1904-06-10

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries. In answer to the statements made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) yesterday as regards the fisheries regulations, I beg to submit the following memorandum :-

[Stage Direction]
For submission to parliament in reply to the inquiry of the honourable member for South Leeds, as to the fishery regulations in Ontario affecting American anglers visiting Canadian waters.
The position of the matter is that since the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council In the fisheries reference, the Ontario government has assumed the right of disposal of the fisheries as a proprietary interest, by the issue of fishing permits and licenses, collecting the fees thereon, which had previously been done by the Dominion government.
The exclusive right to make fishery laws and regulations, however, belongs to the federal government, and the Ontario government has been pressing for regulations which it regards as in the best interests of the fisheries asset which has become its property. Its wishes have to some extent been complied with when deemed expedient.
In the case in point Mr. S. T. Bastedo, Ontario deputy commissioner of fisheries, visited Ottawa, and fully discussed certain proposed regulations with the Dominion commissioner of fisheries, which resulted in an appended Order in Council, 30th May, 1904.
It will be observed that either Mr. Bastedo carried away with him a wrong impression of the exact significance of the intended regulations, or his letter is incorrectly quoted in the newspaper clipping read by the honourable gentleman ; as the inference may be drawn that only eight bass may be taken and that none may be carried home.
Whereas, section 9 of the Order in Council fixes the number of fish to be taken at eight black bass, four maskinonge, twelve pickerel (dore) and four lake trout for each and every day ; while section 10 permits every day an
[Stage Direction]
4580'
aggregate catch of 10 pounds of speckled or brook trout ; but to be limited to thirty such trout, if too small to weigh 10 pounds in the aggregate.
As to the question of the visitor taking his fish home, section 12, while providing against the sale and export of speckled trout, black bass and maskinonge, for five years, specially permits any person from a foreign country, fishing in the waters of the province, and applying and paying for an angler's permit, upon leaving, to take with him the lawful catch of two days' fishing.
This would be sixteen black bass, eight maskinonge, twenty-four pickerel (dord), eight lake trout, and either 20 pounds of speckled or brook trout, or sixty such trout, if too small to aggregate 20 pounds.
This would seem an ample and generous prize for any true sportsman to carry home with him.	.
So far as the department is advised, in the section of the river referred to by the honourable gentlemen, including the Thousand Islands, where arrangements were made between Canadian and American authorities before the Ontario government assumed the issue of permits, the latter government is allowing United States fishermen free angling, whereas in all other parts of the province, they are required to take out a license or permit for the season.

[Stage Direction]
At the Government House at Ottawa, the 30th day of May, 1904.
Present:
The Governor General in Council.
The Governor General in Council is pleased, in virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Fisheries Act, chapter 95 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, to order that the General Fishery Regulations for the province of Ontario, established by the Order in Council of the 18th day of July, 1889, shall be and the same are hereby amended by adding thereto the following sections :-
9. No one shall fish for, catch or kill, in any of the waters of the province, in one day by angling, or shall carry away a greater number than eight small or large-mouthed black bass, four maskinonge, twelve pickerel (dore) or four lake trout.
10.	No one shall fish for. catch or kill in any of the waters of the province, in one day by angling, or shall carry away a greater number of speckled trout or brook trout than in the aggregate shall weigh more than ten pounds, and no greater number than thirty speckled trout or brook trout, though said number weigh less than ten pounds.
11. No small or large-mouthed black bass less than ten inches in length ; no speckled trout less than six inches in length ; no pickerel (dore), less than fifteen inches in length, or no maskinonge less than thirty inches in length shall be retained or kept out of the water, sold, offered or exposed for sale or had in possession ; but any one who takes or catches any of the fish mentioned of less than the minimum measurement named, which measurement shall be from the point of the nose to the centre of the tail, shall immediately return such fish to the waters from which it was taken, alive and uninjured.
Mr. PREFONTAINE.: 12.	The sale and export of speckled trout, black bass and maskinonge, is hereby prohibited for a period of five years from the date of this Order in Council, provided, however, that any person from a foreign country fishing in the waters of the province, and applying and paying for an angler's permit, may, upon leaving the province, when the same are accompanied by him, take with him the lawful' catch of two days' fishing.
The Governor General in Council is further-pleased to order that any previous Orders in Council which are in conflict with these regulations be rescinded in so far as the province of Ontario is affected.
(Sgd.) JOHN J. McGEE.
Clerk of the Privy Council.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY.: I obtained an order of the House on April 25th for certain papers in connection with the Murray Harbour Railway and Hillsboro' branch. I call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that they have not been brought down. On the 30th of May an order of the House was issued for certain letters and petitions with reference to a letter from the Minister of Marine dated the 22nd of April. On the same date I obtained an order of the House for returns with regard to the chicken fattening station, and also a further order for papers with regard to the Murray Harbour Railway and the Hillsboro' bridge. I would like to have these returns brought down at as early a date as possible. As the session is drawing to a close, we wish to get this information so that we may make some use of it.



LORD DUNDONALD'S SPEECH.

Hon. SYDNEY A. FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: In view of the question that was asked of the government yesterday, in regard to the matter referred to by Lord Dundonald on Saturday last, at a banquet held in Montreal, I have to make the following personal explanation
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take this earliest opportunity permitted me to state the exact facts, in regard to the incidents referred to by the General Officer Commanding, Lord Dundonald, in his speech at the military banquet in Montreal, Saturday, the 4th instant.
In consequence of the reports which appeared in the press of Lord Dundonald's utterances, the Minister of Militia wrote the following note to the General Officer Commanding :
June 8, 1904.
Dear Lord Dundonald,-Will you be good enough to read the inclosed newspaper-clipping from this morning's ' Citizen ' and let me know if it correctly reports your utterances and the-attendant circumstances.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) F. W. BORDEN.
Rt. Hon.
The Earl of Dundonald,
Major General.

To -which Lord Dundonald replied as follows [DOT]
Militia Headquarters, Canada, June 8, 1904.
Dear Sir Frederick Borden,-I am obliged for the extract from this morning's 'Citizen.' Though I made some notes for my speech at Montreal, I did not refer in these notes to the 13th Light Dragoons or to Mr. Sydney Fisher, and have therefore nothing to refer to with regard to this portion of my speech beyond memory.
The 'Citizen' states that I.said:-
' A most flagrant instance of political Interference has recently come before me in connection with the appointment of officers in the new Eastern Township Cavalry regiment, the Scottish Light Dragoons. The commanding officer of the corps had selected officers because of their apparent fitness from a military point of view. The names reached me and were sent to council, and gentlemen, what do you think happened ? The list having my approval was returned with the name of one officer striken out, and initialled hy the Minister of Agriculture.
' The gentleman whose name was stricken from the list was Dr. Pickel, the mayor of Sweetsburg, and warden of the county of Mis-sisquoi, a man chosen of the people and well qualified to serve his King and country. His political colour was not, however, that of the Minister of Agriculture, and consequently he was not considered fit to serve his King in the military force of Canada.'
The above is substantially what I said, except that I also stated that Mr. Fisher interfered with the organization of the corps and with the names of other proposed officers as well as Dr. Pickel. With regard to the first portion of the extract you sent me I did not say that all appointments are made in the militia through political intrigue. The substance of -what I said, if my memory serves me right, w as that : ' In time of peace the hands of the general were liable to be embarrassed by political intrigue and consequently the interests of the country suffered.'
Yours very truly,
(Signed) DUNDONALD.
The Hon.
Sir Frederick Borden, K.C.M.G.,
Minister of Militia and Defence.
Ill regard to Lord Dundonald's general statement that I interfered with the organization of the corps and with the names of other proposed officers of the corps as well as Dr. Pickel's, let me say this : That the only grounds on -^vhich I made any suggestions in regard to the establishment of this corps were the immense importance of the appointment of leading officers with military qualifications, who knew the country find the people of the eastern townships, the district where the corps was to be established ; that I took no exception to anybody's appointment on political grounds alone as evidenced by my recommendation and endorsement of many well-known Conservatives ; that no one believes more thproughly than I do that the first necessity in the recommendation of officers on the establishment of a new regiment is military qualification, and general personal suit-146
ability, and that no political considerations should be allowed to interfere with this. Should occasion arise for the discussion of details in regard to these general statements, I shall be prepared to furnish them and to prove what I am now stating.
In regard to what Lord Dundonald calls ' a most flagrant instance of political interference,' through my having stricken the name of Dr. Pickel from the list recommended by him to the Minister of Militia, I have this to say. Lord Dundonald says :
' The gentleman whose name was stricken from the list was Dr. Pickel, the mayor of Sweetsburg, and warden of the county of Mis-sisquoi, a man chosen of the people and well qualified to serve his King and country. His political colour was not, however, that of the Minister of Agriculture, and consequently he was not considered fit to serve his King in the military force of Canada.'
In the list of proposed appointments signed by Lord Dundonald in which the item appears of Dr. P. A. Pickel to be major, there is an asterisk opposite his name and a foot-note stating :
' As a special case, and will be required to pass the qualifying examination.'^
When I first saw his name upon the list, knowing him personally and knowing something of military matters in the neighbourhood, I was aware that he had never been connected with the militia and had never shown any interest in military matters or participated in any such movement. I therefore suggested that his appointment as commander of a squadron should not be made.
Further, investigation confirmed me in this and also proved to the commanding officer who recommended his appointment that I was right. Dr. Pickel himself so appreciated this fact that he was reluctant to accept the position.-
On May 19th, in the absence from Ottawa of the Minister of Militia, the commanding officer of the regiment, Col. Smart, came to my office asking that I should press through council the passage of the general order authorizing these appointments. The next morning I received the following from Col. Pinault, Deputy Minister of Militia :
>
Ottawa. May 19. 1904.
Dear Mr. Fisher,-Will you kindly sign the inclosed, for the minister, and if possible have it passed to-day.
Very faithfully yours,



L. F. PINAULT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa. Ont.
At the same time I received from Col. Smart the following letter :	.
13th Scottish Light Dragoons, Montreal, May 19, 1904.
Dear Mr. Fisher,-Immediately on my return this evening I met Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley and discussed fully with him all matters in con-
[Stage Direction]


nection with our interview of to-day. Colonel Whitley was pleased to learn that everything was arranged satisfactorily, and at his request I telephoned to Sweetsburg with a view of getting from Dr. Pickel his final answer as to whether or not It was his intention to remain in the squadron, because, as I stated to you to-day, he had intimated to me his lukewarmness in the matter. I now have his final decision, which is that he gives up all connection with the squadron. In accordance therefore with Dr. Pickel's request, I can now, as commanding officer of the regiment, request you to kindly make the change in the ' Gazette ' by leaving Dr. Pickel's name out.
I sincerely hope that this will meet with your approval, and in view of the short time between now and date of camp, you will kindly see that all recommendations pass Council tomorrow.
Thanking you for your kind consideration and assistance, believe me.
Yours very sincerely, *

[Stage Direction]
Lt.rCol. Commanding, 13th S. L. Dragoons.
In view of above, I certainly recommend that Lieutenant-Colonel Smart's suggestion he followed
FRED. WHITLEY, Lt.-Col. Commanding,
Eastern Townships Cavalry Brigade. Montreal, Maj 19, 1904.
X signed It and sent the recommendation with the following note to the Clerk of the Privy Council :
Ottawa, May 20, 1904.
Dear Mr. McGee,-I send you a recommendation from the Department of Militia and Defence which I have signed for Sir Frederick Borden. He and I have discussed this matter and agreed that this should be put through.
You will note that I have stricken out one of the appointments to be Major, F. H. Pickel. 1 have received a letter from the colonel who made these recommendations,, saying that Mr. Pickel does not wish to have his name included. .
If you would be kind enohgh to make an order on these recommendations so as to put it through to-day, you will much oblige, as the Militia Department is very anxious to have it put through.	*
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
J. J. McGee, Esq.,
Clerk of the Privy Council,
Ottawa.
This is a simple statement of the facts, or the case, which, without referring in any way to the propriety of the General Officer Commanding discussing in public official recommendations, without referring to the broad question of propriety of an official of the government of Canada criticising the official action of a member of that government- absolutely disapproves the charge that for political reasons I had undertaken to strike out a name which had been submitted to the Minister of Militia for appointment in the service.
Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, as my name has been referred to in connection Mr. FISHER.
with this matter, I crave the indulgence of yourself and the House to make a personal explanation. I confirm literally and entirely the statement just made by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). He had for several years advocated the organization of a mounted force in the Eastern Townships-his own home and that par.', of the Dominion, in the general good government of which he has a right to feel a special interest-and when the time came to take the question up, I naturally looked to him for advice and assistance. And let me say at once that recognizing myself to bo the man upon Whom-and upon whom alone -the entire responsibility rests to this parliament and to the Canadian people for the proper administration of the militia, I am always desirous of consulting everybody, whether colleague, member of parliament, officer or private citizen, who is willing to offer advice, or from whom I am likely to gain information. I was aware that Lt.-Col. Whitley, one of the ablest and most efficient cavalry officers in Canada, had been consulted with reference to the organization of the proposed new cavalry regiment mentioned iu the Montreal speech of the General Officer Commanding, and also that Lt.-Col. C. A. Smart had been recommended by Lt.-Ool. Whitley and the General and approved by me as commanding officer thereof. Toward the eud of March last T wrote to Lt.-Col. Whitley, expressing a desire to .see him. Having learned afterwards that he was in England, I requested the General to suspend 4.1ie work of organization until Lt.-Col. Whitley's return, having previously explained the reasons to the military secretary, for the information of the General. About the end of April Lt.-Col. Whitley returned, and early in May brought Lt.-Col. Smart to Ottawa to have a conference with me. This conference was of a most pleasant and satisfactory character. Both officers expressed a strong desire to have the general order containing the appointments connected with the organization of the regiment, with its several squadrons, put through promptly, in order that the regiment might be able to go to camp this year. This I promised to do. Finding that I would be obliged to he absent from Ottawa from the 18th to the 20th of May, I instructed my deputy to take the general crder containing the proposed list of appointments, so soon as completed, to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to be by him submitted to Council, in view of the urgency of the case. I telegraphed to Lt.-Col. Whitley to meet me at Montreal on my way from Ottawa to Nova Scotia, which he did. He then repeated his previous request as to the necessity for putting the appointments through immediately. I lold him of the instructions I had given my deputy, and asked him to go- to Ottawa to assist in the final adjustment of the list. He promised to do so or send Lt.-Col. Smart.

My colleague has already stated what followed.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES (North Victoria) Have the government any further particulars from Lord Dundonald concerning this case ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: At three o'clock precisely-I looked at the clock at the moment-I received a letter from Lord Dundonald as follows :
Ottawa, June 10, 1904. The Hon. Sir Frederick Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia.
Dear Sir Frederick Borden.-I inclose a copy of a memorandum which I have sent by bearer to Col. Hughes.
Yours very truly,
_ DUNDONALD.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he will he good enough to read that memorandum ?


Frederick William Borden: I have not had the opportunity of reading it myself yet.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES, will the hon. minister read it ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER The document belongs to the hon. member for North Victoria <Mr. Hughes). It is addressed to him. It is only a copy which is addressed to my hon. friend the minister.


Samuel Hughes: The document I received is a memorandum.	'


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: All right, let us have it.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: I presume the hon. minister has received the same memorandum. I received mine shortly after three o'clock.


Frederick William Borden: I have had no communication from the General Officer Commanding, except the one which was read here to-day by my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture, until three o'clock to-day, when I received the letter which I have just read, informing me that Lord Dundonald was inclosing to me a copy of a memorandum which he had sent to my hon. friend.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHEiS. Might I ask the hon. minister whether he has consulted with Lord Dundonald from time to time in relation to the interference of the Minister of Agriculture ?


Frederick William Borden: Surely my hon. friend does not expect an answer to a question of that kind.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would respectfully suggest that if there be any memorandum or statement from Lord Dundonald, submitted to the Minister of Militia, with regard to the position of that officer, it ought to be submitted to the House. The House ought to be informed by the hon. minister of the matters stated in that document.
14CJ
That I think would be only fair, and I am surprised that that has not been done. Whether the memorandum was communicated to my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) or any one else does not matter. It is a statement of the general's position, which ought, in all fairness to him, to be submitted to the House in connection with the statement made by the two ministers of the Crown. Otherwise, we shall have only a statement of facts made from the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon the Minister of Militia. The government is not acting justly in permitting this incident to be submitted to the country without placing also before the people the statement of the general. I can hardly suppose that that is the intention of the government, but of course that is a matter for them to decide for themselves.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have to observe to my hon. friend and the House that my hon. . colleague, the Minister of Militia, has stated what took place betw-een him and General Lord Dundonald. The Minister of Militia wrote the general to inquire whether or not the speech attributed to him was correctly reported. General Lord Dundonald answered and his answer has been read. To-day after three o'clock -after it had been stated that this matter would be referred to in the House to-day-my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, received a letter from General Lord Dundonald informing him that he had sent to Col. Hughes a document of which he sent him a copy. The original of that document is in the hands of Col. Hughes and not of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia. The General Officer Commanding did not apply to my hon. colleague to have any defence put before the House, if he had any. I do' not know what is the tenor of this document which he sent to Col. Hughes, but I presume it is a defence, and he sent it, not to his chief, the Minister of Militia, but to Col. Hughes.


Robert Laird Borden: I would respectfully suggest that whether Lord Dundonald sent it to Col. Hughes or not-whatever value may be aitac-hed to that incident-if it purports to be a statement of the facts from Lord Dunc'onald's standpoint, it is not fair to a man, who is not a member of this House, to withhold that statement of facts from the House and to send this matter to the country on the statement alone of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, What I have to observe is this. If General Lord Dundonald had any document to send to anybody, he should have sent it to his minister. He has not chosen to do so, but has chosen to send it to Col. Hughes, and it is for Col. Hughes to do what he pleases with it.


Samuel Hughes: I may say, after the incident of yesterday, when the right lion, the First Minister brought the matter before the House and gave notice that it would be considered to-day, I reviewed a great many of the letters I had received from time to time, since February last, from officers, and also from others not connected with the force in the eastern townships, from Sherbrooke away on the extreme east and all over the district, where this 13th Regiment is being organized-complaining of the interference of the- Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) in the organization of and appointments of that corps. I did not consult Lord Dundonald directly or indirectly until yesterday, when the First Minister gave notice to the House that the matter was coming up. I then sent a letter to Lord Dundonald with a memorandum asking him for confirmation of my data in connection with this matter, and after three o'clcck to day I received the memorandum which has been referred to. Let me say here that if the hon. Minister of Militia is in possession of the details contained in this memorandum-and I presume he is- and if the Minister of Agriculture is in possession of these details, as he must be, then I maintain it was their plain duty, without any request from this side, to have stated all sides of the case to this House, inasmuch as Lord Dundonald has not a seat on the floor of this House and has not a voice in this chamber.
We know, from experience, that there are no better artists in the wide world in making a plausible case to present to the country and to cover up their own doings than the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues. But, before entering into the case, I may be permitted, briefly, to refer to the relationship existing between the General Officer Commanding and the government of the country. First let me quote from Anson. 'On the Law and Custom of the Constitution' with regard to the commander in chief, whose position in Great Britain corresponds to that of the General Officer Commanding in Canada. Anson says :
The Commander-in-Chief is henceforth to exercise a general control over the military forces of the Queen at home and abroad, and a general supervision of the military departments of the war office. He is charged with the general distribution of the army, with the preparation of plans for its mobilization, and for offensive and defensive operations, with the collection of military information, with appointments, promotions, honours, and rewards. He is the principal adviser of the Secretary of State on all military questions.
And here let me say that the Secretary of State corresponds to the Minister of Militia :
When the office was created, in 1793, it was hoped that by vesting in the Commander-inChief the exercise of the prerogative as to promotions and appointments in the army such Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
matters would be dealt with by an officer, free from the prepossessions of party and politics, who would regard no other interest save that of the army.
So we see that the position of Commander-in-Chief was created in order to get away from the very disabilities that had affected the vformer procedure, and to keep party politics and other outside influences from dictating the appointment of officers. Page 392 of the same volume gives the position of the Secretary of State, as follows :
Especially is the Secretary of State bound to maintain the discretionary prerogative of the Crown in the appointment and dismissal of officers, their promotion or reward, or the acceptance of their resignation. This prerogative is exercised through the Commander-in-Chief, on the responsibility of the Secretary of State; and it is the * more important that power of this sort should be in the hands of a nonpolitical officer such as the Commander-in-Chief, because our army, unlike the armies of other European countries, is not divorced from the political rights of citizenship. The soldier, if duly qualified, may exercise the franchise; the officer may sit in the House of Commons. Plainly then, the King or a minister of the Crown might use, or be pressed to use, the powers of appointment, promotion, or dismissal for political or party ends. The history of the last century attests the reality of this danger. The office of Commander-in-Chief as constituted in 1793, was intended to meet it.
From this you will see clearly that the object of creating the Commander-in-Chief in England at the close of the eighteenth century was to avoid* exactly such unfortunate incidents as that which has caused this discussion to-day. Now, we find the position of Commander-in-Chief or General Officer Commanding as he is called in Canada provided for under our own regulations and orders-page 1, section 3 of the regulations and orders of 1898 :
The General Officer Commanding is charged by statute, under the orders of Her Majesty, with the military command and discipline of the militia.
2.	He is the principal adviser of the Minister of Militia and Defence on all military questions; is charged with the general supervision of the military branch of the department; issues general orders; and holds periodical inspections of the militia.
3.	He is charged with the distribution, quartering and localization of the militia; with the preparation and maintenance of detailed plans for mobilization; with the preparation of schemes for offensive and defensive operations; and with the collection and compilation of military information.
4.	He recommends to the Minister of Militia and Defense fit and proper persons for appointment to commissions in the militia; and proposes fit and proper officers for promotion, for staff and other military appointments, and for military honours and rewards.
5.	He is charged "with the military education and training of the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the active militia, including the supervision of the Royal Military College of Canada, and the several Royal Schools

of military instruction throughout the Dominion.
Here we see the duties of the General Officer Commanding clearly laid down. But the public have been appraised front time to time that, however well disposed the Minister of Militia may be-and he has always claimed, and, I believe, has always endeavoured so far as in him lay, to keep the militia of this country free from the influences of party politics-that, from time to time other powers and other influences, have been at work against which the combined efforts of the General Officer Commanding and of the Minister of Militia were futile. And we find, from time to time, as reports from all over the country show, the strong, stern hand of the politician and ward heeler influencing the Minister of Militia and the General Officer Commanding in appointments to office. From the very first day the Minister of Militia took his present place, until, the present time, the members of the opposition and the Conservative party generally have done what they could to uphold him in keeping the militia free from political influences. I challenge any hon. gentleman to place his finger on a single instance where the Conservative party in this House or out of it, in the press or on the platform have introduced party politics into questions relating to the militia. It remained for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who has never had anything to do with the militia, to force it to an issue so that no self respecting General Officer Commanding could longer put up with the meddling and interference ;__it has been left, I say, for the Minister of Agriculture to force the issue and bring about the crisis which has now arisen. I am sure that the Minister of Militia will be the first man to bear me out when I say that, even in relation to matters in which I have a special interest, and when I have had splendid opportunities to make political capital for my own friends in connection with the militia, I have never once, in this House or out of it, raised my voice in an attempt to blame the government captiously or to make party capital out of these questions. We, on this side of the House, have let opportunities go by because we preferred to keep the militia of the country perfectly free from party politics. But, from time to time cases arise. It was only yesterday the Toronto ' News,' the organ of a friend of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister-so great an admirer of the Prime Minister that, it is said, he keeps his picture at the head of his bed


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: No, he has not the picture of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), but only' one of the First Minister. The Toronto ' News ' goes on to show that the St. Catharines Field Battery is disorganized. And it gives the facts-I do not vouch for them, but they are there as a matter of
newspaper statement-to show that this disorganization is due to the intermeddling of party politicians. In the same locality we find a difficulty arising in the case of a corps of cavalry.
It is very strange that it is along the border that these gentry are found who most insist on meddling in party politics. We have a corps of cavalry in that region of which, I believe, the officer commanding is Coil. Gregory. The regiment has been newly organized and enlarged I believe, and it was the desire of all the officers in that regiment and the general desire on the part of the whole community that Col. Gregory should be continued in command for another year or two under a regulation of the Minister of Militia. The General Officer Commanding, whose duty, I have clearly shown it, Is to act in such cases, informed Col. Gregory of an extension of his command. The minister will be able to correct me in this, as the authprity comes from that end, and I have not asked either the General Officer or the officer in this case. This information was conveyed to the officers of the regiment, and an officer of the political faith


Frederick William Borden: My hon. Mend has appealed to me. Col. Gregory's tenure was extended one year ; if the General Officer Commanding made any other communication to Col. Gregory than that, he had no right to do it.


Samuel Hughes: The minister knows as well as I do that the regulations allow an extension of three years.


Frederick William Borden: Quite so, and it was extended one year ; that is the usual extension.


Samuel Hughes: The regulations permit of an extension of three years, and the General Officer, acting on his prerogative, under the direction of the Minister of Militia, extended that to three years, two years in addition to the one previously given. An officer second in command, not yet qualified to command, communicated with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), and he, in language more befitting Canal street, Buffalo, than an hon, member in this House, stated that Dord Dundonald would be taught that he had no power to give the extension. I shall give the story, and then we shall see whether the facts bear it out or not. He made the statement that there would be no extension of command, and the notice which Lord Dundonald had given was cancelled.


Frederick William Borden: Let me teP my hon. friend that there is not one word of truth in the statement that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) ever spoke to me or wrote to me with reference to Col. Gregory, or, so far as I know, with reference to any other officer connected with that regiment. Neither is there any

truth in the statement that the General Officer Commanding asked me or recommended me to extend Col. Gregory's term three years.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr.   SAM@: 'HUGHES. I notice that the gentlemen opposite are fulfilling their function in this House of merely being an echo, to pound the desks for ministers when the signal is given them. I have not said that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) wrote or spoke to the minister, tout I have stated that the hon. member for Welland stated that in his county.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. SAM". HUGHES. Those are my words. I have said that he stated that in his county, and whether he interfered or some one else interfered, it rests with the minister to tell.


Frederick William Borden: I interfered, if you want to know.


Samuel Hughes: How did the minister become apprised of it ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would remind the hon gentleman (Mr. Hughes) that that is not at all the question before the House. For that matter, I might say that there is really no question before the House now.


Samuel Hughes: I purpose concluding with a motion. The minister must have become aware of some intuition, since he tells us the General Officer Commanding did not notify him, and yet he did stop this exten sion of Col. Gregory's time.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman, who seems to know more about the General Officer Commanding than I do, las informed the House that the General Officer Commanding recommended the extension. I did not. I do not know it, if he did.


Samuel Hughes: The minister said just now that he stopped the extension. Those are his own words, and I am taking him at his own word. I am not saying that the General Officer did anything. I do not know what the general did only from what Col. Gregory and his friends say.
Not long since the General Officer Commanding took a trip to the Pacific coast, leaving, I presume, the Adjutant General in command. We have an ordinance corps in Canada, a very necessary corps, which is now under the military wing of the department, and when Lord Dundonald got safe ly away on the coast, we find two majors promoted to senior rank, who could not'be promoted, so the current .story goes, while Lord Dundonald was here. I refer to Major Belanger and Major Bliss, who were raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman


Frederick William Borden: 


Samuel Hughes: I am coming right straight to the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: An hon. gentleman who moves the adjournment can bring up any matter he sees fit.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is true in a general way, but an hon. member who moves the adjournment must confine himself to the question for the discussion of which he moves the adjournment.


Robert Laird Borden: The adjournment has not been moved.
Mr. 'SPEAKER. If the hon. gentleman will not move the adjournment, there is no question before the chair, and we must proceed with the orders on the paper.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to abide by jour decision. But is it necessary that I should move the adjournment; may I not move another motion ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The only motion which it is now in order for the hon. gentleman to move is the adjournment. I had understood that the hon. gentleman would move the adjournment, but the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has contradicted that statement.


Robert Laird Borden: What, did I contradict ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman contradicted the statement that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) had intended to move the adjournment.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not do anything of the kind. It is an entire misunderstanding. The point I took is that the adjournment was not moved toy the hon. Minister of Agriculture or the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden), and the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) can therefore initiate any thing he sees fit on the motion to adjourn the House. That point I think is a very plain one, by which I am prepared to stand, subject to your ruling.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The position, as I under-stand it, is this : Yesterday some hon. gentleman asked for an explanation from the government of what I may be permitted to call the Lord Dundonald incident. To-day two members of the government, sitting on the treasury benches, offered the explanation demanded. As I understand it, that is the end of the question. The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) rose to make some remarks, which I submit he could not have made without moving the adjournment of the House.' Now, since he is about to move the adjournment of the House, he has a right to discuss this question, and I think he is to toe allowed general latitude, tout I think he must try, as every

member must, to limit himself to the subject under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: I would conceive it to be the right of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to rise in his place after these explanations had been made on behalf of the government, the adjournment of the House not having been moved, and discuss the transportation question, or any question he may see fit. He is not limited.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not think that is a proper interpretation of the rules. I differ entirely from the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden).


Robert Laird Borden: He is speaking now in regard to the matter which was brought up on the motion for the adjournment of the House.


Samuel Hughes: I was discussing political meddling.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am prepared to rule that that is not a proper interpretation of the rules governing the motion to adjourn.
I think the rule is that the gentleman who moved the adjournment of the House must confine himself to the subject under discussion, and that he could not, on a motion of this kind for the purpose of discussing this subject, refer to the question of transportation.


Frederick William Borden: I submit, with all respect, that there was no subject under discussion when the hon. gentleman rose, and therefore he is at perfect liberty.


Hon. W. IS. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I admit at once that if the matter stood as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) puts it, and the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) had stated that he desired tp move tlip adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing transportation, .he had a right to do so ; but, if he continued to discuss the matter before the House, I do not think he could mix up transportation with it.


Samuel Hughes: The question before the House is political meddling, by gentlemen connected with the Liberal party, with the Minister of Militia and the appointing of officers in the militia. If I understand the question aright, I think 1 am confining myself very closely to the issue. However, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling and I shall not take up any more of the fifty odd cases that I could refer to that have been brought to my notice within the last few days, but I will come down to the hon. Minister of Agriculture-come down to him. I have here a very long letter which I shall not read at length. It has been sent to me from the eastern townships and it concerns the meddling of the hon. Minister of Agriculture in that arrangement for the erection of the drill shed at Sherbrooke. It goes on to say :
I heard nothing further about the matter until about February, when a letter was read before the city council from Mr. Fisher to Dr. Pelletier, stating that if the city would allow the valuation of the present site the government would at once proceed to construct a new shed, and the south ward site was stated to be the site decided upon. I then wrote Col. Biggar again, requesting him to come down and look over the situation once more, telling him at the same time that the proposed site on the Paton property could he bought for one-half the price which it was stated the government intended to pay for the south ward site, and got a reply from him, simply acknowledging my letter and saying he had reported on all the sites in Sherbrooke and that he would he glad to come down if sent by the department.
We then got up a petition to the minister, copy of which I inclose, and this was very largely signed, quite as largely by Liberals as by Conservatives. Indeed, it was entirely nonpolitical, and this petition was presented by the deputation referred to by the minister in answer to your fourth question. You will notice that three of this deputation, Dr. Austen, Mr. Armitage and Major Odell, are on the government side of politics.
In stating that there were two deputations, and that the first deputation consisted of Col. E. B. Worthington, with the mayor and Dr. Pelletier, this answer is misleading, and is really not correct.
Then follows a lot about the sites but it concludes as follows :
When we waited upon the minister

That is the Minister of Militia.
When we waited upon the minister

I would like the right hon. First Minister to hear this.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is very far from the question.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES, (reading).
When we waited upon the minister-from whom we received every courtesy-Mr. Fisher was present, and ma'de himself, to say the least, very disagreeable, accusing the English of running down the French, &c., in Sherbrooke, and he evidently very greatly resented our going to Ottawa in connection with the matter, especially, I gathered, his own friends (politically) and thus interfering "with his pet schemes.
There can he no doubt that Mr. IJisher's determination to build the drill shed in the south ward is to give the English-speaking people in the north ward, where the majority are, of course, Conservatives, and the 53rd regiment, a slap in the face. So far as Dr. Pelletier and his friends are concerned, the proposed site in the south ward is absolutely political. In fact, he admitted to Mr. Armitage, one of the deputation, the day before we went to Ottawa, that it was entirely a matter of politics, and that by giving the French people in the south ward a drill shed he would secure his next election, and this statement Mr. Armitage repeated to the Minister of Militia when the deputation waited upon him iq Ottawa in presence of Mr. Fisher himself.
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that is germane .to the question.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the hon. gentleman wishes me to express my opinion I am bound to say that I do not think so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Who signed the letter ; name, name.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. Are these hon. gentlemen very anxious to know ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.


Samuel Hughes: The letter speaks for itself. It is written by the lieutenant colonel, I presume, in command in that district.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is his name?


Samuel Hughes: All that hon. gentlemen need to do to find out is to turn up the militia list. He is a gentleman who has done his country service in South Africa. He is a gentleman who has reflected credit on the militia of this country. Be he Conservative or Liberal he reflects credit on the country which has given him birth and it will be well for the hon. Minister of Agriculture if he could say as much for himself. Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up any of the other cases of political interference which I have in my possession but will proceed forthwith to take up the Incidents connected with the affair in Montreal. It is evident to the general public of this country that the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) occupies a very unenviable position before this House and country. I believe the hon. Minister of Militia would like to do what he honestly thinks is right for the militia of Canada irrespective of party politics, but we find hon. members from the west on the one hand meddling with appointments, we find the hon. Minister of Agriculture in the east on the other hand meddling with appointments in the militia and we even find the right hon. First Minister as well as the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce meddling in these appointments and looking after their own relatives.


Wilfrid Laurier: How have I meddled in any militia appointment, when and where ?	.


Samuel Hughes: Let me ask my right hon. friend a question. Has my right hon. friend ever interfered in the Militia Department in relation to any appointment?


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) has made the statement that he has.


Samuel Hughes: The right . hon. Crime Minister is able to answer irrespective of the hon. Minister of Finance.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware of ever having interfered on behalf of anybody in reference to the militia. Perhaps my hon. friend has some fact to bring to my attention, and if so I might then be


Samuel Hughes: able to say yes or no. At this moment there is only one instance which I remember and I shall not mention it.


Samuel Hughes: I shall not mention it either.
Some^on. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: I thank my right hon. friend for acknowledging that I was right. I had my desk half full of letters from all over the country in regard to this matter long before Lord Dundonald ever made his Montreal speech, and I want to tell the House and the country that many of us wondered why he had borne the brunt and odium of all these doings. I can readily see how, at last, goaded on to desperation by the interference of a man of the calibre of the Minister of Agriculture, he might not have observed the ordinary rules of military etiquette and how he might have been goaded on to make the statement he did make in Montreal. I wrote him in order to fortify myself in relation to this data and I received the following communication a few minutes ago which I shall read to the House. When I have presented it to the House I shall ask the House to compare the statements made herein with the statements made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Ottawa, June 10th, 1904. Dear Col. Hughes,-In reply to your letter the following memorandum gives the facts connected with the Montreal incident.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) DUNDONALD. Then follows the memorandum.
In accordance with general orders approved by council, I gave orders in the customary manner in the month of February last to organize the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons as a cavalry regiment, with headquarters in the eastern townships of Quebec. Lt.-Col. C. A. Smart was gazetted as commanding officer on the 19th February and other officers were also appointed to the same regiment. Shortly after the promulgation of the order authorizing the organization of the regiment, I received an order from Sir Frederick Borden through Col. Pinault, the deputy Minister of Militia, desiring him to stop the organization. No explanation or reason for this step was vouchsafed, but indirectly I learned that the Minister of Agriculture was responsible for the delay which thus occurred.
I greatly desire to have the organization proceeded with, as the time for holding annual camps was approaching. I accordingly twice communicated with Mr. Fisher by telephone on two dates some distance apart, and made appointments with him in order that the reason for the obstruction might be obtained.
The general was even polite enough to allow the meddling of the Minister of Agriculture at that time and was polite enough to telephone him twice to make appointments so that he might meet him and have those differences whatever they might be removed, in order that the interests of the
4.597

militia force of Canada might be looked after properly.
Mr. Fisher did not keep either of the appointments. On the second of the occasions above referred to, when speaking to Mr. Fisher on the telephone, I explained the urgency of completing the organization of the regiment without delay, otherwise it would he impossible for it to go into camp. X also inquired what Mr. Fisher had to do with the organization of the militia ; to this Mr. Fisher responded by inquiring whether I thought he had no right, as a cabinet minister, to interfere. My answer was that in my opinion Mr. Fisher had no right to interfere with Colonel Smart's selection of officers, as I understood he had been doing.
You will notice that the Minister of Agriculture arrogates to himself the right to boss the Militia Department as well as looking after the hens and the eggs and calves in the Agricultural Department.
It is perhaps unnecessary to say here that Colonel Smart's duty was to select officers for commissions and submit their names to the General Officer Commanding through the proper channel in order that he might make recommendations to the Minister of Militia. I became convinced of Mr. Sydney Fisher's continued interference with the duty of Colonel Smart in the selection of officers. Subsequently I sent in a Aist of officers for the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons' to be approved of by the Minister of Militia and gazetted. Included in that list was the name of Dr. Pickel, mayor of Sweetsburg, to command a squadron, a local man of prominence, whose appointment would, I believe, have advanced the interests of the militia. Dr. Pickel was not qualified professionally as on officer-
An bon. MEMBER. Hear, bear.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, ' bear ' 1 bear,' was that the bon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that spoke ? .


Mr. LOGAN.: No.


Samuel Hughes: The bon. member for Cumberland could very properly explain -we would not expect the bon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) to know, but the member for Cumberland can very readily explain what provisional officers mean.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Hear, bear.


Samuel Hughes: ing of June 4th, the day on which I spoke at the officers' banquet.
Colonel Smart's letter read as follows :-
You will notice that this letter is from Colonel Smart, the officer commanding the new regiment of Scottish Horse in the eastern townships.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date of that letter ?


Samuel Hughes: Montreal, 4th June, 1904. I can read :
(Copy.)
13TH SCOTTISH LIGHT DRAGOONS.
Montreal, June 4th, 1904.
_ My Lord,-As requested by you last evening, I have the honour to submit the following facts, in connection with recommendations for appointments submitted by me, and to which the Hon. Mr. Fisher took exception.
Let me point out In passing that the period for the annual drill was fast approaching and any one who has had charge of the organization of a regiment knows that you have to exert yourself when you start in February or January to get a regiment into shape, to appoint your non-commissioned officers and recruit your men and get them in harness. That requii'es a lot of hard work and exertion even without being hampered as those officers were by the Minister of Agriculture, who deserves the severe censure of the House and condign punishment at the hands of the Prime Minister of this country, I read :
I submitted the name of Dr. F. H. Pickel, who is mayor of the town of Sweetsburg, and warden of the county of Missisquoi, to be major, in command of ' E ' Squadron. Dr. Pickel is a gentleman 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.
That is the statement of Colonel Smart, the officer commanding the regiment, who was being hampered and interfered with and meddled with by the Minister of Agriculture. Colonel Smart continues :
This, I refused to do, as I had invited Dr. Pickel to come into the regiment and told Mr. Fisher that some one else would have to be responsible for the withdrawal of Dr. Pukel's name. After my last visit to Ottawa I consulted with Colonel Whitney, and we came to the conclusion that unless we induced Dr. Pickel voluntarily to withdraw, the organization would be hung up indefinitely.
And the Minister of Agriculture in the face of his knowledge of the fact, has the hardihood to stand before the House and the country and tell the House and the country that Dr. Pickel volunteered to withdraw' from the regiment and did not want the job. Colonel Smart continues :


Samuel Hughes: I, therefore, communicated with Dr. Pickel and explained to him that owing to a new regulation, objections were taken to the appointment of unqualified officers, to field officer's rank, and asked him if he would be good enough to allow me to withdraw his name temporarily, to which he consented.
Loyal man ; rather than block the organization of the whole regiment; rather than have the eastern township district deprived of the benefit of a militia force, he was loyal enough owing to the tyranny of the Minister of Agriculture to withdraw his name temporarily and let the organization proceed. Colonel Smart continues :
I then communicated with Mr. Fisher, saying that I would agree to the withdrawal of Dr. Pickel's name in the meantime, and on the strength of this I believe the appointment passed through Council. Your Lordship will observe that I have not withdrawn Dr. Pickel's name absolutely, and have kept the position of major in ' E ' squadron vacant, in hope that I may yet have Dr. Pickel appointed.
I know this is a surprise to the First Minister. I do not believe for a second that the First Minister thought his Minister of Agriculture would stoop to such a position as is outlined here, and I am satisfied that before many days are over, he will call on the Minister of Agriculture to hand in his resignation and take his place on the back benches :
Hon. Mr. Fisher also took exception to the name of Mr. T. R. Pickel, who is also very enthusiastic, and would make a capital cavalry officer.
Evidently the Pickel family do not get on with the hon. minister

I had submitted Mr. Pickel's name, recommending that he be appointed captain in ' E ' squadron

This is the second Pickel, and now the Minister of Agriculture is in the third pickle

-but Mr. Fisher insisted that I substitute the name of Lieutenant R. Steacie, making him captain, and Mr. Pickel first lieutenant. I pointed out to Mr. Fisher, that Mr. Pickel being a resident of the townships wgs entitled to a senior rank in preference to Mr. Steacie, who lives in Montreal, and moreover as Mr. Steacie is a relative of mine, it would place m-. in a false position, and appear as though I was unduly advancing him, at the expense of others. However, Mr. Fisher evidently had his mind made up on the matter, and insisted on the change to which I reluctantly agreed. I regret to say that this has caused some dissatisfaction, and I would like at the first opportunity to transfer Mr. Steacie to another squadron, and recommend Mr. Pickel for his captaincy.
I understand that the ' Gazette ' will show that this Captain Pickel was actually gazetted captain of the squadron, and through the meddling and tyranny of the Minister of Agriculture, he was forced to give up that position, and let this Montreal officer be appointed over his bead. Now we come

to the place which shows how solicitous the Minister of Agriculture was for the defence of the country and for getting the best fitted men for these positions :
With regard to the adjutancy; Captain Converse, whom I selected for this position has served in the militia for about fifteen (.15) years, and for a long time served as sergeant major in the Duke of York's Hussars. Mr. Fisher asked me to drop this gentleman and substitute Mr. Adams of the 6th Hussars, a gentleman who is very deaf, and whom I consider physically unfit for the position. I absolutely declined to consider this at all

The man had some self-respect. He was willing to be trodden on to some extent, hut when it came to an appointment like this, he refused to consent. Colonel Smart goes on :
-and Mr. Fisher waived his objections. He then asked me to recommend Mr. Adams for major to command ' E ' squadron and this I also flatly declined to do.
Out of five gentlemen whom Mr. Fisher recommended for commissions three have absolutely declined to come into the organization so that after all the trouble and worry inflicted on the regiment, Mr. Fisher has only been able to find two officers, both of whom are unqualified, and do not in any way compare with Dr. Pickel whom he rejected.
The above are the main facts in connection with this unfortunate matter, but if there is any further information desired, I will be pleased to submit it.
I am. Your Lordship's humble servant, (Signed) CHAS. A. SMART, Lieutenant-Colonel. His Lordship, the Earl of Dundonald,



C.V.O., C.B.,

[Stage Direction]
Major General,
Commanding Canadian Militia.
June 4, 1904.
Colonel Smart is the officer commanding the regiment, and I may say that Colonel Whitley, whose name Is mentioned here, is the brigadier .commanding the cavalry brigade in the eastern townships. Lord Dundonald continues :
I may here state that I have just communicated with Colonel Smart and it is by his permission and desire that I include this letter.
The following extract from the ' Montreal Gazette ' of June 9, except for a few slight omissions and inaccuracies gives a very fair report of what I said at Montreal on the subject in question. The word ' education ' should read * etiquette,' and the word ' champion ' should read 'warden.' The reference to lack of etiquette at Ottawa1 had no application except to official matters connected with my duty.
' When a nation is at war, and when national danger stares a nation in the face, it entrusts the promotion and the selection for the advancement to the general whom it entrusts to lead it. Political intrigues, intrigue for personal advancement other than that deserved by military efficiency, is dormant in time of national terror. (Hear, hear.) But when peace comes and all is quiet, and the vigilance of a nation for its national interests is at rest, political wiles and political schemes then begin to weave
their nets, the nation no longer, at that time being watchful. But I do not care, gentlemen, who the man is, if he advances one man and penalizes another on account of the political colour of his party, X say that man, whosoever that a man may be, is not a friend of his country. (Applause.)
Recently, gentlemen, a gross instance of political interference has occurred. I sent a list of officers of the 13th Light Dragoons to the ' Gazette.' I was astonished to receive the list hack with the name of one officer scratched out, and initialled by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Sydney Fisher. That gentleman was a man I considered well equipped to serve the King in the 13th Scottish Regiment (applause) -Dr. Pickel, Mayor of Sweetsburg, chosen of the people, one of the champions (wardens) of Missisquoi. What better man could serve the King. I feel certain that had Mr. Fisher's life led him to soldiery instead of to agriculture, he would feel annoyed, perhaps on personal grounds, on the extraordinary lack of education (etiquette) involved in scratching the name of a gentleman put forward by a man whose business it is to find sufficient officers for the militia. (Applause.) But on personal grounds, gentlemen, I don't in the least mind. Lack of etiquette affects me little ; I have been two years in Ottawa, gentlemen, (Laughter.) It is not on personal grounds that I inform you of this, but it is on national grounds. (Hear, hear.) I feel, gentlemen, anxious, profoundly anxious that the mijitia of Canada may be kept free from party politics. (Hear, hear and loul applause.)
Now, I can readily understand the position of Lord Dundonald, a distinguished officer who has been sent here to look after the best Interests of the militia of Canada, an officer whose family has been distinguished in history from generation to generation. One of his ancestors was the famous admiral who commanded the British frigate at Navarino ; another fell at the capture of Louisburg in the eighteenth century ; and the General Officer himself is distinguished in every part of the world where he has served. The Stratheona Horse and other Canadian corps followed him again and again to victory in South Africa, and I can readily understand, the annoyance that an officer of his standing should feel, on coming out here, with the best interests of the empire at heart-with the bent interests of Canada at heart, because the interests of Canada are the interests of the empire-at having to put up with this thing from week to week, and finally becoming so exasperated as he did at that banquet in Montreal as to strike from the shoulder, determined that come what might he would for all time to come put a stop to such petty meddling as has been indulged in by. the Minister of Agriculture. Lord Dundonald, I suppose, cares not what happens to him so far as his future in Canada^ is concerned ; but whatever it may be, I feel sure that he will continue to have at heart tile best interests of Canada and all parts of the British empire. What he has done' lias been to strengthen the hand of the Minister of Militia, in putting a strong iron
[Stage Direction]
heel down on the Minister of Agriculture and any others in this country who would seek to introduce party politics into the militia of Canada. I move that the House do.now adjourn.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Before that motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I think I should make some reference to the various statements which have appeared in the documents that the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has submitted to the House. I shall not discuss in any way the propriety of the General Officer Commanding taking the hon. gentleman as his medium of communication to the parliament of Canada, when he is an official of the government of Canada and subordinate, in the Department of Militia, to my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Militia.


Samuel Hughes: May I interrupt a moment ? I presume the hon. minister is not acquainted with the constitution of the country or he would not make a statement of that kind. A member of parliament is superior to any military man in Canada, and a member of parliament-even be he an admiral as Lord Napier was or General Officer Commanding or ordinary colonel or lieutenant colonel-is absolutely independent, as a member of parliament, of any minister of the Crown.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I fully accept my hon. friend's statement, but I do not think that it in any sense conflicts with what I have just said. The hon. gentleman may be the means of communication to parliament on behalf of any one who has no official connection with the government, but when the matter is one affecting the relations between an officer and a member of this government, I decline to acknowledge that the hon. gentleman, or any other hon. member is the proper medium of communication between that official and the parliament of Canada. I wish to cast no reflection upon General Lord Dundonald further than to say that, in his position of General Officer Commanding, he is setting a bad example to the militia of Canada when he neglects the courtesies of official position and violated the canons of official discipline, as he has done in this matter.
Regarding the hon. gentleman himself, I confess that I never appreciated how low I was, until I heard him say that he had to descend to my level.
I was rather astonished at his statement with regard to the Sherbrooke drill shed ; and when the proper time comes to discuss that question, I shall be quite ready to meet him or any other hon. gentleman on that side, and go into details of that matter, and have no doubt that I shall convince any fair, impartial mind that in what I did I acted in the interests of the militia of the district as well as of the people.
The hon. gentleman read a letter of which he declined to give the name of the author.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He read a letter, which, I understand, came from Col. Fraser, a colonel in command of one of the regiments in the district of Sherbrooke. He stated that it came from an officer who had served his country in South Africa. Sir, Col. Fraser never was in South Africa and never served his country outside of Canada. It was a brother of his who went to South Africa, but not the gentleman who wrote that letter. The hon. gentleman also referred to my leader the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and for once in his life, after the reply of my right hon. leader, for the first time under my observation, the hon. gentleman actually showed some signs of shame. For once in his life he was speechless for the moment. It is not usual for the hon. gentleman to be speechless. We all know his record in militia matters in this country and outside, and we all can remember well how his tongue was wont to wag in criticism of his military colleagues in Canada and elsewhere, men far superior to him-


Samuel Hughes: Let me say here


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman has no right to interrupt.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order. I want the same fair treatment that I have accorded the Minister of Agriculture.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is the point of order ?


Samuel Hughes: It is this, that when an hon. member in this House rises to ask another a question, he should not be inter-rujjted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman has just shown his sad lack of knowledge of the rules and regulations of this House. He has just given us an exhibition either of his utter ignorance or his deliberate desire to override the decencies of debate ip this House. With regard to the matters which have been brought forward in the commuui-, cation which Lord Dundonald has seen fit to send to the hon. member, I wish to refer to some of them because they are personal to myself* In this communication, General Lord Dundonald first of all accuses me of having put obstructions in the way of the organization of this regiment in the eastern townships. I have just this to say in reply. I think I was the first to recommend and urge the establishment in the eastern townships of a cavalry regiment. The establishment of such a regiment I desired for two reasons. In the first place, because I believed it would be in the interests of the militia of Canada, and in the second place I believed it would lead a number of our young farmers in the townships, who own horses, to become military horsemen and in that way contribute to the military

strength of the country. I found that apparently what I wished has been carried out.
I noted with satisfaction the reports of recommendations for appointments pointing in that direction. It was some time after that I received letters from gentlemen in the eastern townships asking for appointments in this regiment. I sent these letters on to my colleague the Minister of Militia and requested consideration for them. I had nothing whatever to do with any further work in that connection, nor did I take any part or action in the matter until about the month of April last, when I received some communications from the townships indicating that Col. Smart, who had been appointed to the command of this regiment, had come out there and was proposing appointments, some of which indicated that he was not familiar with the country or the people, and which I believed would be inimical to the success of the regiment. I referred these matters to my colleague and pointed out to him that in the organization of such a regiment in the townships, it was extremely desirably that men familiar with the country and the people should be given permanent positions in that corps, providing always they had the requisite military qualifications. My hon. colleague has explained what action he took. I had no further discussion of the matter with anybody. although.I received some letters which I referred to my colleague, the Minister of Militia, until I was asked by him to meet Colonels Whitley and Smart with him. I did so, and I then had placed before me by Col. Smart a list of the appointments which he proposed to recommend. These were numerous and most of the appointments were those of people I knew personally and in- many cases of well known Conservatives of the district.
I took no exception to this. But I found a recommendation in regard to the neighbourhood 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. 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 Missisquoi, to be third in command of that regiment. 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 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. And down at the bottom of the list Mr. Thomas F. Cotton a Liberal, son-in-law of the above-mentioned John M. Gibson, and grand nephew of Senator Baker. I told these gentlemen that, putting aside any question of military qualifications, which I afterwards went into, such a list of officers for that squadron in that neighbourhood would be held to be 'an instance of political preferment, and that it would be impossible to remove from the minds of the people of the district of Bedford the impression that the colonel who made such recommendations and was responsible for the success of this regiment had deliberately undertaken to turn that squadron, if not the whole regiment, into a political Tory organization. I pointed out, what was a notorious fact that, for years, in the old times, the military organizations of the district of Bedford. the 52nd Brome batallion, and the 60th Missisquoi batallion had been well known Tory organizations, that no Liberal was welcomed into their ranks, and, if, by any chance a Liberal got into their ranks he had to take a subordinate position and was always hopeless of promotion or preferment. And I said that, if such a recommendation as that were to go through and be known to the district of Bedford, nothing under heaven woilld remove the impression from the people of the county and of the country that the new regiment was to be conducted on the lines of the old regiments there, and that it would receive its baptism and would make its beginning as a Tory organization. I said that this was contrary to the interests of the regiment, and that such a list as that I could not approve. I venture to say- and I am within the judgment of everybody in this country-that it was not I who was guilty of introducing political preferment, but it was the gentlemen who were responsible for these recommendations. And 1 venture to say that, in the interests of the militia and with the object of removing all questions of political preferment from the regiment, I was right in making the protest that I did against that list. Sir, what were the military qualifications of these men ? Mr. John M. Gibson is a graduate of the military school of Kingston. For many years he has taken no part in military affairs. But I pressed on Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart that the fact that he was a graduate of the military school was sufficient to stamp him as eligible to hold high command, and I believed that it would be right that he should be the highest officer in the regiment chosen from the district. Mr. John M. Gibson is a well known Tory. But I endorsed his appointment and said it was a right one, because he had the military qualifications. In regard to Provisional Lieutenant Baker, he had been

i
460S
in camp one year and I said that that was sufficient justification dnd entitled him to consideration, and I endorsed his appointment as captain of this particular squadron. But, in regard to Dr. Pickel and Mr. T. R. Pickel I said that I did not consider that their military qualifications entitled them to the positions to which they were being appointed. I did not object to their being appointed to some positions. I do not know much about military matters, but I do know enough to believe that before a man had put upon him the responsibility of being officer in command of a squadron in a cavalry regiment he ought to have some military experience and some military training. Therefore, I objected to Dr. Pickel being appointed as major of that squadron. Other names and proposals were in the list that I saw. Amongst them was the proposal that a certain Mr. W. H. Russell should be appointed as major of the Stan-bridge squadron and, in the same squadron, appeared the name of Lieutenant Holland, V.C., of Montreal, not as major but as captain. Now, Mr. Russell is a well known Liberal of the county of Missisquoi. , I pointed out to Colonels Whitley and Smart- and took the initiative in doing so-that it would be more fitting that Lieutenant Holland should have command as major of that squadron as he was a gentleman holding the Victoria Cross and one with South African experience. I suggested that change and that the experienced military officer should be given the command of the squadron, even though it meant that a well known Liberal should be put in a subordinate position. Another name that I found in that list was Lieutenant Guy Carr, of Compton, a gentleman living outside the district but in the eastern townships. I said that I knew Captain Carr to be an old cavalry officer. He was a well known Conservative in the county of Compton, but I welcomed his name in the regiment, was delighted to see it there and so expressed myself.


Mr. MONK.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) when all this occurred V


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On the occasion to which my hon. friend the Minister of Militia referred-the occasion when he asked Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart to come here to discuss matters connected with the regiment. I explained that on opening my remarks. Another name was that of Surgeon Major Macdonald. He is a well known Conservative politician of my own county who has always consistently-as, according to his principles he ought-opposed me in my political campaign. I insisted to Colonels Whitley and Smai-t that Surgeon Major Macdonald was the right man to have the highest medical position in the regiment because I had known him for years as an enthusiastic militia man ; he Mr. FISHER.
had been in an infantry regiment and if he were willing to take a position in a cavalry regiment as medical officer, it was his due, and I hoped he would take it.
I think this fairly enough disposes of the question as to my general interference, and as to the position I have taken. I will sum up this-and I take the full responsibility of saying it-that this regiment was to be established in the eastern townships and I wanted it to be a credit to the eastern townships ; I wanted it to be a cavalry regiment of which all the people of the eastern townships would be proud. As much as possible, if men of the proper mili-try qualifications could be found in the eastern townships, I wanted it to be officered by eastern township men.
Not because I had any jealousy of outsiders, not because I objected to men coming from Montreal or elsewhere to command it; the eastern townships, but because I believed and I believe it still, that men who are of the people there, men who know the country, the conditions and the character of the people are more likely to succeed in recruiting the rank and file for a regiment in the eastern townships and more likely to make it a success. When I saw that Col. [DOT] Smart was appointed to the command of this regiment I recognized at once that, so far as I knew the militiamen of my district of the eastern townships, there was no man there qualified to take command of the newly organized cavalry, and I supposed that the man selected by Lord Dun-donald and Col. Whitley, the brigadier of that district, was a man properly qualified. There was no objection to Col. Smart holding command of this regiment. The only suggestion I did make was that any further appointments to that regiment should be made, as far as possible, from the people of the locality who had the proper military qualifications. I believe that in asking for and insisting on that I was doing what was in the best interests of any regiment in the militia of this country. I have now explained the only cases in which I have discussed political matters in this connection. I only discussed them because I found in a particular squadron a list of officers which appeared to have not only a political complexion but even a family complexion, and I warned these gentlemen who, not knowing the country, not knowing the individuals, not knowing the relationship in connection with these people, I believed innocently, were led by local people into doing a thing which if it had been allowed to go through would have been a fatal blow to the efficiency and the success of this regiment. Sir, I plead guilty to that much interference in the matter on the ground of politics. And if that much of such interference is not in the interest of the regiment and of the country, and if men who apparently may have been-I do

not say they were-carrying on these intrigues in regard to military appointments, these political intrigues to which Lord Dun-donald refers, had been permitted to carry through their proposal, instead of being an interference on behalf of Liberals, of which I am accused, it would have been a deliberate interference and political intrigue on the part of Conservatives for the purpose of making this regiment what the old regiments there were, a Tory preserve and a Tory organization. If that is political interference I plead guilty to it, because ,1 object to the Tories getting the advantage of intrigues in militia matters just as much as I would be ashamed to undertake any political intrigues in militia matters for the benefit of the Liberals. There is but one other matter to which I wish to refer. Lord Dun-donald's last communication to the House has been before me for only a few moments. I have only had the opportunity of hearing it read and of glancing over it/ but I mud correct several statements which are here contained in regard to myself. Lord Dundonald says .
I accordingly twice communicated with Mr. Fisher by telephone o.n two dates some distance apart, and made appointments with him in order that the reason for the obstruction might be explained. Mr. Fisher did not keep either of the appointments. I
I am speaking now from memory as I suppose Lord Dundonald was writing from memory. Lord" Dundonald did call me up on the telephone to discuss this question. When he began to discuss this, I suggested to him that I did not care to discuss such a matter over the telephone and that if he wished to talk the matter over with me I was at his disposal. I do not know that I am called upon to seek out Lord Dundonald and to get him to ask his permission to discuss these questions with him. I think that, if Lord Dundonald wished to discuss these matters with me, he might very easily have come to my office instead of calling me up by telephone, and have asked to have a few quiet minutes in my office to discuss this question. I intimated to him when he called me up on the telephone that it was impossible to discuss these matters over the telephone but that I was at Ms disposal if he wished to discuss them with me. On the second occasion Lord Dun-rlonald again called me up and again began . to discuss these questions. I cannot for the moment remember the full words of what he said. He is right in saying that he explained the urgency of completing the organization of the regiment without delay. I agreed with him. He also then went on to say that the trouble was one of political interference. I said I regretted if there was any political interference. I had in mind the list of officers I had seen. Lord Dundonald went on to discuss the question
with me, and I again said to him I did not care to discuss the questions over the telephone. Lord Dundonald then said to me :
I am responsible for the militia of Canada and I cannot be interfered with in this way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear, that is right.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These are just about the words he used. I said that nobody wished to interfere with him that I knew of. He went on again and repeated that political interference was blocking the completion of this organization.


Mr. FOWLER.: So it was.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He again repeated that he was responsible for the militia for Canada.
I said then to Lord Dundonald:	' I beg
your pardon, Lord Dundonald, but I think that it is the government of Canada that is responsible for the militia of Canada and not you.' I also said that if I had done anything in this matter I had done it as a responsible minister of the government of Canada because I believed it was necessary to make this regiment as great a- success as possible. Those may not be the exact words but that is the exact substance of-what I said, and without in any way desiring to attribute motives or to put thoughts into Lord Dundonal's mind, 1 fear very much that that gentleman has been influenced by the information which I gave to him that I considered it was the government of Canada and not he who was responsible for the militia of the country.
Lord Dundonald goes on to say a number of things to which I shall not allude with regard to Mayor Pickel, &c., as I have already dealt with them. He however, then goes on to show clearly by a letter to Col. Pinault, that he was perfectly well aware of the fact that I had been requested by my colleague to sign this particular recommendation. He knew perfectly well that that list of officers, was to be gazetted with the understanding that that name should be striken out. And yet his words at the banquet of Montreal, I submit to any unprejudiced person, would lead the public to believe that I, the Minister of Agriculture, had taken a recommendation of my colleague the Mini-ter of Militia and had changed it on my own responsibility. Now, if Lord Dundonald had felt as he appears to have felt, if he had shown that courtesy and attention to etiquette which might reasonably have been expected from one gentleman to another, or if he had shown a little^ common sense, which he might perhaps have learned in his two years' sojourn in Ottawa, he would, instead of rushing into a public speech, have asked either the Minister of Militia or myself for an explanation in regard to these things before making misstatements and creating a wrong im-

pression in the public mind and amongst the officers who were present at that Montreal banquet.
Now, I have only further to say that I have Col. Smart's letter to Lord Dundonald. I do not wish to cast any reflection on Col. Smart. I do not wish to say anything derogatory of him as an officer but I do venture to say this, that the tenor of this letter is such as to create an impression on the mind of anybody who reads it or hears it read which is not consonant with the facts as they have occurred. I have in my office to day letters from Col. Smart and Col. Whitley in which they express their extreme satisfaction with the stand I took in regard to this regiment and with regard to these, matters. I have letters from both these gentlemen thanking me in profuse terms for the interest I have taken in the regiment and asking my co-operation. I have letters from both of these gentlemen thanking me for pushing on the question of the establishment of that regiment and especially letters from Col. Smart thanking me for putting through the order which Lord Dundonald complains of. I will just now show the House and the country how utterly unfounded are these statements of Lord Dundonald and Col. Smart himself
. when he refers, as he does in this letter, to the case in regard to Dr. Pickel. I will read again Col. Smart's letter to me of May 19, on which I acted, passed and signed the order and recommendation to council. Col. Smart in his letter of June 4, to Lord Dundonald says :
I, therefore, communicated with Dr. Pickel and explained to him that owing to a new regulation, objections were taken to the appointment of unqualified officers, to field officers rank, and asked bjm if he would be good enough to allow me to withdraw his name temporarily, to which he consented.
X would point out that Col. Smart and Lord Dundonald were actually proposing to name a gentleman who had no military expsrience of any kind whatever, who never had been associated in any way with military matters, to the position of field rank, not ail ordinary subaltern in a squadron or company, but to a position of field rank in which he would have command of a full squadron and be responsible for the men under him in every respect. He says also :
Your Lordship will observe that I have not withdrawn Dr. Pickel's name absolutely, and have kept the position of major in ' E ' squadron vacant in the hope that I may yet have Dr. Pickel appointed.
' Then, I have Col. Smart's letter to me ou which I acted and I took no official step until I had received this letter from Col. Smart. This letter is dated May 19th. I would say in regard to this letter that Col. Smart came to me early on the morning of that day in my office when we talked over


Sydney Arthur Fisher: these matters. After that he went from my office to the Department of Militia and Defence to have his recommendation embodied in a report and put through having said that he would try to get that report to my office that afternoon to have it passed by council. It did not reach me however, until the next morning. Col. Smart went back to Montreal that night-May 19, and met Col. Whitley as he says :
Immediately on my return this evening I met Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley and discussed fully with him all matters in connection with our interview of to-day. Colonel Whitley was pleased to learn that everything was arranged satisfactorily and at his request I telephone! to Sweetsburg with a view of getting from Dr. Pickel his final answer as to whether or not it was his intention to remain in the squadron.
Co!. Smart says in his letter to Lord Dundonald :
Your Lordship will observe that I have not withdrawn Dr. Pickers name absolutely.
And yet he asked him for his final answer.


Frederick William Borden: And got it


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And got it.
In accordance therefore with Dr. Pickel's request I can now as commanding officer of the regiment request you to kindly make the change in the ' Gazette ' by leaving Dr. Pickel's came out.
I acted in this matter not as a partisan politician, but I acted as h friend of the regiment, as a i friend of the commanding officer who was asking me to do this, and I only signed the recommendation to council after I had received a letter from that gentleman telling me that Dr. Pickel had given his final answer as to his connection with the regiment and after the commanding officer himself asked me to strike his name out. I did that, not in my own position as Minister of Agriculture, but, as is common in connection with the affairs of government, acting for my colleague who had requested me to act for him.
Now, I do not think that there is anything further for me to say except this, Col. Smart says that he has kept that position open for Dr. Pickel. Col. Smart on several occasions asked me to make a recommendation of an officer to fill that position. ;i said that I did not know anybody in the district with sufficient military qualifications to fill it and that I would not recommend anybody until I had been able to find such a one.
Captain Gny Carr, a well known Conservative in Compton county had been for many years a cavalry officer in that county and when it was proposed that he should be exchanged into this regiment I thought he was a suitable man-to occupy the position of Major of the regiment. The only name that I suggested to take Dr. Pickel's place was that of a qualified military man

.who was a well-known Conservative. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need go any farther. I would not have taken up the time of the House this afternoon had the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) not brought up these extraordinary letters and had he not undertaken to make insinuations and to make attacks upon me personally. I leave myself to the judgment of the House and through the House to the judgment of the country as to whether I have done anything to interfere with the efficiency of the militia of Canada or anything which is not consonant with the dignity of a public man.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, if anything were required to justify the remarks which Lord Dundonald made in Montreal I would think it would be the very distinct admissions which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has made to-day. He has admitted the whole case distinctly and absolutely. There can be do doubt of that and strange to say in making that admission he has to a very considerable extent in regard to the facts set forth in Col. Smart's letter, made a statement in absolute contradiction of the statement which he has read to the House this afternoon. Let me remind the hon. gentleman what he then said :
This is a simple statement of the facts of the case, which-without referring in any way to the propriety of the General Officer Commanding discussing in public, official recommendations, without referring to the broad question of the propriety of an official of the government of Canada criticising the official action of a member of that government-absolutely disproves the charge that for political reasons I have undertaken to strike out a name which had been submitted to the Minister of Militia for appointment in the service.
That was the statement of the hon. gentleman as read to the House this afternoon. The remarks to which we have just listened are not at all consistent with another portion of his written statement which is as follows :
In regard to Lord Dundonald's general statement that I interfered with the organztation of the corps and with the names of other proposed officers of the corps as well as Dr. Piekel, let me say this : that the only grounds on which I made any suggestion with regard to the establishment of this corps were the immense importance of the appointment of leading officers with military qualifications who knew the country and the people of the eastern townships, the district where the corps was to be established; that I took no exception to anybody's appointment on political grounds alone, as evidenced by my recommendation aDd endorsement of many well known Conservatives ; that no one believes more thoroughly than I do that the first necessity on the recommendation of officers on the establishment of a new regiment is miliatry qualification.
The Minister of Agriculture distinctly admitted this afternoon, that because Dr. i'iekel was a Conservative and because he did not think it was desirable that so many Conservatives should ho officers of that regiment, he suggested, indeed insisted, upon the withdrawal of his name and absolutely refused to permit the organization of the regiment to be proceeded with unless Dr. i'lCKel's name was withdrawn. If the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture do not mean that, I would like to know what they do mean. Why should the Minister of Agriculture be concerned as to whether any man appointed by the commanding officer of this regiment, was a Liberal or a Conservative ? Surely we have partisan politics introduced into enough of the aspects of life in this country without having the Minister of Agriculture running around and interfering with that which does. not concern him, and of which he knows nothing ; interfering with the work of those who know ten thousand times more about it than he does, and insisting that the officers of this regiment shall have a particular political complexion. And, if you get qualified men to serve their King and country in a regiment of Canadian volunteers what difference is it whether they are Liberals or Conservatives.
Yon will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture was anxious that men of proper military qualifications should be appointed, and he sets himself up as an expert against the men who are charged with organizing this regiment. These gentlemen were Colonel Smart, against whom there is no word of reproach so far as his capacity is concerned, and Lt.-Col. Whitley, who is described in this way in the memo, which the Minister of Miliia road :
I was aware that Lt.-Col. Whitley, one of the ablest and most efficient cavalry officers rn Canada had been consulted with reference to the organization of the proposed new cavalry regiment mentioned.
And now, from the letters which were read by the Minister of Agriculture we find that his recommendations were necessary to every appointment that was made. These military men, these officers of experience, were not to be allowed to pronounce upon the military qualifications of the gentlemen proposed as officers, but the Minister of Agriculture, an expert, so it seems, in military service, is to be allowed to interfere and to prevent these men from serving their King and their country. That is the position of the Minister of Agriculture before the House and the country to-day. Let me tell him, when he sees fit to make an attack In a sneering tone upon the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) who has served his King and country with distinction not only in Canada but in South Africa; let me tell the Minister of Agriculture that



he had better bear in mind that he, and not the member for North Victoria is on trial before the country to-day.
The Minister of Agriculture has admitted the whole case. No comment is necessary. Lord Dundonald's remarks are absolutely justified by the Minister of Agriculture himself. The Minister of Agriculture wanted no appointments, so he says, that would be inimical to the interests of the regiment. Does he suppose that he is a better judge of what is inimical to the interests of the regiment than one of the best cavalry officers in Canada who was in consultation with the efficient officer selected to command this cavalry corps. The statement of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, fn which he admits this uncalled for interference, has absolutely justified every word that Lord Dundonald has uttered with regard to this unfortunate matter.
Has the Minister of Agriculture ventured to contradict the very distinct statements which have been made by Lt.-Col. Chas. A. Smart, who says :
I submitted the name ot Dr. F. H. Pickel, who is mayor ot the town ot Sweetsburg, and warden of the county of Missisquoi, to be major in command of ' E ' Squadron.
It does not require very much knowledge of military affairs to know that in the formation of a regiment of this kind, as you cannot get qualified military men you must get men of prominence, men who are willing to be qualified, men who are enthusiastic in the service and who are likely to make good officers after they have been duly qualified. These officers were selected by the men who are charged) by this country with the performance of that duty. Lt.-Col. Smart continues :
Dr. Pickel is a gentleman of means, can ride fairly well, and was quite willing to take the necessary time to qualify himself for the position of major.
Let me point out once more, that of the sixteen men selected for officers in this regiment only two were properly qualified, but Dr. Pickel who happened to be a Conservative, is the only man according to the Minister of Agriculture, to be debarred from entering the service of his King, because he has not the necessary military qualifications. Col. Smart has no objection to this letter being made public, and indeed Lord Dundonald states he has desired that it should be made public. He proceeds :
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.
The Minister of Agriculture has not put it in quite such strong terms as that, but he has practically admitted the same thing in Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
his last statement to the House, although, the first statement which he read was of an entirely different conplexion, Col. Smart continues :
This, I refused to do, as I had invited Dr. Pickel to come into the regiment, and told Mr. Fisher that some one else would have to be responsible for the withdrawal of Dr. Pickel's name. After my last visit to Ottawa I consulted with Colonel Whitley, and we came to the conclusion that unless we induced Dr. Pickel voluntarily to withdraw, the organization would be hung up indefinitely.
Now, this gentleman is stating the conclusion at which he arrived, after consultation with the officer above him, Lt.-Col. Whitley, who has been described by the Minister of Militia as one of the ablest and most efficient cavalry officers in Canada. After consulting with this gentleman, Lt.-Col. Smart came to the conclusion that the partisan interference of the Minister of Agriculture in the organization of this regiment, with which the Minister of Agriculture should not interfere at all, was of so serious a character, according to the deliberate opinion of these two gentlemen, that the whole organization would be stopped unless the name of Dr. Pickel was withdrawn. And my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has the hardihood, has the courage to stand up in this House, and before the people of the country, and say, that in playing that part he played a part of which no public man in this country might be ashamed, a part indeed of which he declares himself proud. Col. Smart continues :
I, therefore, communicated with Dr. Pickel and explained to him that owing to a new regulation, objections were taken to the appointment of unqualified officers, to field officers rank, and asked him if he would be good enough to allow me to withdraw his name temporarily, to which he consented.
I would like to ask the Minister of Militia whether or not the officers senior to Dr. Pickel in the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, are all militarily qualified, because that is very important.


Frederick William Borden: I believe they are.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the minister able to state that as a fact ?


Frederick William Borden: That is my belief. I think there is no doubt of it. I have not the whole record before me. 1 have only the particular ' Gazette ' which we are considering. But my belief is that they are all qualified.


Robert Laird Borden: Is Lt.-Col. Smart correct in stating that of sixteen officers of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, only two had the necessary military qualifications ?


Frederick William Borden: Nine out of sixteen possessed military qualifications.


Robert Laird Borden: The necessary military qualifications for their rank ?


Frederick William Borden: Some of them were taken from former regiments. Some of them were from regiments that had been disbanded, with the expectation that these officers would be utilized. Others were taken from regiments in the city of Montreal. Without any doubt about it at all, I state that nine out of the sixteen had military qualifications.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Militia must not suppose for a moment that we do not understand the difference between his answer and what I am asking. I am asking whether more than two of these men possessed the military qualifications necessary for the rank to which they were appointed.


Frederick William Borden: I will only say that the ' Gazette ' shows that an asterisk was placed by the General Officer Commanding opposite certain names, with the following note :-
As a special case, and will be asked to pass qualifying examination.
That asterisk appears opposite only five names, so far as I can observe. In addition to those five, however, there are appointed lieutenants provisionally, and they should be added to the five namely, T. R. Pickel, H. W. Reynolds, and T. F. Cotton. That would make eight. That is the exact condition of things revealed in the original ' Gazette, ' which I have here.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia has made it very plain to me yet. It is perfectly clear that a considerable number of the officers besides Dr. Pickel had not the military qualification necessary for their rank, and therefore that part of the objection of the Minister of Agriculture disappears entirely. Lord Dundonald has stated, and I have not understood the Minister of Militia to contradict him, that in the organization of a regiment of this kind, it is always necessary to take unqualified men, with the understanding that afterwards they shall become properly qualified. Lord Dundonald with regard to that has said this :
Dr. Picket was not qualified professionally as an officer ; indeed only two out of sixteen of the proposed officers for the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons were militarily qualified. It was impossible, as will be understood, to procure duly qualified officers, as the cavalry regiments in the eastern townships had been increased since May, 1903, from four squadrons, numbering 300 men and 26 officers, to twenty squadrons, numbering 1,600 men and 180 officers on the peace establishment ; and with a war establishment of some 2,700 men. All the gentlemen, however, in the list submitted, undertook to qua-1471
lify professionally after appointment In the usual manner. This course is customary, and has been forced upon us by the lack of qualified officers. It is a course which has always met with the approval of the Minister of Militia.
Therefore that part of the argument of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture absolutely fades away, and we are left with the bald fact that the only obstacle which stood in the way of Dr. Pickel's serving as an officer in this regiment was that he happened to entertain political opinions different from those entertained by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. That is all there is about it, after the hon. minister's own statement and after the best consideration which we can give to the facts brought before the House. That conclusion absolutely justifies the statements of Lord Dundonald.
And here let me remark that whatever else we may say of Lord Dundonald, I think we all believe that he came to this country, and has remained in this country, inspired solely and absolutely with a sincere desire to advance and improve the militia service in Canada. I do not think he has had any other object or aim throughout his entire career, and I believe that those of the military men of Canada who have come in contact with him and have thus learned to appreciate and to honour him, will bear me out in that tribute. He is a man of simple, straightforward character, a thorough soldier in every respect; and I can well understand the irritation which he would feel, and from which he undoubtedly would suffer, when he found that the organization of a cavalry regiment in the eastern townships was being hung up and delayed, and stood in danger of being indefinitely postponed, simply for the reason that certain officers proposed to be appointed to that regiment did not entertain political views in harmony with those of my hon. friend the Minister of the Agriculture.
The government, however, adopted a rather curious mode of dealing with Lord Dundonald. From the statements which we have heard read in the House this afternoon, it is perfectly obvious that what must have been construed as an attack upon that officer was proposed to he made in the House to-day, without calling on Lord Dundonald for one word in his defence. That is the position in which the matter presents itself. If the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia proposed to read these statements in the House to-day, would it not have been a fair thing for them in the first place to have either called on Lord Dundonald for an explanation of the remarks he made in Montreal, or to have submitted to him a statement of the facts as they understood them to be, and to have asked from him any defence which he might desire to make? I would have thought that the fair and courteous course, but it was not the course that evidently was intended.

I will say in conclusion that while 1 regal'd this as a very regrettable incident, it will not be without benefit to the country, if, in the future, it will lead to the withdrawal of partisan interference in the appointment of officers of the militia, whether that interference may come from the government now in power or may be sought to be applied by any government which may come into power in the future. We do not want political interference in military matters in Canada. The people pay a considerable amount for the military service of this country ; they are willing to pay that amount for an efficient military service; but we do not want that service to deteriorate or become inefficient by reason of party politics entering into -it in any way. We have had this afternoon a confession which indicates that party politics has been entering into it for some time past, on the part of the Minister of Agriculture at any rate.
I trust that there will be an end to that, and that the Minister of Militia will see fit to confide solely to officers who are experienced and capable, the organization of such regiments as this without considering, at the instance of the Minister of Agriculture or any one else, whether the gentlemen sought to be appointed are Conservatives or Liberals in their political opinions.


Wilfrid Laurier: The occasion of this debate Mr. Speaker, is the unfortunate-I shall not characterize it to-day by any other term-speech which was delivered some few days ago by Lord Dundonald at a banquet. After the explanations we have had from my hon. colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), and also on behalf of Lord Dundonald by my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes), I think it preferable at this moment not to push further a discussion of the consequences which may flow from Lord Dundonald's remarks. Not that I should have any hesitation in my own mind, or that there should be any hesitation in the mind of anybody, but it is preferable, in a matter of this gravity, that we should proceed with prudence and deliberation. Having said that much regarding the speech of Lord Dundonald, I may be permitted to say a word of his methods in organizing the militia, in so far as they are revealed by the incidents which have taken place in connection with the organization of the 13th Light Scottish Dragoons. Lord Dundonald is certainly-I am willing to give him every credit in that respect-endowed with good motives. No one who knows him can question that. He bears a very honourable name, as was said by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) a moment ago, a name made famous by his forebears in British history, and to the lustre of which he has added himself by his own services in South Africa and



M. R. L. BORDEN.

[Stage Direction]
elsewhere. I have no desire in the slightest degree to reflect upon him as a soldier, but perhaps I may not be offensive if I say that it is not the first time that a good soldier may have lacked discretion. Lord Dundonald, in his position, is charged with the organization of the militia, but he must take counsel here when organizing a regiment. He is a foreigner-no-
Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had withdrawn the expression before hon. gentlemen interrupted. He is not a foreigner, but he is a stranger.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, he does not know the people of the eastern townships, where these light dragoons are to be enlisted.' I doubt if he ever was in the town of Sweetsburg, or in the county of Brome, or the county of Missisquoi, or, if he has been in any of these places, it could only have been for a very short period, when passing through. It was advisable that a regiment should be recruited in those districts, but in what way ? If this regiment of 13th Scottish Light Dragoons was to be organized and recruited from the counties of Brome and Missisquoi, how could Lord Dundonald possibly know personally who should officer it ? How could he know what officers should be appointed ? Perhaps he knew Ool. Smart, but Col. Smart himself was from Montreal, and he had to go to the counties and get there his information from somebody. He had to get information from parties in and around Sweetsburg and the other towns in the counties of Missisquoi and Brome. Well, it is evident that Col. Smart happened to fall into the hands of certain parties who represented rather a small family compact. The list he made was composed almost exclusively of gentlemen connected with the Conservative party. My hon. friend said a moment ago that in militia matters there should be no politics, and in this I heartily agree, but it so happens that this regiment was to be officered almost exclusively by Conservative politicians. It is no harm to be a Conservative. It may be a mistake, but I do not count it a sin. But I submit to my hon. friends on the other side, is it not proper that whenever a regiment is organized in any part of the country, it should be officered as far as possible from both parties ? I do not know how things are now, but once upon a time, when I was in the militia myself, there was a battalion organized, with which I was connected, and in organizng it, the man who was our colonel went and consulted everybody. He consulted men who could not take any part in the organization, but whose advice was valuable. But in the present instance, it so happens that there is a gentleman in the eastern townships who is connected with politics and holds a position of some respectability in that part of the country, I refer to my

462U
hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. Was his position to be considered a bar to his offering any advice ? Was he to be precluded from expressing an opinion simply because he happened to be Minister of Agriculture ? Had he not as much right to give advice in the matter as Col. Pickel and the others about Sherbrooke, or in the counties of Missisquoi and Brome, who hap-jiened to be consulted ? Was my hon. friend, simply because he happened to be Minister of Agriculture, bound to say :	it
is all wrong, you have chosen none hut Conservative politicians to be officers of the regiment, but I cannot say a word about it ? If we are all in agreement on this principle that volunteer associations should not be political preserves, if we all agreed that politics should be kept out of them, I think that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture ought to be commended for having pointed out to the general that he was making a mistake in choosing nearly all his men of the one stripe and so few of the other ? That is all my hon. friend did. He wrote to the General Officer Commanding that there were in that regiment too many of one stripe and not sufficient of the other. He went over to the militia office and had a conference with the Minister of Militia and Cols. Whitley and -Smart. Together they discussed the personnel of the staff. My hon. friend made some representations, and it seems to me that the representations he made were in the best interests of the force and should have been accepted. As a matter of fact they were accepted at that conference, but unfortunateljr Lord Dundonald came to the conclusion that having signed a list of names recommended to him-a list probably of men about whom he knew nothing-that list was as sacred as the laws of the Medes and Persians and could not he interfered with-that even the Minister of Agriculture, acting for the Minister of Militia,-which is not denied by Lord Dundonald-could not have a word to say, hut that the list had to be accepted simply because it was signed by Lord Dundonald.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is not doing Lord Dundonald justice ?


Wilfrid Laurier: In what way?


Robert Laird Borden: He never made any objection to the Minister of Militia acting or to any one acting for him. What he objected to was the Minister of Agriculture going to the officers who were organizing that regiment under him and interfering with them in the duties they were performing under his directions.


Wilfrid Laurier: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. Here is the speech of Lord Dundonald. He said, would you believe it gentlemen, I sent an order to the cabinet and that order was interfered with. Here are his very words :
A most flagrant Instance of political interference hg.s recently come before me in connection jvith the appointment of officers in the new eastern township cavalry regiment, the Scottish Light Dragoons.
The commanding officers of the corp had been selected because of their apparent fitness from a military point of view. The names reached me and were sent to council and gentlemen, what do you think happened ? The list having my approval

' My approval '



was returned with the name of one officer stricken out and initialled by the Minister of Agriculture.
And, in justice to the Minister of Agriculture it should be said that it was initialled by him acting for the Minister of Militia, as was well known by Lord Dundonald. Under these circumstances, I ask my hon. friend if I am doing any injustice to Lord Dundonald when I say that he wanted to have his recommendation to council, the last word to be said, and minister and council simply to bow and accept his recommendation ?


Robert Laird Borden: I say, yes, because the Prime Minister has left out of account the letter from Lieut.-Col. Smart which was before Lord Dundonald before he made these remarks, in which Lieut.-Col. Smart said that" the Minister of Agriculture had interfered with him on political grounds.


Wilfrid Laurier: And at that very moment the Minister of Agriculture, who was acting for the Minister of Militia had the letter of Lieut.-Col. Smart begging him to leave off the name of Dr. Pickel. Sir, we are not accustomed-I give_ all credit to Lord Dundonald for good motives __but we are not accustomed to be dragooned in this country. Lord Dundonald, with all the respect I have for him, must learn that this is a responsible government and that when he sends a recommendation to council, it is the right-it is the right, I say notwithstanding what anybody may say to the contrary-of the minister in charge of the department, if he does not approve of the recommendation to strike out any name.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Will he or will the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Militia deny that this name was struck off while the Minister of Militia was present with the Minister of Agriculture, before the recommendation was sent to council. If he does, all I can say is that we can prove to the contrary.


Wilfrid Laurier: What does that prove ?


Samuel Hughes: It proves that the Minister of Agriculture had interfered before.


Wilfrid Laurier: It was corrected by the Minister of Agriculture, acting for the Minister of Militia and approved by the council.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, but it was changed before that.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, It was not changed before that time. I do not wish to pursue this discussion further. I merely wish to vindicate the course of my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher). Lord Dundonald, or whoever commands the militia in Canada will commit the greatest of mistakes if, when appointing officers to the mifltia in parts of the country of which he knows nothing, appointments concerning which he must take the recommendation of somebody, if he does not take advice not only from one side but from both sides of politics on these matters.


Mr. E. B. OSLER.: I regret, as all must regret, the incident that has come before us to-day ; but I regret still more the evident joy with which supporters of the government hailed it as giving them a chance to get rid of a man who has been so strong to resent the interference of .politicians in appointments in the militia. There is no explanation wanted from any one as to the position the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) took in this matter. He interfered for a political purpose, according to his own statement. If he cannot see that it was a political motive and nothing else that influenced his action, then he cannot see what every one else in the House can see. The Prime Minister made a statement that seems to me rather extraordinary. He stated, as a reason for the interference of the Minister of Agriculture, who happens to live in the district where the corps was being organized, that the General Officer Commanding, Lord Dundonald, did not know the people and did not know the country. If that is to be the ground for taking out of the hands of the General Officer Commanding the selection of those to fill these appointments, then it means that in every locality where the General Officer Commanding is not perfectly familiar with the people and the country the member of parliament who may represent that section is, for the time being, to be the Minister of Militia so far as that district is concerned. That is what the Prime Minister tells us in so many words. Surelv that is a condition of affairs which could not be allowed, and I am sure the Prime Minister did not mean to convey the meaning that his words conveyed to me, and I think must have conveyed to everybody who listened to him. Any officer commanding the militia has a difficult position to fill He ought, I think, to receive all the cour- 1
Sir WILFRID LAURIE!
tesy and all the help possible from his minister and from all the members of the government. I think, from the correspondence and from the admissions that the Minister of Agriculture has made, that Lord Dundonald was thoroughly right in being indignant at the way he was treated. I think that no man with knowledge of his profession and proper regard for his own dignity could do other than resent the treatment the Minister of Agriculture meted out to Lord Dundonald in connection with this matter. Evidently it is not the only case which has aroused this feeling on the part of Lord Dundonald. He came here as an eminent soldier and he has won the confidence, I believe, of every volunteer in the country-certainly of every one whose opinions I have heard expressed. He is looked up to with the greatest respect, and all have anticipated the very best results from the improvements he has made. I regret very, very sincerely that this incident has happened. I regret still more the manner in which it has been treated by the members on the other side of the House. They seem to have a feeling of delight that Lord Dundonald has got into a scrape and that they might be relieved from his continued occupancy of a position he has filled with such credit.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA.: I do not wish to prolong this debate which I think has gone a little too far. I must say I was rather surprised at the turn the debate took from the beginning. I did not expect that the Minister of Agriculture would be here 'to defend his case. To me the case was a simpler one than that-it was the case of an official of the government under the authority of the ministers of the Crown having made a public speech in which he had spoken in what may be called, mildlv, rather uncalled for terms of one of the members of the government of which he is the servant. I think it is well that we should understand exactly the point at Issue, not only before the House, but before the country. That point is whether the General Officer Commanding the militia of Canada is a servant of the government or not. If he is not a servant of the government, I quite accept the conclusion of hon. genuemen opposite and say that he should not be interfered with by politicians. But, if it is acknowledged, as I always thought it rvas acknowledged, that he is a servant of the government, that he is appointed and paid by the government and therefore must report to the minister-who is responsible to the House-before stating anything to the country, then, I think the course of Lord Dundonald is absolutely indefensible. Instead of being the case of Lord Dundonald against Mr. Fisher it is simply the case of a servant of the government who has been speaking in public and saying things he should not say. Lord Dundonald has thought proper to choose the hon. member

for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to plead his case here to-day. If Lord Dundonald is a servant of the Crown, how can it for a moment be entertained that it is a proper thing for a servant of the government to ask an independent member of parliament, whether Liberal or Conservative, to plead his case against one of the ministers of the government of which he is a servant ? So I would now ask the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) who has constituted himself a warm defender of Lord Dundonald, whether he considers the General Officer Commanding the militia as a servant of the Crown just as any other deputy minister of the Crown is ?


Samuel Hughes: I think if my hon. friend asks the Minister of Militia and the First Minister he will find that when the Minister of Militia and the First Minister and the whole outfit were crawling before the General Officer Commanding it was I who taught the people of this country that the General Officer Commanding is a servant of the people of this country.
Mr. BOtIRASSA. Then I think we have a judgment from the counsel, not of the prosecutor but of the accused. The hon. gentleman has been standing up here trying to justify the speech that was made by Lord Dundonald at Montreal, trying to justify the accusations brought by Lord Dun: donald against the Minister of Agriculture, and now he is stating before the House that he knows and acknowledges that Lord Dundonald is a servant of the Crown. Suppose the Deputy Minister of Public Works should make a speech in Montreal and say : ' X want to have a wharf built at Montreal or Quebec, in a certain way, but the Minister of Militia interfered and knowing nothing of public works has forced me to change my plans. It is a danger for the future of public works in Canada that a minister of the Crown should interfere with the prerogatives of the Deputy Minister of Public Works.' What would the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes), what would the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) say ? That is the whole question in a nutshell. I am not going to challenge the opinions of Lord Dundonald as far as military matters are concerned. I quite admit that he has a high reputation and no doubt he deserves it. But, it seems that Lord Dundonald and the other gentlemen who have been General Officers Commanding on coming to this country have never realized that they were servants of the government and that they were bound to make their suggestions to the Minister of Militia and through the Minister of Militia to the parliament of Canada. If a General Officer Commanding, Lord Dundonald, or General Hutton or any one else, thinks that the policy pursued by the Minister of Militia and the parliament of Canada is not a proper policy, then there is only-one of two courses open to him, either to abandon his views or to tender his resignation; and then, when he is a free man, when he has left the service and has ceased to draw his salary from the public chest, he would be free to say what he thinks, to criticise the action of the Minister of Militia or of any member of the government, or to criticise the military policy of Canada. He would be then free to go back to England and to say that he could not get on owing to political interference, and that he had tendered his resignation. But so long as this General Officer Commanding is in the position of any other public servant, he is bound to be silent, bound to do what would be the duty of any officer in his position in any- civilized country ; and I do not think that it is a well advised course on the part of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to come here and try to justify' the action of Lord Dundonald.


Samuel Hughes: Does my hon friend mean to say that Lord Dundonald would be more justified after ceasing to be General Officer Commanding in attacking the government for its acts than he would be while he was General Officer Commanding and could take the responsibility of his acts ? I presume Lord Dundonald asks no favours, I presume he knows his business, and is quite ready to abide by the consequence of his acts ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think Lord Dundonald would be justified, once he handed in his resignation, in saying to the people of Canada, of Great Britain ahd of the empire, that the policy pursued by Canada in military matters is not a proper policy. Certainly when he is a free man, he is entitled to act as a free man; but I say he has not the right, being the deputy head of the militia of Canada, while in command of the militia having authority over the other soldiers, to give such an example of gross breach of discipline. It very ill became the hon. member to come here and take up the defence of Lord Dundonald as he has done today. Another General Officer Commanding thought that some officers, including the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) were not proper persons to give their views on military matters and wanted to lecture the hon. member for setting a bad example. Everything was then at issue according to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). The Governor General had to act, the government had to act, the parliament of Canada had to act in order to show that the hon. member for North Victoria should be free from the attacks of the military head of the militia of Canada.
I do not say that I disagreed with the hon. member for North Victoria. 1 never disagreed with him on that question. I think he was right in saying that General Hutton had not the right to attack him, a member

of parliament, and to say that Col. Hughes, member of parliament, should not speak in the parliament of Canada because he happened to be a colonel in the militia of Canada. If it was an improper thing for the General Officer Commanding to come in conflict with the liberty of a member of parliament who happens to be a member of the militia under the authority of the General Officer Commanding, what shall we say of the action of a General Officer Commanding who gives to the public opinions and criticisms of the man who is acting as responsible head of the department of which he is a servant? He criticised the action of his superior acting in his official capacity. Sir, I think it is sufficient to put the case in that light to show that whatever might be our opinions as far as Lord Dundonald personally is concerned, whatever might be our opinion even as to the policy of the government in military matters, it could not be suffered for five minutes that a public servant of the government of Canada, drawing pay from the people of Canada under the authority of the minister, should publicly criticise the gentleman who at the time was acting as minister of the department of which he is a servant. Therefore I think it should no longer be considered that this is the trial of the Minister of Agriculture. It is the trial of Lord Dundonald who has seen fit to bring before the parliament of Canada his case through the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes).


Mr. INGRAM.: I think that hon. gentlemen opposite have lost sight of the fact-
At sis o'clock House took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



CEDAR RAPIDS MANUFACTURING AND POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Geoffrion) who is in charge of this Bill is not here. Unless somebody else is desirous of promoting it perhaps we had better have the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I am not objecting to the Bill, I have not had it before me at all, but when the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is absent perhaps we had better allow it to stand.
Progress reported.



HUDSON'S BAY AND NORTHWEST RAILWAYS COMPANY.

Mr. OLIVER moved :: That the amendment made by the Senate io Bill (No. 68) [DOT] respecting the Hudson's Bay and Mr. BOURASSA.
Northwest Railways Company be read a second time, and agreed to.


Mr. HAGGART.: What is the amendment ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The amendment seems to be an addition to clause 3, as follows :


Clause A.: The company may expend money in improving the water-ways of the Mackenzie river and of the Thelon river, and of any branches or tributaries of either of the said rivers, for the purpose of affording a continuous system of transportation in connection with the company's lines of railway ; provided that, before commencing any such expenditure or any work for that purpose in any of the said rivers or branches, the company shall submit plans of the work proposed to be undertaken, and obtain the approval of the Governor in Council thereto.
And tben clause B :


Clause B.: Section 6 of chapter 70 of the statutes of 1899 Is hereby amended by striking out the word ' Mackenzie in the fifth line thereof, and substituting therefor the word ' Slave.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of tbe proposed motion of Mr. Sam. Hughes that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX.: Mr. Speaker, refei'lng to tbe matter debated this afternoon, I join with my bon. friend tbe leader of tbe opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in expressing tbe view that although tbe circumstance was regrettable from one point of view, yet, having regard to tbe fact that this will probably call public attention to tbe methods that have been prevailing in tbe past, in tbe end, it will be beneficial to the country. Heaving aside for tbe moment the fact that the hon. gentleman who occupies the responsible position of Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) has confined himself very much to an explanation of the position of affairs without taking any very strong ground in the discussion, we have a trio of gentlemen, namely, the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the lion. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) attempting to justify this matter in all its different phases. I will devote myself for a moment or two to the most important of these gentlemen, and that is tbe right hon. tbe First Minister. Tbe right hon. gentleman tells us that lie quite agrees with the statements that have been made by more than one hon. gentleman who has spoken that this is a matter, probably above all other matters in connection with the government of Canada, which should be clear and fre^ of party politics.

The manner in which my right hon. friend proceeds to show that this is his belief is certainly somewhat singular. He points out that it is usual when anything is occurring in a riding to consult important personages in the riding and he particularly points out that it is customary to consult the member. Therefore he asks : Is the hon. Minister of Agriculture debarred from being consulted because he is Minister of Agriculture ?
In reference to that I say ' no ' if the position is for sale, and I say decidedly ' yes ' if we are to have decent methods prevailing in Canada. If we are to have, as is almost admittedly the case in reference to almost every other department of the public service, the sale of the different positions for the purpose of bolstering up the government and of consulting the interests of local politicians rather than the interests of the country, whether it is a matter of a public work or of the appointment of a judge or whatever it may be, if that method is also to be carried out in regard to the important question of selecting fit and proper persons to be officers in the various departments of the militia service of Canada, then, I say :	Yes, a fit and proper person
is the hon. Minister of Agriculture because it was in his territory that this new branch of the service was being created. He more than any other would know the local conditions and know as a matter of political expediency whether it was or was not in the interest of the party that a certain person whose name had been proposed should be appointed or not. It is very happily expressed in an independent Ottawa paper, the ' Evening Journal ' of to-day, which says :
. In this case especially, the district in which the regiment is raised, being the personal stamping ground of the Minister of Agriculture, a suspicion is not unreasonable until something more is known that the minister may be actuated by motives which have no connection with the militia service. I
I submit to the House, that, having regard to the utterances of the hon. Minister of Agriculture this afternoon and the evident bias he displayed, instead of freeing himself from that imputation, he has stamped indelibly on the minds of the hon. gentlemen who have heard him a very broad and definite suspicion that there are influences at work in this country which are not in the interest of the militia service. The right hon. gentleman also says, and in this he just echoes practically the language of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, that the hon. Minister of Agriculture represented that there were too many Conservatives among the officers named. That is exactly where the difficulty lies. The hon. Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, as has been said by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in the very heated address he gave, establishes beyond all question
that the fact is that it was a party necessity, aye and a party prejudice that actuated the minister in bis determination to strike the name of Dr. Pickel from the list of officers presented by the commanding officer. It is not a question of too many soldiers, because, when it comes to sending our men out to the front to take the risk of losing their lives, of sacrificing their personal interests and of undergoing the hardships of warfare whether in South Africa or elsewhere, there is no discount upon Conservative soldiers. On any occasion we could not have too many of them. The proportion .could not be too large and I am exceedingly proud of the fact that on every occasion the percentage of Conservatives was overpoweringly large when they marched upon the field of battle in defence of the country and in defence of the empire.
But when it comes to a matter of what might be regarded as positions of emolument or honour, there may be too large a proportion of Conservative officers. In this idea the Prime Minister and Minis-, ter of Agriculture seem to be at one. I believe that on reflection, the Prime Minister will find that the speech he made this afternoon was, to say the least, injudicious. He told us that the chief cause of this trouble was that there was too large a proportion of Conservatives in the list of officers. I never understood until now. that when it came to the question of whether a man should serve his King or not, the question of Conservative or Liberal was ever raised. It is a national disgrace to Canada that it should be raised now. I regret the incident in one respect, although in another respect it may be well that it has haappened, should it bring about a better state of things. I regret that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Agriculture should plunge us into national disgrace by their definite announcement, that in the future the question of politics will enter into the selection of officers for the mi'.itia of Canada. I do not believe that there is any other country under the British Flag in which a responsible minister of the Crown would dare to make such a declaration. The First Minister was excited this afternoon ; he was in a fighting mood. He told us that he had been an officer once, although he did not indicate in what particular branch of the service, and I must say I never heard of the right hon. gentleman in that connection, although I do remember something about the banks of the Saskatchewan, but that has passed into ancient history. The right hon. gentleman told us, referring to Lord Dundonald, that he would not be dragooned b - any foreigner into assuming any position. When there was a protest from this side of the House against calling Lord Dundon-aid a foreigner, the right hon. gentleman took back the word, as he found he had

said more than was perhaps desirable. It is said that in what is in sober comes out drunk, and the truth slips out sometimes when a man allows himself to become excited. The substitution of the word ' stranger for the word ' foreigner ' did not greatly better the case. At all events I think I speak the sentiments of the Conservatives of Canada when I say, that in the case or this valiant British officer who has seen service for the empire in other parts of the world, who has added additional lustre to the great name he bears, when such a man comes amongst us, the Conservatives of Canada do not regard him as a stranger. We receive him as one of ourselves, and as a valiant defender to that great empire to which we all belong. As to the details of the case we are discussing, the Prime Minister told us that the chief officer in command had no local knowledge of the situation. Well, is is evidently because of the local knowledge and the local prejudices of the Minister of Agriculture, that we have been *led into this deplorable incident. It is bad enough to bring party politics into expenditure or public works but when it comes to introducing partyism into the question of who shall fight for the empire and for Canada, it is an unfortunate thing indeed. Let politics stop outside our volunteer force ; for God's sake don't import party politics when it comes to selecting men to defend the country. I contend that Mr. Fisher, with his local knowledge, and his local prejudices, was above all the least qualified to recommend these officers for positions. The Minister of Agriculture told us that Dr. Pickel was a strong political opponent of his, and unfortunately in this case, as in the case of the Auditor General and others, the party who tried the case was the man who was interested in the prosecution. It may be an accident, but it is peculiarly significant that the Minister of Agriculture at this particular juncture was taking the place of the Minister of Militia. The Prime Minister told us that it was the right of the cabinet council to scratch off such names as might be objected to. I am not at all sure of that. I am not up in military law, but the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) read authorities which lead us to a different1 conclusion. When it comes to the cabinet or to the minister scratching the names of officers off the list approved by the General Officer Commanding because they are a little off colour in their political persuasion, I have no hesitation in saying that it is about the worst thing that could happen in the interest of the country. The Minister of Agriculture may be a high authority in aesthetic culture, he may be able to tell us as to the shades of a rose ; or as to something in the Oscar Wilde line, but when it comes to a question of robust soldiering,
I venture to say that he is the last man Mr. LENNOX.
to whom we would look for a correct judgement in that regard.
It must have been noticed by the House that the Minister of Agriculture got very angry this afternoon. There was enough to make him angry ; but I am glad that it did not make him any more formidable. I have noticed that some large men, when they are angry seem to become more formidable. It rather dwarfed the Minister of Agriculture. We had providence intervening on our behalf, and he really did not look any more dangerous than on other occasions. Now, I have a complaint to make of the Minister of Agriculture, and that is, that while he complains of the hon. member for North Victoria for having brought forward this question, and objects to the medium of communication between Lord Dun-donald and the House of Commons, yet he took the very unfair position, the position that reflects no credit upon him, of suppressing a portion of the truth and of refusing to give the whole truth to the House of Commons and through it to the people of Canada. When we reflect on what took place this afternoon-the repeated request of the hon. leader of the opposition that the document which was in the hands of the Minister of Militia should be given to the House ; when we know that although it was spoken of as a copy it was practically a duplicate of what came into the hands of the hon. member for Victoria ; and when we know what that document contained ; it is a very serious reflection upon the government-yes, upon the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, because it was at his instigation that it was refused. It is only of a piece with what we have had on many occasions, that is, that whenever these hon. gentlemen find that by going half way with a story, they can give it a different colouring, they absolutely refuse to divulge the information which will convey to the people the truth and the whole truth in regard to the matter. But I say the House and the people owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for North Victoria-I was going to say the minister, and no doubt he will be a minister sooner or later-for bringing this matter before the House ; otherwise we would not have had an adequate conception of what is the real truth of this ease. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) objects particularly to the fact that a servant of the Crown should make a disclosure. I want to say that the hon. member has not exactly a correct conception of this matter. The officer of whom we are speaking is not a servant of the Crown so much as he is a servant of parliament and a distinguished servant of Canada for the time being ; and it is all-important, when issues arise between the administration and this officer, that the people should know exactly what is taking place between them. It is a case of concealment-a case of the government un-

fairly suppressing a portion of the facts. It is a case of the government having announced that they would deal with this matter to-day unfairly and dishonestly, retaining a portion of the facts, and refusing to give them to the House, it is a case of the hon. member for North Victoria coming to the rescue, and through the agency of the distinguished officer who has communicated the information, giving that information to the House and the country. I am glad indeed that we have by this means the opportunity of ascertaining what the exact facts are. Well, we have this trio-the First Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Labelle-all uniting in a certain conclusion of the whole matter. The personal organ of the Minister of Agriculture has already dismissed the commanding officer. It points out that he must retire, that there is no alternative ; and the vicious, excited way in which the Minister of Agriculture spoke this afternoon leaves no question on our mind that so far as he is concerned he is determined that this official, who has forsooth had the temerity of opposing what he describes as a Minister of the Crown, meaning himself, shall certainly get his walking papers and be sent home. Whether that is the case or not-and I suspect that Lord Dundonald is not very particular in that regard-it has come to this, that the Chief Officer Commanding the militia of Canada cannot have a voice on a matter upon which he has formed an opinion, and upon which he alone, as distinguished from the Minister of Agriculture, is entitled to have an opinion. Whether this incident will result in Lord Dundonald retiring from connection with the militia of Canada or not, it will perhaps be a salutary lesson to gentlemen such as the Minister of Agriculture, that there is a limit beyond which they cannot swell themselves, and that they must remember that they cannot set the bounds entirely in regard to the selection of officers for the militia service. I am glad, therefore, that this matter has come up. We have a number of cases at the present time involving the issue as to whether certain officials or certain members of the cabinet shall have complete sway as against the best interests of the people. There is a united desire on the part of the three gentlemen whom I have named to get rid of this officer, just as there is a manifest desire to get rid of the Auditor General. But in both of these cases the people will be heard from, and we shall see whether the hon. gentlemen will not be obliged to withdraw from the exalted position they assume.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP.: Mr. Speaker, I would not occupy the time of the House, even for the few moments that I intend to speak on this subject, were it not that I feel that it is one of the utmost importance to this country. We are to-day writing a
page of Canadian history which a few years, hence when hon. gentlemen opposite may be, on your left, and the hon. gentleman at your left may be on your right, they and this country may all wish had never been written. I hope it will not be thought presumptuous on my part if I venture to call the attention of the House to the fact that this afternoon, not only the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture, but even the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, appeared wholly to misconceive the question before us.
On listening to these hon. gentlemen, one would think that it is Lord Dundonald who is on trial before this House. But it must be evident to everybody who has followed the debate, that although the chief defendant has absented himself from court, and although his co-defendant fled even before him, still it is really the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia who are on trial here to-day. And when we consider the circumstances which have come to light, surely we are not to be blamed if we cannot help coming to the conclusion that the gentleman who is in command of His Majesty's forces in this country was not treated with proper respect by these ministers of the Crown. It would be difficult to come to any other conclusion even if we were to judge them solely by the contempt they show for this House in absenting themselves from this debate to-night. This afternoon again and again we heard it said-and I was sorry to hear the language used-that Lord Dundonald was a servant of the minister and a servant of the government. Surely no one seriously would contend that a gentleman in command of His Majesty's forces in Canada is a servant of either the Minister of Militia or the government. I would rather say that he is in the same position which the ministers themselves occupy-that he is peculiarly a servant of the people. And, Sir, it is a proud position to be a servant of the people. And if we admit that they are all servants of the people, then we, the representatives of the people, surely have something to say regarding the way in which they behave themselves ; and while I would be sorry to use any term which might be objectionable, I am more warranted in finding fault with the Ministers of Militia and Agriculture for their absence from the House, when their conduct is being discussed, than they were in their strictures upon General Lord Dundonald. In dealing with matters of which we can only know by hearsay, we may perhaps arrive at some accurate opinion if we view them in the light to be derived from the facts as they have been disclosed to-day. What are these facts ? A speech was made a week ago by Lord Dundonald in Montreal. Whether that speech was wisely made or not, it is not for me to say, but it was made, and I presume no one doubts that Lord Dundonald may be called on by the Minis-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is very satisfactory to see that defenders of Lord Dundonald have not been wanting during the debate which has taken place this afternoon. It would have heen a pity indeed if a man occupying such a position as he occupied, with such a career as he has had, and with such services to his credit since he has been in Canada, should have had his case passed over with the mere personal explanation with which it was intended that it should be smothered this afternoon. I think it is a great pity that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) should be absent fnom the House at a time when a discussion of this importance is taking place. For, in reality, under the motion that has been made by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) it is not the case of Lord Dundonald which we are discussing here, but it is the case of the Minister of Agriculture himself, who stands impugned, accused, before this House, of violating the most elementary principle of our Militia Law which requires that there shall be no political interference with the organization of our militia forces. Let me speak for the province of Quebec and from very reliable information whieh I have received. I am happy to say that, uniformly throughout that province, it has been recognized that, since his arrival in this country the General Officer Commanding, with a great deal of tact, a great deal of energy and a deep knowledge of the affairs he has been called upon to administer, has greatly improved the militia administration in the province of Quebec. He has improved the army service ; he has improved the Intelligence Department. He has many things in common with the French Canadians of my province ; he speaks their language fluently ; and from military men of that race in my province, I have heard it uniformly said that the

relations existing between him and them (have been generally satisfactory. Now, I do not wish to repeat what has already been said, but it seems to me that my right lion, friend the P#ime Minister has lost sight of an important aspect of the affair which should be stated. The ministers of the Crown occupy a dual position. As ministers, they themselves, are servants of the Crown. They are named by the Crown and their duties are defined by the statute-


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.: They are responsible to the people.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not as ministers as ministers they are responsible to nobody but the Crown. They are responsible to us as privy councillors, that is as constitutional advisers of the Crown. And it is just as illegal for the Minister of Agriculture to interfere with the administration of any of the departments of state except his own as it would be for me to interfere with the Department of Agriculture or any other. Of course that is a distinction that is recognized by all the authors who have written on constitutional law. It is a virtue of the custom of parliament that the constitutional advisers of the Crown happen at the same time to be ministers in charge of departments. It has not always been so. Less than a hundred years ago it was not so in England. But from the very fact of the introduction of constitutional government in England and of its subsequent introduction in this country, the custom has taken root which requires that those who, sis advisers of the Crown are responsible to parliament, should be those called upon by the Crown to take charge of the different departments of the state. I mention this fact because there seems to have been an impression, from some of the observations made this afternoon that it was quite legal and regular and constitutional for the minister in charge of one of the departments of state to go over into another department and order this or that to be done. And my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture himself, when he admitted to-day in his subsequent exp'anation-changing completely the facts of his first personal explanation -he seemed to think it was not only his right but his duty, long before the departure of the Minister of Militia, to interfere with the constitution of this regiment anu to see to it that it should be organized upon a proper basis, and the theory which my hon. friend the Prime Minister advocated when he spoke this afternoon was that, as a minister of the Crown, having charge of the Department of Agriculture, and with duties strictly circumscribed by 'laws passed toy parliament, the Minister of Agriculture still had the right, when the organization of this regiment was decided upon, to go to the Department of Militia, to have conferences Mr. MONK.
with the officers charged with the organization of that regiment and to interfere, to, in fact, take an important part himself in the organization of that regiment. X submit that by so doing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) was clearly going beyond the limits placed upon his authority by parliament itself. This is a point of some importance, and I give a few words in explanation of it, because the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who is a great deal fairer, I know, than he desires to appear to be, seems to have ignored that fact. If the House will take the trouble to refer to the statute creating the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and defining its limits, it will be found that parliament has strictly circumscribed the subjects upon which he can exercise jurisdiction. In section 2 of chapter 24 of the Revised .Statutes of 'Canada, section 4, I find the following :
The following subjects shall be under the control and direction of the Minister of Agriculture, that is to say, agriculture, immigration and emigration, public health and quarantine, the marine and immigrant hospital at Quebec, arts and manufactures, census, statistics and the registration of statistics, patents of invention, copyright, industrial designs and trade marks, experimental farm stations.
Beyond that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has no right of interference whatever. His authority is strictly circumscribed by parliament, and he has no more right to interfere with the Department of Militia, or with the organization of a regiment, than any other private citizen. Otherwise, if we were to adopt the theory of the right hon. gentleman, we would find that in reality every member of this House, conversant with the localities where regiments were to be organized, would have a right, as members of this House, to interfere and to control the organization of such regiments ; and what would that be but political interference and the introduction of politics into our military organization, a condition of affairs entirely undesirable in this country V
Now, let us for a moment leave the Department of Agriculture, and turn to the organization of the Department of Miilitia.
1 shall quote one or two sections in regard to this department, in order to show with what care parliament has determined and defined the duties of the Minister of Militia and the duties of the Officer Commanding, whose conduct has been, to a certain extent, under discussion this afternoon. The Department of Militia is organized under Chapter 41, Revised Statutes of Canada, and by section 4 of that statute it is enacted as (follows :
There shall be a Minister of Militia and Defence who shall be charged with and be responsible for the administration of militia affairs, including all matters involving ex-

penditure and of the fortifications, gun boats, ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munitions and habiliments of war belonging to Canada.
2.	The Minister of Militia and Defence shall have the initiative in all matters involving the expenditure of money.
3.	The Governor in Council shall, from time to time, make such orders as are necessary respecting the duties to be performed by the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Now, how are defined and how has parliament expressed itself in regard to the important functions of the General Officer Commanding ? We find that definition at section 37 of chapter 41, Revised Statutes of Canada:
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.
tinder the regulations provided for in this section it is stated of the General Officer :
He is the principal adviser of the Minister of Militia and Defence on all military questions ; is charged with the general supervision of the military branch of the department; issues general orders, and holds periodical inspections of the militia.
He is charged with the distribution, quartering and localization of the militia; With the preparation and maintenance of detailed plans for mobilization ; with the preparation of schemes for offensive and defensive operations ; and with the collection and compilation of military information.
He recommends to the Minister of Militia and Defence fit and proper persons for appointment to commissions in the militia ; and proposes fit and proper officers for promotion, for staff and other military appointments and for military honours and rewards.
It is sufficient to read chapter 41, creating and organizing the Militia Department, and the regulations governing the duties of the Minister of Militia and the General Officer Commanding to see that the will of parliament was that in the organization of regiments the approval of the nominations of all officers and of all promotions should ho carefully guarded by the General Officer Commanding. Had this discussion been left this afternoon with the general statement, the personal explanation of the Minister of Agriculture, what would have been the impression left upon the House and on the country V It would have been that the Minister of Agriculture at the instance of the Minister of Militia, absent for a short time, had merely performed a purely ministerial service to his colleague in initialling for him the list of these nominations. And what would have been the position before this House, before parliament, to whom all
ihese men are ultimately responsible, and before the country, of the General Officer Commanding ? It would have been that the statement made by him at a dinner given to him by his brother officers in regard to that most important branch of the administration of the state was a statement not founded on fact. It seems to me if the General Officer Commanding was aware that that was the turn which the proceedings in this House were going to take this afternoon, he should have put simultaneously into the hands of his superior, the Minister of Militia, and of my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) *a man of military experience and with t military career, the memorandum which he did put in their hands, a memorandum which throws a very different compllexion on the whole subject. Is there or is there not truth in the statement, uncontradicted, but rather confirmed, by the Minister of Agriculture, that the organization of this regiment was determined upon early in the winter, in the month of February last ; that its organization was approved by the government and handed over to the officers who legally had charge of that organization? Ts it a fact that from the very inception the Minister of Agriculture interfered with that organization, blocked it and, for political purposes, as he admits this afternoon, endeavoured to organize the regiment himself and to Obtain the nomination of the principal officers of that regiment ?
It is impossible to refer to that very frank statement made by the colonel in command of the regiment to Lord Dundonald without being extremely surprised at the state of affairs revealed. Is it a fact that Dr. Pickel, whose nomination is here in question, was objected to for on other reason than that he was a strong political opponent of the hon. Minister of Agriculture ? Is it a fact that the hon. Minister of Agriculture was determined to block the whole organization unless Dr. Pickel's name was withdrawn V That has not been categorically contradicted by the hon. Minister of Agriculture and uncontradicted it gives us a clear explanation from the hon. gentleman of the reason that actuated Dr. Pickel, who, seeing that the regiment could not be organized unless he withdrew, which withdrawal was due to the unwarranted personal interference of the Minister of Agriculture authorized his name to be withdrawn. Is it a fact that the hon. Minister of Agriculture instead of confining his observations and remarks to the efficiency of the new regiment gave himself the trouble to look up the pedigrees and assure himself of the political affinities of the gentlemen whose names had been submitted to the hon. the Minister of Militia ? In face of these facts and the other facts stated in the letter evidently written by the colonel in defence of the position taken by the General Officer Commanding is it not a fair question for parliament and the mem-

bers of parliament to inquire if we are going to again this year vote a sum, as we are asked to vote, of over $2,000,000 for the organization of the militia which cannot be an effective militia, if, when regiments are organized, the only question inquired into is as to the political tendencies of the officers appointed ? I yield to no one in vindication of the rights and authority of this parliament. Nobody, as far as I have seen this afternoon, has called in question the right of the government to control the Department of Militia and Defence as it controls every other department, but I say this that I for one on behalf of my constituents will oppose any increase in the expenditure for militia purposes if we are going to have in the organization of our regiments such interference as has been admitted this afternoon by the lion. Minister of Agriculture. This is surely not a question of political division. I do not consider it is such. I am prepared as I am sure all other members of this parliament are prepared to vote the necessary sums to place the defence of this country upon such a basis as Will allow us to hold up our heads firmly and defend our country against any invader. But, at the same time, if we are to find in the constitution of any government men as unpatriotic, as unfair to the faithful servants of the Department of Militia and Defence, as the General Officer Commanding, it seems to me, has shown himself to be on this occasion, I say that we will be entitled to scrutinize with great care the expenditure which is foreshadowed to us in the estimates brought down to parliament this year.
As to the fact that the General Officer Commanding saw fit to make that statement which he did make at a dinner given to him by these officers, who, after all, may be called upon at any moment to stand the brunt of the fighting and to see to it that the forces which they organize are effective, it may be that he might have adopted some other form of communication, but if the provocation to which, since the month of February, the interference of the hon. Minister of Agriculture has subjected him to had been imposed upon myself I venture to say that I would have taken the first opportunity of freeing myeelf and my co-workers from the interference of a man who had nothing whatever, as minister to another department, to do with the administration of the Department of Militia and Defence.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, a few words in reference to the episode which has been engaging the attention of the House for the last three or four hours. Let us look at the facts briefly in reference to it. A gentleman was appointed commander in chief of the militia of Canada under an Act of parliament which requires that an imperial officer of at least the rank of colonel shall be appointed who is responsible not only to the people of this country but responsible to
Mr. MONK
a certain extent as an imperial officer to the imperial authorities. At the dinner which was given to him in Montreal he complained of political interference on the part of one of the ministers in reference to some appointments made in connection with the officers of some of the battalions. Whether he was right or wrong, as my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) have stated, it matters very little. If he has been wrong it is for the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) to discipline him. The real question before the House and which is one of serious moment to the people of this country is whether political interference shall be permitted in militia matters. Before I pass from the first part of this question, I wish to say that I am not of the opinion that the Commander-in-Chief of the militia force of Canada was not fully justified in the action he took. Let us consider the circumstances. He sends an Order in Council to his minister. The Order in Council is cancelled and some of the names submitted by the Commander-in-Chief, who, I suppose acted upon the report of the officers of his department, are approved of. The general states in his memorandum which he sent to Colonel Hughes that he was informed that this Order in Council which he presented for the approval of council was acceptable to the government. Let us be particular as to his words.
A day or two after the first list was cancelled a further list was submitted to me by the adjutant general which, I was informed, weuld be acceptable and that the organization of the corps would be permitted to proceed.


Mr. CLARKE.: Who said that ?


John Graham Haggart: The Commander-iu-Chief, Lord Dundonald, said that. Haviug that assurance he prepares the Order in Council. To his astonishment he gets it returned to him with a portion of it approved of, but with one person's name struck out at the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture. That is the position mat Lord Dundonald, the Commander-inChief, was placed in. He submits gracefully to the cancellation of the Order in Council. He prepares another Order in Council submitted by the adjutant-general, and he is informed that it will be acceptable. It is returned to him with the name of one of the officers whom he recommended stricken out. What greater insult to the Commander-in-Chief, or to the adjutant-general. Had the minister in charge of the department asked the Commanding Officer to strike out the name before it was presented, or had he been asked to withhold the recommendation to council, I have no doubt he would have done it. But would any gentleman submit to the treatment measured out to Lord Dundonald in this respect ? The returning of the list with the

4G4G
initials of the Minister of Agriculture objecting to the appointment of the officii-recommended, was an insult to the Commander-in-Chief, that no English gentleman would have submitted to. As to whether Lord Dundonald is an official or an employee of the government it matters not. He is the Commander'-in-Chief of the militia, loaned us by the imperial authorities, and he derives his authority under statute. Did yon listen to the ingenious statement of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon? He gave us to understand that Dr. Pickel's name was stricken off at the suggestion of the colonel of the regiment, an<j with the consent of Dr. Pickel himself. But, when Col. Smart's letter was read, it completely set that statement of the Minister of Agriculture at rest.


Frederick William Borden: The Minister of Agriculture read a letter dated May 19th. from Col. Smart, informing him that Dr. Pickel had requested to be relieved entirely of any connection with the regiment.


John Graham Haggart: Ah, yes ; but Col. Smart's letter explains that, and puts a different face on it. Col. Smart came here to get his officers gazetted, and he found that the minister refused to gazette with the name of Dr. Pickel included. Col. Smart then went to Dr. Pickel and Dr. Pickel, who is a gentleman, said :	Rather
than see no regiment in this county, I will withdraw my right to be an officer. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place this evening, because I want to say that he stated at a caucus down in the eastern townships, that no Pickel would t>e appointed to any position in the regiment. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because I want to have his statement as to whether that is true or not. It is published in the public press this afternoon. The Minister of Agriculture stated further : that the appointment of omcers in this regiment were to be in his own hands. Is that true or not ? It must be true, because the statement of the Commander-in-Chief is corroborated to the fullest extent by the statement of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. He told us that he aid not interfere with the appointments to that regiment, but he also said that the 53rd regiment was virtually a Conservative regiment, and he was bound to see that the officers of the new regiment of dragoons should not have the Conservative tendencies of the officers of the 53rd. He told us that Dr. Pickel was an active political partisan, and that the officers were evidently recommended by Senator Baker, the Conservative organizer in that section, because Senator Baker's son was one, his son-in-law another, and a man who was married to his niece, another. Then, the Minister of Agriculture told us that he was bound to see that the new regiment would 148
not have the political tendencies of the 53rd.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to ask, whether it is true that he stated a few moments ago, that I had said in the eastern townships that no Pickel would be made an officer?


John Graham Haggart: I stated that I read it in the papers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; I thought he stated it for himself.


John Graham Haggart: I will read the article which is taken from the Montreal ' Star.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If it is taken from the 1 Star,' I can understand it.


John Graham Haggart: It is dated Knowlton-
I don't know where that is.
Mr. il'ISHER. f am sorry for you.


John Graham Haggart: Here is the article to which I refer :
Knowlton, June 10.-The disclosure made by Lord Dundonald in his recent speech at the banquet tendered to him in Montreal did not come with such surprise to the people of this section of the country as it did to those of other parts of Canada.
It had been known and generally discussed throughout this district that the Hon. Sydney Fisher held a caucus at Cowansville several weeks ago with some of his political supporters, at which he told them that the commissions in the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons were at his disposal, and that he had under consideration the naming of the officers.
It has been reported too, by Mr. Fisher's friends that he had assured them that the recommendation of Dr. Pickel as major and of Mr. T. R. Pickel as captain in ' E ' squadron of the regiment, would not be sanctioned, and that nobody of the name of Pickel would receive a commission.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have only to say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end.


John Graham Haggart: I made the statement on the authority of this paper, and it has received corroboration by the statements made by the hon. gentleman here this afternoon. He told us that he opposed the appointment of Dr. Pickel, and that of five or six other officers, because he was bound to see that the Scottish Dragoon regiment would not have the political complexion of the 53rd battalion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: And now he says, ' hear, hear.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That it would not be the same old Tory organization that the old regiments were.


John Graham Haggart: Very well, then. The colonel of the regiment selected the officers, and together with the District Officer Com-



EEVISBD EDITIOW

[Stage Direction]
manding, be recommended the officers to the General Officer Commanding. These were the men who ought know what officers to select, but the Minister of Agriculture, the political representative of that section of the county steps in and declared that these officers would have to receive his imprimatur.
George William Fowler: His incubator.


John Graham Haggart: Is that the way our militia is to be treated? Does theMinister of Agriculture expect that an English gentleman, an officer of the imperial service will submit to that? There may be a question of precedence between the General Officer Commanding and the Minister of Agriculture, and it may be extremely impolite for the General Officer Commanding to consult by telephone with the Minister of Agriculture. He states that it is a matter of necessity that time is necesisary. The general makes an appointment with the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman does not keep it. He telephones again to the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman-oh, the idea of discussing any matters of such importance with him over the telephone. He says he is a cabinet minister and the general knows where his office is ; if the general wishes to consult him, or to have any conversation with him in reference to the matter, let him call at his office and see him. It is a question of who is the superior, the officer commanding the militia of Canada or the cabinet minister. You will notice that the statement of the minister differs from that of the general in that particular. The general says that on two occasions he made an appointment with the minister, and the minister failed to keep his appointment. The minister in his statement says he told the general : ' I have an office up town, you know where my office is,
I am a cabinet minister, and you can come up and call on me.' That is a question or veracity between the two gentlemen. But the question before us is this :	was there
any political interference with the general in his appointments ? Can it be denied that there was, after the statement of the Minister of Agriculture to-day ? He gave the whole case away. He admitted it by attempting to justify himself. In fact, the right hon. gentleman who leads the government attempted to a certain extent to justify it. He asked if it was not the duty of the General Officer Commanding to consult the two parties in reference to who should be appointed as officers of this regiment, and he thinks that the general acted indiscreetly in not doing so. Is the General Officer Commanding to be influenced in his appointments by political considerations at all ? No. He took the right course. The colonel who was to raise the regiment recommended the officers ; the general submitted the list to the officer commanding the district ; and the Minister of Militia, acting on that information, and without any political infor-Mr. HAGGART.
mation at all, recommended it to council. If we are to have an efficient commander-inchief, he must be a man of honour who has respect for his own reputation. Will any man of honour, a British officer, submit to the indignities to which the General Officer Commanding has been obliged to submit, and retain his position ? in reference to the charge that he communicated his objections to Colonel Hughes instead of to the Minister of Militia, what position was he in ? He saw in the papers that this question was to be debated in the House to-day. The communication that was sent to him by the Minister of Militia was simply the question whether the report published in a certain paper was correct or not. He answers that. He was not consulted at all in reference to the case that the Minister of Militia or the Minister of Agriculture would make. There was nothing left to him but to get some friend of his, a brother officer, to state his case before the House to-day; and, as a'man of honour, he sent to the Minister of Militia a duplicate of the statement which he had sent to his officer friend in the House. The question, then, for the people of the country to consider is not so much whether it is a breach of discipline on the part of the commander-in-chief. If it is a breach of discipline let him suffer for it. But I say there has been no breach of discipline in his case. He has cut the painter ; he has been insulted long enough ; his advice has not been taken ; and there was no other course for him as a gentleman to take. But the question for the people of the country to consider is this, whether there has been any political interference with a department which, in every government, must be considered above and beyond party politics, if we are to have an efficient force to defend the country. But who can doubt that there has been political interference in this instance, after the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in this House today ?


Mr.  E. F.@: CLARlvE. Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I wish to say half dozen words in reference to this matter. And first of all let me reiterate what my hon. friend on my left has so forcibly said, that every hon. member who ha.s called in question the action of the Minister of Agriculture and who has defended the action of Lord Dundonald is just as jealous of the prerogatives of this parliament and of the rights of ministers of the Crown as any hon. gentleman who has attempted to defend the Minister of Agriculture. Not one of these gentlemen would sustain any action on the part of any officer that would invade the prerogatives of hon. gentlemen opposite. But Lord Dundonald, as the officer commanding the Canadian militia, is responsible, in the eye of the people at any rate, for the efficiency of that force, and it is to him rather than to the Minister of Agriculture,

that they look for the maintenance of the efficiency of that force and for the preservation of order and discipline in it. The attempt made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture this afternoon to defend himself from the allegations made at Montreal by Lord Dundonald has not been entirely successful. As has been pointed out, the hon. minister has frankly admitted that he has been interfering, and interfering to the detriment of the organization of the regiment in question, by objecting to the appointment of officers whose names were sent to him by the General Officer Commanding. He admitted frankly in the speech he made this afternoon that the name of Dr. Pickel was scored out because of his political affiliations.
The minister himself made that perfectly clear this afternoon. There were too many Tories being nominated for commissions from the district of Sweetsburg. The Minister of Agriculture, who was desirous that there should not be a semblance of politics in the administration of the force or in the organization of this regiment, thought that he knew more about the gentlemen who were being nominated to hold [commissions in this new corps than the colonel to whom was given the responsible task of organizing it, or of his superior Lord Dundonald who had endorsed his recommendations. And because there were two Tories nominated by those best calculated to judge, this hon. minister steps in and stamps his foot down vigorously and says the organization of this regiment will not be completed unless a change is made in the personnel of the officers. There were too many Tories in the 53rd Regiment, he said, and he must see to it that the error of having Tory officers is not repeated in the regiment we are about to organize. But what prevented the political friends of the hon. gentleman joining the 53rd Regiment ? Was there any barrier to their being admitted to commissions in the regiment at all ? If they are not to be found in the regulations of the militia, the hon. gentleman himself might give the reasons why.


Frederick William Borden: I have.


Mr.   CLARICE@: There were no good reasons given, and the allegation that men were debarred from holding commissions in the militia force because of their political affiliations cannot be substantiated by the hon, gentleman.


Frederick William Borden: It is true.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I regret that the hon. minister reiterates that statement, because I have known something of the militia force in my section of Ontario during many years, and I never knew of any time or occasion when any gentleman in the militia force, because of his political affiliations, was debarred or prevented from receiving pro-1485
motion or from being given a commission. Let me tell the hon. Minister of Militia that this is not the first time complaints have been made of the injury of the militia force by the promotion of political partisans by hon. gentlemen opposite. If this condition of things should continue, if the manly protest of Lord Dundonald does not produce the desired effect, grave danger will result to the force in the future. I have had pointed out to me an abuse in the organization of the army medical corps in the city of Toronto recently. The applications of men eminently qualified to hold positions in that corps, whose presence would be a guarantee of its fitness and excellence, were turned down, and political friends of hon. gentlemen opposite appointed because of pressure brought to bear on the Minister of Militia'.


Frederick William Borden: Give the names.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will give the hon, minister the names in private and will give him the opportunity of making a statement any time he sees fit respecting these names. I have nothing to conceal; but I am surprised that the Minister of Militia should have allowed such a condition of things to exist in connection with the establishment of this new regiment in the eastern townships, from which so much was to be expected. The testimony borne by hon. gentlemen opposite themselves as to the character and qualifications of Lord Dundonald to occupy the position he now holds is the strongest possible proof that can be adduced that all he is aiming at is the efficiency of our militia force. Has Lord Dundonald interfered in political matters ? Has he given any indication that he desires the appointment of officers in any regiment because of their political affiliations? None at all; but as my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) has said, after having been repeatedly pin-pricked by gentlemen who ought to have known better, he became restive and felt it his duty to enter an emphatic protest, once for all, against such political interference, and to take such steps as he thought necessary to make the Canadian militia what we all desire it shall be. I shall not take up any more time except to enter an emphatic protest against the action of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The statement made by Lord Dundonald and the protest he has entered will find a responsive echo in the breast of every man in Canada who has any regard for the militia force of this country, who desires to see it in a state of efficiency, removed altogether from the influence of party politics. Lord Dundonald is not an unknown man. He came here with an illustrious record. He had earned his spurs. He earned them long before he came to Canada. He is not a foreigner nor a stranger, Mr. Speaker. His name and his fame are known where-ever a man wears the British uni-

form, from one end to the other of this great empire, and his sole aim since he came here has been-and the Minister of Militia knows it as well as anybody-to promote the efficiency of our militia force, in whose welfare he has taken such a great interest. Is it because hon. gentlemen opposite feared that, becoming exasperated, the General Officer Commanding would enter his protest, they made provision in their new Militia Bill that in future the Genera! Officer Commanding may be a Canadian ? Have they found these sturdy Britishers who have been invited over here to command our forces not as pliable as they would like ? Have they found that these men would not allow the force to be degraded into a political machine ? Is that the reason we are to have this change made, so that those -who may command Our militia in the future will be men who will bow their heads meekly, and not stand up as men and soldiers should-as Lord Dundonald has done-in emphatic protest against a course which must be destructive of the best interests of the force and inimical to the best interests of Canada? I hope we shall never again, no matter what changes may take place in the force, witness an occurrence such as we have discussed in this House to-day. I repeat there was nothing else for Lord Dundonald to do than to let the people know what was going on in his department behind the scenes. There was nothing else for him but to let them know where the sore spot is. He, who was to be held responsible for the efficiency of the militia, was handicapped at every turn because the nominations made by his officers in the organization of a new regiment were being ignored and set aside solely on the ground that the persons nominated had the misfortune to differ in politics from the Minister of Agriculture. The picture is not a very happy one and does not reflect much credit on the Minister of Agriculture. There was nothing left for Lord Dundonald to do, under the circumstances, but make the speech he did, let the consequences be what they may.


Mr. RUFUS POPE.: As this unfortunate subject, Mr. Speaker, which has attracted the attention of the House this afternoon, seems to have originated in the section of country, from which I come, it will perhaps be not altogether_out of place that I should say something with regard to it.
The point has been raised this afternoon, and made a good deal of by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who, apparently, has been transformed into a fighting man fit to be head of the department of wat, decided that Dr. Pickel had not the qualifications to enable him to fill the position of officer in the reorganized mil-tia force of the district. Previous to this militia reorganization of this particular part of Mr. CLARKE.
the eastern townships, reorganization took place last year in the county which I have the honour to represent. The old 58tL battalion was reorganized as mounted infantry. The principle adopted in that case was that the colonel was called upon by the Department of Militia and Defence to reorganize or create a force of mounted rifles from the old 58th battalion of infantry that had existed in the county for many years. As I understand it, the colonel was given carte blanche to select his officers, irrespec tive of whether they had passed any examination or not. Mr. Speaker, I am not versed in military matters, and do not pretend to have any knowledge of the details of this -reorganization. It not being a political matter, so far as the county I represented was concerned, I took no particular interest other than to give such indirect assistance as I could by communicating, as representative of the county, with the Department of Militia at the instance of those interested. The reorganization took place. Young men were selected for their worth as citizens first. Though not pretending to know anything about militia matters, I believe that the upright, honest, straightforward, patriotic young citizen is the best foundation for a soldier you can find. They were selected on that ground. The officers of that reorganized corps had not passed their examination. The Minister of Militia was good enough to establish a school at Sherbrooke in the autumn after the first year of their drill, and in that school these officers became qualified, and this year they are going out full qualified men after having passed the requisite examination. Under these cir cumstances, I think that the argument presented to this House by the Minister bf Agriculture that Dr. Pickel was not qualified falls to the ground. In the case I referred to, we had an entire regiment, or whatever they choose to call it, reorganized with officers who had not the necessary qualifications. So far as Dr. Pickel is concerned, I am not here to defend him ; and. if he were present, it would not be neeessarv for any man here to rise in his defence, for he is quite capable of defending himself anywhere. He is very popular, a man of splendid character and of precisely the right age. And, as I understand it and know the facts, when the reorganization of this imilitia force in the county of Missisquoi was proposed they were looking for a man of character, some natural leader of men, to take i prominent position in the militia force and make the organization absolutely -successful -not to make it, as the Minister of Agricul ture said this afternoon, a political machine ; not at all ; but to make it what the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) and every other good citizen of Canada would desire, as perfect a militia organization as it was possible to get in that vicinity. In order to accomplish that Dr. Pickel was soqght. He did not seek the positon ; he is

beyond seeking positions ; positions are offered to him. The people who know him best offer him the best it is in their power to give him. Those interested in this reorganization sought him and asked him to fill this positicn. He accepted it with modesty ; lie felt that he was not a qualified officer, and made certain excuses on that ground. But finally he said : I am a good, loyal citizen of Canada, and if my connection-temporary, if nothing else-will do something to help the reorganization of this militia force and put it on a proper footing,
I consent. These were the conditions under which he consented. And we can readily understand that, when it was represented to him that his connection with the force, from the very fact that he was a prominent Conservative, was checking the work of reorganization, he would say at once : I do not want it ; it is nothing to me ; put me out and go on with the reorganization, if it will please the Minister of Agriculture and help on the work, leave me out. Every one who knows Dr. Pickel knows that that is the way he would regard it, and the Minister ot Agriculture knows it perfectly well. So far ns the family history in connection with Senator Baker, or with any other Conservative family of the eastern townships, that the Minister of Agriculture has presented here to-day, I do not think it is altogether a ground of fault-finding for those Conservative families to say that they are built of the peculiar stuff of loyalty and patriotism that, when you want to form a militia corps, you are obliged to go to a Conservative family to find the leaders, the men in whom the rank and file will have confidence. It may suit the purposes to-day of the Minister of Agriculture. I listened to that hon. gentleman-of course, I speak under prejudice ; T understand that perfectly well ; I own the corn, I speak under prejudice. At the same time I listened to the speeches the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) delivered. At first I remarked the articles that had been prepared and typewritten for him and that he read ; and then I listened to his second speech, in which he contradicted every position taken in those typewritten articles, and in which he confessed the crime-if it is a crime-with which he is charged. If it is a crime for a public man in a high position, moved by influences which do not appear on the surface, to prefer one citizen as against another as a defender of this country, then the Minister of Agriculture is as guilty as any criminal who ever stood in the dock, and that is proven toy his own confession in this House. Now, the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a speech this afternoon. He insisted that the General Officer Commanding should understand that the government of this country would not be dragooned. Yesterday we had a statement from'one of the right hon. gentleman's lieutenants in the Senate. And, putting these two things together, we have the principle
laid down by the Prime Minister that if the General Officer Commanding chose to do anything for the militia of Canada without consulting the Privy Council he would be guilty of dragooning the government.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) also said that in his early days he was a military man.
I was surprised to hear that. We knew there was a period in his life when he expressed a willingness to be a soldier. We knew that he had said that he would shoulder his musket on the banks of the Saskatchewan to fight on behalf of a rebel. That is the only time I ever heard of the right hon. gentleman shooting a gun in the Dominion of Canada. I do not know if he refers to an earlier part of his career, there may be an earlier part when the right hon. gentleman was unknown to Canada. But, Sir, he is not the only soldier. We have another soldier in the rank of the government, the Minister of Agriculture. It may not be known to you Sir, but I shall inform you in order that you may carry it back to the constituencies in which you commune now and again. The Minister of Agriculture is a gallant officer. True he has never passed any examination, true he has never fought any battle for his country true he has never substantiated any principle that he ever fought upon. But nevertheless he is 'supposed to be a gallant soldier.	He found, perhaps for
the benefit of his health, perhaps because he had been promoted to a high position as a member of this government, and become to some extent an aristocrat, that it was incumbent upon him to own a saddle horse, and he bought one. This horse was not easy to ride, and you can understand as well as I can that a man who has toiled hard and long upon, the farm, pulling *weeds and hoeing corn and digging away and spreading manure, is not suited to a horse that is not docile and to a certain extent cumbersome. It was suggested to the gentleman who was keeping the livery stable in this city that exercise might be given to this horse, and he went to the Minister of Agriculture. It was intimated to him that the volunteers were about to go forth to their annual drill and that somebody might be induced to ride this horse and pay him for its use and, being a great financier, as well as a patriot and a man of war, he determined that his horse should serve his country which he had never done, and that he should get paid for its use. The double temptation was great, and the horse went forth to battle. He battled for 12 days which is the rule in this country and fought those imaginary battles that are fought under these conditions, and then he returned. As you know the volunteer, the man who leaves his business and goes forth into these imaginary battles receives for himself and his horse $1.50 a day, and if you multiply that by 12, you will find that

he gets $18 altogether. That is what the man got for the horse belonging to the Minister of Agriculture and himself for those 12 days. Now, Sir, it is the Minister of War we are speaking of, and to show his deep patriotism, his intense interest, as he portrayed it this afternoon, in the development of the militia system of Canada-I was surprised to hear him as I did not know that he possessed such intense interest and patriotism-the generosity of that Minister of War or that pro-Minister of War was so great that when this man came to him with that $18, which he had received for himself and the horse, the Minister of War took the whole $18. We do not often get such sacrifice, such evidence of deep patriotism, such soldierly feeling, perhaps in the empire, not alone in Canada. When I heard the minister to-day and saw him standing with defiance and saying that he assumed the entire responsibility in this matter, although we have had some humorous and ridiculous situations, I do not think we have ever seen anything as funny as the valiant position taken by the proMinister of War. Of course there were no guns pointed towards him and he was absolutely safe when fighting this great battle. Sir, a man who had taken $18 for the use of a horse for 12 days when the poor devil only got $18, could not stoop to any position other than the most honourable, and when I heard him I said to myself : At last that animosity, that miserable feeling which I should not entertain towards the Minister of Agriculture must vanish, and when I go forth from this House I must bow with that great respect that should be given by every citizen of Canada when he meets a man moved with these deep, manly, warlike feelings, which the Minister of Agriculture is supposed to entertain.
The representative of the Prime Minister in the Senate yesterday said that the General Officer was to be a servant of Canada. We are all servants of Canada' and the true servant is the man who does bis work without prejudice. I have heard that the general has not brought this question before the House with a lawyer's dexterity. That is the absolute test of his honesty as a soldier ; let it come here as it might. It is said that he gave the memorandum to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) when he should have given it to the minister. When was that presented- to this House ? After the clock pointed to the hour of three. The master owes a duty to the servant as well as the servant to the master, and it is the duty of the master to protect the servant until be does not deserve protection. I ask whether that servant had not the right to expect a letter, a request from the minister to go to his office in order to discuss this situation, to see if he had any defence for the position he took in Montreal. He waited until three o'clock. Would you ask him to Mr. POPE.
wait until four ? Was he to go to the master who had said nothing to him, or was he to present to parliament his simple defence and let parliament decide on its merits ? I believe the general took the right course. We are all servants, the Prime Minister is a servant, the President of the United States is a servant, the King of England is a servant if you like. Do you, Mr. Speaker, or the right hon. Prime Minister or any member of the government tell me that because the King of England receives a salary, that because the President of the United States receives a salary, or that because the Prime Minister receives a salary, there is to be no distinction between any of these, and the most menial servant who labours in this country ? Has the time arrived when no distinction is to be made ? I say that the King of England has a right to be treated according to the position which he occupies, that the President of the United States has the right to be treated according to the position which he occupies, and the right hon. Prime Minister according to the position that he occupies, and I say that the General Officer Commanding who stands at the head of the militia force of Canada, has the right to the same treatment and not to the treatment of the most menial servant in the land.


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that perhaps the most regrettable thing in connection with thisj question is the fact that a responsible minister of the Crown and a man who, entertains a very high opinion of the prerogatives and privileges of a minister of the Crown should stand up in this House and in the presence of the commons of Canada make a statement in reference to a matter of this kind such as the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has made this afternoon, a statement, Sir, which before he got through, he was obliged to contradict when he found that there was in possession of an hon. member on this side of the House, a memorandum setting forth the case which contained a clear, distinct and absolute refutation of the statement which the hon. minister had made in his first, prepared and typewritten remarks. I say, Sir, that the conduct of the hon. Minister of Agriculture is a humiliaton not only to himself but a humiliation to the government of which he is a member, and a humiliation to this parliament. It is astonishing that an hon. minister of the Crown, or a supposedly hon. minister, would attempt to misrepresent the facts to the members of this House. In the typewritten statement which the hon. minister read this afternoon to us he claimed to be actuated only by a desire that the portion of the militia force situated in the eastern townships that was being reorganized should be reorganized in the best possible manner and that he was purely and
i
JUNE 10, lyt)4
absolutely concerned in seeing that th^ interests of the militia force were safeguarded. But, before he got through his verbal statement, he made it plain that he was actuated by a desire to introduce politics into the militia of that part of the country and see to it that Conservatives were not appointed to positions of honour in that regiment. Now, Sir, I regret that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) has been compelled by force of circumstances to lower himself in the estimation of the country, for I do consider that he has lowered himself and that he has lowered the position which he occupies in the country. He has been looked upon as a very good Minister of Militia, as good a Minister of Militia as a Liberal could possibly be. But, I am afraid that as a result of the line he has taken to-day he will shrink considerably and that bis glory will become considerably lessened in the eyes of the people of Canada. We find that the names of sixteen persons were recommended for appointment as officers of this regiment. Of these persons only two, Major D. W. Stewart and Captain G. Carr, were qualified according to the militia regulations for the positions to which they were appointed. In fact, the very man who was put in the place of Dr. Pickel was not a qualified officer under the militia rules. So that the only argument which the hon. minister or the Minister of Agriculture could possibly bring forward to justify the striking out of the name of Dr. Pickel is the fact that he is a Conservative. Lord Dundonald, the ablest, the best and the most popular Commander-inChief that Canada ever had is to have his head struck off merely from the desire of the Minister of Agriculture to introduce politics into the militia. No Tory need apply i-that is written on the door of the Militia Department. Perhaps if the general had been a little more yielding, a little more pliant, a little more submissive in his intercourse with the Minister of Agriculture, perhaps if he had been able to realize a little tin god when he saw one he would not have had as much difficulty with the hon. minister as he had. But, in his innocence, he had the temerity to use the telephone with that high and mighty personage, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He communicated with the hon. minister by telephone. He attempted to discuss this matter with him, but so great a man as the Minister of Agriculture, this expert on chicken fattening, was not to be treated in such a cavalier manner as to be talked to over the telephone. This great man, this minister must be approached in a more servile, a more submissive manner, because he resents the attempt of the Commander-in-Chief to talk to him over the telephone. We have had some striking differences of opinion as to
what has occurred in connection with this matter. We have had such wide divergences of statement that somebody must be telling what is untrue. In plain language somebody must be lying. Who is it ? Is it the general, Lord Dundonald, because the statement of Lord Dundonald in respect to what took place between himself and the hon. minister does not coincide with the statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The divergence is so great and the points of divergence are so essential that it is impossible that it is a mere matter of mistake. The statements of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Ool. Smart do not coincide. There is the same wide divergence, the same variance between their statements as there is between the statement of the hon. minister and Lord Dundonald. Ool. Smart has no prejudice in this matter as far as I can understand. I believe that Col. Smart is of the same political complexion, at least I have understood so, although I have not the honour of the acquaintance of that gentleman, as has the hon. minister. Ool. Whitley who is the brigadier of the district is of the same political eom-plection. Whatever object they would have in changing or colouring would be to do so on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. But, they are honest, truthful men. We have the statement of Col. Whitley. The statement of Ool. Smart is an entirely different and distinct statement from that of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. He says in this letter of May 19, that Dr. Pickel was induced to consent to the withdrawal of the recommendation that had been made and as my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope) said that very consent reflects the highest credit and honour upon Dr. Pickel, because if there were no other evidence in the case, that would stamp him as a man of such honour and integrity as would convince any non-partisan person that he would be a most excellent man to have in the militia of Canada. Whom are we to believe ? Are we to believe the statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture which is absolutely contradictory in itself or are we to believe the statement of those three gentlemen who have no object whatever in misstating or misrepresenting the facts.
It seems to me that apart from any question of political partisanship we must of necessity believe the statements of two honourable men like Lord Dundonald and Col. Smart. That being so, what sort of an opinion are we to form of the Minister of Agriculture who would so far forget his ministerial position-of which he seems jealous enough when it comes to a question of precedence-what sort of opinion are we to have respecting such a man ; what sort of opinion can the country or even his own supporters have respecting him, when he can get up in this House as he did, and make a statement with the sole intention

of misleading lion, members* and misleading the people of this country. It has been said that Lord Dundonald was guilt}" of a grave breech of etiquette, if not discipline, in placing that memo, in the hands of the member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). Let us see how fair the government have been to Lord Dundonald. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the matter would be taken up to-day, and from that hour to the present no communication, so far as we have been informed, has passed between the Minister of Militia and Lord Dundonald. There has been no request to Lord Dundonald to give his side of the case. If the members of the government had, been honest, if they desired to be fair to General Dundonald, the Minister of Militia would have read General Dun-donald's statement when he was asked to do so. Nay, he would not have waited to have been asked. If the Minister of Militia were a fair man and desired to do justice and fair-play to the gentleman who is claimed, to be an officer of his department; he would not have waited to be asked to read that memorandum, but in connection with his own presentation of the case he would have presented Lord Dundonald's side too. But Lord Dundonald knew well the class of men he was dealing with ; he knew well how little dependence was to be placed on their sense of justice, and consequently, in order to protect himself, he placed in the hands of my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) a memo, which at the same time he sent to the Minister of Militia. Why, Sir, in the conduct of a trial, when the plaintiff's attorney states His case to the jury, he also states the pleadings on the other side. Lawyers are not generally supposed to be fair to their opponents, but, Sir, the fairness of lawyers shines out in contrast to the manner in which the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture have treated Lord Dundonald in this affair. Sir, this seems to me as a most regrettable incident, regrettable because of the unworthy conduct-I hope I am not unparliamentary-Mr. Speaker shakes his head.


Samuel Hughes: That means that you are parliamentary.
Mr. ''	' PR. The unworthy conduct-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I do not think the hon. gentleman means to say that, because it would be unparliamentary.


George William Fowler: Then, Mr. Speaker, we will consider it not said ; we will let the meaning go just the same. I was somewhat surprised at the statement which fell from the lips of the Prime Minister to-day. Is it to be said by the Prime Minister of a British colony, that a man of British birth and of British parentage, when he comes * to a colony of Great Britain, is a foreigner. The Prime Minister when he used the word Mr. FOWLER.
saw that he made a great mistake. A man who had shed his blood for this great empire ; a man whose ancestors for many generations back have fought and bled to the upbuilding of this great empire of ours ; such a man to be characterised by the Prime Minister of a British colony as a foreigner


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


George William Fowler: Who says oh ? I can quite understand a remark of that kind coming from an _ hon. gentleman opposite. I have heard the words the Prime Minister has uttered. I can understand something of the feeling that actuates him towards British generals and British officers ; but, Sir, thank God, that feeling is not widespread throughout this Dominion of Canada. The Prime Minister amended the Word ' foreigner,' by calling the General Officer Commanding a stranger. Dundonald, the man whose name is a household world throughout Canada, to be caHed a stranger in Canada. The amendment jyas very little better than the original in the mouth of the Prime Minister. No, Mr. Speaker, Lord Dundonald is neither a stranger hor a foreigner on any soil where the British flag floats. Now, the Minister of Agriculture expressed a great desire that a certain lieutenant who had been in South Africa and who had won the V. C. should be an officer in this regiment. That was right. I believe promotion should go to the most deserving, and that the men who have gone in active service to fight for their country should have a share of the honours. But tiie Minister of Agriculture and his friends were not always so favourable to that idea. When the coronation of the King was about to take place ip London, there was a little junketing trip for some members of the militia of Canada. The Minister of Militia and the government were not so solicitous then that the men who fought in South Africa should be placed on the coronation contingent. We moved from this side of the House, that such men should be given the preference, but it did not suit the purpose of the government, and they voted our motion down. But now it suits the minister of Agriculture to tell another story, and he says that he was actuated by a desire that this lieutenant who had gallantly won the Victoria Cross should be an officer of that regiment. This lieutenant was and is upon the force, and it was not necessary that he should take the place of Dr. Pickel; there were other vacancies to which he could be appointed. But, any port in a storm ; any excuse will suit the Minister of Agriculture when an excuse is hard to find. So far as I am concerned I am not actuated by any desire to make political capital out of this regrettable thing. I am desirous, as are all the members on this side of the House, for the welfare of the milita of Canada. I was at one time coni

nected with our militia, and I am anxious indeed that nothing should be done to injure the efficiency of the force upon which we have to depend in case of difficulty with our neighbours to the south, or with any other nation. I regret exceedingly that the usefulness of a man like General Dundon-ald-the best and most efficient Commander-in-chief we ever had in Canada-should be cut short by the conduct-the narrow-minded. bigoted conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. That is what I characterize it.
I can characterize his conduct in no other terms that could properly fit it, and I submit with confidence that these terms are not unparliamentary. I say that the narrow and bigoted, politically bigoted conduct of the Minister of Agriculture, will have a most serious effect if the result be, that we are to lose the services of General Lord Dundonald to the militia of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: I presume, Mr. Speaker, that you will accord me the right of closing the debate, unless some gentleman on the other side wishes to speak.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to say, lest there be any misunderstanding, that in the view of the government the question before the House to-day is not the propriety of Lord Dun-donald's conduct. That is a separate question. The course of the discussion to-day has perhaps inevitably taken the form of personal explanations by the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture. In the view of the government, the question of the propriety of Lord Dundonald's course is a different matter, and we have purposely refrained from discussing it to-day. It will come up in due course. I merely wish to make this explanation.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), in his remarks, seemed to take for granted that the general officers sent here by England had never realized any responsibility 'to the government of the country. While that may hay* been true in the case of some former General Officers Commanding, it has yet to be shown where Lord Dundonald has been anything else than thoroughly constitutional. The Minister of Militia, thank heaven, is the oniy minister to whom the General Officer Commanding owes allegiance. Let it be understood that no General Officer Commanding, and no other military officer of this country, has to pay allegiance to any Minister of Agriculture, be he never so small or never so great. Lord Dundonald has never yet been charged with being unconstitutional or with failing to recognize to the fullest extent his responsibility to the Minister of Militia. Lord Dundonald has ever been considerate in his dealings with the officers and men with whom he has been associated in Canada. He recognizes to the fullest extent his allegiance to the Minister
of Militia and the powers, of parliament in relation to the militia of this country. He has never sought to override his minister by claiming that he had a right to approach in his official capacity the Governor General of Canada. And, Sir, Lord Dundonald has never yet been insubordinate to his minister. 1 have watched .his career very carefully ; and when hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House sought, in reference to a speech which he made some time ago in Hamilton, to make it appear that he had been guilty of insubordination, his minister never admitted the charge. But there are times when patience ceases to be a virtue ; and, as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has said, the pin pricking of the Minister of Agriculture, not merely during the two or three days that he was acting Minister of Militia, but for many weeks, since last February, all through the months of March, April, and May, and even into the month of June, Lord Dundonald has borne with a great dekl of .patience. There is a feeling abroad-it was displayed by the Minister of Agriculture on this occasion- that the position of the General Officer Commanding in Canada, because he happens to be an imperial officer, is one of servitude. Let these hon. gentlemen disabuse themselves of any such notion. By accepting service in this country, in the position of General Officer Commanding' neither Lord Dundonald nor any other officer occupies a position of servitude to these people, and is not to be insulted and taunted and thwarted and belittled on every occasion. lhey may just as well realize once for all that the people of this country are not going tamely to submit to their petty tyranny in order to drive these officers out of the country. However, we shall have that discussed later on. The Minister of Agriculture did me the honour to refer to flay having a position on the staff bf this country, and he criticised Lord Dundonald for sending to me the communication which was presented to this House to-day, instead of sending it to the Minister of Militia. It has been pointed out, Sir, by more than one hon. member on this side of the House, as well as by hon. gentlemen on tne other side, that Lord Dundonald was not called on by the government for any statement here to-day. Had the bald statement of the Minister of Agriculture, supplemented by the statement of the Minister of Militia, gone to the country im the way in which it was read by him to this House to-day, I leave it to this House and the country if a false impression-if I am parliamentary I will say a deliberately false impression- would not have been conveyed to the people of this country. That was only prevented by the fact that yesterday, when the First Minister announced that he was going to bring this matter up to-day, and when he declined my request to have it postponed till Monday, I wondered what the other side

of the case might be. As I have already stated, I have in m.y desk letters on this matter from honourable citizens of the Eastern Townships ; but I wrote a letter and sent it to Lord Dundonald, asking him if I might have an interview with him or have some statement from him on this subject ; and at ten minutes after three to-day that statement was re'ad by me for the first time. I presume that His Lordship waited until the last minute to get a request from his minister or from the government, in order that he might have his case presented to the country side by side with that of the Minister of Agriculture. But, true to the spirit of unfair play which lias characterized the hon. Minister of Agriculture in the past, and which has characterized him in the present instance, the General Officer Commanding would have been given no opportunity to have his case presented to the people of Canada and the empire at large had I not taken the course X did ; and the bald statement of the Minister of Agriculture would have gone before the people of Canada and the empire, and would have been in itself deceiving. The Minister of Agriculture referred to my position on the staff, and implied that Bord Dundonald had demeaned himself by addressing a letter to one who occupies a position on the staff. As I pointed out to-day, as a member of parliament 1 am absolutely independent. That question has been fought out by me before this. 1 had the honour of educating the Minister of Militia, and he knows it. I had the honour of educating the .Prime Minister, and he knows it. I have not yet taken the Minister of Agriculture in hand. I may before the end of the session


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is a bad subject.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-and if I tackle him, he will be educated-let him make no mistake. He will be a sadder and a wiser man when I am through with him. I had the honour of educating these gentlemen some years ago on their duties in relation to members of parliament holding positions in the militia service of the country. A member of parliament owes allegiance to no superior ; the people alone are his masters, and these gentlemen may just as well understand it.
I have had the honour of being offered the highest civil service position in the militia of this country. Many years ago I was offered the position now held by Colonel Piriault-that of deputy Minister of Militia; but I had seen a former deputy Minister of Militia, a former adjutant general, treated by members of the Liberal party before committees of this House worse than slaves were ever treated. And i made up my mind that if I became a civil servant, to be treated as those gentlemen were, there was only one way to teach them their duty and that was oy Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
appealing to them through the hide. I determined therefore that I would always be in a position to treat those gentlemen as they deserved without violating my duty as a servant of the country. Accordingly, neither did I accept long years ago the offer of the position of Deputy Minister of Militia, nor did I later in 1894 accept the position of Adjutant-General of Canada. * I declined to be a civil servant in this country. The hon. Minister of Agriculture had had the brazen hardihood to stand up in this House and tell us how he did interfere in the appointments of officers to this regiment and had struck off the names of Conservatives. Let me tell him that I had the honour of commanding a regiment a good many years and that I am in the service thirty-seven years. I had an officer who had risen from the ranks to a captaincy, and had been in my regiment some fifteen years, and I never knew until this spring that he was a member of the Liberal party. I only knew it when in conversation one day he told me himself. Neither directly nor indirectly have I ever, as the best officers in the regiment can testify, permitted politics to interfere in my conduct of its affairs. Liberals as well as Conservatives can bear testimony to that statement ; and although I am now out of the regiment, my hon. friend will find that the officers who served under me and the men also are to-day staunch supporters of mine simply because I have always treated them as men and not as politicians. I wish to emphasize this aspect of the case to the First Minister. As pointed out by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the Minister of Agriculture has been guilty, I shall not say of treason, but of very improper conduct, and if the right hon. gentleman does not dismiss his colleague from the cabinet, he will be recreant in his duty to the Canadian people. .The question has been asked by the same Minister of Agriculture why there were so few Liberals in the corps. I need hardly tell the hon. gentleman that the policy pursued by the Liberal party during many years has not been such as to induce Liberals to wear uniforms of His Majesty and come to the defence of their country. The policy of the Liberal party would lead us to come under the Stars and Stripes. Their policy during many years tended towards annexation and was no encouragement to young Liberals to fan in and wear the uniform of men determined to uphold British institutions. It is the teaching of the hon. gentleman and his colleagues which accounts for so many of our young Liberals not being found in the force. However, I am proud to say that they have torn themselves away from these gentlemen and are now coming into the force in large numbers. Just one more reference to the hon. Minister. It was not Lord Dundonald-as the First Minister has attempted to point out-who selected these

officers, but Col. Smart who, I am told, is a Liberal, and Col. Whitley and Col. Roy, all Liberals. These are the three who were selecting officers for the regiment and who had to approve of these officers before sending in their names to the General Officer Commanding. They had no interests to serve other than the best interests of the regiment. But the Minister of Agriculture was not content to accept their selections, and sought to gratify his petty spite and prejudices by keeping good and efficient men out of the service. Another statement of the First Minister was this. He referred to Lord Dundonald as a foreigner and a stranger. Let me tell the right hon. gentleman that Lord Dundonald is a Britisher and so are all Canadians, irrespective of language, race or nationality. We are all Britishers, Sir, and mark you we intend to remain Britishers. It was Britain which won, has held, has upbuilt and has peopled this country, and let me tell the right hon. the First Minister that we intend it shall remain British. It shall not be annexed to the United States. It shall not become independent of Britain, because the people who never hesitated to come to the front in times of necessity have decided that it will remain British if they know their business. Let me tell you, Sir, further that Canadians owe allegiance first to the empire of which Canada forms a part, and that they intend remaining British; and should the time ever arrive when any Canadian government will demand the allegiance of Canadians to an independent Canada on the one hand in preference to the old empire, including Canada, on the other, the rebel will be he who declines to stand by the old British empire. I think, judging by the general conduct of these gentlemen, that the time has arrived when we may as well lay down the law to them ; and if the time should ever come when these hon. gentlemen will undertake to bring about such a condition of affairs as they would lead us to believe they have in view, they will find that they will have to depend not on horses alone and that it will require some thing more than horses to accomplish what they desire. Let me tell the right hon. the First Minister furthermore that Lord Dundonald is no foreigner and no stranger in this Dominion.
Motion (Mr. Sam. Hughes) to adjourn, negatived.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it will be admitted on both sides that it is rather late to resume the adjourned debate- on the budget ; and to place ourselves in order, I would move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply, merely to have an intervening proceeding before renewing the motion to adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 13, 1904.