1904-07-20

['Yes, certainly.']
Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: But there may be another motion.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I understood there was to be none. But even if there is one, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) can make liis remarks, unless he himself desires to conclude with a motion.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. DANIEL-by Mr. Taylor-asked
Has Doctor Gilbert of Fraserville, Quebec, been appointed port physician at that port ? If so, at what date was such appointment made, and at what salary ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: There is no doctor employed at Fraserville on a salary for the treatment of sick seamen.


POSTMASTERSHIP AT CHESLEY, ONT.
Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	Has the postmaster at Chesley, Ontario, been appointed ?
2.	Who received the appointment ?
3.	Is the position permanent ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General).: No appointment has been made to the postmastership, at Chesley, as yet.


SPEED OF MAIL STEAMERS.
Mr. McCOOL asked :: What is the average speed per hour being made during the present year, 1904, by steamships carrying British and Canadian mails from Moville to Rimouski, and from Rimouski to Moville, respectively ?


Right Hon.   S@: The average speed per hour made during the year 1904 to the present date, by steamships carrying British and Canadian mails from Moville to Rimouski and from Rimouski to Moville, is as follows :-
Moville to Rimouski, average IPS knots per hour.
Rimouski to Moville average 13T knots per hour.


SCHOOL OF MUSKETRY.
Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the Day are called, I desire to say a few words. The Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) furnished the House with a statement from the Officer Commanding the School of Musketry to which I wish briefly to direct the attention of the House. A few days ago it was my privilege to make certain statements-


Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) allow me to interrupt him ? I would suggest that the motion for supply, which is the next order to be taken up, should be moved, and then he can make the remarks he desires to make.


Samuel Hughes: And speak on the other motion also ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, certainly.



SUPPLY-INTER-IMPERIAL PREFERENTIAL TRADE-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD.

["and with some effect; but I do not know that in doing that, we exploited any particular gentleman connected with it. We have been taking up the Audit Department. Was that exploiting Mr. McDougall ? Surely we can take up and- discuss and criticise a department without acting for or using a particular Individual who happens, to be connected with it. _ Now, I object to the Finance Minister trying to sidetrack this question by diverting the attention of the public from the conduct of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and that of the hon. Minister of Militia to Lord Dundonald. Lord Dundonald can defend himself. We do not attempt to defend him here. It is not our business to do so. Our business is to criticise hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the conduct of the affairs entrusted to them, and we generally do so, no matter who the man may be who may be helped or hurt by our criticism.\nAt Six o'clock House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at Eight o'clock."]
Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I would like to bring to the attention of the government certain remarks of the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemi-eux) as reported in the press despatches. The Solicitor General seems to have undertaken to give information to the British public with regard to more than one matter. The first subject is the attitude of this country respecting preferential trade. The history of that movement in this country and in Great Britain is pretty well known. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Lauder) adopted it as part of his platform in 1890. He declared himself as much in favour of inter-imperial preferential trade as was Sir Charles Tupper, and promised to do everything he could to obtain it. In 1897, a preference was granted as a measure of free trade and as a compromise between the warring factions of the government. The right hon. Prime Minister went to Great Britain and told the people there that Canada wanted no preference in return for the preference we had granted, that our action was in return for the splendid freedom which Great Britain had given us. And he further said that he did not want Great Britain cursed with the protection which has wrought so much evil in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) repeated the same observations in 1901 on at least two occasions. At the Colonial Conference in 1902, this government practically threatened the government of Great Britain with the withdrawal of the preference unless some preference was given in return. No meaning could be placed on the language except that. It was not language used casually, but was contained in a carefully-prepared memorandum. So, it became apparent that the views that the right hon. gentleman had expressed in 1897, and that had been repeated by the Minister of Agriculture in 1901. had ceased to occupy the minds of this government, and that their intentions pointed in the very opposite direction. In 1903 and during the present year there has been a movement led by

Mr. Chamberlain in Great Britain. Tliat movement has attracted great attention not only in the mother country blit throughout the empire. It has beeu asserted against Mr. Chamberlain, that Canada was taking no interest in that movement, and it has been pointed out that, while only one or two provinces of the Dominion and certain boards of trade had adopted resolutions favouring Mr. Chamberlain's policy, the parliament of Canada had given no sign-had expressed no opinion whatever, upon the advantages or disadvantages of his policy.
The excuse, the reason for this, put forward in government organs-and I believe it is no secret that the right hon. gentleman shared that opinion-was that this being a matter of political controversy in the United Kingdom between those who favoured Mr. Chamberlain's policy and those who were opposed to it, it *would be unbecoming and in bad taste for this parliament to express any opinion upon the subject. That view was voiced by the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his speech upon the budget last year, w'lhen he said in so many words that it would be unbecoming for parliament to take any part in the movement by signifying the willingness or unwillingness of Canada to adopt a policy such as that which Sir. Chamberlain was advocating ; although it is a policy, so far as its essentia] features and its principle are concerned, which bad been adopted by both parties in this country in the election campaign of 1896. Well, if that were a good reason why the parliament of Canada should refrain from expressing any opinion upon the subject, it seems to me that it is a much stronger reason wliy a member of this government, visiting the United Kingdom on official business of this country, should not attend partisan meetings in the mother country and express himself as either opposed to or in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's policy. That hon. gentleman's remarks are thus reported in a cable from London, under date July 18 :
Surprise is expressed at the speech delivered by Mr. Rodolphe Lemieux, the Solicitor-General for Canada, at a Liberal demonstration at Dollis Hill House on Saturday. After remarking that Canadians were following the fiscal discussion very closely, Mr. Lemieux said they should apply to the present position between the Colonies and the Empire, the old axiom,
' Let well alone.' He added that Canadians were loyal, happy and satisfied to live under the British flag, but if they wished to tighten the tie, they would break it.
The anti-Chamberlainite papers are making use of this statement, the inference made being that a section of the Canadian Cabinet is opposed to the preferential policy despite Mr. Fielding's declaration in the budget speech. This is regarded specially unfortunate on the eve of the publication of the report of the tariff commission, which is expected to base the whole Chamberlainite policy emphatically upon closer Anglo-Colonial trade relations.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I may say that I do not regard the language of Mr. Lemieux in dealing with the tie which binds the mother country to the colonies as especially happy. The suggestion that a very slight movement might break the tie between the mother country and the colonies is one which I think will not be appreciated by the majority of the people of Canada, and is one as to which I do not think Mr. Lemieux speaks for the majority of the people of Canada, if be desired to suggest any such condition of public opinion as existing in Canada at the present time. We have another report, under date July 19. But I may say before coming to that that the language of the Solicitor General to-dav is in marked contrast to that of tlie Prime Minister himself when in Great Britain some years ago, because on that occasion, if I remember rightly-I do not presume to quote his exact words-he said that whenever the beacon fires were lighted on the hill-tops, Canadians would rally to the support of the empire, or words to that effect. The report under date July 19 is as follows :
Fuller reports of the political demonstration, at which Hon. R. Lemieux spoke on Saturday, show its bitterly partisan character. One speaker spoke of the downward path that had led Mr. Chamberlain to his present condition of the most reactionary figure in politics. Another declared it would take the whole time of the next Radical Parliament to undo the misdeeds of the Balfour Ministry.
Mr. Lemieux declared that Canada asked nothing in return for the preference, and was ready to continue it without asking anything in return, because Canadians were not going to put their loyalty up for sale. He added that they should apply to the present position between the Colonies and the Empire the old maxim, * let well alone.'
Mr. Lemieux was perfectly correct in that part of his remarks wherein he spates that Canadians are not going to put their loyalty up for sale, but it is to be borne in mind that we have always been told by the present administration that in dealing with commercial matters, with trade relations between the mother country and the colonies, the mother country was absolutely devoid of sentiment and would deal with us purely on business principles. We do not propose in Canada to put our loyalty up for sale, but we do profess, or at least some of us have professed to believe, that a policy by which mutual preferences would be granted by the mother country on the one hand and the colonies on the other hand would be of great importance indeed, not only commercially, but as a means of solidifying and uniting the* empire.
I would also like to call attention to Mr. Lemieux's remarks on another occasion, to a cable despatch in which he is reported to have said :
Unless the British government recalls Lord Dundonald immediately the bitterest feelings

will be aroused in Canada against the imperial military authorities.
Well, I doubt very much if the hon. Solicitor General has any mandate from the people of Canada to express that opinion. He on this occasion also said :
The ' Times' is always against the Laurier government. It gives Lord Dundonald's version ' of the case completely ignoring the government side. There is no doubt but that Lord Dundonald is now playing into the hands of the Canadian opposition in view of the coming elections. The meeting held in Toronto was nothing else but a pretext tc arouse the feelings of Ontario against Sir Wilfrid. Laurier, but rest assured there is enough common sense in Canada to understand the true position.


Mr. COWAN.: He told the truth then.


William Mulock: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend thinks that is the truth. I think it was the "Postmaster General who made that remark.


William Mulock: I did not make the remark, but I will endorse it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad to have the endorsation of that remark by the Postmaster General. Another gentleman. I think, in the British House of Commons said that the opposition were endeavouring to exploit Lord Dundonald. '


William Mulock: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Postmaster General endorses that remark also V


William Mulock: I do.


Robert Laird Borden: All I have to sa'y is that if there is any reason for making that statement I am not aware of it. Perhaps the Postmaster General, if he conies to address the House, will be good enough to state the facts upon which he grounds that expression of opinion for which he, as a cabinet minister of this country, ought to be held responsible. I say that the Con servative party has not endeavoured to exploit Lord Dundonald, and has not-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: And has not had anything to do, so far as I am aware, with any reception which has been tendered to him on any occasion. I say that, speaking upon my responsibility as leader in this House of the Conservative party, and as knowing something of that party's affairs. I say further, that the opposition in this House have a perfect right to criticise the action of the government in connection "with the administration of the militia, and, therefore, in connection with the circumstances which led up to the dismissal of Lord Dundonald. If that is exploiting Lord Dundonald, they have a perfect right to exploit him. If by the expression ' exploiting Lord Dundonald ' anything more than that is meant, then I say that those who make that charge, and especially the Postmaster General, who has not been, afraid to endorse it, as he calls it, in this House, ought to state the facts on which they rely when making any such statement. Lord Dundonald has been exploited, has he ? When the circumstances of his dismissal were brought up in this House, was it not in order for the opposition to call attention to and discuss the facts connected with the administration of the militia which had been stated in his speech in Montreal, and which were practically admitted by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), as well as1 by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) ? Were their mouths to be shut, and are they to be precluded in any way from discussing various matters connected with the Militia Department, of which Lord Dundonald has spoken since his dismissal ? For what is an opposition In parliament, if not to discuss matters of this kind ? I do not understand the suggestion of the hon. Postmaster General.


William Mulock: We are not here to make incendiary speeches.


Robert Laird Borden: Who ?


William Mulock: Hon. gentlemen.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is not ?


William Mulock: No one.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is referring to himself or not.


William Mulock: I refer to any one who makes incendiary speeches in this House or out of it.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's observations are of a remarkably general and vague nature. Until be comes down to the particular I will not deal further with his remarks.


Samuel Hughes: He is just soliloquizing over his own misconduct in days gone by.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Be good now.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as Lord Dundonald is concerned I am not here to defend him. He is absolutely able to defend himself but when public men in this House and in this country, such as the hon. Postmaster General, are apparently of the opinion that Lord Dundonald. since his dismissal from the position of General Officer Commanding, is bound to sit silent under the most venomous, and if his statement is to be believed, the most untruthful attacks, and not

say one word in his own defence, I say that is a position which T do not acquiesce in for one moment. The position of the hon. Postmaster General seems to be that Lord Dundonald is to be gagged and that he is to be subjected to every possible charge that can be made against him in this parliament and in this country.


William Mulock: Will the hon. gentleman allow me ?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


William Mulock: My observations had no reference whatever to Lord Dundonald himself. My observations had reference to those gentlemen who are exploiting Lord Dundonald for their own political advantage.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I think the hon. Postmaster General's observations must particularly have reference to himself and no doubt an uneasy conscience is that which prompts such observations. If there has been any exploiting in this incident I would be able to show, if it were desirable or necessary to do so, where the exploiting has been. I will give you one illustration and more can be given. Those who enter these grounds may read the inscription which has been many months near the entrance gates :
' Lisez le Canada,' organe du Sir Wilfri Laurier.
In that paper only of yesterday's date there is a long extract, not an editorial, but a long extract from another journal published for the obvious purpose of convincing the people of Quebec that Lord Dundonald unjustly discriminated against them. I would call that exploiting this incident for political purposes. I would call that exploiting this incident for unworthy purposes more than anything that I have heard of in connections with the *whole question. A great many other illustrations of the same kind could be given. But so far as I am concerned in regard to Lord Dundonald I have taken the opportunity in this House of speaking upon the incidents which led up to his dismissal. I have not justified his remarks at Montreal as not being a breach of discipline. Lord Dundonald himself has said that he knew perfectly well what he was doing when he made these remarks and that he did it with an obvious purpose, but that did not preclude me from criticising the government in connection with the facts which led up to Lord Dundonald's dismissal and it does not in the least vary the original condition of affairs which in the judgment of Lord Dundonald made it necessary for him to speak out on that occasion. Whether he was wise or unwise, whether he was guilty of a breach of discipline or otherwise is a subject I have not discussed in this House beyond pointing out that so far as the military regula-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
tions which were invoked by the right hon. leader of the government were concerned, they could have no application to that particular incident ; otherwise, dozens of military officers throughout the country who had spoken in commendation of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and of the administration of the militia would be equally liable with Lord Dundonald to dismissal because the regulation that was cited by the right hon. Prime Minister applied not only to terms of reprobation but applied equally to terms of commendation of a superior officer.
I think it is to be regretted that the hon. Solicitor General has taken part in a bitterly partisan gathering in the mother country and has seen fit at that gathering to discuss a subject which is a matter of political controversy in the mother country, which is so mifch a matter of political controversy in the mother country that the right hon. Prime Minister and his government have thought that we should not discuss it or deal with it by resolution in this House during the past two years.
I think it is also to be regretted that he spoke in the tone in which he did of the loyalty of Canadians, because, as far as I am concerned, I believe that the loyalty of Canadians in the province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario, and in the other provinces of Canada is made of more substantial stuff than that which would be gathered from the remarks of the hon. Solicitor General.
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). Mr. Speaker, the occasion of the speech which we have just listened to from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is the publication of certain remarks which are attributed to my hon. friend the Solicitor General now in England upon official duties. Upon these remarks the hon. leader of the opposition has made some comments which I think are hardly justified by the occasion. I do not believe that my hon. friend or any other member of this House would consent to be tried and judged upon telegraphic extracts from reports of what he may have said in any part of the world or even in Canada. I do not believe that it would be fair to my hon. friend the Solicitor General to come to any conclusion upon the remarks which have been attributed to him and which he is said to have made in a meeting of the Liberal party in Great Britain. I have only to call the attention of the House to the fact that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has quoted two versions of the remarks which have been said to have been made by Mr. Lemieux on that occasion and that these remarks do not bear at all the same construction. One of these versions could not only be accepted without comment and without criticism but could be accepted as fairly expressing the views of

anybody. If Mr. Lemieux attended any meeting at all I do not think that of set purpose he went to any political gathering in Great Britain and until such time as we have received from Mr. Lemieux himself an authoritative version of what he said, I decline for my part to discuss the statements of Mr. Lemieux.


Robert Laird Borden: Is my right lion, friend under the impression that this was not a political partisan gathering ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not say that. Mr. Lemieux may have found himself in a political gathering-I do not know that ; but I remember on one occasion I was myself accused of having attended a certain meeting-it was the occasion of Mr. Redmond's lecture in Ottawa-when I had been there merely as a spectator and had paid for my ticket like everybody else. I did not think I had done anything to which exception could be taken.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend did not speak.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not speak, and when we know what Mr. Lemieux really said it may be that no objection can be offered to it at all. It is the fate of all of us that certain language may be attributed to us which has not been reported properly ; and, moreover, if Mr. Lemieux made a speech there it must have been a speech which would occupy some time in its delivery, but as we have it cabled it is condensed into one or two sentences, so that it would not be fair to hold Mr. Lemieux accountable on the basis of what must be a very incomplete report. The only thing which Mr. Lemieux is alleged to have said, and which has caused comment in this country, is a reference to the loyalty of Canadians. Well, Mr. Speaker, for my part I have only this to say once for all : I do not think we are called upon | to defend our loyalty on any occasion. It 1 is very much to be regretted that any Canadian should find himself called upon from time to time to defend his loyalty ; but it is unfortunate that we have to take that stand sometimes, and Mr. Lemieux may have found it advisable to defend himself and his own countrymen. We find our loyalty attacked -I will not say on the floor of this House- we find our loyalty attacked, if not openly, by way of insinuation. The newspaper press of a certain party has time and again stated that we are influenced by secret' motives when we pursue a certain line of policy as a political party. Not only that, but if one of us by a slip of the tongue utters a word which he immediately corrects, even that is supposed to betray the secret feelings of the heart. Under such circumstances, and as we are all human, allowance must be made if a man reflecting upon these facts thinks it advisable to utter certain language in defence of the loyalty of his countrymen
of his own blood, which under other conditions there should be no necessity for uttering. For my part, I should not attempt to defend Mr. Lemieux or anybody else. Our history is there to speak for itself. I agree with Mr. Lemieux that our loyalty is not for sale, and that whatever may be the attitude taken on the question of the preference it should not weigh one iota in the loyalty which we have for, and which we owe to Great Britain. I have said on previous occasions, and I have not been contradicted-I think the leader of the opposition endorsed the views I expressed a moment ago-I have said on many occasions that our commercial relations with Great Britain should be above all things based on considerations of mutual interest. When we gave the preference we gave it without any return on the part of Great Britain. We thought we were serving the interests of Canada on that occasion, and if we have to discuss the question later on, we should again decide on our course in a manner which will serve the best interests of Canada. That is all I have to say with regard to the alleged remarks attributed to ill-. Lemieux.
As to the observations Mr. Lemieux is stated to have made in an interview, even for these remarks I would not hold Mr. Lemieux accountable until he has had an opportunity of stating whether the views put in his mouth are true or not. I hold it to be a sacred principle in political and public life, not*only between party and party, but between individual and individual, that a man is not to be judged upon what he is reported to have said unless he has had an opportunity of saying : these are my words or these are not my words. If Mr. Lemieux said yesterday that Lord Dundonald ought to be recalled, I imagine he simply reflected not so much his own opinion as the opinion of the British government, expressed not later than yesterday in the British House of Commons. As to the action of Lord Dundonald, I have not a word to say. He has chosen his own course ; his course is before the public ; it is for the public to decide. As to that incident, I have said everything I want to say on the floor of this House, and unless perhaps our attitude is again challenged. I may perhaps make this remark, that whilst it is said in the Conservative press that the dismissal of Lord Dundonald has been unjust and tyrannical, the hon. the leader of the opposition is himself bound to admit that in this House he will not challenge the dismissal of Lord Dundonald. More than this I will not say upon the present occasion.


Samuel Hughes: In his concluding remarks the prime minister referred to the action of the British government yesterday as reported in the press, but a moment before the right hon. gentleman condemned' the leader of the opposition for basing his remarks on a newspaper report of the speech
*7091

of the Solicitor General, which he thinks may not be correct. On what authority does the Prime Minister justify the British government for its expression of opinion yesterday ? On what authority did Mr. Arnold Foster address the House of Commons yesterday, and state in these words as' reported.
Mr. Arnold Foster (Secretary of State for War) welcomed Mr. Churchill as the spokesman of the opposition in this debate which was not calculated to contribute to the public advantage. One question was that of war office discipline, of which he was in charge, and the other was the advisability of this debate. He saw that no advantage could arise from this debate except to make bad blood between two great branches of the empire. Did Mr. Lloyd George, he asked, speak as the representative of.Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I might here remark that it Is a strange [DOT] coincidence thht the right hon. the first minister finds himself endorsed by the disloyal men of the empire ; by Mr. Lloyd George, a pro-Boer.


An hon. MEMBER.: And Winston Churchill.


Samuel Hughes: I will deal with Winston Churchill later. Mr. Lloyd George is a gentleman who is hooted in every part of the United Kingdom if he addresses a public audience.


Mr. FIELDING.: What about Campbell Bannerman ?	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: We have not come to him yet.
Mr. Foster continued :
No. representation, he continued, has been made to the imperial authorities by the government of Canada which is well able to take care of itself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: The government of Canada took care that the people of this country were taxed to send cable messages to the old land to parade the views of the Canadian government before the British public. Why were not both sides of the case cabled over by the Minister of Finance ? Why did he dare to take the money of the people of Canada to cable over his Order in Council, and not let the whole case be presented to the people of England ? More than that, the Solicitor General is very conveniently in England to impress the British public with the views of the government, and to hold threats before them of this kind :
Unless the British government recalls Lord Dundonald immediately, the bitterest feeling would be aroused in Canada against the imperial military authorities. I
I want to tell the First Minister that Mr. Lemreux does not represent the loyalty of Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
this country ; let that be distinctly understood.


Some hon. MEMBERS: He does.


Samuel Hughes: Who does ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sam. Hughes:


Samuel Hughes: Not Mr. Lemieux.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Is he not loyal ?


Samuel Hughes: No, he is not loyal. Any man who has been proven in this House to have gone to the province of Quebec in the campaign of 1896 and paraded treason and disloyalty to the empire-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Put him out.
Mr. SPEAKER, I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is certainly taking great liberties with the freedom of debate.


Samuel Hughes: Very well, I shall endeavour to confine myself within the rules. I will tell you what Mr. Lemieux did, and let you judge. He demanded that his fellow-electors in the province of Quebec should vote to turn out the Tupper government-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. TALBOT.: And they responded.


Samuel Hughes: To turn out the Tupper government because they- were spending $3,000,000 to buy rifles for the defence of Canada. Declarations of gentlemen were quoted again and again in this House to show that Mr. Lemieux was guilty of saying to his people : ' You don't want to return such a government as that to power ; vote for Laurier, who will see that no Canadian is sent to fight as a British soldier in any part of the empire.' These were the appeals of this gentleman ; and Mr. McIntosh, the gentleman on whom the First Minister passed such a eulogy the other day, pointed his finger at Mr. Lemieux in this House and said. * It is behind the bars of the penitentiary you should be for treason instead of preaching loyalty in this House.' Hon. gentlemen will not be permitted to take one line in certain parts of this country, and then, when they are hobnobbing around other centres, to preach along other lines. It is our intention to see that they pursue the same line on both occasions. I repudiate the idea that Mr. Le-mienx has any commission from any loyal man in Canada to use the language he does on the other side of the Atlantic. Mr. Arnold Foster goes on :
Did Mr. Lloyd George, he asked, speak as the representative of Sir Wilfrid Laurier ? No representation, be continued, had been made to the imperial authorities by the government of Canada, which is well able to take care of itself.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, liear.


Samuel Hughes: So long as it has the people's money to pay for its cablegrams. He went on :
The discussion, he said, will not tend to establish good feeling between Canada and the motherland. Lord Dundonald, continued the Secretary of War, went to Canada as an officer of the Canadian government and no one had imputed any misconduct to him, other than want of judgment. Not being in agreement with the Canadian government, the latter dismissed him at once, when he became a British officer on half pay. Lord Dundonald could stand as a member of the Canadian Commons and could not he deprived of right to take an active part in public life. Mr. Arnold Foster believed it, however, to be undesirabe for any officer to take part in public controversies, and the War Office had1 informed Lord Dundonald that his conduct was undesirable, and requested him to return to England to be heard in his own defence. He had therefore instructed Lord Dundonald to return home and not take any further part in political controversies.
Gentlemen have played their little game. They have read history, and they remember that when the imperial authorities, many years ago, planted a British colony in South Africa, and were inclined to build that colony up on loyal lines, the protests from the disloyal element in South Africa resulted in stopping the planting of British colonies in that country. They know that the imperial government is cowardly in relation-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: They know' that the imperial government In its dealings with its colonies has always bowed to the disloyal cries rather than bring on a ruction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER.: Treason.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, and I want to tell you that had Great Britain continued to plant her colonies in South Africa from 1820 onward, in place of bowing to the disloyal cries of the Boers, there would have been no war in South Africa ; and the desolation of thousands of homes would not have taken place had the government of fifty years ago showed backbone. Then there is a speech by Mr. Churchill, the gentleman who is noted for his escape from a Boer prison, and who goes around telling people what a terrific time he had In escaping, when the fact is that the Boer sentry who was with him waited three-quarters of an hour and wasted three boxes of matches pretending to light his pipe in order that the gentleman might escape.


Mr.   R.@: !*'. SUTHERLAND. Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Did he stay captured after he was captured ?


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Winston Churchill was taken prisoner, and the arrangements for his escape were made. I may say
that if my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience, and if the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) will possess his soul in patience, accounts will be squared witlpthem, and with the Minister of Justice too, before the close of the session. Let them make no mistake about that. The Minister of Agriculture may expand a broad grin over his countenance. All I have to tell these gentlemen Is that they will have an opportunity of having accounts squared before the end of this session. Let them make no mistake about that. Mr. Winston Churchill said :
Although Lord Dundonald considers himself right in making the protest, he could have done so in a less harmful way.
How ? By having it filed away in a pigeon hole, just as similar protests from loyal governors in South Africa and other British colonies have been filed away for generations. If tbe gentlemen in South Africa who recommended that certain loyal lines should be followed in that country had been heeded long ago, there would have been no war ; and if those gentlemen had pursued the course that Lord Dundonald has pursued, of cutting the painter, the history of South Africa from 1899 to 1902 would not have been written as it has been; but that country would have been loyal from the start. I want to say from where 1 stand that Mr. Arnold Foster has no mandate under the law or the constitution of the British empire to use the language towards Lord Dundonald that he has. I do not know what Lord Dundonald's views are ; I have not seem him ; I have only returned to the city this morning ; but if he is the man I take him to be, he will tell Mr. Arnold Foster in plain language that he has no more right to utter such words as he has uttered than the smallest page in the House of Commons. Lord Dundonald is as free as the air we breathe, sir.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: Lord Dundonald Is neither directly nor indirectly under the control of Mr. Arnold Foster, and 1 am surprised that any government in Great Britain could be found to bow to the influence of any colonial government, and take the course the present government lias taken in relation to Lord Dundonald. I trust, Sir, that Lord Dundonald will see his way clear to teach Mr. Arnold Foster and the loyal elements in Great Britain as well as the disloyal elements, that the free men of the empire, some of them, yet live. Mr. Winston Churchill says further :
No one could deny that Lor/j Dundonald was being exploited by the opposition party in Canada for party purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: Lord Dundonald has been charged in this House, and he has been charged by the organs of the govern-

ment with a desire to impose militarism on the people of Canada. That has been discussed before, Sir. It has been shown, on the contrary, that Lord Dundonald has not either directly or indirectly attempted to impose the spirit of militarism upon this [DOT]country, but he has charged the Minister of Militia with having' attempted to impose militarism upon this country with relation to the Col. Ponton matter and other matters. We have also the incident of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, in connection with which the Minister of Agriculture has been caught red-handed in all sorts of dealings In his attempt to impose militarism on the people. He has been charged with a desire to impose fortifications along the border which will cost some $50,000,000. This charge he has exposed to be a campaign falsehood of the Liberal party. He has .been charged with attempting to overthrow responsible government when it has now been clearly proven that not he but the Minister of Agriculture and the government are the ones who departed from that principle. Lord Dundonald followed strictly and religiously all the lines of responsible government until he found that patience had ceased to be a virtue. When he found himself subjected to the petty, contemptible annoyances of the Minister of Agriculture, he did what any man of spirit in Canada would have done and resented that mischievous meddling. And when the right lion, the First Minister soars into one of his eloquent periods and boasts of his loyalty to the mother country and decries the introduction of race issues, let him begin at home. Let him he honest enough to tell his followers : gentlemen, you are unjust to Lord Dundonald, you are untrue to the best interests of Canada in keeping up these race cries. Sir, there is not one tittle of evidence to show that Lord Dundonald has been guilty of injustice or unfairness to any French Canadian. Let the Prime Minister reprove his own followers. Let him write an article or send a telegram-and the country will pay for it-to his own organs, telling them that their iniquitous crusade and their attempts to array the French Canadians against the English speaking people of this country must cease. Then and not until then will we have some faith in	his	professions	of loyalty.
But until he stands up and repudiates the disloyal utterances of his own organs, we will not have faith in the sincerity of his professions. Sir, the people of Canada will not bow down to these gentlemen and allow Lord Dundonald to he dragooned and blacklisted in every corner of the Dominion. Because free citizens of this country dare stand up and defend a fellow-citizen of the British Empire, we are charged with exploiting Lord Dundonald foi political purposes. I want to tell these gentlemen that the spirit of liberty is not quite dead in Canada yet, and before this matter Mr. SAM. HUGHES,
is over they will find out that the people take the same view of it as we do. It looks very much as though the game of these lion, gentlemen had succeeded and as though the British government had been weak enough to yield to then- importunities.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER.: Do not be disloyal.


Samuel Hughes: It looks as though they have been weak enough to yield to the demands of hon. gentlemen opposite. All I have to say is that I am very much disappointed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER.: No doubt.


Samuel Hughes: I have never had the knack of standing before an audience in one part of Canada and preaching one doctrine and then going into another part and preaching disloyalty.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oil, oh.


Samuel Hughes: I am unable to do otherwise than stand up and express tin-honest sentiments of my heart on all oc casions, and I have no hesitation in saying that I am surprised that Arnold Foster dared used the language he did last night in tin Imperial House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oil, oh.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Another good man gone wrong.


Samuel Hughes: I want to tell this House and country that Lord Dundonald is not the man I take him to be if he will bow for one second to any illegal, unjust mandate of any official to return to his own country sooner than it suits his own convenience. Mr. Arnold Foster will find that the spirit of liberty is not dead in the colonies altogether yet, if it is in the old land.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, treason.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I mean every word of what I say, and I want to tell these gentlemen that before they are done with this issue they will find that they are reckoning without their host. I made some statements the other day with reference to the school of musketry. I stand here to reiterate every statement I then made and claim that every one of them was proven absolutely by the statement of the officer commanding the corps itself. Inasmuch as I do not require to bask in the sunshine of the shadow even of such great men as the First Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I owe them no obligation. They cannot override me and force me to how down before them. They cannot demand of me : did you or did you not do so and so ? When I read the statement the other day in the papers, I was ashamed to think that thirty-five or forty young men,

taken from any part of the Dominion, could be found so subservient, especially when wearing the uniform of His Majesty, as to let any man, be be tbe commissioner of any school of instruction or the officer of high rank in the militia or even the minister himself, to line him up and ask him, did you or did you not do so and so ? Every "man attending the school was lined up the other day and asked the question:	did
you do so and so ? In place of telling the commander to go to a warmer clime


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-and mind his business, these men seemed to bow to the little tyrant pro tem. More than that, in reading up the correspondence in relation to the Ponton matter, I was sorry to see that although Col. Ponton had the manhood to resist the mandate of the minister, yet he so far bowed down as to give the explanation demanded of him. That man is not a proper citizen of Canada who will obey an illegal order. He is not a loyal citizen who will bow down to an unjust or tyrannical command. I maintain that every officer and man in that school of instruction who would allow Col. Cartwright to ask him such a question shows that he does not realize the first duty of a citizen of this country. The statement I made here that the men were taxed for the maintenance of the club was perfectly correct. Every officer has to pay ,$o club subscription in addition to his mess charges, and he has to pay 85 cents a day which does not include the 25 cents a day for government rations. That is simply for board, because these officers and men lodge in the tents furnished by the government, and for what they pay. they could board in the King Edward Hotel of Toronto or the Russell House in Ottawa.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about the Grand Union ?


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES'. The rates there are a little higher.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Is that a special rate in the King Edward-25 cents a day ?


Samuel Hughes: They have a place there set apart for bootblacks and gentlemen of that character which might suit my hon. friend, but I never look for it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I never boarded that cheap.


Samuel Hughes: Privates are compelled to act as servants to officers.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: There are no privates attending the schools.


Samuel Hughes: Hon. gentleman opposite laugh. It is an easy thing for ignoramuses to laugh, but ail I have to say is that the minister read a statement in the House the other morning which deliberately contradicts his statement now.


Frederick William Borden: No.


Samuel Hughes: The minister says that there are no privates taken for the course of military instruction, but there are a dozen privates of the permanent corps sent down to Roekcliffe for fatigue purposes.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, yes, of the permanent corps.


Samuel Hughes: And the minister knows that long ago I brought up the question of the permanent corps doing fatigue work.


Frederick William Borden: The statement of the horn. gentlemmu (Mr. Sam. Hughes) was this :
I am also informed that privates are called upon to act as servants to officers, and that these young men who are brought from the farms to learn mupketry are subjected tc prison discipline.
I say there is not one word of truth in that statement.


Samuel Hughes: I want to tell the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) that he is making a statement to this House that is not true.


Frederick William Borden: I say there are no privates there who are called upon to perform such duties as the hon. gentleman speaks of. '


Samuel Hughes: There are men of the permanent corps who are called upon to perform those menial services, and the Minister of Militia knows it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick William Borden: I know my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) wishes to be fair in this matter. These young men who are from the farms-


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Militia will kindly take his seat until I am done with him. My statement was this :
I am also informed that privates are called upon to act as servants to officers.
There is my statement.


Frederick William Borden: ' Young men who are brought from the farms to learn musketry.'


Samuel Hughes: What I said was this :
These young men who are brought from the farms to learn musketry are subjected to prison discipline.
The point that I make to-day, that I have made before, and shall go on making and urging until this thing is righted, is plain :	It is hard enough to keep our
permanent corps together as it is. DeI sertions occur every day. If you turn up the

reports you will see that nearly as many men desert every year as enter the force. Why ? When we send a young man to join one of the permanent corps, what duties is he assigned to ? is he taught how to defend his country or how to become an instructor for the militia ? No. He is set to blacking boots and doing menial work for-


An hon. MEMBER.: For snobs.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-to dancing attendance upon those who seek to pose as an aristocracy. I object to this and shall continue to object. These young men who are sent to join the permanent corps should be used as means of instructing our militia, and not as servants. And what I want the Minister of Militia to say is that these men of the permanent corps who are down at that school doing fatigue duty, simply doing the dirty work around that camp.' shall be sent back to the permanent corps to attend to the duties that properly belong to them.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Where was Turpin ?


Samuel Hughes: Turpin was never called upon, Sir, to perform such duties as these. X want to impress upon the Minister of Militia the importance of this matter of treating properly the men of the permanent corps. We do not engage these men to do menial work. Why, the reports show that our permanent force is so reduced that it cannot perform the duties assigned to it. Years ago I brought this matter up, and pointed out that the law of the country provides that these men are to be trained to become instructors and to help in the education in military matters of the officers of the militia. If these gentlemen in camp want servants, let them ^et them elsewhere. And. if the Minister wants fatigue parties for the dirty wTork about the camp, he can get them at less expense, not by setting young men of ambition at such duties, but by engaging men who are content to remain in that class. So, my statement that these men are called upon to act as servants to the officers is borne out by this memorandum of the commandant of the school of musketry. My next statement was in relation to the young fellows from the farms being subject to prison discipline, which has already been read. I demand that these young men shall not be subject to inquisitorial rules regarding coming in at a certain hour and so on. These young men are as capable of taking care of themselves as is Colonel Cartwright or any officer in Canada, and they should be as free to come and go as the officers themselves. That is the ground I take, I cannot be driven from it. One other statement I made was as regards extra clothing and bedding, the statement of Colonel Cartwright frankly admits the truth of what I alleged. He says :


Samuel Hughes: Owing to the fact that at a previous camp officers were allowed sheets and pillow-cases there may have been some disappointment on this score, but all the officers to whom E have spoken on the subject consider that sheets and pillow-cases are unnecessary for camp life.
Therefore, the statement I made that the same rule did not prevail as in other years and that there was dissatisfaction, is borne cut by the statement of Col. Cartwright himself. These are all the statements I made, and every one of them is admitted. Col. Cartwright says, further :
I do not bear Col. Sam. Hughes -the least animosity in regard to the statements he has. made, because it is clear that he has been misinformed by some malicious person.
I do not want any controversy with Col. Cartwright. I may say that Sir Adolphe Caron, formerly Minister of Militia, who is now' within the precincts of the House, will,
I am sure, bear me out when I say it was more through the action of your humble servant than through that of any other man that Col. Cartwright was given a position when-however, I do not need to discuss1 that, further than to say that it was desired on 'ills part to be appointed an officer in the permanent corps. I have endeavoured, so far as I could, to be a friend of Col. Cartwright ever since. But the sunshine of his favour is not absolutely necessary to my life. Therefore, perhaps, I may seem not to be sufficiently impressed by his statement that he does not bear me any ill will. Now, at page 7209 of ' Hansard ' I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that Col-Cartwright seems to have paraded these men before him and to 'nave demanded of each of them a confession much the same as a school teacher might do with the children in a little country school.


Mr. BENNETT.: Were the prisoners warned ?


Samuel Hughes: I have not the order before me. But I want to tell the minister that this kind of thing is not in harmony with the democratic spirit of the country or with the military regulations. And, so far as I am concerned, it shall not be permitted in this country. No officer has a right, and no officer should dare, to bring his men before him and ask any such questions as seem to have been asked of these men. I want the minister to endeavour to *have the militia carried on in accordance with the principles of individual liberty and of self-respect on the part of the men. If he does not do It, we will endeavour to give-him such instruction as we can in the principle of liberty. I want him to understand that the militiaman loses none of his rights as a citizen when he dons His Majesty's-uniform. unless he- contravenes the militia regulations. If the minister allows that lib-

erty to be curtailed, we will try to bring to bear upon him the influence of the public opinion of this enlightened and democratic country. I want him to try to cultivate in the members of the militia the spirit of independence that should be in the 'heart of every man. I trust that the minister will give this matter his attention and that, in the first place he will inquire of Col. Cartwright by what authority he dared to bring these men before him and ask each one to answer his question in relation to certain matters reported in ' Hansard ' and in the press of this country. And, after he has taken that matter up, he may hear from me about it on another occasion. And I would ask the minister also, when we may expect the fulfilment of an order that, I understand iias been issued, demanding the name and the post olfice address of every officer and man in the militia regiments throughout the Dominion of Canada ?


Frederick William Borden: In view of the statements the hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has made that every one of the allegations made by him in this House the other day has been absolutely and literally proved by the papers I laid on the table yesterday, and a portion of which I read to the House, I think hon. members generally will agree with me that it would be an impossibility to convince that hon. gentleman that any statement made by him is incorrect or unfounded. And I may say at once that I do not propose to enter upon so hopeless a task. But I will make one or two observations and only one or two. First, I may say that I am informed, upon what I believe to be very excellent authority, that only one officer of the school now convened at Rockcliffe had any communication, direct or indirect, with the hon. gentleman and that that one officer absolutely denies that he stated to that hon. gentleman anything upon which he could found the charge which he has made.
One single word with reference to private soldiers. The hon. gentleman made a statement and endeavoured to appeal to the sympathy of the House and of the country with regard to the improper use that was being made of private soldiers brought from different parts of the country to be taught musketry. His statement was this:
I am informed that privates are called upon to act as servants to officers and that these young men

What young men ? These privates.
These young men who are brought from th farm to learn musketry are subjected 'to prison discipline.
The answer to this is to be found in the official document which I laid on the table of this House.
Private soldiers.-There are no privates taking the course at the Canadian School of Musketry.


Samuel Hughes: Everybody knew it.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (reading)
There are, however privates from the permanent corps sent down to Rockcliffe for fatigue purposes. They are used in various ways as shown in the attached schedule. It will be observed that the proportion of officers' servants to officers is much smallei than that allowed by regulations.
Mark these words :
It would be a great hardship to prevent these men making extra money as officers servants ; most of the men count on making extra in this way when coming to Rockcliffe.
These men are paid for the work which they do, yet the hon. gentleman did not give the slightest indication of the fact that the men are doing this duty voluntarily in the first place and in the second place are paid for it. There was not one word in the hon. gentleman's statement to indicate that fact.


Samuel Hughes: Every fool would know it.


Frederick William Borden: I would invite the hon. gentleman-since the matter has gone so far and since he is still absolutely certain that all the statements he made are absolutely true, and since I have given up the vain attempt to satisfy him that they are not true-to be good enough to give me the names of the officers or men who made this complaint.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman want a statement ?


Frederick William Borden: I do.


Samuel Hughes: I want the hon. gentleman to understand that when I find him writing a letter to Colonel Ponton, an officer on the reserve list-


Frederick William Borden: I am asking for the names. I insist upon my rignt to go on.


Samuel Hughes: Very well I wish


Frederick William Borden: If the hon. gentleman is prepared to give me the names now or to send them to me I shall be glad to get them.


Samuel Hughes: In order that the hon. gentleman


Frederick William Borden: But I demand the names, and if he is not prepared to give them I will conclude.


Samuel Hughes: By what right does the minister demand a name from me ? He demands the name. Who is he that demands a name ?



Some hon. MEMBBRS. Order.


Frederick William Borden: Now, Mr. Speaker, one more point.


Samuel Hughes: That is the reason that I will not give the names.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, attempts to give the impression that there is something of a star chamber organization at the Rockcliffe Rifle Ranges. He speaks of men being brought up there and questioned as to what has happened. He knows perfectly well that it is a rule of military life that the men in the ranks or non-commissioned officers at any time when on duty, may be asked by their superior officer whether everything is satisfactory.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, that is right I know, but that is not what they were asked.


Frederick William Borden: He knows that perfectly well, but let me tell him and this House that I am informed and I have no doubt whatever of the fact that these men asked their superior officers to give them the opportunity-


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-to make a statement and deny these objectionable charges.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: Now, Sir, with reference to the order. The hon. gentleman has asked me why a certain order which I have not seen has been issued. I was not aware that an order had been published but I do know that it is intended by the department to keep statistics in reference to all those who have attended the militia camps this year ; to keep a record of all the names of the officers, non-commissioned officers and men. This has been established as a rule of the department for this year and for the future, for statistical purposes, chiefly for the purpose of enabling the pay department of the militia to compare the pay-lists which have always been kept with this list of names and addresses in order to prevent an evil which has existed in the past by which some men go from one corps to another, enlist in different corps and draw money from the Dominion treasury improperly.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to make a personal explanation. The minister asked me why I will not give this name. In the first place the minister himself has upset the rule by trying to dragoon Colonel Ponton.


Frederick William Borden: What has that got to do with it.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: It shows the spirit of the minister and in the second place I


Hon. Mr. BRODEUR.: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I repudiate his authority to ask me for a name and in the second place I am not going to submit any officer or man of the force of this country to any petty persecution on the part of any official be he ever so high or ever so low.


Mr. R. F. SUTHERLAND.: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say just one word in respect to the discussion which has taken place and the reason for my addressing the House will become obvious as I proceed. It has been suggested by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr.- Sam. Hughes) that these men were paraded, and, practically compelled to make a statement in respect of this matter. Now it so happens that a day or so before the men made their statements two of these men came to me in the House and stated that every man in the force was very indignant at the aspersions cast upon them by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) in the House and that they desired in the most practical and forcible way to express that indignation. They asked me to take the matter up in the House. I stated that it was a proper thing for the men themselves to take up and that a course which was quite open to them would be to go back to the camp, talk the matter over among themselves and ask the commanding officer for an opportunity to express their opinions. I have no doubt that that is exactly what they did and that the course which they pursued was based upon the suggestion which I made at that time. So that so far from these men having been paraded and forced to make this statement it was an expression of their . indignation and truly states the facts of the case.


Samuel Hughes: I have


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Stevens Fielding: Will you allow me a word ? In view of the somewhat violent and abusive attack which has been made from the other side on the British government I think it is desirable


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is desirable that a word or two should be said on that question. There are many matters in which the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament would naturally desire the cooperation and assistance of the government of the mother country, and in all such cases we would naturally appeal to that government for aid and assistance. But there are other matters in which no such aid is needed, and this unhappy Dundonald business was one of that kind. Mr. Arnold Foster, very

correctly stated-aud it is perhaps the point | of his observations which we appreciate most-that this is a matter in which the Canadian government have shown that they were well able to deal with the situation themselves. It was stated correctly by Mr. Arnold Foster that this government have made no protest whatever with regard to Lord Dundonald. We have not felt called upon to make any such protest. Lord Dundonald was an official of the Canadian government when he made what I regard as an unfortunate mistake, a mistake which many a brave soldier makes when he comes to deal with civil affairs. We felt that we had to deal with that question as between the Canadian government and one of its public officials. It is not to be supposed for a moment that any Canadian official, a servant of the government-I do not use the word in an offensive sense, because each one of us is a servant, using the word in its proper sense-can be permitted to go out and make public attacks upon the ministry of the day without being rebuked or dismissed. It is not necessary to discuss what had happened prior to that. It was enough to know that a servant of the government of Canada bad made the grave mistake of making an attack upon the ministers who were his superiors in power. It was necessary for the vindication of our self-respect, it was necessary for the vindication of the principles of responsible government, it was necessary for the vindication of all that Canadians have valued in their struggles for self-government, that the right of the responsible ministers of the day should be asserted, and there seemed to be no other way of asserting this right than by dismissing that eminent and distinguished officer. That being the case we did not feel it necessary to make any protest as to his further action, but nevertheless, we appreciate in the highest degree the manner in which that question was dealt with yesterday in the imperial parliament. The statement that was made in the imperial parliament that Lord Dundonald was being exploited for the benefit of a political party in this country is unhappily too true. Whatever motives Lord Dundonald may have in the matter, and I will not attempt to question his motives for a moment, we all know that gentlemen politically opposed to the government of the day have seized upon this question in the hope that they may turn it to political advantage. They have been endeavouring to beguile some Liberals into a participation in the movement, but I venture to believe that after the experience that has been had in the city of Toronto, no other example of that kind will be given. I therefore desire to say that I endorse emphatically the statement that the Dundonald question was being exploited for the advantage of a political party and that in that respect, whe-2201
ther willingly or not, Lord Dundonald was being used as an instrument in a movement not calculated to advance the best possible relations between the civil and military authorities, or between the imperial and colonial governments. While we made no representations on the subject we rejoice to know that the Secretary for War, Mr. Arnold Foster, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Lloyd George, whom, notwithstanding the reference of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes), I am bound to speak of as one of the most distinguished members of the imperial parliament, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and all the members of parliament who spoke on this question in the great House of Commons of England recognize and appreciate the position of Canada, that they recognize that this is a purely Canadian question, that they recognize that the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament are the proper people to deal with the question, and in their intimation to Lord Dundonald, a distinguished soldier, that it was not desirable that he should participate in these party conflicts they have taken a step which again proves that the mother country can be relied upon at all times to uphold and to appreciate the principles of responsible government which we Canadians fought for many years ago.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE.: Mr. Speaker. I am sure you cannot have failed to have observed the extraordinary nature of the logic of hon. gentlemen opposite in connection with this incident so far as the debate has [gone. The right hon. Prime Minister declined to say a word in condemnation of the Solicitor General, for the uncalled for and improper utterances he is credited with having made because the report of these utterances appears in the newspapers ; yet, when reference is made to Lord Dundonald by the newspapers based on imagination or otherwise, is there a word of protest ? This whole incident we are discussing in so far as it is connected with what has happened in the old country, is simply based on the statements of newspapers. When the newspapers say that the opposition are exploiting Lord Dundonald for the purpose of making political capital, that is sufficient in the eyes of hon. gentlemen opposite to condemn the opposition. Even *If this were a true statement of the utterances of the Solicitor General, would the right hon. Prime Minister condemn a word of them ? This question since it was first brought up. has been widened by hon. gentlemen opposite, been widened into an attack upon the Conservative party and upon the bete noir of hon. gentlemen opposite- Lord Dundonald. I was glad to observe that neither the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) nor the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) ventured to say one word in disparagement of that distinguished

soldier who was lately our commander in chief here. I was glad, because this is in marked contrast with the course pursued f>y some of ttieir associates, with some of those who sit behind them and in marked contrast with the course universally pursued by a strong element of the Reform press. They have not hesitated in any way to accuse him of everything that it is possible to imagine. Ever since what ? Ever since, with the courage of a patriot, knowing it was to his own disparagement, admitting like a soldier, a gentleman, and a Briton, that he was, prepared to pay the penalty, he felt himself impelled by his duty to speak out. Before I dwell any more upon that, let me call the attention of the bon. Minister of Finance to one thing that he did. I say that it was not worthy of him to describe Lord Dundonald as a servant of the people. It is true in one sense ; it is not true in the larger sense. He is not the servant of the people in one sense. He is no more so than the members of the government who are the representatives of the people in the higher sense and I would not think of applying that term to the hon. Minister of Finance or to any man sitting in his place because of the distinguished position he occupies in this country. He (the Minister of Finance) is more than the servant of the people; he is the representative of the people. So is Lord Dundonald. He is an official of the Canadian government, but I regretted to hear the word ' servant ' so frequently used in connection with a distinguished gentleman, always distinguished since he entered the great imperial service and a gentleman who upon his own merits during the course of his military career, has fought his way up to the exalted position he now occupies. It was not worthy of the hon. Minister of Finance to do as some of the satellites behind him have done ; that is to bring up the question of Lord Dundonald being a servant of the people so as to make the people think they had a power over this gentleman which the law of the country does not give them. Then, the hon. gentleman brought up the question of responsible government. A good point was made by one hon. gentleman opposite, this morning, one that I appreciate because I do not think it is necessary that we should be called upon in both parties to defend our loyalty as often as we are called upon to do.
I agree with the proposition that according to their light all the people in this country are loyal. But I do make this charge, and I regret it exceedingly-I am too near the end of my term of service in this country to say anything which I do not believe to be absolute reality-that gentlemen in the province of Quebec endeavour to make their compatriots believe that we in the province iof ^Ontario do not believe in their loyalty and that we are abusing and maligning them. I have stood up for the rights of my Mr. TISDALE.
French Canadian compatriots and I have paid for it by a hard political fight when I had to give a vote to preserve the constitutional rights of the people of Quebec, I say stop that, stop that the Prime Minister, stop that the Solicitor General stop it all. We in Ontario, Reformer and Conservative are as much as possible stopping it. It does not do any good and it does a great deal of harm. Why does the hon. Minister of Finance then bring up the question of responsible government 1 Why is it necessary ? We have heard more about responsible government since the Dundonald incident than it ought be necessary for us to hear in five years. No principle of constitutional government is imperilled, and if it were, Conservatives and Liberals alike, would rush to safeguard it. Let these gentlemen opposite give us some argument to show that constitutional government is in danger, and let them cease to play to the gallery and expect such nonsensical talk to he taken as argument. If I am put in possession of a single proof that the Conservative party is open to the charge of exploiting Lord Dundonald, or trying to make political capital out of the incident, I will go against my party. No, Sir, the Conservative party is too noble a party to betray the late Commander in Chief, a man who has proven himself to be a hero, and who to his own discomfort, and, when at the apex of his great career, has placed himself in at least a delicate position, in order to right the wrong. I am beginning to think, Sir, that we have been too careful in this matter and that too little has been said by us in defence of Lord Dundonald.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


David Tisdale: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh if they please, but I will substantiate this statement. I can tell them that their cries of militarism, constitutional government, and responsible government will not blind the good sense of the people of Canada. I have come to the conclusion that the Conservative party, in very fear of introducing politics into this, have neglected to defend Lord Dundonald us he ought to be defended for the manly part he has taken. There is no difference of opinion as to the power of the government if they saw fit to do so, to dismiss Lord Dundonald. But, Sir, there is another view of the case ; there is a larger view of the case, and that is that the people of Canada must set about to remedy the evil 'which Lord Dundonald impelled by patriotism and a high sense of duty has exposed. Is there a Reformer in Ontario who will deny that it was patriotism and a high sense of duty which impelled Lord Dundonald to the action he took. Can any other reasonable or unreasonable motive be suggested ? I can tell these gentlemen opposite that the peo-pie of this country, as distinguished from the

politicians, will appreciate the very soul of the motives which inspired Lord Dundonald. He is a reformer and he has sacrificed himself to bring about reform. Martyrs are made for the good of the Christian, as well as for the good of the political world, and I have no doubt that history will realize that for the sake of the Canadian militia Lord Dundonald lias offered himself up as a sacrifice. He is not a politician. His military and his private career show that he is an honourable and noble man. His name is a household word in the British empire and particularly in Canada since the relief of Ladysmith. Our brave young lads who God has spared from the l'isks of war, brought to their Canadian homes, honour and praise for Duudonald's name. He came here to serve the empire and his great inducement was that he might make soldiers in a simple way of the brave Canadian lads who, Conservative and Reform ,are similar to those who served under him in South Africa. A part from the politicians and apart from the party press, Lord Dundonald is honoured in Canada and his motives are correctly appreciated. And what objectionable demonstration has he taken part in since his dismissal V The first was a private dinner at the Rideau Club, which I had the honour of attending and at which there was no polities. The next was a great demonstration in the capital of my province, the centre of commerce and education, a city worthy of any country, a city that is the pride of Ontario, and the pride of myself, b cause although I was not born there, I was educated there and lived there part of my life. The citizens wanted to honour Lord Dundonald. and a committee composed of men of all political beliefs was named to entertain him and present him with au address appreciative of what he did. Thousands of Conservatives and thousands of Reformers assembled in Toronto to do Dundonald honour. They expected him to m ike his defence against the charges hurled against him, and they would have been disappointed if he had not done so. It would be too much to expect that he should keep his mouth closed. When the address was presented he made the speech of an honourable man, the speech of a true soldier, and even in his defence he revealed no departmental secrets. In that he was unlike the Minister of Militia who tells us whatever he pleases about Lord Dun-donald's report and then refuses to produce it. In a manly and straightforward way I.ord Dundonald answered the charges that had been made against him in public and in private.
Beyond that he ventured not a foot. I cannot understand how people, even to advance political interests, could pretend that in that speech and in that gathering there was anything political. Ask the people who were at it, unless paid partisans or representatives of party papers. It was a great spontaneous tribute which any man should be proud of. Now, with regard to the recall. Hon. gentlemen opposite shouted when they heard of it; but how has he been recalled ? We do not know. But I will venture to prophesy-because there is only one way, under British rule and British law, in which he can be recalled. He is no official of the British government. He was an official of Canada. When he was dismissed, he was free to discuss anything. I doubt if there is one hon. gentleman sitting on these treasury benches who would have kept his mouth closed as the general has done, about things which have happened in the department. He did not say anything about his report, but he did deny some which seemed inspired* from their knowledge of things unpublished as to the alleged ' Private ' report suppressed by the Minister of Militia. He acted as a gentleman, as he is ; he acted the man, who is more than the gentleman in some ways ; he acted not only the man but the brave man and the patriotic man ; he told the truth, and the people of this country will believe him. I want to tell these hon. gentlemen that in attempting to exploit this matter upon us, they are exploiting it upon themselves. They are suffering the consequences to-day, because the people will believe the man, not the politician, but the great imperial soldier that he is, and he tells the truth. As to his return, what is he to-day ? He is a soldier on half pay ; and you will find, with all this talk, that he is going home because he has been called home for some service. I want to say

and this is only incidental-that I never saw the general but twice, both times at dinners. He would not know me if he saw me on the street to-day. I know his aide-de-camp, whom I have met two or three times socially. I asked him when the general was going to leave, saying that I would like to call on him before he left; and he told me that he was going to leave the first of the week after next. Probably the recall had been made then. Mr. Arnold Foster, like the right hon. the First Minister, does not tell the House more than is necessary on these matters, and it is not proper that he should. I will venture to say that Lord Dundonald has been recalled for some duty, and that he was recalled before this incident occurred.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Tisdale: Hon. gentlemen will ali agree with me in this, that he cannot be recalled except as a soldier. So that his recall is no very great matter. In England they know too well what such cries mean to make any demonstation over it, unless they want some politics over there too, and unless the newspapers make a great deal of exitement. I will guarantee that he has not been recalled on account of this incident


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman for one moment ? The report published in this morning's * Citizen ' places in the mouth of Mr. Arnold Poster the following words.


David Tisdale: We have had them already.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: But they are entirely in contradiction of the statement which has just fallen from the lips of the hon. gentleman. They only occupy three ' lines.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman is quite welcome to all the comfort he can get out of them. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was there, but nothing could render his arguments more ridiculous than this. His distinguished leader in this House has said that you must not put faith in newspaper reports, and there was not sufficient justification for him to say whether his colleague in England had made the statements imputed to him or not.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: This is in the ' Citizen.'


David Tisdale: I want to get through by one o'clock, and if my hon. friend wants to make a speech, he can do it afterwards. It really has nothing to do with the subject. I may be wrong in regard to Lord Dundonald having been called home before this incident ; but if the public press is to be received as an authority, we all know that it was announced ten days ago that he would sail from Montreal on the 29th of this month, and the whole programme was given. So that I am not much of a prophet in one way, except that I am giving as the probable reason that he has been recalled for some service. A man who is on half-pay cannot be called back unless it is for duty. So that all this talk about that matter is aside of the mark. In confirmation of the position I take, I want to quote the following from an independent paper, the ' News '-and Goldwin Smith said the same thing in the ' Weekly Sun
Mr. Lemieux makes a curious demand of the British government when he declares tha it must * recall ' Lord Dundonald. The for mer General Officer Commanding holds no po sition from which the British government ca recall him. He is at present a major-general on half-pay. He held that status from the day that his South African brigade wa broken up. He was ' lent ' by the War Office to Canada. When he was dismissed, he re verted automatically to half-pay. As long as he remains unemployed he has the liberty of action enjoyed by any British subject. He can travel in Africa, live in Canada, or tak part in British politics. Major-General Wauchope, who fell at Magersfontein, in 189 contested Midlothian against Mr. Gladstone. Lord Charles Beresford varies his sea-services with spells of work in the House of Commons. Captain Lambton, of Ladysmith fame, recently stood for parliament on a Mr. TISDALE.
I
aggressively Liberal platform. The only way in which the British government can ' recall Lord Dundonald is to make haste to give him another post. That would be taken as evidence that it approved his attitude here. Even then he could decline an appointment which he did not wish to accept. Generals are free men, like the rest of British subjects.
I have got tired of all this talk about Lord Dundonald's recall. I have been wondering whether it was possible that our hon. friends opposite were so driven by the near approach of the elections as to be alarmed at the expression of feeling in the country, not so much about Lord Dundonald as about the truth he has told in regard to the present state of the Militia Department. They will not hesitate to try and cast a distinct slur on a general who did more for Canada in the time he was in command of our forces than any previous general has done in twice the time. Not content with making him pay a penalty for speaking out as a patriot, they want if possible to make the people in the old country believe that he had turned politician and went on the public platform to excite public opinion against the" government. But the general himself has given an answer which proves the truth of the statements he made, and completely disposes of this personal attack ; and, wherever he may go, he will be followed by the good-will of the Canadian people, and I am only giving expression to that goodwill when I say ' may God bless him where-ever he may be.'
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. A. C. BELL.: The matter which we were discussing when the House rose at one o'clock-the Dundonald incident, as it is usually called-has attracted, and is like-iy to attract, a good deal of attention in this country. I do not know that I should have thought it necessary to say anything at all on the subject on this occasion were it not for the very definite and explicit manner in which the hon. the Minister of Finance strove to fasten on the Liberal-Conservative party the charge of making this an issue in this country or, as he put it, exploiting this incident for political advantage. That charge has been made by a gentleman with a good deal of authority, and therefore is worth noticing, but that gentleman has not thought it necessary to support his assertion with any evidence whatever ; and I think it will not be difficult to show that. all the evidence tends to prove that while some effort has been made to turn this incident to political advantage, that effort has been entirely made by the Liberal party, led by no less a gentleman than the right hon. the First Minister. From the moment this incident became public, the government recognized how dangerous it was for them. They should have remembered, however, that the incident was not the creation of th'eir opponents or of Lord Dundonald, but

that it awes its existence to one of their own number, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). And it was not hard to see. from the moment this matter came before this House, that the government had made up their mind exactly what line they were going to take. The right hon. gentleman himself, on the first occasion, unquestionably decided that he would treat Lord Dun-donald as an opponent of his administration and an ally of the Conservative party, and practically accused him of endeavouring to dragoon the government of the day. And in order to make that charge as offensive as possible, he proceeded further to inform the House and the country that the one who was endeavouring to dragoon the government was a foreigner. Nothing could have been better devised to raise the 'feeling of the Liberal party against Lord Dundonald and any gentleman whom it might be the policy of the government to associate \yith him at a later stage of the affair. There could be no question at all from the very outset that the government had determined to stand bv the Minister of Agriculture and dismiss the General Officer Commanding ; and in order to justify their doing this, they determined to make it a political matter and fasten all the odium on the opposition. On general principles, we might at once conclude, from the fact that the Finance Minister accused the Conservative party of making capital out of this matter, that they themselves were doing the very thing with which they were charging their opponents. From the moment this incident became known to the people, the government treated Lord Dundonald with very little courtesy. He was spoken of by the First Minister as a stranger and a foreigner who had undertaken to dragoon the administration, and the Minister of Militia, a little later on, sneered at the general as a nobleman and a patrician, and said it was wonderful condescension on his part to speak to him. a plebeian and an ordinary citizen of Canada. It seems to me that it was anything but good taste for a gentleman known as Sir Frederick Borden to sneer at titles. If the Minister of Militia has a right to feel a reasonable pride in the fact that the British government has seen fit to honour him with the title of ' Sir,' he should have some respect for the higher title worn by Earl Dundonald. But the hon. gentleman was not the only one to indulge in that course. He was followed by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell), who said, in a mocking tone : Is this a time for discoursing when we have to deal with lords and dukes ?


Mr. COCHRANE.: And judges.


Adam Carr Bell: That came in a little later. So that fm*m the beginning it was manifestly the purpose of the government to endeavour to belittle the effect this incident must naturally have on public opinion by trying to excite popular prejudice against Lord Dundonald personally and any hon.
gentleman on this side who might say a word on his behalf. When this matter was discussed Earl Dundonald received very little support from hon. gentlemen opposite ; and it was nothing more than ordinary fair-play that some gentlemen on this side should have taken care that the general's side of the case was fairly presented to the people. That was done, and nothing else beyond that; and I would like my hon. friends opposite to point to one single act or word on the part of any Conservative leader here or elsewhere which can be used as a basis for the charge that the Liberal-Conservative party was endeavouring to make political capital out of this incident. It was not sufficient for the Finance Minister to reiterate that the Con servative party was exploiting this matter for political purposes. And what we want in this matter is evidence to show that something of that kind is being done. There can be no doubt that all the evidence is to the contrary-every particle of it. There had been a constant effort made by the members of the party of lion, gentlemen opposite to throw odium on Lord Dundonald. We have, first of all, Mr. Preston, who writes letters to the British press, for which he is censured and notified that he will be dismissed if he repeats the offence. We have then Mr. Lemieux, a member of this administration, practically making the very same statements -begging the question and practically calling upon the government of Great Britain to recall Lord Dundonald from this country. Then we have Sir Elzear Taschereau. Is he speaking in the interests of the Conservative party ? He is Chief Justice of Canada. He is on the other side of the Atlantic : yet he makes the assertion that this is being made a political question in this country. On what authority does 'Sir Elzear Taschereau make that statement ? He says that the London ' Times ' is being stuffed or loaded up by Ottawa Tories


Mahlon K. Cowan: Hear, hear.


Adam Carr Bell: And his statement is endorsed by my clever friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan)


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr BELL-and, in fact by every hon. member on the other side. They all endorse that statement of Sir Elzear Taschereau that the London 'Times' is being loaded up by Ottawa Tories. The London ' Times is regarded as the most independent journal published in the world. I remember, when, a few years ago, hon. gentlemen opposite were quoting the London ' Times ' with great delight because, a little hastily and without fully knowing all that was involved, it bestowed a degree of praise on the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, which they entirely failed to deserve, for their preferential 'tariff. The London ' Times was then quoted as a great authority by hon. gentlemen opposite. It was not then loaded up by Ottawa Tories. But would it

7115
be fair for us to assume that it was then loaded up by Ottawa Grits ? If we are to believe that that great newspaper can be loaded up by interested parties that would be a fair assumption. I do not think there is the slightest warrant for what Sir Elzear Taschereau said. Is he exploiting this incident for political purposes ? Who is that gentleman ? With whom are his sympathies ? Will it be said that he is exploiting this incident for Conservative purposes ? Would it not rather be said that he is exploiting it for Liberal purposes ? Is not that what is being openly done by Preston, Lemieux, Taschereau and the whole party from the Prime Minister himself down to the last .ioint in the tail of his following ? And my hon. friend from Nova Scotia (Mr. Fielding) gets up and is so zealous in support of British connection and has such strong condemnation to utter of any one who would exploit such an incident for political purposes. We know how his loyal, honest, honourable soul is wrought upon to think that anybody should do such a thing. Would he do it ? Not he. Why, he never thought of such a thing and he is burdened with grief to think that any party would do it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. gentleman, and I know his record, and the record of those who have been associated with him. And I know that in every case where we have had an opportunity of looking upon their deeds we have found that every act they condemn, they only wanted an opportunity to proceed to do in the most extreme manner themselves : if they denounced opponents for having taken any course, they only waited a chance to so completely outdo their opponents in that course that thereafter those opponents would never be mentioned in that connection. The people of this country know their record, that record of broken promises, absolute failure ever to do anything they promised, and of readiness to do everything that they had sworn not to do. So, there is no occasion to fear that the utterances of the Prime Minister or the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) will for a moment deceive the people of this country as to their course on this question. The Finance Minister has said that the government of this country is able to take care of itself. Unquestionably it is. He says that it has not appealed to the British government for any assistance. I presume not, since he says so. But I say this-that if the British government have recalled Dun-donald, then, it is perfectly true, as my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) said that they could only recall him as a half-pay officer. They might invite him to return, but they could not order him to do so, except as half-pay officer. And, if they have recalled him it is probably because they desire to advance him to a position of higher honour and power. They know that his action was taken with a view to strengthen the defences of this country and so make Mr. BELL.
Canada more valuable as a part of the empire and to strengthen the bonds that unite it with the empire. The British government, if it has acted as suggested has acted very generously to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his supporters. It is always inclined to do so. I presume it may have thought it expedient to do so. Because the threats-for Sir Elzear Taschereau did not hesitate to threaten the British government with the displeasure of this government, for he says, ' I cannot see how the British government, even in its own interest, can fail to recall Lord Dun-donald before the end of the week.' What interest of the British government was threatened by the presence of Lord Dun: donald in this country that Sir Elzear Taschereau must inform them that there was danger to that interest in allowing Lord Dundonald to remain here ? It strikes me th.\t this interview which purports to have been given by the Chief Justice is a forgery, or else Sir Elzear Taschereau was so ill-advised as to utter, in the course of his interview a threat-I was about to say a veiled threat, but it was not at all veiled, but very distinct and very plain, that the presence of Lord Dundonald in this country would militate against the interest of the empire and would justify this government in taking such a course as would not be in the interest of the British government. What else can the language mean, if it means anything at all ? But I do not believe for a moment that the British government in this case has done more or less than they have uniformly done in dealing with the government of the right hon. gentleman. They have acted with him and with the people of Canada as they have acted with all the colonies, in a most generous fashion. They are probably far enough away from this little matter to view it calmly, and probably to view it in its proper proportion. For, to my mind, it was not a great matter in the first instance, and, if the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had acted with proper dignity and not descended to an attack on Lord Dundonald and every one who called himself Lord Dundon-ald's friend, it would never have been other than a small incident. But, as I say, the British government have acted generously ; they have acted as they do toward friend and foe, toward the colonies, toward the United States and toward every country with which they have any dealings, with the greatest magnanimity. If Lord Dun-donald's presence is embarassing to the administration, no doubt the British government is willing to withdraw him and, as far as possible, to relieve them from the embarrassment from which they are suffering. It is not the first time the British government have acted generously with hon. gentlemen opposite. For twenty years the Conservative party in this country, which certainly deserved well of the British govern-

ment if any party ever did, for there was never any question as to their willingness to do everything in their power to strengthen British connection and to make Canada a source of strength to the empire-for twenty years that party endeavoured in vain to have the Belgian and German treaties denounced by the government. And it was only when the present government had involved themselves in a morass of difficulties, after they had got into a slough of despond from which they could never hope to extricate themselves, that, to release them from their difficulties, the British government denounced those treaties. And, in this, case, also, if the British government have acted as stated, they have simply followed the course that they have always followed in acting generously to the hon. gentlemen opposite. And I think hon. gentlemen on this side have no objection to seeing that step taken by the British government. But we must remember that, in what they have done they have stretched their courtesy. Why should they have recalled Lord Dundonald from this country ? For, even if it can be proven that he was taking an active part in hostility to this government, is that a reason why the British government should take such a course ?
Why should they do it ? He was nj lo lger a servant of this government, but a halfpay officer of the British government. Major General Laurie was a half-pay officer of the imp.ri.il government when he carried the county of Shelburne and sat in this House as an active opponent of hon. gentlemen opposite. Was there a quest on of recalling him because he took an active part in political warfare in this country ? There is just as much right to recall Lord Dundonald on account of any action he takes in connection with the political history ot our country as there would have been to recall General Laurie at a time when he was an active fighter in the Conservative ranks in Canada. The Liberal-Conservative party are charged with taking such steps in this matter as would give a political eomplexiou to this Dundonald incident. They have never done so in any one respect. The courtesies shown to Lord Dundonald everywhere throughout Canada have been extended to him as a man and a soldier. The demonstration in Toronto was participated in by members of both political parties.


William Mulock: Hear, hear.


Adam Carr Bell: He will be welcomed in Ottawa in a few days by members of both political parties and the men who will come together to do honour to Lord Dundonald will, in so doing, do honour to themselves. He is now no longer an official of this government ; he is simply a resident in this country who is entitled to honour and distinction because he is one of the brightest and bravest fighters in the British
service and one of those who have done most to add honour and lustre to the British arms. He is a man whom our young men would do well to copy and if he had rem lined in Canada he might have been an inspiration to young Canadians, and might have influenced many of them to rival the deeds of arms that have made Dundonald and his race famous. Lord Dundonald need not feel sad because he has been turned down and gored by the Liberal party. Have Ithey ever treated, any one even in their own ranks any better? What treatment did they accord to the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) a short time ago ? What treatment did they accord to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair).


Some hon. MEMBERS: He's all right.


Adam Carr Bell: The very same gentleman from Hants was set to work to buzz and sting about the Minister of Railways, who was cast loose out of the mosquito net a short time ago to entertain our friend Colonel Hughes. Alexander Mackenzie knew, what that treatment was. Mr. Blake knew what that treatment was. In my own province the man whom Nova Scotians and Canadians generally would unite in saying xvas the greatest and brainiest man of his time, Joseph Howe, was hounded to his grave by that party, the moment he had ceased to serve them as they thought they should be sex-ved. Loi'd Dundonald, who, no doubt, is looking upon all their efforts and attacks with equanimity, may well console himself with the knowledge of tli [DOT] fact that in being the object and butt of their attack he is simply one of a glorious company who have suffered in the course of time from that same attack. It would be better for the Liberal party if they would treat this question as it should be treate.l, as one that must necessarily occur in all departmental matters. If the right hon. the Prime Minister had taken a different line when he got up to initiate the attlack on Lord Dundonald the incident would never have attained the importance or extent it has. It is to the attacks of hon. gentlemen that all the importance of this question and all the dangers to that party which may arise out of it are due. If they had treated it as they should have, if they bad treated Lord Dundonald as a gentleman, as they should have, after he ceased to be an official they would not need to have that alarmed and uneasy feeling in their breasts to-day that induced the Minister of Finance to rise in his place and quote one of his most oft used expressions, insinuating that the Conservative party in Canada are endeavouring to make any political capital whatever out of this. I defy the Minister of Finance, I defy the Prime Minister to furnish any proof.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You are doing it now.


Adam Carr Bell: I point out that every utterance of every hon. member opposite, of every official or quasi official, on the other side of the Atlantic, who could obtain access to the columns of the British press, is directed towards the effort to injure the Conservative party in connection with this matter. Is the Conservative party responsible for Preston ? Is the Conservative party responsible for Lemieux ? Is the Conservative party responsible for Tas-chereau ? Is the Conservative party responsible for Sir Frederick Borden, who gets up here and sneers at the title of Lord Dundonald ? In every respect, in every point of this inatter in which anything like an attempt has been made to arouse feeling, the charge can be successfully made against the Liberal party and its leaders in this House.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I had no intention whatever of taking any part in this debate which I had hoped would not last very long in view of the length which the session has already attained and the fact that we are all very anxious to get home. But inasmuch as it deals particularly with a question in which I am always interested and further because certain statements have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite which I think should not be passed over, I will ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. I shall not attempt to deal with the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just concluded (Mr. Bell) beyond saying one or two words with regard to points made by him. I was surprised to find that the hon. member for Pictou should descend once more to attempt to stir up strife between the various races of this country by introducing that word 'foreigner ' into this debate. The hon. gentleman has asked for proofs from the Minister of Finance and other members on this side of the House that the Conservative party was tiying to make political capital out of this Dundonald question. I say that proof can be laid on the table of this House to-morrow when the unrevised ' Hansard ' is published and the speech of the hon. gentleman is seen. I was present in this House when the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made use of the word ' foreigner,' and I heard him withdraw it befoi'e the Conservatives entered their protest-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, you did not.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Yes.


Mr.  A. T.@: THOMPSON-quick as they were to do so. Since that time I have read in ' Hansard, ' although I was not present in the House when the speech was made, the acceptance of the explanation of the Prime Minister by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and yet the very next day after that leader had accepted that explanation, his leading journal in the capital city of Canada, the Ottawa ' Citizen,' devoted an editorial of almost a Mr. BELL.
column exploiting once more, for political purposes, the inadvertent use of the word ' foreigner ' by the Prime Minister. And now here again to-day we find this lieutenant in the maritime provinces of the leader of the opposition reintroducing this word and once more endeavouring to stir up strife because of it. It does seem to me that our charge that the Conservatives are attempting to make political capital out of this whole question is proven and proven to the hilt by the speech of the hon. gentleman. I was glad of one thing however. I would be sorry indeed to think that His Majesty's loyal opposition were a unit in the view as to the British government ex-ipi'essed by one of their leaders, the beli-gerent member for North Victoria (Mr'. Sam. Hughes) -who called the British government a set of cowards or words to that effect. I was glad to find that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), on the contrary, pronounced them a set of magnanimous gentlemen. But all this goes to show, all this quarrelling in the family circle of hon. gentlemen opposite, all this breaking away by their party press, from the acceptance of the premier's explanation by the leader of their party goes to show that there is a dreadful lack of discipline in the Conservative party and that certain prominent gentlemen in the Conservative ranks will in their turn have to be recalled if the leader of the opposition is to have an easy time in future. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) said-and his chest was visibly expanded while he said it-that Conservative loyalty at least, had never been challenged in this country. Mr. Speaker, I fancy it never has been challenged since the days when sundry gentlemen, at the time feeling somewhat sore over the Rebellion Losses Act, actually went so far as to rotton-egg the representative of His Majesty, Lord Elgin.
It is quite possible that it was impugned at a later date when the then leader of the Conservative party went so far as to say, in discussing a certain tariff issue, that if the result of the tariff then adopted, the national policy, was to injure British connection-then so much the worse for British connection. However, I would not willingly recall these matters had not the hon. gentleman practically challenged the loyalty of the great Liberal party of this country. For my part, I do not believe that there is isuch a thing as disloyalty in the Dominion of Canada. I have yet to meet a man, either Liberal or Conservative, who is disloyal. I believe we are true to the last man to Canada under British connection, but I do think it is bad taste indeed for hon. gentlemen opposite to rise in their places in the House and try to create the impression in Canada, yes, and beyond its borders, that the Liberal party, representing as it does more than half the people of Canada,

is absolutely disloyal to Canada and disloyal to the British empire.
But, enough of this. Let me rather come down to something which has arisen out of the recent utterances of Lord Dun-donald in regard to the administration of militia matters in Canada. I would refer to his phrases ' fool's paradise ' and ' government indifference to the militia.' I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in the last three years we have spent $10,000,000 upon the militia of Canada, that this year we are spending $3,500,000 upon it and that we have increased the annual expenditure upon the militia by from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. I do not believe you can find a greater test of the good wishes of the government towards any particular branch of the public service than that which is afforded by the estimates. If you find that the government is supporting a certain branch of the public service by liberal expenditures and taking the chance of criticism from the opposition and from those people in the country who are against large expenditures you may say at once that the government is not indifferent to that particular branch of the public service. But, if we live in a fool's paradise to-day what kind of a fool's paradise did we live in before 1896 ? The rules of the House will not permit me to characterize the kind of fool's paradise that we lived in prior to 1896. But then I can prove to you by comparison that it was certainly a very superlative kind of fool's paradise as compared with the fool's paradise in which we are said to exist now. We find that the government is now giving the militia of Canada annual drills. I have been in the militia of Canada for nine years under the late government and for eight years under this government, so that I think I am in a position to speak with some little knowledge and authority on this subject and I say that there never was anything more detrimental to the true interests of the militia than the system which was pursued under the Conservative government in this connection ; that is the system of calling out the militia every other year to get its training. I had almost made a bull by speaking of calling it out every other year to get its annual drill. As a matter of fact the regiments simply went to pieces because of inactivity, consequent upon the two years of idleness which intervened between one camp and another. It was reserved for this government under the energetic and able management of the present hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) to call the militia out every year, but two, I think, in full strength, and in these two years in very tolerable strength, the officers and noncommissioned officers and a portion of the rank and file being drilled during these two years. That fact is one of the best evidences that can be adduced in *proof of the interest that is being taken In the militia of Canada. Then, I am going to refer to something which, although it is a small matter, still has its significance. It was reserved to this government to obtain for the Fenian raid veterans medals which they had earned a third of a century ago. It was reserved for this government to obtain a long service medal for every officer and man who has served twenty years in the militia. It was reserved for this government to put an end to the life and good behaviour tenure of commanding officers, something utterly subversive of the best interests of the militia, because we found in regiment after regiment colonels who had retained their commands for periods ranging from twenty to thirty-five years, with the result that there was no promotion in the ranks junior to that of the commanding officer to be looked forward to and it was impossible to get men to go in and take an interest in such a force as that. If the government and if the active head of the Militia Department had been indifferent to the militia, do you imagine that these matters, some of them small in themselves, but which are somewhat important to the militia, would have received their close attention, the best evidence of which is that these changes have been made ? Not at all. But, let me give a little further testimony. What about the cadet corps to-day ? It was reserved for this government to develop this system of cadet corps. To-day, we have thousands of boys coming up in the schools all over the country getting their preliminary drill and their training in the art of rifle shooting in consequence of the energy and thoughtfulness of this government and entirely in the absence of any thing being done under the old government. We have organized an army medical corps. We have a splendid army medical staff and bearer corps. Whereas in the past hon. gentlemen opposite had their regimental surgeon with his little pill-box. we have this army medical corps with field hospitals and stretchers for the wounded men and officers of the militia force, all of which are necessary to an army in the field. If an army corps were called upon to-day to go upon active service it would take no time to organize the medical part of the army corps because we have the nucleus for doing it and inasmuch as that ife a scientific branch of the service it is something that could not be improved or dealt with in a haphazard way. But, as a result of the organization of this service our fellows, if they were called upon to take the field, would have careful treatment for their wounds or in case of disease.

'Mr. WARD. Under -what General Officer Commanding were these improvements made ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: These improvements were made under the present government ; I do not care from what General Officer commanding the suggesting came. As I understand it, it is the government that has the power of the purse-strings and the power to say whether this or that shall or shall not be done, and the members of the government, as wise men will take the advice of experts. We do not necessarily expect those in the civil departments to be experts in certain lines themselves, but if they take expert testimony, and if having obtained good advice, they act upon it, then they deserve the credit if they give us a good up to date system. We have an intelligence department which we were before entirely without. This department is made up of picked men, selected from the militia in various parts of Canada to collect information which would be of the greatest practical use in case the force was called out upon active service. We have organized the engineers, another corps, that cannot be improvised. We may have had a few in the, old days, very few, but today we have an engineer corps which is a most useful part of the militia force and in the city of Toronto that corps has been organized in connection with the school of practical science which increases its usefulness, because as young men finish their course in the school of science they scatter through Canada and each man becomes a valuable instructor in each particular locality. The government have organized rifle clubs and established rifle ranges. These are things upon which we all agree in this House. Everybody says that our young men in Canada ought to be taught how to shoot. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said within the last week that he heartily approved of this plan and that he would use his best endeavours to encourage the practice of rifle shooting in the part of the country from which he came. What government was it that first introduced rifle clubs and spent thousands of dollars upon rifle ranges upon which these riflemen could practice ? It was the Liberal government, the government which assumed the reins of power in 1896, the government which had been pronounced indifferent to the militia, the government which is training up our young men to be proficient in rifle shooting and providing magnificent material with which to fill the ranks of the active militia should It be found necessary to extend it to a war strength. The government have established a school of musketry. We have under able men who have gained their experience in the South African war, organized the school of musketry in spite of the Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.
fact that according to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) some persons have been compelled to do the boot-polishing of other people.
Then Sir, we have the Dominion arsenal (and this to my mind is a matter of very great importance) and it will surprise many of the people of Canada who do not keep posted in these matter to know, that whereas in the days of the Conservatives that factory could turn out about a million and a half cartridges a year, this government has increased its productive capability six fold and the output will be further enlarged I have no doubt. We have to-day a small arms factory in Canada. We had been told we have too few rifles in Canada, I have said so myself, but I am glad to say that this government with an energy which is most eommendable has entered into a contract with Sir Charles Ross, the result of which is that he has established a small arms factory capable of turning out 1,000 rifles a month, and which working day and night, would be capable of turning out 24,000 rifles a year, which is more than half as many rifles as are in stock in Canada today. More than that, it is this government xvhich has voted large sums of money to buy more rifles so that the unsatisfactory present condition of a shortage in rifles will cease, and yet this is the government which has been accused of indifference towards the militia of Canada. I pass on. We are now making in Canada steel gun carriages which we never made here before. That is Canada for the Canadians in the true sense of the term. We are spending our money within the limits of Canada ; we are giving employment to the people of Canada, and should an accident happen to any of the artillery paraphernalia we could remedy that accident ourselves without having to send the broken parts to England in time of war even, and await their return. I believe that if the progressive policy of the Minister of Militia is followed out as it will no doubt be, it is only a question of a short time till we will be manufacturing the cannon themselves in Canada as well as the steel carriages and the small arms.
We have heard a great deal about the troubles in the permanent force. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) who is not in bis place much to my regret, thought it a shocking thing that members of the permanent force should be asked to clean the boots of sundry officers at the Rockliffe ranges. Here, by way of parenthesis I must be allowed to express my great admiration for the hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) who to my mind is utterly wonderful in his versatility, for he certainly runs the gamut of man from the belted earl to the bootblack, and to-day it was the bootblacks turn. The fact of the matter is, that these men of the permanent force are glad to accept the position of officers, servants for the time being. Their work is

not heavy ; they are liberally tipped ; and I would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) what about himself ? For years he was a colonel in the active militia and as such entitled to an officer's servant in camp. I wonder if he allowed a servant to blacken his august boots.
Som hon. MEMBERS. Oh, no ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I fancy he had a servant, and that servant was probably drawn from some farm in North Victoria, and yet the hon. gentleman rises in horrified indignation over the fact that any young farmer in Canada should have to clean the boots of any other man. I do not for a moment suppose that the one and only Turpin ever cleaned his boots, but they are not all Turpins after all and I fancy that in camp for years past, he, in common with all other mounted officers, has permitted his servant to black his boots, and has even tipped him for so doing, because after all the hon. gentleman is not lacking in generosity. It is true that the permanent force has been asked to furnish servants for the rifle ranges ; that is a bagatelle ; I explained it.
What has this government done for the permanent force. In my opinion the permanent force is an extremely important part of the active militia in Canada, because it is that force that furnishes instructors for the balance of us, and for that reason its officers and men should be among the very best obtainable in Canada. It was reserved for the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) to introduce a pension Bill, the result of which will be that these officers and men when they reach the age limit will be reasonably taken care of by the people of Canada, and to my mind nothing has ever been done which will go so far to encourage the enlistment of the right class of men for officers and privates as the introduction of this pension Bill. And, Sir, this was done by that government which is indifferent to the militia of Canada. I might go on multiplying examples, but I must hurry along.
There was one other little matter that I noticed in the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) with feelings of mingled pity and amusement. He attacked poor Arnold Foster and fairly wiped him off the slate. It was1 the passing of the second Foster. It aroused feelings of pity almost, in my breast, and I have no doubt also in the breast of some hon. gentlemen opposite. That was bad enough, but when the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), in connection with the now historic bootblacking incident, threw in the words that the bootblacking was done for a ' lot of snobs.' I think I am justified in offering a word of protest. I have had many years experience with the officers of the Canadian militia, and the expression ' a lot of snobs ' is about as inapplicable to them as to any body of men I ever knew in my life. I
understand that the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) himself once took a commission in the active militia. He did not follow it up I regret to say, and he is not now a member of that honourable body, but I sincerely trust that he did not leave the force because he found his fellow officers to be a lot of snobs. I have known the men of the regiment which comes from his constituency intimately for years, and to tell the truth, Mr. Speaker, a more gentlemanly or more pleasant lot of fellows it would be hard to meet. I trust the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) will withdraw that very offensive expression, which I am sorry to say was accepted by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes).
There is still another matter with which I wish to deal for a moment. I refer to the attack of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) upon the Solicitor General, who is not now present in this House. I have the greatest respect for the Solicitor General and I believe he stands high in the estimation of the members of this House on both sides of the Speaker's chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Yes, and it does seem to me to be rather a cowardly thing to introduce into this debate the expression alleged to have been used by some other man ; that so great was the treason and treachery of the Solicitor General that if he had his deserts he should be behind prison bars. I can tell you, Sir, that in my opinion it will be many a long day indeed before the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux is ever found behind prison bars. I can tell you, Sir, that the loyalty of Mr. Lemieux will Stand comparison wit|h che more noisy loyalty of the hon. member for Victoria. I can tell you, Sir, that the Solicitor General comes from a race who have proved their loyalty by more than word of mouth : A race who proved their loyalty in 1776 beneath the walls of old Quebec, thirteen years after they had passed under the British flag; and who proved their loyalty once again ill the campaign of 1812, when but for their magnificent courage and cleverness at the battle of Chateauguay the left flank of the British defence in Canada would have been turned, and to-day we would not be discussing questions of loyalty in a British parliament. It ill becomes any man in this House, or any man in Canada to attack the loyalty of the Solicitor General, or of the French Canadian race from which he springs.
And now, Sir, one word by way of personal explanation and I have done. I think I may say truthfully, that while not being a carping critic, I have been at least an honest critic of militia matters iu this House. Last session I made a speech with regard to the then state of the rural militia, in which I used an expression which

it appears has become somewhat famous, although at the time I did not realize it would be so frequetiy quoted. X said that owing to the lowness of the pay then prevailing the rural militia had faded away until it could only be described as the skeleton of a skeleton. I do not apologize for that expression; I believed what I said then, and I believe now that what I said was then true. But, Sir, we have a government which is just waiting for advice. We have a government which is not so high and mighty as to get up and say : No, we will have none of this advice ; because this man was so outspoken we will show him that what he says does not cut any ice (to use a vulgarism). On the contrary, we have a government which says: We will look into this ; this is a charge laid by one of our >,supporters whlo ought know something about it because he is one of the militia force himself. And, Sir, the government did look into it, and the result is that an increase of pay to the force for which I and others were asking was granted, and to-day I am glad to tell you, Sir, that the skeleton of a skeleton has disappeared, and once more we have in Canada as fine a rural militia as this country ever boasted, and that is saying a good deal.
I have come from the camp where we had under canvass this year more than 5,000 men. In my own regiment we had a force of 350, and I can assure you their physique was as far ahead of the physique of the fifty cents soldier as their numbers were ahead of the numbers of the regiment in the last camp. I have read reports from the other camps published in the ' Canadian Military Gazette,' which of late has been very harsh in its criticism of the administration of the day, giving glowing accounts of the personnel and the numbers of the regiments at London, Laprairie, Sussex, and every other point where camps have been held. And so what I have said has been justified by events. This up-to-date government, taking the advice of those who were in a position to know and acting upon it, has so reclothed this old skekleton with flesh and blood and skin and so rejuvenated it that I could scarcely recognize it if I saw it stalking through the streets. Now, I have finished. I thought that ten minutes would be enough for me to say what I wanted to say ; but when one begins to discuss the magnificent improvements made in the militia of Canada by this government, time is all too short in which to complete the task.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE.: We have had an admirable illustration to-day of the saying that a certain class of people will rush in where angels fear to tread ; because if there is a man in this House who might with absolute propriety have remained silent on this question, it is the hon member for Haldimand (Mr. T. S. Thompson). He did Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.
not touch upon a single subject, it seemed to me, on which he was not himself vulnerable ; and the criticism he directed towards others might with great propriety have been directed towards himself. He talked about the loud lip-loyalty of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) in what he had said and done. The hon. member for North Victoria gave to the world an example of his sterling loyalty-not lip-loyalty, but fighting loyalty-to that extent that he was ready to go to any part of the world to support and maintain the British flag under which he lives. Was it so with the hon. member for Haldimand ? He was on hand at the dress parade at the Queen's Jubilee. He was before the eyes of the world in a large degree then. He was willing to take all that was going on a free pass, as a soldier on dress parade ; but when the South African war came, where was he ? Did he offer his services then ? Did he join the hon. member for North Victoria and go to maintain the British flag in South Africa ? No. Some said he was under the bed. That loyalty of his, which is so demonstrative to-day, was mere lip-loyalty at the jubilee ; but when there has been any fighting to be done, there has been a notable absence of it in his career. After that came the coronation, and there he was for another dress parade.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear-free lunch.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Xes, a free lunch, and the hon member for Haldimand was on hand again-dress parade, lip-loyalty, free advertisement He was one of the magnificent men belonging to the militia of Canada. Well, that kind of loyalty the world will size up at its proper value. He is always a great loyalist for dress parade, but when any hard work or any fighting is to be done, he is not there. I will leave him to the people of Canada, and they will deal with him.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I am satisfied.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the hon. member for Haldimand referred to the fact that the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) once belonged to the militia, but had left it. Well, when they began to feed them on dog biscuits, it was about time to leave them ; but I will guarantee there was something behind that. The hon. gentleman went on to criticise adversely the staetment made by the hon. member for North Victoria regarding the present Solicitor General, Mr. Rodolphe Lemieux, and his family, and regarding the statement that if certain persons had their deserts they might be behind prison bars. Does the hon. gentleman remember anything about the incident? Was the hon. member for North Victoria justified in referring to it ? He only desired to give the world an idea of the class of man who was acting

with that high-handed authority when in the mother country representing the Canadian government. Do you remember the act ? His own father denied his name, and gave another name in order to put his son in parliament; and yet the son comes and justifies that act in this House. Is that creditable to the man ? If the people in the British parliament knew it, I venture to say they would attach that importance to his statement which it deserves, and no more. The hon. member for Haldimand made the statement that the Conservative party were exploiting Lord Dundonald for political purposes, and that it was susceptible of proof. He made that staetment positively, but did he give any proof ? He never attempted it; he simply gave his own bare, bald, unvarnished statement. If there was any proof of it, the hon. member either had it or ought to have had it, or he should not have made the statement. He did riot attempt to substantiate it by any proof. Was the proof of that statement found in the complimentary dinner given to Lord Dundonald in the Kideau Club, when the Reform element of the club went around and asked their friends not to go there lest they might do him honour ? Among all the Conservatives at that dinner, not one single reference to politics was made that could in any way be regarded as an attempt to make political capital.


Mr.  A. T.@: Thompson. Very different from the meeting at Toronto.	,
Mr. SPROULE Any one reading the account of that dinner could not fail to come to the conclusion that the utmost propriety was exercised both by Lord Dundonald and those who were there to do him honour. We hear a great deal about what took place in Toronto. I do not wonder that there was some demonstration in Toronto, where the loyal sentiment is so strong.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You have a monopoly of it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not saying we have. If I were looking for any degree of monopoly of loyalty. I would not apply for it over there. Considering that the military sentiment is so strong in Toronto, that the Scotch element is so strong, that everything that goes to make a military esprit de corps is so strong in the city of Toronto, and considering what was done to the man whom the people regarded as the very highest type of military man, I am not surprised that there were some demonstrations and some evidences of dissent at th# shabby way Lord Dundonald was treated. I am not surprised at it by any means. The hon. member says that the loyalty of the Liberal party was challenged. I did not hear anybody directly challenge the loyalty of the Liberal party.


Mr.  A. T.@: THOMPSON I did not say directly; I said challenged. It was challenged indirectly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must be either directly or indirectly challenged. If it was not challenged at all, why was there any need to refer to it ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: It was challenged.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where and when ? The hon. gentleman has not given us a single evidence of example. But why is the statement made ? To furnish an excuse for drawing attention to the fact that, as he said, the Conservative party had rotten-egg-ed the Governor General over the rebellion losses Bill, and this was done to show that there might be some disloyalty in the Conservative party. But that tu quoque argument is no argument at all. Two wrongs can never make one right. If the hon. gentleman had shown us that allegations had been made that the Liberal party, as a party, were not loyal and that he was endeavouring to combat that charge, I could have respected the argument; but when the argument was simply, you are another, it is one which the lowest class of individual in the country can use, and I will allow the hon. gentleman to reap the full benefit of it. Above all men in this House he should be the last to defend the government or the Minister of Militia, because only a year ago he treated us to a most scathing condemnation of the government with regard to their administration of the militia.
Mr; A. T. THOMPSON. If the hon. gentleman will do me the honour of reading that speech, he will see that my criticism had relation to but one portion of the militia, the rural infantry, and that within the present year I gave the government great credit for having established these subsidiary services, and not ten minutes ago I explained that the cause of my criticism had been removed and everything was right again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hon. gentlemen on that side of the House are very often called upon to explain away their own words and take great pains to do it. But what was the gist of the hon. gentleman's whole argument ? It was that the militia of Canada had been reduced to such an attenuated condition that it was only the shadowi of a skeleton.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under the management, development and equipment by this government, that was the condition of our militia, and that would be the fighting capacity of the rural battalions if they were called upon. What kind of a body would they have been to send to South Africa ? I repeat that the hon. gentleman's speech was a scathing condemnation of the government. It show-

7131
ed how utterly they had mismanaged the militia during the seven years they have been in office. Therefore the hon. gentleman is the last man who should rise and attempt to say anything in defence of the administration. He then went on to show what the government were doing. He said they were waiting for advice and were willing to take it and act upon it, and that the result might be seen in the capital turnout of the militia this year. He said that the government were responsible, because they controlled the purse strings, and unless they doled out the money our militia could not have reached its present state of efficiency. Well, if the General Officer Commanding furnished the brains, if he devised the plan, and the country supplied the money, what right had they to claim so much credit ? The General Officer Commanding outlined the plans and furnished the brains, and the only credit to winch the government is entitled is for having done what they were told, and if for the time being they controlled the purse strings and paid out the money of the people, I do not see that they are entitled to much credit on that account. I would not have thought it necessary to say anything on this question but for one statement made by the Minister of Finance, which I thought very much uncalled for. There is nothing in the facts to justify it. He said that he repudiated the attack of the opposition on the British government. But when did the opposition make any attack on the British government V


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) speakirig for the opposition, did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my judgment he did not, and I leave it to the House and the country to judge between us. All he did was to draw attention to the fact that the criticisms in the old country came largely from the Little Englander class, who are not the highest type of loyalists in England-the pro-Boer element ; but so sensitive is the British government lest anything might be done "which would alienate the colonies or create any hard feeling between them and the home government, that they availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to put a stop to anything of the kind. What is their position ? Through misrepresentations they were led to believe that there might possibly be more of a political character in this controversy than any injustice to the General Officer Commanding. Their attention was drawn to it by Mr. Lemieux, the Solicitor General, who made statements that I consider were not warranted by the facts. What was his version ? I have the paper before me containing it. In that paper I find that Chief Justice Sir Elzear Tasch-ereau, said that the London ' Times ' was loaded up from Ottawa Tory sources and M% SPROULE.
that there were few Scotchmen at the back of the whole agitation. He said it was a trivial affair which the opposition were endeavouring to magnify and use for political purposes. Then Mr. Lemieux followed on the same lines, and told the government that if Lord Dundonald were not recalled within a week, their failure to do so would be regarded as an attack upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier rather than a defence of Lord Dun-donald, and it would weaken the ties between the Canadian colony and the motherland. Is it any wonder then that the British government should have availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to put a stop to anything of the kind. All that my hon. friend from Victoria meant to say was the British government were sensitive in this matter, that they were so afraid something might be done, which would stir up feeling in the colonies, and were so afraid these might be true in the statements and misrepresentations made them that they availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to try and stop any possible complications.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: But he used the word ' cowardly.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and I do not think it was the best word that might have been used. But what was he referring to when be used the word ' cowardly ' ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The government of Great Britain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, he spoke of the party which was dealing with the subject, and it was in this connection I understood him to use the word * cowardly.' He meant it in the sense that they were afraid to stand up for their rights for fear of causing irritation and because of their anxiety to conciliate the Canadian people. It was on this account that they were afraid to come out as boldly perhaps as the circumstances would justify. That was the sense in which he used the word, as I understood it, and in no other sense did he use it. Now we are told that Lord Dundonald did something he should not have done. He should not have spoken. Well, we pride ourselves in declaring that every man in Canada should have' British fair-play. But is it British fair-play to attack a man in this House and not allow him to defend himself ? Is it British fair-play not to allow Lord Dundonald to make use of the only channel of which he could avail himself in his defence ? He did not use it without having been solicited to do so.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He chose it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is making a statement he is not warranted in making.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That laugh reminds me of the scriptural quotation :	' For as the

crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of a fool. This also is vanity.' What justification is there for the hon. gentleman making that statement ? Lord Dun-donald was invited by the hon. member for North Victoria to give him information with regard to the facts, and he did so. A member of parliament went to him and asked him for the facts. Was he doing an improper thing in giving that hon. gentleman the facts ? Did he invite the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) to defend him ? There is not a word in the correspondence that justifies the belief that he did. And no person has made such an allegation, until the hon. member (Mr. Talbot) made it here to-day, and he has made it upon grounds that do not justify his statement. We pride ourselves upon our British fair-play. And yet here was an officer who was regarded as a man of the very highest type of honour, a man of great ability, a man of known sterling character and integrity, a man belonging to an ancient and honourable family, who is maligned and abused ; and yet, if he says a word in his own defence, he is spoken of as one not to be tolerated in decent society. Is that fair-play ? Is there a chivalrous Frenchman on the other side who would say that it is fair-play ? I know they would repel such a suggestion, for there is too much chivalry in their nature to favour anything but honour and justice. Yet here is this officer summarily dismissed like a dog from the service ; and when he avails himself of the right of every British subject to defend himself-not to attack the government, but to defend himself-he is denounced as interfering in politics. It was not any desire on his part to enter politics or to interfere between parties that led him to speak in his own behalf. He has himself most positively declared that he never did interfere in political matters. And, though his whole course is known to his opponents, there is not a single example given to show that he introduced politics in anything he said or did since coming to Canada. He scrupulously avoided saying or doing anything of that kind. There is no claim that he violated the proprieties of life by introducing partisanship in any form. Yet, though he is thus unfairly attacked, the attempt is made to deny him the right to reply. We are told that even a worm will turn if trod upon; shall we say that a British soldier shall not defend himself when attacked ? Some say that he was a British officer on half-pay and had no right to speak in opposition to the government. What does Arnold Foster say about that ? He says ;
Lord Dundonald could stand as a member ot the Canadian parliament and could not be deprived of the right to take an active part in public life.
If he could stand and be elected to this parliament, as another did before him, if he could take part in all the discussions of pub-227
lie life, was he not free to defend himself 7 Would any hon. gentleman opposite deny him that right-would he dare to do it ? These hon. gentlemen sit here sheltered by the privileges of parliament, and cannot be attacked in the courts or elsewhere. But Lord Dundonald is responsible to the courts for every word he utters. Above all, he is responsible to his own honour, and he has too high a sense of the proprieties of life to say anything wrong. I have read every one of his speeches, and it seems to me that he has shown himself one of the most discreet men who ever spoke on a public platform. He has carefully refrained from attacking the government. When invitations have been offered him to speak under circumstances in which his speech might be susceptible of that construction, he has not accepted them. To deny him the right of self-defence is to do him a great injustice, and not only him. but many warm admirers of his among his own countrymen. I see that Sir Elzear Taschereau says that there are a few Scotchmen behind Lord Dundonald, thereby implying that the whole thing is insignificant, and that only a few Scotchmen pay attention to what Lord Dundonald says. I want to tell him that the Scotch element in this country is a force which, when the day comes, will make itself known with no uncertain sound, and will declare its opinion of the treatment meted out to this member of their nationality. I very much mistake their temper and sense of fair-play if they do not resent the insult cast upon one of their race, a man of the very highest honour, an officer of conspicuous gallantry, and the descendant of a noble line. At any rate, I am quite content to leave it with them. But I could go further and say that you will find the same spirit to-day, not only amongst the Scotch, but amongst the Irish, amongst the English, amongst the Germans and amongst the chivalrous French. I am much mistaken in my judgment of human nature if many French Canadians do not resent the treatment of Lord Dundonald. They admire chivalry, they admire courage, they admire honour ; and I would not do them the injustice of saying that they admire these less in a man of another race than in one of themselves. It was said to-day-at least it was insinuated-that Lord Dundonald was making a race and revenge cry out of this affair, and that he was doing injustice to the French. He denied that and repudiated it. And has a single example been given to this House, even one of the smallest kind, that would go to show that Lord Dundonald had been guilty of even anything that bore the semblance of doing injustice to the French race or to any of its members ? Why, the very reverse is the case. He said that in every respect he admired them, that he loved them and wras ready to give them an equal place with men of every other nationality in the country. He had nothing to say of them, except w'hat was in their favour. But people desirous of making



political capital for themselves are willing to do injustice to Lord Dundonald by endeavouring to create the impression that he was desirous of doing what was wrong to the French Canadians. That was unworthy of any man outside of this House, and much more unworthy of any one who has the honour of a seat here. If such a statement is made here, it should be made upon proof, instead of being put in the form of an insinuation against a man who is not here to defend himself, and to whom, if they could, these hon. gentlemen would deny even the right to speak on his own behalf on the public platform.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP.: I rise, Mr. Speaker, not to attack Lord Dundonald, nor to defend him, but merely to draw attention to two striking omissions in the observations of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). When the motion was made this morning that you leave the chair, the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) called attention to two utterances of a member of this government who is now in the old country, one touching the Dundonald incident and the other on the subject of preferential trade. Regarding the Dundonald incident, the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) very properly took the ground that it was not fair to attack a public man on the ground of reported utterances of his unless it was shown that those utterances had been revised by himself. If so I can quite see that it would be improper to condemn the Solicitor General until his words had been proved to be those with which he was charged. But, Sir, even while the right hon. gentleman so spoke, it seems to me that a glorious opportunity was afforded him. Without in any way repudiating his Solicitor General he could have said, disbelieving that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) spoke as he was charged, that had his Solicitor General so spoken, had he said that unless Lord Dundonald was recalled within a week it would be an attack upon the Laurier government, he (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) might have repudiated any such statement as that. The right hon. gentleman in addressing that House on that utterance of the Solicitor General, in no way repudiated the sentiment alleged to have been uttered by that gentleman, and when he went on to attack Lord Dundonald for his conduct, the one conclusion that could be come to by the House and the country was that when the right hon. gentleman abstained from expressing any difference in opinion from the alleged utterance of the Solicitor General that he agreed with the Solicitor General in- the utterance he had made. It seemed to me that all throughout this discussion not only today but on other occasions the main point at issue has not always been reached by hon. gentlemen on either side. It always seems to me that there is a great desire on Mr. SPROULE.
the part of the government and its supporters to concentrate attention on the fact that Lord Dundonald was guilty of an indiscreet utterance and was punished therefor. If Lord Dundonald was guilty of an indiscreet utterance and was punished therefor that question is closed and we have nothing more to do with it. But I venture to say that the members of this House and the people of this country are deeply interested in the charges made by Lord Dundonald and the point which this country would like to see cleared up is whether the charges of Lord Dundonald are true or false. If they are true, a lamentable state of affairs exists in our militia system. If they are false, the sooner, for their own sake, the government prove them false the better. To show how hard it is for ordinary laymen like myself to discover the truth in regard to the militia system let me remind the House of the utterances of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) this afternoon. That gentleman is always eloquent, and always speaks well and I will do him the justice of saying that I never knew him more eloquent and apparently sincere than he was this afternoon. When I heard his glowing eulogium on the militia system and the credit which he gave to the government, and especially to the Militia Department, on the industry, ability and skill which had been brought to bear on the militia forces in the last eight years, when in tones of proud triumph he called attention to the fact that in the last three years-that is not including this year-we had actually spent $10,000,000 for the improvement of the militia system, I was reminded of an incident which occurred in this House only a short year ago. In my effort to discover the real situation as to the Militia Department I referred back to the ' Hansard ' and now let me give the House the opinion of an expert, a colonel commanding a regiment, speaking in this House with a full sense of responsibility. This is what the House was then told :
Well, Sir, in all seriousness, after due consideration and recognizing the importance of the assertion, I say here to-day in my place in parliament that the militia, so far as the rural part thereof is concerned is in an infinitely worse plight to-day than it was two years ago, and that in my opinion another year under present 'conditions will utterly demoralize it.
That, Sir, is the opinion of an expert, the colonel of a battalion only one short year ago. Let me go further. I find in the same speech, this sentence :
I have shown that we were called upon to furnish the skeleton of a skeleton, I now state that we have actually turned out the shadow of a skeleton of a skeleton. Can anything so ghost-like be longer called a militia force. True the officers and non-commissioned officers, the most important part, showed up in very fair numbers, but this will not continue. Men must have a pride in their unit

or they will cease to act. I know the case oi one company which this year had two officers and six non-commissioned officers to command two men, one of whom was the cook.
Perhaps the Minister of Militia can inform us how many of these officers now belong to the corps in which seven lieutenant-colonels are required to command 100 men. This apparently is above that average, two officers and six non-commissioned officers to command two men, one of whom was the cook. And that was the Canadian militia system under the admirable administration of hon. gentlemen opposite at the end of three years, during which we spent $10,000,000 to secure their efficiency. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) this afternoon said that the only fault he had to find with the government last year was the meagreness of the pay. This gentleman last year, addressing the House, said :
A great deal of unnecessary trouble was caused this year by withholding notice for camp until within from three weeks to ten days of the time ordered. Knowing that some regiments were not to be called out, a feeling of uncertainty pervaded the whole, and I can assure you that recruiting is too unpleasant a job to be undertaken on chances. When the summons did come, it was found that some of the best regiments had been overlooked.
That, Sir, is an opinion of the administration of the militia by the Militia Department given by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) in this House last year. I do not wish to contradict anything he said to-day. Far be it from me to impute any improper motives to him, but surely we are entitled to some explanation from the hon. gentleman which will account for the marvellous discrepancy between the statement made a year ago and the statement given to this House to-day. That hon. gentleman gloried in the fact that in the last three years we had spent $10,000,000 on militia affairs, and were spending this present year $3,000,000. Does he not see that that proves the loyalty and generosity of this House, and it proves the confidence the representatives of the people had that the people would support any reasonable expenditure to maintain the efficiency of our militia. But, Sir, what sort of a commentary is it that $10,000,000 have been spent on the militia and at the end of three years that is all we have to show V Surely it is not in the interests of this country that we should have an hon. minister at the head of the department quarrelling with and dismissing a gentleman who is admitted to be the most competent man we ever had in such a position in Canada, a gentleman who, during the last year by the assurance of the hon. member for Haldimand this afternoon, has raised the militia to a degree of efficiency that could not have been conceived possible a year 227i
ago. What are we to think of the business ability of the head of a department who will lose the services of such a man for such a paltry incident, take it at the very worst, as that he spoke inadvisedly at an inopportune time ? Surely the interest of the people of this country should be considered. It is all very well for the ministers to be touchy about their own dignity and importance, but in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Haldimand a year ago and to-day, the people of this country have some right to ask where we are when this business administration deprives us of the services of the best man we ever had, shutting the door for ever to the coming to Canada of such another man, for having made the statement that a minister had interfered outside his own department, in the Militia Department, a statement which that minister himself has admitted during this session was true to the very letter. So we have this conceded that Lord Dundonald has spoken the truth from beginning to end and Lord Dundonald is punished, the Canadian militia must lose his services, simply because he told the truth. There is of course an old saying that the greater the truth, sometimes the greater the libel.
I wish to protest against the attention of this House being called exclusively to the question whether or not Lord Dundonald was right or whether or not Lord Dundonald should have been dismissed when the real question that now interests us, the incident of the dismissal having been closed, is what we are getting for the $10,000,000 we have spent and the $3,000,000 we are spending this year.
There is one other question raised by the quotation from the speech of the Solicitor General read by the leader of the opposition, and I was surprised at the Finance Minister not referring to it. The Solicitor General, speaking in the old country, must of necessity speak with a certain authority. I do not propose this afternoon to blame him for what he said. If I were to blame him for what he said, I would be blaming myself, inasmuch as a short time ago, I said that I thought it was only reasonable that a man should not be judged by newspaper reports). Therefore, I do not intend to blame the hon. Solicitor General so much for what he did say, but I desire to call the attention of the House to the opportunity that presented itself to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when he rose to speak, it being particularly within his functions, in regard to the alleged statement of the lion. Solicitor General that Canada did not want a preference for what we had given to the old country by way of the preferential tariff because we had given it freely and ungrudgingly without desiring anything in return. This is perhaps the most important question that is now before any portion of

the British empire to-day. We must remember that we have a fiscal warfare going on in the old country at the present time. Great Britain is distracted as it has not been since the days of the Reform Bill or possibly the Repeal of the Corn Laws over this great question of preferential trade. We know that it has been said in the old country by some that representatives of the present government, when attending the conference there a few years ago, expressed their approval of the principle of preferential trade. We know that in the election of 1890, when the right hon. Prime Minister went to London, Out., he delivered a speech on the subject of preferential trade, when, to do the right hon. gentleman justice, I think he made the ablest and most eloquent presentation of the advantages of preferential trade to Canada that I have ever seen or heard, a presentation that must have convinced every one present, of the benefit and advantages that would accrue to Canada. He went on in his powerful appeal to point out from his standpoint that he and his party were the only ones who could secure this great boon for Canada, that the Conservative party could not secure this boon saying : Place me and my party in power and our first duty will be to secure preferential trade. No more powerful argument could be addressed to the people than that which was used by the right hon. Prime Minister. So, there are some people in the old country, who, knowing what took place in the Intercolonial Conference, and knowing of such utterances as that by the right hon. Prime Minister, believe that this government is in favour of preferential trade. There are others in the old country who, being deceived by the position which the right hon. gentleman took at the Cobden club, are convinced that this government is opposed to preferential trade. What a glorious opportunity was given this morning to the hon. Minister .of Finance or to the right hon. Prime Minister, without agreeing with or disagreeing from the utterances of the Solicitor General to say : If he did use that language we repudiate it because we are in favour of preferential trade. If the government desire preferential trade the government could have done more in one minute this morning by such an utterance as that from the hon. Minister of Finance than the opposition could do by six months of touring through the country and speaking from every platform from the Atlantic to the Pacific.' I appeal to the government and I ask them to take advantage of this chance. One of the reasons why I rose this afternoon was to call the right hon. Prime Minister's attention to the fact that the government are already committed to the principle of preferential trade and here to-day, without a vote of the House, with one single utterance, he to-day, could have given an impetus to the cause of preferential trade, if it would be the boon to Canada which the Mr. NORTHRUP.
right hon. Prime Minister proved it would be, and in that I heartily agree with him. If he had done so he would have done more for Canada than he has done in many a day gone by. But, I can see that the hon. Minister of Finance was embarrassed because the hon. Solicitor General, speaking with a certain amount of authority, is reported to have said that we were not in favour of a preference because we have given a preference to the mother country without expecting anything in return. The right hon. Prime Minister, I remember, when speaking two years ago, flatly contradicted that utterance. We have his statement on 'Hansard' that we did not give this preference as a matter of gratitude expecting no return, but that there were sound business reasons for giving this preference, that it was a benefit to ourselves, that it would get us goods cheaper-good sound free trade doctrine-and that it was hoped that as a result of giving them this preference they would give us something in return. There seems to-day to be a large portion of people in the mother country who are ready to give us something in return and I would appeal to the hon. minister to take advantage of such an opportunity and state frankly that the preference was given in the hope that we would be given something in return. And that we are prepared to deal with the mother country along this line. I would endorse the hon. minister in going further, having said that much, and saying that if the mother country declines to deal with us in the matter of a preference we will have to recall what we have done, having done it in good faith and having failed. I sincerely hope that the charge that has been made by the government against the opposition and the like charge which has been made in the old country will turn out to be without ground ; that is that the opposition are trying to exploit Lord Dundonald for their own purposes. I have no hesitation in saying that if the opposition were to take hold of the Dundonald incident and endeavour to use Lord Dun-donald's sympathy for party purposes they would be unworthy of their positions in this House, but, I can quite understand altogether apart from party ideas, that, be they Reformers or Conservatives, Scotch, Irish or English, the citizens of Canada who have an admiration for Lord Dundonald regret the particular mode in which he is leaving the country. I can quite understand that they feel it due to this gentleman who came to Canada, who has done so much for the militia as the hon. gentleman foT Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has proved this afternoon, and who has to leave this country under circumstances which are very much to be deplored, should desire to show to him and show to the world, that, whether he was right or wrong in that particular, small controversial question, Canada believes he was true to Canada and true to the empire.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER.: Mr. Speaker, I miglit not be excused for taking part in this debate if it were strictly a military or militia matter, not being a military or militia man, but as it appears to be largely a political matter I presume I have the privilege of addressing the House. The question, as far as I understand, which has been particularly argued to-day is as to whether Lord Dundonald has or has not been exploited as a political issue by the opposition party. Apparently that question has aroused the interest of a more important body than ourselves, apparently the decision there has been that he has been made a political issue by the party of the opposition, and apparently that decision has not found favour op the other side of the House. To-day we have had the tune carried from treason by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to blasphemy by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) in expressing their views in regard to this matter. For my own part I think we might consider it in a little different light from that in which it has been considered so far in the debate. As to whether hon. gentlemen opposite are exploiting Lord Dundonald as a political issue or not-I think they have afforded the proof to-day. They have denied and reiterated the denial with a persistence that I think would entitle them to the appellation given by Lord Beaconsfield to his opposition at one time ; that is to say, an organized hypocrisy, for if any body of men have without regard to rhyme or reason taken Lord Dundonald as a political issue it is our friends of the opposition and their party press. I will not depend upon mere assertion to prove this. I suppose every one will admit that the Montreal ' Gazette ' is an exponent of the Conservative party, and its leading exponent if the test of respectability is to be applied. In the Montreal ' Gazette ' of July 16, I find the following paragraph in the editorial notes :
Goldwin Smith thinks a great wrong is^ being done Lord Dundonald by making his difficulties with the government a party question. There is no necessity for worrying. It will not be a party question after the Laurier government has been buried under in the next election.
If that is not a plain and explicit statement by the leading and most respectable organ of the Conservative party, that with Lord Dundonald they expect to win the coming elections, I admit that I do not understand the English language. I will not burden ' Hansard ' with other quotations of similar character, but every gentleman of this House can read such expressions in the Conservative newspapers from day to day and from week to week. I cannot imagine what is the purpose of hon. gentlemen opposite in making the preposterous assertion in this House that they have not carried Lord Dundonald into their politics,
for surely they cannot expect that the country, much less their own constituents, will believe it.
But, Sir, there is something more than this exploiting of Lord Dundonald by the Conservative party. I have noticed that their campaign has lagged considerably of late, until to-day the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), revived the silly Slander against the Prime Minister in connection with bis use of the word ' foreigner ' as applied to Lord Dundonald. I may be par-donald for putting this case in a way in which I have not yet heard it put. It is within the knowledge of every member of this House, and within the knowledge of every man in the Dominion who read the remarks of the Prime Minister, that instead of making the most remote allusion to Lord Dundonald as a foreigner or a stranger to the Dominion of Canada, the expression was simply applied -to Lord Dundonald as a stranger in the eastern townships, a fact which no one will deny, and least of all Lord Dundonald himself. That being the case, the expression cannot ;be construed as being in any way offensive to Lord Dundonald or as properly or improperly describing his connection with Canada. When these gentlemen opposite carry on this campaign in such a way, and then come to the House and declare that there is no politics in it, it is an evidence of hypocrisy that has seldom been equalled in this little world of ours.
The conduct of the Conservative party in this campaign, reminds me that .when some nations which are neither honourable nor courageous are engaged in warfare, they, upon occasion, place their women, their children or their hostages between themselves and the enemy, and then should these be injured by the bullets of the enemy, they raise the cry that non-combatants are being-slaughtered. If Lord Dundonald is not a party to this political campaign, the Conservatives in this country are putting Lord Dundonald in front of their battle ranks and holding him there to receive the attacks that may be made on them. Then they complain that Lord Dundonald is attacked.
Well, Sir, we will not attack Lord Dundonald; we will get around behind Lord Dundonald and just for one moment discuss the position of these gentlemen who are using him in this dishonourable way. The charge made by Lord Dundonald against this government ; the charge that has a purpose and that means something to the people of Canada, is, that the government has neglected the militia corps. That charge is the gravest one that could be made_ against any Canadian government, because it means disloyalty to Canada and disloyalty to the empire if it be true. I say, Sir, that this government does not suffer by a comparison of their loyalty either to Canada or to the empire, with the loyalty of the govern-

meats which have preceded them and which are honoured by the support of the Conservative party. Who speaks of loyalty to the empire ? The empire has been engaged in many wars during the last half century, but it was a Liberal government that first sent Canadian soldiers to take part in the wars of the empire. It was a Liberal government who did this, and Sir, it was the very government whose loyalty forsooth is called in question by members of the opposition, and by insinuations made against it by Lord Dundonald. When has occasion arisen for the manifestation of loyalty to the empire, that the Liberal government of Canada has not responded V In case of war the instance is recent, in matters of trade the instance is almost as recent. It was a chieftain of the Conservative party who once said : If our tariff is bad for British connection, so much the worse for British connection. And, yet, the followers of that chieftain are the men who to-day charge disloyalty against this government which has given the British rna'uu-facturer a preference in Canada and asked for no return. But more than that, because it did not ask for a return in kind from the motherland, this government is accused by the Conservative party of disloyalty to Canada and to Canadian interests, and in every manufacturing city in the Dominion the campaign is daily waged against it on that ground. We do not fear a comparison of our loyalty with the loyalty of the Conservative party. Whether in French Canada or in English Canada, the Liberal party has been true and loyal to the British empire.
And now a few words in regard to Lord Dundonald himself. Lord Dundonald is spoken of as a soldier and a gentleman ; a great soldier and a noble gentleman. We do not find fault with either his military title or his civil standing. He is welcome to it all, and our friends on the other side are welcome to all the advantage the qualities of Lord Dundonald bring them, when they use him for their party purposes. But,
I would like to call the attention of the House and of the country to this fact: That Lord Dundonald cannot be protected in the mantle of his noble lineage and his high military position, and at the same time act as a party hack and agent of the Conservative party.	'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame.
Mr. OLIVER, Hear, hear : it is your shame.	'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame.


Frank Oliver: Hon. members ought to be ashamed; I am sorry they are not. The attempt is being made to hoodwink the people of this country in regard to this question and to claim immunity for Lord Dundonald for his action as a Tory partyheeler on the ground of his lineage_


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: All right-and on the ground of his military position. It has been questioned to-day whether Lord Dundonald had a right to speak out as he has done on political platforms here and there throughout this country. No man properly questions his right. He had a perfect right to do so to go on the platform in Toronto and speak his mind, and make such charges as he pleased against the government of this country-to charge disloyalty if he liked ; but he cannot expect to be protected in doing so by the sanctity of his position ; and that is what hon. members seem to hope that he is able to do. They hope to get the advantage of a nobleman and a general of the British army fighting in their ranks, while he, so to speak, shall be encased in 'that divinity which doth hedge about a king,' and which shall prevent legitimate criticism by his and their opponents.
Let us judge the action of Lord Dundonald by the standards that would be applied to a common, every-day colonial civilian-the Minister of Agriculture if you like-and see just how he stands, and whether he is or is not a partisan of hon. gentlemen opposite. I was struck by a very strong expression which his lordship used in his speech in Toronto. He said he had turned the search-light on the inner workings of the Militia Department. I think a little turning of the search-light on the action of his lordship on that particular occasion would not be amiss. Under wlsat circumstances did he turn on the search-light, and what was the occasion ? The occasion was a private or semi-private banquet given in his honour by militia officers of the city and district of Montreal. The banquet, I say, was private or semiprivate, I am not prepared to say which ; but it was certainly not public, inasmuch as only one newspaper was represented at it-so the newspaper itself has stated. Lord Dundonald has told us in his manifesto and on the platform that he had great grievances against this government of Canada, that the empire had great grievances against 3.11, that the loyal people of this country hjad great grievances against it, because of its neglect of Canada's imperial de-fe nces ; that we were living in a fool's paradise at the mercy of our neighbours because of the neglect of this government. Could language be stronger ? Could charges be more severe ? Lord Dundonald did not deal with those charges at that Montreal banquet-a proper matter to be dealt with, if ever there was one, at a strictly military banquet. That surely would have been a subject worthy of turning the search-light on ; but it was not upon that subject that he turned the search-light. His search-light was turned upon the inner workings of the department.

It was turned upon the appointment of one Dr. Picltel to a position in the militia force ; and when the question came to be thrashed out in parliament-and: it has never yet been denied-the position of the Minister of Agriculture was found to be the correct position, and the position of Lord Dundonald the wrong position, looked at from a strictly military point of view. The Minister of Agriculture had asked that a competent man be placed in a position requiring competence. Lord Dundonald was offended because a man who was not competent was not placed in that position. The charge was not even made against the Militia Department of which he was an official and with which he was connected ; it was made against the government of the day through the Minister of Agriculture. The charge was political interference under the administration of the government of the day. It was not a military matter ; it was not a militia matter ; it was not turning the search-light on the defenceless condition of Canada. What was it ? If the Minister of Agriculture or some other plain colonial had attended a banquet as a guest under such circumstances, and had made that statement to the gentlemen present, what would he have been doing ? He would have been attempting to arouse political dissatisfaction and animosity in the minds of the officers of the militia there present against the government of the day. Lord Dundonald was not turning any search-light on, because it was a private or semi-private banquet, and not a public demonstration. It was so private that his remarks were not published when the proceedings of the banquet were published. They were suppressed- ' suppressed ' is the word used-at the request of Lord Dundonald's friends. Did he turn on. the search-light ?[DOT] It was only when some injudicious partisan of the opposition, having heard accidentally of the remarks of Lord Dundonald, thought they were too good to let drop. He wanted to use such good political ammunition in public. He was not willing to let it go as it was intended to go and stay where it was intended to stay, where it would poison the minds of the officers of the militia against the administration, but would not bring discredit upon the General Officer Commanding. But when this injudicious newspaper friend gave the matter to the light of day, and when his lordship was called in question about it by the militia authorities, when he was brought to the mark and had to either say that he had said it or take it back, then he turned the searchlight on. I take the liberty of saying that the action of Lord Dundonald at that banquet in Montreal, what he said and the way he said it, is fair evidence that what he did there he had been doing on
previous occasions, and had he not been brought to book at that time, he would have been doing it yet. And what would he have been doing ? Acting as the political agent of the party of the opposition, abusing his position as an officer of the imperial government and as an officer of the government of Canada, for the purpose of advancing the party interests of hon. gentlemen opposite. What else ? Had a private individual done this, no one would have had a word to say in his defence. How much more guilty then was Lord Dundonald, who lent the prestige of his name and reputation to everything he !said ? Let us have fair play in this matter. Let us deal with these things on a fair footing and call them by their right names. If we are to have fair play, let us have it ; and if we are to have treachery, let us have treachery and deal with it as such.
This incident does not stand alone. Some weeks have passed since that time, during which Lord Dundonald has been the recipient of numbers of demonstrations in his honour. It was the privilege of Canadian citizens to (give such demonstrations in his honour as they wished, and the privilege of Lord Dundonald to accept them 'if he saw fit to do so. He saw fit to accept them as being strictly non-political. They were given to and accepted by him as non-political. There was a demonstration in Renfrew and another in Ottawa in his honour, and it was perfectly understood of both of these that they were strictly non-political. A demonstration was offered him by the people of Toronto, which, it was also understood, would be strictly non-political as were the others. I presume that that demonstration was accepted by His Lordship on the same understanding ias were the others. There were many people gathered in Toronto at that meeting for the purpose of doing honour to His LordShip and the position he held in the army and the English nobility. No doubt many were present who felt aggrieved at his dismissal and others who acquiesced in that dismissal, as I believe every member of the opposition does, because although that question has been raised two or three times in the House, not one member of the opposition has ever dared to challenge a vote of the House on the course taken by the government or so place on record his views with regal'd to it. People went to that non-political demonstration, knowing it be such on the authority of the chairman of the committee. But what happened ? Lord Dundonald made there a violent attack on the government of this country. He abused as he had done before, the position in which he found himself. This we have on the authority of Mr. Ellis, the chairman of the committee. He took advantage of the idemonstration. in which he must have known there were Liberals taking part, to make a violent attack on the government

7147
and its policy. He had a perfect right to do so as a citizen, but he cannot be upheld in doing so as a man of strict honour. I think it is -well that we should have a straight understanding with regard to this question, and just in order that there may be no mistake in regard to what I say, let me quote the words of Mr. Ellis, as published in an interview which appeared in the Toronto ' World.' Mr. Ellis, I may say, is a leading Conservative of the city of Toronto. In that interview he said :
I was surprised at the whole tenor of his remarks. I do not think the committee expected it ; I certaiDly did not.
There was therefore a distinct breach of faith with the committee which organized this demonstration-at least as far as the chairman was concerned and a large number of those who attended. It appears that his attitude and the remarks he made were so far aside from what was expected, so far regardless of propriety, that they brought about this discussion in the British House of Commons, and the statement by the Secretary of War that he has been requested to return to England to speak in his own defence. I was somewhat amused at the construction placed upon this statement by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale). He said he would venture the prophecy that Lord Dundonald was being recalled in order to give him some higher position. Well, although I am not familiar with the workings of the British government. I know that it is customary in the management of public affairs in that country for the government, when they find it necessary to discipline some of its high officials, to let them down easy by ap-ponting them to some other office. We have heard of appointments to the Chiltern Hundreds, and there are other appointments of a like character. It is quite possible that Lord Dundonald may receive some such appointment from the British government, and no one here will object to anything which the British government may do with or for him. But I would like to call attention to this fact, and I think it is perfectly right that I should do so, because we have heard a great deal about the transcendent military ability of Lord Dundonald. If he is a great military genius, if he has a great military record, then certainly, let the cause be what it may, the loss of his services to Canada will be considerable. But if it should happen peradventure that his record is not so transcendent, that his abilities are not so marvellous, then the loss to Canada will be considerably minimized. And in looking over the papers, I find that at the time when the British army needed the best officers it could get, at a time of Stress and trouble, the British government apparently did not think sufficiently of those transcendent abilities or t'his marvellous record to appoint Lord Dundonald to a com-Mr. OLIVER.
mand in South Africa. He went there just as our friend from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) did, as a soldier of fortune, and secured an appointment in the field after he got there.


Samuel Hughes: I object to the use of the words ' soldier of fortune '-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr.   SAM@: coming from a
gentleman of such calibre as the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).


Frank Oliver: I will withdraw t'lie expression and say instead a soldier of misfortune.


Samuel Hughes: A victim of the intrigue and cowardice of the Liberal government.


Frank Oliver: As the hon. member has charged the British Conservative governments of the present and past with cowardice, we can accept with equanimity his criticism of this government. I wanted to say that this was no discredit to Lord Dundonald, and I do not wish to be understood as impugning any discredit to him. He may have been a most successful soldier in South Africa. He may have been even as successful as our hon. friend for North Victoria.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Frank Oliver: Althorgh we must admit that he did not say as much about it. I merely want to point out that this record of his, and these military qualifications of his, the loss of which are so much bemoaned on the part of this unfortunate country, do not seem to have struck the British government at the time when they needed the best talent, and the most of it, that they could get. Therefore, I am bound to suppose, in view of all the circumstances, that, when His Lordship comes to take his place in the fighting ranks of the members of the opposition as a soldier of fortune once more, neither will they gain so much, nor will Canada lose so much by being deprived of his military services. We do not grudge hon. gentlemen opposite their new recruit. We wish him luck of the company he has, and we wish them luck of the qualifications he has) brought ho them. The campaign which they instituted on his behalf throughout this country is of a character according thoroughly with the campaign which his lordship himself initiated while he was still in the service of. the country.


Mr. E. B. OSLER.: The last speaker (Mr. Oliver) has echoed, perhaps in stronger language than we have heard from other members, but probably all the more truly, the sentiments of the members of the government towards Lord Dundonald ; in fact, has expressed them with a frankness which they have not yet ventured. They

have made the charge that Lord. Dundonald is being exploited by the Conservatives for political purposes. I make the charge that Lord Dundonald was exploited, was intended to be exploited and is being exploited by the party of lion, gentlemen opposite, for political purposes entirely. I attended |the meeting in Toronto he'd in honour of Lord Dundonald. It was a spontaneous tribute to that gentleman, such a meeting as I never thought to see, such as I never thought could be held in any city or any community. It was not a political gathering ; it was an expression of feeling by the people themselves. No political party could ever expect to hold such a meeting. I want to answer one charge made by the last speaker-and it is the only one I shall deal with-that Lord Dundonald committed a breach of faith in making the statement he did. I lunched with Lord Dundonald on the day of the meeting. I only arrived in town that day, but found the invitation to lunch awaiting me. I sat next to the chairman, Mr. Ellis. I asked him what the proceedings at the meeting were to be. He told me who the speakers were. I asked him what Lord Dundonald had to say, and he told me that the committee had discussed that, and that they had decided that they would make absolutely no allusion to politics, but that Lord Dundonald was free to say what he liked ; they had never spoken to him, or suggested that his utterance should be restrained. I think that that answers the charge. That meeting, being such as 1 have described was, it seems to me, compensation to Lord Dundonald for all the discredit the present government hoped would be cast upon him. It was a meeting to compensate any man for misfortunes of that kind. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that five thousand people went to that hall expecting to hear Lord Dundonald speak about the weather, or to ask them how they did ? They expected to hear Lord Dundonald defend himself-not so much against the charges made in this House, because he had a reply to the charges made here, though the minister tried to suppress it-but to those base slanders issued against him by the various newspaper organs of this government. He was perfectly entitled to reply to these charges, to reply to them in the strongest manner possible ; and I will venture to say that of the 5,000 people who were in that hail 4,900 went away perfectly satisfied with what Lord Dundonald had said on that occasion. If this is made a party matter, if it is made more a party matter than is necessary, the fault is entirely with the government and the manner in which they have dealt with this question. What is a rarty matter, and. one that the opposition are .qujite right in taking up, is the report that Lord Dundonald had read in this House as to the condition of the militia. And one point every speaker on the other side has tried to
avoid-has tried to lead the discussion off to side issues by attempting to make this a personal issue between the government and Lord Dundonald-and that point, the main point which the people want to know, and do know by the utterances of the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is that the government are interfering for po'i-tical reasons with the militia of this country. Take that fact away, and the whole matter would fall as flat as any agitation ever did. That is the one point in which the people are primarily interested. On that point they believe Lord Dundonald absolutely, and he tells them that the militia is being made a political engine. We had the denial of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) on that point when the matter was first brought up ; we had his unqualified acceptance of it and his admission that this was the truth, before he sat down. We had the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Bcrden) also accepting it, though it was strongly denied at first. And when bon. members opposite got used to it, one after another verified (the (statement that the militia was as much a party question as the letting of contracts or the appointments to be made from one end of this country to the other. That is the point that interested the people-not the personality of Lord Dundonald-not the fact of his dismissal- but the fact that he has turned the searchlight on the scheme of this government to make a political engine of the m'li ia of this country. Now, the dismissal of Lord Dundonald, as one hon. gentleman said, would have passed off with very little comment had it not been that the manner of that dismissal roused the feelings of the people. I venture to say that there is not a business man in this House on either side who would have dismissed the lowest clerk in his employ, even for the gravest offense, unless it were an offence against honesty, as Lord Dundonald was dismissed by this government. To an outsider it would look as if they delibsrately considered how they could heap the greatest insult upon him. And, to my mind, that is the gravest charge next to the charge that has been proved and accepted-that the ministers are debasing the militia of this country into a mere political machine, which, as I say, is the point that is most regarded and most keenly resented by the people. Now, quotations have been made from the London despatches. Those against the government, the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), tells us, must not be accepted because they may not , be true. But those in favour of the government bon. gentlemen opposite accept without hesitation. Yet the very despatches that they object to are those that are sent over by the Canadian Associated Press which are paid for by this government to the amount of $15,000 a year. Now, let me read the closing word s of one of the speeches, that of Mr. Lloyd George, Liberal. He says :

It was grossly unfair and mischievous i/hat Lord Dundonald should he allowed to stir up strife-a feud between the two races in Canada.
Now. Sir, Lord Dundonald in his speech in Toronto made a very pleasing and earnest reference to the" French Canadians of Canada. He stated that in all his military career and since he came here he had made no distinctions between religions and nationalities and he also stated that he had the greatest admiration for the French Canadian citizens. He spoke with enthusiasm, and no part of his speech was received with greater enthusiasm by that vast audience than the sentiment expressed from his heart on that one point. No man could have spoken more earnestly, no remarks could have been more appreciated. Now let me read an extract from a telegram to the Toronto ' Globe,' of December 20, 1901. It is as follows :
London, Dec. 12.
The meeting at Birmingham has sent the following telegram to Mr. Chamberlain :- Lloyd George, the traitor, was not allowed to say a word. The citizens have passed resolutions, expressing confidence in the government, and their admiration of your unique and fearless services for King and country.
That is the class of men who are making mischief in this country. Can you imagine a man who is doing more mischief than such a one as this, who makes false statements, who puts false views into the mouth of any man in this country, publishes them in England, whence the Canadian Associated Press, paid for by this government, cables them out here That is the kind of literature that makes trouble, if trouble there is, between the nationalities. I listened with pleasure to the remarks of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) and I think that if we all paid attention and took to heart the words which he spoke we would be the better for it. I can assure any one of my French Canadian fellow citizens, on that side of the House or on this side, that if they come to Toronto or to any other place in Ontario they will have a reception as cordial, as enthusiastic as they will get anywhere in their own province.


Mr. LANCASTER.: From the Conservatives.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I will not say from the Conservatives, but from the Orangemen. I am not a member of that body. From the people of Ontario the French Canadians will get the warmest possible reception. I deplore greatly that there should be this constant bandying of words as to differences between one nationality and another. If it should be so that there was a feeling of hostility it should be the duty of every one of us to try and overcome that because we have to live together in this country, whether we like it or not. There is no such feeling, Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, and I Mr. OSLER.
say that it is despatches of this sort, the work of these mischief makers, who are looking through every page of the newspapers to clip a word here and there, publish them, and magnify them, that are making the mischief and trouble and I appeal to every member of this House to, as far as he can, endeavour to put a stop to that state of affairs.
At the meeting in Toronto, Lord Dundonald said :
I bad almost forgotten to mention one other charge insinuated against me in parliament, of having made a difference between a French Canadian officer and an Englishspeaking one-in favour of the latter. I have already shown in the paper and it has not been contradicted, how groundless was this charge. Here in this great capital of the great English-speaking province of Ontario I desire to say that no man's race or religion has ever biased me. The French Canadian militia know full well that I have always had their interests at heart and have been actuated by the utmost possible friendliness for them.
That statement was cheered to the echo, and I know that sentiment is the sentiment of the people of Ontario, notwithstanding the trouble that men like Lloyd George tried to bring about. Let me repeat that the charge that the Conservative party are endeavouring to make political capital out of this Dundonald matter is absolutely untrue. If political capital is to be made out of it the charge is to be laid at the door of the members of the government and their supporters who have from the very beginning of this question endeavoured to abuse Lord Dundonald, to make it a personal matter as against Lord Dundonald, to connect him with the opposition, so that they may hide away from the public gaze the grave charge which His Lordship has made that the government are debasing the militia for party purposes.


Mr. H. A. WARD.: 
Samuel Hughes: Again on Lord Dun-donald's recommendation.


Henry Alfred Ward: They are doing this, as my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) says, on Lord Dundonald's recommendation. It was rather amusing to listen to the speeches of the hon. member for Alberta and the hon. member for Haldimand. They both set up a straw man. and, as it were in strident tones, knocked him down again. I have never heard any charge of disloyalty made against the Liberal party from this side of the House, and yet these hon. gentlemen spent several minutes in trying to prove that such a charge had been made ; and after setting up this straw man, they undertook to knock him down again. We all believe in our loyalty, and there is not a man on this side of the House or on the other side who is required to say anything about it. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, I am glad to say, is not in his place, but


Frederick William Borden: I am here.


Henry Alfred Ward: I see the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Alberta said, in the course of his remarks, that Lord Dundonald was altogether wrong all through these proceedings, and that hon. gentleman used language which, I am glad to say, has been peculiar to himself and has not been adopted generally by hon. members on the other side of the House. But he has nothing whatever to say about the action of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, for whom I have great respect, said at a ban-

quet-and it is something for which he ought to be commended-at Montreal, given to Sir Percy Girouard, that he would not tolerate any interference with the militia even by a colleague, and that the interference of a colleague, or of any person politically, would sap the very foundations ' of the militia system. I am sorry to say that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence should,have seen fit to have abdicated his functions and delegated his duties to the hon. Minister of Agriculture at the time he knew there was a controversy going on in regard to the formation of this regiment in the eastern townships, in which the hon. Minister of Agriculture was talking a great deal of interest. I say it is an unfortunate thing that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence should have delegated his functions to that hon. gentleman, knowing the facts of the case, and allowed him to manage his department during his absence. If ' Hansard ' reports him rightly, he said that the trouble could not possibly have occurred if he had been present at the time.


Frederick William Borden: I am sura the hon. gentleman will allow me once more to correct that statement. I said nothing of the kind. I said that if I had been in Ottawa at the time that the organization of the corps in the eastern townships was commenced I would have consulted my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, and that probably this trouble would not have occurred.


Henry Alfred Ward: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, but I think that what he has said virtually bears out the statement 1 made. I simply wish to convey this fact to the minds of hon. members that he did say something to the effect that if he had been present during the organization of the corps this unfortunate trouble would not have occurred. It is extremely to be regretted that it did occur, and I simply wish to emphasize the feeling of the militia corps generally throughout the country, that Dord Dundonald was the best officer we ever had, and that the militia has suffered a great disadvantage as the result of his removal. What Is to be regretted still further-perhaps this is not exactly the time to make statements of this kind, but I had not an opportunity of taking part In the two debates that took place in the House-is the summary and unceremonious manner of the dismissal of Dol'd Dundonald. We know very well that all through this unfortunate incident very scant courtesy has been shown that brilliant soldier, and that in no way has the government recognized the services that he has rendered to this country. I was surprised to hear the hon. Minister of Finance speak so positively on the strength of what had been said by Mr. Winston Churchill in the British House of Commons of the Conservative party exploiting Dord Dundonald. I have looked in vain in the speeches of hon.


Henry Alfred Ward: gentlemen on the other side of the House to-day to find any evidence in confirmation of that statement. In the city of Toronto, as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has said, there was not a word of political significance uttered by any of those who made speeches there, and if the government are inclined to take what Dord Dundonald has said in his own defence, and very rightly said, as evidence of his acting with the Conservative party, it is their business. There has been no effort, as far as 1 can learn, or as far as I have seen, to exploit Dord Dundonald. He is quite capable of taking care of himself in every sense of the word, but it is to be most deeply regretted that we have lost the services of this gentleman to the militia force, and I cannot reiterate that statement too often. Many things have been said of Lord Dundonald of a very derogatery character by the press of the country and by hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House, and it is not to be wondered at that he should take the very first opportunity of defending himself, as he did most effectually in the city of Toronto. Horn, gentlemen may have remembered not very long ago the accident which happened in New York, by which a very large number of people were drowned on the ' General Slocum,' and that afterwards reference was made to one of the ballads of Colonel John Hay, who is now, I think, Secretary of State of the United States government. It was referred to in this way, that in the fact of the engineer having died at his post, another ' Jim Bludso ' had been found. There is another poem of Colonel John Hay, which hon. gentlemen supporting the government might take to heart in connection with this very Dundonald incident. It is a little ballad devoted to the remarks of Sergeant Tilmon Joy, to the committee of white men in a western town who had got together and passed resolutions expelling a nigger. I will give you one of the verses, so that you can see the application :
I reckon I git your drift, gents,-
You 'low the boy shan't stay ;
This is a Whiteman's country ;
You's Dimocrafs, you say ;
And whereas, and seein', and wherefore, The times bein' all out o' j'int,
The nigger has got to mosey From the limits of Spunky P'int !
Le's reason the thing a minute ;
I'm an old-fashioned Dimocrat too, Though I laid my politics out o' the way For to keep till the war was through. But I come hack here, allowin'
To vote as I used to do,
Though it gravels me like the devil to train
Along o' sich fools as you.
Now gentlemen, there was no Tilmon Joy found in the Liberal cabinet when in that very unceremonious way, not a nigger, but a gentleman and a soldier, was expelled from the limits of Canada. There was not one found amongst the Liberal ministers

would, stand up for Lord Dundonald and prevent his expulsion from this country. They all with one accord held up their hands for that magnificent Order in Council to absolve the Minister of Agriculture from any wrong doing-although they said in the document itself that these statements regarding the Minister of Agriculture were un-necessry to the record. They passed their Order in Council and sent it forth to the country, and the General Officer Commanding was expelled without one voice being raised in his favour in that cabinet council of Liberal ministers. I can tell hon. gentleman opposite, that they will find when they appeal to the country, that there will he a good many Sergeant Tilmon Joys in Canada.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER.: I desire to say a few words on this question, not for the purpose of discussing the militia, hut to repudiate as a Conservative, the imputation that the Conservative party has been using the Dundonald incident, or Lord Dundonald himself for political purposes. I assert, that if it had come to the knowledge of the Conservative party, that the Minister of Agriculture had interfered and meddled with the appointments to the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons as we now know he did, we would have taken the course we have taken whether Lord Dundonald had been a,t the head of the militia or not. No matter who the man might have been who was the General Officer Commanding, the position we took would have been taken, and would have been persisted in as we intend to persist in it. I go further and say, that if Lord Dundonald had condoned the action of the Minister of Agriculture, if he had been silent on the subject and the matter had come to our knowledge, we would have taken this same action, regardless of Lord Dundonald or his opinion. The point is, not what Lord Dundonald thinks or does not think, but the interests and welfare of the militia of Canada, and the absolute necessity now and at all times to prevent such political interference with appointments to the militia as that which we have been condemning. I object to the language of the Finance Minister when he speaks of this as a Dundonald question. It is not a Dundonald question as regards this House or as regards this country. It might more properly be called a Fisher question ; but above all it is a militia question, and a question of the non-interference of politicians with the militia. That is the question before the House. I object to the Minister of Finance charging the Conservative party with using Lord Dundonald for political purposes. The Conservative party has never thought of such a thing, and I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite, that the Conservative party as a party are not quite such fools as to treat the question in that manner. The matter is a very serious one;
it has gone to the hearts and will stay in the hearts of the people of this country, and we would only weaken the attack we have made and will continue to make upon the government, by treating it as a personal question relating to the gentleman who happened to be the Commander in Chief at the moment. I want to say a word as to a quotation made by the Minister of Finance. I do so because in apparently making a quotation he has used language conveying a very different signification from what appears in the paragraph he was reading from. The report in the paper says :
No representation had been made by the government of Canada, which was able to take care of itself.
That is a very simple statement indeed ; a commonplace remark; that the government of Canada is able to take care of itself. Let us see how the Minister of Finance turned it, or I would say twisted it, in order to give it a different meaning. These are his exact words, I have obtained them :
But there are other matters in which no such aid is needed, and this unhappy Dundonald business is one of that kind. Mr. Arnold Foster very correctly stated, and it is perhaps the point in his observations which we appreciate most that this is a matter in which the Canadian government have shown that they are well able to deal with it themselves.
That is a very different thing from the report of what Mr. Foster said, as it ap-appears in the newspapers. The Minister of Finance uses language that would convey to the people of Canada, that Mr. Arnold Foster has approved of the past action of the government of Canada in this matter, that the government of Canada in what they have done have shown that they were well able to deal with it themselves. Why does the Minister of Finance want to turn the words ; why did he not use the exact words in the newspaper report ? why did he want to use Mr. Arnold Foster as apparently approving of the action that the Canadian government had taken in this matter ? The Minister of Finance had the exact words before him, and I object to his wrong interpretation of the words of Mr. Arnold Foster, -which interpretation is as far from being the truth, as is the statement that we are using Lord Dundonald for political purposes. The Minister of Finauce went out of his way to pay a compliment to Mr. Lloyd George. He said :	[DOT]
Mr. Lloyd George, I am bound to speak of as one of the most distinguished members of the imperial parliament.
Well, I think most of us know something of Mr. Lloyd George, and we know that if he is distinguished for anything it is for his extreme political opinions. He is distinguished as being one of the small party that were known in England as the pro-Boer party ; a party which would never have

sent a soldier to South Africa if they had had their way. Mr. Lloyd George is a gentleman who would have withdrawn the British flag from South Africa if he had had his way, and this is the gentleman the Minister of Finance belauds here as if he were one of the greatest men in England There is a rather significant paragraph in this paper which was not read.
Mr. Lloyd George spoke of ' the pain this controversy would cause Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, as was truly said, was one of the staunchest friends of the empire at the time of its great struggle.' Well, those who know Mr. Lloyd George know perfectly well that the man he would call the staunchest friend of the British empire 5n that great struggle would be a man holding his own opinions as to submission to the Boers ; and I doubt very much whether the First Minister of Canada will take it as a compliment that that remark has fallen from Mr. Lloyd George. If the hon. Finance Minister wants to stand on the same footing as Mr. Lloyd George does, he will accept that compliment; but I think there are few men in this Dominion who would want to stand in the same shoes as Mr. Lloyd George does with regard to South Africa.
Now, Sir, when we took up this question in this House, I was under the impression, as I think most gentlemen on this side were that we were doing our duty as members of the opposition. We were criticising one of the departments of government. We had heard of certain things that were being done in the administration or non administration of the Militia Department that ought to be condemned, regardless of the source from which the information came, except that we knew the facts stated to be true. We condemned what had been done. Was that not our duty ? What would be the object of our sitting here as an opposition if we were to allow such a matter as that to pass uncondemned when we were considering the Militia Department? For what purpose are we here ? We criticise and condemn the railway administration. Are we exploiting somebody when we do that ? We took up the Grand Trunk Pacific matter a year ago and criticised it and condemned it, and we had the assistance of Hon. Mr! Blair in doing so. Were we exploiting Mr. Blair ? Surely the fact that Mr. Blair happened to join us in our condemnation of the government was not an exploitation of Mr. Blair by the opposition. Nor is the fact that we happened to think and speak about the Militia Department as Lord Dundonald did, an exploitation by us of that eminent soldier for party purposes. Our view of the misconduct of the hon. Minister of Agriculture in meddling with the militia has nothing whatever to do with the General Officer Commanding. We have exploited-as apparently we want to use that word so much in this House-the Treadgold Commission,


Samuel Barker: and with some effect; but I do not know that in doing that, we exploited any particular gentleman connected with it. We have been taking up the Audit Department. Was that exploiting Mr. McDougall ? Surely we can take up and- discuss and criticise a department without acting for or using a particular Individual who happens, to be connected with it. _ Now, I object to the Finance Minister trying to sidetrack this question by diverting the attention of the public from the conduct of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and that of the hon. Minister of Militia to Lord Dundonald. Lord Dundonald can defend himself. We do not attempt to defend him here. It is not our business to do so. Our business is to criticise hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the conduct of the affairs entrusted to them, and we generally do so, no matter who the man may be who may be helped or hurt by our criticism.
At Six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Montreal Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. L. P. IJemers.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed debate on motion of Mr. Fielding, for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
['I will bring it down tomorrow.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Samuel Barker: Before six o'clock, Mr Speaker, I was referring to the action of the opposition in the House with regard to the question under discussion as it affected the militia, and I ask what could the opposition have done when it learned what had been attempted with regard to the Scottish Dragoons, other than it did. I ask whether we did more than our duty, and I think that question can only be answered by the statement that the opposition did its simple duty and no more. If there has been any exploiting, who has been guilty of it ? Did the Conservative party exploit the Montreal banquet ? I think not. I do not think that any hon. gentleman on the other side would pretend for one moment that the Conservative party any more than the Liberal party, had anything to do with or any knowledge of that banquet, before it took place. Did we exploit the publishing of the proceedings at that banquet in the press ? I think not.
It is not even pretended mat we did. Did we exploit the minister's letter demanding from the General Officer Commanding an explanation of what occurred at that meet-

ing ? Certainly not. Nor did we exploit the publication in the press of that correspondence. We took no part in it. It all took place without any interference of the Conservative opposition. I do not believe, Sir, that anybody will question that statement. The incident arose entirely outside of the Conservative party. Whatever interference there was before the matter was brought to the attention of this House came from the Liberal party alone. When the facts came before us, we condemned the Minister of Agriculture for his interference and meddling. We condemned that minister who, not content, Mr. Speaker, with the plough-share, wanted to don the sword as well; who. not content with the management of one department of the government, which certainly should exercise all the qualities he possesses, undertook to interfere with and control another department with which constitutionally he had nothing to do. Nor was it a mere temporary interference with the departmental functions and duties of his colleagues. No, this had been going on for months. It began in the early days, almost at the very inception of the organization of this regiment. We find, as was shown in the discussion in this House, that from the very beginning the Minister of Militia was almost ignored in this matter. From the very outset, the Minister of Agriculture was interviewed by the officers and by everybody interested in the formation of that dragoon regiment. They came to him as if they were dealing with something affecting the experimental farm. They never went near the Minister of Militia, and one would have wondered why they went to the one gentleman and not the other, had not political developments been brought to light, had we not found that the Minister of Agriculture was interfering, not because he' had more experience in militia matters than his colleague, but because his own political interests were involved. It was for this reason alone he interfered in this matter and took it entirely out of the hands of his colleague, the Minister of Militia, who, I regret to say, calmly submitted to the interference. And indeed there can be very little doubt that the Minister of Militia went out of the way at a convenient moment in order to give his colleague full swing and let him deal with this matter to suit his own political purposes. He dealt with it, not in the interests of the militia, but in the interests of his political party-a party of course which would not think of exploiting such a thing as a regiment of dragoons or any other regiment for party purposes. That, Sir, was the position under which the matter came before this House, and we dealt with it in that light. We had some notable words -from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), words
that we could find no fault with. He said, as reported at page 4582 of ' Hansard ':
No political consideration should be allowed to interfere.
Well, Sir, there is nobody on this side of the House who will dispute that, for it coincides exactly with our own view ; and, if the hon. gentleman had only practised what he professed, there would have been no discussion upon this subject in Canada, there would have been no discussion upon it in the British House of Commons, nor should we have had all this turmoil and trouble over the question of the General Officer Commanding, who, probably, had it not been for the course pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite, would have been General Officer Commanding to-day and would have continued in that position for some years to come. What is the fact ? In the face of these good professions of the hon. gentleman that no political interference should be allowed to interfere, we find the true state of things explained at page 12 of the papers brought down by the government, in which the colonel of the regiment who speaks at peril of his commission,-so that, I think, we can accept every word of what he says as certainly not going beyond the truth-puts the facts in this form :
Mr. Fisher objected to him

That is, to the proposed major of the regiment.
-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 w7as withdrawn.
That, Sir, is the fact. That is the way the hon. Minister of Agriculture acts in the fact of his profession, put on ' Hansard ' that ' no political considerations should be allowed to interfere.' And yet we are charged with using for political puiposes this question that has been brought before the House and before the country in such a manner. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite what is to be the result of this sort of thing if it goes on. If we are to have militia ti'ained on political lines, where are these regiments and the officei's who command them to find themselves placed ? Will the colonel of the regiment sit at his mess table, and ai-range all the good grits on his right hand and on his left aiil the bad Tories ; or if the other party happens to be in power the Conservatives on the right and the Grits on the left ? And when the question arises of which soldier is to be raised from the ranks and made a coi'poral, is the first question to be considered what his politics may be ? Are they to consider whether he is a good party man or an indifferent party man ? Are they to consider, when they are making a man a sergeant, whether he has done his whole duty as a politician, or whether, perhaps, he has a cousin, or a nephew,

7163
or a brother, who happens to be on the opposite side ? Are these the considerations that are to be taken up whenever anything is to be done for the militia ? And yet, that would be the inevitable result of the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture, and the conduct of the Minister of Militia in submitting to this uncalled for and unconstitutional dictation. That most unfortunate conduct of ministers led to the speech made at the banquet at Montreal. Sir, I do not care whether that speech was an indiscretion or not. There have been many indiscreet things done that 'have resulted in good ; and, however, indiscreet Lord Dundonald may have been-and we need not enter into the discussion of that here-I trust and believe that the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter will result in great good to the militia of Canada, for the outcry against his interference on this occasion will put down, once for all, any desire of a minister, no matter to what party he may belong, to ever again interfere in such a manner with the appointments in the militia.
I do not care to pursue that subject further ; we discussed it pretty fully when it was before the House, and for my part I think it ought to have been left there. But was it left there ? After we had discussed the question in this House, was it ended ? And, if it did not end, who continued it ? Was it the Conservative party? I think not. Who was it made attacks, after the discussion in this House, upon Lord Dundonald ? Did not we find the whole Liberal press filled with the attacks on the General Officer, charging him with political intent, charging him with incompetency, and reflecting upon him in every possible manner ? Why, I think the Minister of Militia went so far as to question the English used by the Earl of Dundonald. There was nothing that they did not say. Was that exploiting the Dundonald incident ? Was that continuing the Dundonald question and using Lord Dundonald for political purposes ? I do not care whether they used it for attack upon their opponents or for their own defence, the men who pursued that policy used the Dundonald incident for political purposes. And hon. gentlemen opposite, and not the Conservatives, are the guilty parties. But there was more, Sir. Who furnished to the Liberal papers information that was contained only in private or suppressed reports ? Who conveyed to the Toronto ' Globe ' information on which to base charges that Lord Dundonald had made extravagant demands on this country ? Was that exploiting this incident on behalf of the Conservative party or was it exploiting it on behalf of hon. gentlemen opposite ? I think they were carrying on the warfare on political lines when they were acting in this way. Was not the attack upon Lord Dundonald in nearly every Liberal organ ? And, when Lord Dundonald was asked up Mr. BARKER.
to Toronto to address the people, was he to go there and be silent with regard to the [ matter on which he had been attacked ? Were hon. gentlemen to be given the opportunity to say that Lord Dundonald, by silence, admitted what was charged against him ? These hon. gentleman would have been delighted if only Lord Dundonald had held his tongue. They would have come out next morning and said : Lord Dundonald dared not deny the charges they made. And as to the people who asked him to speak is it to be supposed that the ladies and gentlemen of Toronto who went by the thousand to receive him, expected to listen to a lecture on cavalry tactics or to a reading of the latest edition of his work upon drill ? What did they go for ? Why, the question was red hot in the country, Lord Dundonald being the hero of it ; and these people went to hear what Lord Dundonald had to say in his own defence against the attacks that the Liberal papers were making upon him. That is what they went for, and there was not a man or woman in that hall in Toronto who would not have been disappointed if he had left unsaid the things he said-there is no question about that. It is absurd for hon. gentlemen opposite to say that Lord Dundonald took advantage of the position. Why, it would have been sheer nonsense to ask such a man to go from Ottawa to Toronto to address five or six thousand people In Massey Hall and yet say nothing on the only subject in which they were interested. And are we to suppose, do hon. gentlemen opposite suppose, that the people of Toronto are so unintelligent that they do not appreciate the proprieties? Do the gentlemen opposite suppose that the reception which the general met with on that occasion did not show clearly where the hearts of the people were on the subject ? Do they suppose that the acclamations with which he was received meant nothing ? Do they suppose that when the people of Toronto took the horses from his carrriage and dragged it to the station they did not endorse everything he did and said ? Does it mean nothing w-hen a man receives in Toronto, the chief city of Ontario, the grandest reception that any man ever received there? And yet hon. gentlemen say he is being exploited for political purposes. I can understand how he might have been exploited. I know that if only 400 or 500 people had gone to that meeting he would have been exploited for the Liberal party. The difficulty is that it was a grand success, that the people showed their sympathy with the man. The whole difficulty lies there :	it was not that
he went to the reception, it was the fact that he carried the people with him and that he made it plain that he has got the heart and sympathy of every man in Canada. I'do not care whether you speak of the incident as regards Quebec, as

regards Ontario, or as regards any other province. I believe that Lord Dundonald today could go into any county in Quebec or in any other province in this country and meet with as good a reception as he met with in Toronto. It is absolute nonsense to say that Lord Dondonald was seeking a political result.	I believe that there are
few men within sound of my voice who know what Lord Dunuonald's politics are. For my own part I do not know ; I never heard what they are, and I do not think any one here can give me that information. Lord Dundonad cares no more about the politics of Canada than he does about the politics of Australia or New Zealand. He is a British subject and soldier, who is here for one purpose, to do good for the militia of Canada. That is his sole purpose and whether Conservatives are in power or Liberals are in power is a matter of absolute indifference to him. Nobody can question that, and I venture to say that if a Conservative government had been in power and the Conservative minister had done what the present ministers did, Lord Dundonald would have acted in precisely j the way he did, Mr. Speaker, I should [ have liked to have heard the denunciations of hon. gentlemen opposite if in such an event they had been sittiug on this side of the House. It would be a treat to hear the First Minister get up and denounce as an outrage upon the people of this country that an officer sent here to command the militia should be treated in such a manner for political purposes. Had a Conservative minister of Agriculture taken advantage of his position to meddle in the organization of a militia regiment, and to prevent the giving of a commission to a political opponent to a reputable man simply because he happened to be a Liberal, what an outcry we would have had ! If the First /Minister could only come over here and make such a speech for us it would be worth reading a dozen times over. But it is the other way around, and hon. gentlemen opposite look upon it in another light. The Minister of Agriculture is allowed to interfere, to intrude upon a matter with which lie has nothing to do. and to do more mischief to the cause of the militia of Canada than he can do good in his agricultural department if he lives a century. I have served, in my time in all ranks in the militia from private up to commanding a company.
I can carry my mind a great many j years back and in all my time, until this intrusion of the Minister of Agriculture. I never heard of political interference in the militia. I know. Sir, that in the city of -which I have the honour to be one of the representatives, we have an old regiment, the 13th of Hamilton, which is a credit to the country. That regiment for years was j commanded under the Conservative government by a Liberal Colonel, a Liberal of the 1 Liberals, the present Attorney General of
Ontario, and I say to his credit that
I do not believe that in all the many years that he commanded the regiment there was ever a question on his part or on the part of any officer of his regiment
(as to whether an applicant for a commission was a Liberal or Conservative. The ..great difficulty in these cases is to get the men who can afford to take the positions, t can understand thoroughly the position of the people down in Sweetsburg. In Hamilton, where perhaps we have at our command more men of means than they have at Sweetsburg, the trouble is to get men who will assume the expense, and it is rather a favour to a regiment than otherwise for a young man to accept a commission. A new regiment has recently been formed, a Scottish regiment too, and I can only say that I hope and believe it will always have as excellent a reputation as the old 13th for freedom from party politics. I know too that in the battery of artillery that has been for many years a credit to the city of Hamilton, there wore under a Conservative government, four Liberals and only one Conservative officer and I have been assured by * gentlemen connected with that battery they never heard one word as to the political leaning of any man holding a commission in it. I think that what I know of Hamilton is the case in Toronto and throughout the province of Ontario, and I have yet to learn that there is any other condition in the province of Quebec. I believe that the same spirit has actuated the people of the province of Quebec and that it has remained for the Minister of Agriculture to endeavour to start a new order of things and to intrude politics into the militia to affect, perhaps, the chances of the return of some particular man to the local legislature or to the House of Commons.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: I would not interpose to prolong the discussion of this matter, which to my mind is a most unfortunate affair, both in the interests of Canada itself and in its relations to the British empire, but for the fact that there is involved in this discussion a principle which is of the utmost importance not only to Canadians but to British subjects throughout the world. It involves to my mind a principle which is being unwarrantably violated by the government of the day. The principle to which I refer is this : Shall a British subject in any part of the British domain be denied that privilege which we all claim to enjoy-the right of free thought and free speech ? I do not believe that in Canada such a sentiment as that, the denial of free thought, and free speech will be tolerated by the people. I do not believe it would be tolerated in any other part of the British empire and it is because this principle is involved that I take this occasion to offer a few remarks upon the question of the dismissal of Lord Dun-



donald and the action of the government in connection therewith. Prior to the speech made by Lord Dundonald in Toronto I concede that the matter was fairly treated and might be fairly treated as a matter of etiquette as between himself and the government under whom he was serving, but once the government had satisfied itself by wrecking its vengeance on Lord Dundonald by the summary dismissal of that gentleman from its service he ceased to be under the control of this government and as a free born British subject he was entitled to speak as he did speak in the city of Toronto. He was, as my hon. friend says, after his dismissal by the government an elector of the Dominion of Canada entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to a British subject in this country.
I want just for a moment to contrast the action of the government in its dealings with Lord Dundonald with its action in its dealings with another and as celebrated an individual but one who is not celebrated upon the same lines. The offence charged against Lord Dundonald was an act of indiscretion. It was charged that he was guilty of a breach of etiquette as between himself and the government and without calling upon Lord Dundonald to justify himself or make his defence before this government or before the country he was summarily dismissed as every hon. gentleman in this House knows and as the country knows full well. He was not offered the privilege of any ordinary British subject, not possessing the merit that Lord Dundonald has won. of making his defence. He was not accorded the privilege which is offered to the ordinary criminal of the land of making amends for his first offence by trying to do better. He was not offered the opportunity of retracting what he had said and endeavouring by his conduct in the future to satisfy the government of the day and to satisfy its requirements in regard to his position. He was a man as full of honours as he was full of years. A young man though he may be, I venture to say that the honours which have been heaped upon him as a result of the service which he has rendered to his country very much predominate, override and overshadow anything that lias occurred during the few years he has spent here. I venture to say right here that the name of Lord Dundonald, although he may have been discredited by this government, will be held in honour and in reverence by the people of Canada and of the British empire when this government has gone down in disgrace. But, Sir, let me refer to the analogy that I spoke of a moment ago. We have in the service of the government today another man who has a history in Canada. He is not the hero of Ladysmith. He is not the man who had the courage to lead our Canadian boys to victory in South Africa. He is not the man who had the courage to take his life in his hand td de-Mr. PORTER.
fend the British empire. He is the man who went throughout the length and breadth of Canada to do dirty nefarious, political election tricks and was afterwards appointed to' the position that he now occupies in Great Britain. T refer to Mr. W. T. R. Preston. There is this difference between the two gentlemen that I speak of : One, Lord Dundonald, full of honour ; the other, W. T. R. Preston, practically driven from Canada by dishonour. How does the government treat these two men ? The man who would command the respect of this government, who would command the respect of the people of this country is cast out and discredited. Mr. W. T. R. Preston is given a position of emolument, a position of profit, an important position under this government and not only that, but, Sir, he is guilty of the very same offence, if it may be considered an offence, that Lord Dundonald has been charged with by this government. During the discussion of this very matter and since Lord Dundonald's case has come before the government, Mr. W. T. R. Preston has taken occasion to write a letter to the public press. What for ? For the purpose of defending Lord Dundonald ?-no, For the purpose of defending the British people ?-no. For the purpose of the business for which he is employed ?-no ; but, for the purpose of defending this government that he felt was in need of defence. When he was guilty of that indiscretion what did this government do ? Did it say to Mr. Preston as it said to Lord Dundonald : You have been guilty of a grave indiscretion and off comes your head without a defence ?-no, no ; not at all. When it found out that he had been guilty of an act of indiscretion and when the matter was pressed home to this government very strongly, so strongly that it felt it must do something, what did it do ? The government wrote home and told him that he must not do it again, that it would give him another chance. I am reminded of the fact that his salary is to be increased this year. Perhaps this is the reward for his activity in serving the government in this way. This is only one instance of the way in which this government has treated Lord Dundonald in comparison with the way in which it has treated gentlemen in its employ who are favourable to it. I do not mean to have the House infer from this that Lord Dundonald is unfavourable to the government. I do not believe that Lord Dundonald is unfavourable to the government. I believe that Lord Dundonald by every expression he has given utterance to since this matter has come before the people and by his acts during the time he was employed in the administration of military affairs in this country, has shown that he is not unfavourable to this government, that he is not unfavourable to this opposition, but that he is favourable to

the whole people of Canada and that he is true to the British empire. So, I think it is paltry, it is low, it is mean for any one to charge Lord Dundonald with being unfavourable to either one political party or the other. High as our political standard may be, Lord Dundonald looks to a still higher standard ; his object is that of a true patriot. I wish to call attention to another matter, and I make reference to it particularly because it occurred in the riding I have the honour to represent, and it illustrates as forcibly as can be illustrated, the honesty and the integrity of Lord Dundonald and the high purpose of the man. It proves that he was not actuated or influenced by political, or any but the highest motives. Lord Dundonald spoke of this matter in his speech at Toronto, and the facts are these. Shortly after Lord Dundonald took office in this country, Lieutenant-Colonel Ponton, of Belleville, a gentleman who occupies in the riding I represent, and in the entire district in which he lives, a reputation that might be the envy of any man. Colonel Ponton comes from military stock ; his great grandfather, his grandfather, and his father had the privilege of occupying the positions of colonels or lieutenant-colonels in the British army. He is a military man from start to finish. He commenced his service in the Queen's Own, passed to the 15th Argyle Light Infantry of Hastings and ultimately became commander of that regiment. After a long and honourable service in the militia, lie was retired retaining rank. After his retirement from the service, at a citizen's banquet which was in no way concerned with military affairs, Colonel Ponton was asked to respond to the toast of the army and navy, on account of his long service in our active militia. He took occasion to point out some of the weaknesses of the present administration, in conducting militia affairs. I have Colonel Ponton's own word for it, that within three days after he made the speech, he had a letter from the department here demanding to know whether he had used these expressions or not. Colonel Ponton is a man of the stamp of Lord Dundonald, and his answer to the .department was: I did give expression to these opinions, I am a retired officer, I was exercising my right as a British subject, and I refuse to withdraw a single word I uttered. What was the result ? It has only come to Ilnght since the Dundonald matter has been under discussion. As an appendix to that letter, he said to the minister : Having answered your question I demand to know who has made this charge against me, and in what way I have violated my duty ? That letter was handed over to Lord Dundonald with the request from the department, that he should recommend the dismissal of Colonel Ponton, but what did Lord Dundonald do ? He refused to allow political exigencies to 228j
interfere with the proper administration of the militia of Canada, and as Lord Dundonald told us in Toronto, he ordered the correspondance to be pigeon-holed, and Colonel Ponton still occupies his position as a retired colonel of the 15th Argyle Light Infantry and this government did not have the courtesy or courage to answer iCol. Ponton's demand. But this is not all. During the time that controversy was going on between the government and Lord Dundonald, there was a correspondence between Lord Dundonald and a most honourable gentleman who at one time occupied the most prominent position in Canada, and who is to-day honorary colonel of the Argyle Light Infantry, and the action of Colonel Ponton upon that occasion was justified by that gentleman, and Lord Dundonald's action also upheld. And Sir, I have not the slightest fear that when the investigation that is mooted-I was going to say ordered-when the investigation comes that will probably take place in regard to Lord Dundonald's action in this country ; when the evidence comes to be sifted in the old country after his return, I have no doubt whatever that Lord Dundonald will be able to answer satisfactorily the charges made against him, and to confute those who are opposed to him. I have every confidence that Lord Dundonald will be able to acquit himself honourably at home as he has already honourably acquitted himself in Canada. And, what is the charge made against Lord Dundonald ? They say he has been guilty of an act of indiscretion, but the real fact is that the charge against him amounts to an indictment that Lord Dundonald told the truth, a thing which is entirely antagonistic to the principle of this government. Lord Dundonald endeavoured to the best of Ms ability, in the report which he signed and presented to the government, to bring before the people and parliament of Canada the things that were necessary to put our militia force on a proper footing. After he had exhausted, as he says himself, every reasonable means of gaining redress, he was driven, on account of the political interference with the establishment of the 13th Scottish Dragoons, to give public expression to his utterances at the Montreal banquet. There was no other alternative left, and we can but praise the man who had the courage to sacrifice his own chances of advancement for the purpose, not of helping the government or the opposition, but for the purpose of benefiting the whole Dominion of Canada. Reference has been made to publications in the press of Great Britain, dealing with this Dundonald incident. I have had placed in my hands to-night the latest reports in regard to that matter, and as the search light is turned on, and the British people begin to understand the true inwardness of the affair, public opinion becomes more and more in accord with Lord Dundonald. Let me read to the House a state-

ment In a cablegram published in the Montreal ' Star ' to-night :
Winston Churchill although attacking Lord Dundonald admitted that the allegations he made were probably only too true.
Mr. Arnold Poster, Secretary of War, said he pronounced no opinion upon the merit or demerit of Lord Dundonald's action, before Lord Dundonald had been heard in his own defence.
The British government would not, condemn a man before he was heard, but I am sorry to say this Canadian government has been guilty of that offence.
The ' Morning Post ' says :
His offence was a splendid indiscretion in a case in which position and reputation were risked to serve the public interest.
To my mind that fairly expresses the sentiment of the people of Canada, Lord Dundonald has made a sacrifice for the people of Canada, and I doubt not that when the time comes

and it "cannot come too soon-the people of Canada will show at the polls that they uphold Lord Dundonald, and that they uphold the Conservative party who uphold him, by defeating the government which has without just cause or excuse inflicted this great and unjust punishment upon this patriotic soldier of the empire.



Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: 
An hon. MEMBER.: Stole your thunder.
781 80


George Taylor: The farmers of this country know that it was through my action that that law was placed on the statute-book of this country, in spite of the opposition of the present Minister of Agriculture, who spoke and voted against it.
Now, I want for a few minutes to show how this practical farmer and business man is conducting the Department of Agriculture. It is no wonder that this immense surplus of $57,000,000 has been accumulating owing to the good times since this government has been in power, through no action of theirs. They cannot point to any expenditure of public money which has been made for the general advantage of Canada, or to any great public work which they have accomplished with this $57,000,000. It has all been "squandered, and the Minister of Agriculture has helped to squander it. In the year 1895-96 the Conservative government conducted the experimental farm in the same way in which the present Minister of Agriculture is conducting it, and yet the expenditure, as shown by the Auditor General's Report for that year, at page B-7, was $34,205.87, to which should be added goods supplied by the Department of Public Works, as shown on page Q-70, amounting to $5,999.44, making a total of $40,205.31. Less the revenue $3,784, showing a loss to the country in that year of $36,420.57. That was under the Conservative administration. How is it now under my hon. friend's administration ? 3892-3 (see Auditor General's Report D-36) expenditure $59,287.60 and V-94 of same report $9,996.92. making a total of $69,284.52. Against this there is the revenue from sales of steers $4,082 and of other articles $2,947, making a total of
Seed testing and green
house	
775	50	1,089 19Preparing exhibits	
212 60	388 81Arboretum	
341	88	1,730 24Distribution of bulletins ..	525 50	75	00Fencing lumber	
175 63	Contingencies	
38	75	Apiary	
32	00Road making	
12	81Experimental department	
2,655	07Drawing gravel	
104	00$19,173 25	$44,478 28
19,173 25
Increase	$25,305 03
This shows an increase in every department and an increase in the cost of salaries alone of $3,000 under the hon. gentleman's administration as compared with the late administration. Why ? Because the hon. gentleman has picked up a lot of supporters and stuffed them everywhere he could and they are drawing salaries and doing very little work. That is a sample of the way In which the $57,000,000 of the people's money have been wasted. A lot of it has gone in the employment of useless officials who are drawing large salaries and spending heavy sums running around the country to no good purpose. And not one supporter of this government can point to any great work such as the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway to account for this immense expenditure. Nor can he point to anything in return but the most trifling reductions in our public debt.
Take the decennial census and compare what it cost under this government with what the late government did it I for. The Conservative government had a


Right Hon.   S@: 462 62	249 05	213 57Rustieoville n .	171 16	51 08	120 08V ernon Kivern ..	722 07	329 93	392 74Amherst, N.S	1,352 04	591 71	760 33Mabou H 	615 00	228 55	387 41Andovtr,	1,106 51	285 39	821 12Rogersville	324 64	54 90	269 74Bondville, Cue	2,22!) 12	495 15	1,733 97Chicoutimi n . .	7c4 55	104 25	630 30Bowmanvilie, Out.	2,191 18	327 84	1,863 34Holme8ville u	2,793 79	564 57	2,229 :2Renfrew n	324 42	151 64	172 78Calgary, JN. W. T..	191 10	76 80	114 24Total	14,929 49	4,327 85	10,601 64
And when I brought up the matter last year, the minister said that the reason why the expenditure so greatly exceeded the receipts at all these stations was that the cost of labour was so great and that these experiments were carried on for the benefit of the. public, in order to show the farmers how to make money out of fattening chickens. Well, Sir, I have gone through the expenditures of these several stations and have made out a table showing the receipts, and against these the expenses for purchase of chickens and for feed, leaving out altogether the expense for labour, and still I find that there is a loss in every case


CHICKEN FATTENING STATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Ta>le showing receipts compared with expenses for purchase of chickens and cost of feed-cost of labour omitted.
Station.	Cost, of Peed, &e.	Receipts	Loss.$	§	8A) her ton, P. E. T . ..	281 45	206 47	74 93Eldon u ...	4l.l 2f>	267 77	18 L
Gletifinnan ..: 527 77	372 69	155 08Mount Stewart, P. E. I.	362 62	249 05	113 57Rusticoville, P. E. 1 .. .	126 16	51 0.s	75 08


Vernon River .. . .: 3(50 67	329 93	86 74Amherst, N.S	923 48	591 71	331 77M aboil <[DOT] 	379 94	228 55	151 39Andover, X.B,	512 96	285 39	227 57Rogersvilie, N.B	160 35	54 90	105 45Bondville, Que	892 94	495 15	397 79Chicoutimi, Que 	201 99	104 25	97 74Bowmanville, Out. .. .	580 53	327 84	258 09Holmesville n ....	1,020 42	504 57	455 85Renfrew u 	163 87	151 04	12 23Calgar y, N. W. T ....	95 10	7 6 86	18 242,093 00
And I have worked out the expenses for two places-Holmesville and Bondville, Que. For Holmesville I have the statement in detail showing exactly what was paid for the purchase of chickens and for various articles of feed, &c. :
Holmesville Poultry Station, details of expense, purchase of chickens and feed, &c., for
same.
To 10 B. P. Rock Cockerels	$ 10 00
coal oil	 13 40
300 lbs. blood meal	 9 00
100 lbs. mica grit 75 cents, 100 lbs.
digested wheat 85 cents	 1 60
Flour $2.15, tallow $13.36, 1,700 lbs.
milk at 25 cents	 19 76
4,802 lbs. chickens *. .. * [DOT] 1. . [DOT] * [DOT] 336 20 7,800 lbs. oat chop $95.44, 165 lbs.
bran $1.65	
96	09Wheat $8.34, coal oil, 17 gall., $3.57.	11	91
Corn meal $15.10, oats, 2,931 lbs.,
$27.12	
42	22Plucking chickens	
28	4061 bushels barley	
21	96
Mashing grain $5.93, buckwheat, 5,032
lbs. at 1 cent	
56	23Blood meal $2, 1,200 lbs. milk $3.00.	5	00139| bushels buckwheat	
64	983,222 lbs. barley	
24	16
2,658 lbs. oats, oats and barley
bushels	
36	861,329 lbs. mixed grain	
11	9688S bushels, mixed grain	
27	00212 lbs. barley, 125 bushel roots ..	14	4529 1-6 bushel wheat	
22	306,640 lbs. milk	
13	25Express, freight and cold storage..	61	22Total	$927 95Receipts	
$64 67Loss	-	$363 18
Here we have a loss of $303. And yet the hon. gentleman is spending the money of the people of this country for gentlemen to go about telling the farmers that money is to be made by fattening chickens under his process, while the figures I have giveu show that actually more is spent for the chickens and the feed than he gets for the chickens when he sells them. And he explains that this is all an experiment for the benefit of the farmers. It is really to find employment for some of his supporters in different parts of the country. He certainly ought to have a revenue sufficient to pay the cost of the chickens and their feed. * With the facts before them he will find it rather hard to convince the farmers of this country that there is money in the business as he would have them conduct it.
I could point to half a dozen other fads the hon. gentleman has engaged in, every one of them wasteful of the people's money. But, at this late date in the session, I shall not deal with these further than to say that everything the hon. gentleman touches, he makes a miserable failure of. Why, he thrust a meddling finger into the affairs of the Militia Department, and see the mess he has made of it.
The hon. gentleman has had printed and sent broadcast through the country not only the report of his department, but also the report of the Experimental Farm. I have here the report of the Experimental Farms for last year. At page 429 of that report, the hon. gentleman gives a statement of the expenditures of the Dominion Experimental Farms for the year ending June 30, 1903. He shows a total of $44,104.36 as having been expended on the Canadian Experimental Farm here. Then he credits the proceeds of sales and brings out a balance, showing, according to his figuring, that the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa costs the people of this country $40,622.50. Now, if that statement were correct, we could find no fault with it. But, as a matter of fact the statement is misleading. There is no farmer in the country or business man in the country who can learn from that statement the real expense of running this Central Experimental Farm. In the same way he gives the cost of the experimental farm at Nappan, of the farm at Brandon, of the farm at East Indian Head and of the farm at Agassiz.
These expenditures make a total of $84.126.18. This, according to this report, is the total expenditure upon the experimental farms of this country. Now, we had this question up here before, and when the hon. gentleman asked supplies for the expenses of these farms, I stated then, as I state now, that these figures are not correct. Instead of $84,000 these farms cost over $103,000. Why, the hon. gentleman has not charged the experimental farm with any coal to keep the fires going nor with anything for lights. What farmer can run his business without taking into

Special vote for printing and distribution o>f bulletins	 7,000.00

(See Minister's Report, page 432.)
Less revenue from sales, as shown in Auditor General's Report-
Cen. Farm, Ottawa, D-130.. $2,974.00
Nappan	D-129..	834.55Indian Head	D-129..	702.12Brandon	D-129..	591.23Agassiz	D-128..	410.84
5,512.74
Central Experimental Farm. .$44,104.36
Less sales	of	steers	 4,082.00

Experimental Farm, Nappan, N.S	' .. ..$13,329.95
Less sales	of	steers	 1,830.00

 11,499.95
Experimental Farm, Brandon	$12,273.20
Less sale of steers. ...$566.05 Grain supply, Ottawa.. 125.48

	691.53

 11,581.67
Experimental Farm, Indian
Head	$12,190.51
Less sale of steers_______$909.30
Grain supply, Ottawa.. 712.64

 1,621.94

 10,568.57
Experimental Farm, Agassiz, B.C	 10,455.63
Total	$84,128.18
That according to the report of the Auditor General ' the expenditure on the Dominion Experimental Farms for the year ending June 30th, 1903,' was as follows :-


George Taylor: Total expenditure above receipts.$103,273.84 Whereas the minister's report says. 84,128.18
*	$ 19,145.66
That this House affirms its belief in the correctness in the report of the Auditor General, and regrets that the Minister of Agriculture has omitted to set forth in his report a true and accurate statement of the expenditure upon the Dominion Experimental Farms.
That the difference between the expenditure as shown in the report of the Minister of Agriculture and the expenditure as shown in the report of the Auditor General amounts to no less than $19,145.66.
That this House regrets that the Minister of Agriculture has placed in his report a statement which must necessarily mislead those who do not fully investigate the matter.
H.011. (SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture). The bon. gentleman has brought this question up to-night as a motion of want of confidence in the government on going into supply. I had supposed from what tihe hon .gentleman had said on a former occasion that he was going to discuss this question in Committee of Supply when the details could be discussed across the floor of the House. I shall not go into the details of the resolution which the hon.
7181	JULY 20, 1904	7182
i
gentleman has submitted to the House to | any extent to-niglit. It seems to me that a discussion and investigation of that kind j would be more appropriate in the Public Accounts Committee, than on the floor of parliament, with you, Mr. Speaker, in the chair. It is quite impossible for this House to follow a long detailed statement of figures of this kind, to investigate them and to go into them in a way that would be intelligible and which would elicit the exact facts and the full truth. The hon. gentleman on a former occasion, however, did make certain reflections based on a comparison of the statements in the Auditor General's Report and in the report of the experimental farms in reference to rhe expenditure of the various farms. I diall place before the House a few figures to show the hon. gentleman that while he appears to have found a discrepancy there is in fact absolutely no discrepancy at all. I have here a statement of the figures from the Auditor General's Report and also a statement from the farm report, from which the situation can be readily understood.


EXPLANATION OP TOTAL.
[Stage Direction]
Central Farm expenditure for 1902-1903.
Auditors'. Farm.
Total expenditure	$55,205.60 $40,022.36
Add to Auditor's figures.
Expert services in London, England, determining value of 8 samples of Canadian wheat.. ..	25.54
This item was not included in Auiito r's
statement	 55,231.14
Deduct from Auditor's figures-
17i p.c. salaries at Ottawa, charged to each branch
farm	$4,182.47
17J p.c. botanical and entomological div'isioh c h a Ctg e d to, branch farm.. .. 2,345.00 17i p.c. chemical division charged to each branch
farm	 3,296.76
Seed 'grain distri b u -tion .. ..$5,871.82 Less value of grain from branch farms. ..	838.12
			5,033.70
Value	0 f	live	
stock	transferred		
from	Ottawa to
Agassiz ..: 350.00
Freight	on	trees	sent	from	Ot-	tawa pan..	to	Nap-	1.20
15,209.13
Deduct from farm figures-
Freight on exhibition supplies to Nappan charged in error to Ottawa, in farm account	 0.35

In other words the accounts are exactly identical except that the proportion of the salaries, which, in the Auditor General's Report, are charged to the central farm, have been in the farm report charged to the different farms and appear in the accounts of these farms on the succeeding pages. The whole thing comes out identically and exactly the same. Therefore, this accusation that the statements appearing in the farm report are inaccurate and misleading and not in accordance with the Auditor General's Report is unfounded because they are exactly and absolutely in accordance with the Auditor General's Report except for the difference in the division of salaries and expenses incurred by the different divisions of the experimental farms.


George Taylor: I would like to ask the hon. minister if in his report at the end he puts in the accounts charged by the Department of Public Works to the experimental farm.


Mr. FISHER.: No, I do not because these appear in a different department and apply to a different class of works altogether. The Public Works Department work at the experimental farms has nothing to do with the management of these farms. The report of the Public Works Department explains that. The report of the farms does not contain the work of the Public Works Department, but it does contain the work of the experimental farms and of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the farms.


George Taylor: Does the Public Works Department supply coal and wood to the farms ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It does.


George Taylor: Does my hon. friend charge that up to the expenditure ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, coal and wood are charged to public buildings on the farms as elsewhere. That has been done ever since the establishment of the farm and it was the same under the regime which the hon. gentleman supported before 1890 as it is to-day. Exactly the same system was adopted and exactly the same charges were made in 1896 as to-day. The results are identically the same. The explanation of the difference which the hon. gentleman attempted to show which at the time I gave in general terms, I have now given in exact detail, and it fully sustains

what I said then. The hon. gentleman went on to talk about a number of other things connected with my department. I shall not go into the details as I said a few minutes ago. I am going to deal with the question on broad principles only. The hon. gentleman went on to speak about the census. I am surprised after what occurred last session in this House that the hon. gentleman or any of his friends should bring up that question. There was a motion introduced during the last session of this House upon which that question was thoroughly discussed, a motion which hon. gentlemen opposite moved on going into supply of censure upon this government, and especially upon the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the compiling of the census. I then showed very clearly what the result of that census was and the House was so satisfied with what I showed that it voted down by one of the largest majorities that a Liberal government ever had In this House, the motion of hon. gentlemen opposite. I freely admit that it did cost a great deal more than the censuses which hon. gentlemen opposite took in 1891 and 1881, but, Sir, I also showed and I was able to prove to a demonstration that the census of 1901 was an accurate census, was a census which gave full information in regard to the statistics of this country, whereas the census of 1891 was a census which was not only full of inaccuracies, but was full of deception and deceit and which went before the people of the country and showed falsehood and deceit on almost every line and page. I venture to say that it is far better for the people and far more to the credit of the government to be able to show true and accurate statistics of this country than to show inaccurate and false statistics even if the true statistics do require a little more money to get. It is easy enough to compile a census in the way in which the census of 1891 was compiled. It is easy enough to bring down schedule after schedule and inaccurately and carelessly compile them, but it is a different thing altogether to take these schedules and go over them and check them and go over them again and see that they are accurate. I need not go into that question as I did last year. I need not point out that in the whole of the province of Quebec while the census of the land area was taken in arpents and the census of the crops was taken in minots when the schedules came to be compiled in Ottawa the minots were written as bushels and the arpents were written as acres with the result that the whole province of Quebec made a poorer showing in its production than any other part of the Dominion. This is only one of the hundreds of specimens of the way in which the census of 1891 Mr. FISHER.
was compiled. It is easy enough to make compilations of that kind but if the census had been properly and accurately compiled I venture to say that it would have cost more than the census of 1901. I do not for a moment shrink from taking credit for the fact that upon the census of 1901 we have spent enough money to make it an accurate and true census of the statistics of Canada, not such a census as the census of 1891 was, and which has gone abroad to the country and to the world as misrepresenting the people of Canada, misrepresenting their numbers, misrepresenting their industries, misrepresenting their productions in a way that is a shame and a disgrace to the people who compiled that census and who are responsible for its taking.
The hon. gentleman has gone on to speak in regard to some other branches of my department. He spoke about the cheese curing rooms. He said that I have inaugurated some experiments in regard to improvements in cheese curing. That is quite true. I glory in the fact. I am willing to take all the credit or all the disgrace connected with that fact. It is true that a few years ago the quality of our cheese was being criticised on the English market because of the condition in which it arrived in Great Britain. It is true that a certain unevenness of quality was remarked and that we investigated the reasons so as to ascertain whether it was due to the fact that our cheese was not cured at the proper temperature to make it as good as it could be made. We had discussed this question with the cheese-makers in the country. Prof. Robertson, myself and other officers of the department had gone to the great dairy conventions of the country and had discussed the question as to what ought to be done to remedy this evil. We found, as a matter of fact, that the evil was largely if not altogether due to the uneven temperature of the cheese-curing rooms. Then, the question arose :	How
could it be demonstrated that our cheese should be cured in an even temperature ? We discussed it wfth experts. The result was that w'e established large central curing rooms. There was no use in carrying on experiments of this kind on a small scale by which a few cheese might be cured here and there. It was necessary to cure enough to show that this method was the proper one to remedy the defect which then existed. WTe did that. These central curing rooms cost a good deal of money. The hon. gentleman has given a lot of figures which I cannot dispute. I have not the figures under my hand necessary to do so. I will have to take the hon. gentleman's figures as being correct which is rather a large supposition when the hon. gentleman refers to figures in this House.

The hon. gentleman must know, if lie lias studied the question, that the result of the cool curing has been an absolute success ; that the cheese so cured brings a higher price and that the people who handle that cheese in the English market, our only market for the export of cheese, prefer it and pay a higher price for it than for the ordinary cheese. I shall not go into any lengthy details, but I will point out, that during the present session the cool-cured cheese sold in the markets of St. Hyacinthe, Cowansville, Brockville and Woodstock. On June 9th, in Brockville the board price of cheese was eight cents, but every cheese that came out of the government cool-curing rqom sold for from 8 3-16ths -to 84 cents. On June lOth, the ruling price was 8 cents, and the price of the cool-cured cheese was 8 3-16, 81 and 84 cents. On June 23rd at Brockville, the cool-cured cheese commanded 7f and 7 11-lGths cents as against 7} cents for the ordinary cheese. This shows that buyers appreciate the superiority of the cool-cured cheese and are willing to pay more for it. On June 27th, the board price was eight cents, and again the cool-cured cheese sold for 84, 81 and 8 3-1G cents. There is another remarkable illustration of this. There was a factory near Brockville which had not access to the cool-curing room because it had already all the work it could do. That factory went to the manager and said :	If you allow us to bring
our cheese to the cool-curing room we will not only pay you as usual, but we will treat our cheese ourselves and pay all the expenses of it, because a buyer in Montreal has offered to pay us 1 cent more for our cheese right straight through the season if we can get it cured in the cool-curing room. One of the largest buyers in Montreal considered that cheese cooled in this way at the government station was worth one quarter cent per pound more than the cheese cured in the ordinary factory. I think I have said enough to show that the statement of the hon. gentleman in regard to. the cool-curing rooms is absolutely without foundation. I have shown that the men who are engaged in the business, the buyers in Montreal and in England and that sellers in Canada, appreciate and understand the value this process has been to them, and are prepared to endorse the policy of the government. I may say that during last winter I have had application after application for the establishment of cool-curing rooms all over Ontario, and if the people engaged in the industry were not satisfied with it. they would not have made this application. The statement which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has made is absolutely without foundation and it only shows his ignorance of the cheese industry in this country.
And now as to the poultry industry. I may point out that before these fattening
stations were established it was practically impossible in Canada to get fattened poultry for the table. We were exporting no fattened poultry to Europe, but immediately after the establishment of the fattening stations our poultry exports to Great Britain increased from 818,000 the year before, to over $230,000 the year after. Since that time our exports to England have dropped off, and the reason is that the Canadian market has awakened to the fact that good fattened poultry can be bought in Canada and to-day, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto. Halifax, Sydney, Hamilton, Guelph and the other cities within reach of these poultry fattening stations absorb the whole output so that they cannot export one pound of poultry, and the supply in fact is not equal to the local demand. The hon. gentleman says that these poultry stations have been expensive. They have been to a certain extent expensive, but it must be remembered that experimental and educational work has been going on at them. It is idle to suppose that an experimental and teaching station would meet the expenses by its output alone.


George Taylor: The chickens should pay for themselves and their feed.
Mr. FISHER I will not pretend that an experimental station in this or any other country will pay its own way in revenue from its sales. If the hon. gentleman wishes to take issue with me on that, I am ready to go before any audience in this country and fight the point out with him.


George Taylor: I invite the hon. gentleman to a mass meeting in my constituency and we will discuss it


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Very well, I will go there.


George Taylor: Name a day.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will name a day when the elections come, and I will meet the hon. gentleman. I know the hon. gentleman thinks he has a Tory hive in Leeds, but I am not afraid in the least to face the hon. gentleman, or any other of his gang, and to meet them on the platform, because I believe that the farmers of Leeds in general are intelligent men. That is rather a difficult thing for one to believe in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has been representing them for so many years. But I still have faith in human nature, and I am led to the conclusion that the constituents of Leeds have not been told the whole truth about public affairs or the hon. gentleman would not represent them in this House. I state emphatically that experimental work is a good investment in the interest of the farmers and agriculturists of this country, even though it should cost more than it gives in money return. I believe that by reason of the experimental work which is being carried on by the gov-

ernment of Canada-a good deal of it carried on before I came into office, more of it carried on since I came into office-as a result of that experimental work to-day the farmers of Canada have at their command a mass of information which is of the utmost utility to them ; a mass of information which is better and more complete than the information which the farmers of any other country on the face of the earth have to aid them in their business.
That is not a boast which is undue or unfounded. It is a boast which I make because of the statements of the people in foreign countries who are coming to Canada for information, for models, for examples as to how best to carry on the work of agriculture. In view of that fact, I venture to say that the trivial criticisms of hon. gentlemen opposite will fall to the ground, and farmers of Canada will support the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in its efforts on their behalf.
Before I leave this poultry business, I would like to read a few statements of men who, having learned of what could he done i'n the way of fattening poultry, have entered into the business on their own behalf, and have made it pay.
S. Cox, Auburn Ont., January 27, 1904 : The few chickens I fed I had very good success with and think It is the ideal way to fatten chickens. I received 10 cents per pound, plucked, not drawn, and could have sold ten times as many at the same price. I think the price for chickens not crate-fattened was from 6 cents to 7 cents per pound.
Arsgne Tremblay, Chicoutimi, P.Q. : Profiting by the example of the illustration station at Chicoutimi, I fattened my poultry and obtained a imuch better result. The chickens sold for 95 cents a pair, that is to say, nearly 12 cents per pound, something to which we have sot been accustomed. Until the last year we have sold our poultry for 40 cents to 50 cents per pair. I have only congratulations to make on the system taught 'by the Department of Agriculture. The happy result I obtained this year encourages me to increase my flock of poultry next year.
William Soules, Bondville, Que., bought several hundred chickens at 7 cents per pound, live weight, fattened them and sold them in Montreal at 12i cents per pound, plucked weight. After deducting the price of feed and skim-milk from the price realized for the chickens, he slated he' had made a profit of $20 per 100 chickens fatted,


James.  W. C.@: Moore, Eldon, P.E.I., February, 1904 :	Experience in chicken fattening has
proved to me what can be done in making the business a profitable investment. Before the fattening stations were established chickens were sent to market in a poor condition and could not realize more than 5 cents per pound. Now farmers can realize 10 cents per pound.
D. Marchbank, Montrose, P.E.I., January 25, 1904 :	My opinion is that most of our farmers
make a great mistake in not taking more interest in the poultry 'business. I find it pays me for I ship my fowl to J. A. Leaman & Company, Halifax, and received 10 cents per pound for Mr. FISHER.
them last year. I received an order from them in February, stating that if I had any more of the same stock on hand they would pay 13 cents per pound, so I consider this much better than selling them in Alberton for 5 cents and 6 cents per pound.


James.  W. C.@: Moore, Eldon, P.E.I., February 1, 1904: Experience in chicken fattening has proved to me what can be done in making the poultry business a profitable investment. Before the fattening stations were established chickens were sent to market in a poor condition and could not realize more than 5 cents per pound. Now farmers are taking more interest in poultry and can realize 10 cents per pound.
If, by the expenditure of a few thousand dollars a year, such Information can be given to our farmers as to enable them to sell t'heir chickens at 10, 12 or 13 cents a pound, where they were formerly selling them for 5 cents a pound, I venture to say that tlie $4,000 or the $5,000 of expenditure is an absolutely good investment for the people of Canada. My hon. friend denounced me and the government pretty thoroughly for our extravagance and our increases of expenditure. I am willing to accept the full responsibility of the Increased expenditure on the experimental farms and the other branches of the Department of Agriculture. Whenever I can see any way of profitably expending money so that money can be put into the pockets of the farmer of Canada, I am going to come to this House and ask for that money ; and I am glad to say. and I am proud of the fact that my colleagues and the majority of the House have abundantly supported me in that policy. I am proud of the confidence of the House in this respect, and I can assure the House and hon. gentlemen opposite that I Will do my best to deserve that confidence in t'he future by studying how money can be profitably spent for the benefit of agriculture in Canada ; because in this young country, which is developing vast areas of agricultural land, a great live stock industry, including poultry. and various manufacturing industries which are closely allied with the agricultural interests, I venture to say that our prosperity largely depends on the success of our agriculturists. If to-day Canada is prosperous, if our trade and commerce is advancing by leaps and bounds, it is largely due to the 'fact that our farmers are increasing their products enormously from year to year, and are receiving extra prices for Them. The result is that they have a large amount of money to expend on manufactured products, and they help the transportation interest by supplying the articles to be ca,fried, and by consuming articles which have to be carried to them. Therefore. I believe that the expenditure of money on behalf of agriculture, if done wisely and well, is abundantly justified. When the hon. gentleman a little while ago was talking iu n loud voice, somebody said his thunder had been stolen. No, Mr. Speaker, it was not

the thunder that had been stolen. The thunder was all there ; the noise was ail : there ; but there was no lightening for the 1 lion, gentleman for it strikes nowhere and ! accomplishes no harm to those against whom he is speaking.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX.: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman who has just sat down had adopted throughout the whole of his speech the responsible attitude which he assumed in the last four or five sentences of it, perhaps we would not have so (much reason to complain ; but unfortunately it was only during the last four or five sentences that the hon. gentleman recollected that he was the representative of an 'intelligent and peaceful class of the community, the farmers of Canada. Before that he assumed an attitude which he has been fond of assuming lately, which I venture to say does not very well become him, that is, a belligerent attitude, in which he attempts to intimidate hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. So long as the hon. gentleman assumes the gentle, ladylike attitude which becomes him so well, we have no great reason to complain. The people of the country recognize that in having the hon. .gentleman as a representative of the farming class, they have not exactly a horny-handed son of toil. Still, they are prepared to believe that he is a respectable citizen of Canada, endeavouring, according to the light he possesses, which is not saying very much, to promote the interests of the farmers of Canada.	. ,
But the hon. gentleman has not seen fit to meet the issue and has preferred to bluster and make an unseemly noise. The square issue is this. In his report on the experimental farm on page 429, the hon. minister gives the expenditure for the year ending 30th of .Tune, 1903, -as amounting to $84,128.18. That statement my hon. friend from Leeds has shown to be false and misleading. The true figures are $19,141.66 in excess of that amount. How that expenditure has been divided among the various farms is a matter of no practical interest at present. What we are concerned with is the fact that the total expenditure is over $103,000, whereas the hon. minister in his report puts it down as $84,000. On looking hurriedly at page Y-94 of the Auditor General's Report,, I find various items of expenditure in connection with the Central Farm at Ottawa-not one cent of which is included by the hon. min-minister in his statement, amounting to $8,205.68, showing the total expenditure to be $84,000. Again on turning to page V-112, I find an expenditure, for instance, of $1,430.22 in connection with the Ottawa Experimental Farm not included in his statement, and on the next page, V-113, I find an expenditure of $110.65, which is equally left out. The hon. gentleman has
been compelled to admit that in his statement he deliberately omitted the items, of coal and wood, light, &c.; and I venture to say that if he goes to the riding represented by the hon. member for (Leeds or any other riding in this country, he may speak for hours and will not be able to convince the people that he has any justification for leaving out of the expenditures connected with these farms for coal and wood and other items amounting to over $19,000. Let him speak for any length of time he chooses, he cannot prevent ther coming to the conclusion that any statement which does not include these items is a garbled and dishonest account. Therefore when the hon. minister instead of frankly telling us that he has blundered, tries to excuse himself by saying he has followed the system which was pursued in the old days, he is using an argument which will not commend itself to the people. The question is not what former governments have done, because we are bound to progress, and those who cannot keep pace with the march of progress had better get out and make way for others who can. Let me say to this gentleman, who used to he content with the sickle and the pruning hook, but who now, while he dangles a scythe from his left hand, swings the sword in his right, that it ill becomes him to speak as he has done, and that it would be much better for him to try and, give some reasonable explanation for his conduct. When he speaks, as he has done, of the constituents of my hon. friend from Leeds, as the gang led by that hon. gentleman, let me tell him that his head seems to be swelling larger and larger visibly because forsooth he thinks he has got the better of Lord Dundonald in the petty struggle | which he has forced on that, gentleman, and that when he attempts to decry the people who support such men as my hon. friend from Leeds and other members of the opposition in this House, he will learn perhaps before long that these men will show where their strength lies, and that even with his pruning hook and sword he cannot intimidate the great electorate of this country.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES.: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of following the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) in his general argument, but only desire to deal in a genera! way with a matter which has been alluded to, and to which, as I am acquainted with the facts, I feel justified in calling attention. Reference has been made to the poultry stations, and the one established at Holmes-ville has been especially dealt with. Holmes-ville happens to be in my own riding. It is in the centre of a strongly Conservative part of the constituency. Yet I challenge any hon. gentleman on the opposite side to come into the riding of West Huron and attempt to convince the farmers there that the government's expenditure on the poultry station at Holmesville was an unwise or extravagant expendR'we and make a single

vote thereby. While the figures given in the Auditor General's Report show an apparent discrepancy between the receipts and expenditure, they are misleading to this extent, that, unless you know the circumstances, you cannot fairly judge as to the actual results of the work of the station As the bon. minister has said, there was no desire or expectation, in establishing these poultry stations-as is the case with other experimental stations-that they would be iself-susitaininig. But a large number \pf chickens are sold during the year after the Auditor General's Report is closed. If the report was made out to show the receipts for a year of the poultry station's operations, it would show that, except for expenditure on capital account-for buildings and so on -there would toe very little loss. As a result of the work of the station at Holmesville- and I speak only of that, for it is the one with whose work I am familiar-in our section of the country, where we formerly bought chickens at 25 cents and 30 cents a pair the farmers are now selling them, as stated by the hon. minister, at 10 cents per pound. The people have so improved their raising of poultry through the lessons they learned in connection with the poultry station that they are now supplying the local demand at 10 cents per pound-and let me say that they cannot fully supply the demand even at that price. The hon. gentleman may take exception to anything he likes an connection with the Department of Agriculture, hut I challenge him again to take exception in West Huron to the work of the poultry station in that riding. Even the hon. gentleman's Conservative friends endorse it. I know a large number of Conservatives who believe that it has been one of the best institutions ever established under the Department of Agriculture. Men who, at the outset, thought it nothing but an election dodge, are willing to admit that it has been practically useful in the development of the poultry industry.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: Inasmuch as something has been said concerning the poultry stations, and as the station established in the town of Renfrew has been referred to, I shall say a word in defence of it, if defence is required. I d'o not think that any one in the Dominion expects that the experimental farm is going to be an unqualified success financially, and that the balance will invariably be on the right side. But I know that throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion the people are fully satisfied with the work done there. If anything were necessary to prove that fact that proof would be found in the large number of excursions that come to the farm every year from every part of the Dominion of Canada. The farmers come because they expect to learn something, and they go away satisfied because they have learned something. And let me say one word of the work that is being carried on by Professor Saunders Mr. HOLMES.
at that farm. If nothing else had been accomplished by the experimental farm except the successful crossing of wheat and the production of new varieties which will ripen two or three days earlier than others of equal usefulness and value, these experiments alone would make the experimental farm system an unqualified success. These new varieties of wheat will put millions of dollars into the pockets of the farmers of the Northwest, for they are looking for a wheat that will ripen early. The farmers are getting rich every day under the patronage of this government, and that I shall be able to prove. With reference to cool curing of cheese, if there is one thing in relation to the cheese industry which stands out prominently above the others as a marked success, it is the cool curing. If anything were necessary to prove that, I can furnish that proof. It is only a few weeks ago that a deputation of farmers came from the township of Ross to my own town of Renfrew, to the creamery company there, and asked if they could not make arrangements for the cool curing of cheese for the various factories in that section. They said that about twenty factories wanted to bring in cheese and have us cool them and keep them, because we have large cold storage rooms and we could care for the cheese better than they could be cared for elsewhere. They said they could get more for cheese that was cool-cured, and besides there was not the shrinkage that there was under the other system of curing, and they were prepared to give fair remuneration if we would undertake this work for the various factories in that vicinity. And that matter has been taken uip for consideration. What the result may be it is impossible for me to say. Now, with reference to the chicken industry. Of course, nobody expected that these experiments were going to be a financial success in themselves, because it is impossible for one to get at once the right kind of chickens to make a success of the system of fattening. The first year it is likely to be a comparative failure. The next year they get a better class of chickens, and year by year the financial results are more favourable. With reference to the industry In my own town, I remember the difficulty we had in selling eggs years ago- say in 1893, Chickens were bought at 5 cents per pound, and we were glad to get rid of them at that price. The difficulty was to sell them. Now, the thing is changed, and chickens are readily sold at good prices. The same was true of eggs. In 1893 we bought them and sold them at S cents per dozen. Allow me to give you one little incident with reference to the eggs : and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will pass it over to the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor). In 1893 I was purchasing thousands and thousands of dozens of eggs at 8 cehts a dozen. A farmer came to my store with a basket of eggs and asked me what I would give him. I said : ' The best

I can do is 8 cents a dozen. I>o you see j those cases outside ? I have just sold them at 7$ cents a dozen-I am losing a quarter of a cent on every dozen.' ' Well,' he said,
* what are the farmers of this country going to do ? We cannot raise eggs at that price. We will have to go to the other side, or do something else. The fact is that that price will not pay for the wear and tear of the hens.' Now, let me show you how all this is changed. And, in order to show, I will read a few lines from a circular I received the other day from Montreal:
Montreal, June 14th.
Dear Sir,-We will give you 14 cents for all the fresh eggs you can ship this week.
How does that compare with 8 cents a dozen in the old Conservative days ? I think that the farmers realize that they are living under a different administration, and will give credit to whom credit is due. Now,
1	wish to say a word with reference to the fattening of chickens.


Mr. POPE.: What do you pay for eggs ?


Aaron Abel Wright: We pay 15 cents a dozen, and cannot get enough of them at that. Now, let me read an extract from the Renfrew ' Mercury ' of February 14th, 1902-this date being just a short time after the chicken fattening station had been established in Renfrew. And let me call your attention to the fact, and to ask you to bear it in mind, that the person who gives the information to the Renfrew 1 Mercury ' is Mr. David Muirhead, a leading Conservative in our town, and president of the Farmers' Institute :
An Admaston farmer resolved to make a test -to see if in farm practice there was really any profit in fattening chickens on the plan followed at the government's experimental station here a short time ago. So he took 30 ordinary chickens-not. at all large ones-and fed them on oats and barley, mixed with low grade flour-for five weeks, and then sent 24 of them off to a Montreal commission merchant whose name was one of several which had been furnished him by Mr. F. C. Hare, the government's demonstrator. He received answer that the 24 fowl had weighed 158 pounds, and remittance was made -for them at the rate of 11 cents (eleven) cents a pound in Montreal. The ex-pressage cost the Admaston farmer 80 cents per 100 pounds, so that he received $10.20 per 100 pounds net for his fowl. The fowl were kept confined in coops, were fed twice a day, and in the five weeks the thirty ate 8 bushels of oats,
2	bushels of barley, and 100 pounds of low-grade (unsaleable) flour with just enough skim-milk added to make the food moist. Water to drink and gravel to peck were supplied. The farmer was so well pleased with the result of his experiment, that he will fatten more chickens next year. He knows nothing that pays better for the amount of labour involved. The merchant to whom he sold rather took his breath away by writing that if he could supply broilers weighing II or 2 pounds in April or May, he would get 45 cents a pound for them.
I wish to place before the House account sales of the eggs that were shipped from my town last winter. I have here an invoice of eggs which were sold to Bate & Co., in Ottawa :
February 10, 12 dozen fresh eggs at 40 cents, $4.80.
How does that compare with your eight cents under the Conservative rule ?
February 17, 12 dozen fresh eggs at 40 cents, $4.80.
February 19, 12 dozen fresh eggs at 40 cents, $4.80.
February 26, 24 dozen fresh eggs at 40 cents, $9.60.
March 4, 24 dozen fresh eggs at 35 cents, $8.40.
March 11, 24 dozen fresh eggs at 35 cents, $8.40. a total of $40.80.
This will show you whether there is money in raising eggs if you do it properly.


Mr. BLAIN.: Might I ask what change has been brought about by this government to cause the price of eggs to go up ?


Edward Cochrane: They have got a lot of suckers around.


Aaron Abel Wright: They are teaching the people how to raise the eggs, and to have them for market at a proper time. They also have helped to obtain a market for them. We are getting a home market now and we are also getting more for anything sent abroad than we got before. I have here some invoices of eggs sent to Walter Paul, of Montreal. Here is one :
January 25, 9 dozen eggs at 40 cents, $3.60.
January 25, 3 dozen eggs, small, at 30 cents, 90 cents.
This shows you the discrimination there is now. In the old days there was not this discrimination.
I have here also an invoice for eggs shipped to Mr. Henry Gatehouse, of Montreal :
January 12, 24 dozen eggs at 30 cents, $7.20.
I have others which show about the same rates.
I have here also invoices of chickens sent to Mr. Gatehouse.
Here is one :
October 1, 2 coops chickens, 60 - 66=126 at 12 cents, $15.12.
That certainly^, is better that the 5 cents a pound which we got in the old days.
Here is another :
March, 30, 50 pounds fowl at 9 cents a pound, $4.50.
There were 6 fowls in this and they netted him 75 cents each.
Here is another one :
October 30, 139 pounds chickens at 10 cents a pound, $13.90.
There were 20 chickens in this lot so that they netted him 70 cents each. Surely this

ought to prove that the lessons which have been given to the farmers in our section of the country have been productive of much good. If any other evidence is necessary to prove that the farmers are doing better than they did we can find it in the export of farm produce which is now being made. In 1896 we exported only $50,000,000 worth of farm products whereas last year we exported no less than $114,000,000. In 1896 we sent in round numbers only $14,000,000 worth of cheese, whereas last year we sent out $25,000,000 worth. Surely this shows that this country is progressing and that the farmers are moving onward.
A good deal of fault has been .found with regard to the Minister of Agriculture himself, the statetnent being made that he is not a proper man to fill that position. I would like to show you how an outsider regards the present Minister of Agriculture. Here is a letter which was published in the Renfrew ' Mercury.' The letter was written from Riverside, California, on March 31, 1904. I need not read the first part of the letter but I shall quote this portion which refers to the Minister of Agriculture :
In an agricultural way you lave gained enormously over this country. Speaking recently with one of the ablest men who are taking care of our agricultural and horticultural interests at Washington I was really pleased to have him say that the Department of Agriculture in Canada was far in advance of that in this country.
Surely this does not look much as if we had inefficient men at the head of affairs here. I am proud to say, I am proud to know that the farmers of this country are progressing and when the day comes for the farmers to give their verdict I have no doubt in my own mind that the verdict will be that the present government shall be returned and that the Minister of Agriculture will be maintained in his position. Then the farmers will go on progressing at the same rate as they have done for the last six or seven years.


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: I would not have taken any part in this discussion were it not that a remark made by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) caused me to look at the record of that chicken fattening station of which he seems to feel so proud, and criticism of which he seems to think would be of no assistance to his opponents in his own riding. I think it is a function of the government to make experiments and we do not expect the result of the experiments in each case to be a profit, but in this experimental station at Holmesville-and I believe the same thing is true of all the chicken fattening stations-the proceeds of the sales do not pay for the feed and the cost of the chickens bought, and surely the feed cannot be charged up to experimenting. Surely if they are feeding these chickens on new improved scientific principles they should be able to sell the chickens for
the amount which the feed cost and the cost of the purchased chickens, especially when we are informed that they are sold at an advanced price, at a price 2 to 4 cents more than the ordinary price. In connection with this Holmesville fattening station the only item outside of feed and purchased fowls which I will take into account are $13.40 for coal oil and $28.40 for plucking the chickens. There are $9.85 for cold storage and all the rest is for feed and the cost of the chickens, making the total cost $902.85. In this not a single dollar is taken into account for labour, but no farmer or any one else could fatten chickens without some labour.


Robert Holmes: In the Auditor General's Report for last year, the hon. member will find that there is an expenditure of over $1,000 for buildings.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am not taking one single cent of that into account. If the hon. gentleman had listened he would have heard me state that I did not take into account a single cent except the cost of chickens and the feed. I did not count in a cent for labour or for sundries although there is an item of $100 charged for sundries. The total cost for feed, chickens bought and the three small items mentioned about which there can be do difference of opinion as to the propriety of the charge is $902.85 and the receipts from the sales last year were $564.57 leaving a deficit of $338.28, although we are counting nothing but the cost of the feed and the chickens themselves and the minor items before mentioned.


George Taylor: What did the chickens sell for ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am not so much surprised at the loss when we think of the sale price. I find in the Auditor General's Report at page D-112 the statement that 730 chickens weighing 2,617 pounds sold for $97.92, an average of 3J cents a pound though the minister and the member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) both stated these government fattened chickens sell at verv high prices-about 10 cents per pound. If the hon. member for West Huron told his constituents the whole truth I am afaid he might not find them so well pleased with the chicken fattening stations. I turn to another sale of poultry from the Bienville chicken fattening station and I find that eleven cases containing 550 pounds sold for $40.26 or 7Jr cents per pound so that all the government fattened chickens do not bring 10 cents a pound. I have no word to say in condemnation of experimental stations. I do not expect them to pay but I do say there is no reason why the amount brought for these chickens should not pay for the cost of the food and the cost of the chickens originally if the thing is conducted properly.
Amendment (Mr. Taylor) negatived on division.


Aaron Abel Wright: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Sufiply.
Dominion lands-amount required to pay accounts in connection with the late J. E. Mailhoit's survey, $245.66.
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister o£ the Interior).: This surveyor died while the survey was in progress and there were certain accounts to he paid.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he has ever considered the idea of buying out the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company and those of the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Clifford Sifton: The question has never been considered.


Mr. WILSON.: I notice that the cost of surveying lands in the Northwest Territories is charged to capital account. What is done with the money that you receive for the lands ? I do not understand why the surveying of this country should be charged to capital account when, as I presume, you take the revenue and use it for ordinary expenses.


Clifford Sifton: These surveys have always been charged to capital account.


Uriah Wilson: That is no reason. We want the reason why they should be charged to capital account. It does not follow that because other people did so it is a good reason. If you are using the money that you get for these lands for ordinary expenses I do not see why you should not pay for the surveying out of ordinary revenue ?


Clifford Sifton: The former government charged the surveys to capital account on the principle that they added to the value of the land. I do not think my hon. friend would expect that at this hour of the evening we should debate this question exhaustively. We have continued the practice of the former government. A very proper question was raised by the member for West Toronto when he pointed out that the cost of surveys was chai'ged to capital account, and when this money was refunded by the railway companies the refund was placed to the account of ordinary consolidated revenue. I will call the attention of the Minister of Finance to that and he will probably deal with it at a later date.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Has the Blood reserve south of Calgary been thrown open for grazing lease purpose ? If so, who has secured the lease ?


Clifford Sifton: This is connected with the Indian Department, but I have no objection to answer the question now so far as I can from memory. The land has not been thrown open in the ordinary sense of the word but the Indians surrendered the Blood reserve for leasing purposes on the application of Donald McEwan and Company. The pro-229
position of this firm was submitted to the Indians who held a meeting and accepted it, and it was agreed to by the department. The lease is very complicated in its character, and I will lay a copy on the table when the supplementary estimates for the Indian Department come up. For many years the Blood Indians have been in the habit of allowing leasing privileges upon the reserve, and that terminates when they agreed to a lease of the whole reserve.


William James Roche: Have the Indians assigned to the government the leasing privileges, and does the revenue go to the Indians ?


Clifford Sifton: It is not exactly that, but perhaps that may be the substance of it. The company made a proposition to the Indians in presence of officers of the government, setting out all the terms upon which a lease should be granted. The Indian band in accordance with the law met and agreed to it, and the lease was then ratified by the department. The revenue goes to the Indians.


William James Roche: Have the lessees the privilege of releasing it ?


Clifford Sifton: No.


William James Roche: My information is that they have released these lands. I have beard that one large firm of cattle exporters have bought a bunch of 8,000 extra cattle to put on this reserve.


Clifford Sifton: They have no right to release.


Mr. CLANCY.: Last year we got from the sale of Dominion lands $1,095,000 which went into revenue and we chargd to capital account for surveys $449,000, so that more than $1,000,000 goes to the credit of the Minister of Finance in this way to make up his surpluses. What we get for the sale of our land, which in itself is capital, we put into the revenue, and at the same time we charge the cost of surveys to capital. I am sure the good business sense of the Minister of Customs will revolt against that system of book-keeping, although he seems to like surpluses. It is no excuse to say that the former government did this, because the revenue from the sale of our lands is now a very considerable amount, and whether the former government did or did not, the system is deceiving and misleading. Perhaps the Minister of the Interior with our assistance can induce the Minister of the Inter'or to amend his book-keeping.	.


Clifford Sifton: This revenue includes the payment of dues and mining fees, and it is not all received from Dominion lands.
Mr, CLANCY. The greater portion of that revenue comes from the sale of Dominion lands.


William James Roche: Reverting a ain to the ieasing of the Blood reserve, can the minister
. REVISED EDITION

state approximately what number of acres it contains ?


Clifford Sifton: It is a very large reserve, but I cannot state the number of acres.


William James Roche: Does the minister think that reserve should be leased in the ordinary manner ?


Clifford Sifton: It could not be leased in the ordinary manner.


William James Roche: Ordinary Dominion lands, as I understand it are leased at the rate of two cents an acre for a period of twenty-one years, but does not the minister think that when such a large acreage of Indian lands is to be leased it should be advertised, public competition invited, and the lease given to the highest bidder ?


Clifford Sifton: When the hon. gentleman sees the lease, I think he will find that the terms are more advantageous than the terms in the ordinary lease of Dominion lands. It would be impossible to deal with this matter m the way lie suggests, because the Indians would not agree to it. The agreement of the Indians to the lease would have to be secured by the persons who made the proposition, and by these persons giving to them a variety of things which the Indians insist on. If we put it up for tender it would not answer the purpose of the Indians at all.


William James Roche: If it is advantageous to the Indians to get 2 cents an acre, undet the ordinary system, it would be doubly advantageous for them to get 4 cents ail acre ; and if the leases were thrown open to competition, they might have secured a greater revenue from the lands than they do by leasing them to one individual. If the minister makes an investigation, 1 think he will find that the party to whom this land was leased, released it to some other parties in part or in whole, and that it has been stocked with Mexican cattle, which have been brought to that country in thousands.
Department of the Geological Survey-salaries, including J. F.	Lyons	at	$800, notwith-	standing anything in	the Civil	Service	Act,$59,475.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What	work are		you
doing on the survey this year ?


Clifford Sifton: Mr. Faribault with two assistant geologists is working in the more westerly7 of the gold districts of Nova Scotia. Mr. Fletcher with two assistant geologists is engaged in King's, Annapolis and Cumberland counties. Dr. Henry S. Poole is to complete the work necessary7 to construct a geological map of the district around Lake Ainslie in Cape Breton. Dr. Ells, assisted by Mr. Robert Johnston, has been at work in Charlotte county, New Brunswick, and has since gone to work in British Columbia. Professor L. W. Bailey is defining the boundaries of the rock formations in the 1 Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
counties of York and Carleton, New Brunswick. Dr. J. A. Dresser is continuing the work of previous years in defining the copper-bearing belts in the eastern townships. Dr. Robert Chalmers is investigating the surface geology of the county of Gaspe and of the country along the south side of the lower St. Lawrence. Professor Ernest Haycock and Mr. Frank Johnston are to complete a geological map of the southwestern part of the county of Ottawa. Mr. C. W. Willimott is collecting supplies of minerals for educational institutions and for the new museum. The work will lie principally7 in the province of Quebec, but he will also collect in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Professor W. A. Parks, assisted by Sir. H. L. Kerr is at work on the western side of Lake Temiskaming. Dr. A. E. Barlow, is to continue work in the Timigami lake region. Mr. E. D. Ingall and Mr. Theo. Dennis are working in the neighbourhood of Bruce Mines. Messrs. Wilson and Collins are working in the country lying northward of Long Lake. Mr. Charles Camsell is working in eastern Manitoba and those parts of the country between Lake Winnipeg and the Severn river. Mr. O'Sulilivan is engaged on tlie southern and western coasts of James Bay. Mr. Mclnnes is following up work which was begun last year in the region lying to the south of Hudson Bay. Mr. Lawrence Lambe is making a collection of fossil remains found in the Cypress Hills in the Northwest Territories. Professor John Macoun is working in the botanist park in the Rocky Mountains, as botanist and zoologist. Mr. D. B1. Dowling is working in the coal fields of the Rocky Mountain region. Mr. A. P. Low is engaged in the Hudson Bay expedition, accompanied by Mr. C. L. King. Mr. R. W. Brock is engaged in the Lardeau mining district of British Columbia. Dr. R. A. Daly is engaged in a survey along the boundary line in British Columbia. Mr. McConnell is engaged in the Yukon Territory. Mr. Joseph Keele is investigating discoveries of gold on the Stewart river in the Yukon Territory.


Mr. INGRAM.: Are these all the names of the parties connected with the Geological Survey Department ?


Clifford Sifton: I have not given them all, because they are not all at work in the field. If my hon. friend would like to have the list, with the salaries paid, I will give it :	The acting director, Dr. Bell, $3,500 ;
Dr. Whiteaves, $2,600 ; Dr. Hoffmann, $2,600 ; Professor Macoun, $2,450 ; Dr. Ells, $2,350 ; Hugh Fletcher, $2,350 ; R. G. McConnell, $2,350 ; E. D. Ingall, $2,100 ; A. B. Low, $2,050 ; L. N. Lambe. $1,900 ; Robert Chalmers, $1,900 ; William Mclnnes, $1,900 ; H. M. Ami, $1,900 ; E. R. Faribault, $1,900 ; A. E. Barlow, $1,850 ; J. M. Macoun, $1,800 ; F. G. Wait, $1,750 ; D. B. Dowling. $1,700 ; C. O. Senecal, $1,700 ; R. A. A. Johnston,

$1,600 ; R. W. Brock. $1,400 ; W. J. Wilson, $1,250 ; Theophile Dennis. $1,250 ; Joseph Keele, $1,550 ; two vacancies, one at $1,150 and the other at $1,100 ; John Marshall, $2,000 ; C. W. Willimott, $1,500 ; R. L. Broadbent. $1,500 ; L. N. Richard. $1,250 ; A. T. McKinnon, $S50 ; J. A. McGee. $825 ; John Thorburn, $800 ; and J. F. Lyons. $800.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman any control over these men ?


Clifford Sifton: Yes, the same control as we have over government officers generally.


Andrew B. Ingram: What do you do with men who are incompetent in this department ?


Clifford Sifton: If incompetency is brought home to any one, the usual practice is to remove him from office.


Andrew B. Ingram: One of these gentlemen by the name of Macoun has made a report which has caused a great deal of strife. He jhas been accused of incompetency, and an bon. gentleman was to have made a charge against him but so far has not done so. If [DOT]he is incompetent, why is he continued in the service ?


Clifford Sifton: I do not know that any body has said that Mr. Macoun is incompetent. I have certainly never endorsed any such statement. I think that in the line of the scientific work in which he is engaged, 'he is perfectly competent. I hope the hon. gentleman will not reopen the discussion .which took place in the Agricultural Committee. All that I have to say is this, that the conclusion I arrived at with regard to Mr. Macoun was that while perfectly competent, so far as scientific attainments are concerned, he drew sweeping conclusions from rather insufficient data. My hon. friend will perhaps understand that in the case of the reports of the officers of the Geological Survey, no minister can pretend to revise them. They are under the direction of the head of the service, who decides what should and what should not be published. It will be admitted by members on both sides that Mr. Macoun was imprudent in issuing his report without consulting his superior officer, but that is far from saying that he is incompetent.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to understand that it was by Mr. Macoun's instructions that the report was published or printed ? ^ I understand, he went out to the Peace River district and made his report. When he did that, his duty ceased, and if the head of the department saw fit to have it printed, I cannot see how Mr. Macoun can be blamed.


Clifford Sifton: All the officers submit their reports to the director and he sends them to the Printing Bureau to be printed. The director uses his judgment in supervising each report before it is printed.
229J


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to understand that the hon. gentleman has withdrawn the report or censured Mr. Macoun for having
made a sweeping statement ?


Clifford Sifton: No, I cannot withdraw a report. When a report is issued, that is the end of it. But I have given instructions that it is not to be circulated any further.


William James Roche: Are the gentlemen who go out on these geological surveys directed by the department to any special locality, or is that left to their own officers V


Clifford Sifton: Each year the director of surveys submits to me a recommendation suggesting what work should be done and giving the names of the men he recommends to be sent out in each particular case. I discuss the matter with him and he gives the necessary information.


William James Roche: Has the director the power of overruling the directions of the minister ?


Clifford Sifton: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister says he has given orders to stop the circulation of Mr. Macoun's report. Is he aware that a committee of this House has ordered that the evidence be printed and that a large portion of Mr. Macoun's report, which the hon. gentleman has ordered to be suppressed, is to be embodied in the report of the committee ?


Clifford Sifton: I am aware that the committee adopted a report, but I have not seen it and do not know what it is. As regards the circulation of the report, I acted on my own judgment before the committee had reached a conclusion. The committee had serious difficulty iu reaching a unanimous conclusion, and before they had finished their deliberations, I gave orders that the circulation of Mr. Macoun's report should cease.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the report already printed, but I am drawing attention to the fact that large portions of that same report are to be embodied in the report submitted by the committee. Now, does the hon. gentleman approve of sending out in another form, large portions of the suppressed report ?


Clifford Sifton: I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) will admit that I ought to have the right to read the committee's report before I approve of it. As to the circulation of the report of the committee, the hon. member will understand that that does not rest with me as head of the geological survey, but with the House.


Andrew B. Ingram: But I am drawing attention to the fact that large portions of the report the circulation of which is discontinued is to appear in this report of the committee. The hon. gentleman is the head

of tlie department, and if he suppresses or withholds Mr. Macoun's report from circulation, what position is he putting his department in hy approving-if he does approve- the circulation of large portions of it in another report ? May I suggest to the hon. gentleman another course ? Here is a report which the hon. gentleman says contains wide and sweeping statements in connection with the Peace river district. He is withholding that report on account of those wide and sweeping statements. But large portions of that report will be embodied in the report of the committee to be printed and circulated. Now, would he not be doing better if he allowed the other report to go in with that of the committee. Then the other report would be circulated along with the evidence given before the committee, and those interested would be able to judge of the truth or falsity of the statements made.


Clifford Sifton: When the contents of the officer's' report were brought to my attention, 1 considered it and thought the circulation of it should be suspended, and it was suspended. But we have not burnt the copies. Those that were not put in circulation are in the office of the Geological Survey. The committee of the House considered that report. When the report of the committee is before it. the House will decide what to do, but we can hardly decide what to do until the report of the committee 1% made known.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That suggests the awkward position we are in. We are discussing a report of a committee that is not before the House-in fact a report that has not been made. The government is responsible for these reports not coming down


Clifford Sifton: How ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because the government controls all the committees, and controls the estimates as well. The government has no right to ask the House to consider estimates where the merits cannot be discussed without considering the effect of reports that are not before the House.


Clifford Sifton: The question of the report of the committee has nothing to do with the voting of supplies for the geological survey for the year now beginning.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Certainly it has.


Clifford Sifton: As to the statement that the government controls the committees, my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is too old a parliamentarian to make a statement of that kind. He knows that the government does not control the committees. The Committee on Agriculture meets when it sees fit. I was not at any of its meetings, and did not exercise the slightest supervision or control over its deliberations. I understood from the Mr. INGRAM.
reports of the daily press that they were sitting and considering the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) makes a statement that he knows is not borne out by the facts-the statement that the government does not control the committees. Does not the government have its majority on every committee that majority being sent there to carry resolutions when necessary V We cannot carry a resolution-


Clifford Sifton: But the hon. gentleman can make a great fight.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the government's friends are drummed up and, if necessary, the committee is held up until a majority are present to carry any resolution that may be desired. That has been done time and again this session. But that is not the main question. The minister says that the report of the committee has nothing to do with this report. Why, what is this vote ? It is a vote of the salaries of the Geological Survey Department. , Is or is not Mr. Macoun an officer of that department 7 If he is we are voting his salary. Is he a discredited employee, or does he still enjoy the confidence of the government ? Do they still regard him as a good man ? The minister says that professionally Mr. Macoun is a good man. But is he reliable ?


Clifford Sifton: I understand that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) thinks he is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I frankly confess I do.


Mr. PATERSON.: Then vote his salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to voting his salary. But other members of that committee, especially supporters of the government, have said that this officer is not a competent man or reliable man, that his report should not go out but should be recalled. Are these statements justified by the facts? We do not wish to embarrass the government, but we want to know what they are going to do about this matter in view of what occurred in committee of this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is a serious matter though members of the government assume to treat it so lightly. Let me draw the attention of the government to the fact that this officer has been charged with deliberately making a-false report in connection with a new section of the Dominion. This is an exceedingly serious matter for the men who are interested in that section of the west. It does not matter how long or how short a man has been in the service of the government if he has taken advantage of his position to deliberately make a bad report upon a portion of the country without justification for it. he must have some unworthy motive. And that is what this officer is charged with. And. if that charge is ti-ue, the question that must meet the government
72 or.

is whether they will continue to employ this officer. If he is innocent, the government should make it clear that he has not been guilty of deliberately making a false report, which is the charge against him by the supporters of the government. There are men who have their interests in the far west and their country should not be run down unjustifiably. If it is a good country for the settler to go into it should not be misrepresented.


Mr. SCOTT.: Did Mr. Macoun run down the Peace river country ?


Andrew B. Ingram: He is charged with deliberately making a bad report. I do not say he did, but my hon. friend's (Mr. Scott s) friend from the west has said he did. I hope he does not deny it, because it is on record.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend does not complain that Mr. Macoun deliberately made a false report ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I have not been there and cannot say.


Wilfrid Laurier: But does lie believe it ?


Andrew B. Ingram: What I say is that government supporters have charged this government official with deliberately making a bad report. I want to know, before we vote his salary whether he is a good man or not. He has been in the service of the government for many years-for a longer time than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) has been at the head of it. But, if he is the kind of man that he is stated to be by supporters of the government, he should not be in the employ of the government. Personally, I have a better opinion of the gentleman and do not believe the statements made against him. I have no reason to dispute anything he has stated in his report. I have not the knowledge to enable me to form an opinion as to the facts. But I should judge, from the man's appearance and conduct and all that I can learn about him, that the minister is correct when he leads the committee to believe that he is competent as a professional man in a work of this kind


Wilfrid Laurier: Then my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) ought to be satisfied.
investigated. This is a matter to be mvest-igated-but even if Mr. Macoun had made a mistake, as all men are liable to make mistakes, I would not refuse to vote ^ salary. If it should turn out afterwaids that the report of Mr. Macoun was inaccurate it would perhaps detract fl0,lh * professional reputation but for all that I would not deprive the country of his ser vices. I see no reason why his salary should not be voted even if it turns out that in this matter he is in the wrong.


Mr INGRAM.: If it should prove that the statement of a government *ngpartei** correct that Mr. Macoun made a deliberate misreport what would the Prime Minister have to say ?


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr SPROULE.: It should be understood that we are not objecting to voting his salary but we think that his character should be vindicated and the department should state whether he is regarded as a competent man.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the linister of the Interior has given him that haracter.


Clifford Sifton: The evidence of that is hat we are asking for his salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He said that profession-llv Mr. Macoun is all right but he talked n a general way. Now if he is competent irofessionally and is reliable, then in my udgment that is all that could be expected ,f him and if the department and the gov-*rnment are prepared to retain him I take t for granted that they must regard him as a competent man or otherwise they vould not ask us to vote his salary.


Mr INGRAM.: 
Andrew B. Ingram: I am not satisfied.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have some persona 1 knowledge of Mr. Macoun. I have seen him in the service and have always thought he was a competent officer. But my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) will agree with me on one point. As to the report of Mr. Macoun I am not prepared to say whether it was right or wrong, but even a good man will make mistakes sometimes. And we shall see whether Mr. Macoun in making his report gave a proper character to the country or not-that is a matter to be


Wilfrid Laurier: That is hardly to the point.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a point. The Geological irvey Department have in their employment Pat they call competent men, men whom ey send into a new section of country to certain the nature of its climate and soil id all its good and bad qualities. That is e duty of the Geological Survey Depart-ent They send these men in, get the m-rmation and publish it. The moment you idertake to do what the Agricultural Com-ittc^ done this year von do what is not

in the interests of the people of the country. Why ? Because the very moment such a thing is brought to the attention of the Agricultural Committee and the officer is brought there there seems to be more in the question of party politics or in some personal or selfish influence on the part of members of the committee than in the question at issue. No member of that committee seems to have any personal knowledge worth speaking of in connection with the Peace river district yet they were disputing the evidence of that man who had been there for months.


Thomas Walter Scott: What was the point.


Andrew B. Ingram: My point is that if you are sending competent men out upon a geological survey and these meif make their report, then the Geological Survey Department is responsible for the report they make and to get that information before the Agricultural Committee is not a wise or proper course.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then what is the complaint against ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Against the Agricultural Committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: I say so in this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend says that he has a complaint against the method pursued this year in the Agricultural Committee in discussing an official of this government. He may be right or he may be wrong, but I suggest, and I think that on reflection he will agree with me, that this is not the moment or the occasion to make that complaint against the Agricultural Committee. The report of that Committee will, I believe, come up in a few days and that will be the best time to discuss that matter. Mr. Macoun's report was a surprise to everybody, certainly it was a great surprise to me* when I read the character he gave to the Peace River Valley, and every one else, probably including my hon. friend, was surprised. I would be chagrined and sorry if the report of Mr. Macoun turns out to be correct; he may be right, and if so all the worse for the country. He may be wrong, as I hope, and if he is wrong, every one will be glad. In the meantime 1 do not believe that he made an incorrect report with intention. I think perhaps he acted with some levity, was not careful enough, but even if he acted without sufficient accuracy, and acted too hastily in placing before the Canadian public a report in contradiction to all the accepted doctrines, even believing all that, I would not dispense with Mr. Macoun's services. I think he is a good man ; every man is liable to commit errors and I hope he has made one on this occasion. Even if he has I would be sorry to part with his services.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right, hon. gentleman has said we should discuss this when the


Andrew B. Ingram: report is brought down. But we are voting the salary now.


Wilfrid Laurier: And nobody objects.


Andrew B. Ingram: Only to this extent that I disapprove of calling any gentleman from the Geological Survey Department before the Agricultural Committee as was done in this case to obtain information of this kind or to repudiate a report issued by the Geological Survey Department. If the Agricultural Committee did not like that report then it might be quite in order for them to pass a resolution disapproving of the report and drawing the attention of the minister in whose department this man is employed, but to bring the official before the committee for that purpose is something of which I disapprove entirely. I am sure that no good will be attained by circulating the evidence or the report of that committee.


Samuel Hughes: I do not object to the voting of Mr. Macoun's salary ; in fact I would favour increasing it, as I hope the minister has done. I think he is a very excellent official, but I do not agree with his conclusions in relation to part of the Peace River Valley. There is a great deal of misapprehension in regard to that country. It is a tract of country some hundreds of miles in extent, and the part to which objection is taken is not the Peace River Valley proper but the foothills of the mountains, 50 to 70 miles in width. I want to point out here that, as the hon. member for Alberta knows, the country immediately west from Edmonton and from 50 miles east of the Yellowhead Pass is similar to the part which would be covered by Mr. Macoun's report. You cannot find in the foothills of the mountains in any part of the west, land anything like as suitable for settlement at present as the country more remote.


Frank Oliver: In climate or in what respect '?


Samuel Hughes: Climate, nature of the soil, &c. We know that that district is much more subject to frosts.


Frank Oliver: My opinion is that near the mountains it will be found that the climate is more favourable than farther east.


Samuel Hughes: 
Richard Blain: What instructions were given to Professor Macoun when he was sent out to that country to make a report upon it ?


Clifford Sifton: I asked the director when the report was brought to my attention for a copy of his instructions. It turned out, when the director came to look into the matter, that Professor Macoun's instructions were verbal, that they had not been reduced to writing and that he was to make a general report on the character of the country.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. minister when he gave instructions for the report to be withheld from the public ?


Clifford Sifton: It was some time after the discussion arose in connection with it. X cannot just say when. It was about the time that the discussion commenced in the newspapers, probably a week or two after it was discussed in the newspapers 1 do not remember the exact date ; it is probably two months ago now.


Richard Blain: I may draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that this is not the report that was given to the committee. The information given to the committee was that the hon. minister gave instructions to withhold the report from the public long before the House met at all.


Clifford Sifton: I am afraid my hon. friend must be mistaken
Mr. BLAIN Are we to understand that the hon minister allowed the circulation of the report until after the House met and the Agricultural Committee had the report brought before them for examination ?


Clifford Sifton: I tell my hon. friend I cannot remember the exact date when the order was given. It was about the time the discussion started in the press in regard to this report. It was at that time that I sent for a copy of it myself, examined it and discussed it with the acting director. In the course of a few days I came to the conclusion that the circulation of the report should be suspended and I gave the order.
I do not remember at this moment the exact date when that took place. Without looking at the written instructions that were given I could not say.


Thomas Walter Scott: The report was not printed or* in circulation before the House met.
Mr. BLAIN Is the hon gentleman sure of that ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman give the date at which the report was printed and circulated ?


Thomas Walter Scott: No, I am not able to give the precise date but I am perfectly satisfied that at the time the House met early In March the report was not in circulation ?


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend say that the instructions to withhold the report from the public were given after the committee on agriculture met ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I have no information upon that point at all.
Mr. BLAIN If the hon. gentleman has no Information it is useless for him to undertake to correct the statement we are making. May I ask the hon. minister if it is the custom of his department when sending an officer to a country like the Peace^ River district to report upon it to send him out without any written instructions.


Clifford Sifton: That is what took place.


Richard Blain: Is that the policy of the department ?


Mr SIFTON.: No, I was under the impression the instructions had been in writing. Dr. Bell was under the impression the instructions were in writing and when I spoke to him he said he would send me a copy of the instructions. It would be his duty to prepare the instructions and to see that they were properly given. When he came to look into it he found the instructions were not given in writing. I gave a specific direction that in future all officers when sent out should be furnished with instructions in writing.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman not think that this item should stand until the Agricultural Committee bring down their report so that the committee will have a chance to discuss the whole matter ?


Clifford Sifton: The hon. gentleman can discuss the report of the committee when the report comes down. There is no reason why the item should not pass.


Richard Blain: The hon gentleman will remember that a great deal of discussion took place upon this report of Professor Macoun's and that the House will be very much interested in this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will all come up on the report.
Mr. BLAIN It will all come up on the report but the committee will not have as good an opportunity on the report as it will on the item before us.


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot see that. No one desires to withhold the salary of Professor Macoun. We are all agreed that he should be retained in the service and paid his salary.


Richard Blain: But, it is the government that have discredited Professor Macoun if he is discredited. It is the hon. Minister of the Interior who has taken it upon himself without a proper examination to say that . Professor Macoun's report is not a correct report and therefore it should not go out to the public. I think we have a right to discuss that.


Clifford Sifton: There is no reason why the hon gentleman should not discuss it if he sees fit.


Richard Blain: I am not objecting to it, but I would suggest that this would be the proper place and time to discuss the whole question.


Clifford Sifton: You can discuss the report of the committee when it comes down. As to my action in suspending the report the hon gentleman can discuss it now if he sees fit.


Richard Blain: Probably the hon. gentleman will tell the committee what items in the report he objected to, and if it was upon these items that he decided that the report should be withheld from the public. The minister selected one of the most competent officers in his department to make a report on that country, and that report having been published, it was rather an important thing for the minister to take upon himself to withhold the report. Notwithstanding the action of the minister, if the report of the Agricultural Committee is adopted, a considerable part of this report will be sent broadcast throughout the country.


Clifford Sifton: I suspended the publication of the report because I thought that Mr. Macoun's conclusions as to the character of the country were too sweeping. I doubted that his conclusions as to the unsuitability of the Peace River district for farming purposes were justified by the facts, and until that is settled I suspended the publication of the report. I did what any member of the House would do in my position, if he were attending to hfs business. Among men of common sense there cannot be any difference of opinion about it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is now asking for salaries, and when he condemns this report and forbids its circulation, it is his duty to point out to us the page of the report to which he objects. On account of certain rumours that this report was to be suppressed, I read it long before Mr. Macoun was called upon to give evidence. It is our right to know what page of that report the minister objects to.


Clifford Sifton: The hon. gentleman cannot be serious. The report draws general conclusions unfavourable to the agricultural capabilities of a large section of this country and pending the result of the investigation of that question, I suspended the circulation of the report. I do not take exception to any particular page of the report; I take exception to the general conclusions of an unfavourable character which it contains, and until the Agricultural Committee reports I am not prepared to modify my conclusion or to express a further opinion about it. I am afraid that is all the information the hon gentleman can get from me.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the minister intend that for a threat ? I do not know that the minister knows any more about that country than we do ; but. at all events, he should tell us what part of that report he objects to.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to give my impression of Mr. Macoun, and the reason why the committee felt that perhaps his report or his evidence should not be published. Mr. Macoun was in that very extensive country for only about three months, and the committee felt that he might not have had sufficient time to ascertain the genera!


Richard Blain: character of the country. The minister will find that the committee recommends that *other parties be sent out to explore that country and make a report. For that reason I was opposed to publishing Mr. Ma-coun's evidence, and I was in favour of the minister withholding the report that had already been published. 1 hope the minister will give us an intimation as to what he intends to do with reference to sending out sufficient exploring parties to co(ver the whole Peace River territory. How many copies of the report were circulated ?


Clifford Sifton: A large number of inquiries had been made in the department about this country before the report was printed, and a considerable number of copies were sent out. As to further explorations, we will consider that when we get the committee's report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that these geological reports are for sale at booksellers throughout Canada ; and, if so, how could the minister recall them ?


Clifford Sifton: I believe all the members of the House and members of the Senate should receive these geological reports, and if there is any such desire I will endeavour to get a change in the Order in Council governing their distribution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we now receive them ; but, as I understand it, these reports are for sale at the booksellers in the different cities, and, if that be the case, how could the minister recall their circulation ?


Clifford Sifton: That only applies to the fully bound copies of tfhe report of the surveys for the year. The separate reports are not dealt with in that way unless there is some special demand for them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My information from the department a few years ago was the very reverse. I was endeavouring to get some of these reports for certain parties, and I was told that they could be purchased at certain bookstores, either the volume containing all the reports, or the reports of the separate branches, and that the maps accompanying these separate reports could be got at the same time.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Might I ask the minister whether Dr. Bell is not entitled to the statutory increase ?
Mi'. SIFTON. Yes, I have not any doubt that he is.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand he has not had the increase for a number of years?


Clifford Sifton: He has not, because he has been an applicant for the position of director. The question of an increase has not been considered. If he applies for it. I will recommend it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: With reference to the reports, I had occasion to purchase a number for my constituents, and I inquired how much money was collected for the reports sold, and I understand that there was not sufficient collected to pay the salary of the man who collects the money.


Clifford Sifton: Quite likely.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would it not be Wise after spending i?153,000. which the department expects to spend fihis year, to have the reports circulated free ? It would be much better to spend a few hundred dollars in that way, I should think, than to spend a lot of money gathering information and then practically lock it up.


Clifford Sifton: I discussed the question of the circulation of the reports with the late Dr. Dawson, who was the director at the time the Order in Council was passed providing for the method by which they are disposed of ; and the reason he gave me why the government at that time had decided to charge a fee for the reports was that otherwise people would get into the habit of writing for them without making any use of them. The small charge put upon them is not sufficient to deter anybody who wants the reports of the Geological Survey from getting them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister stated that if Dr. Bell applied for the statutory increase, he would be likely to get it. Why does he not grant it to liim ?


Clifford Sifton: Dr. Bell made up the estimate himself, and if he had put it in, I would have recommended it. My attention has never been called to the matter before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister not grant the statutory increase to any one who does not ask for it ?


Clifford Sifton: The rule is tliat the deputy reports to the minister recommending the officers whose salaries are to he increased. If Dr. Bell had put in his own statutory increase, I would have recommended it..


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose that while he could recommend it for others, he might feel a little delicate about recommending it for himself.


Clifford Sifton: We follow the ordinary rule.


Mr SPROULE.: How many in this branch are receiving the statutory increase this year, and how many received it last year .


Clifford Sifton: Twenty-two technical officers are receiving it this year. I have not the number for last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: [DOT] Is Mr. Macoun one of
them ?

721&


Clifford Sifton: His name is on the list for this year, and I have not any doubt that he got the increase last year.
Geological Survey-exploration and surveys, printing and publication reports, maps, &c., wages of assistant explorers, draughtsmen, clerks and others, purchase of specimens, books, instruments, stationery, mapping materials, maintenance of Museum, laboratory apparatus, chemicals, miscellaneous expenses, &c., advances to explorers, $60,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be more intelligible if we had the amount to be expended on each of these items instead of lumping them all together. We should know, for instance, how much is spent on printing and publishing the report and have shine idea whether it is better to sell them or give them away. The hon. minister made a statement, with which few will agree, that people ask for reports they have no use for. I do not think anybody would ask for a report, which he did not intend making use of.


Clifford Sifton: These items are voted in this way every year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the minister intend spending on explorations and surveys this year ?


Clifford Sifton: I have been puttiug geological estimates through the House the last eight years and that question was never asked before. The Auditor General's Report shows how every dollar is expended. The only way I could obtain the details of each for this year would he to put a clerk at work, separating the items in the Auditor General's Report, to total them up, and I could then read them to the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely before the council decided on the amount to be expended, it must have the details of each item. It must know how much is required for exploration and surveys and so oil.


Clifford Sifton: The usual practice has been to vote a lump sum. The director .then knows what amount of money he has to go on with the work, and he divides that amount among the several branches of work required to be done.	.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is any of this to be used for the purpose of exploring for gas and oil ? For a few years previous to 1S9S, several thousand dollars were spent in this direction. Is any of this amount to be used for that purpose this year,?


Clifford Sifton: No.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is going to be done with the machinery which has been stored for a number of years at Edmonton, tubing and casing. Is it to be allowed to rust and get rotten ?


Clifford Sifton: We voted a certain amount for the purpose of putting down certain test Mr. t-PKOUI.E.
wells. They were searching not for gas but for oil. The test wells were put down, but the officers were not successful in finding oil and the project was abandoned.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it not reasonable to ask that a certain amount should be voted for that purpose ?


Clifford Sifton: It might be, and I am quite prepared to hear my hon. friend's views on the subject.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It would be of great interest to the industry at large to have certain explorations carried on as they were previous to 1898. The money would be well spent in carrying on explorations of that nature, and these explorations would he of great benefit to the geological department provided the money was expended judiciously.	*


Clifford Sifton: The work which was done did not result in any benefit at ail because the tests were not successful in locating any oil in paying quantities. My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) is familiar, no doubt, with the oil business, and he will probably agree with me that the oil prospector is the man who is going to find the oil-the man who makes a business of prospecting is more likely to find it than the scientific officer of the geological survey. The work of the survey, so far as that is concerned, is more properly done by giving information as to the locality in which the geological deposits are of such a character that oil may he looked for there with some probability of finding it. But as to putting down test holes and carrying on the practical work of prospecting for oil, experience shows that we had better leave that to the prospector. As I said, we were not successful in the test holes put down though these experiments cost a good deal of money. Under our Northwest land regulations we encourage the making of tests for oil, and a number of commercial companies are carrying on testing operations at the present time, some of them with a degree of success. In one or two locations there are wells which, though not very productive, yield oil in paying quantities.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is an easy matter to engage men of experience in the business. The reports of the Geological Survey show that there are sections in the Northwest in which some oil has been found and in which the officers think it desirable to explore. Would it not be wise to engage men qualified for the business and expend a few thousand dollars in well directed efforts to develop that industry ?


Clifford Sifton: That is a fair question for consideration. I would not be inclined to say finally that that would not be a good plan.

72 IS


Uriah Wilson: The hon. minister has not explained the increase of $10,000 in this i,tem.


Clifford Sifton: The ordinary vote is $60,000. In the endeavour to practise that economy which is such a distinguished char-^ acteristic of the present government we reduced the vote last year very much against the will of the director. This year, I take a step in the other direction and have increased it again to $60,000, besides voting $19,000 for special explorations.


Richard Blain: Referring to the question of exploring for oil, as I understand it, the department has expended some thousands of dollars for the purchase of a plant which is now stored at Edmonton. This is a matter which should receive the attention of the minister. He knows that the consumption of oil is a large item of expense to the people, and that new discoveries of oil will probably be of great benefit to the people. It does not seem to be in the public interest that the hon. gentleman should spend some thousands of dollars in the purchase of a plant and then allow it to be stored away out of use. On the contrary, I should think it would be wise to place a few thousand dollars at the disposal of the department to put that plant in operation. It is not a satisfactory answer to say that experiments were made for a year or two, but that as they were unsuccessful the efforts were abandoned. It is well known that in several parts of the Dominion oil has been found where, in the earlier days, it was thought it could not be found. I would strongly favour the suggestion of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) that some money should be spent in examination and experiment for the purpose of discovering oil.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for East Lambton, (Mr. Armstrong) as I happen to represent the part of the country to which he refers I may be allowed a word or two. I do not wish to take the position of asking or demanding special expenditures in that part of the country. At the same time, if it should be the will of parliament to authorize an expenditure for boring for oil in that part of the country, certainly the project would have my most hearty approval. As to the experiments that have been made, I have a little crow to pick with the geological survey in that matter, and will take this opportunity of placing the facts before the committee. It is a number of years now since' the late government thought fit to institute explorations for oil in that part of the country. They put down a well at Athabasca Landing, 100 miles north of Edmonton, where there was no sign of oil. They found none. They put down another well at Victoria, 80 miles northeast, where there is not and never was-never was reported to be-any sign of oil. They did not find any. They also put down a well at Pelican Rapids, down the Athabasca about 120 miles below the landing where there has always been a flow of natural gas. They struck a very heavy flow of natural gas, but so far as I am aware no oil, and they suspended operations. The machinery having been transported 120 miles down the river by flatboat, I take it that the government believed that it would cost more to take care of machinery there than it was worth, and that if they undertook to bring it out it would cost more than it would be worth when brought out. Myqriarrel with the Geological Department is this-that they bored three wells where there was no sign of oil and where nobody suggested that there was a sign of oil. They arrived at the conclusion that they^ should bore there because of some theo-' ry of the director of the survey. They refused to bore for oil where there were surface indications of oil-they could not be induced to bore there. What I want to suggest to the minister is that if, the House being in generous mood as it seems to be, provides the money for further oil boring operations and the government undertake the work, the boring should be done where there are indications of oil, and not where there are no such indications. *


Andrew B. Ingram: Where is that ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say that there is oil, but I can say that there is evidence of oil, in a location about 25 miles slightly of north from Edmonton. ,That has been known for many years. It was brought to the attention of different representatives of the geological survey, but they would not bore there. I would respectfully suggest that if there is to be more boring for oil in that country the boring should be done where there are indications that oil wrill be found.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. member say that the late government refused to have their officers bore'for oil where there were indications of oil and had them bore where there were no indications.


Frank Oliver: It was not the government but the Geological Survey who bored where there was no oil. I am suggesting to the minister that if he takes the money he should bore where common sense would indicate borings should be made.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that officers in the Geological Survey instructed their men to bore where there were no indications of oil whatever ?


Frank Oliver: I assert most positively that the late director of the Geological Survey, Dr. Dawson, directed that the boring should be carried on at two certain places, at which neither Dr. Dawson nor any one else ever suggested that there was any evidence of oil.


Richard Blain: That is rather a reflection on the late Dr. Dawson.


Frank Oliver: Dr. Dawson had reasons of his own. He had the borings made upon a geological theory which in that particular case did not happen to be correct.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend think it will be worth while for the government to set aside a certain amount of money for the purpose of making further tests in that section of the country ?


Frank Oliver: I am not sufficiently expert to give an authoritative opinion and of course^ it is not my responsibility, but as the minister said to the man on his death bed who asked as to the utility of making a large bequest to the church, ' there will be 710 harm in his trying it.'	[DOT]


Richard Blain: I am sure the hon. gentleman's constituency will not be much interested in that statement.


Frank Oliver: In the southern part of my large constituency private individuals are boring successfully. I was speaking more of the north ; I would say it it much more to the advantage of Canada that private enterprise should bore where oil is likely to be found than that public enterprise 'should bore where oil is not likely to be found.


Richard Blain: You have more faith in the government than that ?


Frank Oliver: I have very little faith in our Geological Survey Department. This is only one instance from which I have form ed that opinion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am surprised to hear the words of the hon. member for Alberta. I do not think he would use them If he realized the importance of developing an oil industry such as we hear is likely to be developed in that country. His constituents I think, will be anything but pleased at the half hearted manner in which he asked support from the Geological Survey Department in this matter.


Frank Oliver: I do not ask them and I do not intend to.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is a good thing for the hon. gentleman's constituents to know. I believe that we do not spend sufficient money on the Geological Survey. The opening of even one mine would more than bring back to the country the amount of money expended in this way.


Andrew B. Ingram: 'Purchasing specimens,' what does that mean ?


Clifford Sifton: That refers to some small purchases from time to time of some small specimens of rocks which may be in the possession of private individuals. The department may require them for examination or may not have a sample of that parti-Mr. OLIVER.
cular variety. The amounts paid are very trifling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought this was to purchase specimens for exhibition. You usually use a portion of your vote every year .lor the purpose of supplying specimens to schools and collegiate institutes.


Clifford Sifton: I should have added that in some cases where very fine geological specimens are in the hands of private individuals and the officers of the survey think they would be of value for the permanent museum they are purchased. Of course, the amounts that are paid are comparatively small. As to the cabinets of minerals that are sent to the schools they are not purchased. They are collected by the field officers. They make these collections for school purposes out of the surplus collection that they make in the course of their work in the field.


Richard Blain: I see an item of $260.03 for postage paid to the Ottawa post office. I understood that the reports were sent out free of postage. Perhaps I am wrong on that point.


Clifford Sifton: I presume that that is for postage for letters sent to foreign countries that have to be paid for.
Geological Survey-for special explorations and surveys in British Columbia and the Yukon and the publication of reports and maps thereon, $19,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a new item.


Clifford Sifton: I gave the hon. gentleman the particulars as to that work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When ?


Clifford Sifton: That is in the list I read.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman gave them, I have no remembrance of it. He gave a statement of the general work that was to be done in the different localities.


Clifford Sifton: That included the work in British Columbia. There is no special reason why this should have been-put in a special item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you put it in a separate item ?


Clifford Sifton: The ordinary vote is $60,000 but the director, after the first list had been made up, obtained my sanction for doing additional work in British Columbia and for the submission of the amount of money that was required to do that additional work. The amount is $10,000 and a further item is put in for it.
Geological Survey-to provide for plotting and compiling of surveys, plans, maps, and utilizing field notes, &c., $5,566.25.


Robert Holmes: The hon. Minister of Interior (Mr. Sifton) moves to amend the item by adding the following

Salaries, greater than $500 per annum may be paid from this vote, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the explanation of that ? There is nothing about salaries in this item.


Clifford Sifton: If the director requires to call in an expert for a short period he will have to pay him whatever his services are worth, or whatever the person who is employed demands and the director thinks a fair amount. These services are only of a temporary character and it amounts to very iittle, but the terms of the Civil Service Act are such that he could not pay a man under such circumstances more than $500. _ He would have to go in as a clerk at $500 a year, and in order to enable the director to employ persons of special capabilities for a short time this is put in. As an illustration, I may say that one of the officers lately was making a special investigation into the question of nickel, and there was some metallurgical work thait was required. As they did not have an officer in the survey to do it, they had to employ somebody temporarily, and they secured the services of a gentleman from McGill College, who was paid, I think, $100 a month.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the bon. minister whether there is anything in this item, No. 198, for any further explorations in the Peace River district?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


William James Roche: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has brought down that report that he promised in regard to Mr. Stewart ?


Clifford Sifton: I will bring it down tomorrow.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: There may be some Bills at the earlier stage, and in supply the estimates of the Prime Minister, the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, and in the afternoon the estimates of the Minister of the Interior will probably be resumed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What Bills ?
Mr. FIELDING The Prime Minister did not state.


Uriah Wilson: I had an understanding with the Minister of the Interior that he would go on with the immigration estimates immediately after the Bills. If we get into the other estimates we cannot tall when they will be reached.


Clifford Sifton: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask if it is the intention to have an item of that character placed in the estimates ?


Clifford Sifton: I cannot say till I see the report of the committee.
To pay for assay apparatus and chemicals, metallurgical, petrographical, library and clerical assistance (salaries greater than $500 per annum may be paid from this vote, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act), $6,300.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that you have to put salaries in here again?


Clifford Sifton: The remarks I made a short time ago apply to that.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to know if Mr. J. B. Lindsay has any land leased in townships 8 and 9 and ranges 5 and 6, west of the 4th meridian. I shall be glad to furnish the hon. minister with a short note I have here if he would be good enough to furnish the information. What I want to know is how many acres of grazing lands, with the date and price, have been leased to Mr. J. B. Lindsay, in townships 8 and 9, range 6, west of 4th meridian, or in township 8, range 5, west of 4th meridian, and what homestead entries have been made in township 8, range 5, west of 4th meridian.


Clifford Sifton: Will the hon. gentleman send the memorandum down ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of the Interior tells me that he will be ready to go on with his estimates immediately upon supply being moved, so that the Interior estimates will have priority.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thtjbsday, July 21, 1904.