment to Canada that a county which elected Colonel Lynch, the late member, has elected a Canadian in his place. It is no compliment to Canada to have one of her sons returned from Galway at the present time. I had not intended speaking on this subject, but I wish to ask any hon. gentleman present to point out one solitary grievance under which the Irish tenant is


Samuel Hughes: suffering to-day which the English and the Scotch tenants are not equally suffering from.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT (South Renfrew).: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I doubt much whether the intelligence of the Sunday school scholars could be brought up to the point of understanding that question thoroughly, but I would expect that my practical Christianity would lead me to teach the children how to conduct themselves properly at home in obedience to their parents and how to receive the instructions they would get from their parents supplemented by what they would be taught in the Sunday school. I hope that my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) is not offended at this expression of my sentiment towards him, but I thought that the House was getting a little weary, and I thought that I might perhaps be allowed to create a laugh at his expense.


John Charlton: I might correct my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) by informing him that it was Parents' day on the occasion that I made these remarks, and they were not made to children but to adults.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: Very good. I hope that the parents and the children will profit by the instruction they received.


John Charlton: I hope so.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) We must be all gratified at the prospect of the land question being settled by the Bill now before the imperial parliament. That is a step in the right direction, and it shows us that it is only now that the seeds that Gladstone planted are beginning to bring forth fruit. It is very often that the reforms propounded by great men come in to being only when their authors are dead. Our Saviour ascended into Heaven before the Apostles understood their mission. Wilber-

force was on his death bed when the emancipation of the slaves became law in England, an object for which he had worked to attain for thirty-five years. Gladstone is dead and Ireland is to-day reaping the blessings of the policy he proposed for her. We may say what we like here, home rule for Ireland is going to come, and it will come whether or not we raise objections to it in this House or in this country. The settling of the land question is bound to bring home rule for Ireland within a shorter time than we perhaps expect. Why should we in this country deny the Irish people, or the people of Wales or of Scotland, the blessings that we ourselves enjoy. I have been a Liberal all my life and during the short time that Providence will permit me to live, I shall continue to be a Liberal and intend to die a Liberal, and being a Liberal I want to see extended to Ireland the same amount of justice and the same blessings of home rule that we enjoy in this Dominion. I might point out that the parliament of Nova Scotia was in advance of England when the great Daniel O'Connell forced them to admit Catholics to the Imperial House of Commons. Years before that, we had admitted a Roman Catholic from Cape Breton into the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia and it would do some of the men who are opposed to giving justice to Ireland, a great deal of good if they were to read the speeches that were made by Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen, when, the Nova Scotia parliament declared that Cavanagh the Catholic from Cape Breton should take his seat in the Nova Scotia parliament. I said the other day that we in the lower provinces were in advance of Canada in many things, and this is one of the things that might be mentioned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I am afraid Mr. Speaker, that I have occupied the time of the House at too great length, and I know that great fault is found with those who trespass too much on your patience, but I think in justice to myself that I should express my opinions on this subject, and I will regret exceedingly if this House should forget itself so much as not to give a unanimous vote for the resolution that has been submitted.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: Perhaps all has been said on this motion that can be said with advantage to the House, and I venture to think that more has already been said in favour of this resolution than will be of profit to Canada. At the risk of not being able to contribute much that might be useful in the discussion, I yet desire to put myself on record and to advance some reasons why I shall vote upon this resolution as I intend to vote. The resolution as I have heard it read and as I understood it. is divisable into two parts. Part one of the resolution declares Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
the unswerving loyalty of this parliament and of the people of Canada to Great Britain. I would like to know when it became necessary for the Canadian people to put in writing and transmit that writing to the British parliament, to convince the British people of the loyalty of Canadians. Have not the Canadian people within the last two or three years, by their acts which speak louder than words, convinced the British empire that at all times Canadians may be relied upon to show their loyalty to the mother country. It struck me when the resolution was being read that there was no necessity for that part of the resolution, and that the reason why it was introduced was simply as an apology for the latter part of the motion regarding home rule. And Sir, I do not think this parliament is called upon to support any resolution that requires an apology for its introduction. Now, I do not recognize any man as having a greater regard, respect, or admiration for the Irish people than I myself possess. I have the proud right to claim descent from Irish parents, and I have today living in that country some of my nearest relatives, who are I think in a position to judge fairly of the condition of things in Ireland.
I have had some personal experience with those people, having visited them on more than one occasion, and I am bound to say that on my last visit I could see, what is perfectly apparent to any one visiting the country, that a very great improvement has taken place in the condition of Ireland within the last ten years. I say I do not recognize any man as having a greater admiration for Ireland and the Irish people, than I have. Ireland is a country acknowledged to have great possibilities both from an agricultural and an industrial standpoint. The Irish people as a race are patriotic, hardy and intelligent, and possessed of a large-heartedness and a sympathetic nature which I regret to think are sometimes taken advantage of by agitators, not for the purpose of benefiting the Irish people, but for the purpose of advancing their own political or personal interests. Sir, at this distance and with the opportunities which we have at our command, it occurs to me that we are not in a position to view this question with such a degree of certainty that it is impossible for us to form a conclusion that may not be erroneous. We are liable, from a want of knowledge of the inner workings of this question, to make mistakes in our judgment. Many of the ablest statesmen in the British parliament have differed on this great question-parliamentarians who have given the matter most earnest and careful consideration, men who have been willing at all times to grant such relief as might be fair to Ireland or to any other Portion of the empire: and is it anv wonder that a difference of opinion should exist here where we have not the same opportunities of studying the question that these men have ?

A difference of opinion not as to the justice of redressing any real grievance but a difference of opinion as to the best mode of accomplishing it. The whole question is to my mind beset with such difficulties that it would be impossible for us at this distance to form a correct judgment upon it. There is the right of the landlord, and the right of the tenant; there is the right of the government and the right of those who are governed; there is the right of the native-born Irishman and the right of the people who have gone into the country and by their capital and industry have assisted in bringing about the better condition of Ireland that we see to-day ; there is the right of the employer and the right of the employee; and there is also the differences among the people in religious sentiment.	I hope this resolution has not
been introduced and will not be discussed in a spirit that would be likely to widen the breach that now exists between those two religious bodies. Happily for this country and for the whole British nation, those two religious bodies have been approaching nearer together, and I would be very sorry to say one word or to hear one word uttered in this parliament that might have the effect of widening in the slightest degree that breach which is happily growing less. But apart altogether from that consideration, it strikes me that the question we are discussing is one with which we ought not to deal in this parliament. We are undertaking to accomplish something which we have no assurance that we shall be able to accomplish; we are voluntarily undertaking a responsibility that we have not the power or the authority of carrying out. While we may be most anxious, as I have no doubt every Canadian is, to see every real grievance in Ireland redressed, let us hesitate before taking this step for fear we may injure the cause which we most wish to advance. I am very glad to know that a flood-light of hope has been cast over Ireland and the Irish people to-day by the legislation emanating from the Conservative party in the British parliament. It is to my mind only one more evidence of the willingness, the readiness and the ability of the Conservative party, not only in England but in Canada, to stretch forth the hand of help to any of our people who may require assistance: and, Sir, it is the one element to which we, as Canadians, can point with pride as having built up this country and made our people happy and prosperous. I know, from my reading of some of the debates which have taken place in this House on similar occasions, that the right hon. First. Minister has before now pointed out that resolutions of this kind carried on former occasions have been kindly received by the British parliament; but notwithstanding that fact, I think it is well for us to stop and consider before sending on another
resolution. It is natural for the British race to grant pardon for a first offence; but a repetition of that offence is often visited with tlie severest punishment, and this may possibly be the time, when, if we interfere with something with which we have nothing to do, we may receive a rebuke from the British parliament. We have duties enough to perform in regard to our own country. We have a great and growing country with a diversity of interests; we are here representing the people of this country and supposed to devote ourselves to the business of this country, and if we discharge our duty in that respect, we shall have performed our duty well, without travelling outside of that duty and interfering with something with which we have nothing whatever to do. There is plenty of work affecting the interests of this country to engage the attention of this parliament for all the time it can afford, and it strikes me that we would be better fulfilling the duties cast upon us if we were to direct our energies into that channel and that channel alone. Let it not be said of us that we do those things which we ought not to do and leave undone those things which we ought to do. For these among other considerations I feel bound to pass my vote against the resolution, but I do so in no spirit of ill-feeling against the Irish people or Ireland. On the contrary, I entertain the warmest feeling for that nation and its people, and while I cast my vote against the resolution I at the same time say ' God bless Ireland.'


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Whether this motion be opportune or not, whether it be conducive or not to beneficial results, whether the time chosen be propitious-all these are questions which must have engaged the serious attention of my hon. friend the mover of this resolution, who has been in this House one of the oldest champions of the cause of home rule for Ireland. But whatever may be our views upon the opportunity of this motion it is now before us and for my part, convinced as I have been for a great many years that the settlement of the Irish problem would be a blessing not only to Ireland but to Great Britain, to Canada, to Australia, and to all parts of the British empire in which Irishmen are to be found, I feel called upon on this occasion to give this motion my most hearty sympathy, as I have done similar resolutions on former occasions. We are reminded that once, when the parliament of Canada passed a motion similar somewhat to that now before us, we were told in language polite but unequivocal that it would be far better and preferable for the parliament of Canada to apply itself to questions over which it has jurisdiction. But, Sir, time moves, new ideas germinate and bear fruit, and there is to-day, I am sure, a greater cordiality and solidarity among all the nations of the earth than there has been

at any previous period of its history. It is fitting and proper that this feeling should exist in a larger degree within the communities which are members of the same empire, and every one must be glad to bear testimony to this fact, that at present the relations between Great Britain and her colonies are certainly closer than they were twenty-two years ago. So close have become our relations that now we can offer our own opinions and views to the British people upon questions of policy, which affect not only imperial affairs, but also domestic affairs, without any rebuke. It is scarcely more than three years ago when, on the 31st of July, 1899, the following resolution was moved in this House and adopted unanimously :
1.	Resolved, that this House has viewed with regret the complications which have arisen in the Transvaal Republic, of which Her Majesty is suzerain, from the refusal to accord to Her Majesty's subjects now settled in that region any adequate participation in its government.
2.	Resolved, that this House has learned with still greater regret that the condition of things there existing has resulted in intolerable oppression, and has produced great and dangerous excitement among several classes of Her Majesty's subjects in her South African possessions.
3.	Resolved, that this House, representing a people which has largely succeeded, by the adoption of the principle of conceding equal political rights to every portion of the population, in harmonising estrangements and in producing general content with the existing system of government, desires to express its sympathy with the efforts of Her Majesty's imperial authorities to obtain for the subjects of Her Majesty who have taken up their abode in the Transvaal such measure of justice and political recognition as may bo found necessary to secure them in the full possession of equal rights and liberties.
This motion was transmitted by the Speaker of the House of Commons, to the Colonial Secretary of State, and for this motion we were not rebuked. To this there came no rebuff. On the contrary it was quoted with approval all over the British empire. On the contrary the British people expressed their thanks and gratitude to the parliament of Canada for the action we had then taken. And if we could take that course with reference to the Transvaal, if we could do that for the people of the Transvaal, surely we are warranted ten times over in taking the same course for the benefit of our fellow subjects in Ireland. Now, Sir, it is a pleasant fact that at present there is peace in every part of the British empire, there is contentment in almost every part of the of the British empire, with one exception only, and that is Ireland. If we analyze the condition of things which exists in all these parts of the British empire where general contentment prevails, we must come to the conclusion that the one cause which Sir WILFRID LATTRIER.
has brought about this beneficial result is tlie fact that in every one of those communities the people have been granted a full measure of local autonomy and local self-government. Why should not the same measure be meted out to the people of Ireland ? Why should they not be granted the same measure of self-government which has been granted Australia and Canada Y Why should we not expect that what has made Canada prosperous and loyal would also make Ireland prosperous and loyal Y Why is it this course is not followed with regard to Ireland Y If we go to the root of things, we will find that the only cause can he summarized in the word ' distrust '- the distrust of the British people against the Irish people-that distrust which impels them to the conclusion that the Irish people, if they were granted home rule, if they were given the right to administer their own affairs, would abuse that power in order to work out the separation of Ireland from Great Britain. It is this distrust which has just been expressed by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), when he said that if the people of Ireland were granted the power to govern themselves, they would be ruled by a foreign authority. Bet me say to my hon. friend this :	He and I do not
worship at the same altar, but let me tell him that the Roman Catholics to-day, while they acknowledge obedience in spiritual matters to that foreign authority which he had in his mind, in temporal matters they recognize no authority but that of their own civil government. If the people of England be satisfied that the Roman Catholics in Ireland, as the Roman Catholics in Canada, will be true to the eivil authority of the land, I am sure the next day home rule will be granted to Ireland. But, at the same time, this distrust exists. I may say- and I must say to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Costigan), the mover of this resolution- that some of the Irish leaders have acted very unwisely and have, unfortunately given cause of distrust against them. If I had the privilege of a seat in the House of Commons, I would say to my friends the home rulers : While I sympathise with you, while I am, as much as you are, in favour of home rule for Ireland, I want it to be understood, and I want to say here and now, that home rule does not mean separation; you should and you must be loyal to the Crown.


Albert Edward Kemp: They won't say that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, they would say that; for, other home rulers have said it before. Let me quote the words of one of the most distinguished home rulers of his day, Sir Charles Russell, afterwards Lord Russell of Killowen. In addressing his electors, the electors of Hackney, in November, 1885, he made use of this language, running as a home rule candidate :

The Question of Ireland still remains unsolved. Its wise solution cannot fail to strengthen the position of the empire, and leave to the legislature here greater opportunity of dealing adequately with an increasing arrear of necessary legislation. I am absolutely opposed to separation ; but, reserving imperial control in all imperial questions, I think Irishmen on Irish soil should have the power of dealing in the way that seems to them best with all questions that concern them.
This is the language of a home ruler. This is the view of the question which I am sure will prevail. But you will tell me that language has been used, which is very nearly, if not actually treason. We all know that the embittered heart will be made ungenerous. But if there is a way of making men, even with the intention of disloyalty in their hearts, loyal, that way is to trust them and give them the liberties which have been denied them. Look at the history of Canada here, when that great man, one of the greatest men of the last century, Lord Elgin, did not hesitate to put the fullest powers of self-government into the hands of a people who, a few years before had been in actual rebellion. Sir, this is the way that great men deal with such questions; and this is the thing I would speak for, if I had the privilege of a seat in the House of Commons. Nay, more, if I had that privilege, having spoken as I have just indicated to the home rulers, I would address myself also to the government of the day, and I would tell them that it was not sufficient to have a tentative policy upon this question. I would say : You have done a great deal for Ireland ; you have sacrificed a great amount of money ; you are to-day bringing in a measure which is a credit to the statesmanship of your government, which must involve the expenditure of a great deal of money, though I hope that, in the end it will be paid by the Irish people themselves, but it is not sufficient to deal out parsimoniously- I do not say in the matter of money, but in the matter of reform-measures of improvement. You must appeal to the heart and the imagination of a highly impulsive and generous people. Mr. Gladstone has done more by his attempt, by his abortive attempt, for home rule, than all the reforms, substantial as they have been, which have been worked by the present government. I have always been impressed by the words spoken something over ten years ago, by Mr. John Dillon. The occasion was a demonstration in favour of Mr. Dillon by the people of Cork, where he had just been released from jail, having been confined for violation of one of the numerous Coercion Acts which were the disgrace of the British government in the last century. This is the way Mr. Dillon spoke-and I appeal to the attention of my hon. friends, especially of my hon. friends on the other side who do not believe in home rule for Ireland-to consider these words :
But it is impossible for me to be blind to the facts that are forced upon my notice as regards the mighty changes which have come over the minds of the masses of the people of England, and remembering this, I think it is not wise to be impatient, because the delivery of Ireland is not to be accomplished in a day. I can see no cause for impatience, but cause rather for hope and even exultation. Coming now, as I do, from what was meant to be an insult and a degradation to me, and, as I hope, an honourable man, I,can find within my heart not the slightest trace of bitterness against the people of England. I can recollect the day when the power and the name of Englishmen were hateful to my heart. It may be that I am demoralized by the countless acts of kindness I have received at the hands of Englishmen. But the feeling has now changed, and I cannot find it in my heart to regret that it i3 now passing away.
Let us pause and reflect a little on these words. ' I recollect the day when the power and the name of Englishmen were hateful to my heart.' Here is the accumulated bitterness of ages and centuries of oppression. That was the condition of John Dillon, that was the condition of the Irish people-bitterness of heart caused by the odious manner in which they had been treated for ages and centuries. But the fact that at that time a great party was ready to come to the relief of Ireland was enough to take away the bitterness from the heart of John Dillon. He was applauded by the people of Ireland. Therefore, I say, trust the people of Ireland, let them be treated kindly, let them be treated fairly, let them be treated justly, and the bitterness will pass away and they will become the most loyal subjects in the British empire. I am not taking too sanguine a view. There is example and justification of my words in the language I have just quoted from John Dillon. But, so long as you continue to give to the people of Ireland, from time to time, simply a scanty measure of what they would expect, you will not make them contented and happy. If there is on the face of the earth, a generous people, a warm-hearted people, never slow to resent an injury, but never slow to be grateful for a favour received, it is the Irish people; and, for my part- I do not wish to speak at length on the subject, for it has been well threshed out -I do not believe that if this question is to be solved, it can only be by giving the Irish people the measure of liberty that we have in Canada, and to give them, not the powers we have in the parliament of the confederation, but the powers we give to the provinces. Let there be a parliament on College Green. Let the heart and mind of the Irish people be appealed to, and Ireland, instead of being, as in the past, a thorn in the flesh of England, will become a tower of strength to the British empire.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken, I desire

to say a few words. I regret that I was not able to hear the whole of the debate. It did seem to me that when my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) gave notice of his resolution that this was a somewhat inopportune time to introduce it. What is regarded as a very liberal measure of relief with respect to one question which has agitated Ireland for some time, has been introduced by the English government. For that reason, possibly, the occasion for the introduction of this resolution is not of the happiest. Also, I think that the resolution is not very happily worded. I should have thought that my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B'., might perhaps have couched his thoughts in the concluding clauses of the resolution in some happier terms. I think all of us in this House desire that every possible measure of relief be given to Ireland in respect of any grievance which she has sustained in the past or from what she now suffers ; but at the same time we do not desire to place ourselves in a position which is not a dignified one. I would like to call the attention of my right hon. friend to the concluding words of this resolution :
We have observed, may it please your Majesty, with feelings of profound satisfaction the evidence afforded in the debate of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and in the speech from the Throne, of a sincere desire on all sides to usher in a new era of lasting peace and good will.
I would like to submit to my right hon. friend whether after all it is a very dignified, not to say a pertinent, thing for us to discuss the tone of a debate in the imperial House of Commons. It does not seem to me that the resolution is worded in the best way in that regard. We might have it followed by a proposed resolution of this House with regard to the eloquence of some speech of a British cabinet minister, or of a member of the House of Commons, and we would not be going very much beyond the length to which we are asked to go in this resolution. However, that is a matter of form more than a matter of substance; and I would have been inclined, if I had been favoured to any extent with the confidence of the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution, to suggest to him, as well as to my right hon. friend who is responsible for the dignity as well as the proceedings of this House, that the resolution might have been amended in that respect and yet be just as serviceable to the cause of home rule.
Now the resolution seems to be somewhat unhappily worded in another regard. It refers to a measure which is about to be introduced into the British House of Commons. Well, since the notice was given, since the address was drawn up, that resolution has been introduced, and criticism might fairly be made I think on the terms of the resolution that it hardly does justice to the present circumstances.


Robert Laird Borden: But apart from this, Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of attention to the very able speech of my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and I thought there was a good deal in it worthy of consideration by all of us in this House. At the same time we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that not only with regard to home rule in Ireland, but with regard to other matters of imperial concern, we have in the past taken upon ourselves to make suggestions to the imperial government. As to the wisdom of that course, there may be more than one opinion, as to the service or value of it, there may be more than one opinion. I really do not know whether the cause of home rule in Ireland, the redress of grievances under which Ireland has suffered in the past, has been materially aided by any resolution or by any action of the Canadian House of Commons. It is quite true that we passed a resolution unanimously some three years ago with regard to the cause of our fellow subjects in South Africa. But I think the House should not forget that that resolution was followed up by active and material assistance when the cause of our fellow subjects there came to be decided by the force of arms. It is a fair question for hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House as to what extent we should take upon ourselves to tender advice in imperial matters where we are not prepared to supplement that advice by some active and material assistance.
Now I would like to call the attention of my hon. friend the mover of this resolution to the fact that there are communities in Canada at the present time which are demanding that same measure of home rule which he is demanding for Ireland. I am referring to the people of the North-west Territories of Canada, who, by the unanimous resolution of their representatives in the territorial legislature, have called upon this government, nearly two years ago, to grant to them exactly the same rights which are possessed by the people of all the provinces of Canada. Perhaps it might be a fair matter of consideration as to whether those claims and those demands should not engage our attention during this session, and whether our time might not at least be equally devoted to them as well as to the claims of our fellow countrymen in Ireland.
With regard to what my right hon. friend has said respecting the cause of home rule in Ireland, I am happy to say that a great deal of it commends itself to my judgment, but I do not altogether think that the cause of home rule, or the success of home rule, will be reached in the way he appears to believe. I think that home rule, not only to the Irish people but to the people of all the British islands, will come in the future, and come perhaps in the very near future, from the very necessity of things. We know how utterly inadequate is the time at the command of the imperial House of Commons

for consideration of the great subjects which come before that House. I myself have sat in the gallery of the House of Commons at Westminster and seen the affairs of India, a country of 300,000,000, disposed of In a single evening, and with not more than one-fifth of the membership of the House present. We know that during the past two or three years estimates, items amounting to $25,000,000, have been passed through the imperial House with a discussion of only an hour or two, for the reason that the time of the House was so taken up with a multitude of other matters that it was absolutely impossible to devote to these subjects the time they really demanded. Now, whether by an extension of the power of county councils in the mother country, whether by the establishment of district councils, or by the establishment of local parliaments of some kind, I believe that that condition of affairs must be relieved, and will be relieved in the very near future.
In the meantime, however, a very great measure has been proposed to the imperial House of Commons, a measure which is an object lesson to the whole world. A country that has spent hundreds of millions in asserting the rights of her subjects in South Africa, now presents to the world the spectacle of granting as a loan in the first instance $500,000,000 or $600,000,000, accompanied with a vote of $60,000,000 to $70,000,000 for the purpose of relieving a portion of the United Kingdom from a grievance which has existed for a great many years past. That is a great measure, it is a measure that is worthy of the parliament of a great country. Whether or not it will have all the success which most of us believe and hope it will have, certainly we must all recognize that it is an intelligent and sincere step in the direction of ameliorating the grievances from which Ireland has suffered in the past. Therefore, I say that all of us join with our fellow countrymen on the other side of the water in trusting that that measure may pass, and that it may have the result which we all hope for. That Ireland is worthy of an effort of this kind none of us will deny. My right hon. friend has said that he believes that Ireland will be loyal. I go beyond that: I say that I believe Ireland is and has been loyal to the British Crown, notwithstanding these grievances from which she has suffered in the past. When I speak of Ireland I speak of the great mass of the people of Ireland, and I have the battlefields of the empire to justify me in saying that Ireland has been loyal and devoted to the Crown of the United Kingdom in all of the years past. Go to the thousand battlefields of the empire, look where the charge has been fiercest in the hour of victory, or where the foe has pressed nearest in the hour of retreat, on every one of these battlefields Ireland may claim and has claimed her glorious dead, the dead who have fought and bled for the welfare of the empire. Not only has Ireland done this, but Ireland has given to the empire men in every rank of life who have contributed much to the upbuilding of the empire and to the cause of civilization. Therefore, I say. Mr. Speaker, that I do not accept the suggestion that Ireland will be loyal in the future ; I say that the mass of the Irish people, the great body of the Irish people have been loyal in the past to the empire, and are loyal at present to the empire, and this I say to their credit, because, during all these years they have been oppressed with a sense of wrong and injustice, and they have felt that they have not been fairly treated. Notwithstanding that, they have stood side by side and shoulder to shoulder with their brethren in Scotland and England, and they have been devoted and loyal to the cause of the empire in every walk and department of life.
Now, there is another striking circumstance in connection with the present measure that has been brought forward in the House of Commons, and that is the fact, from which I draw a good omen for the future, that Irishmen throughout Canada, and I believe Irishmen throughout the United Kingdom, are impressed with the belief that the present attitude of the British government is to a large extent, to a considerable extent, at least, due to the personal influence of our most gracious Sovereign. I draw from that a very happy omen for the future, because the tie which binds Ireland, as well as Canada, to the empire, the tie of allegiance to the Crown, is only a technical tie, and while it is only a technical tie it has no very great strength. It requires something stronger and deeper than that. The belief that Irishmen entertain throughout Canada and throughout the mother country as to the effect of the personal influence of our Sovereign will, I believe, strengthen that tie so that it will become enduring and imperishable so that Ireland not only will remain loyal but will become the most loyal portion of His Majesty's dominion throughout the world. That, Sir, is a very happy circumstance indeed. That is a circumstance which we welcome on this side of the Atlantic, and a circumstance which, I am sure, will render the future of the United Kingdom of much happier omen than the conditions of the past might have justified us in expecting a few years ago. Now, I do not know that I have anything to add. As I said before, I think that the precedents that we have had introduced in regard to Ireland herself, and the precedent which we established in 1900 in regard to our fellow countrymen in South Africa, justify us in voting for this resolution, although I am bound to say that I would have preferred that it should have been introduced at some more opportune moment, and (that it should have been

couched in some happier terms. Therefore, for these reasons, by reason of the precedents of the past, in the hope that this may in some measure strengthen those in the United Kingdom who brought forward this measure, and in the belief that, acting upon these precedents of the past, we have no other course to follow at the present time, I, speaking for myself, now declare my intention of voting for this resolution.
Mr- J- SHERRITT (North Middlesex), Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to give a silent vote, nor do I wish to delay the House by the remarks which I have to make. I shall endeavour not to detain the House for more than a minute or two. I am not here to discuss the question of home rule for Ireland ; neither am I here to say the Irish people have not a grievance, nor will I take up the time of the House in establishing the fact that I am in sympathy with Ireland. I am an Irishman myself, and it would not be a very difficult matter for me to establish the fact that I am in sympathy with Ireland, but when we consider that in 1882 we met with a rebuff at the hands of the imperial government, when a motion similar to that now proposed was sent to Great Britain, it does seem to me that we cannot, except that the conditions there have changed so materially in the twenty-one years which have elapsed since that time, that we will not leave ourselves open to receiving another such rebuff as we got at that time. I do not wish to put myself on record as being willing to invite a rebuff of that kind. Under these circumstances I intend to vote against the motion. It is not that I have any feeling against the Irish people, nor is it that I do not represent that class of people. I have the honour to represent a very large number of people of Irish parentage resident in my riding. I am glad to say that the people I represent are intelligent enough to know that any action we may take here will not accomplish very much in their behalf, remembering, as they do, the reception given to the resolution which was sent over twenty-one years ago. For that reason, and that reason only, I intend to vote against this motion if the mover and seconder insist upon the matter being brought to a vote.


Mr. JOHN D. REID (South Grenville).: Mr. speaker, I do not care to give a vote on this question without explaining my position. I remember that a few years ago I gate a vote in favour of the motion moved by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan). At that time, I was in favour of anything that could be done in the interest of Ireland, and I am in favour of it now. I am of Irish descent and I would like everything done that would assist that portion of the empire. But, Sir, at the present time I intend to vote against this resolution and I will give my reasons. It sur-


Robert Laird Borden: prises me that I have not seen any agitation in this country by the Irish people either Protestants or Catholics asking for any resolution to be introduced in this House in favour of home rule for Ireland, and what is still more surprising to me is that the Irish people of this country of the same religion as the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan), could not find some leading member of this House, a member of the government, who would introduce it and who would in my opinion add to the credit of the resolution. We have in this House the hon. Minister of Justice, a creditable Irishman, and if the Minister of Justice would introduce a resolution of this kind and explain it, I conceive that a great many more would support it. But here is the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., who has been travelling on this resolution since he was first a member of this House thirty or forty years ago. I believe that this resolution was introduced by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) each and every time for the purpose of booming himself hi the House and so far as I am concerned I do not intend to boom him any more. I believe that a great many men in this House have been speaking here to-night simply for their constituents; simply for the purpose of trying to put themselves in such a position that they may come back to the House again.
I care not whether I come back or not, I intend to express my feelings as I am doing now. I do not believe that it is in the interest of the Irish people of Canada, I believe it was introduced in the interest of the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., and I shall not support any motion which is submitted here for the purpose of serving the ends of any one member. Under these circumstances I feel that I would not be doing myself or my constituents justice if I sat here without explaining the reasons why I shall vote against the resolution. I am sincere in what I say. Is it not a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, that in this House, where we have so many prominent Irishmen, men who are respected from one end of this Dominion to the other, that there is not one of them that will get up here and move the resolution except the hon. gentleman who has been playing with it so long. For that reason I shall vote against it now and every time so long as it is moved in the spirit in which it has been moved to-day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I venture to intrude in this debate, expressing the hope that nothing which I may say, will mar the effect produced by the very eloquent and statesmanlike utterance we have heard from the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In corroboration of what the right hon. gentleman lias said, if I may call it corroboration, I would like to read to the House the words

used by the Hon. George E. Foster at the time the Transvaal resolution was introduced here, and I think these words have a very close application to the subject now before us. Mr. Foster said :
These resolutions, I think, are timely, then, because they say to our own British fellow-citizens, who are Uitlanders in the republic, that they have the sympathy and the good will of the British empire as a whole, in all its parts, in their struggle for equal rights. No taxation without representation is a cry to which the world rises, and it will rise in the Dutch republic just as surely as the sun rises. Outside of that, I think, great good will come from the introduction and passage of a resolution like this in that it is another proof of the solidarity of the British empire throughout the world, that to-day, in these times of telegraph wires, and steamships, and quick transmission of intelligence, evokes a lively and sympathetic and deep interest in every part of the British empire in the local fortunes of every other part of the British empire.
It seems to me that this language may very well be taken to heart by hon. gentlemen opposite who are opposed to this resolution. I would ask them to realize that all we ask is that there may be extended to our fellow-countrymen in Ireland, that measure of sympathy and support that two years ago we were asked to extend to the Uit-landers in South Africa. Beyond that we do not go; beyond that, so far as I am concerned, I would not venture to go.
Some hon. gentlemen have taken it upon themselves to discuss the motives and the objects which my hon. friend (Mr. Costigan) had when he moved this resolution. I would be remiss in my duty, if, speaking here tonight, I did not say a word in support of that hon. gentleman, and give expression to the sentiments that I entertain for him. Let me say in this connection that I do not affect to speak for the Irish Catholics of the Dominion of Canada. I have no mandate; no authority to speak for them. I speak to-night, as has been my habit in the past, in the capacity of a Canadian representative of a Canadian constituency, but at the same time I cannot forget that I am an Irish Catholic, and I speak as one of that class (if not for them) when I say that no man in Canada deserves better of the Irish Catholics than the Hon. Mr. Costigan.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Hon. Mr. Costigan enjoys the exceptional advantage of having occupied a seat in this House continuously since confederation, and during that long record he has not done anything that we need blush for. On the contrary, we give our sanction and our approval to all that he has done in so far as Irish Catholic interests are concerned.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria, Ont.) It is Irish interests he is looking after, not Irish Catholic interests.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not quite catch what my hon. friend has said.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria, Ont.) He is looking after Irish interests, not after Irish Catholic interests.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, lie is looking after Irish interests, and that is what we are dealing with now. The attack made upon the Hon. Mr. Costigan was under the suggestion that his object here was merely to catch votes, and I am referring to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Costigan) with the object of refuting the statement that such is his object. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) was good enough to suggest that he would like to challenge any man in this House to say that there was such a thing in existence as an Irish grievance. Well, the answer to that challenge of his was given by the leader of the political party to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) belongs; but if further answer be required, I could read from the speeches delivered by the Rt. Hon. Mr. Chamberlain as far back as 1885 and 1886. Here is one of the declarations that Mr. Chamberlain had to make on that subject :
It is not a new problem, this Irish question. Once in ten years ; once in twenty years it may be ; sometimes with sufficient warning, sometimes without the slightest preparation like a bolt from the blue sky, the Irish question is upon us. Every generation in turn for 400 years has had to deal with it. Each has disposed of it for a time according to its fashion, and each has had to bequeath it still unsettled
to its successor	Force has been
tried during all this period, and has failed. Nothing is more certain than that force, although it may temporarily have produced order and tranquillity, has left Ireland always as discontented as before, has left the problem still unsolved	The majority of the farmers of Ireland and their families are at the mercy of the ten thousand landlords in the country, and they have suffered much in the past. 'Well, I have nothing to say, and will not say one single word against the Irish landlords as a class. The proof that they have been, on the whole, just and even generous is to be found in the fact that they continue to exist. The occasional enforcement of their rights by an unjust and harsh landlord here and there was enough to cause alarm and indignation throughout the whole district, and was a constant and fruitful source of disaffection in the country ; and when the bad times came-when famine stared these people in the face, and when to every man was brought the possibility of eviction and expatriation-I say it is no wonder that under such circumstances a common danger united the people, induced them to listen to baleful counsels, and occasionally impelled them to criminal deeds.
Now, the question of Irish grievances, it seems to me, is not one that should be discussed here. We all know that Irish grievances have existed, and we know that some exist still. At the same time, I would not be true to my duty if I did not bear testimony to the fact that an honest effort has been made by the English people to remedy those grievances, and I am satisfied that the day is not far distant when the last

of them will have disappeared. In the meantime, what are we called on to do 1 To express onr continued belief in the advantages of the principle of self-government; to say, as the Canadian parliament said in 1882 and again in 1887, that in the light of the experience we have had in Canada, we believe that the principle of selfgovernment when applied to Ireland will have the same result that it has had when applied to Canada. It is not necessary for me to go over the record and point out the advantages which we have enjoyed in Canada as a result of the application of the principle of self-government. Itj is not necessary for me to go over the records since 1837 and point out to this House, the majority of whom are more familiar with the details than I can profess to be, how a change has| come over the spirit of our dream in Canada; how from a country in open revolt, we have come to be a country whose loyalty is unquestioned, and which is looked on to-day as one of the finest countries in the world. We have developed along the lines of self-government, and can it be pretended for one moment that, as the ties have lessened until to-day we have become a nation within a nation, the bonds have in any respect been weakened ? On the contrary, as the ties have been lessened, as the principle of self-government has been developed, the bonds have become firmer; because we now realize what British constitutional liberty means; because we now realize that the British flag stands to us in Canada for liberty, self-government and justice-in a word, for all those things which in the past have been denied to the Irishmen in Ireland.
Now, a large and important portion of this country is interested in this question. It is all very flue for some hon. gentlemen to rise up in this House and say that they love the Irish, they admire the Irish, they recognize the services the Irish have rendered to the empire and to Canada; but that which is more important, it seems to me, than all that is that these hon. gentlemen should show their good will, not by words, but by deeds.
And I cannot agree with those who say that they vote against this resolution, not because of its intrinsic merits, but because it happens to be proposed by an hon. member who does not meet favour in their eyes. It has been suggested, I think by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Bro-der), that this resolution does not cover the same ground as the resolution of 1882-that it does not contain within it the same restrictions with respect to the rights of the minority in Ireland. My hon. friend never read the resolution, or he would understand that it is a mere reaffirming of the principles of the resolution of 1882, nothing more, nothing less.
On the other hand, some hon. gentleman Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
has said :	We do not wish to obtrude our
opinions on the British House of Commons, because in 1882, when we ventured to offer some suggestions in this respect, we were told by the Earl of Kimberley practically to mind our own business. Well, so Car as I am concerned, I deny to any British statesman, however eminent his position may be, the right to dictate to the Canadian parliament whether or not it has the right to pass a resolution or to petition. That is a right inherent in the Canadian parliament; and, as Sir John Thompson said, and as Mr. Edward Blake said in 1887, oar duty is to deny the right of any English statesman to lay down such a doctrine. But independent altogether of this observation, I would like to say that I appeal lo Mr. Gladstone, better informed in 1887 than he appears to have been in 1882. In 1882 he was the head of the government, and of course was responsible for what the ICarl of Kimberley said when he wrote the letter that has been referred to in the course of the present debate. But Mr. Gladstone in 18S7 received a resolution passed by the provincial legislature at Quebec in favour of his Home Rule Bill, and publicly thanked the legislature for having passed the resolution. We were told that we ought not to obtrude our views on the imperial parliament, because, forsooth, it might occur to the imperial parliament to give us advice-to say, for instance, that the tithe system existing in the province of Quebec should not be tolerated any longer, but should be altered. My hon. friends need not trouble themselves about that. The imperial parliament, if it desired to make any observations in that respect, would not limit itself to observations; it might tomorrow pass an Act to wipe out the whole of those restrictions. The British parliament has the inherent power to amend every line of the British North America Act, and to-morrow the whole British North America Act might be wiped out. But is it likely to occur ? Is it likely, after England has had the experience which she has had of the development of local institutions in Canada, that the imperial parliament would venture to do anything of the sort ? There is no use of creating bugbears for the purpose of putting an argument of that sort before this House.
Now, I would like to say one word as to the other branch of the resolution, that is, the branch that has reference to the question of land tenure in Ireland. I agree, and I am glad to bear testimony to the fact, that there is probably but one people in the world generous enough to deal with a question of this sort, as the English people are attempting to deal with it at the present time. But what are we asked to do ? We are asked to congratulate them practically on what they are doing, to wish them success in their efforts, and bid them God-speed on the road on which they have

entered. Now, is it not right that we should do so ? Never has there been in the history of Ireland anything approaching the conditions that exist to-day. You have, on the one hand, Mr. Redmond, who represents the Nationalist party, rising in his place in the English House of Commons and saying :
The situation in Ireland. was very strange. It was so full of hope that it contained a menace of danger. Crime was unknown, coercion had been suspended, class animosities for the moment were at an end, and united Ireland stood at the bar of that House and asked for the concession of this great measure of justice and appeasement. To raise up the hopes of a whole people to the highest pitch of expectation and then dash them to the ground would be neither a safe nor a sane proceeding. Never in the history of that House had a government had a more blessed opportunity of carrying to fruition a great and blessed policy.
These are the words that fell from the lips of the leader of the Irish Nationalist party. What do we find on the other side? We find Col. Saunderson, who represents the north and who speaks for the landlord element, saying on the same subject:
Ireland was ready to accept this gift, not only for its own benefits, but for the good of the state; and to disappoint the country in the matter would be, in his judgment a crime. He had always held that the purchasing out of the landlords of Ireland was not so mue l for the good of the tenants or the landlords themselves as for the good of the state in con tributing to the general security of the British Empire, by restoring peace, prosperity and contentment to Ireland.
That is the measure rye ask you to approve of. That is the measure to which this House is asked to wish Godspeed. It is a measure which has united all parties in Ireland as they never have been since the repeal of the Union. In the words of my right hon. leader, a unique opportunity lias come to have this difficulty settled. If it was important for us to interfere in the South African matter, it is doubly important that we should interfere at the present juncture in connection with the affairs of Ireland. It is important that we should do so, not only from the standpoint of Canada, but of Ireland and England. Is it not important to have a contented and peaceful Ireland at the doors of England, is it not better to have that country a bulwark and a rampart of the empire, instead of having it as heretofore a hot-bed of revolution and rebellion ? * Any expenditure which will bring about that condition of things, will be an expenditure made in the interests of the empire. As the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill said, it is an expenditure by which the English exchequer will be enriched, and which will effect a benefit, in so far as the external relations of the empire are concerned, that will have a far more reaching effect than any shadowy attempt to increase the militia or the army in England.
My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) spoke of the demagogues in the United States who played on the sentiments of the Irish people there. There again we find an additional reason for having this matter settled, because the demagogue would soon be out of business if there were no Irish grievances. He would soon cease to be able to twist the tail of the British lion if Irishmen in America were satisfied that England had done justice to their fellow countrymen at home. I shall not speak about the qualities of my race. Testimony has been borne to their good qualities tonight. But since the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) has been good enough to say that my countrymen have shown their valour on many a well fought field, I may claim that this should dispel any ill-will against Ireland aroused by its unfortunate manifestations of sympathy with the Boers. If you have this sympathy on the one hand, on the other hand you have the valour and the cheers of the Irish soldiers on the veldt in South Africa, which more than once turned the scale when victory trembled in the balance, and gave courage, sympathy and support to the English and Scotch soldiers on the same field. After all the law of compensation must tell, and it seems to me the time is opportune for us to set aside personal feelings, and not stop to consider whether the resolution has been introduced by one hon. gentleman or another, but simply look at the question from the standpoint of Canadians. We should only ask ourselves this question : Is it good for Canada that this resolution should be introduced and adopted ? Is it good for the empire ? Is it for the best interests of Canada and the empire that Ireland should be made peaceful, happy and contented ? The descendants of Irishmen form an important element in this country. Whether our fathers or our grandfathers were born on the old soil, whether we belong to the second or third generation-and I speak as one of the latter-we feel as sincerely aud earnestly for the cause of Ireland to-day as ever did our ancestors in the old land. Surely it is a remarkable and significant fact that men should carry through three successive generations the insatiable desire to have justice done the land from which they hail. We may have never seen the old land, our fathers may never have seen it, but still we hope for the day when all the grievances of Ireland may be settled, and when Irishmen at home will do for England what the Irishmen of Canada are doing for England in this Dominion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I shall not occupy the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, many minutes in the few remarks I have to offer on the amendment placed in your hands by the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan). But in view of what has been presented to the House on both sides of the question to-

night, I feel that before a vote is taken I should give some reason why I am constrained to vote against the resolution. I listened with a great deal of attention to all that the hon. gentleman had to say, as well as to what fell from the lips of the hon. gentleman who seconded the resolution (Mr. Hackett), and I must sincerely congratulate both those hon. gentlemen on the moderation which characterized their arguments in its support. I am not one of those who find fault with the mover of the resolution for the course he has taken. In view of the diploma he has just received from the hon. the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), according to which he is looked upon as the representative leader of the Irish people in Canada, he had the right to take the course he did. But I may be permitted to express an opinion, as an Irishman, not representing anybody but myself on this occasion, and an Irishman who belongs to the minority, or at any rate who comes from the stock of the minority in that country. And my opinion is that at this particular time, when a great effort is being made by Protestants and Catholics to solve one of the burning questions which has kept them apart in the motherland, it is highly inexpedient to introduce a resolution dragging this home rule business into the arena. The hon. gentleman knows that the minority in Ireland to-day are as strongly and as irrevocably opposed to home rule, as defined by those authorized to speak for the home rule party in the imperial parliament, as they were ten or even twenty years ago. I repeat, as an Irishman, earnest in his desire to see every grievance existing in the old land removed, this resolution is inexpedient. It will not promote the cause of home rule. It will not redound to the advantage of those who desire to see Ireland, north and south, east and west, united, happy, prosperous and contented. I regret exceedingly that this resolution has been moved and I regret it for these reasons. I regret it because, as the hon. Minister of Justice has pointed out, there is to-day a coming together, there is a meeting of the extremes upon the great measure which a Unionist government-a government which is the result of the attempt of Mr. Gladstone to pass a home rule measure through the imperial parliament-has had the courage, the temerity to bring forward as a solution of a much vexed question. I say I regret very deeply that, at this particular juncture, this unfortunate resolution should be brought in, because the representatives of the north have been shown by the hon. Minister of Justice as agreeing with the representatives of the south-Col. Saunderson agreeing with some other gentleman whose opinion was quoted -that e'verything should be done to secure the passage of that measure through the House of Commons. Now, let me say one word more with regard to the introduction of this resolution. Those who differ from the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Costigan) Mr. CLARKE.
have no right to complain of want of courtesy. They do not expect to receive more than a reasonable measure of courtesy or consideration from the hon. gentleman when he introduces his resolution. iBut we think, and we have a right to think from what has been said by the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett), that, though he is certainly as enthusiastic as the hon. member for Victoria in his advocacy of home rule for Ireland, he was treated with scant courtesy by the mover of this resolution. The hon. member for West Prince declared on the door of the House that only one hour before he rose to move the resolution did the hon. member for Victoria intimate to him that he was expected to second it. Does not that give some force and effect to the suggestion offered here to-night that, probably-and I would not like to make the statement believing it to be true, but it has been made here -some other consideration than that of the best interests of Ireland moved the hon. gentleman in bringing in his resolution at this time and under these peculiar circumstances ?
It has been pointed out that resolutions were passed by this House dealing with this matter in 1882, 1886, 1897 and 1901. But it has not been stated that since these resolutions were passed, since the parliament of Canada first placed itself on record respecting the granting of a measure of home rule to Ireland, the matter has been dealt with by the imperial parliament, the parliament whose duty it is to legislate for England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the parliament best capable of dealing with the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. That parliament has dealt with this question of home rule on two occasions since 1882. The first occasion was in 1886, when the late Itt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone introduced a Bill. He was defeated, and he succeeded in breaking the Liberal party in two, and the pieces have not been brought together to this day. That right hon. gentleman introduced the measure again in 1893, carried it through the popular assembly, but it was defeated in the House of Lords. So, on the two occasions when the question of home rule came within the field of practical politics, when the representatives of the estates were given an opportunity to speak upon it, they declared against it. And I say-and I think I say it advisedly-that it ill-becomes us to offer an opinion and give advice when those whose duty it is to deal with this matter have, on two occasions, expressed their opinion and given advice to the Sovereign as to what is best to be done in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. Sir, the present Unionist government owes its existence to the attempt on the part of the Liberal party, headed by that great statesman, the late Mr. Gladstone, to give home rule to Ireland. The Liberal party was smashed and the Liberal-Unionists withdrew because of their disagreement with
797	MARCH 31, 1903	798
their leader upon this question. But since this Unionist government came into power, whose members were pledged against home rule, they have given the strongest and best proofs that could be given to the Irish people, as well as to the Irish race all over the world, that they do not desire to see any real grievance in Ireland remain unredressed. They have given abundant proofs of their desire to remove every real grievance. They have passed two Land Acts since they came into power. They have passed a local government Bill which has practically revolutionized the social conditions of Ireland and given local control in local matters such as had not been known In a hundred years. There are three great questions before the Irish people, and this Unionist government-called into existence, as I repeat, because the Liberal party tried to pass home rule for Ireland-has dealt with two of them. First there was the question of the Irish university. The government appointed a commission of eminent educationists to inquire into the question and report. That report has been presented and, in due time, no doubt will be crystallized into law. They also passed a measure of local municipal government which will work out to the advantage of the people of Ireland and of the people of Great Britain. And to-day that government has presented a Bill in the Commons of Great Britain which will, for all time, redound to tl*e credit of all those who are responsible for it, and which proves beyond peradventure the desire of the Unionist government, if there is a grievance in Ireland respecting land tenure, to remove that grievance and give the tenantry of Ireland, who have such an intense love for the native land that they desire to cling to its soil and to eke out an existence even on small holdings, an opportunity of becoming landlords, which no government in ancient or modern times ever attempted to give to a people In a position similar to that of the Irish tenant farmers. These are proofs of the patriotism and desire to do justice to Ireland presented to the world by the Unionist government of Great Britain. These are proofs that the interests of Ireland are not being neglected, that the Unionist government have the interest of Ireland at heart and are giving practical proofs of their sympathy with Ireland by passing legislation which will undoubtedly redound to the peace and prosperity of that part of His Majesty's empire.
Sir, the Minister of Justice, just before he took his seat, made an admission which, I think, will not be questioned by any hon. gentleman who knows the facts and occupies a seat in this House. He said that up to the present time Ireland has been a hot bed of rebellion, a hot-bed of revolution. I would ask the hon. gentleman, would he think it the part of wisdom, if such a state of things existed in such an important, such an integral part of the United Kingdom, to pass a measure of local self-government that would satisfy the aspirations of the majority of the people among whom such a state of feeling exists ? The admission he has made is satisfactory proof to me that the action, up to the present time, of the government of the United Kingdom, has been wise, judicious and patriotic in the extreme. The Minister of Justice has not told us nor has any hon. gentleman who has spoken in this debate-the right hon. premier himself (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not told us-of one disability, one grievance under which the Irish labour that the English and the Scotch and Welsh do not labour under as well. No hon. gentleman has pointed out a single disability existing ...in the south of Ireland that does not exist in the north as well. No hon. gentleman has pointed out one grievance that exists in Ulster that does not exist in Lancashire or in the counties north of the Tweed. There are no grievances in Ireland that are not common to the people of the United Kingdom. And where there are real grievances and they can be pointed out, the imperial parliament has proved its willingness and its desire to remove those grievances and to make the people united, contented, and prosperous, if it is possible to do so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman says that there are no grievances. Will he permit me to interrupt him ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Here is what Hon. T. W. Russell said a few days ago :
Conditions in Ireland are : Coercion revived, constitution suspended, public men in prison, landlordism supreme in Dublin castle, higher education hung up, parliament hamstrung, legislation impossible, people rushing from the country in tens of thousands to seek bread In foreign lands.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman endorse that statement ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman says there are no grievances. Against his authority I put that of the Hon. T. W. Russell. That is all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I should be very sorry indeed to set myself up as an authority against the gentleman whose opinion has been quoted. I do not know when that statement was made, or where it was made, but I will take the opportunity of reading a few lines from an official statement made by Mr. Russell before I take my seat. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have passed resolutions favouring home rule for Ireland on two or three occasions. I am not going to argue that matter now, because it has been argued in this parliament, which has passed these resolutions. I think, though, I might reiterate what has been said so well and so frequently during this debate, that we have quite a number of problems to solve ourselves, that we have a great deal to do in

this parliament, and we ought to occupy our time as far as available in the discharge of our duties in representing the Canadian people. We have no mandate from our constituents to express an opinion upon this abstract question of home rule for Ireland. What do they know about it ? They do not know any more about it than we do ourselves. Is it not rank impertinence, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 600 men, the chosen representatives of all parts of the United Kingdom meet from year to year, who have Ireland's condition and Ireland's grievances under their eyes all the time-is it not rank impertinence on our part to be intruding and protruding ourselves into the affairs of the United Kingdom and asking these 000 men to pass a measure of home rule for Ireland'/ Don't you think they know their own business better than we do ? It strikes me that it is reasonable to say they do. But let me go on. What have we done in parliament to aid Ireland by the passing of these resolutions, these empty, meaningless, impertinent resolutions ? We got snubbed for the first one we passed, and very properly so, snubbed by the Secretary for Colonial Affairs in the administration of the late Rt Hon. W. E. Gladstone, when we were told politely to mind our own business.
But, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of satisfaction has been taken in pointing out that since then we passed another resolution, practically unanimously, in 1899, I think, endorsing the imperial government respecting its action in the Transvaal and Orange River colonies. Is there no difference between passing this resolution favouring home rule for Ireland and our action in passing a resolution endorsing and approving the stand of the imperial government in demanding for British subjects in the Transvaal and Orange River colonies the rights that Irishmen enjoy in Ireland, and Scotchmen enjoy in Scotland ? Is there not a marked difference between the two resolutions ? In the one case we were reechoing the sentiments which found a place in the breasts of 999,000 out of every million people of the British empire ; we said to the mother land : We endorse your action, because you are demanding equal rights and fair play for the Uitlanders, which they do not get in a part of the world which is under the suzerainty of the British empire. Were we not right in taking that stand ? Is there any parallel, under the circumstances, in protruding ourselves upon the British parliament and demanding that Irish aspirations should be gratified by giving an independent legislature to that country, and say nothing about England, Scotland and Wales-or Ulster, for that matter, at the same time ? We have contented ourselves with passing these empty resolutions, while the imperial government has been at work, mitigating any wrong that exists, alleviating anything un-


Edward Frederick Clarke: toward that works harshly against the Irish people. What have we been doing ? Passing a resolution about once every seven years. About once in seven years the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costi-gan) bobs up serenely and moves a resolution in favour of home rule for Ireland ; then we have a division on it, and prove that even the parliament of Canada is not a unit on this question, and he goes to sleep again for seven years. In the meantime the British government, this government that has been tyrannizing over Ireland for so many years, has been at work and we have been doing nothing.
Yes, Mr, Speaker, we have been doing something, and let me try to point out what we have done. We found that some time ago the imperial government placed an embargo on Canadian cattle, to the detriment of the Canadian producer and exporter. We did not stop to consider whether that embargo resulted advantageously to the Irish tenant farmer or not. We were so anxious to promote our own interests that we have been making representations to the imperial government asking that that embargo should be removed, asking that that keen competition, that fierce competition which the Irish tenant farmer has to encounter, encounter under great difficulties, encounter as a small holder of land, cultivating it under primitive methods-we are asking that that moderate measure of incidental protection which the embargo has given to the Irish tenant farmer should be removed, and that he should be obliged to meet us in open market in Liverpool, and compete with us for the sale of his store and fat cattle. If the hon. gentleman from Victoria had the interest of the Irish tenant farmer at heart, surely, Mr. Speaker, he would have raised his voice in favour of the maintenance of that embargo, and crown his life work in the promotion of Ireland's interests by securing for Ireland a measure of protection. I suppose that we will not hear the voice of the hon. gentleman raised in favour of the maintenance of that embargo during this session. I should hope that if he desired to secure for all time a record for consistency, he would insist that this embargo should remain where it is.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the hon. gentleman has been both consistent and persistent. Through evil report and good report, for twenty years he has brought up this home rule resolution. I merely point to the fact that it has been an empty thing, and that while something for the practical advantage of the tenant farmer might have been procured in this House, the hon. gentleman has not taken advantage of the occasion to do it. If he would use his great influence with his new found political allies, perhaps he might be able to get a genuine measure of preference for the poplins, for the laces, for the linens, in the manufacture of which the Irish people

excel. We have given tliem a so-called preference, and what does it amount to V We have only to read the record of the colonial conference to see what they think about the preference ; and if we have any doubt after reading the interpretation which the imperial officials put upon the value of that preference, we have only to read the instructions which have been issued by the Minister of Customs to the various collectors throughout this country to see what a sham that preference is, so far as advantage to the green isle is concerned. Might I ask my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, after we have disposed of this resolution dealing with home rule, to turn his attention to that question of the preference ? Might I ask him again to use his influence, and I am sure he will have the co-operation of all Irishmen, whether they agree with him in regard to this resolution or not, in securing for the industrious workers of the Green Isle a real advantage, a real preference for their products in this fair land of Canada V He can do something practical for the Irish people by giving them a real and genuine preference for their products in the markets of the Dominion.
There is another way too, by which we might be of advantage to the Irish people. If we desire to show that we sympathize with them, if we desire to relieve them of a portion of the burden which rests heavily upon their shoulders, surely it would not be out of place in the day of our prosperity, in the day of our advancement, in this growing time for the hon. gentleman to propose that the time has come when it is expedient that this great young country of ours, full of boundless resources and having a future only limited by our appreciation of what we can make it should do something of substantial benefit for the Irish people. Surely we might expect from this hon. gentleman and those who sympathize with him that if they desire to be of real benefit to the Irish people, to the people of the north as well as to the people of the south, they would propose now that our coffers are overflowing, now that the money is pouring into the treasury of this Dominion of Canada-and we will support them in asking it- that a portion of that money should be sent to supplement the funds in the imperial exchequer for the maintenance of that peerless organization, the British navy, which protects our commerce in every nook and corner of the seven seas, that we might give a contribution towards the maintenance of the imperial navy which is to be found everywhere, and by such means we might relieve the Irish people of a portion of the burden which they are called upon to bear for the maintenance of that navy. I make these suggestions with all respect to the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., because these are practical ways in which he can benefit the Irish people, the minority as well as the majority, and he will find that 26
if he makes a motion of this kind he will have the cordial support and sympathy of those who regret that they cannot concur with him in the amendment which he has placed, Mr. Speaker, in your hands. I am afraid that I have taken up altogether too much of the time of the House and must apologize for having done so. During this afternoon we had the statement from the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., that the feeling in favour of home rule was growing steadily. I, with my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), believe that there is a great congestion of business in the imperial parliament. I often wonder how the imperial parliament discharges its duty as well as it does. I often wonder why it is that matters of detail, municipal matters, purely local matters are permitted to take up the time of the imperial parliament from day to day and year to year, and I hope to live to see the day come when some scheme will be adopted to relegate to the local authorities the right of dealing with these purely local matters. I want to see the Irish people given an opportunity, if they can agree upon th'e conditions, to govern, to a great extent, their local affairs, and I am satisfied that the people who are best qualified to bring about such a condition of things are the people of Ireland, of England and Scotland, represented in the imperial parliament, and I look upon our action in passing resolutions of this kind as rather a detriment than an advantage.
Just one or twoi words more before I sit down. I will only refer, very briefly, to what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Costi-gan) has said. I dissent from his proposition that the feeling in favour of home rule, as it is understood by those who speak for the majority, is growing in England. Lord Rosebery represented Mr. Gladstone's government in the House of Lords when the Home Rule Bills were before the imperial parliament. Speaking on the 14th of February, 1902, at Liverpool, Lord Rosebery said :
The Irish leaders have demanded not what Mr. Gladstone was willing to give them, hut an independent parliament in Dublin.
Hon. gentlemen talk about giving to Ireland the same measure of self-government as we have in Canada. Those who profess to speak for the majority of the Irish people do not want provincial autonomy such as we enjoy in the provinces of Canada; they want complete autonomy, they want legislative independence, they want that and they will not be satisfied with anything else. That is the opinion of Lord Rosebery, one of the members of Mr. Gladstone's cabinet who supported his leader In advocating and presenting that measure of home rule that met with disaster on two occasions -in the imperial parliament. Let me repeat again i what Lord Rosebery says :



The Irish leaders have demanded not what Mr. Gladstone was willing to give them, but an independent parliament in Dublin. Now, when you get there, I say, ' Halt ' ! I am not prepared at any time or under any circumstances to grant an independent parliament in Dublin.
I need not point out to lion, members on both sides of the House the prominent position which Lord Rosebery occupies in the public eye of the United Kingdom. He is a keen observer of current events and I think his opinion of the attitude, the demands and the requirements of the leaders of the home rule party is entitled to some consideration at the hands of the Canadian parliament; and I say that his statement that the home rule leaders have changed their position is a statement that cannot be successfully controverted by any hon. member of this House, if the leaders of the home rule party are held responsible for the public utterances they have made, or for what they say from day to day, from week to week and from year to year in addressing their constituents and the people of the United Kingdom. But, Sir, let me read the opinion of another hon. gentleman, a gentleman who is highly thought of and deservedly so, who is acclaimed by Irish Catholics and Protestants alike, a gentleman who speaks for the government of which he is a member, whose heroism, whose courage and whose patriotism in preparing and presenting the measure of land reform which is now before the imperial parliament has challenged the admiration of the British people. I refer to the Right Hon. Geo. Wyndham. In a speech made in March last, in Liverpool, I think it was, although I am not sure, he made this statement:
What are the facts that stand out from the midst of the constitutional problem involved in the Irish question ? They are these : Mr. Gladstone's bills are dead-dead on their merits. They never had been accepted by England. They would have brought Ireland to bankruptcy within a very few years. In the second place, an independent parliament for Ireland is an impossibility ; and in the third place, (he common exchequer of the two countries will never be divided	
These are strong utterances from a responsible minister and a member of a powerful government that is proving its desire to help Ireland by the legislation which it has enacted and which it is enacting.
To sum up this constitutional argument which has recently been reopened, these two islands, by the inflexible ordinance of geography, of history and of finance are bound, and must ever be bound together by ties even closer than those which bind our colonies to the mother country.
These are the expressions of two men occupying prominent positions in the public life of the United Kingdom, and I take it that their utterances are worthy of some consideration and should have some value attached to them in the parliament of Canada. I promised the hon. Minister of Jus-


Edward Frederick Clarke: tice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) that I would read three or four words from the statement of a gentleman whom he quoted-Mr. T. W. Russell. I quote from the ' Daily Mail ' Year-book. He says :
There is, first of all, what I may call the national demand for the restoration of rights taken away by the Act of Union. Historically, the demand has its origin in the fact that the Act of Union was carried by means which could not be adopted to-day. And the overwhelming majority of the Irish people take Lord Plunkett's view that the Act and the whole proceedings connected with it were ultra vires.
The British people, however, have had an opportunity of reconsidering the question. All the facts-thanks to Mr. Gladstone-were put before the public mind, and Ireland's demand for the restoration of a native legislature was refused. This refusal does not alter feeling in Ireland. It probably renders it more bitter.
I desire to draw the attention of lion, gentlemen to this particular part of the statement :
But it does remove the question somewhat out of the region of practical politics in Great Britain. Still the home rule question is far from being dead. And the people who imagine a vain thing may some day or other have a sudden and rude awakening.
This is the statement Mr. T. W. Russell makes with regard to the position which the home rule question occupies in imperial politics to-day. The right hon. leader of the House in his eloquent address to-night, pledging his support to the resolution, touched the crucial point when he observed that mistrust and lack of confidence was one of the main causes for the refusal of the minority in Ireland to agree to the establishment of a native parliament. Are the minority Justified in holding that view ? Are they justified in withholding their assent from such a measure ? They are, Mr. Speaker, amply justified because the history of the past twenty-five years teems with evidence of the disloyalty of those who have been advocating home rule, and declaration after declaration has been made by these men; declarations that cannot be misconstrued; that the goal they are reaching for is not provincial autonomy such as we enjoy in Canada, but absolute separation and the establishment of a separate parliament for Ireland. Sir, I need not say to you or to any gentleman in this House, that that separate parliament cannot be granted. Certainly it never can be granted, as long as one-fourth of the people of the Green Isle, the minority-whose very existence, whoso attainment of prosperity gives the lie to the statement that Ireland labours under disabilities and disadvantages-I say that this measure for a native parliament can never become an accomplished fact until the majority by their actions prove to the minority, that they have been saying what they do not mean; that they desire to live in peace and amity and concord with the minority and to give that minority absolute equality and every measure of protection

that the majority desire for themselves. The right hon. the premier quoted from utterances given expression to by Mr. Dillon some years ago. Let me quote for the right hon. gentleman some of the language which Mr. John Dillon has used within the past twelve months. Speaking at Liverpool on March 12th, 1902, Mr. John Dillon said :
He promised Lord Rosebery and Lord Salisbury that as long as Ireland was denied that God-given right of freedom-a right for which men ought to fight if they could-they would never be loyal.
At Greenock on March 14tli, 1902, Mr. Dillon said :
If they had the power to-morrow they would be the greatest cowards in the world to submit to English government if they were able to overthrow it with physicial force.
Does my right hon. friend wonder that the prosperous, the contented, the progressive minority in Ireland object to have their affairs administered by men who give utterance to such expressions ? Does the right hon. gentleman wonder that under these circumstances there is a sharp line of distinction drawn between those who are prosperous and loyal and those who are disaffected and discontented; and will not my right hon. friend admit that every vestige of suspicion, every vestige of mistrust that exists in the mind of the minority must be removed before any local government can be granted that will be workable in Ireland? I have quoted from the statements made by Mr. John Dillon. Let me quote from the statement of a gentleman occupying a still more prominent position in the home rule party. I refer to Mr. John Redmond, M.P. On the 20th of October, 1901, at Maryborough, Queen's county, on a Sunday, Mr. John Redmond made this statement:
I point to what is going on in Connaught as an example to the rest of Ireland. If only all over Ireland to-day we had as vigorous and-I won't mince words-as dangerous a movement as there exists at this moment in Connaught, we would make short work of the land question and short work, as I believe, of the English government of our country (cheers).
My one principle in public life is-in every department of the government, from the highest to the lowest-from the chief secretary in his back room in Dublin castle down to the landgrabber and the bailiff in the country town-to make every department of government In this country difficult and dangerous (cheers). That has always been my principle in public life. I have made no disguise of it. I have said it over and over again in the House of Commons.-* Freeman's ' Journal, October 21, 1901.
Does the right hon. leader of this House wonder, when the leader of the home rule movement within the last fifteen months gave expressions to such views as this, that he does not enjoy to the extent he ought to enjoy it, if home rule is to be a success, the sympathy and confidence of the minority of the people of the Green Isle ? Mr. Redmond came to America on a mission.
26}
Before he sailed on the evening of October 22, 1901, he arrived in Cork, accompanied by Mr. P. A. McHugh, M.P., and Mr. Thomas O'Donnell, M.P. Addressing a large gathering in front of the Victoria hotel, Mr. Redmond explained his mission to America. He said :
It means that the reunion which has taken place in Ireland has taken place also in America ; it means that those English statesmen- shallow, short-sighted men, who imagined that because we were torn with dissention here for the last ten years that the cause of Ireland was dead and buried-it means that these men will understand when they see this mission to America that they have to fight against a united Irish race who are simply united by one consideration to use whatever means are honourable and just in the sight of God, and who care nothing for English law (cheers), and who are prepared to say before the world that, rather than be held by force, as we are to-day, under the British empire, we would prefer to be linked with the meanest free country on the face of the earth.
I am going to our race in America to ask them for their sympathy, to ask them for their support, and to tell them that, in my honest belief, we are near the day when England will be weak and degraded (cheers), when oppressed nationalities will be strong, and when Ireland's support may be a matter of vital consequence to English statesmen and English parties (renewed cheering). But this mission to America has another meaning that I would commend to the minds of those English newspapers that are curious and anxious upon the subject. To-day England stands alone in the world ; to-day the public opinion of every civilized nation is against England ; and one of my objects in going to America is to prove to English statesmen that the public opinion of the world is against England and is upon the side of Ireland (cheers), that the whole public opinion of the American nation, of the leading statesmen, and of all political parties is in complete sympathy with Ireland's demand for freedom ; and that is another meaning of this mission. It will show to England that she will have to count in the future on a united Irish race of twenty millions throughout the world, backed by the public opinion, the sympathy, and the support of over seventy millions.-** Freeman's Journal,' October 23, 1901.
That extract is from the ' Freeman's Journal ' of October 23, 1901. But Mr. Redmond said something more, and I would not trespass on the time of the House at such length except for the prominent position he occupies in the home rule party. Several addresses including those from the Cork Eviction Tenants' Association and the Cork Trades Council were presented to Mr. Redmond! just on the eve of his departure and in reply he said :
I have no hesitation in saying that the United Irish League stands to-day precisely on the same foundation as stood the Land League when Parnell declared he would never take off his coat in the movement if there was not behind the agrarian movement the national question (applause). This United Irish League Is not merely an agrarian movement. It is first, last, and all the time a national movement (applause); and those of us who are endeavour-

ing to rouse the farmers of Ireland, as we endeavoured twenty years ago in the days of the Land League to rouse them, are doing so not merely to obtain the removal of their particular grievances, but because we believe by rousing them we will be strengthening the national movement and helping us to obtain our end, which is, after all, the national independence of Ireland.
That is the statement of this gentleman, and he adds :
I desire to say to the tradesmen of Ireland that I hope they will not be led away by these enemies of the Irish movement who are endeavouring to induce them to think that this is a purely agrarian movement. It is nothing of the kind. It is a national movement, having for its first and last object the emancipation of Ireland as a nation.-' Freeman's Journal,' October 24, 1901.
1 do not know whether the hon. gentleman meant what he said or not ; but if he meant what he said, do you wonder that those who desire for themselves and for those who come after them, a continuance of privileges which they now enjoy as British subjects, shall not have their interests confided to men who hold such sentiments as those I have read ? Do you wonder that a minority of, the people of Ireland, who are contented and prosperous, desire that the status quo shall be maintained, rather than that they should be led into an enterprise that would bring them into opposition to England and Scotland, and to their sons and brothers across the channel ? Mr. Redmond was the principal speaker at a large meeting in the Rotunda in Dublin, when a letter from Mr. Wm, O'Brien was read, in which he said :
In thanking you for your kind invitation, allow me to express the hope that, if the English King carries out his threatened visit to Ireland next year, the United Irish League in Dublin will succeed in rousing such a spirit as will convince His Majesty from the hour he lands that he comes amongst a people discontented and disaffected to the core, who only need the arms and training of the Boers to testify their hatred of England's rule, with an eloquence equal to that of the unconquered South African Republics.
I leave these extracts from the speeches and letters of the men who are the leaders of this home rule movement, with hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I ask them how they can wonder that the minority who have done their full share in maintaining the prestige and extending the influence and the power of the British empire, and whose sons have held their own in Ireland and everywhere else throughout the world, protest emphatically against the passage of any measure by the imperial parliament that would lessen or weaken the ties which now happily unite the people of Ireland with the people of England and Scotland. The minority in Ireland are able to take care of themselves; they have always done so ; and the condition of the north of Ireland to-day proves conclusively that


Edward Frederick Clarke: people may live in Ireland in contentment and prosperity under the rule that now exists. The prosperous condition of the city of Belfast and the districts surrounding it, teeming with an industrial population, employed at good wages, is a proof that there is nothing incompatible with progress and prosperity in Ireland for those who are industrious and willing to work and who will put their shoulders to the wheel to promote the best material interests of their native land. This minority have sent to Canada as their contribution to the public life of this country since confederation such men as Monck, Lisgar, Dufferin and Lansdowne. They have given to the empire their share of the empire's soldiers and sailors, and they have been proud to fight side by side and shoulder to shoulder with their fellow-countrymen who worship at a different altar. They desire to live on terms of peace, amity and concord with those who comprise the majority. They desire to unite with them cordially and heartily in promoting every measure which shall be for the advancement of their native land. They have the right to speak for Ireland as well as the majority. They comprise 1,150,000 in a population of 4,458,000 in Ireland. These people have a right to have their views considered by hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House. If time permitted, I could read resolutions passed in the chambers of commerce of Dublin and Belfast by the men who are foremost in promoting the industrial interests of Ireland, denouncing home rule and expressing their desire to continue to enjoy their full measure of citizenship in the British empire. I could read the memorials submitted to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by the representatives of the Church of England in Ireland, numbering G00.000, the Presbyterians, Methodists and other nonconformist bodies, aggregating 1,100,000 people, in the same sense ; but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. Putting the question on the lowest ground, I say that if these people who live under such happy conditions in Ireland thought that their personal and material welfare would be promoted by such a measure of home rule as is proposed, they certainly would he amongst the foremost to demand it. But they believe that they enjoy greater privileges, immunities and blessings, and have greater opportunities for preferment, by remaining an integral part of the empire; and for that reason, and also because they have no confidence in those who represent the majority in Ireland, they have set their faces as steel against home rule. Have we in this parliament any right to pass this resolution without considering the position that minority occupy ? The difficulty and the dilemma which the minority may find themselves in to-day or to-morrow in Ireland because of the passing of such resolutions a? that proposed by the hon. member for Victoria, may be the difficulty and the dil-


M A RCH 31, 1903
[Stage Direction]
emma of the minority in Canada to-morrow. That minority only ask to be left alone. They live under less favourable conditions than the people of the southern and eastern parts of Ireland; yet they have proved their capacity to advance and prosper; and all we ask on their behalf is that their views shall be heard, and that this House shall not pass any resolution which will place the people of Canada and the people of Ireland in a false position. There are other ways in which we can'i give substantial assistance to the heavily-burdened taxpayers of England, Ireland and Scotland. Let us do something practical. Resolutions of this kind practically amount to nothing. They will not influence a vote in the parliament of the United Kingdom. The people in that parliament know their duty and are always prepared to do it; and instead of promoting the welfare and peace and integrity of Ireland, and the influence which Canada ought to possess in the councils of the empire, the passage of this resolution will place the people of Ireland and the people of Canada in a false light. I feel it my duty to record my vote against the resolution, because I think it is ill-timed and will serve no good purpose.
Mr. ANDREW B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I would not have said anything on this question, Mr. Speaker, had it not been for a remark that was dropped by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) to the effect that those who vote against this resolution have no sympathy for Ireland. I wish to say that like the hon. gentleman I belong to a third generation of Irishmen. My forefathers, as far back as I can remember, have all been Irishmen, and I want to say that they have been loyal Irishmen. They have done in their day fighting enough, I think, to satisfy the next twenty generations of Ingrams in this country. One of my forefathers resided in the city of Quebec many years ago. He was sent to Canada by the British government with other soldiers to defend the flag at Quebec. Therefore, I do not take any back seat in regard for the interests of Ireland. Before coming to attend this session of parliament I was requested to support a home rule resolution that was to be introduced into this House. I asked by whom the resolution would be introduced. I was told by the Hon. John Costigan. I said immediately that I would neither support such a resolution nor any other piece of legislation which the Hon. John Costigan might introduce. I would oppose this motion or any other piece of legislation introduced by the Hon. John Costigan into this House. That may not be a very convincing answer, but I assure my hon. friend that it is eminently in fitting with the motives which prompted the mover of this resolution. I know that nothing would delight the hon. gentleman more than for hon. members of this House to heap on his head a great amount of abuse, but I
j want to point to a fact by which we can gauge the honesty of the hon. gentleman. He took occasion to take up a considerable time of the House in proclaiming his own honesty. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a well known maxim that whenever a man boasts of his honesty, you should keep your hand very tightly on your pocket. This hon. gentleman has told us to-day that his honesty has been exceedingly great within the last twenty years. But he failed to dwell on a little incident to which I shall recall to the attention of the House. A few years ago, when the Conservative party were in power, there was a very live issue agitating the people and provoking considerable discussion in this House and country. I refer to the Manitoba school question. The hon. gentleman professed then, as he does now, to be the great advocate of the interests of the Roman Catholics of this country. He was a member of the Conservative government of that day, and then as now he was more useful once every seven years or so promoting a resolution of this kind than in doing anything else. What did he then do ? He was then advocating remedial legislation. Some difficulty arose in the Conservative administration, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the Prime Minister, resigned, and Sir Charles Tupper was called on to assume the leadership of the party. What did we find the hon. gentleman doing ? When asked to take a seat in the cabinet under Sir Charles Tupper, he wrote a letter to Sir Charles, in which he used these words
In view, however, of the principle involved in remedial legislation, to which Sir Mackenzie Howell's government was pledged


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I rise to a point of order. On a motion in favour of home rule the hon. gentleman is not warranted in discussing the Manitoba school question.


Andrew B. Ingram: I presume that I am as much in order as the hon. gentleman was when he brought us to South Africa. I am dealing with a question affecting Canada, which is more than the hon. gentleman did.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would call attention to the fact that we are now discussing the question of home rule, and would invite the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to this question.


Andrew B. Ingram: I shall try and do so. I was going on to quote this letter, and if you have no objection, Mr. Speaker, I will finish the quotation
- and In view of the fact that your government Is to be formed to carry out the same policy, especially as regards the Manitoba school policy, I feel it my duty to say to you at once that you may count upon my assistance and services if you require them, as a member of your government, always presuming that the policy to reintroduce a remedial Bill at the first session of the new parliament will be clearly announced by you on behalf of your government.

What I wish to point out is that if the hon. gentleman had been honest then, he would not, after Sir Charles Tupper had gone to the country and been defeated on this very question, have turned his back on his leader and been the means of wrecking his government. Why, when a man for eighteen long years has been a member of the cabinet-I care not whether a Liberal or a Conservative government-and then takes the stand which the hon. gentleman did, I say that he can have no pretense to honesty or decency.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the expression.


Andrew B. Ingram: I of course shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman spoke of his unselfishness and his strong convictions, but it occurred to me that these convictions could not have been very strong at the time to which I refer. I would like to know from the hon. gentleman to-night whether it is not a fact that last session he was going to introduce his home rule resolution, and that the right hon. the First Minister persuaded him not to do so.


John Costigan: It is not a fact.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman say who did ? If he wishes to be honest, I pause to give him an opportunity to reply. He does not choose to avail himself of that opportunity. Let me repeat that the hon. gentleman fully intended to introduce this resolution last session, but failed to do so. Why ? Because there was a likelihood of an election in the province of Ontario, and the introduction of that resolution last session would have been the means perhaps of defeating the government. My hon. friend was quite ready to kick this resolution around like a football so long as he could serve party purposes. Reference has been made to the cattle embargo. Well, not long ago on the motion to go into supply, an hon. member introduced a resblution respecting the cattle embargo in England. But he had hardly moved his motion when the hon. Minister of Finance called upon his majority to vote it down as a motion of want of confidence. Does not that prove conclusively that the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan) and the government have been in collusion on this question for the purpose of making political capital and nothing else. There is another question on which I desire to speak, because it is one that has some relation to home rule. A few years ago when in this House the question of provincial autonomy for the Northwest Territories was being discussed, not one of the government supporters rose to assist the members of the opposition in their advocacy of provincial autonomy in the North-west. Not one of them rose to take an active part in that discussion. I am Mr. INGRAM.
therefore justified in saying to them that if they would pay a little more attention to our own affairs in Canada instead of taking up this home rule question for the sole purpose of gaining political notoriety and support, they would be giving more evidence of sincerity and honesty than they are now doing. I do not intend taking up any more time. I simply rose to say that although I have in my time supported home rule resolutions and would support them again today, I will never support any resolution in favour of home rule so long as it is introduced by a gentleman whom I despise for his conduct in this House, and for the motives which actuate his present course. I am using strong language, Mr. Speaker, but not any stronger than the occasion warrants and demands, and I think the sooner the people of this country understand it the better. I should have been glad to support the resolution had it been moved by the Minister of Justice or some other Irishman in this country who is not trading in this class of goods for political purposes.
House divided Costigan). .	on amendment (Hon. Mr TEAS: Messieurs
Angers,	[DOT] Lavergne,
Arehambault,	LoBlanc,
Ball,	Lemieux,
BSland,	Leonard.
Belcourt,	Logan,
Bernier,	Loy,
Bickerdike,	Macdonald,
Borden (Halifax),	Mackie,
Borden (Sir Frederick) McColl,	
Bourassa.	McCool,
Bourbonnais,	McEwen,
Brown,	McGowan,
Bureau,	McGugan,
Calvert,	McIntosh,
Carbonneau,	Mclsaac,
Carroll,	McLennan,
Casgrain,	Malouin,
Clancy,	Marcil (Bagot),
Copp,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Costigan,	Mayrand,
Cowan,	Meigs,
Demers (L6/is),	Mignault,
Demers (St. John), Monet,	
Desjardins,	Monk,
Dugas,	Morin,
Emmerson,	Morrison,
Erb,	Mulock (Sir William),
Ethier,	Murray,
Fielding,	Paterson,
Fitzpatrick,	Pope,
Fortier,	Prefontaine,
Fraser,	Proulx,
Gallery,	Puttee,
Gibson.	Reid (Restigouche),
Gould.	Riley,
Grant,	Ross (Ontario),
Guthrie,	Ross (Victoria),
Haekett,	Rousseau,
Harty,	Scott,
Harwood.	Stephens,
Heyd,	Stewart,
Holmes,	Sutherland (Essex),
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.).Sutherland (Oxford).	
Hyman.	Talbot.
Johnston (Cape Breton),Tarte,

Johnston (Lambton),	Tobin,
Kaulbach,	Tolmie,
Kendall,	Tucker,
Lang,	Turcot,
Laurler (Sir Wilfrid),	Turgeon,
Laurier (L'Assomption), Wright.-102.	
NAYS : Messieurs	
Alcorn,	Kidd,
Avery,	Lancaster,
Barker,	Lavell,
Bell,	Lennox,
Bennett,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Blain,	MacLaren (Perth),
Boyd,	Northrup,
Brock,	Porter.
Broder,	Reid (Grenville),
Bruce,	Richardson.
Cargill,	Robinson (Elgin),
Charlton,	Roche (Marquette),
Clarke,	Rosamond,
Cochrane,	Sherritt,
Earle,	Sproule,
Fowler,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Tisdale,
Hughes (Victoria),	Vrooman,
Ingram,	Ward,
Johnston (Cardwell), Kemp,	Wilmot.-41.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Thompson (Haldimand	Carscallen,
and Monck), Blair,	Osier,
Birkett,	Wilson.
Lefurgey,	Halliday,
Davis,	Thomson (Grey),
Dyment,	McCormick,
Amendment (Hon. to.	Mr. Costigan) agreed


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do not suppose the House would have any desire to go on with further	
business to-night, so	I move that the House
will, at its next sitting, go into Committee of	
Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. On motion of the	Prime Minister, House
adjourned at 1.20 a.m. Wednesday.	
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 1, 1903.