1904-06-24

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the Order-of the Day are called, I would like to know from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) if he has any information to communicate to us with regard to the recent negotiations between Canada and Russia.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Min ister of Marine and Fisheries).: The recent

negotiations between representatives of Canada and Russia, in London, reached the point that a certain suggested settlement would be submitted to their governments by respective delegates, for ratification ot otherwise. The delegates separated on the understanding that the conclusion of the Russian government in the proposed settlement would be communicated to Canada through ordinary diplomatic channels for consideration by Canada. Russia's decision has not yet been received by the Canadian government.



SCOTTISH LIGHT DRAGOONS-CORRESPONDENCE.

Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID DATJRIER (Prime Minister).: This morning I received a letter from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) containing this request :
Dear Sir Wilfrid Laurier,-May I ask that the original 1 Gazette ' containing the erasure of non-approval by the Hon. Sydney Fisher of Dr. Pickel's name will be placed upon the table of the House this afternoon. I refer to the ' Gazette,' a copy of which is set forth at page 25 of the printed correspondence.
Yours faithfully,



R. L. BORDEN.

[Stage Direction]
I may observe that this is a very unusual request. I do not know what is meant by it, and I would not feel inclined to accede to it. But in view of the fact that there were insinuations made yesterday against my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), at his special request, I now lay the original ' Gazette ' on the table of the House.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fielding :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into supply ; and the motion of Mr. R. L. Borden in amendment thereto.
['fore, the two general Acts, the Companies Clauses Act and the Railway Act are both brought in so far as they apply to the two kinds of powers granted to the company.\nBill reported^ read the third time and passed.']
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate adjourned last evening, I may at the outset express my surprise at the conduct of the government in relation to this matter. Many of us felt, immediately after Lord Dundon-ald's speech had been delivered in Montreal and published through the country, that having been caught red-handed, as he undoubtedly was in the-I will not use so strong a term as crime-in the act of interfering politically in the appointments of militia officers in this country, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.Fisher) would frankly confess to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) his fault and ask pardon from the people of Canada, and from the House of Commons, and from Lord Dundonald ; and if he had done so the incident would have been passed over and forgotten. But in-Mr. PREFONT AINE,
stead of that, Sir, we find that the government are hanging together, and as a government and individually, are glorifying in their conduct. Ever since the visit of the Minister of Agriculture to the Orient, a year or so ago, his friends have noticed the enlarged size of his head, and whether he had so impressed the people of Japan with the greatness of Canada, or whether he had led many of them to suppose that he was the Mikado, that he was the ruler of Canada, these people, I am told, actually fell down in front of him and almost worshipped him on some occasions ; and he has returned to Canada with his head abnormally enlarged, and seeks to secure from the people of the Dominion of Canada the same treatment that was meted out to him by the Japanese. In other words, he was regarded as a little tin god whilst in Japan, and on his return he is seeking to impress upon the people of Canada the same opinion.
Now, Sir, I may say that we were not surprised at the exhibition of the Minister of Agriculture ; but we were more than surprised at the exhibition made by the Minister of Militia last night ; and I am satisfied that when that hon. gentleman, in his calmer moments, reads over the remarks that he made in this House last night, and which have gone broadcast throughout the country, he will, deep down in his heart, be ashamed of the manner and the spirit which he displayed in this House last night. If there has been any act on the part of the Minister of Militia which would call for a rupture of the truce that has been extended to him ever since he was appointed head of the department, if there has been any act which would have called for a rupture of the truce that has been observed loyally towards him by the Liberal-Conservative party in this House and this country, it was the evidence that we had last night of his sympathy with the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture to introduce politics into the administration of the militia of this country. We did not expect anything better of the Minister of Agriculture. We knew it was his size to go down dabbling and meddling in the militia affairs of the eastern townships; but we did expect something better from the Minister of Militia than to back up the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. I am satisfied that in his calmer moments he will apologize to this House and apologize to Lord Dundonald for the position he occupies in suppressing reports of the general, which, he says, are secret and confidential, and trying to blacken the character and reputation of Lord Dundonald, not only in this' country, but throughout the empire, on the strength of reports which the general issues, but which the minister, to suit his convenience, will not place before the people of this country. Now, Sir, I stand here to demand that" that part II. of the confidential report of Lord Dundonald b* given to this House and this country.

545S
We have had confidential reports brought down to this House before. I myself asked the Minister of Militia some time ago in this House-the questions are in the ' Hansard ' if he disputes it-asked him the categorical questions : Was this a confidential report, was it a secret report ? And the answer 1 got was that it was confidential, that it was secret, and that it was not to be put before the House. I have Lord Dundonald's word for it that the report was neither secret nor confidential, any more than any other report between a general and bis minister is secret and confidential. The covering letter may have been marked ' private,' but according to the hon. Minister of Militia himself that covering letter was sent some days before the report reached him. We demand that that report be placed before the country. It cannot possibly be any harm to do so. The rumour has already got abroad, it is already in the air that Lord Dundonald has proposed some tremendous scheme involving an expenditure of millions, and it has been said that the Canadian border from the Atlantic to the Pacific is to bristle with forts. The organ of the right hon. First Minister, not the organ that was complained of last night by the - hon. Minister of Militia, not the Toronto ' News,' but the other Organ, has charged that Lord Dundonald's report involves an expenditure of from $35,000,000 to $50,000,000 for a line of forts along the border and for armaments that would turn this country into a regular hive of militarism. As I .understand Lord Dundonald's policy, it is the reverse of a regular military policy. He aims at the upbuilding of the militia of this country, not an aristocratic army, not an army controlled either by oligarchs or autocrats. The hon. Minister of Militia has admitted that because he has adopted almost in its entirety Lord Dunuonald's confidential report. Then, why cannot it be brought down ? I maintain in the interest of the country and in fair-play to Lord Dundonald that the report must be brought down. I do not see that Lord Dundonald needs to obtain any one's permission after the very cavalier manner in which he has been treated, but in case he requires to obtain any one's permission to publish that report, I maintain that it is Lord .uundonald's duty at the very earliest opportunity to publish that report broad cast to the world in order that we may judge whether the slanders that were heaped on that gentleman last night are justified or not. The hon. Minister of Militia last night undertook to read the House a lecture on constitutional history and constitutional law and he read extracts showing that the Secretary of State in the old country'and the Minister of Militia here, each in his proper place, is the superior of the Commander in Chief or of the General Officer Commanding. There is no child in the
fourth book in any of the ordinary schools but knows that, yet he and his colleague in iniquity in this instance, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, were endeavouring to read us these lectures. I may point out that a lesson was taught these hon. gentlemen long, long ago and I thank the hon. Minister of Agriculture for having profited by the lesson I gave him the other night. I promised him that if I took him in hand I would teach him something.


Mr. INGKAM.: It is a hard job.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, it is a hard jolf, but he has evidently profited by it. He has been reviewing some of the lessons which it was my pleasure and privilege to teach a certain gentleman in the past. r. do not know that I could at any other period of my remarks better illustrate the position than at the present time. Let us contrast the conduct of the two officers concerned. One of them we find, as the hon. Minister of Agriculture pointed out last night, violated the principles of responsible government and the constitution. The former General Officer Commanding-I refer to General Hutton-actually arrogated to himself the authority of over-riding the Minister of Militia and passing directly to the Governor General without the consent or advice of the Minister of Militia. That was clearly in defiance of the spirit of responsible government. I shall come back to this case a little later on. The former General Officer Commanding, General Hutton, took it upon himself without the consent or authority of the Minister of Militia, to receive from the Governor General and from the imperial authorities, letters concerning officers of the Canadian militia and to transmit such letters without the consent of the Minister of Militia. Lord Dundonald neither directly nor indirectly has attempted to do anything of the kind, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture, although from his remarks last night he is filled with venom towards that officer, did not for one second attempt to say that Lord Dundonald had pursued anything but a constitutional course in all his dealings with him in this matter. The former General Officer Commanding, General Hutton, undertook without the consent or approbation of the Minister of Militia, without the consent of the officers commanding the regiments, to make appointments to these regiments and in that way he clearly violated the constitution of this country. Lord Dundonald neither directly nor indirectly has ever trespassed on the constitution. In a dozen different ways General Hutton usurped the functions of the Minister of Militia, and the minister tamely submitted to it, and Sir, the right hon. Prime Minister will recollect that I had the privilege at, his request, of looking up the authorities to show him that in Lord Palmerston's time, when he was secretary of

54C0
state for war in 1810, I think it was, he 'Drought the Commander in Chief of the English forces, General Dundas, before him and told him that he dare not lift his hat to the sovereign officially without the permission of the first lord of the treasury. General Hutton violated all the principles of responsible government. Lord Dun-donaid has never violated one of them. In relation to the erasure of l)r. Pickel's name and to the 'Gazette' having gone through with the name of the hon. Minister of Agriculture attached as acting Minister of Militia, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I am sorrv to say, in a tone reeking with pomposity and venom towards the late General Officer Commanding last night, asked :	Is the act of
the hon. Minister of Agriculture valid or invalid ? He said :	If it is valid I presume the hon. Minister of Agriculture had the powef to initial that list in the absence of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence. I want to tell him that his bombast ill thi? House and before the country is not law and is not the constitution, and I want to say that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has committed an unconstitutional act, that, under the constitution of England, it is only the Prime minister who can act for another minister, unless any other minister so acting is actually sworn in to take the duties of the office. The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone is the only man who could have initialled that list unless the minister acting was actually sworn in. I Shall take that up though at a later period. I want to tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture further that if this matter is reported to His Excellency the Governor General, as it should be, I maintain that His Excellency would be justified in dismissing from his cabinet the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and if the right hon. Prime Minister does not see fit to dismiss the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I maintain it is the bounden duty under the constitution of the Governor General to dismiss any officer who would arrogate to himself that line of conduct that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has lately pursued and which has culminated in this unfortunate incident. Of that, though, later on. The hon. Minister of Agriculture went on to tell the House that in organizing a corps you must look to the prominent men of the country, men of standing, men physically fit, and lie gave a magnificent description of Christian De Wet, General Delarey. and Dr. Pickel. Yet, although he has described the very type of man that Dr. Pickel is, a splendid horseman. a magnificent rifleman, a man in the prime of life, commanding the confidence of the community, prominent in his own village, warden of his own county, the ideal commander, the Minister of Militia, obeying the dictates of the puny Minister of Agriculture, connives at this man being shut out of the militia. Why ? Because he Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
happened to be a political opponent to the Minister of Agriculture. Here we find a man living on the border whose only professed crime in the eyes of the Minister of Agriculture is that lie is willing to place his body between any invading enemy and the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. And here forsooth he is turned down because he is a Tory. The Minister of Militia in one of his calmer moments last night uttered a word or two that restored the feeling I have had as to the characteristic of that hon. gentleman when he said that if he had been here this unfortunate trouble would not have occurred.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I said that if I had been here, I would have consulted my colleague the Minister of Agriculture early in the affair, and that I believed that then this unfortunate trouble would not have occurred


Mr SAM. HUGHES.: I am willing even after his speech of last night to give the Minister of Militia credit for his utterance of to-day. I believe he would have turned the meddling Minister of Agriculture down had he been here to attend to his business. I feel satisfied, knowing what I know of him, and of his expressed desire to keep the militia free from the meddling of petty politicians, that he would have done his best to turn the Minister of Agriculture down, and it would then have depended on the question whether that minister had power enough to command the Prime. Minister, and to force his hand. We know that he boasts of Ms power. He has inherited position and wealth and these are all that he has. He has no superior ability over any man along the side roads of the country and yet he has power enough in the cabinet to control the Prime Minister, to control the Minister of the Interior and we are told he even turned down the Minister of Justice, but I can hardly believe it. Why such an official can have such power, passes our comprehension ; possibly history will reveal the reason.
The Minister of Militia last night took the opportunity of reciting a number of acts that he has performed, as Minister of Militia for the Dominion of Canada. The Minister of Militia took credit to himself for a long list of meritorious acts. I do not seek for ail instant to minimize the goods work that he has done, but why has he been able to do it ? Because he has had the backing of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) the hon. member for East Durham (Mr. Ward), myself and other Liberal-Conservatives in the House who are interested in military matters. He knows right well and the Prime Minister knows that in 189G when the Liberal-Conservative party wishing to place this country in a small state of readiness to meet any invad-

ias enemy, placed in the estimates $3,000,000 to purchase rifles, an agitation was carried on by the Liberals throughout the length and breadth of Quebec against that sum of money being placed in the estimates. Why, Sir, I recall that when the Solicitor General was speaking in his place in the House, the hon. member for Sherbrooke told him right on the floor of the House, that his place was behind the prison bars and not on the floor of the House for the conduct he displayed in the last general election in Quebec, in seeking to raise race against race, creed against creed, locality against locality. Had we carried out the same policy towards the Minister of Militia when he desired to add even $100.000 the minister would not have been able to get the money. In this House and out of this House the Tory party of the country to a man have backed the Minister of Militia in his attempts and he knows it. If the gauntlet has been thrown down, if trouble accrues in the future, let the Minister- of Militia and the Prime Minister not blame the Tory party :	let them blame the
Minister of Agriculture and Lie weakness of the Minister of Militia in heeding any such interference. I was more than surprised at the Minister of Militia last night seeking to take advantage of a little trifling matter. I presume it was intended more as an illustration. I refer to the ordnance corps. The ordnance corps is a very proper thing and I give the minister credit for what he lias done. He has placed in command of that corps Colonel Macdonald, a Liberal it is true, but a splendid fellow. 1 believe that Colonel Macdonald and the seven lieutenant colonels are all very good men. The minister made a good deal last night of the statement that Lord Dundonald was dishonest in saying that one dollar of extra responsibility was incurred by the country owing to the gazetting of these colonels. What we complained of was that these officers had not been made colonels by Lord Dundonald. I do not know the details but the facts stand out. These officers when the first gazette came out were gazetted as majors. They did not appear as colonels until Lord Dundonald went away on his western trip then they suddenly appeared as full-fledged colonels, and as a natural result these men took then-rank and seniority over all the other colonels in the country. It is a pretty hard matter for an officer after years of faithful service in a regiment to find out that some officer long his junior, owing to a little pull at headquarters, has been put over him. We would not mind it if it were done for any distinguished service. or meritorious conduct or superior work, but when they are put over the heads of officers who have distinguished themselves in a dozen ways as much as these men have done, the question naturally arises
in the minds of these officers, where is the pull that hap put these officers where they are ? I have not looked into the question of the salaries carefully but I would point out that these men come under the Military Superannuation Act and they will draw higher superannuation on account of having been made lieutenant colonels.


Frederick William Borden: The superannuation will depend on the amount of pay they receive, and the pay as lieutenant colonels is the same as it was when they were majors.


Samuel Hughes: The pay depends on rank.


Frederick William Borden: Not when it is fixed by Order in Council.


Samuel Hughes: in some respects. I know it breaks his heart to have to put up with a, man like the Minister of Agriculture, and to have all these troubles-I do not know any more moderate term to use-forced upon him by a man of the calibre of the Minister of Agriculture. Even then I fail to see eye to eye with Mr. Willison in his admiration of the Prime Minister of Canada. Yet this editor scathes the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture in the terms that were referred to in this House last night. The biographer of the Prime Minister is the biographer of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia, and, Sir, if we are to accept his authority in the one case-and he is quoted by Liberals all over the country-then surely we must accept his authority in the other case, as displayed in his appreciation of the great powers of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia. However, it is a quarrel among themselves, and, as an old trapper up our way says when any of these questions come up, I am not going to meddle in it-we will let them skin their own skunks.
Another reference last night by the Minister of Militia was to our good friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), whom . he taunted with having lost his head. Well, if he has lost his head, he gets on splendidly. As an American once said, he is a mighty lively corpse. The stand that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier made in this House last night is the same stand that he made on former occasions, when he justified himself in Montreal and elsewhere in his public speeches. I may tell the Minister of Militia that his friend the right hon. leader of the government will not express flie views he did in relation to the lack of power and ability of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. Perhaps the minister was touched a little, because, according to his view, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had been decapitated by his friends while Lord Dundonald had lost his head by his enemies.
Another point attempted to be made by the Minister of Militia last night was that Lord Dundonald had had a reporter in his pay at the meeting in Montreal. Bad as the Minister of Militia had been up to that time,
I thought that was terrible. I did not really believe that the Minister of Militia could so far forget the little courtesies due from one gentleman to another, especially men who had been associated together for two years past in the capacity of minister and adviser. I could not credit it, until I read ' Hansard ' this morning, that the minister could have so far forgotten himself as to charge Lord Dundonald with hiring a reporter to take notes of his remarks in order that they ifight be published, and then, in the next breath, to charge that Lord Dundonald had sought to keep those remarks from being published. I may say that after I wrote to Lord Dundonald for data, previous to the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
last time this matter was before the House, I was requested to call upon him ; and I may say that he stated then to me, what the Minister of Militia very properly pointed out last night, that he had got sick of the meddling, and that he was determined, as my good friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said, to cut the painter, and if possible educate the people of Canada to the iniquities that were going on, and that he had nothing whatever to do, directly or indirectly, with the bringing of this matter before the public, and cared not whether it was reported or kept in darkness.


Mr. SCOTT.: Was the reporter at the dinner ?


Samuel Hughes: I was not at the dinner.


Thomas Walter Scott: I was led to understand from the opposition benches that it was a private dinner.


Samuel Hughes: Then possibly the hon. member was educated from the opposition side. I do not know anything about the dinner. I know the result of it ; and Lord Dundonald has nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to retract or apologize for in connection with that dinner. I have just been informed by the leader of the opposition and by the hon. member for West Toronto that the Montreal ' Gazette ' to-day positively states that its reporter went there of his own accord-that it was a public function. Hon. gentlemen opposite can read it for themselves. I do not know whether they are losing their heart or not, but their tones are very mellifluous to-day.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: The Montreal ' Gazette ' says the reporter went there in obedience to the orders of his chief.


Samuel Hughes: That is his newspaper chief, of course, as we expect reporters do. I may say that I have badi a good deal to do with reporters in this country, and I have never known one who could be him! to go to any meeting and report for any man unless he was sent by his paper. With regard to the insinuations by the Minister of Militia that Lord Dundonald was publishing these confidential reports broadcast over the old country, that comes with very bad grace from one who has before him every day the Toronto ' Globe,' the Montreal ' Herald ' and other organs subsidized by this government whose columns are reeking with denunciations of the late General Officer Commanding because forsooth they charge him with wanting to impose a system of militarism on this country and build a line of forts from one end of it to the other and all that sort of thing. Let me tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture that they will fail in their efforts to prejudice Lord Dundonald, that they will fail to strengthen their own case and make

political capital for themselves by publishing only what suits them, and they will find that they will be forced by public opinion to publish the report of Lord Dun-dona Id in its entirety. I demand, in justice to Lord Dundonald and to the people of this country, that that report be laid On the table of this House, so that we may know really what it is, and I have every reason to believe that before the snow flies my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will be brought to his senses and be convinced of the necessity of furnishing that report in its entirety. The right hon. gentleman ought to know what the principles of responsible government are, though I must confess he has not in this matter given any evidence that he has the slightest conception of those principles. He may stand up here, as I have seen him do often before, and shake that magnificent head of his and slap his breast and declare that he is a politician of the type of the old English politicians-


Mr. BENNETT.: A democrat to the hilt.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, and a democrat to the hilt, but what we require of him is to stand by the principles of responsible government and put his thumb down on men like the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture who will use these reports and then refuse to let them go to the country. Was it a guilty conscience which led the Minister of Militia to talk of subsidized reporters ? Is he aware that it is the Dominion government which paid for the cabling of the Order in Council of the other day to the English papers ? Is he aware that the Order in Council was cabled across at the instance of a member of the government and was paid for by the government ? Is the Prime Minister aware that out of the fund-I am not sure whether it was the money of the people or the money raked in from contractors- the English press is supplied with rubbish from this side, boosting him and his government to the skies ? Is he aware that out of the money of this country the subsidized agents of the government in the the old country, the officers in Lord Strath-cona's office and in the government agencies, are paid for spending their time writing articles for publication in the North Wales ' Gazette,' the South Wales ' Mirror,' the West Yorkshire ' Tooter ' and a lot of little one-horse country papers, and then this stuff is cabled back as the opinions of the English public. This stuff, which Is written up in the back offices of the government agencies and published in these newspapers is then cabled back to this country as expressing English public opinion. If the right hon. gentleman is not aware of this, I draw his attention to it now so that when the $15,000 item comes up for paying these
men he will be able to explain it with some knowledge of what is taking place. Periodically we get papers from the old country with two or three columns-and mark you, Sir, these are not published for nothing- of speeches of the Minister of Agriculture at different places, describing how eloquently he addressed the public on the way to kill chickens and make butter and things of that sort; and no doubt it is the good solid money from the pockets of Canadian farmers which pays for these eulogistic articles. That sort of thing will have to be stopped. All we ask is fair play. All we ask is that honest reports be sent out to the English press and that our officers in the old country, paid with our money, shall nc(t isend 'columns of hog wash to such papers as the ' Daily News ' and the ' Chronicle.' If the government want to make use of the English press, let them send reliable matter to journals of the stamp of the * Spectator,' the ' Post,' the ' Times ' and the ' Telegraph,' and not to disloyal journals which took the part of the Boers, which were subsidized by the Boer.


Mr. BUREAU.: Who killed the Boers ?


Samuel Hughes: I can guarantee that there are not many obituary notices traceable to our- hon. friend or any of his party.
' Mr. MACPHERSON. There was no room there for anybody else but yourself.


Samuel Hughes: There is another little matter to which I wish to refer. The Ministers of Militia and Agriculture and also the Prime Minister have charged Lord Dundonald with not observing the principles of responsible .government. But neither in their subsidized organs nor from their places in this House have they pointed out one act of Lord Dundonald which is nqt in harmony with the principles of responsible government. Suppose Lord Dundonald did defy them and make a speech in Montreal, is that contrary to the principles of responsible government ? Did not Hampden defy the government of England and bring about a reform ? Did not William the Third and his friends defy tyranny in Great Britain and bring about a reform? Did not George Washington and his friends in the United States take a stand against the government of that day and bring about a reform ? If Lord Dundonald has taken a stand in this country in order to bring our people to a realization of the position they occupy and the practices that are going on, he is quite prepared to take the responsibility of what he did and there is nothing in his action contrary to the principles of responsible government. Suppose he has fallen foul of our friends, he is ready to abide by the consequences. He asks no favours and he has acted in a legal

and constitutional manner. Where then has he done anything which was not in perfect harmony with the principles of responsible government ? Hon. gentlemen opposite failed to show us that Lord Dundonald has sinned in any way against responsible government, but they have attempted by their bluster to cover up the real issue and justify their own shortcomings. The Minister of Militia waxed very warm last night because Lord Dundonald 'had said that there was some difficulty between himself and the government. But surely the hon. minister must understand the use of the English language. The charge is made by Lord Dundonald against the government and not the government against him. I hope the Minister of Militia will study nil the proper use of the English language and not give us another exhibition similar to the one he gave last night. At one time I thought the hon. gentleman was going to explode when he told us in excited tones that this officer had yet to learn the first principles of proper conduct and before trying to control the government should learn to control himself. But I do not see how Lord Dundonald could say otherwise than that the charge was made by him against the government. It is he who is putting the government on its defence, and before the government are through, this matter they will find they are very much on their defence.
The Minister of Agriculture did not say much ; but he claimed that it was his right as a citizen, his right as a member of parliament, his right as a Minister of the Crown -nay, more than his right, it was his duty -to intermeddle with the organization of the regiment. All I have to tell him is this-that had I been Colonel Smart he would have got out of that business in mighty short order. As the Minister of Militia knows, one Liberal heeler tried it in reference to my own regiment, and he got out of it about as quickly as he knew how. And I may say that, in the olden days, long before I had anything to do with politics, when a Conservative administration was in power, a pettifogging Tory


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: Yes-you have
scrubs in every camp-a pettifogging Tory, one about the calibre of the Minister of Agriculture, undertook to meddle in the affairs of that regiment and to force the appointment of a chap who happened to be a friend of his, and a Tory. I say it to the credit of every Tory in that regiment, he was jumped on with both feet, and the officer who was entitled to the place got it in spite of this fellow's meddling. And in the days of Alexander Mackenzie, when the Liberals were in power, the Liberal organization undertook to force an appointment in that same old regiment, and, to Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
the credit of Alexander Mackenzie, I am glad to say that, when the matter came before him, he turned them down and sternly said : There must be no political interference in the militia. But I want to say this- 1 blame Colonel Smart, I blame him very severely, for his course in this matter, in that, though knowing that this meddling was going on, he had not cleared the decks long ago and publicly branded the Minister of Agriculture for his interference. But I presume that he was anxious to get the regiment together, and to keep things going smoothly and pleasantly, and so he put up with the petty persecuting, meddling spirit displayed by that gentleman. The Minister of Agriculture speaks of his close political connection in the eastern townships. How is a man who only knows the people in their political relation to judge who are the proper men to command a regiment ? No. Give me the man who knows the boys as they show up at the rifle range, the man who is ready to go into cami>
with the young fellows of the regiment. Colonel Smart knew1 these men ; Colonel Roy knew them ; Colonel Whitley knew them. I am informed that Colonel Whitley is a prominent Liberal, that Colonel Roy is a prominent Liberal-


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman makes a mistake as to Colonel Roy.


Samuel Hughes: Is he a Tory ?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHEiS. I am very glad to hear it. At all events, Colonel Roy was only the District Officer Commanding. And here let me point out where the Minister of Militia was unfair last night. And I want the minister to hear this, for I am reading him a lecture and I intend that he should profit by it. The minister was unfair in half a dozen things, but the one thing to which 1 wish now particularly to refer was this-that he made-it appear that Colonel Roy had been overlooked by the General Officer Commanding. As a matter of fact, not a solitary recommendation was made by the General Officer Commanding that did not come through Colonel Roy-and it was through Colonel Roy as District Officer Commanding, that they should have come. I take it from the remarks of the minister that he wished to ieave the impression that Colonel Roy, as District Officer Commanding, had been overlooked in this matter because he was of French Canadian descent. I thought that was far beneath the Minister of Militia. For he knows, and knows well, that the District Officer Commanding has nothing- and ought to have nothing-to do in these matters, other than to take the reports of the officer commanding the regiment in the organization of the regiment. The General Officer Commanding, with the minister's knowledge and consent, gave the organization of the regiment to the brigadier, Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley, a staunch Liberal,

as the minister knows. And the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia were closeted with Colonel Whitley when Colonel Smart came on this first expedition to Ottawa. Was Colonel Smart admitted to the sacred precincts within which that conference was held ? No. He was kept at the door, and Colonel Whitley the Liberal was taken in and consulted with by these gentlemen.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) will allow me to correct him. My recollection is that Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart were both in the room with me

in room 27-the only time I ever saw them.


Samuel Hughes: Well, perhaps the Minister of Militia may be let out. It may be that it was only in the sacred conference with the Minister of Agriculture that this occurred. Of course, Colonel Smart was not in the room with Colonel Whitley in the office of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Most upright conduct on the part of Colonel Smart.


Samuel Hughes: What does the minister mean ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In discussing these things with my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes).


Samuel Hughes: Why, it has been in the papers all over the country. Colonel Whitley admits it.


Mr. FISHER.: I would like to understand what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has stated. If he will put it clearly we shall all know what he means.


Samuel Hughes: It will require more than the equivocation displayed in this House to make us believe the charge is not true. I may tell the Minister of Agriculture that, so far as any denial from him is concerned. Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart came to Ottawa on this matter early in the obstruction. Colonel Whitley had an interview with the minister when Colonel Smart was not present, and, later on, after three o'clock, all three had a meeting over here. Colonel Whitley is a good Liberal- nobody will deny that. And he is a good officer-nobody will deny that either. The General Officer Commanding followed exactly the course that the constitution of this country lays down as the proper course for one in his position. And, on this point I would address myself particularly to the Prime Minister. Lord Dundonald has been charged wTith pursuing a course contrary to the principles of responsible government. Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen have failed to show where he stepped aside from the proper course in one single particular. What course does the constitution of this country provide in such matters ? This regiment was to be organized. In the first
place, a commanding officer was appointed- Colonel Smart. The brigadier, Colonel Whitley, was instructed to look after the regiment. He and Colonel Smart selected the officers of the regiment as it was their duty to do. It was understood from the first that the officers of the old 53rd Battalion of Infantry, and the 97th Regiment, the old regiment down there on the border, were to be taken, as far as possible, in the formation of the new regiment. And yet one would gather from the tenor of the remarks that have been made-and I should much dislike to say that there was an intentional effort in those remarks to mislead the House, but I think that, considering the way in which the case is put we would be justified even in saying that there wras that intention-that Colonel Smart had gone about the country drumming up a lot of Tories who had had no previous experience, and taking them, simply because they7 wrere Tories to be officers in the organization of the regiment. Under the constitutional course, Colonel Smart, selected his officers. Of course, he could get advice wherever he chose, but it was for him to make the choice. There is one constitutional avenue of communication according to the laws of responsible government and of common sense government. There must be an official channel of communication. That channel was from the officers, the captains of the companies and the majors commanding the squadron, through Colonel Smart to. Colonel Roy and from Colonel Roy to the authorities at Ottawa. There is the plain, well understood course. The man who pursued the unconstitutional course, who followed principles inimical to responsible government was the Minister of Agriculture ? He is the man who tramped under his feet the forms that have been in use for ages, and that will continue to be in use for ages in any properly organized community. He tried to make himself the medium of communication between the officers organizing the regiment and the department at Ottawa.	,	, ,	,
He is the man who stands branded, and will stand branded to the end of time, as the only instance of a minister of the Crown in Canada who has ever stooped to interfere in the organization of a regiment, and has constituted himself the Colonel of the regiment. the brigadier of the district, the District Officer Commanding of the district, the General Officer Commanding, and the Minister of Militia. Following the precedents laid down by this government, and rightly laid down, in dismissing General Hutton, and in the dismissal of ministers again and again in British history, I maintain that the Prime Minister is bound to turn the Minister of Agriculture out of his cabinet, or he is guilty of a violation of the principles of responsible government, and himself merits dismissal by the Governor General of the country. Our friend, the

juvenile member for London (Mr. Hyman), may sit there with a sardonic smile ; he may not know as much about the principles of responsible government as about pigs feet; but I may tell him that the more he studies the principles of responsible government he will find that away down in the hearts of the people of this country, where the sentiment has not been swallowed up bj chicanery, opportunism and trickery on the part of the government of this country- I say that deep down in their hearts there is an admiration for the old principle of responsible government, and he will find it out sooner or later.
Now, we will come to a few details. Not only has the Minister of Agriculture been guilty of meddling with and trampling on the constitution, but he has been proven guilty in this House of deception, not to use a stronger term. He has stated again and again in this House that these regiments along the border were Tory preserves in the olden times, and that he was going to take particular pains to see that they no longer remained Tory hives. He has had the hardihood to stand up and state in this House what he must know is a deliberate untruth.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, if the rules of parliament forbid me to utter what is in my heart, then I retract the word.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I have retracted the statement, I bow promptly to parliamentary rules. As an Ameflcan said the other day in the House of Representatives at Washington, a man will sometimes speak from his heart. The Minister of Agriculture has stated in this House on two or three occasions recently, and he has made the welkin ring with the statement, that the regiments along that border had been Tory preserves in days gone by, that they are Tory preserves to-day, and that was the reason he interfered. The charge was made in Monreal in his own paper, and in order to avoid a lawsuit, I presume, he has had to publish a letter from the officer commanding one of the eastern townships regiments who is charged with that sort of thing. I will read the article :
The colonel of the regiment

I think he is the colonel of the regiment, H. R. Fraser signs the letter. And let me say this before I pass on, that I see they are resorting to a little species of petty intimidation in relation to Colonel Smart, and the Hamilton ' Times ' warns any officer who wants to keep his place in the militia that he had better keep his mouth shut. The Waterloo ' Advertiser ' does the same 1 thing. Let me tell the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Parmelee), who, I believe is the editor of that paper, let me tell the Minister of Agriculture, and the Hamilton Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
' Times,' and the Toronto ' Globe,' and the Montreal ' Herald, ' that when an officer of the militia of this country is not on service he is just as free a man to tell his colonel, to tell the District Officer Commanding, to tell the Minister of Militia or any other man in this country, what he thinks of him as any other man living, and there is nothing in the militia laws of this country that can possibly prevent him. That was the fight that I fought with General Hutton, and let me tell the Prime Minister hat the militiamen of this country while they are ready to defend their country, abdicate none of the rights of citizenship in joining the militia. Let me tell the hon. member for Shefford that it ill becomes him to write what appears in the last issue of his paper, and which I will read. Mush less does it become him when the public know' that Colonel Smart, the gentleman whom he is threatening here, took him into his confidence and took his advice in the selection of a number of the officers of that corps. It ill becomes him to stoop to a threat resembling the tyranny of the dark ages. He says :
Colonel Smart's connection with the matter stamps him as unfit to command a corporal's guard. To employ no harsher term, his usefulness is gone.
Mr. Speaker, let me draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that that article is in the paper of one of his supporters and if that is the spirit that is going to be displayed and acted on in this country, let us know it. Let me tell him that the people of this country are going to stand by the principle of responsible government. If that is the treatment that is to be meted out to the free men of this country, let us know it, that is all I ask. We are ready any time they wish to meet them on this ground. This trouble has been brewing for a long time, and we are ready, at any time they chose to throw down the gauntlet, to pick it up. Here is a statement made by Colonel Fraser in relation to the absurd charge made by the Minister of Agriculture that these regiments were Tory hives. Colonel Fraser first quotes from the article in the ' Herald : '
I quote the following extract from the article : * Any one who is conversant with the affairs of the 53rd regiment will see how ridiculous the ' Gazette ' is when it states that the officers of the 53rd regiment are above politics. Is there a Liberal officer in the regiment ? It is well known in Sherbrooke that no Liberal-minded gentleman need apply for commission in this regiment.
This is from his own organ, the Minister of Agriculture. Colonel Fraser then goes on to say :
This statement is as false as it is malicious, and I designate its writer an infamous liar, and I challenge him to take action against me for calling him such, or to come out and re-

peat the statement over his own signature, when I will take action against him tor malicious libel.
That cap fits the Minister of Agriculture. He has stated in his speeches in this House, he has repeated it again and again, that these regiments were Tory hives, and I now ask him to peruse the article dealing with that letter. Colonel Fraser goes on :
I have been in the regiment for twenty-six years, from drummer-boy to its commanding officer, and during all that time not one word of politics or political influence has ever been heard to my knowledge, either on the part of the commanding officer, the regimental staff, the company officers or in the ranks.
Let me say in passing, that I have associated with these men on the rifle ranges here and in Montreal, and in camps in the eastern townships, I have talked with the boys of those regiments, and I never knew what politics any one of them believed in, and I cared less. I never heard that any politician interfered in the political allegiance of the men of any of the regiments, whether Colonel Gibson's regiment in Hamilton, or any other, and I defy any man to point-out where the question of politics has ever been allowed for one second to intervene between the officers and, the men of the regiment.
We have never even pretended to know, inquired into or cared what the politics, religion or nationality of incoming officers or men
might be.
What we have sought for has always been the right kind of stuff to make good officers and men for the regiment, and to serve their country and their King, and I think we have succeeded in some slight degree. In this respect the record of the regiment will speak for itself. What the number on either side of politics may have been from time to time in the past I do not know, but this I do know: that I served for many years under Lieutenant-Colonel W. A. Moorehouse, a staunch Liberal, and who obtained and held his command under a Conservative government, and I could refer to many other past officers who have been on the Liberal side of politics. It may not be out of place for me to say that my immediate predecessor in the command of the regiment has been repeatedly spoken of as the next Liberal standard-bearer at the Dominion elections, and again that my late surgeon-major, the present P. M. O. of the district, has also been prominently spoken of in the same direction.
When the scarlet coat is on, the boys drop politics. We regard is as a little bigger than politics. The late right hon. Sir John Macdonald, of whom I had the honour to be a humble follower in politics, had two staunch rules in political life that I heard him enunciate. He preserved the integrity of the bench and as far as possible made it rise above party politics and he preserved the integrity of the militia. My good friend they right hon. minister sometimes seeks to follow in his footsteps. Let me draw his
attention to the fact that in relation to the bench hon. gentlemen opposite have woefully, in the province of Ontario at all events, departed from that rule laid down by the late Sir John Macdonald and in the organization of this 13th Scottish Light Dragoons they have woefully departed from that rule. Let me point out to the right hon. Prime Minister that if he wants to do credit to himself and the country, he will follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor, Sir John Macdonald. The right hon. Prime Minister, in his remarks the other day on this matter, did not do himself credit in seeking to make it appear that Lord Dundonald and not Colonel Smart was selecting the officers of this regiment. In that connection when he was growing eloquent, endeavouring to make a speech which would read well in certain parts of the Dominion, saying that he wanted no interference from a man of Lord Dundonald's stamp, a man who did not understand the country, it was at that unfortunate moment -possibly he spoke from the heart rather than from the head-that he called Lord Dundonald a foreigner and a stranger. Let me tell him that Lord Dundonald is neither a foreigner nor a stranger either in Canada or in any land under the British flag. Take the right hon. gentleman's words in ' Hansard ' where he leads up to these expressions and endeavours to make it appear that Lord Dundonald was selecting these officers when he said the hon. Minister of Agriculture had a greater right to do it, and it will -be seen that he was neither fair nor just to Lord Dundonald. Lord Dundonald was pursuing a constitutional course, and the right hon. Prime Minister knows it. He had no politics, but be trusted his brigadier, Colonel Whitley, a man of experience and judgment in military matters, not like the hon. Minister of Agriculture, he trusted Colonel Smart, a man of experience and judgment in military matters also, men who knew the country and who, although they did not know every grit heeler in every polling subdivision as well as the hon. Minister ot Agriculture did, at all events showed that they knew the free men of that locality just as wdll as the hon. Minister of Agriculture did, he trusted to the judgment of officers appointed by the government of Canada. He pursued a constitutional course. Yet, the right hon. Prime Minister sought to make it appear that Lord Dundonald had made these appointments. I do not charge the right hon. gentleman with anything improper farther than that he was endeavouring to make a little political capital out of the course of the government in bouncing Lord Dundonald by trying to make it appear that Lord Dundonald and not these officers was picking the officers of that regiment and it was at that time, when, carried away by the impulse of the moment,

that he made that unfortunate break which does him little credit. It is not necessary that he should explain what the French idiom means. The word in French or English means a man unknown, an alien, a foreigner, an outsider, a man who does not belong to us. He cannot explain it away in French or English.
Now, I will come down to the point where the hon. Minister of Agriculture has been caught red-handed in deception and I am afraid that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence will require to keep on his best bib and tucker in order to convince his friends throughout the country, that he has not been caught red-handed in a piece of the pettiest political intrigue that the Dominion of Canada has ever furnished in my time, at all events. I shall not read all the letters. My good friend the leader of the opposition has pointed them out very carefully in their order and has made all the points that it is possible to make out of them. All I shall do is to .summarize. The evidence of political interference is apparent from start to finish. The hon. minister writes on the 20th May:

I have written to our friends.
There is another letter written by Colonel AVhitley on May 22nd, from Toronto to the hon. minister, in which he says:
You will remember the Minister of Militia pointed out that it was not nceessary to have all the officers (which of course is the most difficult part of the organization) at first, they can follow and be selected with much more care and consideration later on.
Then he goes on :
I think I told you, in Ottawa, my views re the drinking question. I dread an intemperate officer, they are useless, indeed of great harm wherever they appear and candidly I would prefer political opponents to such.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture was not honest enough to tell the House who the drinking Liberal was who was being appointed. We want to know who the officer was but the hon. gentleman did not give us his name.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You will find that Colonel Whitley did not recommend anybody who was a drunkard.


Samuel Hughes: Well, Colonel Whitley is here in black and white reasoning with the minister. It was evidently the Minister of Agriculture that was recommending the drunkard. I shall read it again :
I think I told you, in Ottawa, my views re the drinking question. I dread an intemperate officer

So would any one in command of a regiment.


Mr.   SAM@: 



[Stage Direction]
-they are useless, indeed of great harm wherever they appear, and candidly I would prefer political opponents to such.
A sober Tory rather than a drunken Grit.
Mr. R. JOHNSTON.: Perhaps he drank that case of Walker's whisky which was purchased in England.


Samuel Hughes: No, I think that ease was all drunk over at Wolverhampton unless the hon. minister brought some of it here. If he did he would keep it for his own special use. On May 10th, the hon. Minister of Agriculture wrote to Mr. Clinton Benham. Every one knows that Mr. Benham is a very respectable Liberal in the eastern townships :
Would you care to join and take a captaincy or a lieutenancy ?
The hoii. Minister of Agriculture meddling and trampling responsible government under foot-tramping on Colonel Smart, on Colonel Whitley, on Colonel Roy and on the General Officer Commanding. Meddling, meddling! Then he goes on:
It would be only a matter of a few years for our men to work up into one or two of these positions, but in the meantime those v-'to have no military experience must commence lower down.
Then he goes on in another letter in -which he writes to Mr. Benham.
He

Colonel Smart

-and Mr. Parmelee and I have been discussing matters here at length, and Mr. Parmalee and I are satisfied that he is honestly desirous of remedying'these mistakes and doing ar j thing he can to meet our views.
The views of the twTo politicians of the riding. I have just pointed out the unfair action of the hon. gentleman referred to here as Mr. Parmelee in trying to knife Colonel Smart because he stood by his right as an officer of the militia. The letter goes on:
It is impossible, however, to make all the changes that our friends would like. The most important ones, have, however, been made.
Letter after letter, points out that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is trying to make of this regiment a regular Liberal preserve.
The Minister of Militia in his innocence has admitted in the former debate that ' when he went away he left the matter to be dealt with by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, but that he told the deputy minister to see that the Minister of Agriculture dealt with this matter. Colonel Smart and Colonel Whitley anxious to get this matter pressed through were directed to meet our friend the Minister of Militia in Montreal. I do not know what trans pired there, all we know is that they met and that Colonel Smart came to Ottawa the

next morning and the Minister of Agriculture has admitted that whether Dr. Pickel retired or not, it was prearranged between the Minister of Militia, the Minister of Agriculture and Colonel Smart that the ' Gazette ' should go through without Dr. Pickets name. That being the case, what can we think of the Minister of Agriculture stand-up in his place in the House as he did only yesterday and trying to make it appear that he was influenced to drop Dr. Pickets name out owing to the fact that Dr. Pickel had withdrawn to Colonel Smart on the 19th and that he had received a letter from Colonel Smart that day. When the Prime Minister lays that fact before the Governor Genera]-no I do not think it need go that far-when the Prime Minister reflects on it in his own mind, whatever his personal views may be, he will believe that the honour of the Dominion of Canada will not permit that a man of the calibre of the Minister of Agriculture should remain in office an hour. I do not see how the Prime Minister can retain a minister guilty of the trickery and deception-


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.
Mi-, SAM. HUGHES. Will the Prime Minister tell me what word I can use ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not for me to instruct the hon. gentleman. I wish to call your attention Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. gentleman has just stated that the Minister of Agriculture was guilty of trickery.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the hon. gentleman knows very well that that is not pariamentary.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know it is not parliamentary, Mr. Speaker.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think Mr. Speaker, you will have to inform the hon. gentleman that it is not.


Samuel Hughes: I read the rules of parliament very carefully, and I do not want to trespass on the rules of parliament but if you say that the word trickery is unparliamentary, I shall retract the word.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I certainly say it is unparliamentary ; there is no question about it at all.


Samuel Hughes: I retract the word. Is deception unparliamentary ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think so.


Samuel Hughes: Then how in the name of goodness can I use a term that is parliamentary ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Order, order.


Samuel Hughes: I cannot get any language that is not unparliamentary which is fit to characterize the action of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.
We have here the ' Gazette ' brought up by Colonel Smart. At the head it is dated 174
May 19, 1904. That is the ' Gazette ' as it left the department. It is signed ' Dun-donald, Major General.' Then there is a note : 'As a special ease, so and so will be required to pass the qualifying examination.' Then we find a note : ' not approved, Sydney Fisher, for F. W. Borden,' and there it is dated for Mr. Fisher's signature, May 19, 1904. I am not going to say when that was sent to the Council, all I know is that the Minister of Militia has confessed that he slipped out of the city leaving the matter and told the deputy to arrange it with the Minister of Agriculture and that Colonel Smart also says it was prearranged, that whether Dr. Pickel withdrew or not, his name was to be dropped, but for the sake of form, in order to prevent any ruction in the regiment, Dr. Pickel was to be induced if possible to withdraw. We have the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that Colonel Smart came to him as though it was a matter of surprise with this ' Gazette ' and asked to have it shoved through Council on that day, and we have his admission, drawn from him by the leader of the opposition, that he had prearranged that whether Dr. Pickel withdrewor not that name was to be dropped. I leave it to the Prime Minister in his calm moments to supply me with a word that will cover the action of the Minister of Agri culture. 1 can find no parliamentary term harsh enough to characterize it.
The minister claimed a good deal of credit for appointing young Holland over Mr. Russell, a Liberal. He did not state that he had first insisted on Mr. Russell being appointed to command the squadron and on its being objected to, he consented to Mr. Holland being appointed. He stated that it was his action that forced Holland over Russell. I want to tell him that men who are regarded by people of the eastern townships as much more reliable than he is state the contrary, and that the minister first wished Russell's name to go and then he consented to Holland's name being placed over Russell's.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is absolutely no foundation for that statement.


Samuel Hughes: I have a great deal of foundation in my hand for it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I demand that the hon. gentleman shall show the statements he has which he says will prove it.


Samuel Hughes: I want the Minister of Agriculture to remember that I do not require any statement to show him or any one else in this House. I want the Minister of Agriculutre to know that my word passes current where his word will not be accepted, and that when I make a statement in this House I am not going to have any four-cornered gentleman to get up and demand of me that I give the name or the letter in order that the little, petty, persecuting tyrannny of the Minister of Agriculture-



Some bon. MEMBERS. Hear, bear.


Samuel Hughes: I want bim to understand where be belongs. He also claims- and I am witbin the judgment of this House, if yesterday as on a former occasion, be did not make it appear deliberately that Captain Adams or whatever bis rank may be was a resident of the eastern townships and knew the country well. He did not tell us, although he must have known it to be true, that Captain Adams has been a resident of Montreal for a long time, and that gentlemen who live in Montreal know the eastern townships as well as Dr. Adams. He wanted to make it appear that he wished Captain Adams to be appointed as third in command because he lived in the eastern townships. He did not say so in so many words, but he gave that impression by that power of equivocating that he possesses, of saying a thing to be taken one way but to mean something different. Captain Adams does not live in the eastern townships. Captain Adams lives in Montreal. The Minister of Militia has made the statement that he communicated with Colonel Whitley some time ago in relation to this matter. May I ask him whether he has brought down the correspondence in that behalf 1


Frederick William Borden: As I informed my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I sent a letter to Colonel Whitley asking for his permission to do so. I hope to have that to-day, and I will bring down the papers as soon as I get it.


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Agriculture has boasted that he wished to give Major Carr the command of ' E ' squadron, and that he knew that Major Carr was a Tory. He wished to make out that he was going to do this out of the magnanimity of his heart. What was his game ? It was to give that to Major Carr so that he could put a Liberal in command of the Knowlton squadron in Major Carr's place. He also boasts that lie accepted Surgeon-Major Macdonald and Surgeon-Lieutenant Martin for the regiment. He did not tell us that he understood that Doctor Macdonald was going to retire, and that in that event, ignoring the claims of Surgeon-Lieutenant Martin, a doctor of great experience in the eastern townships, he wished to place over his head another doctor who is a Liberal. Another point in connection with that is. that of the two squadrons transferred from the 6th Hussars one was commanded by a Liberal and the other by a Conservative, and they are both capable and efficient cavalry officers. For the new squadrons two Liberals were selected and one Conservative, Doctor Picket Does that look like partisanship on the part of Colonel Smart ? And yet, according to the Minister of Agriculture, this was going to be made a Tory hive by Colonel Smart and Colonel Whitley, a life-long Liberal. The Minister of Agriculture speaks of the Baker clique.


Samuel Hughes: Has he produced the slightest tittle of evidence, other than his own words, to prove that the Baker clique, as he calls them, directly or indirectly, sought to influence these people politically ? He knows, if he knows anything about that district-and I do not think he knows much about it-that the rifle ranges are on the property of Doctor Pickel and his friends, that it is there they practice, that the grain is trampled down every year by the people coming to the rifle shooting, and that Doctor Pickel is the leading man in that district in every respect, except the one of military qualification.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, and if my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture had been managing in the veldt, he would have ruled out Christian DeWet and General Delarey on the same ground as he ruled out Doctor Pickel ; because I am satisfied that they are both sensible men, and would have been Tories as well as good soldiers.
The Minister of Militia, according to the Toronto ' Globe,' referred to the- Genera! Officer Commanding as having made very impolitic speeches when he was sent out to the Pacific coast in British Columbia. I do not remember what the General Officer Commanding said, but I saw it reported at ihe time, and I thought he was very temperate in his remarks. Every school boy should know that the two islands about which hon. gentlemen opposite made so much fuss in order to create a prejudice against British institutions, are utterly worthless from a strategic point of view, f saw it stated in the government organ that the minister was very much displeased because Lord Dundonakr had made those speeches, so that he must have said something in a lucid moment.


Frederick William Borden: Since my hon. friend has referred to that, I may say that this is what took place. I found that the General Officer Commanding, without my consent, without consulting me, was making a trip to the islands referred to, about which so much discussion has taken place. I telegraphed to the General Officer Commanding to be good enough to get a letter which I was writing to him, and which would be addressed to Victoria, British Columbia. That letter requested him particularly, under the circumstances, to say nothing in public with reference to the matter. He disregarded my instructions absolutely. He got the letter, but paid no attention to it. He took the very first opportunity to make speeches, and he made them on every public occasion in British Columbia.


Mr.   SAM@: as they did, if they ever did so. Supposing Lord Dundonald did commit a breach of etiquette by making the speech he did at Montreal, he had two or three courses open to him. He could have appealed to the Prime Minister and no doubt his appeal v/ould have been pigeon-holed ; or if he sent it to the Minister of Militia, that minister would likely have refused to forward it. He could have resigned and washed his hands of the whole business and gone out of the country with a great name, or he could have taken the course he did; and I maintain that in taking that course he has shown that he was actuated by the highest regard for the interests of this country. In any event, the worst charge brought against him is that he committed a breach of etiquette. But what were the offences of the Minister of Agriculture 1 That minister was guilty of a breach of etiquette just the same as Lord Dundonald was. When Lord Dundonald telephoned him to arrange a meeting, the minister said : I will go and see you. But he never did. Lord Dundonald telephoned again, and the minister again said : I will call around at your office and see you. And he never kept his promise. That was a breach of etiquette.


An hon. MEMBER.: A breach of promise.


Samuel Hughes: They say that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, has never left himself open to any charge of breach of promise, but merely breaches of etiquette. He is open to the charge of breach of etiquette for having overlooked the General Officer Commanding, for having acted in collusion with the Minister of Militia through Colonel Smart, when he brought this Order in Council to the Council meeting without the knowledge of the General Officer Commanding, brought it in a mutilated shape. He has been proven guilty of having interfered in the selection of the officers in the eastern townships and of having overridden the statute of Canada by preventing the General Officer Commanding having a free hand in the selection of officers. He has been proven guilty of having introduced partisan politics into the militia. Let me refer to the words of an American on that subject, Captain Mahan, who showed that the reason why the Canadians defeated the Americans in 1812 was because the Canadians were united, whereas the Americans were disunited and suffered from political meddling and interfering with the troops. Charles Francis Adams, one of the American statesmen and a veteran of the recent civil war, said:
When we were blackened by the smoke of Antietam we did not ask or care whether those who stood shoulder to shoulder beside us- whether he who led us-whether those who sustained us were Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Radicals ; we asked only that they might prove as true as was the steel Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
we grasped, and as brave as ourselves would fain have been. 'When we stood like a wall1 of stone, vomiting fire from the heights of Gettysburg, nailed to our position through three long days of mortal hell, did we ask each other whether that brave officer who fell while gallantly leading the counter charge, whether that cool gunner steadily serving his piece before us. midst gasping comrades, crushed and torn, and dying in agony around us, had voted for Lincoln Or Douglas, for Breckenbridg'e or Bell. We then were full gf other thoughts. Wre prized men for 'what they were worth to the common country of us all, and reckoned not of empty words. Was the man true, was he brave, was he earnest, was all we thought of then ; not, did he vote or think with us, or label himself with our party name ?
I commend these words to the First Minister and the people of Canada, and I trust whatever may be the future of the Minister of Agriculture, whether he be dismissed by the Prime Minister or not, we will never have another exhibition such as that which we have had regarding this regiment. The Minister of Agriculture is guilty of presenting-well, Mr. Speaker, I have in my notes the word ' false,' but I am not allowed to use that, so I will say * misleading ' and deceptive


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid those are not parliamentary.


Samuel Hughes: ' Misleading ' is not unparliamentary.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think so.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-Misleading state merits to parliament. And when publicly exposed, how did he seek to clear himself ? We all remember, how, the other day, he so calmly read his memorandum to the House, denying that he had, either directly or indirectly, been influenced by party considerations. And when Colonel Smart's letter was produced, a letter of the existence of which he had not been aware, and the cold facts were exposed before the House, he at once turned around and admitted that he had interfered for political purposes. I charge him with being unfit to be a minister of the Crown by reason of his conduct on that occasion.
He has been guilty of collusion with the Minister of Militia. Smirk as he may, that is the fact. Possibly these gentlemen have beeome so hardened that they do not care what their conduct may be in these things. But men with a high sense of honour, when accused of such conduct would not smirk or grin, as I regret to see the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) doing.


Mr. HYMAN.: It is enough to make anybody laugh.


Samuel Hughes: It seems easy to make the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) laugh ; but perhaps the laugh will be on the other side of the face before long. This

collusion-I shall not use the word ' conspiracy '-between the Minister of Militia and the gentleman who evidently has been acting as his servant, has been most reprehensible. The idea of the Minister of Militia slipping away, leaving this Order in Council to be put through and Dr. Pickpl's name struck off by the Minister of Agriculture, and then, to cover it up, getting Colonel Smart's and Colonel Whitley's consent, Dr. Pickel being induced to resign his position. This is unworthy of a minister of the Crown. And, if the First Minister is true to the principles of responsible government, he will ask for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. I furthermore charge, Sir, that in his action as acting Minister of Militia-I presume it was done ignorantly-the Minister of Agriculture has been guilty of violation of the constitution. In 1855, when Lord John Russell was absent in Vienna, his department was taken over by another minister. This was protested against, and it was claimed that it was unconstitutional. And Sir George Grey, admitted that the facts had been correctly stated and that arrangements could not be sanctioned for any length of time, but contended that the Prime Minister was constitutionally competent to take charge of any department. Only the Prime Minister, And so I contend that the Minister of Agriculture, in seeking to act, not in a mere matter of routine business, but in an official matter of this kind, has acted iu a manner clearly unjustifiable under the principles of responsible government.
Now, we have instances of men having taken the course which has been taken by Lord Dundonald. It is not long since Lord Charles Beresford, finding that the British navy was rotten, and that the machinery of government had fallen into the hands of men who were unfit to control it, came out and openly stated to the world that the navy of which he was an officer, was unfit to defend the empire. Of course there was a great disturbance about it. Of course, the machine men said : Dismiss him ; off with his official head-just as some petty minds on the government side called for the head of Lord Dundonald. But Lord Charles Beresford was too big a man, and the navy too important fo the empire, for any such course to be followed.


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) will permit me

I diu not refer to that case. But, I am sure he will not object to my stating what actually occurred.	.


Samuel Hughes: I happen to know what actually occurred.


Frederick William Borden: I was afraid lie' might overlook it. I might remind the House that Lord Charles Beresford wrote a letter, but the letter was published without his consent; and that, and that alone
saved him from immediate dismissal from the navy. And Lord Charles Beresford wrote a humble apology which was published iu the ' Times ' admitting his offense.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, after he had succeeded. And if this government had had a good sterling head to it and a Minister of Militia with backbone, if there had been a determination to maintain the interest of the country even if it required the turning adrift of the Minister of Agriculture, Lord Dundonald would have got out of his scrape as easily as Lord Charles Beresford was got out of bis. But, in this respect the cases were different. Lord Charles Beresford was dealing with the very heart's blood of Great Britain-her navy. And he was backed up in what he did. The people of the House of Commons of Great Britain were independent men : not time-servers ; not men sitting here in expectation of office -like the member for Hants (Mr. Russell) whom I see now taking notes, and who is sitting here with a judgeship in his pocket.


Alexander Johnston: You are getting afraid now, are you ?


Samuel Hughes: They were not men simply waiting for the dissolution of parliament in order to begin the enjoyment of the fine offices that were being dangled before them. The British parliament is composed of sterling men : and they gave the admiraltv to understand that if they interfered with Lord Charles Beresford. their heads would go off -too. But, to the discredit-


Alexander Johnston: Why did Lord Charles Beresford apologize 1


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-I say to the discredit of the First Minister and of his colleagues in the cabinet, like the hon. gentleman from Brant-and like my hon. friend the Deputy Speaker-they sit here dumb as ovsters and yield to political exigencies rather than demand that the Minister of Agriculture be made to apologize.


Alexander Johnston: Why did Lord Charles Beresford apologize ?


Samuel Hughes: I say this whole matter could have been smoothed over and Lord Dundonald kept in Canada, if the Minister of Agriculture had been kicked out and the Minister of Militia put in his proper place. I dare say, that, iu that case, Lord Dundonald would have been willing to take back his utterance in Montreal, in order that the country might go on and profit by his efforts. Why, Mr. Speaker, these tilings are matters of arrangement. We have an instance closer to us geographically. in the Cuban war, when a certain incident arose-which the Minister of Militia seems to have followed as a precedent with his emergency ration-when the American


Mr. A. LAYERGNE.: Where?


Samuel Hughes: All over the province of Quebec, and elsewhere. We have found these young gentlemen


Louis Lavergne: Give us one instance.


Samuel Hughes: We have heard their speeches in this House, we have heard speeches px-oduced in this House made by these bon. gentlemen and their friends before the last general election in the province of Quebec. We have had documents here, sworn to, and published in the ' Hansard.' My young friend is very innocent, or he would not ask such a question. More than that, we have seen that spirit manifested here by these gentlemen again and again. I do not know who that Liberal friend is that Informs Mr. Glenn of these things he mentions in his letter ; but at all events, our friends opposite are gradually going in that direction. They demand the making of our own treaties, they demand that there shall be no appeal to the Privy Council, they demand that we shall have a Canadian General Officer Commanding, they demand that every tie that binds ns to the motherland, except the old flag, shall be cut asunder, except that one link the Governor General ; and then it will be a mighty short time until they come out and demand a republic. Whether that is the aim of the Minister of Agriculture, who, on his recent trip to Japan has been lecturing to the Geisha girls, whether he has the desire to supplant the Prime Minister and become a sort of president of a new republic, I do not know. At all events, there is no use in shutting our eyes to the fact that the tendency of these gentlemen is in that direction.
Now, I may say that some years ago, when I had an opportunity of standing up for the rights of the people of Canada against the tyranny of the General Officer

Commanding, not because be was a Britisher but because he was taking an unconstitutional course, I had the privilege then ol' proceeding along certain 'lines which had been laid down for upwards of a hundred years in the parliament of Great Britain. I resented the illegal action of that officer. Our good friends opposite do not seem to be able to see the difference between an illegal action -and a legal one.
I say here that if it can be shown that Lord Dundonald practiced any of the illegal actions that General Hutton practiced,
I shall be the first to admit that the government did right in dismissing him. But neither directly nor indirectly have they shown the first solitary instance where Lord Dundouald's course has not been thoroughly constitutional, thoroughly in line with the spirit of responsible government. When the movement was on foot to have a Canadian General Officer Commanding succeed General Hutton, I took the opportunity on February 25, 1901, to say this in the House of Commons :
That in brief, is the correspondence. I have brought this matter up, not in order to vindicate myself, and not because I have any objection to the General Officer Commanding the Canadian forces being a British general. On the contrary, I desire that our General Officer Commanding should be a British general. I know that a great many of my friends, both on the other side of the House and on this side, in view of the conduct of some of the .General Officers in recent years have expressed the wish that a Canadian officer should he appointed to that position.
I wish to say, standing here that it is my desire that the General Officer Commanding should he an imperial officer and I believe that if we paid that officer $10,000 a year, which is the pay of a major general in England, and is about what little New South Wales pays to her General Officer Commanding we would get an officer to come out here to take command of our troops who would be a credit to the position and to the empire.
Lord Dundonald came to this country a credit in every sense to the empire. And here it may not be out of place for me to give -a few of the reasons of that spirit of antagonism to Lord Dundonald. Who can fail to understand the spirit manifested both by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Minister of Militia last night ? Who can fail, I say, to observe that the antagonism to Lord Dundonald was due to the fact that he was a member of the British aristocracy, and because he was a member of the British army. It ill becomes gentlemen who, a few years ago, boasted themselves as democrats to tlie hilt, and wlio on every occasion since have been sacrificing their previously pi'ofessed principles for titles and for offices-I say it ill becomes them to stand-up in this House and sneer at any one because he is a member of the British aristocracy. I maintain that the General Officer Commanding the Canadian
troops should he am imperial officer, not because Canadians aire not capable of filling the post, because I believe Canadians are capable, not only of being General Officers Commanding in Canada, provided they have the necessary training, but they are capable of being Commanders-in-Chief of the imperial armies, provided they have the necessary training. I want him to be an imperial officer, not because he might he an Englishman, because, although some Englishmen may be bumptious, we have seen Canadians who are bumptious also. That is not a fault belonging exclusively to Englishmen. There are some Frenchmen, there are many in England, some in Scotland andl a few in Ireland who are inclined to stick to their own opinions. You will find that all over the world. I want an imperial officer, not because he may, be am imperial aristocrat

although let me say this, that other things being equal, a man from the ranks of the aristocracy, if he is thoroughly trained, should be just as good a man at all events to command our militiary forces as any one else. So it should be no drawback to a man that he is an aristocrat. I say that in Lord Dundonald the Canadian government have had a true aristocrat. a gentleman who has done credit to Canada and has been a credit to the empire. I want an imperial General Officer Commanding, not because he Is a better man, but because be is better trained ; I want an imperial General Officer Commanding because, if he turns out to be objectionable, we can get rid of him, because there is a greater field for selection in the imperial service than in the Canadian service ; because changes are beneficial ; because there is less jealousy arising in Canada when there is an imperial officer than when there is a colonial officer, because there Is a greater selection in the imperial service than in the Canadian service, because changes are beneficial, because there Is less jealousy arising in Canada when there is an imperial officer than | when there is a colonial, because there is less intrigue, influence and unscrupulousness exerted in the appointment of officers-we have an instance in the organization of this regiment alone of intrigue, influence and unscrupulousness having been brought to bear in order to keep certain officers out of that regiment-because an imperial trained officer has greater chances of becoming proficient than a Canadian trained officer has, because if we limit ourselves to a Canadian General Officer it would tend to prevent the introduction of that system which we hope soon to see in force, an exchange of officers between the two services, because to limit the selection to a Canadian would tend to exclude Canadians from positions In the great imperial army of the British empire, because the retaining of an imperial officer is a link between the old empire and the

colony, because in the future of the empire the day is not far distant when there will be one great imperial militia and one great Imperial army for the whole empire. Let it be understood that Canada's fighting force must of necessity be the militia. We want no great standing army in this country. The militia is democratic and of the people. A standing army is aristocratic and tends to breed autocrats and oligarchs whom we find exemplified in the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The militia, while maintaining law and order, defending the country and giving the youth of the land ne-cesary discipline, preserves a proper balance between the people and the executive, between an ultra democracy and an aristocracy. The militia upbuilds the independent man and makes all men more self-reliant. The militia trains the mass of the people of the nation as against a few trained by the regular army system. The militia suppresses the spirit of militarism while the standing army develops .it. I do not know that it is necessary to go on further, I was going to point out but I shall take another occasion to do it that there is an agitation going on through the country to get rid of the connection between Great Britain and the colonies in so far as it is possible by removing the treaty making power from Great Britain. However, I shall take another occasion to deal with this question. I desire to be through before six o'clock because I understand the right hon. Prime Minister does not want to go on after six.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly we will go on after six.


Samuel Hughes: Gentlemen, in urging the abolition of a British officer commanding have been pointing out in glowing terms the desirability of having a Canadian. Are Canadians and is Canada more independent of improper influences than Britain or Britishers have been ? Are all appointments in Canada made solely on the basis of merit and fitness ? Would Canada be less under the control of such men, women and methods as are complained of than Britain has been ? Is the influence of the ladies less potent in Canada than in Britain ? Are the smiles and the glances of Canadian women less bewitching, less magical with Canadian statesmen and soldiers than are those of Britain's court society beauties upon imperial officers and statesmen ? Are the hearts of Canada's gallant soldiers and cultured ministers more invulnerable to such ? Have policies, regulations and appointments in Canada, as well as in Britain, ever been influenced by a touch of 'The maddening lips of wine, or the wanton ones of beauty ? ' Do Canadian statesmen ever permit nepotism-I notice that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) is absent-to influence their judgment and actions, or are not appointments in Canada Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
sometimes limited only by the sons and other family connections of ministers ? Or are all things in civil and military affairs in Canada moulded upon right, jiuty, honour and efficiency ? If 'Canada can say that she is all these then and then only will it be time to say that a Canadian General Officer Commanding will be freer from these influences than if we bring one from the old country. We are told that it would be a great advantage if we had the treaty making power, if we had the right to arrest people for offences committed beyond our borders and if we had no appeal from our courts to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. Within a hundred years there is not a nation in Europe that has not changed its situation or changed its boundary except Great Britain-not a nation. Take the map of Europe of one hundred years ago and you will scarcely find a country to-day that has the same geographical formation. You will find a score of countries that have existed, that have had the right to make their own treaties, carry out their own extradition treaties to fly their own flag and these countries have all vanished from the map or they have been moulded into some other constitutional or geographical formation. Great Britain is the only country that has flown the old flag for a thousand years, and I am satisfied that the people of Canada are in favour of maintaining that association with the old land for all time to come. I am satisfied that we are not going to sacrifice the substance for the shadow. We are not going, for the sake of having a Canadian General Officer Commanding in order to afford patronage and pull for one locality or another, to enact a law that will deprive us of the services of a well trained man from the British empire. We are not going to dispense with an appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, we are not going to demand or. get the right to make independent treaties. Let Canada be consulted by all means, but treaties have to be negotiated under the old flag and we are not going to sever almost the only link that binds us to the mother country. We are going to stand true to the old alliance and the union is going to be rather closer in the future than it has been in the past.
In	conclusion	I would	say	to theright	hon. Prime	Minister	that	I maintain	that it is	his bounden	duty inview	of the offences that	have proven
to have been committed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture to remove that officer from the government. I am satisfied the country will stop short of nothing else than that, and Sir, if the right hon. gentleman does not see his way clear to do that I maintain that if the facts are placed properly before the representative of the sovereign in this country there is no other course open to him than to dismiss the government. The right hon. gentleman may smile but I want to tell him

that the Governor General has just as much constitutional right to dismiss him as he has to take the head off the General Officer Commanding. The Governor may dismiss the ministry upon any of the following grounds : He may constitutionally dismiss the ministry, first:
If they exhibit internal dissensions amongst themselves,

Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, if these hon. gentlemen have not had internal dissentions. Have we not the remark of one of them to the effect that they ' fight like blazes amongst themselves ? ' Have we not had the example of one minister, the late Minister of Public Works, leaving the government a short time ago followed by the Minister of Railways and Canals and now we find through the power of the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries the present hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) practically turned out of his job and sent adrift. Then we hear rumours of friction between the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Agriculture so that we find internal dissensions of every kind among the ministers.
The Governor may dismiss his ministers.
If they differ from the sovereign or from the country at large upon a question of public policy.
I do not know about the governor but they differ from the country on the question of public policy in regard to the meddling by the Minister of Agriculture in the formation of regiments so that under this head these gentlemen are as liable to be dismissed by the governor as Lord Dundonald was to be dismissed by them. They stand on the rocli of responsible government and so do I in demanding that action may be taken in re-ifttion to the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture.
The governor may dismiss them,
If their measures are ruinous to the country at home or abroad.
Without pointing to any of the iniquitous measures which they have recently passed, such ns the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, I maintain that the principles embodied in the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture and the actions resulting from them are ruinous to the Dominion of Canada both at home and abroad. Furthermore the governor may dismiss them
If there should exist a general feeling of distrust and disapprobation of them throughout the country.
I maintain that in each and every one of these matters, the feeling of distrust in the country has been exemplified. No words that I can utter could add to Lord Dundon-nld's standing in the country. No words that I can utter are required to give him a warmer place in the hearts of the people of Canada than he already holds, and I am sorry from the bottom of my heart that
this incident has occurred. Let me point out to the Minister of Militia and to the government that the Conservative party in this House and the country have kept poli tics out of the militia. We have had many occasions when we could have made a little party capital, as the First Minister knows, but I leave it to the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) and the-hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), the old heads of the party to say if for many and many a year we have not prevented in our caucus anything that might savour of an attack on the military policy of this country. We felt that there was an uneducated spirit abroad, a fear of militarism which is the antithesis of a militia system. There are people who believe that anything favouring a scarlet coat and rifle is tending towards a standing army. It is essential that the public should be informed that the real position is exactly contrary to that, and that with a proper militia system you need no standing army, that a militia system and a standing army are absolute antitheses. I leave it to the hon. gentlemen if the policy of the Conservative party for at least fifteen sessions has not been to repress that spirit v>f criticising anything in the military system on either side. So long as there was any possibility of harmonizing the differences we wanted to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Minister of Militia in upbuilding the militia force of the country, and the hon. gentlemen opposite cannot point out one case vvhere we have violated that policy. If this conduct of the Minister of Agriculture is condoned by the government all I have to say. is that the Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister will have themselves to blame if the old truce that has so long and happily existed between the two parties is broken, and if henceforth we treat the militia of Canada as if it was an institution to be controlled by politics rather than by the best interests of the country. The Minister of Militia made an appeal to the militia last night. I see our diminutive friend from Hants (Mr. Paissell) is very impatient to get oil some of his little work. I presume it will be his final speech in the House, in consequence of the telegrams of which we have heard urging that he be appointed a judge instead of someone else. I see he is very impatient to get at me, and I waut to let him at me. The Minister of Militia made an impassioned appeal in his remarks to the militia of Canada. I wish to tell him that he has occupied a warm place in the hearts of the militia of Canada, because they have had faith in his honour and fair play. That is why he has been warmly regarded by them, and not for any personal influence. Men are respected and honoured not for the mere human flesh and blood that is in them. The Minister of Militia. Lord Dundonald and your humble servant in a hundred years will have passed away and be forgotten, but


Mr. BENJAMIN RUSSELL (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the pathetic face of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) during the reading of those eloquent verses by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). He evidently feared that his laurels were about to be lost or be put Into the shade. The magnificent poem which he read to ns the other day is altogether eclipsed by the beautiful verses which we have just heard. I may say that I cannot feel very anxious to make a speech on this occasion, more especially perhaps because I feel a little bit like MacMorris in Henry V. :
It is no time to discourse, so Chrish save me; the day is hot, and the weather and the wars and the King and the Dukes (and the Dun-donalds and the great Colonel Hugheses), it is no time to discourse.
Even if it had been otherwise in regard to ail these conditions, I should have to make an apology for occupying much time because this matter has .-been thoroughly placed before the House, particularly in the luminous and convincing speeches of the Minister of 1 Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). My hon. friend has expressed his disappointment with the speech delivered by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). We never are disappointed with the speeches which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) delivers in this House : we always know what to expect and always get what we look for, a medley of blatherskite and rhodomontade. Pomposity and enlargement of the head were expressions which my hon. friend used in reference to the ministers. Pomposity ? Heaven save the mark ! Where will you find pomposity such as we have just witnessed ? Enlargement of the head ? Could the Almighty himself make the hon. gentleman's head still bigger than it is ? Bumptious Canadians were talked about. There are certainly bumptious Canadians the hon. gentleman says. When the hon. gentleman says there are some bumptious Canadians we are inclined, because he tells us, to accept his word.
He defends the bumptiousness, the egotism that was charged against the Earl of Dundonald by saying that he was only using a grammatical expression. It was simply a matter of grammar. Well. Sir, that was the way that Cardinal Wolsey defended himself, the way the man of unbounded stomach, ever ranking himself with princes, defended his famous ego et rex meus. The hon. gentleman himself is like Wolsey, a man of unbounded stoinach. no such diminutive individual ns he insists ou reminding me is the humble member for Hants. His egotism recalls to mind the description by Wendell Phillips of the egotism of Andrew Johnston-it was like the mathematician's definition of infinity, with its centre everywhere and its circumference nowhere. If anything else would correctly describe the bumptiousness and the egotism and the vanity of the hon. gentleman. I would like to have it pointed out to me in all the literature of our country, He has read lectures to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia. Well, he once read lectures to General Hutton. What is the use of my hon. friends paying much attention to his lectures, when they do not know but that the next morning he will take back all he has said, and will come crawling on that unbounded stomach of his, as he crawled once before when General Hutton brought him to book. He has named William of Orange, John Hampden and George Washington. True, they were patriots ; and they did certainly take issue with the powers of their days ; but they never went down on their stomachs and crawled, as the hon. gentleman crawled in his apoligy to General Hutton, which I am going to read for his entertainment :
Dear General Hutton,-I desire to make full and ample apology to you for certain letters written by me to you during recent months, letters written under excitement-

Well, the hon. gentleman is speaking under excitement to-day, and he will probably take back all be has said in three or four days from this, and will come to the Minister of Militia and beg for further favours, as he begged from General Hutton-
-'letters written under excitement caused by-
Caused by some patriotic ebullition, by some kindling of indignant patriotism ?
' Caused by the belief that I, ' the great Colonel Sam. Hughes, no diminutive little fellow like the member for Hants, but a man of unbounded stomach-
-was to be debarred from participating in the deeds of a Canadian contingent in the imperial service, should one be sent to the Transvaal, a project which I as the proposer for many years felt deeply at heart. I especially regret one reflecting upon in a sense the system, but the remarks which I deemed provocation-as I construed them-were a reflection upon Cana-ians ; two or three incidents occurring practically on one day which I from the view point of one more familiar with constitutional law

It is well that the hon. gentleman assures us of his familiarity with constitutional law. I think he ought to repeat that under oath, if he wants us to believe it. Good old Chief Justice Young heard an affidavit read in his court one day in which a proposition of law was stated. Looking down on the practitioner, he asked :	' Hoes he swear to
that ? '	' Yes, my lord, he swears to it. '
' I am glad he swears to it,' said the judge,
[DOT] because it is a matter on which the court has been divided in opinion for some time. ' The hon. gentleman should have sworn to this if he wanted us to believe that he is familiar with constitutional law. But I am doing the hon. gentleman an injustice. When I understand it better, I perceive that he only says that he was more familiar with constitutional law than he was with military practice.
-which I from the viewpoint of one more familiar with constitutional 'law rather than of British military practice, believed to hear upon my honour and rights as a citizen, caused me to express sentiments that are foreign to my belief in the form in which they seem.
' Believed to bear upon my honour and rights as a citizen. ' Why the hon. gentleman is a regular Bombastes Furioso-
Who dares this pair of boots displace Must meet Bombastes face to face.
I most respectfully wish to retract all letters written in what to your military instinct may seem insubordination, but which were no; so meant by me.
What humility ! I do not think a man could humble himself much more than that before the Creator of the universe.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: Is it signed ?


Benjamin Russell: ' Signed Sam. Hughes '- the redoutable, only one genuine heavenborn, heaven-descended child of the gods, Sam Hughes.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to say a word


Benjamin Russell: I cannot help it, but if the hon. gentleman breaks in upon me, I shall forget what I was going to say.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to say that I have a great pleasure in acknowledging the authenticity of that letter, which was written when I was assured by the highest authority in the Dominion of Canada that if I retracted, I would be allowed the opportunity of serving my country in South Africa.


Benjamin Russell: That is exactly what I said. It was written, not because the hon. gentleman felt any sincere compunction or penitence ; but he intended to continue to hold in his heart all that he had said, and he simply wrote this insincere apology in order to have the chance of going to South Africa to join the other nabobs and swells who were already there.


Samuel Hughes: I would say furthermore that there is only one thing retracted that is, a reflection on the British officer.


An hon. MEMBER.: Take your medicine.


Benjamin Russell: ' No chastisement for the present seemeth joyous but grievous ; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto them that are exercised thereby. ' My hon. friend has gone elaborately into a defence of the Earl of Dundonald in respect of these matters. I do not find the defence of the Earl of Dundonald so pronouncedly in the resolution moved by the hon. leader of the opposition as in the speech which the hon. member for North Victoria has placed on ' Hansard.' I do not see it very much in the resolution; if there is anything at nil you have to find it by reading between the lines. But I want to ask this House if the hon. gentleman appealed to any English precedent that justified Lord Dundonald. The only one that he referred to was immediately smashed, shattered and pulverized by the hon. Minister of Militia. It is not in any British constitutionally-governed country that he finds any precedent in justification of Lord Dundonald. Not at all. He has to go to the United States. He has to go to the American republic, to that country where they -tell us anarchy prevails, and which is not ruled according to British precedents and constitutional usage. I have no doubt that my hon. friend will find precedents for whatever he may want at some time or other and in some place or other in the United States, hut I should prefer that he would, as a Britisher, as a strong imperialist like myself, as a good English constitutionalist, go to that grand old country from which we derive our con-

stitutional system of government and our constitutional law and precedents, rather than to the republic of the United States. I do not propose to deal at any greater length with the hon. gentleman-at all events not just now. I may have occasion to quote some passages from a state paper of his later on, which bears on the subject immediately before the House, but for the present I will leave my hon. friend and let him vanish into space, as Cardinal Newman dismissed Mr. Kingsley in one of the chapters of his ' Apologia.'
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Edmonton Street Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 5,
Mr. HAGGART.: Is the Chairman of the Railway Committee here 7 If [DOT] not. in his absence the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Oliver) perhaps, will explain the effect of this clause.


Mr. OLIVER.: I cannot explain the full effect of this clause. The provision as it stands is the result of an agreement between the sub-committee of the Railway Committee and the legal advisers of the parties concerned in the Bill. I understand the general intent of the Bill to be to make this company subject to the provisions of the Railway Act, but certain exceptions are necessary of sections that apply only to sterna railways. It was pointed out that this company was not subject to the Railway Act or any other General Act, and it was thought advisable to bring it under the provisions of the Railway Act so far as that Act could apply to enterprises of this kind.


John Graham Haggart: I notice that, only one section of the Companies Act is made to apply. Why does not the whole Act apply?


Frank Oliver: I am not thoroughly posted on that point, not being a lawyer. There was a very closely argued dispute between the legal members of the sub-committee and the promoters of the Bill. The Bill covers, not only provisions for a street railway but for certain other powers in regard to the holding of land, the working of coal mines and the carrying on of water transportation. The Companies' Clauses Act, as I understand it, would ap'ply to that portion of the powers asked for by the Act which are not connected with the railway, but not to that part connected with the railway. There-


Benjamin Russell: fore, the two general Acts, the Companies Clauses Act and the Railway Act are both brought in so far as they apply to the two kinds of powers granted to the company.
Bill reported^ read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OP LORD DUN-DONALD.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fielding :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the Housfe to go into committee of supply, and Mr. R. L. Borden's motion in amendment thereto.
['On Monday we will go into Supply, taking up the estimates of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock).']
Benjamin Russell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) who last addressed the House in a portion of his remarks made a personal reference to myself. I do not know that I ought to take notice of it, but perhaps it is desirable that I should refer to it in a very slight manner. He made a mysterious allusion to some telegrams in his possession, which telegrams, if he has them, have come into his possession through the dishonourable act of some one. It does not matter to me whether he has such telegrams or not, because I am not afraid, and shall never be in the least ashamed, of any record that can leap to light in regard to any ambition I ever cherished in this House or in any other place. The hon. gentleman has seen fit to cast my horoscope, and I have no reason to complain of the pleasant way in which he has done it. If I should have the happiness or good fortune to realize his benevolent expectations on my behalf, it will be my endeavour to discharge my duty in the future as I have in the past. But, so long as I continue to be a member of this parliament and of the House of Commons, I shall discharge my duty here without fear of the hon. gentleman or of anybody else, without fear, favour or affection, without seeking favours from anybody, and without affection for or from anybody but the noble constituents .who have sustained me and who are willing to sustain me as often as I am able to ask their suffrages.
I shall continue, I say, to discharge my duty as a member of this House, even although occasionally ;it involves the disagreeable and unpleasant function which he himself described hefore dinner with academic chastity as occasionally skinning the skunk.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where is the skunk?
Mr. RUSSELL-I am told that the hon. gentleman was taking great draughts of water before he left the House. Mr. Speaker, it was a saying of the late Joseph Hume, who was a very notable parliamentarian in his day, and who was on one occasion asked what was the peculiar qualification above all

others for the successful prosecution of a parliamentary career, and the great man, the complete parliamentarian, perhaps having reference to the long hours, the late dinners, the late suppers and the irregular mode of life we are obliged to lead, perhaps also having reference to the doses which are occasionally required to be swallowed by members of parliament on either side-tin!; able parliamentarian said that what was chiefly required was a good digestion. I do not think he was altogether correct in that. In my experience and in my judgment, what is particularly necessary for a member of this House at all events, and what has been necessary, is that he should have a good sound nervous system ; because ever since I have been in tiiis House it has been my experience that we have been distressed and had our nervous systems worried almost daily by various panics of one sort and another. The very first session during which I occupied a seat in this House we were terrified by the danger that threatened us in regard to what was called the abuse of the Governor General's warrants. I remember we were thrown almost into convulsions throughout this country, and particularly we were told that our rights as members of this House on both sides were being absolutely destroyed by the usurpations on the part of the Cabinet. We had hardly recovered from the shock of that alarm before we were again thrown into a state of anxiety by the usurpation of all the functions of the state by Lord Aberdeen. It was not merely the rights of this House but the rights of the government and the rights of the whole people of Canada that were being destroyed by the usurpations of Lord Aberdeen, and we were going to be driven back to the tyranny of George the Third. We were thrown into panics of one sort and another until, in many cases, the health of the hon. members began to give way.
I must confess that the present leader of the opposition is not so fertile in the production of alarming situations as was his predecessor, -and he does not disquiet us wdtli terrors of the same kind. His alarms are of a more sordid character. He tells us that our markets are being taken away from us, that we are in danger of being overrun by slaughtered goods from the United States and other countries, he troubles us with various difficulties and various troubles of that sort, but he does not excite us in the same way with regard to the loss of our prerogatives as did his predecessor.
So on the whole we were going along very quietly and very comfortably until suddenly this new trouble, this most alarming panic, has come upon us in the course of which a grave national crisis has been precipitated by the dismissal of General Dundonald. Now that is a very serious matter indeed.
If it is a fact that in this country we have been living in a fools' paradise, if it is a fact that we are liable at any moment of the day or night to be overrun by hordes of uncivilized savages that are coming upon us from some unexpected quarter of the world, I think that is a matter that should keep any patriotic man awake during a great part of the night. I was inclined to spend some sleepless nights myself on the subject until my peace of mind was restored by observing the great happiness that all these circumstances seemed to give to our friends on the other side of the House.
I knew that if they could enjoy a situation so profoundly as they seemed to be enjoying the present situation, there could be no danger, no cause for alarm, and nothing that anybody need be very much scared about. They would not rejoice in this manner if they really believed that the country was in danger, if they really believed that anything was going seriously wrong I have confidence in my heart to believe that instead of being so merry and so happy, they would be in gloom and sadness, and clouds and shadows and darkness would be hanging about them. They were rejoiced apparently with the situation. It has been a discovery to them of a new issue. Colonel Sellers, as portrayed by the inimitable John Raymond, who after his abortive speculations in corn and hogs, in oil-wells and mica mines at last made his lucky discovery of the missing ingredient for the eye-wash that was to bring him fame and fortune did not rejoice more than our hon: friends opposite have rejoiced at the discovery of this new issue. They might well rejoice, because for the last eight years they have been searching, searching diligently and with tears, for an issue upon which to stir up the minds and hearts of the people of this country, and they have never found it until now, and now that they have found it, we discover that it turns practically upon a question of etymology, it turns upon the meaning of a word ; that is, after all, the new issue which they have discovered in this country.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I must discuss that issue a little. The issue is the dismissal of General Dundonald, the issue is the mode in which the government have dealt with that question. Now, I must say, if I am to claim the independence that I did a moment ago, that I cannot agree with the censures some hon. gentlemen have passed upon Lord Dundonald, I cannot agree with some of the criticisms that have been made upon him. He has been criticised in this [DOT] House for employing as his counsel the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes), and for putting his brief into the hands of that gallant colonel. I am going to stand by him in that, I am going to justify him ' right up to the hilt.' I think it was a I most appropriate thing indeed. Nothing in

his official life became him bettor and nothing was so entirely appropriate to the mode in which he launched his campaign, than the defender that he chose to conduct his case in this House. He had discovered a most farcical and fanciful way of starting a great movement, something new under the sun, I think. The very idea of starting a great constitutional crusade, of launching it amid the popping of corks and clouds of tobacco smoke ! No doubt it will effervesce like the champagne, and it will pass away like the tobacco smoke amidst which it was launched. It was a farcical campaign which was launched, and I say that no better way of preserving the farcical character of his movement could have been taken than to entrust it to the gallant colonel himself, the gentleman who combines the characteristics of the ancient Pistol and Fluelleu the Welshman. It never came within the scope of Shakespeare's genius to construct any single character which altogether would cover the ease of the hon. member for Victoria.
He combines the character of the ancient Pistol with that of Fluellen the Welshman. He has the bravery of Pistol and the military knowledge and experience of Fluellen. I do not mean the ancient Pistol as described by his critic, ' a gull, a fool, a rogue, who goes now and then to the wars to grace himself on his return to London in the form of a soldier.' I do not mean the ancient Pistol who would give a lying, bogus, insincere apology to General Hutton for the purpose of getting a free pass to South Africa in order that he might take his position in the South African army with the view of eventually superseding and supplanting General Buller as Commander in Chief of the British army ; I mean the ancient Pistol who is described by himself in this state paper which I hold in my hands, the ancient Pistol described in a letter written by himself in the Toronto ' Globe ' of August 14th. 1900, and from which I may be pardoned for reading some extracts.
The most recent letter received in Lindsay from Colonel Sam Hughes was addressed to Capt, Williamson of that town. It reads as follows
I shall not read the whole letter.


Samuel Hughes: Read it all ; you could not be better employed.


Benjamin Russell: No, I do not think I could be.


Samuel Hughes: That is about your size-reading that sort of thing.


Benjamin Russell: I am glad the hon. gentleman is not afraid to listen because the last time I had the pleasure of reading from some of his writings he seemed undesirous of hearing them read.
Well, the show Is over ! With Capt. Mackle and seventeen men I have just concluded the Mr. RUSSELL.
surrender of General de Villiers and all his corps of about 300 men and fifteen great ten-team ox wagons, nine carts, tons of ammunition and thousands of animals.
He is following in the footsteps of the ancient Pistol.
The terms are signed. Thus the war is over-
It is all done. I did it. I, said the sparrow, with my bow aiid arrow.
Thus the war is over, except in remote corners of the Transvaal and Orange River colony.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where he could not go.
/


Benjamin Russell: Yes, he could not be expected to be everywhere at the same time. Nobody but a bird said Sir Boyle Roche could be in two places at once.
After our advance from Griquatown to Reit-fontein and Papkine the work has been sharp. At Griquatown I arranged that the wives, daughters and sweethearts of the leaders and others of the enemy should write them urging peace and giving facts re Pretoria, &c.


Samuel Hughes: I always look after the wives and sweethearts.


Benjamin Russell: 


At Papkine General Sir C.: Warren sent me on free-handed to Daniels 'Kine. Well, in three and a half hours

Not three and a half months, or three and a half years, but
-in three and a half hours my force-Warren's scouts and Intelligence corps-with Capt. Mackie, of Pembroke-*


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Benjamin Russell: -covered the distance, twenty-two miles, and had the wire in operation an hour later, thence I got instructions to proceed onward on a reconnaissance, again free-handed. This is how I like to go-
No orders from General Hutton for him.
Then a fellow is on his own responsibility
and feels it so.
You bet he feels it

accordingly he takes far more precautions than if tied up by orders and cautions. At Daniels' Kine the enemy got out so hurridly that they left their Union Republican flag flying. I now have it, as well as the Transvaal one I captured at Griquatown. I wired for seven days' rations, in addition to four I already had, and on Saturday morning in a terrible storm of rain, sleet and hail, ' began my march of forty miles to Koenig, where the enemy were supposed to be. I looked at it this way : The horses were better saddled and moving than shivering in rain and frost, and so were the men. I made all fold the blanket Indian fashion

This is sublimely picturesque and I want to call the attention of the House to it.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman would get a blanket and put it on he would make a nice object.


Benjamin Russell: I would rather put the blanket on my hon. friend.
I .made all fold the blanket Indian fashion so as to cover the knees, and with heads set facing the storm off we all went.
Further the eye of the imagination is forbidden to pry, but further as Macaulay says of Robert Montgomery the eye of our imagination will insist on prying.
I suppose it is all fair in love and war.
Admitting the Boer success.


Samuel Hughes: I heard the hon. gentleman deliver a lecture in Lindsay once when he was corrupt enough to say that all was fair in polities too.


Benjamin Russell: Well, I do not say you did not, but I do not think you are correct all the same. What I said in Lindsay is very elaborately and correctly reported, and my hon. friend will find that there is no such thing in the report.
I had neither blanket nor overcoat-only my light cape, which you have often seen me "wear-
I do wish the hon. gentleman would occasionally favour us with an exhibition of himself in that black cape.


Samuel Hughes: I will. I will be glad to oblige the hon. gentleman.


Benjamin Russell: What favoured people those were.
-which you have often seen me wear-as a consequence the rain dripped off the cape to the knees and down into 'my boots.
That is where the hon. gentleman's courage occasionally goes.


Samuel Hughes: It did not give me cold feet.


Benjamin Russell: These soon filling and the water getting warm, I was quite comfortable.
Then the hon. gentleman says that at Koenig he slept in a church. He is more fortunate than the most of us if he has not slept in a church before. He occasionally makes some of us sleep in the House. This time he was sleeping in a church. I shall not proceed to read about that because I want to give the House some thing more interesting :
The chief landrost came to me and suggested hacking out of the agreement-
That is some agreement with the Boers that he refers to.
I at once agreed, said our column would never forgive me for taking their surrender,-
That is the surrender of some of these Boers

-suggested that their force retire to the position occupied by them the previous day, while we would advance to where we had also been, and two days later we would make their wives widows, &c.
I also circulated a counter yarn.
Oh my, I really did not know this was there or I would not have exposed the hon. gentleman in yarning. I did not know this was coming. He says :
I also circulated a counter yarn as if I had got it from the general.


Samuel Hughes: I have that report and I was ashamed of the hon. member then and have been ever since.


Benjamin Russell: I can say distinctly that the hon. gentleman is absolutely and utterly mistaken. I never made any such statement in Lindsay or anywhere else.


Samuel Hughes: The gentleman did.


Benjamin Russell: It is of no consequence whatever. The letter continues :
I also circulated a counter yarn as if I got it from the general admitting the Boer success between Bloemfontein and Pretoria, but that the foilo-wing day our main force had captured the whole Boer outfit, upon hearing of which Kruger had asked to surrender, &e. I had not heard a word, but I was not going to be caught by them at their own game, and you see how' near I was to telling a straight story.	.	.
I am bound to say I think the hon. gentleman was nearer telling a straight story than he has been at any time since he began his speech this afternoon.
Was it mind reading ? At all events I last night landed my column of nearly 300 here. Behideis Mackie and myself W'e had only '17 men. I did not let the Boers know until our arrival here, but assured them I was not going to humiliate them by bringing the whole force up to march them back, that I would treat them on their honour, merely guarding' the wagons with the rifles piled on, &c.
Really, Jack, they are a rather fine lot, and, In our four days' march back I learned to like many of them. Of course I never allowed anything to stand in the way of duty but while I would shoot one of them with a rifle in his hand as I would a dog.
Shoot him as quick as he transfixed Sydney Fisher or the Minister of Militia.
Yet once in my power as prisoners, I would, and did, use them like gentlemen. No man on our side in South Africa has been ahead of your humble servant where the bullets were flying.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHEiS. Hear, hear. Read that over again.
Mr. RUSSELL-(reading).
No man on our side in South Africa has been ahead of your humble servant where the bullets were flying.

550S
iMr. SAM. HUGHES. Or will be in case you try any games fiere.


Alexander Johnston: You were following on behind.
Mr, BUSSELL-(reading).
And no one has gone straighter for them or made them ' get a move on ' quicker than I, but there my old sporting spirit comes in. I have no personal hard feelings against them. One fellow told me he tried to hit me three times at Faber's but within a hundred yards. I had no ill-will towards him for it, but rather a feeling of contempt, at his being such 'an infernally bad shot. Nearly all assured me before going to their homes that if I wanted a corps against Russia, France, China or any other nation than the Transvaal, they would to a man come with me. The day before yesterday I rode fifty-seven miles. The first word I got from my general was that morning at Coe. He said he was moving from Daniels' Kine to Blickfontein. Thus I had been seventy-five miles in advance.
In advance of the main body, I suppose.
I at once sent Captain Mackie on towards Koenig with the Boers while X crossed country southeasterly to this place. That night X rode to Koenig, covering fifty-seven miles in the saddle. Turpin was with me.
Turpin, who was Turpin. ?


Samuel Hughes: A mighty good fellow.


Benjamin Russell: Who is Turpin ? this House will ask perhaps. There may be some ignorant people in this House, who may not know the story of ' me and Turpin.' There may be those who do not know that the hon. member with this great man Turpin, ' my man Turpin,' as he designates him


Samuel Hughes: He is a bigger man than you are.


Benjamin Russell: And only twenty other men, surrounded I do not know how many hundred thousand Boers who appeared like a cloud on the horizon, and actually by spreading themselves land performing a ruse like that described somewhere in Joshua, I think, but I am not sure, with the rattle of crockeryware and the display of lights in different parts of the field, so terrified and paralyzed the Boers that they were actually compelled to capitulate.
Yesterday we came from Koenig here and I can assure you the camp opened their eyes. The Canadian artillery boys are all delighted at my success, and indeed I do not think I have an enemy or jealous officer, barring one or two in the entire force.
I have officially asked the general to relieve me from duty, .for the show is over and I want to get hack to Canada. I hope to leave here in a day or two. Phillips and Turpin have been at my hack through everything. They are fine fighters and good boys.


Benjamin Russell: 


Samuel Hughes: Good boys, both Tories.
Mr. RUSSELL-(reading).
There is a rumour here that the regiment is in Cape Town and will sail in a few days. That makes the two lads wild to get hack, and now that there is not one soldier in arms in the west or northwest of the Transvaal, Orange River colony or northwest provinces, my mind reverts also, Canada wards.
Then comes this interesting foot note:-
I forgot to say General de Villiers at the last moment backed out from surrendering and escaped.
Well, after all that is merely a trifling matter of detail. He had surrendered, what if he did back out, he had surrendered. It is not like the letter which the hon. gentleman addressed to General Hutton which he could take back with an apology a few days afterwards. I maintain that according to the rules of the game when once a surrender is offered, it is a surrender and a man should stand by it. I back up the hon. gentleman in the contention that it was a vile thing, and not according to the rules of the game. When once the surrender was made, it was a finality and that should have been the end of it. However, this is a digression from my argument.
The House will remember that I was making the argument to justify Lord Dun-donald in committing his case to the hands of my hon. friend from Victoria ; and I say again that it would have been far better if Lord Dundonald had left his defence entirely in the hands of my hon. friend instead of taking it out of his hands and acting on his own behalf, once more realizing the adage with reference to the man who is his own counsel. I am ready to concede, as everybody in this country is, that he is a great soldier. No doubt he has occasionally displayed an excess of zeal like his great ancestor before him, which has got him into trouble in the civil arena, and which might have got him into trouble, if he had not had the best of luck in the military arena as well. He is a great soldier; but his best friend will not say that he is a great writer. And it is not to be expected that he should be ; because there are only a few men who combine both qualities. Perhaps there is not more than one soldier in ten thousand who combines the qualities of a great writer and a great fighter-There have been but a few in the whole course of human history,-Julius Caesar, General Roberts, Colonel Sam Hughes


Samuel Hughes: Lord Dundonald knows he had a grandfather, which some people do not know.


Benjamin Russell: It is not to be expected that all the gifts and all the qualities of the writer and the fighter and the man of affairs can be combined in and monoplized

by any nobleman, not even by Lord Dun-donald. So that not being a great writer, and not being a skilful advocate, he would have done far better to have left his case in the hands of the hon. gentleman to whom he had first [DOT]committed it. In his letter, which has been called a manifesto by the Minister of Militia, Lord Dundonald defines three courses which he might have taken in order to bring to the attention of the public mind in Canada the evils he apprehended as existing in the militia system of this country. He might, he says, have made a report to the government, but that would have been only one more document pigeon-holed. He might have tendered his resignation, and then have stated the facts to the public of Canada. I think he might have done that with great propriety ; there was no other proper course for him to take. But, for some reason which he does not explain, he took the third course, which I have described as fanciful and farcical, and which I do not hesitate to describe as improper, of making a statement at a banquet in Montreal. He says in his manifesto :
It seemed better to make a public protest and to leave with the government the option of heeding it, or of upholding the system which is destructive to the efficiency of the national defence.
These are his words. Suppose the government had wanted ever so much to heed the warning of Lord Dundonald, what should they have done ? What could they have done ? Why, Sir, the misconception evidently existing in the mind of Lord Dundonald on that subject is such as to render him entirely unsuitable for public service in a constitutionally-governed country. He seems to have supposed that if the government desired to heed his warning, all they had to do was to pass over in silence and without reference of any kind what had taken place in the city of Montreal, although he had passed the most severe censure upon his departmental chief. With a singular lack of courtesy, I think, in a nobleman of his standing, he charged the members of the government of which he was a servant with want of etiquette, with being practically cads and boors. Although he had taken such a proceeding as this in the city of Montreal, he seems to have thought the government could have passed it by, accepted his warning, made the changes which he insisted upon in the militia system of the country and gone on as if nothing had happened at all. I say that such a conception of the relations between himself and his departmental superior entirely unfits him for public service in any constitutionally-governed country. Well, having adopted this singular method, which he did adopt in preference to the two others which he mentioned. how did he apply it ? Let us look at that for a moment. His great grievances were that there was no adequate support 175
given to the militia system of this country, that there were no adequate camps, that there was no adequate ammunition, that there were no adequate weapons, that there was nothing at all in the nhture of a true militia force to protect this country from hostilities from other parts of the world. With these great grievances resting on his mind, he tells us that he said not one word to the people of Canada ; and the people of Canada would have known nothing about them if it had not been for the mere accidental circumstance-for which I think those who sympathize with Lord Dundonald may thank the government of this country- of his being dismissed. He says nothing about these great grievances, but merely explodes some little trumpery grievance with the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the 13th Light Dragoons. He speaks in his manifesto of singular coincidences. Here I think are remarkable discrepancies. He was making, he tells us, a deliberate and premeditated assault upon the militia system and the government and the Department of Militia ; and yet he omits the very gravamen of his charge against that system, and only mentions this trumpery matter connected with the 13th Light Dragoons. And even as to that, he says he hald not a single word in his notes. All these, I say, are singular and remarkable discrepancies. Of course, we have to accept his word ; he is a nobleman, and we are bound to and do accept his word ; but it requires a supreme act of faith to accept his word that this speech was a deliberate matter with him. ' Credo quia impossibile '-I believe it because it is impossible. He cannot ask more than that from us. If it were not for his statement that this was a deliberate and premeditated thing, I would have drawn the inference, and would have been certain of it, that it was a spontaneous explosion-and as Shakespeare makes Gower say, ' What a beard of the general's cut and a horrid suit of the camp will do among foaming bottles and ale-washed wits, is wonderful to be thought on.'
That, I should have thought, was the secret of the explosion. He tells us in his manifesto that his principal grievance was the suppression of part two of his report by the Minister of Militia. That was the gravamen of his charge against the Minister of Militia. But, Sir, he destroys that by what he says in another part of his manifesto :
My claim for freedom extended only to the technical side of my work.
His claim not to be under the control of the Minister of Militia only extended to the. technical side of his work. That is common sense ? Now, as the ex-leader of the opposition used to say, I leave it to any man with a head on his shoulders and brains in that head to say whether this was a technical question or a question of state policy-the question whether that report should not be



published and sent broadcast over this Dominion of Canada. Was that a technical matter or a question of state policy ?
In my judgment, he says, it was information as to the actual conditions and possibilities of the militia which it was desirable the people of. Canada should know. Well, that was Lord Dundonald's opinion, and as suc-h it is quite interesting. But admitting that that was his judgment, it was not the judgment of his minister ; and suppose his minister, after taking counsel with his colleagues, found that neither was it the judgment of the cabinet, whose judgment was to prevail ? Was it the judgment of Lord Dundonald on a question of state policy or that of the Minister of Militia, supported by his colleagues in the cabinet ? Surely it was the judgment of the latter. On the question as to the policy of publishing a state paper, giving the conditions of our defences, exposing, for all I know, the weaknesses of our defences, to the whole civilized world, so that the whole world might know exactly the condition of things in this country, whose decision should prevail ? If the report of Lord Dundonald was unduly pessimistic, if it was incorrect, if his apprehensions were not justified, if the government thought that his report was not a fair statement of our military condition and one which should not be published to the whole world, surely the question as to whether that report should be published was not one of those technical questions on which Lord Dundonald claims superiority, but a question of state policy, on which the cabinet should decide, and I do not see that Lord Dundonald has any grievance whatever regarding the non-publication of that report. That is practically the essence of this whole question. I will be just to Lord Dundonald. Wre all must be just to him. He is a great soldier. Of that I have not a particle of doubt as his ancestor was a great sailor, but the very qualities that may make him a great commander of men may be those which absolutely unfit him to be a public servant under constitutional government, and I think my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Sam. Hughes) may have succeeded in divining some of the very reasons why Lord Dundonald has not been a success in this country. In this celebrated state paper which the hon. gentleman addressed to General Hutton, in this famous letter which the gallant colonel sitting opposite to me wrote to that general, he said : I
I was going to give you a few words of suggestion, not as a soldier, but as a Canadian Britisher. You know the causes of failure of your predecessors, some of them good soldiers, some of them honourable men. They nearly all allowed themselves to be influenced by a few in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto, not by any means the men of sense and judgment in those cities, quite the reverse.
Mr! RUSSELL.
Well, Mr. Speaker, is it not altogether possible that Lord Dundonald. either by himself or through those who were organizing that corps for him, may have been misled, or may have allowed himself to be influenced by a few men, perhaps not in Ottawa or Montreal or Toronto, but perhaps in the eastern townships-and perhaps in the Baker settlement. That may have been one of the reasons for Lord Dundonald's failure. Or this may have happened. The secret may be found in another passage of this great state paper, in which the hon. gentleman t(Mr. Sam. Hughes) has shown to [General Hutton why it is that in England an officer under the control of the General Officer Commanding cannot be a member of parliament and yet a similar officer in the Canadian force may be a member of parliament. My hon. friend said :
The rule in Great Britain is that an officer, such as your A. D. C., or some one directly under your control as General Officer Commanding, cannot hold office as member of parliament for two reasons, (a) he is directly in receipt of salary, though that is not the main objection ; (b) he might, as your servant, be made the instrument to attack the minister, your master. In short, it would he a roundabout way of your castigating your master.
It was quite right for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) to speak of the Minister of Militia as General Hutton's master, but It is awful profanity, an awful sin and shame, when anybody dares to suggest that Lord Dundonald is the servant of the Minister of Militia.


Samuel Hughes: Not at all.


Benjamin Russell: Yes, the newspapers iu this country have made it a matter of public comment that any one should take that ground. They have rung the changes on what an awfully improper thing, what a great sacrilege it was for anybody in this country to suggest that the Minister of Militia was in any sense the master of the great Lord Dundonald.
Mr. -SAM. HUGHES. Not at all.


Benjamin Russell: Now we are sometimes told that we ought to have in our militia system a condition of things such as exists in the army in England. We are told that in this Canada of ours, our militia is subject to political influences, that we do not keep it as clear and free from sinister influences of that kind as the military service is in the old country. Well, there is some light thrown on that also by the state paper of my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Sam. Hughes). Let me read what his opinion was at the time he was writing General Hutton. He says :
My Dear General


Samuel Hughes: Judgeships, for instance.


Benjamin Russell: I had spoken on that point before your arrival :
Therefore your beautiful sentence re self-effacement in great officers is entirely lost on me. I am desirous of learning where any British officer of note has, outside of vacancies caused in actual warfare, been promoted to high command on his merits alone, Lord Roberts alone excepted. What the ' Horse Guards '

These were the sentiments of my hon. friend :


An hon. MEMBER.: What about the noble lord himself ?


Benjamin Russell: Surely no reflection was intended on him.
What the ' Horse Guards ' and ' War Office ' do not know about intrigue and influence, and the absence of self-effacement in one's friends if not directly in oneself, cannot be learned from the most noted body for such in the world, the Methodist Conference committees, or any church appointing bodies.
Why are the Methodists selected, of all possible communities, as being the one in which intrigue and influence and the absence of self-effacement are the distinguishing characteristics ? I
I shall gladly give details if desired ; hut you are a very shrewd observer as well as student and may doubtless have learned or heard of what I state.
If that be the condition of things, it is not wonderful that we should find that there are in England inferior officers. Then the gallant colonel and member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) goes on to say :
In your conversation to-day you doubtless gave vent to your true sentiments in comparing me so frankly as you did. All that I ever wrote, spoke or thought of the officer I spoke of was praise in comparison with your statement of me. I do not profess to be skilful in leading expeditions ' to the moon.'
No, only those expeditions in which he surrounded a hundred thousand Boers with 175i
a few men and things of that kind, and which culminated in the practical surrender of great generals like de Villiers, which they backed out of the next day. He went on to add :
History shows that Britain has had many experts at such and not so many skilled or capable of leading men against fighting men. True, battles have been won by British generals and minor officers' plans, such as Wellington and his colleagues, Roberts, Kitchener and others, but to the British soldier is due victory again and again, despite the stupidity and blundering of British officers.
The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) could not out-Herod that.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) could.


Benjamin Russell: No, that is not in my line.
These, as you know, are not alone my own views. You say I would be incapable to serve alongside British regulars ; why ? Could not I retreat or surrender quickly enough to the Boers ?
He could not surrender; everybody knows he could not. He makes General De Villiers surrender.
History shows that the Yankees, whom Canadians could always defeat, though with great odds against us, repeatedly dressed and combed down British troops led by British officers ; while the old plugs of Boer farmers walloped the British though the odds were often against them.
If my hon. friend who sits beside me (Mr. Monet) had said anything like that, or if the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) had said it, how the newspapers of this country would have flamed with indignation.	.
In the coming Boer trouble a similar result wiill he found to arise if ordinary British tactics be employed. We claim to be as good men, and as accurate riflemen as the Boers who have repeatedly ' licked ' your British offioers. Therefore I fail to see wherein I am unfit to serve alongside British troops. Of course, the Boers have no ' Horse Guards ' pull.
That was one of the things which he took back in his apology.	But still he
stands by it, for the letter was only a pro forma apology to secure the free pass to South Africa, while these continue to be the honest sentiments of his heart.
I said a while ago that the great issue in this campaign-and it must be a great triumph to hon. gentlemen opposite to have discovered such an issue-is a verbal one purely. It is not the case of Lord Dun-donald that is the issue, because Lord Dun-donald does not appear in this motion except in the faintest and most perfunctory way. The issue is noit even the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture, for that, after all is evidently regarded as a minor matter. The real issue on which these

551G
lion, gentlemen hope to win the election is the issue which was set forth in the elegant poem read by the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) in the peroration of his speech- or rather in one of the numerous perorations, for, like the great Adelina Patti, he made seven or eight farewells before he eventually left the stage. The issue chosen by these hon. gentlemen is the allegation that Lord Dundonald was designated by the Prime Minister as a foreigner. That is the issue before the people of this country. Well, Sir, it was an awful thing for the Prime Minister to do. I admit the extreme gravity of the crime he committed against the English language-that is I admit it for the purpose of argument-in calling Lord Dundonald a foreigner ; though there are precedents in the best English prose which entirely justify the use of the word in the way in which it was used, as I intend to show before I sit down- even though it Is somewhat immaterial. Everybody knows who reads the context, everybody knew who heard the context, of the expression which was then used and who followed the argument, the right hon gentleman was then making, exactly what was denoted and connoted by the term the Prime Minister used. Everybody knew he was making an argument to the effect that Lord Dundonald not being personally familiar with the conditions in the eastern townships or personally acquainted with the place in which he was organizing the new force, was obliged to trust to the opinions of those who were thus conversant. And everybody knows that when the Prime Minister designated Lord Dundonald as a foreigner, he merely meant to convey the idea that Lord Dundonald was not a person who was acquainted with the local conditions surrounding that force, as a person constituting a militia force should be. Everybody knows that, and everybody knows that it was a most unspeakably mean and despicable thing on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite-;-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Benjamin Russell: I say it without hesitation-a most unspeakably mean and despi-able thing on the part of any man in this House or anywhere else to wrest that word from its proper connection and endeavour to put upon it a meaning that everybody in this House knows very well was not in the mind or in the heart of the premier when he uttered the word. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) if he could be guided by his own manly instincts would repudiate such an interpretation. I know him too well not to know that in his heart of hearts he does repudiate it. But, unfortunately he is the leader of the opposition. He is like the French gentleman who was chasing after a procession of the


Benjamin Russell: rag-tag and bob-tail, of scullions and loafers in Paris during a time of political excitement. He met a friend, who was dumbfounded at the gentleman's' ridiculous and incomprehensible conduct. He said to him :
' Why, what are you doing here ? Why do you follow these people ' ? The gentleman answered : ' Do not attempt to stop me ;
I am their leader ; I have to follow them/ The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L Borden) is the leader, I am sorry to say, of the mean and despicable creatures who are seeking to wrest that word from its proper connection and give it a meaning which it cannot properly bear.


Mr. SPROULE.: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Let him go on.


Benjamin Russell: I do not apply the term to any hon. gentleman in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) state his point of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to ask your ruling on the point whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) has the right to apply to members of this House the expression ' mean and despicable creatures ' ?


Benjamin Russell: Mr. Speaker, there is no fact upon which the point can be raised. I have not so designated these hon. gentlemen.


Mr. HENDERSON.: When the point of order is raised, let the hon. member (Mr. Russell) sit down.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) is speaking to the point of order.


David Henderson: Then, let him speak to the point of order.


Benjamin Russell: I think I have the floor. I ~say there is no fact upon which such a point can be raised, because I never dreamed of such a thing as applying that designation to any hon. gentleman in this House ; and I am amazed that anybody should suppose me capable of such a thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) spoke so of the followers of the leader of the opposition.
Mx\ RUSSELL. I say he is the leader of those poor, despicable creatures.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) has made it verj plain. He says he has not applied that epithet to any hon. gentleman in this House.


David Henderson: But we know he did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that he spoke of the followers of the leader of the opposition.


Benjamin Russell: I was going on to say that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads this House would have been perfectly justified in standing by the expression he used. He would have been warranted by the usage of some of the best writers of English, had he stood by the word that first sprang to his lips. Finding that it did not as accurately convey his meaning as another that immediately suggested itself he withdrew it and substituted the other. Everybody knows that he withdrew the word, and did so before any of the hon. gentlemen opposite had the perspicacity to raise any question. But I say he would have been absolutely right, and justified according to the usage of some of our best writers, had he allowed the word to stand. If there ever was a writer who will be recognized as a master of absolutely choice and perfect English it was Joseph Addison. Using this very word ' foreigner,' Addison says that " water is the only native of England made use of in punch, but the lemon, the brandy, the sugar, the nutmegs are all foreigners." These things came, some from our own colony, some from the West Indies, they came from countries under the English flag, yet they were all foreigners because they were not natives. ' Native ' is contrasted to ' foreigner ' and ' alien ' is the only word the right hon. gentleman could have used if he had any such meaning in his mind. A bill of exchange which is drawn in England on Canada is a foreign bill of exchange, not an inland bill : a company incorporated in England is a foreign company and not a domestic company ; a judgment recovered in England is a foreign judgment. Lord Brougham talked of English law as foreign law to a Scotchman, and by the same token why could not a Scotchman be spoken of as a foreigner, or an Englishman as a foreigner even in British colonies. In the same way, a Nova Scotia judgment is foreign in New Brunswick; and Scotch commentators treat all English judgments as foreign judgments. and speak of all persons resident out of Scotland as foreigners.
Well, Sir, the right hon. gentleman might very properly have adhered to the word if he had seen fit to do so ; but he found another word and a better word for his purpose, and one more accurately conveying the meaning which he undoubtedly meant to convey, as everybody knows, and which every honourable man in this House recognizes that he intended to convey, when be used that expression which has been so much tortured out of its proper meaning, and distorted into a meaning injurious to the right hon. gentleman. And for what
purpose ? For the purpose of discrediting a man whose record in this country has belied the injurious meaning from the earliest days when he took his seat in this House down to the present, and will continue to do so as long as he may hold a seat in this House-God grant that it may be for many years to come ! an hon. gentleman, I say, who has had perhaps move than any other public man in this country a true and just conception of, and has displayed a tenacious adherence to, the two great foundation principles, two of the greatest foundation principles upon which the noble fabric of our civilization is based. One of those great cardinal principles is the principle of local self-government, the right of every portion of the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of every colony of the empire, to exercise a practical sovereignty in the management of its local affairs. That is one great principle which lies at the base of our British system. If there be any that is greater than that, it is the ascendancy of the civil over the military authority, the absolute and unquestioned subordination of military functionaries to the civil authority of the state as administered by a government responsible to the houses of parliament. Those, I say, are the two great basic principles of our English polity and the polity which ye inherit from England, both of which are opposed by this Dundonald campaign, one of them implicitly and the other explicitly and emphatically. ' Better, I say, that every British nobleman should withhold from us the light of his lordly countenance for evermore than that we should forfeit one iota of our rights of local self-govdtnment or abate one particle of the authority of this Canadian parliament to administer the affairs of this Dominion. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, proud as we may be, thrill as our hearts may well thrill in contemplation of the achievements of our soldiers and sailors in all periods of our history and in all portions of the globe, better I say again that the name of every one of them from Henry of Aglncourt to Roberts of Kandahar should be blotted from the page of our history and perish from the memory of mankind than that we should abate one jot or one tittle of the principle which subordinates every military authority in this Dominion, high or humble, nobleman, gentleman or yeoman, to the people of Canada as represented in the parliament of this country.
Mi-. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin). I am not sure who is to blame for bringing about this great discussion that has been going on now for two days. Although I have listened attentively to every speaker and have read all I could about it, I am not sure I say whether it is the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for this deplorable discussion. If it is the Minister

of Agriculture, or whoever it may be, he should be compelled to pay all the expenses that are incurred in the prolongation of this discussion. Let us ascertain who it is, and all this-time should be charged up against him and taken from his indemnity. Borne hon. gentlemen may squirm at this proposition, because they may be the guilty parties. We do not know who it may be, but circumstances point towards the Minister of Agriculture. If the Minister of Agriculture had not been so officious, if he had not been acting in the place of the Minister of Militia, and if the Minister of Militia had been at home in his office, this thing never would have happened. Now I think myself that the militia, the military, the navy the church, the school and all like institutions, should be free from politics. I think whenever politicians undertake to interfere with the religion of the people, or with the education of the people, or with the disposition of the army, they are making a great mistake. If a commander prides himself on anything, it is on the men who are to assist him in defending this country if it is attacked, and an officer who has not the good will of his soldiers is not likely to succeed in battle. Therefore I say that the men themselves should be consulted as to the officers who are to be appointed over them. The Minister of Militia told us in his speech last night that he -was away from his duty at the time, and had been away previously for five or six weeks, in the city of Boston. Now if a member of this government can leave his duties for so long a time, it seems to me that almost any person could fill that office. If you put the Minister of Agriculture in his place it is not a proper thing to do. and if ever I am appointed to be a minister I will stay in the office and look after my business, and if I go to Boston I shall be able to give a reason for it.


Frederick William Borden: If the hon. gentleman read the newspapers he would have learned that I was in Boston on account of illness.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: If the hon. gentleman had told us that last night I would not have referred to it at all, because a man has a right to bb away when he is ill.


Frederick William Borden: I do not understand why any hon. gentleman in this House should be so anxious to misjudge the motives of a member of the government who may be obliged to leave his office temporarily. I think it would be fairer and more just to assume that he went away for good reasons and proper motives.


Jabel Robinson: If he went
away on sickness that is sufficient excuse. But the hon. minister did not tell us that last nipht, and we might have thought that he was in the States acting as a spy on the American people. I do not want to detain


Jabel Robinson: the House because it has been detained long enough on this question and the country is tired of it, I think. But, I want to say that I do not think any man ought to interfere with me, if I am allowed lio raise a squadron of horse or a troop of soldiers, in my selection of the men. I say that the hon. Minister of Militia ought to assist me instead of chalking out the name of a man that I had selected to help me and putting another man in his place. The hon. Minister of Militia would not have done that had not the hon. Minister of Agriculture come from that section of the country and intimated that he would pick out some of these people himself. He told him that he was determined that there should be so many Tories in the regiment. I have yet to learn that Tories do not make ns good soldiers as Grits and I think there should be no distinction between them. What we want are men who will fight for our country without asking the question as to whether they are Tories or Grits. What do the English government do when they want a man to lead their army ? Do they go to some partisan, to the man who is the strongest Liberal or the strongest Conservative ? No sir, they select the best man they have in their army for that post. Wellington was brought from India and sent to the Peninsula because they knew that he was a soldier of the best type, and he defeated the enemy and won extraordinary victories wherever he went. If they had had poor little politicians in the government of England at that time perhaps there would have been some other man placed over him. Wellington, Wolseley, Roberts and Kitchener were selected-for their politics ? No, Sir, but because they had made themselves perfect in their profession and were known to be the ablest men in England to lead the army. The English navy has done the same thing from the time of Blake, of Drake, of Frobisher, and scores of others, down to the time of the great and immortal Nelson. Did they ever ask what this great admiral's politics were ? Certainly not. So it should be with our troops in Canada. We hope that they may never have to fight, but if they do let us not select one set of men because they are party politicians. I do hope that this debate will close soon because we are only administering pin pricks to the British people. We are injuring ourselves when we do that. The hon. gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Russell) said that he thought it better that we should lose a thousand men from Britain or the light of the countenance of a lord than that we should lose one iota of our liberty. We do not intend to give up our liberty. Every Governor General we have had in this country has helped us from Lord Elgin down. We never had a Governor General who went home who was not a first-class immigration agent for us. We want to try and get the British people to come out here and bring more wealth with them. We have room for them. I am afraid that we

are going to prevent squadrons from being formed by such a proceeding as this one. Whenever another squadron is about to be brought out, for pity's sake let the officers choose the men and let the Major General in command of the forces choose the officers.


Mr. RUFUS POPE (Compton).: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some attention to the little member for Hants (Mr. Russell) in his valedictory to this House and I could not help but remember the many discussions that have taken place in this House and resolutions moved by the hon. Post-nfaster General in days gone by pointing out what a vicious sin it was that men should sit in this House with commissions in their pockets. I suppose this principle, like all the principles and professions of hon. gentlemen opposite, has gone to the great scrap pit. The little man from Hants referred to the fact that my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) had a free pass to South Africa. As to that X do not know, tout I do know that the hon. gentleman, according to his own confession, anticipates that he has a free pass to a position for life in the province down by the sea. We sent down there a short time ago what we used to style the Goliath of this House, the member for Guysboro and now, in order that these two gentlemen may average up, we are sending the Banty Tim of this House. That hon. gentleman has been the faithful servant of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the party to which he belongs. He has never failed to do any work of a character that some legal men might hesitate in doing. We remember him during the election trials and since ' pettifogger ' is the proper word to use, I say that I do not think that any more miserable specimen of the breed whatever it is was ever exhibited either in parliament or the committees of this House than we had in the little member for Hants at that time. He has taken special pains to deal with the word ' foreigner.' What an endorsation for the right hon. Prime Minister and what weight it will have in the country when it is known that the use of that word has been justified by one of the members of this House with a commission in his pocket. The hon. gentleman spent half an hour in discussing the word ' foreigner.' He ceased, but 'Hansard ' remains just the same ; there is the word, the insult has been given, and though the right hon. Prime Minister down to the smallest follower on his side of the House might spend as many hours and days as they liked in trying to explain it, the word ' foreigner ' is on the record of ' Hansard ' untouched and there it remains as an evidenc. of the true heart feeling of the right hon. gentleman when he rose upon that occasion. Why Sir, the little man from Hants stated, as others have also stated that the proposal of Lord Dundonald involved an expend) ture of immense sums of money-the newspapers have stated so-and that consequently it could not be adopted by this country. It was said that the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) had intimated that there were some things in the report that could not be adopted by Canada. I think it is only just that the representatives of the people should see that report and judge for themselves. Business men and railway corporations have reports made by their managers, but they are not always accepted by any means. We see in England a war commission recently reporting in favour of conscription but the government do not adopt the report.
But there was no reason why it should not be made public, and, Sir, we ought to know what was in these reports. We had an expert here, a man of high character, a soldier, a commander who had the endorsation of the Minister of Militia himself, until this difficulty arose. Only a year ago the Minister of Militia stated that we had an officer equal if not superior to any who had preceded him. Under these circumstances I say that we, the people of Canada having a servant-as they chose to call him.- and that servant making a report to the Minister of Militia upon the public defence of Canada, that report should be placed upon the table of this House. Whatever our deficiencies are we should know them and as a nation always be prepared to strengthen any weakness in our defences, let the cost be what it may. I can readily understand that Lord Dundonald in making plans for the defence of a country 4,000 miles long, with all its sea coast and rivers and long line of protection against the United States a foreign nation, would advise measures that would be covered not by the expenditure of a year, or two years or three years but of many years, and I say we, the representatives of the people of Canada, have a right to see and understand what he was proposing. The Minister of Militia last night took special pains to take a very wide scope. He took special pains also to offer very little support to the Minister of Agriculture in the position he had taken. It is quite true that speaking the other day he endorsed the minister. A man often does things on the impulse of the moment which he afterwards regrets, and as I listened to the Minister of Militia last night, I came to the conclusion that he regretted the action he had taken a few days ago, in endorsing body and soul the Minister of Agriculture for his action. He went so far as to tell us that he thought that if he had been at home instead of being away from home, this difficulty would not have arisen. There was only, one man to interfere when he was away and to create difficulty, the Minister of Agriculture who was acting in his stead. No severer castigation has been offered to the Minister of Agriculture than was administered by the Minister of Militia in that very short statement. These difficulties commenced with the advent of this govern-

ment to power. The right hon. the Prime Minister was warned by many of us, and I can remember on two or three occasions, doing my best to impress him with the trouble that would ensue if he followed out the spoils system by dismissing good servants to make places for political friends and driving the political knife into every one for that purpose. To-day we find the smallest Minister of the Crown, coming I regret to say from the section of country from which I come, carrying out the same system. We have had militia affairs in that country as long as in any portion of Canada but this is the first we have ever heard about the interference of politicians in regard to the formation of our militia. Last year the forces in Compton were reorganized and converted in Mounted. Rifles, just as they were in Missisquoi, Brome and Shefford. There was no interference there because there was no member who felt that lie had a mandate from his electors to select particular officers. The appointments went through the proper channels, and the result was that when the regiment went into camp in June every officer was in his place, the regiment was up to the full establishment permitted by law and there has been no trouble. Two-thirds of the militia men of the eastern townships and two-thirds of the officers are Conservatives. That is the history of the militia there, and history stands behind that statement. The country was originally settled by elements that came in from the United States-; some of them empire loyalists, and others American traders who came there to better their position. In 1849 the question of annexation arose, and we had two parties, the Loyalists on one side and the American trailers on the other. Following that we had Confederation and the Conservative party were the loyal party of the eastern townships, who contended for the preservation of British rights and the flag of Great Britain, on the northern half of this hemisphere at that time. Consequently when the militia was established shortly after Confederation this militia force was composed very largely of Conservative officers and men. I do not say there has not been some change but it has been a very small change, because in our section of the country the French Canadian element has not gone largely into the militia, and the overflow from the other parts of the province of Quebec have settled the back regions of those counties and you have to-day but a small proportion of English and the remnants of the same people who came there years ago and fought that battle and are still fighting it out.
When the hon. gentleman ' refers to Mr. Baker and his family his reasons for doing it are well understood. Mr. Speaker, you have not heard anybody refer to the Fisher family in the eastern townships as being great soldiers. Oh no, they prefer to keep behind a fortress which they themselves own Mr. POPE.
and control by a servile following which cannot be penetrated. The Minister of Agriculture has made his choice and has taken a family from which to select officers. He has selected the family' of Milti-mores, and we find Miltimore No. 1, Milti-more No. 2, and Miltimore No. 3. He has a right to take these men if he sees fit, and to call them his proper representatives as an eastern township family. We find Clifford Miltimore put forward as a fit and proper person for a position of command. I find this record in regard to him :
I, undersigned, John J. Barker, of the village of Cowansville, in the district of Bedford, printer and publisher, do hereby solemnly declare :
1. That I am a resident of Cowansville, in the county of Missisquoi, in the district of Bedford, and a duly qualified elector of said county.
2.	I was present at the meeting of the municipal council of Cowansville when the preparation of the voters' lists was in progress, and I made application to the said council to have the name of Clifford Miltimore struck therefrom, as I believed he had not the legal qualifications required by the law. He had previously been a tenant within the corporation but had ceased to occupy the premises which had been leased by him.
He resisted the application to have his name struck off and asserted that he was otherwise qualified as having his domicile within the munieipa.! iTy, and in support of that pretension made oath that he was so qualified and therefore entitled tb have his name retained.
The Council being guided by the statement so made by him under oath retained his name upon the list.
Knowing the circumstances, X was impelled to petition one of ittae judges of the Superior Court to strike his name off. The petition was resisted 'and after proof his name was struck off the voters' list by the judge.
Here is the judgment of the judge, striking his name off that list, showing conclusively that this man took an oath that was false. That is his first recommendation. I presume, for preferment. I know Mr. Pic-kel very well, and I have no fear of his reputation, handled as it may be by the Minister of Agriculture, being tarnished. He stands in his community respected and admired by' every one. The official positions he fills as mayor of his town and warden of his county are a sufficient endorsation of the man without any statement on my part. We can well understand that a man of that character was not very ambitious, as Colonel Smart's letters and others here show, or very anxious to join the militia. But the young men of that community said, if you can get L>r. Pickel to head this squadron, it will be a great success. Consequently Colonel Smart tried to get Dr. Pickel, and with what result we will see. Now, Sir. I find the Minister of Agriculture on page 5391 of the revised 1 Hansard ' saying : . I took no exception to this. But I found a recommendation in regard to the neighbour-

hood of Sweetsburg, which, I .confess, surprised me, and to which I did-take exception.
I must premise my explanation in regard to this matter by saying that Senator Baker of Sweetsburg, is the acknowledged and active leader of the Conservatives of that district. .
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, Senator Baker Is an active leader, as the Minister of Agriculture chooses to describe him, of that district, an old and respected citizen of that district, and also a lawyer ; and he had the suit against Mr. MeCorkill. the pet of the Minister of Agriculture, who was the provincial treasurer at Quebec and brought that suit to a conclusion; and Mr. Mc-Corkili is ready to throw up the sponge and declare the corruption took place in his election. That is where the sore spot is. The history of the election of Mr. MeCorkill shows that everything known to chicanery in elections was used in it. It was one of the most corrupt, I am told by the very best authority, and the very best proof that that authority is good is the fact that Mr. MeCorkill has thrown up the sponge. That is the sore spot in regard to the Baker family. We all understand why the Minister of Agriculture feels so tender and waxes so furious when he thinks of the town of Sweetsburg and even of Cowans-ville, which is only a couple of miles from it. That district haunts him night and day, ever since the time of the Quebec election. It will haunt him more and more in the future. It will be,a nightmare for bim so long as he remains in public life. He goes on to say :
I found this list of proposed names for the staff of the neighbourhood of Sweetsburg. First, Mr. John M. Gibson, a nephew of Senator Baker, and talked of as a possible Conservative candidate in the constituency of Missisquoi, to be third in command of that Tegiment.
Well, Sir, that is not a bad endorsation for this man.
Dr. Pickel, one of the strongest Conservative workers of the neighbourhood and a family connection of Senator Baker

This, I suppose, is nearer the truth than the hon. gentleman has been for a long time, because Dr. Pickel is a cousin of a boy who married Senator Baker's daughter. There is a semblance of truth in that statement, and I congratulate the lion. Minister of Agriculture before this House and before the press of Canada on having made one statement that has a grain of truth in it:
Dr. Pickel, one of the strongest Conservative workers of the neighbourhood and a family connection of Senator Baker, to be major in command of the squadron which, though gazetted for Adamsville, was to be changed to Sweetsburg to suit his convenience. Mr. G. H. Baker, son of Senator Baker, to be senior captain of the said squadron. Mr. Thomas R. Pickel. son-in-law of Senator Baker, to he the junior captain of the said
squadron. Then there were the names of two gentlemen, Messrs. Steacie and Reynolds of Montreal to be lieutenants. And down at the bottom of the list Mr. Thomas F. Cotton, * Liberal, son-in-law of the above-mentioned John M. Gibson, and grand nephew of Senator Baker.
I knew you would not find a Liberal very nearly related to Senator Baker. The Minister of Agriculture says :	But I have
included some Conservatives and I have included some Liberals. Mr. Speaker, what is the principle upon which our militia force should be governed ? Is it the principle of selecting some Conservatives and some Liberals ? No, Sir, it is the principle of taking men irrespective of party. That is no defence on the floor of parliament. It may perhaps be satisfactory on the hustings ; but it is no argument for a minister of the Crown to come here and tell us that cheap sort of thing, that the fact that there were some Liberals and, some Conservatives vindicates him for interfering politically with the formation of this regiment. The moment he conveys that knowledge, that moment he confesses judgment on the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition. There Is no avoiding it. Sir, In any court of justice, he would have received such sentence as the crime demanded.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed. We find the Minister of Agriculture saying this :
The position which I took then, and which I take to-day, is this :	Colonel Smart was a
stranger

Not a foreigner, Mr. Speaker, only a stranger-
-going into the district of Bedford to organize this regiment. He appears to have got into the hands of certain people out there.
Any one going to Sweetsburg and Cowans-ville will get into the hands of certain people if he wants to meet the best people of that district ; and that gentleman got into these same hands.
He told mer himself that he had no political intentions. I fully accept that statement.
There is where the difficulty is, Mr. Speaker. If he had had some political intentions, and these .had squared with the ideas of the Minister of Agriculture, we would never have heard one word about this question.
I believe Colonel Smart, in making the statement that he had no political intentions, made a statement which was absolutely accurate and truthful.
Now, Sir, what more does anybody want for a colonel going into that district to form a militia corps, than that he went there free from political intentions ? If that is not the very best reason why the hon. Minister of Agriculture should have his nose out of the matter and gone on plant-
I
5527	COMMONS '	5528
ing tux-nips, lxoeing corn and spreading manure and keeping strictly to the management of his own affairs, I do not know what is. He says again :
Hon. gentlemen opposite are very solicitous against political interference. They do not condemn me at all, Sir, because I asked that Mr. Russell, a well-known Liberal, should he removed from the place of major of another squadron and that he should be replaced by a well-known Conservative.
Well, I do object. I object just as much against the removal of Mr. Bussell as against The removal of Dr. Picket It is a great principle we are fighting for. If the integrity of the militia is to amount to anything, if it is to have any strength as a fighting force in the defence of the country, it must be non-political and its officers must be selected from the very best men available.
I said a few moments ago that the hon. gentleman said Colonel Smart's action was nonpolitical. I acquit Colonel Smart, hut, as I said a few .moments ago, I cannot refrain from saying again that although Colonel Smart's intentions were not political, his actions were intensely political.
Sir, either Colonel Smart went there as a politician or he was not. If he went there, not as a politician, but purely and simply to organize the regiment regardless of politics, then the statement of the Minister of Agriculture is one unworthy of a gentleman occupying his position. The position taken by the govex-nment and the minister opens the door wide to every politician in Canada to interfere in our militia. The minister says :
In suggesting the name of Mr. Adams, under the circumstances, was I interfering politically ?
I think he was.
No, I was interfering simply in a common-sense way.
Mr. Speaker, that thing is unknown to the hon. gentleman. It is foreign to him.
I was interfering simply in a common-sense way in the organization of the new regiment. I grant fully, and no man is more prepared to admit it ^ than I am, that on purely military qualifications the military experts at the command of the government ought to rule.
I want to know, Sir, what higher duty can a military expert have to perform than the selection of the officers, upon whose intelligence the lives of the men under him must depend. You may make a mistake in the construction of a fort, but the first basis of a military force is the intelligence of its officers, and the hon. gentleman has pleaded guilty a dozen times over to his interfering politically in their selection. Then the minister went on :
When it comes to matters connected with the affairs of this country ; when it comes to matters involving local knowledge of local conditions and knowledge of the people of Canada-


Rufus Henry Pope: Will you tell me that when a business man has to fill a certain position of responsibility in his affairs, he does not seek the advice of the very best men who can guide him in his selection of the man most suitable *to fill that position. If we have a question of law to decide, we do not go to our next door neighbour but to the very best lawyer of our acquaintance for proper advice and instruction. Consequently, I say that the selection of these officers is the highest function a military officer has to perform.
But when it comes to matters involving local knowledge of local conditions, I venture to think that the public men of Canada know more than any expert military or otherwise.
The public men of Canada-who are the public men of Canada ? They are not the ministers of the Crown alone. We have been told by the First Minister and by the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture that any minister in the cabinet should be supreme in all these matters which concern the district in which he resides. Sir, it comes down to a simple question of patronage and nothing more. Political patronage is to be the foundation of our Canadian militia in the futui-e, and that means that every i-epi-esentative supporting the government in any particular constituency has the right to dictate to the General Officer Commanding who should be given commissions in the militia fox-ce in that county. But hex-e is a tid-bit. Here is as ingenious an admission as we have bad in many a day :
The lpader of the opposition 'has said that Captain Converse is a Conservative. I do not know whether he is or not.
The minister does not know so much about local conditions as he thought he did, and he pleads guilty to lack of knowledge with l-egax-d to Captain Converse.
I have only this to say : That my colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wrote to me asking me to recommend Captain Converse for the position as adjutant of that regiment.
It never dawned on the Minister of Agriculture that the Minister of Marine would recommend any one but a Liberal.
It does not look as if he were a Conservative, unless the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is so favourable to the Conservatives that he should recommend one.
Is not that beautiful. There were no politics in the matter at all. Yet the poor little creature could not imagine his colleague recommending any one who was not a Liberal. He had left Ottawa and his farm and had gone down to visit the various parts of the district in oi'der to see that a proper selection of officers was made. And he went down on a Sunday. I was very much surprised indeed to discover that the hon. Minister of Agriculture did not re-

*member the Sabbath day in that good old Christian community of the Dominion, the eastern townships. When he saw fit to violate that sacred day, I did not pass judgment upon him, because I know that in these matters he will have to reckon later on. The hon. minister says that he struck out Dr. Piekel's name and put in some other name, and that as the net result he got lb Conservatives and 15 Liberals and 4 Independents on the list of officers. All he did was simply to change the whole thing upside down and make it to suit himself. But in all this there was no political interference. There is something more to discover in this business, and it is this. The Minister of Marine evidently was convinced that the Minister of Agriculture had the appointments in his own hands, and consequently when he had any recommendation to make, he passed over the Minister of Militia and went to the Minister of Agriculture. But what right had the Minister of Agriculture to have the appointments of these men in his hands ? If you will look the record over, you will find some twenty odd letters written either by or to Sydney Fisher, and you will find only one written by the Minister of Militia himself, and that was to Lord Dundonald. asking him if he had made that speech in Montreal.
Sir. looking at this whole matter from a standpoint of efficiency, I say that a blow has been struck at the militia of Canada. I say more. If Lord Dundonald was dismissed on good grounds, if he was dismissed because he reflected on the conduct of his superior officers, what about Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart, who were the subordinates of Lord Dundonald and Mr. Fisher ? What is going to happen to these men ? Their heads will not be worth anything if the Minister of Agriculture does not agree with their opinions of ideas. Under these circumstances, who is responsible ? If Lord Dundonald should go, if the government is right in making it necessary for him to go because he was not subservient to the ministers of the Crown, I say that the man who was at the bottom of it, who pin-pricked the condition along, who, by his speeches in this House and by the record which has been developed in this debate was responsible. should go also. How does he prevent himself from going,.? He stands there as plaintiff in the case and as judge also. A very courageous position to occupy. If the Minister of Agriculture had been compelled to win his position by the manifestation' of the courage which has won his spurs and the reputation of Lord Dundonald, it would be a long time indeed before we should see him gracing a place in this honourable assembly.
Mr. Speaker, the hour is growing late, and the case has been well argued. One thing has been clearly proven. No one will charge the Earl of Dundonald with being a politician. There is no dismissal of
Lord Dundonald for being a politician, but we have the dismissal or rejection, of Dr. Pickel for being a politician-that is established by the record and by the Minister of Agriculture's own word in this House. So, if political interference with the militia of Canada is a crime-and it should be- then the resolution before this House should pass. But, had the Prime Minister done his duty, had he exercised duly the powers with which he is vested by the constitution, had he guarded, as he should have done, the best interest of the militia of Canada, this resolution need never have been moved-for the Minister of Agriculture would have been put out of the government. And had this been done the Prime Minister would have stood higher in the estimation of the people of Canada than he does. As for Lord Dundonald, it is not necessary for me to defend him. As has been said in this House, but as I may be allowed to repeat because it gives me great pleasure to do so, he is a man of honourable intentions, a soldier, a wealthy man *who left his home and came here to Canada. And what for ? To dabble in politics ? Do you think he came here to appoint people to office or to dismiss Pickel from office ? He came here to spend a few years and to give Canada the benefit of his experience. As air army officer in South Africa he had seen a sample of the boys who had gone out from Canada-had gone out not through any willing action on the part of the government of the day- and he said :	Here is a specimen of manhood under the British flag that, I believe, can be made the most efficient portion of the British army. He had no. thought of establishing the system of militarism that hon. gentlemen opposite speak of and that their press are shrieking about throughout this country. Lord Dundonald is on record, and strongly on record, on that point. And he is too practical a man ; he learned too well the character of our boys in South Africa, to recommend militarism for Canada. He came here to do his duty. He worked faithfully and hard. He worked under the praises of the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) who, last night, I regret to say, played a role in this House which was creditable neither to himself, nor to the government, nor to Canada. Lord Dundonald came here to perform a great, a sacred duty-for to the soldier his duty is a sacred one. The true soldier is not necessary a mercenary, but he is a man who is moved by deep sentiment of patriotism and loyalty and who believes that the exercise of his profession is necessary to preserve the integrity of the nation to which he belongs. And I say it is a sad exchange^ it is an extremely poor bargain, to give away the ability and experience of the Earl of Dundonald in exchange for the privilege of keeping in bis place' the gentleman who

occupies the position of Minister of Agriculture.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, the defence which we heard yesterday from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) against the charges contained in the motion in your hands was so full, so complete and so masterly that there was no need for any of his friends to interfere in this debate. Nothing could be added to what had been said when he sat down. And, if I rise in this debate it is not at all to follow the line of argument that has been pursued ; it is to call the attention of the House to the closing paragraph of the motion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Bordeu). The words to which I wish to call attention are especially these :
The House regrets that this unwarrantable interference has been approved by the government, and that it not only has unduly delayed the organization of the regiment, hut has culminated in depriving the Militia of Canada of an experienced and distinguished Commanding Officer.
' Has culminated in depriving the militia of Canada of an experienced and distinguished officer.' Here is a statement which is not "Warranted by anything which has been proved to this House. The motion is an indictment against the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture joined issue upon it with his accusers. He has traversed it. in every particular ; and I submit to the impartial judgment of those who heard him, that he has cleared himself completely of the accusations and insinuations brought against him. Even if the charges here asserted were true, there is no justification and no reason for saying that the action of the Minister of Agriculture. even if proven, was the cause why Canada has been deprived of the services of an experienced and distinguished commanding officer. For, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture in the speech which he delivered yesterday, showed conclusively to the House that nothing which he may have done was conducive to the retirement of the General Officer Commanding ; he stated and proved, that for several weeks before, it had,been the determination of Lord Dundonald to retire from the post which he has occupied for two years. My hon. friend gave the evidence, but I think it will not be amiss if I repeat, in one particular the case which he made. I have here the statement delivered to the press by Lord Hunt donakl which, has been, not improperly, I think, characterized as a manifesto. Speaking, as he says, of the Impediments put in his way by the Department of Militia and of the many things done to mar his work, Lord Dundonald tells the people of Canada that he had come to the conclusion that he would sever his connection with the department. These are his words :


Rufus Henry Pope: I call tbe attention of the House to the concluding words :
-and with the duty of rendering such advice and assistance on military affairs as may be required of him.
Not as be may choose to offer himself but as may be required of him. and the difference between the duties which are imposed upon the commander of the forces in Great Britain, and the duties which are to be performed by Lord Dundonald according to his own conception was, that he was not to wrait until he was asked to give advice, but he was to proffer advice to the Minister of Militia, which the Minister of Militia was bound to accept whether he approved of it or not. Let me go a point further.
I know'-and it is heralded by the press which supports hon. gentlemen opposite- that a crime has been charged against my hon. friend the Minister of Militia-a grave offence has been put upon his shoulders- because he has refused to accept the advice of Lord Dundonald, and has refused to bring that advice before parliament. It was stated in the House yesterday, and I believe it has been repeated to-day. that it was the bounden duty of the Minister of Militia, as soon as he was given that report by Lord Dundonald, to bring it before parliament- that if he failed to do so. he failed to comply with the law of parliament. Sir, nothing could be more in contravention of the law of parliament than such a doctrine.
I assert. Sir. as a principle of parliamentary law, that all reports which are sent to

the government or to the head of any department by subordinates, unless they relate to mere questions of fact and routine and the every day transactions of the department- that all reports in which are implied questions of policy-are from their very nature confidential, and remain confidential until in the judgment of the minister they become the contrary. This is a broad statement to make, perhaps, but I make it on authority. I have already quoted Todd, who is acknowledged to be the best writer on this subject. Let me call the attention of hon. gentlemen to w'hat he says on this point:
The system of laying upon the table of the House reports from officers addressed to particular departments of the executive government is most objectionable. And the House ought not to insist ' upon the production of papers and correspondence which concerned the preparation and preliminary consideration of measures ; they would thereby put a stop to that freedom of criticism which was always invited on such occasions, and which contributed so much to the perfection of public measures.' If the House were to insist upon the production of such documents, instead of the government getting what we get now, confidential reports, containing the most minute details of the opinion of officers, given frankly and freely, for the heads of departments, we shall have a system of reports framed for laying upon the table of the House of Commons, and those will he accompanied by ' confidential reports for the head of the department alone.' There have been cases in which reports of a confidential character from officers of the government have been laid upon .the table of the House, to prepare the public mind, and also that of parliament, to consent to some large measure, or perhaps some considerable vote of public money ; but, generally I think it is a course which the House ought not to sanction.'
Mr. CA8GRAIN. Will the right hon. gentleman say whether that is Todd in Canada ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, that is Todd in England. That is not simply the opinion of Todd. It is a series of quotations from speeches delivered in parliament by the great leaders who have brought the law of parliament from time to time up to its present perfection. The last quotation of all is from Mr. Disraeli, who says :
There have been cases in which reports of a confidential character from officers of the government have been laid upon the table of the House to prepare the public mind, and also that of parliament, to consent to some large measure, or perhaps some considerable vote of public money.
This would have been the case here. The report of Lord Dundonald, I understand, would have been a preparation for a large expenditure of public money ; but Mr. Disraeli said :
But generally I think it is a course which the House ought not to sanction.
There is implied in this that such a report might be brought down at some time ; but this is a matter of governmental responsibility, on which parliament is to depend, unless there is a vote of censure. But the minister is absolutely free to follow his own opinion in this respect, and not to follow the dictum of the gentleman who is appointed as his adviser.
I may be told that this is antiquated law. Well, there is something more recent than that, which I now give to the House. I have stated that though the question of supremacy as between the military and the civil power in England has been settled more than a hundred years ago, and settled in favour of the civil power, still every now and then there is an attempt made to revive the old rule and to bring back the military power in control. Not later than two years ago, there was at the head of the army in Great Britain a gentleman who has left a record dear to the hearts of Canadians-Lord Wolseley. He was the Commander in Chief ; and strange to say-or perhaps I should say, natural to say-even such a soldier as Lord Wolseley, a man acknowledged to be prudent in his course and in his views, had a difference of opinion with the Secretary of State for war. He offered advice to the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for War, like my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, would not follow that advice. Then Lord Wolseley did what I think Lord Dundonald, if he had been better advised, should have done also :	he placed his resignation in the hands of the government. If Lord Dundonald had followed that course- and he says he had the idea in his mind- if, instead of taking the violent, the extreme, the unpardonable course of committing a breach of discipline, he had resigned, and placed his resignation on paper, he could have brought before parliament everything he wanted to bring. It could not have been pigeon-holed, as he suggested, but it would have been brought before the House, and the House could have judged of it. Lord Wolseley took the better course of resigning, and some time afterwards on the floor of the House of Lords, he gave expression to his views. On the 4th March, 1901, he addressed the House of Lords and criticised the administration of the War Office, and the nature of the relationship between the Commander in Chief and Secretary of State for War. Lord Lansdowne, who was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied in the House of Lords, and made use of the following language, which will be found in the Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, -Vol. 90, page 356
In another part of the statement of the noble Viscount, he told the House that he thought it was extremely necessary in the interests of public safety, . that when the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of State for war were 1 unable to agree, the public should be taken



Into our confidence, and that we should leave the public, as it were, to choose between the two.
I am afraid that that is somewhat a council of perfection. Does the noble and gallant Viscount think that the government of this country would be possible, that the administration of the War Office would be practicable, if, whenever the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief were not at one, their arguments were to be publicly paraded and to form the subject of controversies in the press or on the platform. I cannot conceive a more fatal arrangementj than that there should be disputes of this kind in the eye of the public. The noble and gallant Viscount is' a great supporter of a very popular institution called the Military Tournament. I should be very sorry if the Secretary of State were obliged to take part in a military tournament of the kind which the noble and gallant Viscount suggests.
Now I pause and ask the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite : Is not the language of l ord Lansdowne applicable, in every particular to the case we have in hand ? If you substitute for Lord Wolseley, Lord Dundonald, and for the Secretary of State for War, the Canadian Minister of Militia, you have our case in every particular. The following day the debate was participated in by Lord Salisbury, and I commend the language of Lord Salisbury as that of one who has always been noted for his Conservative tendencies and strong, rugged common sense. This is what he said :
It is said of a certain class of correspondent that the important observation always comes at the end. I think that applies to the speech of the noble and gallant Viscount. He told us, not as one of the main points on which he was insisting, but as something which occurred to him at the end, and which ought to be mentioned before he sat down, what was his solution of any difficulties that might arise if the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State were not of the same mind. I think he puzzled the House. He said we were to take the people into our confidence, and to tell the press what we thought, and then the question at issue was to be discussed openly. How you were to decide which party was to be victorious, I do not know, but the result of the battle royal was to determine the particular decision on which the ofBce was divided. I allude to this because I think it is a matter which is really at the bottom of our difficulty. I do not think the disputants, especially if they are military disputants, have entirely realized that the army is under parliament and that the minister who controls the army does it as one who is responsible to parliament and represents all the authority which parliament possesses. Unless you keep that steadily in mind, no doubt you will see many anomalies in our military system, and Its relations to the civil power. But It is no use comparing our army with the army of Prance or of America, or of Germany or of Russia. They all differ in that one point, that the parliamentary system of governing the army does not exist among them. We must accommodate ourselves to the present state of things. Everybody knows historically how It has grown up, and everybody knows that it is intertwined too closely with all the fibres of our constitution Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
to justify any one who forms his projects and bases his reasoning on the supposition that this relation can be modified. At the end we must have an army governed by parliament, governed by a minister who is responsible to parliament, and in any difference of opinion, whatever it may he, the Commander in Chief must be a subordinate of the Secretary of State.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (reading)-
Military men may not like that, but there it is. It is one of the bed rock circumstances of the situation, something from which you cannot depart ; and you must devote your hands to making it work and it has worked in the main hitherto very well.
Yes, I think it has worked very well in England.	[DOT]
And take care that It produces In the future, as it has produced in the past, results which it would have been impossible to produce in any foreign country. I feel that this debate will be lost upon us unless we take care to guide ourselves by that chief and predominant principle. In speech after speech from military men, men who know the language and spirit of the War Office, it is easy to detect a desire that military problems shall only be solved Ijy military men ; but any attempt to take the opinion of the expert above the opinion of the politician must, in view of all the circumstances of our constitution, inevitably fail. It must not be supposed that in such contests the expert must win. In all these discussions there is an evident and growing desire to shake free of this necessity. I thought I traced it even in the peroration of the noble Earl, although I am sure he is too good and constitutional a statesman to entertain any idea that the existing system can be radically! changed. That is where the shoe pinches-that the men who know, or who ought to know, namely, the experts, are not the men to decide the 'dispute in question ; but the decision, if it accords with their view at all, must be brought about by the concession of the civilian and the politician.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: If this doctrine had been asserted by me, without saying from whom it came, there would have been a howl from the other side. But this is the true constitutional doctrine. I was told this afternoon that I was a separatist, that my heart was not with British institutions. Sir, I am proud to say once more, as I have said many times that from my boyhood I have been a true adherent of British institutions.	*


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I say more, I claim that I understand-and in saying this I do not think I am boasting-British institutions far better than many hon. gentlemen on the other side who try to assail me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: When Viscount Wolseley had a difference with the War Office and wanted to bring that difference before parliament and the people, and allow the people to judge between the two, what did the War Office decide ? It decided that Viscount Wolseley, illustrious general as he is, was subordinate to the civil power, and that if the views he submitted to the civil power were not acceptable, there was no help for it and he had to submit. Sir, we assert nothing else in this matter. But I will say more. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia, in his anxiety to do the best he could for the militia, went further than anybody in his position would have gone in England. He submitted last year to the opposition a proposition both wise and patriotic. He stated to the [DOT]opposition that he had received a plan which he did not endorse, and which, in his opinion, it would be a grevious mistake to make public. But as perhaps there might be some good in it, he offered to hon. gentlemen opposite to have a committee formed, on which they would be represented, so that both sides might examine into this plan, but because there were things in it which it would not be wise to divulge to the world, the proceedings of that committee should not be made public, but be kept secret. This offer was not accepted last year, but nobody then made it a grievance against my hon. friend that he did not parade before the whole world not only our resources, but our weaknesses as well, and under the circumstances it seems to me that the position taken by the government to-day is absolute unassailable. It also seems to me that the position taken by Lord Dundonald cannot be justified from the point of view of constitutional government. What Lord Dundonald wanted was to assert the supremacy of the military power over the civil ; but, as my hon. friend the Minister of Militia said yesterday, so long at all events as there is a Liberal government in Canada, the civil power shall rule over the military.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER  .@: declaration that the General Officer Commander should be given carte blanche. The General Officer Commanding, is appointed by this government and occupies a subordinate position. But, according to the hon. gentleman he should be given carte blanche and whatever he does should be accepted; the minister and the cabinet should be simply recording clerks of his will. And this is the policy of the once great Conservative party. My reading of history has informed me-and no doubt my hon. friend from Victoria, N.S., who is an old veteran in the cause of reform, has the recollection that there was a time in'Canada when we had militia authorities to govern us. Those were the old times of the Family Compact, when the military authorities were surrounded by a crowd of sycophants and minions, who could dispose of the public domain for their own benefit and that of their favourites. I do not know how the new doctrine will strike the whole province of Ontario. But if the names of Brown and Mackenzie have not been erased from the memory of the people there, I can imagine how the Grits of Ontario will receive it. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier went even further. Having stated that we should give carte blanche to the General Officer Commanding, he went on to the conclusion, which was inevitable from his premises, that we had acted very wrongly in relieving Lord Dundonald of his command. He went further still ; he told us that the treatment which we had meted out to Lord Dundonald was harsh and cruel. How harsh and cruel ? That it was painful to those who had to inflict it is undoubted ; but if it could have been avoided, I confess I do not see how. We were told to-day that we might have done in the case of Lord Dundonald what was done in the case of Lord Charles Beres-ford. Certainly we might, if the cases had been alike. If, like Lord Charles Beresford, Lord Dundonald had apologized for his conduct, certainly we would have treated him as Lord Charles Beresford was treated. Lord Charles Beresford had written a letter which was published without his consent and he so declared. But Lord Dundonald went to Montreal for the very purpose of bringing on this scandal. Therefore, there was nothing to do but what we did. For our course we have abundance of authority in the mother country. Only two years ago, just after the conclusion of the South African war, General Colville had a disagreement with some of his brother officers. He was charged with not having done his full duty under certain circumstances in South Africa, and with having left a certain portion of the army in great distress, whereas, if he had been more active and determined he might have relieved it. The War Office took a lenient view of the accusations against General Colville. They did not dismiss him ; they did not deprive him of his Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
rank ; they gave him a command in Gibraltar. But when General Colville had been given this new command he made the great mistake of going before the public, of writing for publication in the press, commenting upon those who had brought the accusations against him. And what happened then ? He was at once relieved of his command. The debate upon the subject is instructive. The War Office had taken a lenient view of General Colville's case. But, when he sought to bring his complaint before the tribunal of public opinion, instead of laying it before the Commander in Chief, the measure of his offences was full. The matter was brought before parliament by Mr. Charles Douglas. I quote from the speech of that gentleman as reported in ' Hansard ' page 1251 :
A very considerable prejudice had been created against General Colville by the fact that he had published in the newspapers a statement of his treatment by the War Office. He did not defend that action of General Colville's. It was most desirable and necessary that they should uphold and fortify the great traditions of army reticence. Sometimes it led to hardship, but it was essential to discipline, and more than ever necessary now in view of the extreme activity displayed by the newspapers. He did not defend General Colville's action, but hoped the House would allow him to submit one or two considerations in regard to it. In the first place reticence could not be all on one side. If their generals were never to take means of vindicating themselves publicly, then he ventured to think that a little reticence should he observed by the War Office.
When General Colville returned to this country the first thing he saw was a newspaper paragraph which was obviously inspired.
Now mark the answer which was made by Mr. Brodrick, Secretary of State for War:
The question is whether a public stigma would have been put upon General Colville. That is what I wished to avoid. After that General Colville's action cannot be defended by any one. He left for England. He did not avail himself of his right of appeal to the Commander in CShlef. He made no representations to the War Office. He immediately published what he called a justification, but which consisted rather of an attack upon the staff officers in the Transvaal*; and which also included, I regret to say, what appeared to be some ungenerous sneers against the cavalry whom he had found It impossible to relieve. And obviously It is impossible that officers, whether on the full paylist or the half paylist, should be allowed to make reflections on their superiors as General Colville did. He was placed on retired pay, and any officer who follows his example will necessarily share the same fate.
Sir, it seems to me this is conclusive, and is the fullest justification that can be offered to the House of the painful course we bad to take against so distinguished an officer as Lord Dundonald. I am free to say, even at this moment, after all the painful explanations we have had, after the indiscretions committed by Lord Dundonald, that for

my part I look back with extreme regret upon the lack of judgment which has impelled Lord Dundonald so far to forget himself, so far to forget his position, so far to forget what was due to him and to his command, as to take the course he did. But law must be maintained, law exists for everybody, military law as well as civil law; and military law ought to toe observed above all others by the general who is at the head of the militia. Further upon this point I have no more to say.
Now I may be allowed perhaps to do what I very seldom do. I may be allowed to say a word about myself personally. Some days ago, speaking in this House, I made use of an expression which was not in my mind but which came to my lips. I corrected it immediately. The word which I had in my mind was "the word ' stranger ' but I used another word. Sir, in my experience of many years I hJve never heard it called in question until to-day that a man may not be allowed an opportunity to correct a slip of the tongue. I have heard slips of the tongue more than once, I have heard one today, I heard one yesterday, some gentlemen using the words 1 Minister of Agriculture ' when he wanted to say ' Minister of Militia,' another saying ' Minister of Militia' when he wanted to say ' Minister of Agriculture.' These mistakes will occur. A man may want to speak of the city of Toronto, and may say the city of Montreal. But according to the new code of ethics which I find on the other side of the House, no man is to be allowed to correct any slip of that kind. Sir, I bow to this new law- which I hope, however, will never be the law on this side of the House, a law which we will never apply to the other side. I bow to it, but I wish to say to these gentlemen on the other side of the House whom I see before me and who call, me to account for having had the misfortune, nay, not the misfortune, but the mere accident of slip of the tongue. I say to them : Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Sir, I have been told that my meaning was contemplated, was offensive and insulting. I have been in this House for many years, I have seen some of the veterans of former combats pass away, I have been engaged in combats with some of them, I have fought a good many hard struggle^, but I am not conscious in ail the years of my life, in all the struggles in which I have been engaged with gentlemen on the other side of the House, I am not conscious that I ever deliberately used an offensive word towards any man or towards any class. I never sought a fight, but I was never afraid of a fight. Whenever I had to fight, I think it will be admitted by friend and foe that I always fought with fair weapons. I have been told to-day on the floor of this House twice that when X used the word ' foreigner ' there was in my heart a sinster motive, there was in my heart a feeling which found expression. Sir, I have only
this to say. I disdain to make reply to such an insinuation. If sixty years of what I believe to be after all an honourable life, a life which has certainly been one of loyal devotion to British institutions, is not a sufficient answer to such an insinuation, X will not attempt to make an answer. I have been told in the press, not in this House, that the word which I substituted for the word I used, the word * stranger ' which I substituted, was just as offensive and insulting as the other. Well, Sir, I do not pretend to be a master of the English language, but I do claim, without I think undue boasting, to have some knowledge of it. When I saw in the press that the word ' stranger ' which I had applied to Lord Dundonald was offensive and insulting, I must confess that I was surprised, and I proceeded to brush up my literature ; I went to the sources, I went to the dictionary' as the first source, I went to the latest dictionary, the Standard, to find the definition of the word ' stranger.' Like many other words in the English language, like many other words in the French language, like many other words in the Latin language, and probably in all the languages, ttiis word has more than one signification. Here they are :
Stranger. 1. One is not an acquaintance ; a person unknown ; as, I was accosted by a stranger.
2. One not a member of the household ; a visitor ; guest ; as, children should not talk when strangers are at the table. 3. A person coming from another country or a distant region ; a foruignur ; also, a person coming from another place, though in the same country ; as, he had the air of a stranger ; a stranger in a strange land. 4. One unacquainted or unfamiliar with something specified ; one not versed or experienced ; one mentally or spiritually remote ; with to ; as, he is a stranger to learning and culture. 5. Law. Any person who is neither a party to a transaction nor privy to it.
The Standard Dictionary quotes General Grant, speaking of his appointment to the army of the Potomac in the spring of 1864, saying :
I was a stranger to most of the army of the Potomac ; I might say to all except the officers of the regular army who have served in the Mexican war.
Very few researches brought to me an abundance of precedents. In the 'Story of the Revolution ' Henry Cabot Lodge, the author, speaking of a visit by Washington coming from Virginia to Massachusetts, says :
The people were evidently with him. They looked upon him as he rode down the lines and were content. The popular movement had found its leader and the popular instinct recognized him. Yet, Washington came to the men of New England a ' stranger.'
But, I am accustomed to the loyalty of hon. gentleman on the other side of wbiak

we have had such evidence to-day. Perhaps they will not accept these American writers. Let us come back then to British authors, and if there is an opinion which ought to be apposite in a matter of this kind, since I am told that I have insulted my fellow countrymen of the Scottish race, let me quote from Sir Walter Scott. We find in his hook ' The Pirate ' that, speaking of a Mr. Mertoum, an Englishman who was visiting the Shetland Islands, he says :
No one asked him whence he came, where he was going, what was his purpose in visiting so remote a corner of the empire, or what was likely to be the term of his stay. He arrived a perfect stranger, yet was instantly overpowered by a succession of invitations.
But, that is not all. Let us come nearer home. I have here in my hands the life , of Lord Lawrence by Sir Richard Temple. In one of the chapters Sir Richard Temple speaks of the difficulties of every new viceroy sent from England to India. He says :
Usually a new Viceroy and Governor General is, on landing in India, really new in every sense. The European officers, the Native princes, chiefs and people, are strangers to him as he is personally unknown ito them.
Here we are very near home when we are in another portion of the British empire, but let us come to Canada itself. There have been commanding officers of the militia before Lord Dundonald. There was one in 1875.	His name was Sir Selby
Smith. He wrote a report to the Minister of Militia of that day which is to be found in a blue-book of 1875 and here it is :
Headquarters, Ottawa,
January, 1875.
The Hon. the	[DOT]
Minister of Militia and Defence, &c., &c, &e.
Sir,-The Militia -Reports which have been presented to parliament for several years past, have treated exhaustively the question of its organization and development.
It will therefore be my duty to confine myself to a few condensed remarks, as to the probable improvement of the Dominion forces.
I approach the subject with hesitation, having so recently arrived for the first time in Canada. I would hardly do so at 'all, but from the experience gained in my late journey through the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
To Nova Scotia and New Brunswick I am still a Stranger.
Now, Sir, it seems to me that my vindication ought to be complete, but I know that to-morrow and the day after to-morrow and every day and every week and every month, so long as there are some of those instincts which are now prevalent, in order to defeat a fair opponent, I shall be traduced before my fellow countrymen as having tried to malign and insult them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, there is an echo.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame, Shame.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let me say this to that hon. gentleman that I am familiar with these appeals to passion and prejudice. In my own province


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to tell the right hon. gentleman that I have never appealed to passion or prejudice-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.
Mr. SPROULE-to race or religion and I defy him or any man to say that I have done so, I do not care who he is.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my own province the allies of the hon. gentleman, those who fight with him, have traduced me for years as a traitor to my race and religion. But, the cry is getting stale and a new one has to be invented. I have no more fear of this one than I had of the other. My experience has convinced me, toy experience has proved to me that in this good land of Canada, in all sections thereof, in all classes thereof, in all races thereof, in all creeds thereof appeals to prejudice may create a flurry of excitement but they will invariably end in producing nothing but contempt in the hearts and minds of an intelligent and honest people.


Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: The taunt has been thrown across the floor of the House several times by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that we have forsaken the cause of Lord Dundonald, that we have nothing to say in his defence. Let me say at the very outset of the few remarks which 1 am to offer to the House that Lord Dundonald needs no defence from me or from a'ny member of this House especially from this side of the House. The name of Lord Dundonald today has become a household word in almost every house in the Dominion of Canada. His defence is in the mouth of every patriotic, loyal and unbiased citizen of this country. Sir, we are now in the times when our young men assemble in the camps, and I have no doubt that every evening around the camp fire the youth of this country are discussing this question and that there are very few if there are any at all of the members of the militia force so assembled in camp who have not the praises of Lord Dundonald on their lips. But, Sir, coming from the province of Quebec, not at all that I believe I represent the province of Quebec, but, I am sure I represent the vast majority of those from the province of Quebec who are members of the militia when I say that if Lord Dundonald's praise is in the mouth of everybody outside of the province of Quebec that same praise is in the mouths of those who form the portion of the militia in the province of Quebec. I have taken particular pains to ques-1 tion my fellow countrymen, not now, but

ever since Dundonald has had anything to do with the militia of Canada and the reply which I have received from the French Canadian officers has been that he has been the best commander in chief of the forces that they ever had.
Sir, he has always made himself especially agreeable to the French Canadian officers, speaking their language to them and showing them every mark of confidence and courtesy which one gentleman could show to another. I was struck by one part of the speech made by the right hon. gentleman, the lesson he read to the Minister of Militia and Defence. Last evening the Minister of Militia and Defence spoke of Lord Dundonald but did not at all speak in those terms which the right hon. the leader of the House has employed this evening. On the contrary I must say that I was pained at the tone used by the Minister of Militia, and I can see no better campaign literature for this party than to distribute all through Canada .the speech made last night by the Minister of Militia. If I had anything to do with the organization of the party 1 would have that speech printed by the thousand and distributed all over the Dominion. What do we find ? We find the Minister of Militia constantly contrasting the nobleman, the patrician, with the humble colonial and the plebeian. It seems to me that it comes with very bad grace from the mouth of the Minister of Militia and Defence who not long ago, received the decoration of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and wears upon his breast the star of that order, and is entitled 'to be called to-day ' Sir Frederick Borden.' I do not see why these sneers are cast upon the British aristocracy and especially upon Lord Dundonald because the Minister of Militia must have remembered that while it is true that Lord Dundonald was born a nobleman, he has also carved with his sword a great name upon the annals of the empire. Sir, I am an admirer of the British aristocracy. Whilst in other countries the scions of great houses seem to have forgotten the role they are called upon to play in the different vocations in which they should be engaged, in Great Britain, on the contrary, the heirs of the great names have remained faithful to the traditions of their race, and whether it be in peace or war, we find these great men taking their share either in defending the country in time of war or conducting its councils in time of peace..
Another insinuation which my hon. friend threw across the floor of the House against Lord Dundonald was that probably the action which he had seen fit to take when he made his speech at Montreal, knowing that in consequence of that speech he would probably have to separate himself from the militia of Canada was due to the fact that there was a scheme shortly to be placed before parliament by which the office of Commander in Chief was to be abolished.
As if Lord Dundonald was to be influenced in any of bis actions by the paltry salary of $4,000 which the country had been paying him for his valuable services ! Then again I was pained to hear the Minister of Militia making another insinuation and a more serious one against the noble lord the late General Officer Commanding, when he insinuated, speaking of the ordnance department, in the two cases of Lieutenant-Colonel Roy and Lieutenant-Colonel Belanger, that probably it was on account of their nationality, of their being French Canadians, that he complained of their elevation to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. I think this was an unworthy insinuation, unworthy of my hon. friend and of the position which he occupies. My hon. friend growing eloquent just now, in speaking of arousing race prejudices, accused this side of the House of having done that. I *would like to know what the Minister of Militia had in mind, and what the editors of the government organs have in mind, when they incite these animosities and say that one of the motives of Lord Dundonald in this case was that he made a difference between a French Canadian officer and an officer of another origin. It seems to me that the strong point of the government on which they have rested their case, was that Lord Dundonald was guilty of a gross breach of discipline in making the speech he did. These are the regulations of the British army which govern the British forces. The minister when he quoted these regulations was quoting something absolutely outside the case of Lord Dun-donaid. The regulation says :
Tha regulations! of the British army, ..which govern the Canadian force in all matters not specially provided for, prohibit 1 deliberations or discussion by officers of soldiers with the object of conveying praise, censure, or any mark of approbation towards their superiors or any others in His Majesty's service.'
The regulations for the militia of Canada lay down the rule that ' it cannot be permitted that (officers) shall bring accusations against superior officers or comrades.
What is meant here by ' superior officers? ' Not the Minister of Militia, not any minister, but a superior officer in military command, because this word is certainly limited by the next words ' or comrades ' which means comrades in arms, and I would like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture was the superior officer of Lord Dundonald on that occasion. Let me read this part of the Order in Council again.
The regulation for the militia of Canada lay down the rule that ' It cannot be permitted that (officers) shall bring accusations against superior officers or comrades before the tribunal of public opinion, either by speech or letters inserted in any newspaper ; such a proceeding would be in glaring violation of the rules of military discipline, and in contempt of authority.'


Mr. CASGRAIN.: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: Who says yes ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do.
I was bold enough to say that the record bore out the statement which Lord Dundon-ald had made in what my hon. friend calls his address to the people of Canada. Why, all through these letters, the general discusses the question of the publishing of his report. Here is a letter dated the 31st of January, from the Minister of Militia and Defence, in which he said :
Dear Lord Dundonald,-I have carefully read your very interesting and able report. I don't know whether you intend Part II to form part of the annual report of the Minister of Militia and Defence for this year (i.e. 1902), but I am afraid it would not do to put forward a scheme which has not yet been considered as a whole even by the minister and of which the other members of the cabinet have as yet had absolutely no opportunity of knowing anything. Besides, there is the very grave question of propriety of giving such a scheme to the world ; at any rate, in such detail. Furthermore, you are aware that a scheme was recommended by the Defence Committee of 1898, approved by the War Office and adopted by the Canadian government.
Then he goes on to say :
Then there is the financial question. It is absolutely necessary that I should have a carefully prepared estimate of the cost involved in your proposals before they can be considered by the government.
So that the House will see that what the Minister of Militia was trying to do was to

convince tlie General Officer Commanding that this report should not be published. He did not refuse to publish it, but he reasoned with the general and tried to convince him that it should not be made public. What does Lord Dundonald say ? He writes as follows :-
Dear Sir Frederick,-Yes, I will let you have the report with slight amendments as suggested almost at once. Will you let me have the part you have, and I will let you have the whole back again in a few hours ?
Again the Minister of Militia writes :
Dear Lord Dundonald,-I would like to again call attention to my letter of the 31st ultimo dealing with your annual report. After very careful consideration of the matter since that letter was written I am more than ever convinced of the correctness of the views therein expressed.
It is quite outside the province of an annual departmental report to propound a scheme or policy of defence and therefore I must ask you to he good enough to omit Part II (so called) from your report, and to amend Part I accordingly.
I shall be quite ready, however, to approve of the insertion in your annual report of a clause stating that you have prepared for my information a scheme which you think would (to use the words of the heading to part 2) 'conduce to the greater efficiency of the militia as a fighting force.'
May 1 ask, therefore, that the annual report be amended as above suggested, and placed in my hands to-day so that it may go to the printer.
Did Lord Dundonald acquiesce in the request made to him by the hon. minister ? Here is what he says on the 28th of February :
Dear Sir Frederick,-I return the report divided as you wish. There was a difficulty in getting that work done Saturday owing to the day being a half holiday.
From one end of these letters to the other, you will see the discussion goiug on, and not once did Lord Dundonald acquiesce in the request made to him that part 2nd of his report should be suppressed. I ask if the argument which my hon. friend the Minister of Militia based upon the word ' private ' on the first letter can stand. Is it not a fact that this report was recognized by the minister as essentially a report for publication ? If not, why was part 1st published. It was published because the statute enacts that these reports must be given to parliament and part 1st went in the same envelope as part 2nd. My hon. friend, the Minister of Militia, states that this probably involved a great change and that it did not commend itself to his judgment. But a few days after, my hon. friend delivered a eulogy upon the General Officer Comanding, and I think it is only right that I should read it because it is the best praise that probably could be given Lord Dundonald under the circumstances, coming as it Mr. CASG-RAIN.
does from the man who last evening passed such strictures on his conduct:
We might congratulate ourselves in this country on having at the head of the military side of the Militia Department a gentleman who understood 'the importance of all he (Sir Frederick) had said. (Cheers.) He was not only a great warrior, as he had proved In a dozen battles-(cheers)-but he was a man of sound sense and judgment.
And this was after he had given in his part 2nd of his report of 1902. He was still a man of sound sense and judgment according to the Minister of Militia :
Who was here for the purpose not of selfaggrandizement, not of playing to the gallery and having his name and praises sounded on every possible opportunity, but of developing the material he found into one of the best fighting forces on the earth.
I cannot understand how it is that after passing this eulogy on the General Officer Comanding, my hon. friend can come to the House and describe the general as a man absolutely inferior and not at all fit for the high position to which be had been called. What is the reason the report of 1903 was mutilated ? Here is the most extraordinary reason given for doing this which I have ever heard a minister give in this House. It Is to be found on column 5441 of the revised ' Hansard : '
I did not object to the report so much as I objected to the publication of certain portions, and I wished him to amend it, and he, as I supposed, agreed to do so. Some of the objections which I made to it were that it referred to documents which had not been brought down to parliament, which there was no intention to bring to parliament. I informed him that the moment that report was laid on the table of the House, the members of the House would have the right to ask for the documents ; and, as we did not wish to bring the documents down, I did not wish these references put in the report.
It seems to me that this is a most extraordinary reason for the correcting or the mutilating of the report of 1903. I am not at all in favour of militarism or a standing army, but it seems to me that if we are to spend $2,000,000 a year on our militia, we ought to get some return in the shape of an efficient force and not have, as the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) described it last year, the shadow of a skeleton. The General Officer Commanding is an officer of the Militia Department. It was he who made this report, and I can quite understand that if it contained disclosures upon the condition of the defences of this country, which should be considered confidential, there might have been some reason for suppressing it. But this has not been alleged ; and the only reason given by my hon. friend last night was that it contained a new scheme for the defence of Canada. Sir. I do not wish to establish the people of this country as judge between the General

Officer Commanding and the Minister of Militia ; but if there is nothing detrimental to the best interest of the country contained in that report the people who pay the General Officer Commanding, and who have the interest in the militia, have the right to see part 2 of the report of 1902, so as to be able to judge whether or not this parliament should vote more money, or less money, or make some change in the plans or system of the militia.
I shall not go over all the arrangements in the debate but let me come to the more contentious part of the amendment My hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope) alluded to a coincidence which I had intended to speak of. We know tha't in the latter part of 1903, there was a hotly contested election in the county of Brorne for one of the seats In the legislature of Quebec. In the selection of a candidate, and in the carrying on of the campaign, the Minister of Agriculture took a prominent part. And when the treasurer of the province of Quebec was elected as member for Brome, his election was contested before the courts, and as stated by my hon. friend from Compton, the petition protesting the election was signed by the firm of Baker and Baker, which firm is composed of Senator Baker and his son. And in this petition the House will remark, the Minister of Agriculture was accused of illegal practices under the Election Act of Quebec. If this protest had gone to the courts, and if the facts had been proved, the hon, gentleman (Mr. Fisher) stood to be disqualified for any office in the province of Quebec and subject also to a heavy penalty. The case was so serious that, at the last session of the legislature of Quebec, a special Bill was introduced to relieve these gentlemen from the penalties to which they had subjected themselves by their conduct in that election. I itm glad to say, for the honour of the province of Quebec and the dignity of its legislature that the Bill failed to pass. Still the effort was made. On whose behalf was it made ? On behalf of the gentleman who had taken an active and illegal part in the election in Brome. The case was serious, and, of course, the men who had signed this petition were open to the vengeance of my right hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. A little while afterwards the oi'ganization of this regiment in the eastern townships was undertaken. And what does my hon. friend say 1
I must premise my explanation in regard to this matter by saying that Senator Baker, of Sweetsburg, is the acknowledged and active leader of the Conservatives of that district.
And the hon. gentleman should have added, ' and he signed a petition asking for my disqualification.'
' I found this list of proposed names for the staff for the neighbourhood of Sweetsburg.
First, Mr. John M. Gibson, a nephew of Senator Baker, and talked of as a possible Conservative candidate in the constituency of Missis-quoi, to be third in command of that regiment.. Dr. Pickel, one of the strongest Conservative wotkers of the neighbourhood and a family connection of Senator Baker, to be major in command of the squadron which, though gazetted for Adamsville, was to be changed to Sweetsburg to suit his convenience. Mr. G. H. Baker, son of Senator Baker, to be senior captain of the said squadron. Mr. Thomas R-Picket son-in-law of Senator Baker to be the junior captain of the said squadron. Then, there were the names of two gentlemen, Messrs. Steacie and Reynolds, of Montreal, to be lieutenants.
So, while this petition was before the courts this terrible Baker family was known for its loyalty throughout the eastern townships and was ready to wear the uniform of His Majesty and fight the battles of his country; and immediately my hon. friend said :	I
will not have this, especially, I will not have Dr. Pickel, who is a son-in-law of Dr. Piekel-he must go or there will be no organization of this squadron in the eastern townships. Now, what is the statement made by Colonel Smart ? Let me read from the documents that have been laid before the House :
Dr. Pickel is a man of means, can ride fairly well, and was quite willing to take the necessary time to qualify himself for the position of major. Mr. Fisher objected to him for no other reason than that he was a strong political opponent of his and was quite determined to block the whole organization, unless Dr. Pickel's name was withdrawn.
I do not know Colonel Smart, and am not aware whether he is a Conservative or Liberal ; but I must say that if he were a prominent Conservative, I would probably have heard of him and would have noted him before this. But I find him a man not afraid to give the exact version of what took place when he met the Minister of Agriculture. He says that Dr. Pickel was not then qualified, but he was a man of means, able to ride and ready to make the sacrifice of the time necessary to qualify himself for the position he was to hold in the regiment. But he was allied with the House of Baker, and the name of Baker was signed to a petition which contested the election of Brome. So, Dr. Pickel was to go, and, if not out, this regiment was not to be organized and the eastern townships would have to do without it. Is this statement of Colonel Smart controverted in this House ? What does my hon. friend the Minister of Militia say ? I quote from page 26 of the correspondence, a letter from the Minister of Agriculture to Colonel Whitley dated, Ottawa, 20th of May :
I think you will appreciate that I have not asked nearly as much as impetuous_ friends in the county expected, but I think that what I have asked has been entirely reasonable.

Who were the 'impetuous friends ' ? Were they ' impetuous ' in getting up this military organization. No. They were Impetuous ' political friends of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. This shows that the hon. Minister of Agriculture was taking counsel in the county not from those who were trying to get up the organization of a regiment of cavalry, but from those who were trying to foist upon the regiment men whom they thought it desirable to appoint to the positions in it. And the Minister of Agriculture says that he has not got so much as his ' impetuous ' friends asked for, but that he had got a good deal. He confesses judgment-he says that he has tried his best to get all that his friends demanded, that he has got a good deal and that they must be satisfied. And what does Colonel Whitley say at page 27 of the same report ? This was read by my hon. friend from Compton, (Mr. Pope) but it will bear repetition:
I think I told you, in Ottawa, my views re the drinking question. I dread an intemperate officer. they are useless, indeed of great harm wherever they appear, and, candidly, I would prefer political opponents to such.
The worst man would be an intemperate officer, but the next would be a political opponent. All through this correspondence, It is plain to be seen that the object these hon. gentlemen had was not to keep this regiment from being made a Tory preserve, but to make it a Liberal preserve. And what does Mr. Brenham say-page 29 ?
Now, if you do not get any applications from any of our fellows, rather than see it go to those fellows in Sweetsburg, I would take a commission and do the best I could, so will leave the matter in your hands and will be satisfied with the results.
Sir, these gentlemen were trying to get their * fellows ' into the regiment. Who were their 'fellows' ? . Their political friends. And they were trying to exclude as far as possible any member of the Baker family, exclude as far as common decency would permit, any Conservatives from the regiment and were trying to get their 'fellows ' in if possible. Now, let me read further on from this same page, 29, a letter from the Minister of Agriculture to a Mr. Clinton :
He and Mr. Parmelee and I have been discussing matters here at length, and Mr. Parmelee and I are satisfied that he is honestly desirous of remedying these mistakes and doing anything he can to meet our views.
Here is Mr. Parmelee brought in now. For what purpose ? Is Mr. Parmelee a military expert ? Does he know anything about the requirements of the militia ? Does he know anything about the military qualifications of these gentlemen ? If he was consulted, he must have been consulted merely as to the political qualifications of I


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 'our fellows' in the different places in which this regiment was being recruited.
It is impossible, however, to make all the changes that our friends would like. .
' Our friends would like.' It was purely from a political standpoint and no other that these appointments were being made.
The most important ones, have, however, been made. Dr. Pickel is not to be given command of the squadron, and Tom. Pickel is to be made lieutenant instead of captain.
When they could not put him out they reduced him in rank.
Clifton Miltimore is to be given a captaincy. We have adopted the plan that men without any military experience as a rule should start as lieutenants. The squadron which was named for Adamsville is to be changed to Cowansville, not Sweetsburg.
No, they would not go into that Tory town of Sweetsburg, but they would go somewhere else-always the political motive at the foundation of everything in the organization of this regiment.
The squadron which was named for Man-sonvile is to be changed to Knowlton.
Many hon. gentlemen may not know that Mansonville in the county of Brome is the place in which Mr. Mansou resides, and that Mr. Manson was an opponent of Mr. Mc-Corkill in the local fight of which I have just spoken. Of course they had to take the squadron out of Mansonville so that it would not be contaminated by Mr. Man-son or any of those bad Tories, and put it in Knowlton which was not such a Tory locality as Mansonville. But is it not a fact that far from being disproved, the statement of Colonel Smart was carried out by all the letters which have been written by my Eon. friend, and my hon. friend has stated before this House time and again that he was determined that this regiment would not be a Tory preserve. Here again we see that the political hand of my hon. friend was busy in meddling in this matter and in trying to keep as many Conservatives out as he could.
Now what are the consequences of all this? The consequences of this intermeddling will have a deterrent effect upon the minds of those who want to join the militia of this country. When men of means, capable of joining the militia force would like to do so, they wall be deterred by the knowledge that if they are Conservatives they will have no advancement and no promotion, that they will be kept out of positions, and that they will get scant justice and even scant courtesy from the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now this country has to choose between the Minister of Agriculture and Lord Dun-donald. My right hon. friend the leader of the House this evening said that he could

not agreee with the last paragraph of the resolution moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He went further, and he said that this last paragraph is not borne out by the facts laid before the House. Sir, it is true that Lord Dundonald, in his statement to the press, has: given other instances of meddling and interference by the Minister of Agriculture. But what came to pass ? This came to pass, that ' the last straw which broke the camel's back ' as the hon. gentleman said last night, was the meddling of my hon. friend in the organization of this squadron in the eastern townships. Ikwas his meddling and interference, when he had no right to do it, because he was interfering from purely political motives, and this is what Lord Dundonald resented. Now we see that the action of the hon. gentleman has culminated in the retirement of Lord Dundonald. in the dismissal of Lord Dundonald, in his being sent away from this country under a cloud, as it were, having his services dispensed with by this government. The country will have to choose between Lord Dundonald and the Minister of Agriculture. I never knew before that my hon. friend was so great an adept in military matters, and I am forcibly reminded of one of the letters of Mr. Dooley entitled ' In peace and in war.' Hon. gentlemen who have read this remarkable book will remember probably that the President of the United States is recruiting some officers to send them to the war, in Cuba against the Spanish, and one man comes up and the president said: 'What kind of pyjamas do you wear ' ? ' Silk pyjamas.' ' Well,' said the president, ' I will make a brigadier general of you.' Sir, I must apologize for having mentioned before this distinguished audience these unmentionables, and I must also apologize for having called to the mind of my listeners the spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture arrayed in his somewhat unmartial rig. Now this Is the question before the House. The country will be called upon to decide, in a short time I hope, between the Minister of Agriculture and Lord Dundonald. We have put the ease before the country. The people know the merits of the question, and I have no doubt that When the time comes to decide, Lord Dundonald will emerge from the discussion what he is now, and what he was when he came to this country, a most useful and experienced soldier, whose reputation the Minister of Agriculture has only endanced in the hearts and minds of every fair minded citizen of Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: Though the hour is late I shall not apologize lot taking up a few minutes in discussing this question. I shall try to make my remarks free from any partisan bias whatever, and aside from any political opinions I may hold. I have for years in this House
taken some interest in military matters, not that I am a military man, but observing from session to session that though we have a membership in this House of 214, whenever a question came up affecting the militia of Canada, rtie discussion was conducted by but very few members. So I felt it my duty in my own humble way to take some part in the discussion of military questions when they came before this House, because the greater part of the members did not do so. Since I have been a member of this House 1 have noticed a vast difference in the military feeling among the members. A good many years ago when the Minister of Militia asked for a reasonable amount to promote the militia he received very little assistance in passing his estimates, although they -were niggardly in amount. During the Conservative regime I always understood, at all events, I never noticed that any partisan Reeling governed the action of the Militia Department in those days.
1 would like to believe to-day that no political feeling is engendered by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence in the administration of his department. I would like to believe that and on that line I am going to proceed with my argument though my remarks will be brief and to the point. It has been said in this discussion and said repeatedly by the hon. Minister of Agriculture that he had no desire to introduce party politics into the militia of this country, that what he did he did in the interest of the militia and that was his sole object and aim. I would like to believe that statement in the interest of the militia, but I do not think the hon. gentleman will pretend to believe that his conduct in this matter was purely non-partisan. His language has been such as to lead me to believe that his conduct was rather partisan, But, the point at issue in this case is simply this : The commander of the forces of Canada, by reason of certain interference, has, in a speech at Montreal, stated that the act of the hon. Minister of Agriculture Was the last straw that broke the camel's back and that by reason of that act the commander of the forces was forced to speak out at the banquet in Montreal. Now, Sir, I am not going to enter into a discussion as to whether he was acting improperly in doing that. I am not going to enter into a discussion as to whether the government are justiSed in dismissing him. That is not the point I am going to discuss. I have always been led to believe in this House that the military forces of this or any other country, I care not where it is, are the most successful that observe strict discipline. I have recognized that there is a head of the militia force. I have recognized that the Minister of Militia is the head of the militia force of this country and that next to him is the commander of the forces. I have looked over the report of the Department of Mili-

tia and Defence which was laid on the table of the House this session and I find that, notwithstanding the quotations of rules and regulations read by the right hon. Prime Minister and by my hon. friend from Montmorency to-night, this report states that:
The present organization of the department, so far as the branches under the control, or supervision, of the General Officer Commanding are concerned, is outlined in a Minute of Council, dated October 29. 1903. which was promulgated as General Order 159, 1903, as follows :



[Stage Direction]
The General Officer Commanding.
1. The. General Officer Commanding shall be charged with the military command and discipline of the militia, shall issue General Orders and hold periodical inspection of the militia. '
He shall be the principal adviser of the Minister of Militia and Defence on all military questions and shall be charged ^ith the control of the branches of the Adjutant General, the Director General of Military Intelligence and Military Secretary, and the general supervision of the other military branches.
He shall be charged with the general distribution and localization of the militia, jand with the selection and proposal to the Minister of Militia and Defence of fit and proper persons to be recommended for commissions in the militia, of fit and proper officers for promotions, for staff and other military appointments, and for military honours and rewards.
Then this goes on to state the duties of the respective branches. It refers to the adjutant's general's branch, the intelligence branch, the military secretary's branch, the quartermaster general's branch, the engineer service branch, the ordnance branch and the medical services branch. It concludes:
All orders or regulations inconsistent with this Order in Council are hereby cancelled.
These are the duties of the various officers whose work is subject to the approval of the commanding officer, who, after he has approved of any matters affecting the forces, submits them to the minister for his approval. In this report I do not see that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has any duties to perform in connection with the militia, and I am giving to the hon. minister of .Agriculture the same rights as the hon. Minister of Finance or any other cabinet minister has and what are they ? They are that when the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence takes his report to Council and these gentlemen sit around the council board, whenever that document is placed before them for their consideration, they are quite within their rights and they are doing their duty as I understand it when they undertake to discuss that document. We have heard a great deal about etiquette in the city of Ottawa. I take it when the commander of the forces referred to etiquette in the city of Ottawa he meant
Andrew B. Ingram: that the hon. Minister of Agriculture, without consulting the head of his department, without consulting the commander of the forces had undertaken to write to certain officers in the eastern townships asking them to accept commissions in the force in which it was no part of his duty, but interfering with the duties of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and the Officer Commanding the forces of this country, thus committing a breach of military etiquette. It does not require a military man to go down to the camp which is now' being held at Rockliffe to discover that a corporal is jealous of his authority and of his rights, that a lieutenant, a captain, a major, or a colonel is jealous of his authority and stands on his dignity in exercising his authority. So it is with the General Officer Commanding the forces. The hon. Minister of Agriculture stated that when the officer commanding the forces telephoned to him and asked him to make some arrangement by which he could discuss this question with him, he gave him to understand that he had an office down town and that if there was anything he desired to consult him about he knew' where to find his office. I would have thought that if Lord Dundonald or the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence desired to consult tie hon. Minister of Agriculture on matters affecting agriculture the least the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence or the commander of the forces could do would be to go to the office of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, but wrhen the hon. Minister of Agriculture wras asked to discuss some matters in which he was interfering and for that purpose to come to the office of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence it would not have been undignified on the part of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to have done so, and it certainly would have been more in line with the discipline of the militia of this country. He was dealing with a question affecting the militia of Canada in a department wdth which he had nothing to do other than any other Minister of the Crown has occasionally to deal writh certain matters coming before the Privy Council of which he is a member. I do not deny him the right to deal with these matters at the Privy Council but the hon. Minister of Agriculture had a right to go and consult the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and the commander of the forces, if he felt disposed to do so. I want to say that if this hon. gentleman had shown a disposition to make matters easy for the commander of the forces, if he had not desired to create dissensions amongst military men or put obstacles in the way of the commander of the forces, if his sole desire was to promote the welfare of the militia in the eastern townships the least he could have done would have been to have gone to the Department of Militia and Defence and there to have sat quietly down and dis-

cussed this matter with the commander of the forces. I am sure that Lord Duudonald would have quietly sat down with him and discussed this matter and that if he had suggested anything that Lord Dundonald deemed to be in the interest of the militia or in the interest of that portion of the force in the eastern townships he would have been only too glad to have accepted the suggestion.
That in my judgment would have been a proper course to pursue. A good deal has been said about Lord Dtpidonald in this House. I have watched closely and read extensively of the career of that gentleman in South Africa and it struck me that the language used was not justified by his career. The language was harsh and in my judgment uncalled for. Lord Dundonald is human like the rest of us, and he may have his faults. I heard the Prime Minister say let ' him who is without sin cast the first stone.' If he had erred in this case, I suppose he must suffer to the extent of his error, but whatever his error might have been I am quite within the mark when I say that his hearty whole-souled desire was for the welfare of the militia of this country and not for his own advancement. No man will charge him with being a political partisan. He has had a great deal of experience as an officer for many years, and now after one year in Canada we are "told that he is unfit to command the militia of Canada.
We have heard a good deal about his report. Last year when the report of the Militia Department was laid on the table

and I take sufficient interest in the militia to read carefully every word submitted by that department for consideration-I discovered that there was a second report not published, and like two or three other members on this side-who take a lively interest in military matters, I was eager to know the contents of that report, because it occurred to me if we have an officer as capable as Lord Dundonald, capable enough to be sent by the British authorities to Canada, to take charge of our militia, any suggestions that he might have to offer to the people would be worthy of perusal and of consideration, and of examination in order to see whether the suggestions offered were such as the people of this country ought to adopt. I have here a report that was placed before the Privy Council, a document with the 13tli Dragoons struck out on the 14th of May. That was done while it was before council. Why ? On account of certain interference by the Minister of Agriculture,' certain objections he raised to certain persons on the list, in connection with the military organization in the eastern townships. Again on the 19th of May, the Minister of Agriculture struck out the name of Dr. Pickel, in the name of the Minister of Militia. If the Minister of Agriculture was requested to act in the place of the Minister of Militia on that
particular occasion, the 19th instant, and if he on that morning had received a document from Colonel Smart to the effect that he wanted the name of Mr. Pickel struck out I would go so far as to say the Minister of Agriculture acting on behalf of the Minister of Militia, had a perfect right to strike it out, but when I go that far I call the attention to the fact, that he interfered previous to that, and had written letters in order to block Mr. Pickel in this matter when he was not acting as Minister of Militia. There is where the sin and the partisanship on the part of the Minister of Agriculture came in. He was not acting as the Minister of Militia, but was acting the part of a partisan. I would like to draw attention to a little matter in my own experience some few years ago and from this experience and the debate which is drawing to a close, I am bound to say that if the people of this country make a change from an officer who comes to this country from England and place the militia in the hands of a Canadian officer, we will have many instances of this kind occurring. On Wednesday, November 7th, 1900, we had a general election. In 1900 we had an estimate brought down in this House for a grant for an armoury, in the city of St. Thomas, of $8,000. The ground was bought on May 21, 1900. In 1901 we had placed in the estimates $24,000 in one case and $7,000 in another, a total in all of $39,000 for a drill hall and armoury in St. Thomas. The election took place on the 7th of November, but no contract was let, and no money was voted beyond the $8,000, but on November 3rd, four days previous to the general election although no contract had been let, the Minister of Public Works came to St. Thomas brought several soldiers there, and the Minister of Public Works went down and turned the first sod of an armoury for the building of which not one dollar had been voted by parliament. I think that comment is unnecessary; I shall simply place that on record and leave the House to judge whether there has been any partisan interference in this department. Last session I heard a gentleman make one of the best military speeches I have heard in this House for many years, a gentleman trusted by this government who filled a very important position in London, during the Jubillee. I refer to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson). I am bound to say that he spoke without any partisan feeling. His remarks were approved by members on both sides. After the hundreds of thousands of dollars which we had expended in this country for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the militia the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) rose and among other things said :
I have shown that we were called upon to furnish the skeleton of a skeleton. I now state that we have actually turned out the shadow of a skeleton of a skeleton. Can anything so
\

ghost-like be longer called a militia force? .	.	*	* I know the case of one company
which this year had two officers and six noncommissioned officers to command two men, one of whom was the cook.
This is a statement made not by any partisan on this side, bnt by a government supporter in a non-partisan spirit. And in view of the fact of our having some 4,000 miles of boundary line, between this country and the United States, it is not too much to say that Lord Dundonald's remarks were quite justified, when he said that we are living in a fools paradise.
So we are ; there is no question about it. If anything should occur between the United States and Canada, which God forbid, should we not in time of peace prepare for war ? The very fact that we are preparing for war is the reason we shall have peace maintained in the country. If the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding are not to be considered, what is the use of having a man of that , character come to this country ? It is simply a waste of time and a waste of money. When this report is kept from the people of this country we are not in a position to judge of it. Some hon. gentlemen say, why should we be allowed to consider it ? If hon. gentlemen will take the pains to go into the library and turn up the militia reports submitted to this House from year to year, they will find that certain recommendations are made in all those reports by the General Officer Commanding, the deputy minister and other officers, which are not carried out. Some are carried out and some are not carried out. In view of that fact, is there any. harm in the commander of the forces having his suggestions embodied in the report ? If parliament does not feel disposed to adopt any of them, well and good. The majority in parliament have that power. I think this unfortunate occurrence is greatly to be regretted, and nobody will regret it more than the militia of this country.
I am called on to-night to cast a vote for the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition. I have heard that amendment criticised. I have heard the question asked, why have you not moved a resolution condemning the government for dismissing Lord Dundonald V I suppose that when Lord Dundonald made his statement in Montreal, he knew what he was doing. I presume that in making that statement, he felt that the breach would be made so wide between the government and himself that it would be utterly impossible for him to remain in the service any longer. Therefore it is not for the leader of the opposition to move in respect to that. What has he moved ? That
The selection and appointment of officers In the miiMtia should be made without regard to party political considerations which if permitted to exercise an influence will prove disastrous to the efficiency of the force.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am glad to support that part of this amendment.
That while the Minister of Militia is charged with and responsible for the administration of militia affairs the General Officer Commanding is by law charged under the orders of His Majesty with the military command and discipline of the militia and with the duty of recommending to the Minister of Militia fit and proper persons for appointment to commissions therein.
Surely there can be no objection to that, because, if we are to believe the Minister of Agriculture, that is exactly his idea, though I am sorry to say that he has departed from it. Then we have this important part:
That the conduct of the Honourable Sydney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, in interfering with the commanding officer of the Thirteenth Scottish Light Dragoons while that officer was engaged in the duty of selecting his subordinate officers for the approval of and for recommendation by the General Officer Commanding ; and the action of that minister in interposing party political influence between the General Officer Commanding and his officers and in requiring recommendations and appointments to be made or disallowed from party considerations, deserves and should receive the censure of this House.
I can support that because the hon. gentleman tMr. Fisher) has himself admitted that he acted in a partisan manner in the formation of this corps in the eastern townships. Then, finally :
The House regret's that this unwarrantable interference has been approved by the government, and that it net only has unduly delayed the organization of the regiment, but has culminated in depriving the militia of Canada of an experienced and distinguished commanding officer.
Sir, I regret the latter portion of this amendment exceedingly, in view of the treatment meted out to that distinguished gentleman by the Minister of Agriculture, who had no more right to interfere with the selection of those officers and with Colonel Smart, even in a non-partisan sense, than I or any other member of this House had. When he interfered without consulting the head of the Militia Department or the commander of the forces, he acted as this! amendment says, in a partisan spirit, and in a way that cannot be justified by any one who has the welfare of the militia of this country at heart.


Mr. E. HACKETT (West Prince).: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, 1 would like to ask the bon. Minister of Agriculture, who it appears is the Minister of Militia, has any trouble arisen in Prince Edward Island with regard to the militia camps ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot give the hon. gentleman any answer.

the government or to the head of any department by subordinates, unless they relate to mere questions of fact and routine and the every day transactions of the department- that all reports in which are implied questions of policy-are from their very nature confidential, and remain confidential until in the judgment of the minister they become the contrary. This is a broad statement to make, perhaps, but I make it on authority. I have already quoted Todd, who is acknowledged to be the best writer on this subject. Let me call the attention of hon. gentlemen to what he says on this point:
The system of laying upon the table of the House reports from officers addressed to particular departments of the executive government is most objectionable. And the House ought not to insist ' upon the production of papers and correspondence which concerned the preparation and preliminary consideration of measures ; they would thereby put a stop to-that freedom of criticism which was always invited on such occasions, and which contributed so much to the perfection of public measures.' If the House were to insist upon the production of such documents, instead of the government getting what we get now, confidential reports, containing the most minute details of the opinion of oflicers, given frankly and freely, for the heads of departments, we shall have a system of reports framed for laying upon the table of the House of Commons, and those will be accompanied by ' confidential reports for the head of the department alone.' There have been cases in which reports of a confidential character from officers of the government have been laid upon .the table of the House, to prepare the public mind, and also that of parliament, to cons.ent to some large measure, or perhaps some considerable vote of public money ; but, generally I think it is a course which the House ought not to sanction.'


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Will the right hon. gentleman say whether that is Todd in Canada ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, that is Todd in England. That is not simply the opinion of Todd. It is a series of quotations from speeches delivered in parliament by the great leaders who have brought the law of parliament from time to time up to its present perfection. The last quotation of all is from Mr. Disraeli, who says :
There have been cases In which reports of a confidential character from officers of the government have been laid upon the table of the House to prepare the public mind, and also that of parliament, to consent to some large measure, or perhaps some considerable vote of public money.
This would have been the case here. The report of Lord Dundonald, I understand, would have been a preparation for a large expenditure of public money ; but Mr. Disraeli said :
But generally I think it is a course which the House ought not to sanction.
There is implied in this that such a report might be brought down at some time ; but this is a matter of governmental responsibility, on which parliament is to depend, unless there is a vote of censure. But the minister is absolutely free to follow his own opinion in this respect, and not to follow the dictum of the gentleman who is appointed as his adviser.
I may be told that this is antiquated law. Well, there is something more recent than that, which I now give to the House. I have stated that though the question of supremacy as between the military and the civil power in England has been settled more than a hundred years ago, and settled in favour of the civil power, still every now and then there is an attempt made to revive the old rule and to bring back the military power in control. Not later than two years ago, there was at the head of the army in Great Britain a gentleman who has left a record dear to the hearts of Canadians-Lord Wolseley. He was the Commander in Chief ; and strange to say-or perhaps I should say, natural to say- even such a soldier as Lord Wolseley, a man acknowledged to be prudent in his course and in his views, had a difference of opinion with the Secretary of State for war. He offered advice to the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for War, like my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, would not follow that advice. Then Lord Wolseley did what I think Lord Dundonald, if he had been better advised, should have done also :	he placed his resignation in the hands of the government. If Lord Dundonald had followed that course- and he says he had the idea in his mind- if, instead of taking the violent, the extreme, the unpardonable course of committing a breach of discipline, he had resigned, and placed his resignation on paper, he could have brought before parliament everything he wanted to bring. It could not have been pigeon-holed, as he suggested, but it would have been brought before the House, and the House could have judged of it. Lord Wolseley took the better course of resigning, and some time afterwards on the floor of the House of Lords, he gave expression to his views. On the 4th March, 1901, be addressed the House of Lords and criticised the administration of the War Office, and the nature of the relationship between the Commander in Chief and Secretary of State for War. Lord Lansdowne, who was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied in the House of Lords, and made use of the following language, which will be found in the Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, Yol. 90, page 356
In another part of the statement of the noble Viscount, he told the House that he thought it was extremely necessary in the interests of public safety, that when the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of State for war were 1 unable to agree, the public should be taken



into our confidence, and that we should leave the public, as it were, to choose between the two.
I am afraid that that is somewhat a council of perfection. Does the noble and gallant Viscount think that the government of this country would be possible, that the administratipn of the War Office would be practicable, if, whenever the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief were not at one, their arguments were to be publicly paraded and to form the subject of controversies in the press or on the platform. I cannot conceive a more fatal arrangement, than that there should be disputes of this kind in the eye of the public. The noble and gallant Viscount is' a great supporter of a very popular institution called the Military Tournament. I should be very sorry if the Secretary of State were obliged to take part in a military tournament of the kind which the noble and gallant Viscount suggests.
Now I pause and ask the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite : Is not the language of Lord Lansdowne applicable, in every particular to the case we have in hand ? If you substitute for Lord Wolseley, Lord Dundonald, and for the Secretary of State for War, the Canadian Minister of Militia, you have our case in every particular. The following day the debate was participated in by Lord Salisbury, and I commend the language of Lord Salisbury as that of one who has always been noted for his Conservative tendencies and strong, rugged com-mon'sense. This is what he said :
It is said of a certain class of correspondent that the important observation always comes at the end. I think that applies to the speech of the noble and gallant Viscount. He told us, not as one of the main points on which he was insisting, but as something which occurred to him at the end, and which ought to be mentioned before he sat down, what was his solution of any difficulties that might arise if the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State were not of the same mind. I think he puzzled the House. He said we were to take the people into our confidence, and .to tell the press what we thought, and then the question at issue was to be discussed openly. How you were to decide which party was to be victorious, I do not know, but the result of the battle royal was to determine the particular decision on which the office was divided. I allude to this because I think it is a matter which is really at the bottom of our difficulty. I do not think the disputants, especially if they are military disputants, have entirely realized that the army is under parliament and that the minister who controls the army does it as one who is responsible to parliament and represents all the authority which parliament possesses. Unless you keep that steadily In mind, no doubt you will see many anomalies in our military system, and its relations to the civil power. But it is no use comparing our army with the army of France or of America, or of Germany or of Russia. They all differ in that one point, that the parliamentary system of governing the army does not exist among them. We must accommodate ourselves to the present state of things. Everybody knows historically how it has grown up, and everybody knows that it is intertwined too closely with all the fibres of our constitution Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to justify any one who forms his projects and bases his reasoning on the supposition that this relation can be modified. At the end we must have an army governed by parliament, governed by a minister who is responsible to parliament, and in any difference of opinion, whatever it may he, the Commander in Chief must be a subordinate of the Secretary of State.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (reading)-
Military men may not like that, but there it is. It is one of the bed rock circumstances of the situation, something from which you cannot depart ; and you must devote your hands to making it work and it has worked in the main hitherto very well.
Yes, I think it has worked very well in England.
And take care that it produces in the future, i as it has produced in the past, results which it would have been impossible to produce in any foreign country. I feel that this debate will be lost upon us unless we take care to guide ourselves by that chief and predominant principle. In speech after speech from military men, men who know the language and spirit of the War Office, it is easy to detect a desire that military problems shall only be solved by military men ; but any attempt to take the opinion of the expert above the opinion of the politician must, in view of all the circumstances of our constitution, inevitably fail. It must not be supposed that in such contests the expert must win. In all these discussions there is an evident and growing desire to shake free of this necessity.
I thought I traced it even in the peroration of the noble Earl, although I am sure he is too good and constitutional a statesman to entertain any idea that the existing system can be radically changed. That is where the shoe pinches-that the men who know, or who ought to know, namely, the experts, are not the men to decide the 'dispute in question ; but the decision, if it accords with their view at all, must be brought about by the concession of the civilian and the politician.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, If this doctrine had been asserted by me, without saying from whom it came, there would have been a howl from the other side. But this is the true constitutional doctrine. I was told this afternoon that I was a separatist, that my heart was not with British Institutions. Sir, I am proud to say once more, as I have said many times that from my boyhood I have been a true adherent of British institutions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I say more, I claim that I understand-and in saying this I do not think I am boasting-British institutions far better than many hon. gentlemen on the other side who try to assail me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: When Viscount Wolseley had a difference with the War Office and wanted to bring that difference before parliament and the people, and allow the people to judge between the two, what did the War Office decide ? It decided that Viscount Wolseley, illustrious general as he is, was subordinate to the civil power, and that if the views he submitted to the civil power were not acceptable, there was no help for it and he had fo submit. Sir, we assert nothing else in this matter. But I will say more. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia, in his anxiety to do the best he could for the militia, went further than anybody in his position would have gone in England. He submitted last year to the opposition a proposition both wise and patriotic. He stated to the opposition that he had received a plan which he did not endorse, and which, in his opinion, it would be a grevious mistake to make public. But as perhaps there might be some good in it, he offered to hon. gentlemen opposite to have a committee formed, on which they would be represented, so that both sides might examine into this plan, but because there were things in it which it would not be wise to divulge to the world, the proceedings of that committee should not be made public, but be kept secret. This offer was not accepted last year, but nobody then made it a grievance against my hon. friend that he did not parade before the whole world not only our resources, but our weaknesses as well, and under the circumstances it seems to me that the position taken by the government to-day is absolute unassailable. It also seems to me that the position taken by Lord Dundonald cannot be justified from the point of view of constitutional government. What Lord Dundonald wanted was to assert the supremacy of the military power over the civil ; but, as my hon. friend the Minister of Militia said yesterday, so long at all events as there is a Liberal government in Canada, the civil power shall rule over the military.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID [DOT] LAURIER. Let me now pass to another subject which has been the proximate cause of all the difficulties between Lord Dundonald and the Minister of Militia. I refer to the recommendations which were sent to Council by the Department of Militia for the organization of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons. On the 19th of May, Lord Dundonald signed a recommendation to Council. That recommendation came back from Council with a name erased by a member of the cabinet. This seems to have been in the eyes of Lord Dundonald a most grievous offence. I do not wish to say anything offensive; but, if I am to con strue according to what seems to me the only sense possible, the speech which was delivered in Montreal some few days ago, 176$
Lord Dundonald regarded it as an offence that, he having put his pen to a document, anybody else should put his pen to that document afterwards ; he having stated that such and such appointments should be made, those appointments should stand whether they were good or whether they were bad. Now, some time ago I stated in the House that Lord Dundonald having so recently come to the country and never having been in the eastern townships could not know the men he was recommending. I speak under correction ; he may have known one or two, but I doubt if he knew more. I doubt, if he knew, for instance, Dr. Pickel, When the recommendation came to Council from Lord Dundonald, it was known to every man in the Council that Lord Dundonald had taken his information second hand, that he must have received from somebody recommendations as to these appointments. He tells us that he had got it from the gentleman whom he had entrusted with the recruiting of the regiment. So far so good. But, if there was at the Council a gentleman who could say : I come from the part of the country where this regiment is to be recruited; I know the gentlemen whose names appear on the list and I approve of all of them except one ; this one, Dr. Pickel, in my estimation is not qualified for the position to which it is proposed to appoint him ; he has never taken an interest in the militia and I assert that it is not right, it is not conducive to the best interest of the regiment and of the militia that this gentleman, who has no military qualification, should be put in such an important post as major if there were at the Council a gentleman able to speak such words with the authority of local knowledge, will any hon. gentleman on the other side say that it was an offence against the dignity of Lord Dundonald for the Council to be influenced by such representations? Will any hon. gentleman say that it was not, I will not say the right only, but the duty of that hon. gentleman to declare his bonest convictions ? Yet the head and front of the Minister of Agriculture's offending had this extent, no more.
Sir, I will not go into the minute, petty question whether or not my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture had the right to sign that, document for the Minister of Militia. I see before me my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) ; he is an old parliamentarian, and he knows that every day a colleague signs for a colleague and that the recommendation so signed goes before the Council and is dealt with by the Council. That ought to be a sufficient answer to such petty, miserable criticism. But, there is something more. Wonders will never cease,-the once proud Conservative party, in their downward career, have come to this-that yesterday we heard from one of the leaders of that party, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) a

declaration that the General Officer Commander should be given carte blanche. The General Officer Commanding, is appointed by this government and occupies a subordinate position. But, according to the hon. gentleman he should be given carte blanche and whatever he does should be accepted; the minister and the cabinet should be simply recording clerks of his will. And this is the policy of the once great Conservative party. My reading of history has informed me-and no doubt my hon. friend from Victoria, N.S., who is an old veteran in the cause of reform, has the recollection that there was a time in Canada When we had militia authorities to govern us. Those were the old times of the Family Compact, when the military authorities were surrounded by a crowd of sycophants and minions, who could dispose of the public domain for their own benefit and that of their favourites. I do not know how the new doctrine will strike the whole province of Ontario. But if the names of Brown and Mackenzie have not been erased from the memory of the people there, I can imagine how the Grits of Ontario will receive it. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier went even further. Having stated that we should give carte blanche to the General Officer Commanding, he went on to the conclusion, which was inevitable from his premises, that we had acted very wrongly in relieving Lord Dundonald of his command. He went further still ; he told us that the treatment which we had meted out to Lord Dundonald was harsh and cruel. How harsh and cruel ? That it was painful to those who had to inflict it is undoubted ; but if it could have been avoided, I confess I do not see how. We were told to-day that we might have done in the case of Lord Dundonald what was done in the case of Lord Charles Beres-ford. Certainly we might, if the cases had been alike. If, like Lord Charles Beresford, Lord Dundonald had apologized for his conduct, certainly we would have treated him as Lord Charles Beresford was treated. Lord Charles Beresford had written a letter which was published without his consent and he so declared. But Lord Dundonald went to Montreal for the very purpose of bringing on this scandal. Therefore, there was nothing to do but what we did. For our course we have abundance of authority in the mother country. Only two years ago, just after the conclusion of the South African war, General Colville had a disagreement with some of his brother officers. He was charged with not having done his full duty under certain circumstances in South Africa, and with having left a certain portion of the army in great distress, whereas, if he had been more active and determined he might have relieved it. The War Office took a lenient view of the accusations against General Colville. They did not dismiss him ; they did not deprive him of his Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
rank ; they gave him a command in Gibraltar. But when General Colville had been given this new command he made the great mistake of going before the public, of writing for publication in the press, commenting upon those who had brought the accusations against him. And what happened then ? He was at once relieved of his command. The debate upon the subject is instructive. The War Office had taken a lenient view of General Colville's case. But, when he sought to bring his complaint before the tribunal of public opinion, instead of laying it before the Commander in Chief, the measure of his offences was full. The matter was brought before parliament by Mr. Charles Douglas. I quote from the speech of that gentleman as reported in ' Hansard ' page 1251 :
A very considerable prejudice had been created against General Colville by the fact that he had published in the newspapers a statement of his treatment by the War Office. He did not defend that action of General Colville's. It was most desirable and necessary that they should uphold and fortify the great traditions of army reticence. Sometimes it led to hardship, but it was essential to discipline, and more than ever necessary now in view of the extreme activity displayed by the newspapers. He did not defend General Colville's action, but hoped the House would allow him to submit one or two considerations in regard to it. In the first place reticence could not be all on one side. If their generals were never to take means of vindicating themselves publicly, then he ventured to think that a little reticence should be observed by the War Office.
When General Colville returned to this country the first thing he saw was a newspaper paragraph which was obviously inspired.
Now mark the answer which was made by Mr. Brodrick, Secretary of State for War:
The question is whether a public stigma would have been put upon General Colville. That is what I wished to avoid. After that General Colville's action cannot be defended by any one. He left for England. He did not avail himself of his right of appeal to the Commander in CShief. He made no representations to the War Office. He immediately published what he called a justification, but which consisted rather of an attack upon the staff officers in the Transvaal ; and which also included, I regret to say, what appeared to be some ungenerous sneers against the cavalry whom he had found it impossible to relieve. And obviously it is impossible that officers, whether on the full paylist or the half paylist, should be allowed to make reflections on their superiors as General Colville did. He was placed on retired pay, and any officer who follows his example will necessarily share the same fate.
Sir, it seems to me this is conclusive, and is the fullest justification that can be offered to the House of the painful course we had to take against so distinguished an officer as Lord Dundonald. I am free to say, even at this moment, after all the painful explanations we have had, after the indiscretions committed by Lord Dundonald, that for

my part I look back with extreme regret upon the lack of judgment which has impelled Lord Dundonald so far to forget himself, so far to forget his position, so far to forget what was due to him and to his command, as to take the course he did. But law must be maintained, law exists for . everybody, military law as well as civil law; and military law ought to be observed above all others by the general who is at the head of the militia. Further upon this point I have no more to say.
Now X may be allowed perhaps to do what I very seldom do. I may be allowed to say a word about myself personally. Some days ago, speaking ,in this House, I made use of an expression which was not in my mind but which came to my lips. I corrected it immediately. The word which I had in my mind was the word ' stranger ' but I used another word. Sir, in my experience of many years I have never heard it called in question until to-day that a man may not be allowed an opportunity to correct a slip of the. tongue. I have heard slips of the tongue more than once, I have heard one today, I heard one yesterday, some gentlemen using the words ' Minister of Agriculture ' when he wanted to say ' Minister of Militia,' another saying ' Minister of Militia' when he wanted to say ' Minister of Agriculture.' These mistakes will occur. A man may want to speak of the city of Toronto, and may say the city of Montreal. But according to the new code of ethics which I find on the other side of the House, no man is to be allowed to correct any slip of that kind. Sir, I bow to this new law- which I hope, however, will never be the law on this side of the House, a law which we will never apply to the other side. I bow to it, but X wish to say to these gentlemen on the other side of the House whom I see before me and who call me to account for having had the misfortune, nay, not the misfortune, but the mere accident of slip of the tongue. I say to them : Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Sir, I have been told that my meaning was contemplated, was offensive and insulting. I have been in this House for many years, I have seen some of the veterans of former combats pass away, I have been engaged in combats with some of them, X have fought a good many hard struggles,, but I am not conscious in ail the years of my life, in all the struggles in which I have been engaged with gentlemen on the other side of the House, I am not conscious that I ever deliberately used an offensive word towards any man or towards any class. I never sought a fight, but I was never afraid of a fight. Whenever I had to fight, I think it will be admitted by friend and foe that I always fought with fair weapons. I have been told to-day on the floor of this House twice that when I used the word ' foreigner ' there was in my heart a sinster motive, there was in my heart a feeling which found expression. Sir, I have only
this to say. I disdain to make reply to such an insinuation. If sixty years of what I believe to be after all an honourable life, a life which has certainly been one of loyal devotion to British institutions, is not a sufficient answer to such an insinuation, I will not attempt to make an answer. I have been told in the press, not in this House, that the word which I substituted for the word I used, the word ' stranger ' which X substituted, was just as offensive and insulting as the other. Well, Sir, I do not pretend to be a master of the English language, but I do claim, without I think undue boasting, to have some knowledge of it. When I saw in the press that the word ' stranger ' which I had applied to Lord Dundonald was offensive and insulting, X must confess that I was surprised, and I proceeded to brush up my literature ; I went to the sources, I went to the dictionary as the first source, I went to the lajtesj; dictionary, the Standard, to find the definition of the word ' stranger.' Like many other words in the English language, like many other words in the French language, like many other words in the Latin language, and probably in all the languages, this word has more than one signification. Here they are :
Stranger. 1. One is not an acquaintance ; a person unknown ; as, I was accosted by a stranger.
2. One not a member of the household ; a visitor ; guest ; as, children should not talk when strangers are at the table. 3. A person coming from another country or a distant region ; a foirqigndr ; also, a person coming from another place, though in the same country ; as, he had the air of a stranger ; a stranger in a strange land. 4. One unacquainted or unfamiliar with something specified ; one not versed or experienced ; one mentally or spiritually remote ; with to ; as, he is a stranger to learning and culture. 5. Law. Any person who is neither a party to a transaction nor privy to it.
The Standard Dictionary quotes General Grant, speaking of his appointment to the army of the Potomac in the spring of 1864, saying :
I was a stranger to most of the army of the Potomac ; I might say to all except the officers of the regular army who have served in the Mexican war.
Very few researches brought to me an abundance of precedents. In the ' Story of the Revolution ' Henry Cabot Lodge, the author, speaking of a visit by Washington coming from Virginia to Massachusetts, says :
The people were evidently with him. They looked upon him as he rode down the lines and were content. The popular movement had found its leader and the popular instinct recognized him. Yet, Washington came to the men of New England a * stranger.'
But, I am accustomed to the loyalty of hon. gentleman on the other side of whiah

we hare Bad such evidence to-day. Perhaps they will not accept these American writers. Let us come back then to British authors, and if there is an opinion which ought to be apposite in a matter of this kind, since I am told that I have insulted [DOT] my fellow countrymen of the Scottish race, let me quote from Sir Walter Scott. We find in his book ' The Pirate ' that, speaking of a Mr. Mertoum, an Englishman who was visiting the Shetland Islands, he says :
No 'one asked him whence he came, where he was going, what was his purpose in visiting so remote a corner of the empire, or what was likely to be the term of hiis stay. He arrived a perfect stranger, yet was instantly overpowered by a succession of invitations.
But, that is not all. Let us come nearer home. I have here in my hands the life of Lord Lawrence by Sir Richard Temple. In one of the chapters Sir Richard Temple speaks of the difficulties of every new viceroy sent from England to India. He says :
Usually a new Viceroy and Governor General is, on landing in India, really new in every sense. The European officers, the Native princes, chiefs and people, are strangers to him as he is personally unknown to them.
Here we are very near home when we are in another portion of the British empire, but let us come to Canada itself. There have been commanding officers of the militia before Lord Dundonald. There was one in 1875. His name was Sir Selby Smith. He wrote a report to the Minister of Militia of that day which is to be found in a blue-book of 1875 and here it is :
Headquarters, Ottawa,
January, 1875.
The Hon. the
Minister of Militia and Defence, &c., &c, &e.
Sir,-The Militia Reports which have been presented to parliament for several years past, have treated exhaustively the question of its organization and development.
It will therefore be my duty to confine myself to a few condensed remarks, as to the probable improvement of the Dominion forces.
I approach the subject with hesitation, having so recently arrived for the first time in Canada. I would hardly do so at all, but from the experience gained in my late journey through the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
To Nova Scotia and New Brunswick I am still a stranger.
Now, Sir, it seems to me that my vindication ought to be complete, but I know that to-morrow and the day after to-morrow and every day and every week and every month, so long as there are some of those instincts which are now prevalent, in order to defeat a fair opponent, I shall be traduced before my fellow countrymen as having tried to malign and insult them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, there is an echo.	1


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let me say this to that hon. gentleman that I am familiar with these appeals to passion and prejudice. In my own province-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 want to tell the right hon. gentleman that I have never appealed to passion or prejudice-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.
Mr. SPROULE-to race or religion and I defy him or any man to say that I have done so, I do not care who he is.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my own province the allies of the hon. gentleman, those who fight with him, have traduced me for years as a traitor to my race and religion. But, the cry is getting stale and a new one has to be invented. I have no more fear of this one than I had of the other. My experience has convinced me, toy experience has proved to me that in this good land of Canada, in all sections thereof, in all classes thereof, in all races thereof, in all creeds thereof appeals to prejudice may create a flurry df excitement but, they will invariably end in producing nothing but contempt in the hearts and minds of an intelligent and honest people.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: The taunt has been thrpwn across the floor of the House several times by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that we have forsaken the cause of Lord Dundonald, that we have nothing to say in his defence. Let me say at the very outset of the few remarks which 1 am to offer to the House that Lord Dundonald needs no defence from me or from a'ny member of this House especially from this side of the House. The name of Lord Dundonald today has become a household word in almost every house in the Dominion of Canada. His defence is in the mouth of every patriotic, loyal and unbiased citizen of this country. Sir, we are now in the times when our young men assemble in the camps, and I have no doubt that every evening around the camp fire the youth of this country are discussing this question and that there are very few if there are any at all of the members of the militia force so assembled in camp who have not the praises of Lord Dundonald on their lips. But, Sir, coming from the province of Quebec, not at all that I believe I represent the province of Quebec, but, I am sure I represent the vast majority of those from the province of Quebec who are members of the militia when I say that if Lord Dundonald's praise is in the mouth of everybody outside of the province of Quebec that same praise is in the mouths of those who form the portion of the militia in the province of Quebec. I have taken particular pains to question my fellow countrymen, not now, but

ever since Dundonald has had anything to do with the militia of Canada and the reply which I have received from the French Canadian officers has been that he has been the best commander in chief of the forces that they ever had.
Sir, he has always made himself especially agreeable to the French Canadian officers, speaking their language to them and showing them every mark of confidence and courtesy which one gentleman could show to another. I was struck by one part of the speech made by the right hon, gentleman, the lesson he read to the Minister of Militia and Defence. Last evening the Minister of Militia and Defence spoke of Lord Dundonald but did not at all speak in those terms which the right hon. the leader of the House has employed this evening. On the contrary I must say that I was pained at the tone used by the Minister of Militia, and 1 can see no better campaign literature for this party than to distribute all through Canada the speech made last night by the Minister of Militia. If I had anything to do with the organization of the party 1 would have that speech printed by the thousand and distributed all over the Dominion. What do we find ? We find the Minister of Militia constantly contrasting the nobleman, the patrician, with the humble colonial and the plebeian. It seems to me that it comes with very bad grace from the mouth of the Minister of Militia and Defence who not long ago, received the decoration of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and wears upon his breast the star of that ordter, and is entitled 'to be called to-day ' Sir Frederick Borden.' I do not see why these sneers are cast upon the British aristocracy and especially upon Lord Dundonald because the Minister of Militia must have remembered that while it is true that Lord Dundonald was born a nobleman, he has also carved with his sword a great name upon the annals of the empire. Sir, I am an admirer of the British aristocracy. Whilst in other countries the scions of great houses seem- to have forgotten the role they are called upon to play in the different vocations in which they should be engaged, in Great Britain, on the contrary, the heirs of the great names have remained faithful to the traditions of their race, and whether it be in peace or war, we find these great men taking their share either in defending the country in time of war or conductin'-its councils in time of peace.
Another insinuation which my hon. triend threw across the floor of the House against Lord Dundonald was that probably the action which he had seen fit to take when he made his speech at Montreal, knowing that in consequence of that speech he would probably have to separate himself from the militia of Canada was due to the fact that there was a scheme shortly to be placed before parliament by which the office of Commander in Chief was to be abolished.
As if Lord Dundonald was to be influenced in any of his actions by the paltry salary of $4,000 which the country had been paying him for his valuable services ! Then again I was pained to hear the Minister of Militia making another insinuation and a more serious one against the noble lord the late General Officer Commanding, when he insinuated, speaking of the ordnance department, in the two cases of Lieutenant-Colonel Roy and Lieutenant-Colonel Belanger, that probably it was on account of their nationality, of their being French Canadians, that he complained of their elevation to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. I think this was an unworthy insinuation, unworthy of my hon. friend and of the position which he occupies. My hon. friend growing eloquent just now, in speaking of arousing race prejudices, accused this side of the House of having done that. I would like to know what the Minister of Militia had in mind, and what the editors of the government organs have in mind, when they- incite these animosities and say that one of the motives of Lord Dundonald in this case was that he made a difference between a French Canadian officer and an officer of another origin. It seems to me that the strong point of the government on which they have rested their case, was that Lord Dundonald was guilty of a gross breach of discipline in making the speech he did. These are the regulations of the British army which govern the British forces. The minister when he quoted these regulations was quoting something absolutely outside the case of Lord Dundonald. The regulation says :
The- regulations1 of the British army, .which govern the Canadian force in all matters not specially provided for, prohibit ' deliberations or discussion by officers of soldiers with the object of conveying praise, censure, or any mark of approbation towards their superiors or any others in His Majesty's service.'
The regulations for the militia of Canada lay down the rule that ' it cannot be permitted that (officers) shall bring accusations against superior officers or comrades.
What is meant here by ' superior officers? ' Not the Minister of Militia, not any minister, but a superior officer in military command, because this word is certainly limited by the next words * or comrades ' which means comrades in arms, and I would like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture was the superior officer of Lord Dundonald on that occasion. Let me read this part of the Order in Council again.
The regulation for the militia of Canada, lay down the rule that ' it cannot be permitted that (officers) shall bring accusations against superior officers or comrades before the tribunal of public opinion, either by speech or letters inserted in any newspaper ; such a proceeding would be in glaring violation of the rules of military discipline, and in contempt of authority.'

If these are the rules which are to govern this case, is it not a fact that at every military banquet which the minister attends where officers laud the minister for what he has done for the militia, they should be summarily dismissed by this government V It shows that these regulations quoted in the Order in Council and again to-night, are absolutely beside the mark and have absolutely nothing to do with the case in point. They have to rest their case on this flimsy argument which cannot stand the light of the least examination for one minute. My hon. friend has tried to define the duties and obligations of the officer commanding from English authority. No hon. member on this side enunciated the extreme doctrine which my hon. friend tried to put in the mouths of hon. gentlemen on this side this afternoon that the General Officer Commanding was delegated here from the British government to represent the British government in matters military. Nobody on this side ever heard of such a doctrine. No newspaper or organ on this side ever promulgated such a proposition before the patient people of this country. The duties of the General Officer Commanding are laid down in the statute which my hon. friend quoted this evening. The statute says :
There shall be appointed an officer who holds the rank of colonel or rank superior thereto in Her Majesty's regular army, who shall be charged, under the orders of Her Majesty, with the military command and discipline of the militia, and who, while he holds such appointment, shall have the rank of major general in the militia, and shall be paid at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum in full of all pay and allowances.
Now, Sir, the ground I take is this, that the General Officer Commanding is an expert adviser whom this government appoints in order to get advice on military matters which concern this country-upon the defence of the country, and upon all matters which relate to the organization and maintenance of the military force of the cotrfitry. He is not to be here simply as a machine to follow the dictates of this one or that one. He must have some discretion. He is not, as I stated before, an employee of the government. He is a high 'officer of this government, with functions which have always been recognized, and are recognized to-day. I think Lord Dun-donald had an absolutely correct idea of his duties when he said in his statement:
In all of my work I have endeavoured to keep steadily in view the nature of my post.
I have not sought to impose my policy upon the minister or upon the cabinet. I have sought to carry out the plans approved by the government. In the technical administration of the force I held that I should be given a fairly free hand.
Not the control, as the Minister of Militia said last night, but simply a fairly free Mr. CASGRAIN.
hand in the technical administration of the affairs of the militia.
At the same time I w'as careful to ascertain and consider the views of all persons interested. I claimed a smaller measure of freedom than is accorded to the general managers of important commercial companies. To maki a railway pay it is necessary to leave detail matters of administration largely to the expert official in charge of the system. The managing of a military force is expert work, and the safety of the country is surely as important as the success of a railway. My claim for freedom extended only to the technical side of my work. I had no desire to force my policy upon the ministry.
Now, Sir, was any fact given in this House yesterday or to-day which shows that Lord Dundonald went beyond what he conceived to be his duty, and what was laid down as his duty in plain words ? In this statement' which he issued to the press there is not a tittle of evidence that he ever did anything which could be classed among acts of insubordination or disobedience to his minister, or which clashed with the' authority of the head of his department. A good deal has been said yesterday and today with regard to the suppression of the second part of his report of 1902, and the minister's dealings with the report of 1902 and 1903. The leader of the House gave an altogether different reason for holding that those reports should not be published. He did not take the ground which the hon. Minister of Militia took last evening ; but he went to a good deal of pains to quotei authorities to show that those reports were confidential documents, and could not be laid on the table of the House except with the permission of the minister in charge of the department, in this case the Minister of Militia and Defence. He quoted from page 442 of Todd on * Parliamentary Government in England.' I will not make the whole quotation again, but I will quote this much :
The system of laying upon the table of the House reports from officers' addressed to particular departments of the executive government Is most objectionable.' And the House ought not to insist ' upon the production of papers and correspondence which concerned the preparation and preliminary consideration of measures ; they would thereby put a stop to that freedom of criticism which was always invited on such occasions, and which contributed so much to the perfection of public measures.'
Again my right hon. friend is beside the mark. These remarks do not at all apply to departmental reports in the sense that they are in the blue-books and are each year put upon the table of the House. You have only to refer to two pages before to see that these remarks refer to ' the practice in regard to the granting or withholding by the executive of information desired by either House of parliament.' When a mo-

tion is made in the House for the production of a document, the government on certain occasions is authorized and empowered to withhold the dooument on the ground that it may contain confidential or secret information, or information which it would not be in the interest of the public to lay before the House. This does not apply to Reports which the minister is obliged each year to lay before the House. Why, the very Militia Act, which enacts that a eom-mander-in-chief shall be appointed, contains the following in section 126 :-
All regulations made under this Act, and an annual report of the state of the militia, shall be laid before parliament by the Minister of Militia and Defence, within the first thirty days of the then next session thereof.
My right hon. friend says that even before this report could be handed to the minister, it should be asked ; but the statute says the contrary. I take the right hon. gentleman's word on a great many occasions as laying down the correct law, but when I find him in direct contradiction to the statute, I say he must be wrong. It was the bounden duty of the Minister of Militia and Defence, within the first thirty days of the session, to lay the report of the department before parliament ; and how is this report made up ? It is made up of the report of the General Officer Commanding and the heads of the different branches of the department, just as the report of any other department is made up. Therefore the argument of iny right hon. friend falls to the ground. This is not the ground that the Minister of Militia took last evening. The ground he took was that this was a Confidential, private or secret report; and he said the same thing last session. He gave as his reasons for not producing the second part of the report of 1902 that it was a secret and confidential report. I say that argument is not correct. The report itself not only was not marked private, but by its very nature it was intended for pub lication. My hon. friend founded the principal argument he made upon the fact that the covering letter by which the report was sent to the minister was marked private, t and he quoted this letter to show that the ' report itself must also have been private. Let me read some of these extracts again in order to show that the ground falls from under the feet of my right hon. friend. This is what the General Officer Commanding said :
' Private.'
Creichton Lodge,
Ottawa, Jan. 29, 1903.
Exactly what the statute enacts that he should do. He is bound to describe the condition of the militia at the time he makes his report. He goes on to say :
I hope that the recommendations I make will commend themselves to you. I think they will, as from our conversations I believe we agree on many essential points. I don't think the country can obtain a cheaper or more efficient system for money expended than the one outlined if only you can see your way t'O get it adopted and the proper funds voted.
I am still confined to the house but hope to get out to-morrow and shall look forward to seeing you Monday at latest if convenient to you.
This letter was marked * private ' because it was intended for Sir Frederick Borden alone and not for his department. But to argue that because this letter was marked ' private, ' the report itself was private and confidential is presuming rather much on the lack of intelligence of this House. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia last evening tried to make us believe, from reading these letters, that the general had consented to the suppression of part 2nd of his report. After stating his case, he said :
Now that is the record. Does that record bear out the statement which this right hon. gentleman has seen fit to make in this address of his to the people of Canada ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: Who says yes ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do.
I was bold enough to say that the record bore out the statement which Lord Dundon-ald had made in what my hon. friend calls his address to the people of Canada. Why, all through these letters, the general discusses the question of the publishing of his report. Here is a letter dated the 31st of January, from the Minister of Militia and Defence, in which he said :
Dear Lord Dundonald,-I have carefully read your very interesting and able report. I don't know whether you intend Part II to form part of the annual report of the Minister of Militia and Defence for this year (i.e. 1902), but I am afraid it would not do to put forward a scheme which has not yet been considered as a whole even by tbe minister and of which the other members of the cabinet have as yet had absolutely no opportunity of knowing anything. Besides, there is the very grave question of propriety of giving such a scheme to the world ; at any rate, in such detail. Furthermore, you are aware that a scheme was recommended by the Defence Committee of 1898, approved by the War Office and adopted by the Canadian government.
Then he goes on to say :
Dear Sir Frederick,-I am sending you with this my report for the year 1902. I only received the last of the sub-reports to me last Saturday-there has been, as you are aware,\a great deal of w-ork involved, first in becoming acquainted with the system, then in discovering its weakness, then in suggesting remedies for improvement.
Then there is the financial question. It is absolutely necessary that I should have a carefully prepared estimate of the cost involved in your proposals before they can be considered by the government.
So that tbe House will see that what the Minister of Militia was trying to do was to

Who were the 'impetuous friends ' ? Were they ' impetuous ' in getting up this military organization. No. They were "Impetuous ' political friends of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. This shows that the hon. Minister of Agriculture was taking counsel in the county not from those who were trying to get up the organization of a regiment of cavalry, but from those who were trying to foist upon the regiment men whom they thought it desirable to appoint to the positions in it. And the Minister of Agriculture says that he has not got so much as his ' impetuous ' friends asked for, but that he had got a good deal. He confesses judgment-he says that he has tried his best to get all that his friends demanded, that he has got a good deal and that they must be satisfied. And what does Colonel Whitley say at page 27 of the same report ? This was read by my hon. friend from Compton, (Mr. Pope) but it will bear repetition:
I think I told you, in Ottawa, my views re the drinking question. I dread an intemperate officer: they are useless, indeed of great harm wherever they appear, and, candidly, I would prefer political opponents to such.
The worst man would be an intemperate officer, but the next would be a political opponent. All through this correspondence, it is plain to be seen that the object these hon. gentlemen had was not to keep this regiment from being made a Tory preserve, but to make it a Liberal preserve. And what does Mr. Brenham say-page 29 ?
Now, if you do not get any applications from any of our fellows, rather than see It go to those fellows in Sweetsburg, I would take a commission and do the best I could, so will leave the matter in your hands and will be satisfied with the results.
Sir, these gentlemen were trying to get their ' fellows ' into the regiment. Who were their 'fellows'? Their political friends. And they were trying to exclude as far as possible any member of the Baker family, exclude as far as common decency would permit, any Conservatives from the regiment and were trying to get their 'fellows ' in if possible. Now, let me read further on from this same page, 29, a letter from the Minister of Agriculture to a Mr. Clinton :
He and Mr. Parmelee and I have been discussing matters here at length, and Mr. Parmelee and I are satisfied that he is honestly desirous of remedying these mistakes and doing anything he can to meet our views.
Here is Mr. Parmelee brought in now. For what purpose ? Is Mr. Parmelee a military expert ? Does he know anything about the requirements of the militia ? Does he know anything about the military qualifications of these gentlemen ? If he was consulted, he must have been consulted merely as to the political qualifications of


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 'our fellows' in the different places in which this regiment was being recruited.
It is impossible, however, to make all the changes that our friends would like.
' Our friends would like.' It was purely from a political standpoint and no other that these appointments were being made.
The most Important ones, have, however, been made. Dr. Pickel is not to be given command of the squadron, and Tom. Pickel is to be made lieutenant Instead of captain.
When they could not put him out they reduced him in rank.
Clifton Miltimore Is to be given a captaincy. We have adopted the plan that men without any military experience as a rule should start as lieutenants. The squadron which was named for Adamsville is to be changed to Cowansville, not Sweetsburg.
No, they would not go into that Tory town of Sweetsburg, but they would go somewhere else-always the political motive at the foundation of everything in the organization of this regiment.
* The squadron which was named for Man-sonvile is to be changed to Knowlton.
Many hon. gentlemen may not know that Mansonville in the county of Brome is the place in which Mr. Manson resides, and that Mr. Manson was an opponent of Mr. Mc-Oorkill in the local fight of which I have just spoken. Of course they had to take the squadron out of Mansonville so that it would not be contaminated by Mr. Man-son or any of those bad Tories, and put it in Knowlton which was not such a Tory locality as Mansonville. But ( is it not a fact that far from being disproved, the statement of Colonel Smart was carried out by all the letters which have been written by my Eon. friend, and my hon. friend has stated before this House time and again that he was determined that this regiment would not be a Tory preserve. Here again we see that the political hand of my hon. friend was busy in meddling in this matter and in trying to keep as many Conservatives out as he could.
Now what are the consequences of all this? The consequences of this intermeddling will have a deterrent effect upon the minds of those who want to join the militia of this country. When men of means, capable of joining the militia force would like to do so, they will be deterred by the knowledge that if they are Conservatives they will have no advancement and no promotion, that they will be kept out of positions, and that they will get scant justice and even scant courtesy from the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now this country has to choose between the Minister of Agriculture and Lord Dun-donald. My right hon. friend the leader of the House this evening said that he could

not agreee with the last paragraph of the resolution moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He went further, and he said that this last paragraph is not borne out by the facts laid before the House. Sir, it is true that Lord Dundonald, in his statement to the press, has given other instances of meddling and interference by the Minister of Agriculture. But what came to pass ? This came to pass, that ' the last straw which broke the camel's back ' as the hon. gentleman said last night, was the meddling of my hon. friend in the organization of this squadron in the eastern townships. It was his meddling and interference, when he had no right to do it, because he was interfering from purely political motives, and this is what Lord Dun-donald resented. Now we see that the action of the hon. gentleman has culminated in the retirement of Lord Dundonald, in the dismissal of Lord Dundonald, in his being sent away from this country under a cloud, as it were, having his services dispensed with by this government. The country will have to choose between Lord Dundonald and the Minister of Agriculture. I never knew before that my hon. friend was so great an adept in military matters, and I am forcibly reminded of one of the letters of Mr. Dooley entitled ' In peace and in war.' Hon. gentlemen who have read this remarkable book will remember probably that the President of the United States is recruiting some officers to send them to the war, in Cuba against the Spanish, and one man comes up and the president said: 'What kind of pyjamas do you wear ' ? ' Silk pyjamas.' 'Well,' said the president, 'I will make a brigadier general of you.' Sir, I must apologize for having mentioned before this distinguished audience these unmentionables, and I must also apologize for having called to the mind of my listeners the spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture arrayed in his somewhat unmartiai rig. Now this Is the question before the House. The country will be called upon to decide, in a short time I hope, between the Minister of Agriculture and Lord Dundonald. We have put the case before the country. The people know the merits of the question, and I have no doubt that when the time comes to decide, Lord Dundonald will emerge from the discussion what he is now, and what he was when he came to this country, a most useful and experienced soldier, whose reputation the Minister of Agriculture has only endanced in the hearts and minds of every fair minded citizen of Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: Though the hour is late I shall uot apologize Tot taking up a few minutes in discussing this question. I shall try to make my remarks free from any partisan bias whatever, and aside from any political opinions I may hold. I have for years in this House
taken some interest in military matters, not that I am a military man, but observing from session to session that though we have a membership in this House of 214, whenever a question came up affecting the militia of Canada, fhe discussion was conducted by but very few members. So I felt it my duty in my own humble way to take some part in the discussion of military questions when they came before this House, because the greater part of the members did not do so. Since I have been a member of this House I have noticed a vast difference in the military feeling among the members. A good many years ago when the Minister of Militia asked for a reasonable amount to promote the militia he received very little assistance in passing his estimates, although they were niggardly in amount. During the Conservative regime I always understood. at all events, I never noticed that any partisan feeling governed the action of the Militia Department in those days.
I would like to believe to-day that no political feeling is engendered by the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence in the administration of his department. I would like to believe that and on that line I am going to proceed with my argument though my remarks will be brief and to the point. It has been said in this discussion and said repeatedly by the hon. Minister of Agriculture that he had no desire to introduce party politics into the militia of this country, that what he did he did in the interest of the militia and that was his sole object and aim. I would like to believe that statement in the interest of the militia, but I do not think the hon. gentleman will pretend to believe that his conduct in this matter was purely non-partisan. His language has been such as to lead me to believe that his conduct was rather partisan, But, the point at issue in this case is simply this : The commander of the forces of Canada, by reason of certain interference, has, in a speech at Montreal, stated that the act of the hon. Minister of Agriculture was the last straw that broke the camel's back and that by reason of that act the commander of the forces was forced to speak out at the banquet in Montreal. Now, Sir, I anl not going to enter into a discussion as to whether he was acting improperly in doing that. I am not going to enter into a discussion as to whether the government are justified in dismissing him. That is not the point I am going to discuss. I have always been led to believe in this House that the military forces of this or any other country, I care not where it is, are the most successful that observe strict discipline. I have recognized that there is a head of the militia force. I have recognized that the Minister of Militia is the head of ,the militia force of this country and that next to him is the commander of the forces. I have looked over the report of the Department of Mill-

tia and Defence which was laid on the table of the House this session and I find that, notwithstanding the quotations of rules and regulations read by the right hon. Prime Minister and by my hon. friend from Montmorency to-night, this report states that :
The present organization of the department, so far as the branches under the control, or supervision, of the General Officer Commanding are concerned, is outlined in a Minute of Council, dated October 29, 1903. which was promulgated as General Order 159, 1903, as follow's :



[Stage Direction]
The General Officer Commanding.
1. The Genera] Officer Commanding shall he charged with the military command and discipline of the militia, shall issue General Orders and hold periodical inspection of the militia.
He shall be the principal adviser of the Minister of Militi'a and Defence on all 'military questions and shall be charged with the control of the branches of the Adjutant General, the Director General of Military Intelligence and Military Secretary, and the general supervision of the other military branches.
He shall be charged with the general distribution and localization of the militia, jand with the selection and proposal to the Minister of Militia and Defence of fit and proper persons to be recommended for commissions in the militia, of fit and proper officers for promotions, for staff and other military- appointments, and for military honours and rewards.
Then this goes on to state the duties of the respective branches. It refers to the adjutant's general's brahch, the intelligence branch, the military secretary's branch, the quartermaster general's branch, the engineer service branch, the ordnance branch and the medical services branch. It concludes:
All orders or regulations inconsistent with this Order in Council are hereby cancelled.
These are the duties of the various officers whose work js subject to the approval of the commanding officer, who, after he has approved of any matters affecting the forces, submits them to the minister for his approval. In this report I do not see that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has any duties to perform in connection with the militia, and I am giving to the hon. minister of .Agriculture the same rights as the hon. Minister of Finance or any other cabinet minister has and what are "they ? They are that when the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence takes his report to Council and these gentlemen sit around the council board, whenever that document is placed before them for their consideration, they are quite within their rights and they are doing their duty as I understand it when they undertake to discuss that document. We have heard a great deal about etiquette in the city of Ottawa. I take it when the commander of the forces referred to etiquette in the city of Ottawa he meant
Andrew B. Ingram: that the hon. Minister of Agriculture, without consulting the head of his department, without consulting the commander of the forces had undertaken to write to certain officers in the eastern townships asking them to accept commissions in the force in which it was no part of his duty, but interfering with the duties of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and the Officer Commanding the forces of this country, thus committing a breach of military etiquette. It does not require a military man to go down to the camp which is now being held at Rockliffe to discover that a corporal is jealous of his authority and of his rights, that a lieutenant, a captain, a major, or a colonel is jealous of his authority and stands on his dignity in exercising his authority. So it is with the General Officer Commanding the forces. The hon. Minister of Agriculture stated that when the officer commanding the forces telephoned to him and asked him to make some arrangement by which he could discuss this question with him, he gave him to understand that he had an office down town and that if there was anything he desired to consult him about he knew where to find his office. I would have thought that if Lord Dundonald or the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence desired to consult the hon. Minister of Agriculture on matters affecting agriculture the least the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence or the commander of the forces could do would be to go to the office of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, but when the hon. Minister of Agriculture was asked to discuss some matters in which he was interfering and for that purpose to come to the office of the hon. Minister of Militia and Def ence it would not have been undignified on the part of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to have done so, and it certainly would have been more in line with the discipline of the militia of this country. He was dealing with a question affecting the militia of Canada in a department with which he had nothing to do other than any other Minister of the Crown has occasionally to deal with certain matters coming before the Privy Council of which he is a member. I do not deny him the right to deal with these matters at the Privy Council but the hon. Minister of Agriculture had a right to go and consult the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and the commander of the forces, if he felt disposed to do so. I want to say that if this hon. gentleman had shown a disposition to make matters easy for the commander of the forces, if he had not desired to create dissensions amongst military men or put obstacles in the way of the commander of the forces, if his sole desire was to promote the welfare of the militia in the eastern townships the least he could have done would have been to have gone to the Department of Militia and Defence and there to have sat quietly down and dis-
*

cussed this matter with the commander of the forces. I am sure that Lord Dundonald would have quietly sat down with him and discussed this matter and that if he had suggested anything that Lord Dundonald deemed to be in the interest of the militia or in the interest of that portion of the force in the eastern townships he would have been only too glad to have accepted the suggestion.
That in my judgment would have been a proper course to pursue. A good deal has been said about Lord Dundonald in this House. I have watched closely and read extensively of the career of that gentleman in South Africa and it struck me that the language used was not justified by his career. The language was harsh and in my judgment uncalled for. Lord Dundonald is human like the rest of us, and he may have his faults. I heard the Prime Minister say let ' him who is without sin cast the first stone.' If he had erred in this case, I suppose he must suffer to the extent of his error, but whatever his error might have been I am quite within the mark when I say that his hearty whole-souled desire was for the welfare of the militia of this country and not for his own advancement. No man will charge him with being a political partisan. He has had a great deal of experience as an officer for many yearsL and now after one year in Canada we are told that he is unfit to command the militia of Canada.
We have heard a good deal about his report. Last year when the report of the Militia Department was laid on the table- and I take sufficient interest in the militia to read carefully every word submitted by that department for consideration-I discovered that there was a second report not published, and like two or three other members on this side-who take a lively interest in military matters, I was eager to know the contents of that report, because it occurred to me if we have an officer as capable as Lord Dundonald, capable enough to be sent by the British authorities to Canada, to take charge of our militia, any suggestions that he might have to offer to the people would be worthy of perusal and of consideration, and of examination in order to see whether the suggestions offered were such as the [DOT]people of this country ought to adopt. I have here a report that was placed before the Privy Council, a document with the 13th Dragoons struck out on the 14th of May. That was done while it was before council. Why ? On account of certain interference by the Minister of Agriculture, certain objections he raised to certain persons on the list, in connection with the military organization in the eastern townships. Again on the 19th of May, the Minister of Agriculture struck out the name of Dr. Pickel, in the name of the Minister of Militia. If the Minister of Agriculture was requested to act in the place of the Minister of Militia on that
particular occasion, the 19th instant, and if he on that morning had received a document from Colonel Smart to the effect that he wanted the name of Mr. Pickel struck out I would go so far as to say the Minister of Agriculture acting on behalf of the Minister of Militia, had a perfect right to strike it out, but when I go that far I call the attention to the fact, that he interfered previous to that, and had written letters in order to block Mr. Pickel in this matter when he was not acting as Minister of Militia. There is where the sin and the partisanship on the part of the Minister of Agriculture came in. He was not acting as the Minister of Militia, but was acting the part of a partisan. I would like to draw attention to a little matter in my own experience some few years ago and from this experience and the debate which is drawing to a close, I am bound to say that if the people of this country make a change from an officer who comes to this country from England and place the militia in the hands of a Canadian officer, we will have many instances of this kind occurring. On Wednesday, November 7th, 1900, we had a general election. In 1900 we bad an estimate brought down in this House for a grant for an armoury, in the city of St. Thomas, of $8,000. The ground was bought on May 21, 1900. In 1901 we had placed in the estimates $24,000 in one case and $7,000 in another, a total in all of $39,000 for a drill hall and armoury in St. Thomas. The election took place on the 7th of November, but no contract was let, and no money was voted beyond the $8,000, but on November 3rd, four days previous to the general election although no contract had been let, the Minister of Public Works came to St. Thomas brought several soldiers there, and the Minister of Public Works went down and turned the first sod of an armoury for the building of which not one dollar had been voted by parliament. I think that comment is unnecessary; I shall simply place that on record and leave the House to judge whether there has been any partisan interference in this department. Last session I heard a gentleman make one of the best military speeches I have heard in this House for many years, a gentleman trusted by this government who filled a very important position in London, during the Jubillee. I refer to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson). I am bound to say that he spoke without any partisan feeling. His remarks were approved by members on both sides. After the hundreds of thousands of dollars which we had expended in this country for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the militia the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) rose and among other things said :
I have shown that we were called upon to furnish the skeleton of a skeleton. I now state that we have actually turned out the shadow of a skeleton of a skeleton. Can anything so
I

ghost-like be longer called a militia force? .	.	.	. I know the case of one company
which this year had two officers and six noncommissioned officers to command two men, one of whom was the cook.
This is a statement made not by any partisan on this side, but by a government supporter in a non-partisan spirit. And in view of the fact of our having some 4,000 miles of boundary line, between this country and the United States, it is not too much to say that Lord Dundonald's remarks were quite justified, when he said that we are living in a fools paradise. .
So we are ; there is no question about it. If anything should occur between the United States and Canada, which Cod forbid, should we not in time of peace prepare for war ? The very fact that we are preparing for war is the reason we shall have peace maintained in the country. If the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding are not to be considered, what is the use of having a man of that character come to this country ? It is simply a waste of time and a waste of money. When this report is kept from the people of this country we are not in a position to judge of it. Some hon. gentlemen say, why should we be allowed to consider it ? If hon. gentlemen will take the pains to go into the library and turn up the militia reports submitted to this House from year to year, they will find that certain recommendations are made in all those reports by the General Officer Commanding, the deputy minister and other officers, which are not carried out. Some are carried out and some are not carried out. In view of that fact, is there any harm in the commander of the forces having his suggestions embodied in the report ? If parliament does not feel disposed to adopt any of them, well and good. The majority in parliament have that power. I think this unfortunate occurrence is greatly to be regretted, and nobody will regret it more than the militia of this country.
I am called on to-night to cast a vote for the amendment moved by the hon. leader ot the opposition. I have heard that amendment criticised. I have heard the question asked, why have you not moved a resolution condemning the government for dismissing Lord Dundonald ? I suppose that when Lord Dundonald made his statement in Montreal, he knew what he was doing. I presume that in making that statement, he felt that the breach would be made so wide between the government and himself that it would be utterly impossible for him to remain in the service any longer. Therefore it is not for the leader of the opposition to move in respect to that. What has he moved ? That :-
The selection and appointment of officers in the millitia should be made without regard to party political considerations which if permitted to exercise an influence will prove disastrous to the efficiency of the force.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Edward Hackett: Mr. Speaker, before you put tbe question, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who it appears is the Minister of Militia, has any trouble arisen in Prince Edward Island with regard to the militia camps ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot give the hon. gentleman any answer.


Edward Hackett: Well, where is the Minister of Militia V Who is the Minister of Militia in this country ? I have here a clipping from the Charlottetown ' Daily Patriot,' the organ of the government in the province of Prince Edward Island, published on the 24th of June, 1904, which says :


THE MILITIA CAMPS.
[Stage Direction]
Militia orders were received in this city yesterday prohibiting the use of Victoria barrack grounds as formerly for militia camp. It had teen represented to the department that the stores and buildings were in probable danger of fire in having such a large body of men encamped in.the immediate vicinity. It had been also represented that the latrines were offensive to the families in the vicinity. ,
I need not read the whole of the document, but want some information from the government. The article goes on :
We might say, as far as the latrines are concerned, they are inspected daily by the medical officer, field officer and captain of the day and specially attended under the supervision of the quartermaster. Up to this date there has never been a single complaint on this matter.
On receipt of the communication from Ottawa, forbidding the holding of the camp, to Colonel Moore, D.O.C., Colonel Stewart immediately called a meeting of his officers, who, after learning the situation, wired as follows:
Charlottetown, June 21, 1904. To Messrs. D. A. MacKinnon and H. Haszard, M.P.'s, Ottawa.
Letter dated June 16th from A.G. to-day, refused use of barrack square militia camp next Tuesday. Contracts already let for supplies, as orders were issued to encamp usual place. In camp there seventeen years. No other grounds available this late date. Building -safe from fire. Latrines never offensive to families Adjutant General visiting here last year said, * Ideal place for camp.' Scenic grounds. See Militia Department. Very urgent; wire.
(Sgd.) D. STEWART,
Lieut.-Col.

[Stage Direction]
Sergt.-Major.

[Stage Direction]
Paymaster.
M. A. ALLAN, Capt.,
Quartermaster.
V. L. GOODWILL, Capt., Adjutant.
A. J. B. MELLISH, Capt., No. 1, Co., Ch'town.
Last evening Colonel following reply :-
Stewart received the Ottawa, June 21, 1904.
To Lieut.-Colonel Stewart, Charlottetown.
Telegram received. Will see minister soon as can find him.
(Sgd.) D. A. MacKINNON.
Where was the minister that it was so difficult to find him ? Mr. D. A. MacKinnon, the member for East Queen's, telegraphed to Lieutenant-Colonel Stewart that
as soon as he could find the minister he would let him know the facts. This paper, the Charlottetown ' Patriot ' goes on to say :
This morning the Charlottetown Board of Trade sent the following telegram :-
To Messrs. MacKinnon and Haszard, M.P.'s, Ottawa.
Board of Trade strongly urge that business men and all citizens are particularly interested in having camp at Charlottetown.

[Stage Direction]
President,

[Stage Direction]
Vice President; GEORGE E. HUGHES,

[Stage Direction]
It will thus be seen that there is really nothing in the objections raised forbidding the holding of the camp in the barrack square. Further, the leading business men of Charlottetown, on both sides of politics, as well as the citizens generally are determined that the camps shall not be removed. We are at a loss to know who has dared to raise so many objections to our militia camps this season. We are convinced that it cannot be a friend of our people and a well wisher to our city. The militia is regarded, and rightly so, as an attraction and a financial benefit to the city and citizens. Charlottetown being the capital of Prince Edward Island, it and it alone is the proper place for military headquarters and annual camp. The grounds as Lord Aylmer said ' are ideal ' and our people will not submit to have the camp removed and the militia to a certain extent disorganized on so flimsy an excuse.
Might I ask the Prime Minister what answer he has to give to this ? Our young men in Prince Edward Island-1 speak as an old militiaman myself-turn out each year iii camp to the number of four or five hundred. Our young men also have shed their blood on the yellow veldts of Soutlh Africa in defence of the empire, and I would ask what reason is there now why they should not be allowed to camp on the barrack square as they have been doing for the past seventeen years? Sir, we have had charges made this evening against Lord Dundonald. Well, I think that the hero of the relief of Ladysmith can take care of himself. We have also had charges made against the gallant Colonel (Mr.' Sam. Hughes) who crossed the ocean to fight for h'is country. The man with a small mind and smaller brain, who expects to be made a judge in Nova Scotia, made a personal attack on this hon. gentleman w ho so gallantly fought for his country. Where was the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) wrhen the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. REVISED EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Sam. Hughes) was in South Africa upholding the cause of the empire ? Where was that little man at that time ? He was sitting down quietly by his fireside, drawing his pay as a professor at Dalhousie college and awaiting quietly until the time would come when, like the giant from Guysboro, he would receive a judgeship. It is evident that I cannot get any. information from the government and at this late hour I do not wish to prolong discussion, but I desire to call the attention especially of the Minister of Agriculture to this fact, that a camp has not been allowed to be held this year on the barrack square at Charlottetown as it has been in the last seventeen years.
House divided on amendment of Mr. R. L. Hordern
TEAS :
Messieurs
Armstrong,	Hughes (Victoria),
Avery,	Ingram,
Barker,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Bell,	Kidd,
Bennett,	Lancaster,
Birkett,	LaRiviSre,
Blain,	Lennox,
Borden (Halifax),	Maclean,
Brock,	Morin,
Broder,	Northrup,
Bruce,	Osier,
Carscallen,	Pope,
Casgrain,	Porter,
Clare,	Rosamond,
Cochrane,	Sproule,
Culbert,	Taylor,
Donnelly,	Thomson (Grey),
Earle,	Tolton,
Hackett,	Vrooman,
Halliday,	Wilmot,
Henderson,	Wilson.-42.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Angers,	Lavergne (Montmagny),
Archambault,	Law,
Bazinet,	LeBlanc,
Bickerdtke,	Lewis,
Blanehet,	Loy,
Borden (Sir Frederick),	Macdonald,
Bourassa,	Mackie,
Bourbonnais,	MacKinnon,
Brodeur,	Macpherson,
Bruneau,	McCool,
Bureau,	McGugan,
Calvert,	McLennan,
Campbell,	Malouin,
Carbonneau,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Champagne,	Matheson,
Christie,	Mayrand,
Copp,	Meigs,
Costigan,	Mignault,
Delisle,	Monet,
Demers (Ldvis),	Mulock (Sir William),
Demers (St. John),	Murray,
Douglas,	Oliver,
Erb-,	Parmelee, 1
Ethier,	Paterson,
Fielding,'	Prefontaine,
Fitzpatrick,	Proulx,
Fortier,	Puttee,
Edward Hackett: Gallery,	Reid (Restigouche),
Gauvreau,	Riley,
Geoffrion,	Rivet,
Gervais,	Roche (Halifax),
Gibson,	Ross (Ontario),
Girard,	Ross (Rimouski),
Harwood,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Haszard,	Russell,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.)	Scott,
Hyman,	Sifton,
Johnston (Cape Breton),Sinclair.	
Lapointe,	Stewart,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Sutherland (Essex).
Laurier (L'Assomption),Tolmie,	
Lavergne	Tucker.-84.
(Drummond & Artha.),	
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Kendall,	Roche (Marquette),
Maclaren (Huntingdon), Ball,	
Talbot, Gould,	Ganong, 'Clarke,
Power,	Calvin,
Tobin,	Leonard,
Johnston (Lambton),	Richardson,
Brown,	Daniel,
Smith (Vancouver), Wright, f	Clancy, Lavell,
Sutherland (Oxford),	Haggart,
Einmerson,	Fowler,
Harty*	Reid (Grenville),
Cowan,	Pringle,
Davis,	Hale,
Beith,	McGowan,
Holmes,	Gilmour,
Morrison,	Robinson (Elgin),
Stephens,	Kaulbach,
Marcil (Bagot),	Monk, .
Grant,	Roddick.
Mclsaac, %	Smith (Wentworth).
Lang,	Alcorn,
Heyd,	Kemp,
Guthrie,	MacLaren (Perth).
Ross (Yukon), '	Boyd,
Wade-,	Gourley,
Thompson,	Ward,
Lovell,	Kendry,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Wallace,	Tisdale,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
McEwen,	Sherritt,
McColl,	McIntosh,
German,	Seagram,
Dugas,	Tarte,
Galliher,	Robinson (Northum-
	berland),
Amendment (Mr. R.	L. Borden) negatived.


Mr. CALVERT.: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave	
to call you attention	to the fact that the
Minister of Agriculture has not voted.	
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Ag-	
i'iculture(. Although,	on such an occasion
it would have been	quite consonant with
the practice of the House that I should vote, yet, as my name is mentioned in this motion I prefer not to participate in the division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into	
Committee of Supply.	
Progress reported.	

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business may we expect for Monday ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: On Monday we will go into Supply, taking up the estimates of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.40 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 27, 1904.