1905-03-13

Mr. DUNCAN ROSS (Yale-Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, I have here what purports to be a petition in regard to the separate school clauses of the Autonomy Bills, and, before presenting it to the House, I desire to make an explanation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. D. Ross) may speak to a question of privi-Mr. URIAH WILSON.
lege, otherwise it would be impossible for him to make a statement.


Duncan Ross: I rise to a question of privilege. This petition I received out of the House of Commons post office yesterday. It was addressed in what I believe is the handwriting of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). It does not state where those who signed it live or who they are.


Hon. GEO  E.@: FOSTEli. I ask whether this is a question of privilege ? It is simply a matter about receiving a petition under some kind of an envelope.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the rule is that if a member becomes responsible for a petition that is handed to him, an explanation on his part is permissible as to the authenticity of the signatures.


Duncan Ross: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to do so, I think I can show the hon. gentleman who has raised the point of order that I am in order. It is expressly stated in the authority which I have here, May's Parliamentary Procedure, that when a member has any doubt as to the authenticity of a petition, and as he is responsible for the petition which he presents to the House, he has a perfect right to make an explanation before presenting it. Now, as I said before, I am led to believe that the envelope containing the petition was addressed in the handwriting of the hon. member for East Grey. I have no idea whether those signatures are bona fide or not. They purport to be residents of my district, but I do not know whether they are or not. It is quite evident that the petition has come through Conservative hands. However, with this explanation, I will present the petition.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (East Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, in handling a batch of petitions that have come to me, without any order and all posted in the city of Ottawa,
I	would say that there are some from my own district, some from the district represented by Mr. Lake and others from the district of West Assiniboia represented by Mr. Scott. They are all on a form sent out by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and I would suggest that if he intends to attend to the work of our western districts he put these petitions in a more business like shape. Many of the signatures to these petitions, as far as I know, are genuine, and I have pleasure in presenting them, but I would like to have the hon. mem-
II	er put the petitions in better shape.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Since my name has been brought into question more than once regarding this matter I wish as a question of privilege to say a word in reference to it. Many of these petitions are sent to me and as I do not know the
[DOT]2321

exact outlines of the constituencies, from the letters that accompany them, from the best information I have I send them to the member who, I believe, represents the district as I am requested to do. If an hon. member thinks they are not from his own district they must be from an adjoining one, and I would imagine that he would surely have no objection to presenting them, but if in a matter of this kind he has no respect for the wishes of his constituents and if he refuses to present them, if he will send them back to me I will be more than happy to present them. In regard to the petition presented by some hon. gentleman behind, I have it before me and I find there are one hundred and fifty names on it. In many cases the post office address is given and the letter accompanying it indicated that the petition came from his constituency. Therefore, I properly sent it to that hon. member and in so doing I did nothing wrong as far as I know. But, having done that, I would at least hope that the hon. gentleman would extend the same courtesy to his electors that I wish to extend to them when I am endeavouring to do my duty in a way which I think should not be offensive to anybody.


Mr. II  L.@: BORDEN (Carleton, Ontj. May I suggest in regard to this matter that we should have some definite ruling about it ? I do not understand that the time for presenting petitions is a time at which ques-t.ons of privilege are to be discussed. It seems to me than any hon. gentleman in this House in whose hands a petition is placed must satisfy himself as to whether or not he will present it. If he does present it he accepts all responsibility in connection with it. If he thinks the circumstances are not such as to justifiy him in presenting it that is a matter entirely for himself. If beyond and in addition to that there is any question of privilege that he wants to discuss, the proper time to do it is upon the Orders of the Day being called. Any other course will lead us into difficulties and will bring us into debate in the midst of the presentation of petitions, because, if one hon. gentleman speaks on a question of privilege, every other hon. gentleman has necessarily the same right to speak on a question that concerns him in any way. I would suggest that the rule which I think is the proper rule is the one that should be followed hereafter.


Mr.  A. N.@: WORTHINGTON (Sherbrooke),
I wish to say in regard to the petition I have just presented that although the said petition is posted in Ottawa and bears the frank of the right hon. leader of the govern-meut (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) I have every reason to believe that it is genuine and I have much pleasure in presenting it.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT (Renfrew).: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present the petition
of James Robertson, secretary of Sand Point L.O.L.-which I understand means Loyal Orange Lodge-No. 1,393. The petition is on the usual printed form, the names are all apparently written in the same handwriting. It was mailed in the House of Commons here in the city of Ottawa and addressed in a handwriting which looks very much like that of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule).


Mr.  T. S.@: SPROULE (East Grey), I rise to a question of privilege. As my name has been mentioned in this matter by the hon. gentleman-I think very improperly, and I shall ask the ruling of Mr. Speaker on that question-I have only to say that it could not be in the handwriting of the member for Grey, because he never signed any of these petitions or wrote a word in them. I emphatically deny the charge, and I think it is a gratuitous insult to his own electors who signed the petitions.



NEW MEMBER.

Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have the honour to inform the House that the clerk of the House has received from the clerk of the Crown in Chancery certificate of the election and return of Alfred Thompson, Esq., for the electoral district of the Yukon Territory.



CROWN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

Mr.   H.@: GERVAIS (St. James, Montreal), moved :-
That the petition of H. G. Garland and others presented this day, praying to be allowed to lay before the House a petition asking for the incorporation of the Crown Casualty Insurance Company of Canada, notwithstanding the expiry of the time for receiving petitions for private Bills, be read and received and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. GERYAIS.: trial delay; would only extinguish the action itself and not the right to action-the former is used as a plea in bar and the other as a plea in abatement, if I may be permitted to use the phraseology of the common law practitioner. The present motion relates to a purely formal delay such as would be extended in any court of law, whether the principles of the English common or of the French civil law prevailed. As I am arguing this case before the highest court in the land,
I should be granted this delay in order that I may have an opportunity to proceed with my case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  H. J.@: LOGAN (Cumberland) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 120) respecting false representations to induce immigration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. member explain.


Mr. LOGAN.: The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce is along the lines of legislation proposed in this House on former occasions for the purpose of preventing the publication of false representations by persons living in Canada to induce immigrants to come here from foreign lands, particularly in reference to representations touching the labour market of Canada. I am convinced that there have been many cases of hardship in this country, even during the past few months, among immigrants who were brought here believing reports made to them that there was work awaiting them, that they could obtain positions here as soon as they arrived. This Bill is for the purpose of preventing that state of affairs and of punishing those who are guilty of such false representations. It provides that they shall be punishable on summary conviction by the imposition of a line.


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


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 28) to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.-Mr. Turriff.
On section 10, business of company, &c.,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This seems to be an extremely wide clause. We have refused many applications for the powers which are given under some of these subsections, and this should be carefully considered before we commit ourselves.


John Gillanders Turriff: This Bill was carefully considered, clause by clause, by the Rail-


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: way Committee and it was amended in . several clauses. I do not see any particular objection to this clause ; the other day an objection was made to the wording of subsection (f) of this clause, but there was no particular objection made to the clause.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Well, what was the conclusion with regard to that objection. The acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) himself suggested that the clause should stand in order that certain words which I had mentioned as more suitable than those contained in the subclause might be considered by the promoters of the Bill.
I have the ' Hansard ' report of my suggestion.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the hon. member would suggest some words that would be more suitable I have no objection to adopting them.


Robert Laird Borden: I did suggest them ; the clause stood in order that they might be considered. If the hon. member will refer to the revised ' Hansard,' at page 2054, he will see what my suggestion was.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 17,-borrowing powers.


John Gillanders Turriff: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that in discussing this matter with some hon. gentlemen opposite, we arrived at the amount of $500,000 as the limit of the borrowing powers. I would accordingly move that after the word ' Company ' in subclause (c) the words
To an amount, not exceeding $500,000. lie inserted.
On section 17,-borrowing powers.


Robert Laird Borden: I raised some objection to this when the Bill was up before. As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied with the amendment which has been suggested, but I do not speak for other hon. gentlemen who may have different views.
On section 19,-exercise of rights.


Robert Laird Borden: The only question that arose with regard to section 19 was one arising from the peculiar condition of the legislation as it now exists. You have three tribunals. First, the Governor in Council who fixes the rates ; next arbitration to settle disputes regarding the long distance service ; and third the Railway Commission to deal with certain matters under power vested in it by virtue of subsection four of section 19. ' This is more a matter for the promoters of the Bill, but must inevitably lead to confusion and points to the absolute necessity of having some general legislation by. which all these matters shall be placed under the control of the Railway Commission.
Section 20, agreed to.


Mr. HYMAN.: I beg to move that subsection * F ' of section 10 be amended so as to read as follows :
Acquire and use any privilege granted by any provincial or municipal authority and acquire, use and dispose of any inventions, letters patent of invention or the right to use any inventions in any connection with or appertaining to its business.


Robert Laird Borden: That would meet the difficulty as suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. TURRIFF moved third reading of the Bill.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the principle of interchange of traffic among telephone companies has been adopted by the House and made to apply to this company, the government have any intention this session of making a general law in the same direction.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 1 shall probably make an announcement on this subject to-morrow.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Third reading to-morrow.



RED DEER VALLEY RAILWAY AND GOAL COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 76) respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: Is there a subsidy for this railway ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Regina and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 19) to incorporate the Calgary, Red Deer and Battleford Railway Company. -Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 50) to incorporate the Calgary and Battleford Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Kingston and Dominion Central Railway, and to change its name to ' The Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston and Georgian Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Harty.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What is the estimated cost of equipment of the Royal Canadian Mint in machinery and appliances for coinage ?
2.	What is the estimated cost of working per year, including number and wages of staff ; and by whom will the working staff be appointed ?
3.	What is the capacity of tbs mint ? What amount of gold bullion could be coined per year, exclusive of the necessary silver and copper coinage for use in Canada ?
4.	What was the amount of gold held in reserve on January 1st, 1905, by the Dominion and by all the Canadian hanks, respectively ?
5.	Is it the intention to coin free of charge all gold bullion brought to the mint ? If not, what charge is proposed ?
6.	What charge, if any, is to be made for coinage of gold for the British government ?
7.	How much is it estimated will be coined for the British government each year ?
8.	What has been the face value of copper and silver coined for Canada each year since 1895 ; the cost of bullion therefor, the- expense of coinage, and the cost of shipment to Canada ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 

ounce for amounts above that limit. These are the equivalent of the charges in the Australian mints.
6.	No regulation has been made on this point.
7.	No information on. this point.
8.-BRONZE COINAGE.
Fiscal Year.	Face Value.	Cost of Bullion.	Expense of Coinage.	Cost of Shipment.8	$ cfcs.	$ cts.	$ cts.1896	10,000	1,554 77	1,000 00	321 651897	10,0u0	4,710 93	1,000 00	377 841898	15,000	2,484 94	1,500 00	535 941899	22,000	4,211 08	2,200 00	685 211900	38,000	10,194 99	3,030 80	1,222 911901	36,000	8,0.18 48	3,625 55	1,371 971902	15,000	3,300 78	1,500 00	586 281903	30,000	5,540 17	3,040 88	1,102 481904	50,000	9,871 85	5,025 55	1,807 43



SILVER COINAGE.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year.	Face Value.	Cost of Bullion.	Expenses of Collection.	Cost of Shipment.$ cts.	§ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1895-	6.. 1896-	7..	140,000 00	G5,195 00	4,200 00	1,120 361897 8..	217,000 00	90,531 92	6,510 00	2,712 191898-9..	178,985 00	85,854 03	5,013 95	1,859 701899-1900	519,000 00	213,591 93	15,641 53	4,305 131900-1..	510,000 00	217,091 20	15,300 00	5,621 591901-2..	200,000 00	80,784 50	6,000 00	1,817 971902-3..	774,000 00	280,156 36	23,749 40	7,298 951903-4..	895,538 75	357,576 15	26,842 79	9,869 08

Mr. SCHAFFNER asked :: 1.	Why and by whose recommendation was Mr. Alexander MeKnight dismissed as postmaster for Boissevain, Manitoba, on September 1st, 1904 ?
2.	Were there any complaints ? If so, of what nature, and by whom were said complaints made ?
3.	Were any petitions received for his dismissal ? If so, by whom signed ?
4.	Did the post office inspector in the province ask for Mr. McKnight's dismissal ?
5.	How long had Mr. MeKnight held the position ?
6.	When were complaints, if any, first made ?
7.	Did the Postmaster General furnish Mr. MeKnight any reasons for his dismissal ?
8.	Were- there any netitions from' Boissevain asking that Mr. MeKnight be reinstated as postmaster ? If so, by whom signed ?


Mr. FIELDING.: 9.	Did the department make any investigation before dismissing Mr. MeKnight ?


Mr.   H.@: 1 and 2. The change in the postmastership of Boissevain, Manitoba, was not made on 1st September, 1904, "but in August, 1901, and was for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the service. The change was made on information which the department considered thoroughlv reliable.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	From November, 1886 to August, 1901.
6.	July, 1901.
7.	No.
S.	No petitions asking for reinstatement of postmaster were received.
9. The information furnished the department fully satisfied it that the change was in the public interest. No further investigation, therefore, was needed.



PAMPHLET ON SCHOOL LEGISLATION SINCE CONFEDERATION..

Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	W7ho authorized and prepared for distribution the ' Brief History from Official Sources,' referring to separate school legislation , since confederation ?
2.	Has it been distributed to all members and senators of the Canadian parliament ?
3.	If to others, to whom generally, and in what quantities ?
4.	How many in all have been printed, and how many distributed ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LATJRIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Hon. R. W. Scott.
2.	It is not considered an official document.
3	and 4. It was sent to senators and members and to others who asked for it. I am informed that about 500 copies were printed.



CAST-IRON FURNISHED DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES, SOREL.

Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	How many pounds of cast-iron were furnished and delivered, from the 1st July, 1904, to this day, to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, at Sorel, respectively, by La Com-pagnie Pontbriand (Limitee), N. F. Patenaude, Beauchcmin et Fils (Limitee), N. F. Patenaude, de Grilles Brevetees, the Dominion Foundry. Victor J. St. Amand, and the Canadian Foundry?
2.	What was the total amount paid to each one of the aforesaid persons or firms ?
3.	What is the amount actually due to each of the aforesaid persons or firms ?


Hon. L. P. R ROD EUR (Minister of Inland Revenue).: 1.	La Compagnie Pontbriand (Limitee), 111,538 pounds ; were paid $3,389.77 ; N. F.

Patenaude, 82,628 pounds, was paid $2,609.29, due $220.78 ; Beauchemin et Fils (Limitee), 6,389 pounds, were paid $191.67, due $105.86 ; La Compagnie de Grilles Bre-vetees, 115,451 pounds, were paid $3,568.08, due $285.06 ; the Dominion Foundry, 24,927 pounds, were paid $817.81 ; The Canadian Foundry, 8,467 pounds, were paid $254.01, due $137.52.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



HARBOUR MASTER, MONCTON.

Mr. STOCKTON asked :: 1.	Has Duncan Robertson, Moncton, N.B., been appointed harbour master of the port of Moncton ? If so, when was he appointed ?
2.	Is the said Duncan Robertson a British subject ?


Hon. L. P. BRODBIJR (Minister of Inland Revenue).: 1.	Yes ; but has since declined to accept the position.
20th February, 1905.
2.	The government has no information on the subject.



MANUFACTURE OF CORDAGE, KINGSTON.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARE-by Mr. Sam. Hughes-asked:
1.	Has the government installed a plan at Kingston for the manufacture of cordage ? If so, when, why, and at what cost ?
2.	Is the plant kept employed ? If so, when, and to what extent ?
3.	Has the government manufactured cordage at Kingston ? If so, when, in what quantities, and of what classes ?
4.	What quantity of cordage has the government on hand ? When was it manufactured, of what quality or class is it, is it saleable, and why has it not been disposed of ?
5.	What quantity of cordage has the government sold, when was it sold, to whom, and at what prices ?
6.	When and how does the government propose to dispose of the oresent stock of cordage?
7.	Does the government propose to continue to manufacture cordage, if so, why ?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: 1.	Yes, in June, 1904, to work up into rope small quantities of hemp occasionally found in consignments purchased for the manufacture of binder twine, which our superintendent deems better suited for the manufacture of rope than of binder twine. It cost $2,400.
2.	Yes, at intervals,-when sufficient suitable hemp has accumulated.
3.	Yes, since June, 1904, fifty-eight tons, I inch, 1 inch, 1J inch, 1J inch.
4.	Fifty-eight tons. June, 1904 to March, 1905. The quality is excellent. It is saleable, but is not sold because it was not offered for sale until the 1st instant, there not being until then a sufficient quantity to attract the attention of large dealers.
7oi
5.	None.
6.	By tender to the highest bidder.
7.	Yes, to the extent and for the purposes
above stated.	>



CUSTOMS OFFICER, PINETTE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. A. A. McLEAN asked :: ,
1.	Has Hector D. Morrison, customs officer at Pinette, Prince Edward Island, been dismissed from office ?
2.	If so, why, and on whose recommendation ?
3.	What is the date of dismissal ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: 1.	Hector D. Morrison, subcollector of customs at * Pinette, P.E.I., was retired from the Customs Service by Order in Council.
2.	The officer was retired on the recommendation of the Minister of Customs, because the outport was abolished, the amount of customs business transacted thereat appearing not sufficiently large to warrant the maintenance of an office there.
3.	The Order in Council abolishing the outport and retiring the officer is dated 23rd January, 1905.



MAIL CONTRACT, FARMINGTON AND WIL-MOT, N. S.

Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Who is the present contractor for carrying the mails between South Farmington post office and Wilmot railway station, in Nova Scotia ?
2.	When was the said contract made, and at what price ?
3.	Was the proposal for said mail contract accompanied by the usual guarantee by sureties on behalf of the contractor tendering ?
4.	If so, who signed the said guarantee, and who were the witnesses to their signatures ?
5.	How many tenders were received for said contract, and what are the names of each tenderer, and the amount of each tender respectively ?


Hon Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK (Postmaster General).: 1.	Minnie J. Pearson. '
2.	1st April, 1901, with Alfred W. Randall, who on 1st October of the same year transferred the contract to the present contractors. The contract price was and is $71.99.
3.	Yes.
4.	H. M. Phinney and Alfred W. Randall are the sureties for Minnie J. Pearson and N. W. Phinney witnessed their signatures
to the bond.
5. Five, viz. :


Alfred W.: Randall	$71	99T. Andrew Pearson	
85	00W. E. Crocker	
75	00A. W. McLaughlin	
81	38


Zenas S.: Banks	 80	00



POSTMISTRESS AT KENT, NOVA SCOTIA.

Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Has Miss Anna Kent been dismissed from the office of postmistress at Kent post' office. Nova Scotia ?
2.	If so, what was the reason for such dismissal, and when was It. ?
3.	What salary was attached to the said office?
4.	Who has been appointed in her place, and on whose recommendation was such appointment made ?


Mr.  T. S.@: With a view to increasing the post office facilities in the district, the department established two new post offices, one called ' Centre Musquodoboit,' a short distance westerly of Kent post office, and the other ' Reynolds,' about two miles northeasterly. In consequence the Kent post office became unnecessary and was accordingly closed, thus dispensing with the services of the postmistress. The salary attached to the Kent office was $25 a year.



POSTMASTER AT KASLO, BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Has Mr. Samuel H. Green, lately postmaster at Kaslo, B.C., been dismissed from the service ?
2.	If so, what was the reason for such dismissal, and when was the dismissal ?
3.	Who is the present postmaster at Kaslo, and when was he appointed ?
4.	On whose recommendation was the present postmaster appointed at Kaslo ?
5.	Who is the present contractor for carrying the mails between Kaslo post office, B.C., and the railway station ?
6.	Were tenders advertised for in regard to such mail carrying ? If so, how were they advertised ?
7.	How many tenders were received, from whom, and at what prices ?
8.	What sum does the present contractor receive for such mail carrying ?


Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Mr. Samuel H. Green has been removed from the postmastership of Kaslo, B.C.
2.	Mr. Green's removal was authorized oh the 14th J anuary last on representations which were believed to be correct, that he was an active political partisan, and had used the post office for political purposes.
3.	Mr. D. P. Kane is the present postmaster at Kaslo. The office was transferred to his charge on the 1st of February last.
4.	The present postmaster was appointed on the representation of Mr. W. A. Galliher, M.P.
5.	6, 7, 8. The side services along the line of railway between Kaslo and Sandon, including that of Kaslo post office, are performed by the Kootenay Railroad and Navigation Company for a bulk sum covering the carriage of mails on the railway between


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: the two points, and, being so included, was not the subject of tender.
I observe that they have not stated the amount in the answer. I think I am safe in adding that it was a bulk sum of $1,550 a year.



MUTUAL RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Mr. T. MARTIN asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that many suits are pending in England against the Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company, of New York, brought by policy-holders ?
2.	If so, how many ?
3.	Is.the government aware that every suit tried so far has been given against the company, and the company ordered by the judge to pay back all the moneys paid into the company as premiums, with interest at four per cent, and costs ?
4.	Is the government aware that the Lord Chancellor, in the case before the House of Lords, Foster vs. the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, of New York, confirmed Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy in his statement, viz.:
' I am clearly of opinion that the documents circulated by the company are tricky and misleading ' ?
5.	Is the government aware that R. B. Angus, of Montreal, brought a suit against the company to recover moneys paid by him as premium, that it was tried in the Supreme Court of Canada last year, and judgment w-as given for the company ; that it was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, and that the company paid him $6,000 or thereabouts to compromise his claim ?
6.	If Mr. Angus was repaid by the company, why should not all the policy-holders in Canada be paid back their moneys without' the trouble to them and expense to the company of law suits "
7.	Has the government, through the Insurance Department, calculated how much money it would take to pay off Canadian policy-holders who would be entitled to receive their money on similar equitable terms as the Angus settlement ? If so, how many policies, amount of policies, amount of premium ?
8.	Has the government any knowledge, through the Insurance Department, of how many policies will require to be paid off in Great Britain under the decision of the House of Lords ? If so, what is the amount of such policies, and the premium to be paid back to such policy-holders ?
9.	Has the government considered that the
repayment of lapsed and forfeited policies in Canada will entail a large sum of money ?	(a)
How is this money to be paid out of the resources of the company in Canada or elsewhere? (b) What will the amount be according to statements lodged by the company with the Insurance Department ?
10.	Has the government taken into consideration what will be the position of policy-holders when policies have not lapsed, and what security they will have in the future ?
11.	Is the government aware that last year Insurance Inspector Cutting, for the State of Massachusetts, has refused to grant this company a license to do business in that state because they refuse to allow their books to be inspected ?

12,	If the government is aware that this license was refused, did they cause inspection to he made of the company's books, on behalf of the Canadian policy-holders, and when ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: As respects most of the matters referred to in the hon. gentleman's question, the government have no official information, but they are aware of the reports which have appeared in the public press in relation to the affairs of the company mentioned. The name ' R. B. Angus ' in the hon. gentleman's question is probably a mistake, and is intended to refer to Hon. A. R. Angers. That gentleman, who had a claim against the company, has informed the Superintendent of Insurance that he has accepted the sum of $6,000 in settlement of his claim. The government, in common with the public generally, are aware of the difficulties which have occurred in relation to the affairs of this company, but have no reason to believe that any special investigation would be of assistance to Canadian policy-holders. The legislation of last session is believed to afford all the relief that is available. The company's license to do business in Canada was renewed under the provisions of that legislation, the conditions of which have been complied with by the company.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing :	(1) the number of permanent appointments, male and female, respectively, made to the Civil Service (inside division) in Ottawa, since July 1st, 1896 ; (2) the present strength of the Civil Service in Ottawa (inside division) permanent staff, specifying whether male or female ;	(3) the number oftemporary employees, male or female, on the pay-list for the inside division of the Civil Service at Ottawa for January, 1905 ;	(4) the number of temporary employees, male or female, appointed since July 1st, 1896 ;	(5) in addition
to the permanent and temporary clerks at present employed in the public service in Ottawa, the number of artisans, labourers, or other workmen employed at Ottawa during the month of January, and showing to which department these men are attached.-Mr. Sproule.
Copies of all memoranda received by the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and any other official of the department, since January 1st, 1904, concerning the ' Lurcher ' lightship.-Mr. Lewis-by Mr. Stockton.
Return giving the following information :-1. The stipulated price, in each case, of the ' Lurcher', and of the ' East Point,' Anticosti, lightships ;	(2) the additional amounts received by
the contractors in respect of these ships ;	(3)
any further expenditure for alterations, repairs and renewals incurred up to January 1st, 1905 ; (4) the dates, according to contract, the said boats were to be completed and delivered by the contractors ;	(5) the forfeit stipulated in
tie contract for delay of delivery ; (6) the penalty named against the contractors for failure to complete the contract within the time limit. -Mr. Lewis-by Mr. Stockton.
Return for each of the fiscal years from 1st July, 1897, to 30th June, 1904, of the expenditure on capital account upon the Drummond Counties Railway, and of the descriptions of work and materials for which such expenditure was made. -Mr. Foster.
Copies of all correspondence, Orders in Council, agreements, reports, &e., in connection with the taking over by the Dominion government of the Halifax and Esquimau defences.-Mr. Foster.
Copies of all advertisements, tenders, contracts, plans, specifications and papers relating to the construction of the several sections of the Murray Harbour Branch Railway.
2.	Of the several articles of rolling stock referred to at page 2186 of ' Hansard ' of 28th April, 1904, supplied on capital account to the aforesaid railway in each of the years there mentioned ; with the prices at which each article was charged to 'Capital.
3.	The names of the companies, persons or railways from which each such article was acquired. and the price therefor ; stating if the articles were new or second-hand.
4.	The use to which each such .article was applied when acquired, what compensation was received for such use, from whom, and how the proceeds were applied.
5.	Where each such article of rolling stock is now, in whose use, and on what terms.-Mr. Barker-by Mr, Foster.
For copies of all correspondence, letters, petitions, &e., in possession of the government, or any member or official thereof, relating to land damages claimed by Thomas Curley, Charles Mitchell and others, of Village Green, Prince Edward Island, for lands expropriated for the Murray Harbour branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway.-Mr. A. A. McLean.
Copies of all correspondence between the Department of the Interior and Robert Buchanan, Peter Veregin, Simeon Rieben, and the Dominion Lands Office at Yorkton, or others, relative to the claim of Ivan Shukin to the patent for the northwest quarter section 23, township 31, R. 6, to 2nd M.; and to any cancellation proceedings in connection with the said land.-Mr. Lake.

[Stage Direction]
-UNITED IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria) moved :: That in the opinion of this House the best interests of Canada and the empire at large would be advanced, and the peace, progress and prosperity of humanity be assured, by a full partnership union of Great Britain and her colonies ; wherein there would be a united Imperial parliament, empowered to deal with inter-imperial, international, commercial, financial and other necessary national problems ; hut leaving to the existing parliaments their present powers, functions, control of tariff, and other matters necessary for their own purpose.
He said : Mr. Speaker. As you are doubtless aware it was my intention to move this motion a week ago to day, but owing to the sad death of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. E. F. Clarke) a number of us were absent from the House to pay him

a last tribute of respect by attending liis funeral in Toronto. No one regrets the demise of our good friend Mr. Clarke more than I do. I may say that it was arranged he should second the motion which I have the honour to move to-day, and had he been spared to do so, I am sure he would have discharged that duty in his usually able and enthusiastic manner whenever the interests of the British Empire were concerned. The motion will undoubtedly suffer owing to his loss.
My object in proposing this motion is more educative ; more to bring the question before parliament and the country than to obtain a Vote at the present time, and consequently it is not my intention to divide the House. In studying out this problem I find that I am at least 50 years behind some of the ablest men [DOT]who ever adorned the public life of Canada. The Hon. Joseph Howe, one of the greatest of Nova Scotians, long years ago, as early as 1862 ; aye, as early as 1846, took a firm stand upon this question ; he wrote :
The question of questions for us all, he declared far transcending in importance any other within range of domestic or foreign
politics, is	 not how a province or
two can be strengthened by a fort or by the expenditure of a million of dollars, but how the whole empire can be so organized and strengthened as to command peace or be impregnable in war.
I quote from page 190, vol. 2, of the speeches of the Hon. Joseph Howe, these words from an address delivered on the organization of the empire ;
Of course if they expect us to be colonists for ever, and make no provision for our being anything else, upon their heads, and not upon ours, be the consequences of the separation, which when this is apparent, will be inevitable, I prefer full incorporation with them, in one great empire, free participation with them in its good and evil fortunes, its perils and its distinctions. All this I believe to be practicable, and shall not despair of its fulfilment.	.	,
About the same period, the Hon. Joseph Howe laid down an argument in connection with the federation of Canada, and in 1851- some of us were not bom then-he portrayed what would result from the fusion of Canada into one great Dominion. He said :
Throwing aside the more bleak and inhospitable regions, we have a magnificent country between Canada and the Pacific, but out of which five or six noble provinces may be formed, larger than any we have, and presenting to the hand of industry, and to the eye of speculation, every variety of resource, climate and soil. With such territory as this to overcome, organize and improve, think you that we shall stop even at the western bounds of Canada or even at the shores of the Pacific ? Vancouver's island, with its vast coal measures lies beyond. The beautiful islands of the Pacific and the growing commerce of the ocean, are beyond. Populous China and the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
rich east are beyond, and the sails of our children's children will reflect as familiarly the sunbeams of the south as they now have the angry tempests of the north.
The maritime provinces, which I now address, are but the Atlantic frontage of this boundless and prolific region ; the wharfs upon which its business will be transacted and beside which its rich argosies are to lie. Nova Scotia is one of these.
Will you then put your hands unitedly, with order, intelligence and energy to this great work ?
Refuse and you are recreants to every principle which lies at the base of your country's prosperity and advancement ; refuse and the Deity's handwriting upon land and sea is to you unintelligible language ; refuse and Nova. Scotia instead of occupying the foreground, as she now does, should have been thrown back, at least behind the Rocky mountains.
God has planted your country in the front of this boundless region ; see that you comprehend its destiny and resources ; see that you discharge with energy and elevation of soul the duties which devolve upon you in virtue of your position. Hitherto, my countrymen, you have dealt with this subject in a becoming spirit, and whatever others may think or apprehend. I know that you will persevere in that spirit until our objects are attained.
I am neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, yet I will venture to predict that in a few years we shall make the journey hence to Quebec and Montreal, and home through Portland and St. John by rail, and I believe that many in this room will live to hear the whistle of the steam engine in the passes of the Rocky mountains, and to make the journey from Halifax to the Pacific in five or six days.
The prediction of Joseph Howe made in 1851 has been borne out to the letter in regard to our Dominion ; I believe, Sir, the time IS near at hand when his aspirations will also be given effect to in relation to the unity of the empire-a full confederation of equal partnership between all parts of the empire. Speaking in London, England, on July 8, last, the Bight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain said :
What would the United States he at this moment if the several colonies had remained separate ? I believe that our difficulties in making a united empire are not greater than those with which Washington and Hamilton were confronted.
I may be permitted for a few moments to digress in order to observe the tendency of civilization in national affairs. That trend is undoubtedly towards unity ; unity in national life and absolute local control in local affairs. The failure of the great empires of the past; such as the Mado-Persian, the Assyrian, the Grecian, the Roman, the Carthaginian-their failure was because that while they had centralization in national life, they also tried to have centralization in local matters. The tendency of modern civilization has solved the problem of empire building. Great Britain was probably the first federation of nations, and hail Great Britain divested the imperial parlia-

ment of many of the details of legislation which it possesses, and conferred them on England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales by enlarging the powers of county councils and local bodies, not national, I believe the British Federation would be the better for it to-day. Then we have as an example at our doors the federation of the United States of America, founded on the centralization of national affairs with absolute local control over matters of local concern. In the United States we have that form of government worked out to a marked degree of success. In Canada our own institutions show the exemplification of the same principle ; Germany possesses a similar federation, and under the new constitution the Republic of France has carried out to a very larg extent the same idea of centralization of national affairs with absolute control in local matters, long years ago I had the privilege of being a school teacher, and I remember that on an old map of the world, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, each of the provinces of Canada and each outlying colony of the empire was painted in a different colour. As a teacher, I sometimes found it difficult to make it clearly understood by the students that these were all part and parcel of the great British Empire. So one Saturday in my leisure hours I took down the map and painted all the British possessions one colour-needless to say, Sir, that that colour was red. I see some hon. gentlemen smiling ; I may possibly have been indulging in painting some other things red, on later occasions, but I have always looked back with pleasure at that old map of the empire. It was the first map I had seen in which all the British possessions were of the same colour, and from that time onward I have lelt that had these British colonies remained legislatively united it would have been better for the empire and for the world at large to day. However, there is no use regretting the past ; all we have to do is to endeavour to make improvements in the future.
At the outset I will be met with the proposition that a federation of Great Britain and the colonies is absolutely impossible, because the people who constitute the British Empire are not of one race. If you will show me any great nation or any nation which has ever existed all of one race, I will show you a nation that is not a success. England is made up of many divergent nationalities; France from the earliest times has had a mixed population, Latins, Normans, Celtic and Teutonic, all united and clearly traceable at the present hour in every part of France. In Switzerland there are three different races, the Teutonic or German, the French and the Latin or Italian in the south.
Then we are told that uniformity of language is necessary. I need not go beyond Canada to point how fallacious such an argument is. In my own experience in travelling from end to end of Canada I have encountered 22 or 23 different languages, but the people speaking these varying tongues were all peaceable, law-abiding citizens, each with the good of the nation at heart, striving to make it as strong and noble as possible. Neither uniformity of race nor of language is essential to the upbuilding of a country. Others will say:	But you must
all be of one creed. I notice by the 'census returns that Canada has a very large number of creeds, I think somewrhere in the neighbourhood of 100, the United States have about 130 or 140, and in the British Empire throughout the world there are about 1,000 creeds that are recognized. If I may be allowed to digress I would say that I always thank the Lord for the great number of creeds, the more there are the less danger there is of any one of them becoming in thp ascendant and the less danger there is of persecution. I do not for a moment nor do I think that any one will consider that creed is an essential element, or that all people of a nation should be of one creed. But, we will be told:	You must absolutely have all these nations co-terminous they must be in close proximity to one another or you cannot build an empire. They null say that the ocean divides us. If one passenger starts from Halifax or Portland for Vancouver or San Francisco, and another steps on board an ocean steamer at either of these Atlantic ports for Liverpool there will be little difference in the time required by them to reach their respective destinations. Telegraphic communication between the eastern shores of North America and the old land to-day is as easy as it is between the Atlantic and Pacific. While the oceans seemingly separate us from the old land they really unite us. Does any one pretend to say that the Dominion of Canada would be able to place the products of its Northwest in the market of the motherland if we had to traverse the entire mileage now covered by ocean on land ? The freight rates would make transportation impossible. In short, the ocean is a bond of union, a connecting link rather than a line of separation. In other words, the waterways of the world are the free man's highways, and while mergers and capitalists of all descriptions may control railroads and terminals they have as yet failed to control the ocean highway. As a very prominent man in New York not long since told me, were it not that the city of New York is open to the sea so that steamships of any company and of every nation may enter the harbour andkeep down freight rates, New York would be at the mercy of a few railway companies, a few banking institutions, a few insurance companies, and a couple of telegraph companies. He pointed out that the whole commei'cial life of New York was preserved by the fact that the city lies by the ocean. Therefore, the ocean between Canada, Australia, India, South Africa

and the motherland are really bonds of union rather than dividing lines.
If these are not essential, what are the essentials? I would again refer to speeches of Hon. Joseph Howe to point out what are the essentials of nation building. In the iirst place we must have a noble manhood, we must in addition to the noble manhood have a certain community of interest. This we all have. The motherland buys what we produce and have to sell, and we consume those things of which the motherland has a surplus. I am satisfied that the entire House will agree with the statement that for whatever product we choose to name from any colony there will always be found a market either in the motherland or in one of the colonies.
We will also require in the upbuilding of a nation like this a high tone in national life, and above all things we must have that sentiment without which no home, no community, no nation can succeed-we must have the sentiment which has been aptly expressed in the words in reference to the old British flag:
'Tis only an old bit of bunting,
'Tis only an old coloured rag,
Yet thousands have died for its honour,
And shed their best blood for the flag.
In whatever part of the empire one travels he finds that old sentiment for the British flag, emblematic as it is of liberty, law and order. He finds that sentiment strong today.
The next question which suggests itself is:	Is the time ripe for the upbuilding of
the empire, for the full federation of the empire ? I think the first minister will agree with me that in so far as the colonies are concerned, and even in so far as the mother country is concerned, the time is ripe. Public sentiment in each community may not always be ripe, but .public sentiment in each community must have leaders. The speeches of the right hon. the premier (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), of the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster) are being quoted and used throughout the length and breadth of tlie motherland to-day. I find also extracts, and very brilliant extracts, from the speeches of the present Minister of Finance of this country (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in favour of a full and closer union or a full partnership union between Canada and the motherland.
She is at the pinnacle of her greatness. No nation has ever attained a higher position. She is the parent of responsible government, having taught the nations of the earth the rights of man and the proper methods of governing, humanity. She has reclaimed nearly one-half of the world and made savage and waste lands teem with plenty. In the Soudan alone, in the few years anterior to Britain's acquisition of that country, there were upwards of three mil-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
lion natives massacred there in less than ten years-massacred as the result of intertribal conflicts among barbaric and semibarbaric people-but since Britain has acquired the Soudan, the loss of life has been comparatively small and that country to-day has become productive. We find that she has attained a position in trade and commerce and manufacturing, especially inventions, unequalled by any other land in the history of the world. We find that since responsible government was established bv Great Britain in the year 1700, the world at large has made more progress than in all the years anterior to that period. But above all we find that in every land, as well as in Britain and her colonies, the spirit of British justice is glorified and the spirit that is associated with the term British justice is taken as the key note for justice everywhere. Yet strange to say, in spite of all this, Great Britain seems to be hated by those she has served and upbuilt. They would cripple her in trade and prestige, and, if they dared, would even resort to war in order to disrupt her empire and give her an inferior place among the nations of the world. It is well known to-day that in the Transvaal, the secret plan of European countries was that Britain should be disrupted and South Africa knocked of her empire. It is well understood that the possesison of South Africa is absolutely essential to the maintenance of the British Empire. In 1765, when Great Britain was at war with all Europe, she lost about 1,700 vessels rounding the Cape of Good Hope on their way to India, and she became convinced of the necessity of having large coaling stations and depots in that vicinity in order to maintain her possessions in South Africa and thus keep intact the integrity of the empire.
Her colonies are now growing into manhood. They are loyal to the core. Their loyalty was shown in the South African war. Although the colonies had no part in the government of South Africa and had nothing to do with the war or its causes, be the latter good or bad, nevertheless when the call for arms was made they responded loyally and did their duty fearlessly and well. The colonies, being new, are filled with a resourceful people, whose individuality is rapidly developing and the individuality of any young people in a new country is always a great force. Our young progressive people are animated by noble aspirations for the future ; and if a union does not take place between Great Britain and her colonies, rest assured the fault will not lie with the colonies, but with the mother land. We find persons occupying public positions in Canada and the empire at large predicting for Canada one of the five following positions. Many claim that the future destiny of the Canadian people is necessarily annexation to the United States. Others say that Canada will become either a republic or a monarchy. In the latter

event, I do not know wliere we would get our sovereign unless we chose to elect the First Minister or the Minister of Finance to that position. Others again say that we should remain in our present dependent position but build up our own army and navy. And others claim that we should not only do this but also contribute financially tp the support of the empire's military service. But there are others, with whom I am glad to, class myself, who aspire to full partnership and union with the mother country in all matters in relation to war and trade and politics so that we should have a parliamentary union between Great Britain and all her colonies.
In order that the present position of matters may be better understood, I think that a Iitttle resume of Great Britain's association with the continent of North America will not be out of place. In 1776 and for ten years anterior to the rebellion of 1776in other words the war of independence- there were, according to eminent American historians, agitations being carried on by able men for the establishment of a republic on the continent of North America. This was backed up by those who had been exiled from the old land as convicts, because in those days Great Britain used many of the present states of the union as penal settlements. These and their children were filled with animosity to the mother land, and heartily joined the movement for the establishment of a republic. We have had recently from', American historians of the most eminent type a good deal of data in connection with this movement. They have shown that for ten years previous to 1776 there was a tyrannical and aggressive movement against those who did not coincide in the views of the agitators, which practically amounted to Intimidation. We find that this movement made headway, due in great measure to the reluctance of the loyalists to make a quarrel. We all know how reluctant people are to attack any public movement. They may have the idea that the movement has for its object some improper end, yet they will hesitate to take action to stamp it out. Therefore anterior to 1776, the loyal men, who could have brought the British government to a sense of its duty, hesitated to take action owing to their reluctance to bring on a quarrel. Another cause which gave the movement headway was the weakness which leads to making compromises with and concessions to wrong. It is all right to observe the law of compromises, but there are conditions under which the law of compromises or the making of concessions is absolutely contrary to the best interests of a people. It is now well known that foreigners engineered the movement in the United States and that the folly and neglect of the British government tended undoubtedly to fan the agitation into a flame. The result was that Great Britain lost one-lialf of the North American continent. The next period in the history of Britain's rule in America may be taken as the period culminating in the years 1837 and 1838. We find by careful examination of history to-day that for ten years anterior to 1837 and 1838 an agitation had been going on in the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. In Upper Canada it was carried on by English speaking radicals and in Lower Canada by French speaking radicals, and we find that the end aimed at was either the independence of Canada or its annexation to the United States. That agitation was also advanced by the acquisition of foreign gold. The object aimed at was undoubtedly to disrupt the empire. In the agitation were men of considerable ability, but I am proud to say that many of those who took part in the rebellion afterwards became among the most loyal subjects of the empire and proved their allegiance to their Queen and country on more than one occasion. Passing on I find the next great movement looking towards the disruption of Britain's colonies in North America and their separation from the mother land began in 1886 and continued on to 1896.
The movement at that time took the more plausible guise of commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, continental free trade, and other notions of that kind. But with the acquisition of office by the gentlemen engineering this movement-these movements, rather, for they were as varied as the weatner-and all these agitations disappeared ; and now we find the leaders of these movements occupying the first places in the hearts of the people of the country high in the estimation of their sovereign, labelled G.C.M.G., K.C.M.G., and all that sort of thing-showing what transformation scenes can be worked in the drama of the empire's life
Many believe that during the Boer war there was another critical period in the history of Canada's connection with the motherland. That war was undoubtedly the result of a conspiracy on the part of the nations of the earth to disrupt the empire. But, when the time for action came they hesitated. Britain had a record for war, and the nations did not care to incur her anger. As I have pointed out, their idea was that the war would lead to the loss of South Africa, and this to the loss of India, and so to the breaking up of the empire and the encroachment of other nations upon British territory. We find that at that time Canada hesitated to do her part in having troops go to the assistance of the empire. But, after due consideration the First Minister himself gracefully yielded, and the troops left Canadian shores and took service in South Africa.
At intervals during the past few years, there has been a spasmodic agitation looking to the severance of the ties that bind us to the motherland. For instance there

is the agitation in favour of Canada making her own treaties, the agitation in favour of building up our navy, the agitation in favour of cutting off appeals from Canadian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the agitation in favour of having no imperial general officer commanding in Canada. And, Sir, the endeavour was made, as far as possible, to create prejudice throughout the length and breadth of Canada against Great Britain and her judicial tribunals because of the decision in relation to the Alaskan boundary. I have regretted that this matter was not brought up in the House, for then an opportunity would have been afforded to remove some of the prejudices created by the press of this country-not alone by the press of one party, I am sorry to say, but by a large portion of the press of both parties, carried away by misapprehension as to the true state of affairs. Another agitation was the endeavour to create sympathy for the Boers in the war. And another of these agitations, strange to say, was for the removal of the Union .Jack from these parliament buildings. The question has been asked in this House by what authority the grand old Union Jack was flying over the parliament buildings of Canada. This shows the extremes to which some gentlemen will go. Then, many of us are a little surprised that there should be such an endeavour on the part of the Department of the Interior to bring in immigrants of outside nationalities to our shores. I have never found fault with the fact of a movement to promote immigration. But, so far as I have been able to go, I have endeavoured to agitate in favour of bringing in British immigrants rather than those of other nations. Many have been surprised to see the large number of foreign immigrants, for, it will undoubtedly be three or four generations before the deeendents of these people become real Canadians and good British subjects. Many have regarded with more or less suspicion the argument in favour of not permitting Canadians to serve the empire under arms beyond the bounds of Canada. We watch these things with more or less surprise and suspicion. The latest movement of this kind is that of Canada securing from the imperial government control of the two great naval stations, Halifax and Esquimalt. I shall not discuss that subject at length, but only say that I do not endorse it, as I am satisfied that it does not tend in the direction of upbuilding the empire and strengthening Canada's connection with the motherland. In 1871, when Britain partially withdrew her forces from the continent of North America, she handed over to Canada munitions of war valued at $4,350,000 as a present. She has also handed over 11,718 acres of land situated in strategic and central positions throughout Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
the length and breadth of the country. Now, Britain seems to have handed over her remaining stations on this continent, Halifax and Esquimalt. This, I say, I regret. I shall quote again from that staunch old statesman, old Joseph Howe, to show that away back in 1S62, he foresaw the danger and took the line then which I am endeavouring to follow to-day. In 1862 Mr. Howe addressed a notable letter to Right Hon. C. B. Adderley, in which he deprecated the plan of each section of the empire trying to defend itself, and insisted most strongly on the propriety and necessity of unity in defence.	[DOT]
He did not believe it was the duty of the-friends of the empire, but the policy of its enemies to attempt to divide its forces ; the task of its friends was to unite and combine.
If I understand your argument, you would have half a hundred little standing armies, scattered all over the globe, paid out of fifty treasuries, and with uniforms as various as were the colours in Joseph's coat, with no centre of union, no common discipline, no provision for mutual succor and support.
Further Mr. Howe said :
I would have one army that could be massed within a few days or weeks on any point of the frontier, moved by one head, animated by one spirit, paid from one treasury. Into this army I would incorporate as many of the colonial militia as were required to take the field in any province that might be attacked, and, from the moment they were so incorporated, they should he moved, paid and treated as one imperial force.
These sentiments, long ago expressed by Joseph Howe, I am satisfied represent the true patriotic position for the empire to assume. And, if these words are true of an army, how much more are they true of a navy. I, therefore, would deprecate this latest movement of the Dominion of Canada taking over Halifax and Esquimalt and carrying out the policy which Howe opposed many years ago and which those who truly understand the position, I believe, will deprecate to-day.
But, Sir, all attempts to disrupt the old empire have failed, and I am satisfied all will fail. A short time ago I was conversing with a very eminent American statesman. We were passing along the street in the city of Toronto. In one of the shop windows was a very handsome portrait of Her late Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria. , This American said to me, ' That women has done more good than any human being that ever lived, and she holds a place in the hearts of the people of the United States even far beyond that which she held in the hearts of the people of the British empire. They regarded her as the noblest woman that ever lived.' And he went on in this line. Then I drew his attention to King Edward, and asked him the

opinion of the American people of the present Sovereign, and he said, they were all agreeably surprised and delighted to find that he was turning out such a great ruler and statesman, and he added, 1 If you people of the British empire furnish the world with another such example as these two sovereigns, I am inclined to think that by the time his rule is over we of the United States will be prepared to undo our Act of 1776 and ask to be readmitted to the empire.'
Now, Sir, the first position I shall briefly discuss is annexation. I shall not enter into details further than to point out a few leading considerations. Many who advocate annexation claim that we would thereby avoid any extravagant expenditure in military matters ; that we would never become responsible for Britain's wars or for expenditures connected with her wars ; but if we were annexed to the United States, a republic and a free people, we would not be put to any of these great costs for war. Let me examine these contentions. In the first place, we would be in the back field on the farm, our farmers would be worse off, and would not be enjoying the samfe advantages as the agriculturists of the United States. From a material view point, you will find that the advantage of being near large centres of population is increased from 10 to 20 per cent. Farmers are paid better prices, they obtain goods cheaper when they live near large centres than when they live in the outlying districts. Therefore^ Canada should avoid, as far as possible, being the backfield of the farm. Next, in relation to military expenditures, take last year, when there was no war going on, the United States spent on her army $115,035,411 ; oil her navy, $102,965,102 ; on army pensions. $142,550,266, or a total of $300,541,779. That was the sum paid by the people of the United States last year for war and war purposes, and that does not include the interest on the war debt for wars previously conducted. Exclusive of interest, the people of the United States paid per head last year $4.50 for war and war purposes. I' gave the figures on this subject on another occasion last year, I gave them in detail, 1 will now give them in general totals. The United States have paid for wars and war purposes, from 1790 up to the present time, $16,877,000,000 ; whereas the wars of Great Britain in all parts of the world during the same period only amounted to some $13,000,000,000. In other words, the United States has spent for war and war purposes in the last ;120 years, in round numbers, $4,000,000,000 more than the British empire has paid. In this connection, Edward Atkinson, of Boston, a well-known writer upon economical subjects, in his last pamphlet, says :
On the 26th of January, 1904, I again published an analysis of the expenditure for the year 1903, with an estimate continued to June 30th, 1904, based upon official figures. I then proved that on the 30th of June, 1904, the cost
of war and warfare for seven years would prove v to have been one thousand million dollars ($1,000,000,000) in excess of the normal cost of supporting the government of the United States during the previous twenty (20) years at the rate of five dollars ($5) per head. My computation that the cost of the war and warfare to June 30th, 1904, would prove to be one thousand million dollars ($1,000,000,000), was an underestimate. It very nearly reached the sum of ten hundred and forty million dollars ($1,040,000,000). The end is not yet.
On page 22 of the same pamphlet he says :
The excess of expenditure on war and warfare over 1882-9 during the eight years under Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt has been over $1,500,000,000.	.	,
That is the excess of expenditure in these eight years alone. And this is the nation to which our anti-military friends would wish Canada to be annexed in order to avoid taxation for military and war purposes. If Canada were part and parcel of the United States to-day, her contribution for war and war purposes, instead of being the paltry sum of $2,500,000, would, on the pro rata population, be upwards of $30,000,000 ; that is the sum we would have had to pay last year if we were a part of the United States ; and this year I believe the expenses are to run higher. When we consider the growing sentiment of the United States in favour of closer connection with the empire, I think we may fairly dismiss from our minds the idea of annexation to the United States finding any considerable foothold in the hearts of the people of this country.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Who wants annexation ? Where is the sentiment ?


Samuel Hughes: I am saying that the sentiment, which was strong and which is sometimes found in the hearts of certain persons, has no basis in reason, particularly on financial grounds. But that sentiment, whatever there was of it, has vanished, as well as the policy of the leaders of the hon. gentleman's own party in favour of continental free trade, commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity, the only result of which policy, if it had been carried out, would have been the annexation of this country to the United States. Another proposition that we sometimes hear is that of independence-and perhaps my hon. friend will say, Who wants independence ? But I want to tell him that the signs of the time indicate that there are many who favour independence. In the first place, I may say that the configuration of Canada positively debars it from ever being an independent nation. I have no hesitation in saying that as between annexation on the one hand and the independence of Canada on the other. I, as a resident of the province of Ontario, would hold up both hands in favour of annexation to the United States in preference to Canadian independence. We have one

[DOT]community here on the east separated from a community in the far west, and there is no use disguising the fact that the rocky region to the north of Lake Superior will never be thickly populated ; in other words, Canada will be of a pismire shape, as Hon. Joseph Howe long ag'o pointed out, and ultimately the great west would throw in its lot with the people to the south, and the east would form a community by themselves. The great bond of union in Canada to-day is not the Canadian Pacific Railway, is not the new Transcontinental Railway, is not the fact that we have any great community of interest, so much as it is that the British flag floats over the entire country from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. Militarism under Canadian independence-where would the gentlemen who stand in such mortal terror of militarism find themselves ? We would [DOT]either have to lie under the protection of the United States or we would have to protect [DOT]ourselves. Had we been part of the United States last year, had we paid per head the same as the people of the United States paid, the cost to this country, as I have already shown, would have been upwards of $30,000,000, instead of the $2,500,000. If we were independent, the necessary expenditures for building up a fleet and protecting *our commerce-and Canada stands high in the commercial world-would be away up in the hundreds of millions ; the necessary cost for defences on the sea coast would be away up in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and the necessary cost for the rifles .that my right hon. friend says he wishes to see in the hands of every able-bodied man in the Dominion of Canada, would he away up in the fifty or sixty millions of dollars1, not *counting anything at all for any other incidental expenses in connection with it. Were Canada independent to-day, to place herself on a footing to be compared with any second-class nation in the world, she would have to go to an immediate expenditure away up in the hundreds of millions. With her immense frontier, with her shipping trade and her coast line, Canada would flud herself confronted with all that expense ; and, if so, what would we have and what would we be ? I saw in * Hansard ' the other day that one of the hon. members from the maritime provinces asked a question of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) concerning some Canadian sailors who were imprisoned in Uruguay, and who had been lying there for some time. Suppose Canada were independent, how would we reach them ? Send down the gun-boat ' Canada ' ? My hon. friend .the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden), I am afraid, would have to turn out his army and go down there.


An hon. MEMBER.: Send down the ' Minnie M.'


Samuel Hughes: The ' Minnie M.' would not reach that port. She only goes to ports where there is no danger.


Samuel Hughes: 


Mr. FOSTER.: She is in dry dock.


Samuel Hughes: I need not point out to the House that this movement which I propose, would bring peace and prosperity to the empire and to the whole world as well. It would do away with the necessity for the great expenditures now made by different nations on their armies and navies. In our own country we have a great many of our young men familiar with the English and German languages, the English and French languages, the English and Russian languages, and these young men would take their places in filling the commercial agencies and consular agencies and ambassadorial positions in various parts of the world.


An hon. MEMBER: What about the Gaelic '	,


Samuel Hughes: They say Gaelic was the language of the Garden of Eden as it is the language of ' the superior regions but I do not know to what country we could send a Gaelic speaking ambassador unless we could translate him beyond this earthly sphere. This full partnership union would tend to do away with the race and creed prejudices which we find agitating not only Canada, but agitating the motherland at times. Justice would be assured in every corner of the empire ; freight rates would be lessened and immigration to Canada would be encouraged. Let me point out that since 1871, 4,159,922 Britishers left the shores of Britain for the United States, while only 708,000 came to Canada, 833,000 weht to Australia, and 655,000 to other parts of the world. Under federal union, the aim of the motherland would be to encourage her children to emigrate to her colonies rather than to foreign lands, and instead of the United States getting 4,000,000 Britishers and Canada only 700,000, these figures would soon be reversed. This full partnership union would secure to Canada the trade of supplying the motherland which is now in the hands of foreigners. In 1903 Great Britain imported goods from foreign countries to the value of $2,100,000,000, while from the colonies she imported only to the value of $560,000,000. Of this foreign trade $600,000.000 dollars worth was of manufactured articles while the colonies only supplied $70,000,000 worth. Of this foreign trade $620,000,000 were for raw materials and articles mainly manufactures, while from the colonies Great Britain only took $240,000,000. Of this foreign trade $900,000,000 went for food and drink and tobacco, and the colonies only secured $253,000,000 worth of it. Britain imported from France last year $250,000,000 worth of goods most of which might have come from ' Canada, and Britain taxes herself millions against French and German and Russian aggression while it is needless to say she has not to tax herself one dollar against Canadian aggression. Britain imported from Germany last year goods to the value of Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
$172,000,000, a large portion of which might have come from Canada. Britain imported from Holland last year $173,000,000 worth of butter, cheese and dairy products, all of which would have come from Canada and under a full partnership union it undoubtedly would have come from Canada and the other colonies. England imported from Russia last year goods to the value of $155,000,000, all of which might have come from Canada and Russia we may say is the arch enemy of Britain. An estimate has been made that if the British and colonial workmen had produced only twenty-five per cent of the manufactured articles imported into Great Britain and Ireland yearly, *there would not be a pauper in the empire. Britain imported from foreign countries last year $175,000,000 of grain and flour apd from the colonies only $75,000,000 worth. Britain imported meat products, animals &c., from foreign countries to the value of $195,000,000 last year and from the colonies only $55,000,000 worth. Of eggs, butter and cheese, Britain imported $255,000,000 from foreign countries, and only $60,000,000 from her colonies. Under full partnership union, Britain's colonies could have supplied her with the entire bill, and who will deny that if such a result followed, there would not be greater prosperity in the empire. Canada supplied only $95,000,000 worth out of the $200,000,000 of food products imported by Great Britain, whereas under a full partnership union Canada would have secured the greater part of this trade.
There would undoubtedly be a great growth of population in Canada ; it would secure to Great Britain and the colonies the trade of the various British possessions and protectorates. In the past there has always been the open door in these regions and all the nations of the world have had the same access to these markets as has Great Britain, although Britain's soldiers and Britain's money have brought these lands under civilization. The other nations that have not contributed one dollar to this purpose have now the same trade rights as Britain in those lands. Under a full partnership union this free access would be denied by Great Britain to other nations. If this policy were carried out it would compel other nations to grant Britain fairer tariff privileges. I need not go into details of how it would affect the empire from a military point of view. It would reduce the cost of war to a minimum and guard us against foreign aggression.
Let us see of what the British empire would consist under a full union.
Area. Population, 1904.
Great Britain and Ireland..	121,000	42,790,000European possession, other Asiatic possessions-	121	200,000Cyprus	2,590	250,000India, &c	1,900,000	300,000,000Ceylon and Maldives.. ..	26,000	3,600,000Eastern Asia	2,000	1,000,000
Africa, South	
" West	
" Bast and Central .. Mauritius, Seychelles, &c.. Australia, New Zealand, &c
Canada	
Newfoundland	
West Indies and South
America	
Falkland Islands	
Antartic, South Georgia..
Area.	Population,
	1904.
1,238,000	6,300,000
600,000	33,000,000
750,000	8,000,000
900	400,000
3,200,000	5,000,000
3,750,000	5,600,000
40,200	217,000
122,000	1,500,000
7,500	2,000
1,500	
11,762,810 407,859,000
Twenty-five per cent of the habitable surface of the earth is controlled by the British empire to-day. It has a population of 407,000,000 persons out of 1,800,000,000 people on the whole earth, or 22 per cent of the population of the earth to-day. Canada alone is larger that the whole of Europe without Russia. Europe's population in the fifteenth century was only 50,000,000 ; the English speaking people of the world to-day number upwards of 150,000,000.
The shipping of Great Britain and her colonies is now more than one-half of the entire shipping of the earth.
The coaling and naval stations of Great Britain are found in every sea. Where would Canada be for coaling stations throughout the world in case she declared her independence ? Begging of Great Britain. Canada, Egypt, India, Australia and New Zealand can supply the empire with all the agricultural products it requires. The commodities are now largely drawn from foreign nations for protection against whose aggression the British and the colonial tax payers burden themselves by millions of pounds every year. Under a full partnership union I maintain that every part of the motherland as well as the colonies would be infinitely benefited.
Some will say how are you to effect this ? It is not for me to say. I understand that there is likely to be a council of the various portions of the empire at an early date. I trust that the First Minister may see his way clear to taking a part in that conference and let me hope that he will return from it in a better state of health than he returned from the last conference. I would not attempt to dictate or to do more than suggest what the plan of union should be, but the only way to arrive at a conclusion is to make a series of suggestions and then eliminate what is not necessary, what is impossible and what is undesirable, and in that way I am satisfied that the genius of the empire can very quickly arrive at a.satisfactory solution of the whole matter. My idea would be to perpetuate a limited form of monarchical government and undoubtedly, Sir, the present sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland would continue to be the sovereign of the united parliament of Great Britain and all her colonies. There
should undoubtedly be an executive council and there should be a parliamentary body. Some think there should only be an executive council but my own opinion is that there should be a parliamentary body, elected from some large unit from all parts of the empire and from this body the executive council should be ehosen. The powers conferred upon this great imperial parliament, should embrace inter-imperial or as some prefer to say intra-imperial matters, international matters, commercial affairs, imperial finance, and other necessary national pioblems. It should control the army, the navy, consular agents, commercial agents, ambassadors, and all other similar officers. Taxation should be levied on a uniform system based on population, trade or revenue or a combination of these.
Each parliament should continue as now, and each should control its own tariff subject to a preference within the empire to be determined by the imperial body.
The preference duty should be levied by the parliament of Greater Britain, collected by each integral part and credited to the exchequer of the empire. The preference should be low on raw materials, on necessary breadstuffs, foods, &c., and high on manufactured articles, and the same uniform principle should be carried on throughout in reference to all nations. In case one part of the empire should pay more per l ead than another the proportion should be fairly arranged. These are details but I make the suggestions.
If foreign nations would reduce their tariffs against Greater Britain the preference as against these nations might be reduced, and any most favoured nation arrangements should be made only by the greater imperial parliament.
It would be necessary to maintain a large navy, an imperial navy not a navy, as Howe pointed out, of fifty different little nations all over the world, but a great imperial navy that could strike a blow in any part, a navy over which every Canadian would have as much control as any individual in any other part of the empire, a navy whose officers would be, pro rata, taken from Canada, a navy the money for which would be controlled by our Canadian representatives as much as by any representatives from the motherland or Australia. These are, in general terms, the outlines of a naval scheme.
For land purposes there would undoubtedly be a standing army for such an empire, blit I maintain that the time has come when military service must he largely managed through militia. Untrained men and officers did good service in the rebellions of 1688-90. They did splendid service in the American war of independence, and in South Africa. Untrained men and officers- I use the statement advisedly. One-half the men at Waterloo classed as Wellington's veterans had not been within their military

jackets six weeks, and yet they resisted the onslaughts of the finest soldiers of Europe. About 20 per cent of the men who climbed the heights of Alma were less than a year in service and more than 20 per cent of them were under 20 years of age. These were the men who fought the battle of Inkerman.
Many lads who were out in South Africa had never handled a rifle before. Entrained men have over, and over again shown that they could be relied on in war, but trained militiamen have again and again shown that for many purposes they are equal to the best regulars. The Canadian militiamen and the militiamen of Australia and New Zealand made a record in South Africa which for ever disposed of the idea that trained militiamen were a menace, or, as General Hutton once told the British government, that the Canadian militia would be a menace to the regular troops in South Africa. With a large navy, a small army and a well trained militia throughout the length and breadth of the empire, the empire would be ready for defence at a moment's notice against any enemy. A good many people are under the impression that when men have been out a few years in camp they cannot reconcile themselves to taking up again the avocations of peace, but that idea has been completely dispelled by the fact that our boys of South Africa soon found new positions in civil life when they returned, and are as peaceful, law-abiding citizens as you will find in the whole Dominion. I do not think it is necessary that I should prolong my remarks on this subject, but X might point out that while Great Britain undoubtedly has committed mistakes in the past, and while undoubtedly she haa her faults ; yet, Sir, we do not love her on account of any fossil ways or barnacles fastened to the old ship of state, but she has a strong hold in the hearts of the people, not only of her own race and lineage, but of ail those who owe allegiance to the old Union Jack. Her noble and free institutions ever endear her to the people in every land over which that flag floats. The. love of individual liberty, which is implanted in the hearts of freemen the world over, is largely due to her influence. The love of law and order and British justice is implanted in the hearts of the people, not only of Britain, but of other lands living under responsible government. As far as the Canadian people are concerned, her glorious record in war and literature and progress of every kind, give her a place in our affections from which it will be impossible to remove her. In the past she has guaranteed our credit, she has defended our soil, she has spent millions of money in maintaining troops and fortifications in our country. When the British troops were removed from Toronto, the business men of that city felt they had suffered a great loss, and it is only because the Dominion government are replacing the troops which have been taken away from Halifax that the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
people there can reconcile themselves to any such change. Although she may have-in the past pursued a mistaken policy, it is not too late to undo what has been done. If our hon. friends opposite had not succeeded to power in 1896, they would still be pursuing the same phantoms that they were accustomed to follow in the past. But now that they have been clothed with the responsibilities of office, they find how impossible it would be to manage this country under their old policies. So that if there are any who favour annexation to the United States or independence, I am satisfied that when they come face to face with the great problem of administering the British empire under a system of full part-American war of independence, and in nership union between the motherland and her colonies, they will let the visions of the past vanish and join hands with those of us who go in for a federation of the empire. I was very sorry to read in the papers that an hon. member of this House not long since expressed somewhere or other the opinion that one Canadian was as good as twenty Doukliobors or a hundred Englishmen. Now, while I do not take second place to any man in upholding the capability of Canadians, I think that any gentleman who, whether in the heat of excitement or otherwise, made such a statement, should take the first opportunity of standing before the people and apologizing for it. Whatever fault England may have-and. I have no English blood in me, though I can boast of having the blood of two or three other nations-no nation in the world can boast of having done so much for the upbuilding of humanity in all parts of the world. But I find this sentiment so much more beautifully expressed in a few lines from the pen of Eliza Cook that I will take the liberty of quoting them :
There's a heart that leaps with burning glow The wronged and the weak to defend-
And strikes as soon for a trampled foe As it does for a soul bound friend-
It nurtures a deep and honest love ;
It glows with faith and pride,
And yearns with the fondness of a dove For the light of its own fireside.
'Tis a rich rough gem, deny it who can,
And this is the heart of an Englishman.
The spirit of sneering at England and Englishmen has become too common among a certain class in Canada of late. I was rather sorry to see gentlemen occupying positions in the cabinet, or knocking at the doors of the cabinet and the First Minister, applauding the sentiment expressed by an hon. member of this House when he made the comparison between an Englishman and a Doukhobor. I would much prefer that those gentlemen -would have the good grace, whatever they may feel in their hearts, to refrain from expressing such disloyal and impertinent sentiments. It is all very well

to say that a silken cord binds Canada to the motherland, but a little auxiliary bond would do no harm. If Canada had not the auxiliary bond of federal unity in addition to the silken tie which binds together the provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, I am afraid the silken tie would be hardly equal to the strain put upon it. It is straining sentiment rather too much to say that this silken tie would be sufficient to hold the Canadian provinces together without the still stronger bond of political union. I trust that the time is not far distant when all the colonies of the empire will, in addition to the silken tie of sentiment, join the mother country in the still stronger bond of political union. To give an instance of what sentiment there is in the hearts of the people in other lands, I shall read an extract from the letter of a lady who lost her son in South Africa-a lady known to other gentlemen in the House besides myself. I refer to Mrs. Voss, formerly of Campbell, in Griqualand West, but now of Cape Town and Douglas. She lost her son in the South African war, and in the letter which I shall quote she gives expression to a sentiment which I feel is that of the majority of the people in Canada to-day :
I never acknowledged the receipt of your snapshots sent me during the war. I never had a chance to do so then as we were so unsettled. I have them still and always feel sad when I look at them, and think how our family was lessened. It is hard to lose one's children anyway ; but as long as I had even one son left I would give him up to fight for old England, for with all her mistakes and faults she is still our dear old mother country-the mother of nations, the founder of responsible government for all lands, and the model for law. order and justice for the world.
This, I believe, is the sentiment that permeates the hearts of the great mass of the people in every corner of the British empire. I have- great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving the motion which stands in my name.


Mr. K. G. MACPHERSON (Victoria city).: Mr. Speaker, there was an undertone to the speech of the hon. . member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) against which, as a member of this House, I wish to utter my earnest and vigorous protest. I do not think that the people of Canada need to sit at the feet of any Gamaliel to learn patrotism; or do I think that the fact that a man declares his patriotism on the housetops makes him any the better citizen. The suggestion which was ever present in the speech to which we have just listened would lead those who were not in touch with the people of Canada to think that there was a considerable number of our citizens who were in favour of independence or annexation. I do not think that a man is doing any member of this House justice, or doing himself justice, when he suggests, or makes any statement which would lead people to be-76
lieve, that there is any strong feeling in this country in favour of either of these things. Practically every man in Canada is a loyal citizen of the empire. That I believe ; and I believe further that the man is the best citizen who does his best to build up the resources of this country and to promote charity and unity instead of imputing to his fellow citizens motives of disloyalty to the empire. When a man declares his patriotism at the expense of his brother men, I would as soon listen to the strumpet proclaiming her virtue. Canadian sentiment and true British sentiment can best be shown in this country by trying to promote confidence and good will among our people. To declare for a spirit of toleration, to avoid anything that would lead to condemnation of one's fellow citizens because they happen to be of a different race or of a different religion-this is patriotism. I say that the man who declares in our streets that the people of this country will take up arms and shoot down their fellow citizens because they do not accept the same religion or the same ideas of scholastic education as he does is the greatest rebel that Canada c-ould produce. I yield to no man in loyalty to my own country. But I hope my voice may be stilled for ever when I can find no better use for it than to suggest that any man borne north of the 49th parallel is unpatriotic or desirous of dividing Canada from the rest of the empire.
Oh,'we are the men of the Northern Zone,
Shall a bit be placed in our mouth ?
If ever a north-man lost his throne,
Did the conqueror come from the south ?
Nav, nay, and the answer blent
In chorus is southward sent,
Since when has the southerner's conquering steel
Hewed out in the north a throne ?
Since when has the southerner placed his heel
On the men of the Northern Zone ?
And I say that this parliament would be better employed in trying to sow the seed of toleration, to spread the gospel of charity throughout our country than in the consideration of academic subjects such as that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has brought up in this speech with its accompaniment and under-current of innuendo seeking to place the stigma of want of patriotism upon his fellow-men.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford).: For years I have looked upon this as one of the most important questions that can engross the attention of either the Houses of parliament or of the citizens of the empire. It is with much pleasure that I rise to say a few

,2359

-words in support of tile resolution so ably introduced by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes); and I am sure that the discussion so far as he has engaged in it has been one of instruction to the House aid to the country. The facts and figures ue has collated will be valuable reading, and they will pass down to the country, I think, as something that can be studied with advantage, something that will tend to educate the people of this country on a question of the very deepest importance. I shall not endeavour on this occasion to address myself at length to the matter of defence which lias been so ably dealt with by my hon. fiiend, but shall confine my remarks largely to the trade question. I have taken for some years a deep interest in interimperial trade, in the shape of preferential trade within the empire. That is a subject I think that should appeal to members of the House on both sides. I shall endeavour in addressing myself to this question to avoid any matters of party strife so far as possible. It may be necessary in the course of my remarks to refer to some acts of the administration that have been done, presumably in their opinion, in the best interests of this country and of the empire. I may find occasion to criticise some of those things, but I trust any criticisms I may make will not be received as a partisan attack upon anything that has been done in the interests of the Dominion as a whole, or the empire.
The matter of imperial trade is a subject ot the very first importance, and I intend iii the first place to take up that phase of the question. I am a believer in the proposition that sentiment should be strengthened by interest, that is, that the sentiment that binds us to the mother country should be increased by the common ties of advantage, of interest and of inter-trade. There is a movement at present on in Great Britain, and I think it is being watched with deep interest, not only in the British Isles themselves, but throughout the British dominions, and throughout the civilized world wherever the Anglo-Saxon tongue is spoken. There is a movement on foot in England today designed to bring about a closer union between Great Britain and her colonies by means of preferential trade arrangements, and in such other ways as may be devised to strengthen the bonds of the empire, to increase the unity of the empire, and to cause that as the years go by we may be more and more grafted into one permanent and substantial whole. I have been for years an advocate of a policy that will tend to draw the colonies more closely to the mother country ; and while I hope I will not take a back seat with those who say that sentiment is strong enough to hold us just where we are, I say that if sentiment is that strong, so much the better. But there may be others io which sentiment does not appeal ; and I Mr. COCKSHUTT.
would remind this House that there is a stream of immigration coming to this country at the present moment from almost every country under the sun. We are a cosmopolitan people to-day, we are receiving immigrants from almost every clime. Is it not a serious consideration what the citizenship shall be that we are to establish in this great northern half of the hemisphere ? I think that is a question that should commend itself to us ; and as I pass along I shall refer more particularly a little later on to the naturalization laws of this country, to which I think the best attention of this House should be given at a very early date in connection with the immigration that is at present coming to our shores. I regret the Minister of Finance is not yet in his place, as I desire to refer to the tariff as it at present exists.
I may say, Mr, Speaker, that I am opposed now, as I always have been to the tariff as it exists in regard to the admission of imports from Great Britain under what is now called the preference. That may sound strange from a man who claims to be an imperialist; nevertheless that has been my \iew long before the present government took up the question, and I have not seen any reason so far to change the views I hold upon preferential tariff. I contend that such tariff never should have been given at all until there was a quid pro quo from Great Britain herself when we gave that concession. We have given now freely for several years a great concession to the mother country. That has been in operation now I think for some seven years. I hold in my hands figures that have been collated by a gentleman who I think is acquainted with the subject, a man who understands the figures as the trade and navigation returns come down to us. I find that we ar sacrificing now at the rate of about $4,000,000 per annum* of revenue that we would have collected on imports that we have been receiving had not this preference existed. Now under the general tariff on imports we have been receiving during the last four years importations of the following amounts :
Amcfhnt. Duty.
1901		$ 78,466,819 $ 23,826,836
1902	
88,021,607	26,696,3011903	
99,181,500	30,041,5641904	
99,167,713	30,168,4111904 funder surtax tariff) 4,976,610	1,896,528

-and I believe myself It is largely a failure at the present time-it has not received that acceptance in the old country that was hoped for, it has in fact been minimized there, the British manufacturers saying that it is of comparatively little use, although I believe it has been of more use to the British manufacturer than he supposes ; I believe it has been of large value to the British manufacturer but of nothing like as large a value as it would have been had it been enacted with the proper spirit, with the desire to unify the empire, the reason it has not brought the advantage that people expected it would bring is that it has not had at its back the people most favourable to the policy. We wished and we have always striven for a return for anything given. We contend that it is not a business proposition to throw down one third of our tariff and to ask nothing in return. I have always been opposed to that; I am opposed to it still, and X believe it is detrimental to the policy we have so much at heart. That may be disputed by hon. gentlemen opposite. They will say : Do you advocate the withdrawal of that preference ? I would go the length of advocating the withdrawal of that preference if I felt that I could do so without being misunderstood in the British Isles themselves, and I feel now that there would be a difficulty in advocating the withdrawal of the preference ; it would be considered in some quarters as a retrograde step ; it would be considered by some that we were taking back what we had already given in a gracious mood, because it had not given to the manufacturers of the old country and ourselves the advantage that had been expected. Whether or not that be the case, I contend that this House and this country are discussing something more than an academic question, as was pointed out by our hon. friend opposite just before the House rose at six o'clock. It is not an academic question ; it is being discussed keenly at every fireside in Great Britain. It is one of the great questions before the British empire to-day and while we may treat it lightly the day is near at hand when we must decide on one or other of two things : Are we going to approach more nearly to the Throne, are we going to be drawn more closely into the imperial bonds, or are we going to fall farther and farther away ? Those are questions that every man in his heart should answer truly because there is no doubt that the signs of the times, as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. (Sam. Hughes) pointed out this afternoon, are not that imperial unity is gaining ground in this country. I am sorry to have to make that confession but I am forced to do so by the facts and by recent events. It is not long since we have seen two or three of the ties that bind us to the mother country severed. There are not so many of them and how many are going ? How many more can we Mr. COCKSHUTT.
afford to part with and still be considered part of the British empire, within that great family of nations, Great Britain and her colonies? How many more can we afford to snap? Not long ago we had the First Minister asking for treaty making powers. Is that a request that makes for imperial Unity ? If we have those powers who is to enforce the treaties ? Where is the arm that can enforce them if we make them ? Great Britain has a navy and an army that can enforce them; we have no right arm, no army or navy to enforce them. If we have the treaty making power we must be prepared to take the responsibility of these treaties, and if the countries with which we make treaties do not carry them out we must have at our back a power that will enforce fulfilment.
We were recently told by the Minister of Militia that in the near future Halifax and Esquimau will be manned by Canadian instead of by British troops. That may be considered bearing part of the burdens of empire, but I submit that in my judgment that is another weakening of the cords that bind us to the mother country. I contend that this is a dangerous step. I submit here as a proposition that will appeal to both sides of the House, that any army, any band of soldiers, or any navy that is fit to defend the shores of Canada or any army that is fit to repel the attack that might be made upon Halifax or Esquimau, ought to be good enough to defend the shores of Cornwall, to man the fortifications of Dover. I say that any troops that can man the fortifications of this Dominion are good enough to send abroad.
That is what should be done if we have troops to spare. We should have interchangeable regiments. What an education and an inspiration it would be if we could send a first-class regiment to garrison an important point in the motherland, and at the same time bring over a regiment, equally good but no better, to man our fortifications. Such an interchange would strengthen the bonds of empire; such an interchange would strengthen that silken cord that binds us to the motherland. These ties that bind us are but light it is true, and it is not for us to ruthlessly part them asunder. How many of these ties with the motherland are left us now? I am sorry to say but few remain. True we have a Governor General yet, but Sir, if we go on parting with them so lightly, then in the near future we may see the very last cord snapped. All these motes to which attention has been called to-night tend in the direction of independence. I believe that the' danger is even more serious, than our friend from Victoria would lead us to expect. I believe that there is growing up in the youth of this country a desire for independence. On its face that may be flattering. 'for every youth looks to the day when

he will be independent of the parents who brought him up and cherished him. Every young- man rightfully longs for independence and desires the arrival of the day when he shall have the privilege of exercising the rights of manhood and full citizenship. It is no doubt a proper ambition, but it must not be forgotten that the exercise of such a right brings with it, counter responsibilities. A young man on attaining the age of 21 years, takes upon him the responsibility of his manhood and that responsibility he cannot shirk. Are we prepared to accept the responsibility of independence; are we prepared to make these military expenditures that our friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has spoken of, and which I do not think he exaggerates? If we had to contribute for defence purposes as do the people of the United States, our proportionate payments for defence last year would be $30,000,000 instead of $2,500,000. It is all very well to talk about independence, but are we prepared to foot the bill ? Are we prepared to put our hands down in our pockets and pay out these vast sums, which would be necessary to defend our shores? Where would we be if we were called upon to send an army or a navy into a foreign country to rescue any of our citizens; where would we be if we had not Great Britain to fall back upon? When we adopted the preferential tariff we made a sacrifice on behalf of Great Britain ; a sacrifice which has not been fully appreciated because its value has not been recognized because of the conditions under which it was made. Last year the Minister of Finance* in his budget speech hinted that there was a danger that the preferential might be recalled unless there was some movement in England to reciprocate with us. I draw his attention to the fact that our industries are being hit by the British preference, and that at the same time we are receiving nothing in return for it. We have been asked in the old country, and we are asked to-day: what are you going to give us if we tax our food for your benefit? They do not appreciate what we have given, and the question is with them : what are you going to give us now? There was the danger of giving something that was not asked for ; there was the fact of having parted with $5,000,000 of our revenue without receiving any recompense. If it is proper that this House and this country should enter into a trade treaty with the United States, or with Germany, or with France, it is surely equally right and it is surely equally good business, that we should enter into some kind of a commercial arrangement with the mother country. There are those who say that such an idea is conceived in a huxtering spirit, and that if we give anything we should give it freely. That is all very well in sentiment, but in practice the best way to preserve friendship and to avoid unpleasantness is to have a fair, straightforward and well understood business arrangement. If we are going to have an arrangement that means; take all we give, and give nothing in return, it is not the way to make for imperial unity. Let any man cast his eye around his own neighbourhood and see how many families have been dispersed because of this absence of the application of business principles in the home; let any man cast his eyes around his own neighbourhood and see how the father has cursed the son and the son has cursed the father because he has been asked to labour for years without any stated reward. We know that families have been parted because a business understanding within the household was not come to. The father employed the son or the daughter to do his work without having provided any fixed compensation, and the result was that after years of hard service the son or the daughter was forced to leave the father's house and to receive in the house of the alien and the stranger that recognition which was denied at home. The best way to avoid unfriendliness among nations as among families is to have a direct business arrangement. When this preferential tariff was given to the mother country there should have been some return instantly asked for. We should not have been content to hand out $1,000,000 or $5,000,000 of our revenue and receive nothing in return. You have heard that some of our industries are feeling this preference and the pressure causes them to set their face against this policy. When the preference was given I said and I repeat it now, that it would prove a serious blow to the sentiment that was making for imperial trade unity. I may be mistaken on that, I hope I am, but I fear I am not. I would sincerely like to know that I am mistaken in that judgment. I believe that the -woollen trade of Canada to-day is denouncing the preferential tariff for its destruction. I have heard the sentiment expressed on the platform: we don't want any more of the preferential arrangement because it injures us. I submit that if a business arrangement had been entered into between Canada and Great Britain, these men instead of cursing the preferential tariff as the ruination of their business would be to-day praising it. I believe they would recognize that it had brought a flood of immigrants to our country, that it had peopled the vast territories of the west with Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen, the best of all settlers for Canada. I believe that if we can get Anglo-Saxon immigrants we want no other class. I believe that it is only our failure to get these which causes us to turn our eyes to the other nations of the earth. The immigration from the old country has not been such as to inspire us with the 1 elief that this preference has received at home the attention that it should

have received. Sir, there is to-day a great movement on foot in the British Isles. Thera is a statesman there advocating a policy of empire; a statesman who has furnished an example to the statesmen of Canada. That gentleman has taken his political life in his hands; he has sacrificed office and power and all that makes for greatness; he has taken these in his hands and set them down upon the earth and said: I stand for preferential trade between Great Britain and her colonies, and as that is unpalatable to the cabinet of which I am a member, rather than injure them I will step down and out of government. And Sir, the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain laid down office, and laid down all the glory of his position for the sake of advocating this policy which he believes to be the best policy for the British empire. Let me ask, Mr. Speaker: are we prepared to make any sacrifice in the interest of the great empire to which we boast we belong ? If so it is time that this parliament should put itself ou record. I am pleased to think, Six', that on this, one of the first opportunities I have had of addressing you, I have the privilege of speaking on so great a subject and one so dear to my heart. I had hoped that I might some day have the honour of speaking on this question in the House of Commons of Canada, and so I hasten to embrace this, the fii-st opportunity of placing on ' Hansard ' my views with regard to British connection and the unification of the British l-ace. I know of no cause in which I would be willing to make greater personal sacrifices; I know of no cause in which I feel I could work with so much interest and so much enthusiasm as in this great cause of welding together the mother country and the colonies.
If any feeble word that I could speak or any feeble act that I could do would draw the colonies and the mother country any closer together, I should feel most honoured and delighted to speak that woi'd or do that act; and it is with this object in view that I take up to-night this question of preferen-ial trade and endeavour to point out to this House the importance of keeping that question on every occasion well to the front. Let us not be drawn away with the idea that national independence is the aim and the goal of Canada, and that we ai'e prepared to lay down that British connection of which we have boasted so long. Every generation is called upon to bear its part in the history of the world, and our part in the history of the Dominion and of the empire is to hand down unbroken and uninjured that connection between the mother country and the colonies that we had when we came upon this stage. That is an obligation that rests upon every member of this House. Let us not be a party to handing down to the next generation a weaker bond of empii'e, a weaker link than that which Mr. COCKSHTJTT.
binds us at present to Great Britain. It is weak enough-let us not trifle with it. The day has come when we must have a goal ahead of us ; we cannot drift on for ever. We liave, it is true, drifted fairly well together of late. But the day is not far distant when rude winds and waves may drift us apart. That day may be nearer than we think, and I contend that it is in the interest of every man in this House, in the interest of every citizen of this Dominion and of every citizen of this great empire, to endeavour in all his thoughts and actions to draw the various portions of the empire closer together, and by no word or deed, to cause it a pang or a thought sundering. I trust that the discussion that has been statided in this House to-night will be continued, if not to-night, on some future occasion, and that as we are called upon to exercise the various responsibilities that rest upon us as a Dominion, we shall not be slow to l'ecognize that we have a part to play.
We have of late years, it is true, been giving our loyalty nominally to Gi-eat Britain, but our trade to the United States. Is that a good proposition, lip loyalty to the empire and trade loyalty to the United States ? The trade returns show that we are importing about two and a half times as much from the United States as we are from Great Britain. That does not look as though our loyalty and our trade were united. It would be quite proper, I think, for the authorities at home to say to us : If that is the case, Canada, we would be willing to have a little more of your trade, even if we have from you a little less lip loyalty. That is a proposition which I think the people of Great Britain might probably well make to us ; and pei-haps they are thinking this to-day, in spite of the preference which we have given, for which we sacrificed about $5,000,000 last yeai\ They say we are not contributing one penny towards the maintenance of the British army or navy. I say this country should have collected that duty, if we had it to give away, aixd should lxave handed it over to Gi'eat Britain for defence. Then we could not have been taunted with the statement that we are not contributing one penny to the British army or navy. We should be just before we are generous, and we should, I think, contribute our fair share in support of the navy or in some other way add to the defences of the empire before we begin to give away our revenue in this way, at the rate of $5,000,000 per annum, as a free gift, giving a discount which is the greater the more the purchase is. It is rather a peculiar featui-e of trade, that. Generally the arrangement is the other way-the discount goes to the buyer ; but in this case it goes to the seller. That is a peculiar feature of the present preferential arrangement. It may be justified as good business, but it is not the ordinary business way of doing things. The more we buy, the more our



MABC1I 13, 1905

[Stage Direction]
contribution, that is the arrangement under which the present British preference exists. It does not appear to be a good business proposition. I would rather see the discount go to the buyer in the usual way, and we could then hand it back, and not be taunted with the statement that we are not contributing a penny to the British army or navy. It may be said that we cannot contribute, as we have no representation. That I admit is a serious difficulty ; but there are ways of overcoming all difficulties, and if we set our minds to overcoming these difficulties, we shall be able to do so.
I said the British preference has been disappointing in its working out. According to the mother country, it has not been the advantage that it was supposed it would be. I have a few figures on items which we import from Great Britain and which might be largely increased, while the imports of the same items from foreign countries might be diminished. I have a long list with which I will not weary the House ; but I will mention a few of the items by way of illustration. The first item on the list, which is alphabetically arranged, is ale, beer and porter, of which we import from Great Britain $108,000, and from foreign countries $140,000. The ale and beer of the mother country are noted throughout the world, and it seems strange that we should not be able to import nearly all of our consumption of these. Of books, periodicals and all other printed matter we import from Great Britain $422,000, and from foreign countries $l,500,000-^)ess than one-third from the mother country. Of bricks, tiles and clay, we import from the mother country $221,000, and from foreign countries $695,000. Of cottons, on the other hand, we import $5,000,000 from Great Britain as against $2,000,000 from foreign countries. Of drugs, djes, chemicals and medicines we import $1,531,000 from Great Britain and $4,000,000 from foreign countries. Thus I might go on through a long list of items the imports of which from the mother country and other colonies might be largely increased without interfering with Canadian trade. That is the basis on which our preferential arrangements should be made-with the view of giving the largest advantage to the mother country and the sister colonies and at the same time as little disadvantage to the manufacturers of this country as possible.
.1 have been accused on more than one oc-cassion, and may be accused now, of trying to ride two horses when I stand for adequate protection to home industries and at the same time for giving a liberal preference to the mother country under a reciprocal arrangement. I stand to-day for mutual preference. I stood ten years ago for preference as I then understood it; but that name has been appropriated to a jug-handled policy of which I do not approve. Therefore I am compelled to announce myself to-night as a mutual preferential trader. If we give an advantage to Great Britain, we want an advantage in return. That is where I stand-on a purely business arrangement. It may sound like an absence of sentiment; but I believe that is the best way to maintain friendship between this country and Great Britain as well as between this country and the other colonies of the empire. I believe that the only way to go about a preference that will be satisfactory all round is to sit down and, as I think the Prime Minister said, negotiate a trade treaty.
There is no good reason that I know of why we can enter into trade treaties with all the nations of the world, but when it comes to considering a treaty between Great Britain and her colonies, we should say : take anything you want ; let us have no understanding, no arrangements. That is not a business proposition. It will not lead to satisfaction in the long run and is apt to be misconstrued and misapplied. However great may be the strength of the empire, in the loyalty of its people to their King, Crown and flag, that strength would be greatly increased if we had a common bond of trade uniting us as well throughout the length and breadth of the civilized world. I believe that is the goal we should strive for. What we require is a comon bond of trade to give substance to the sentiment of unity between the mother country and her colonies. That I believe to be the policy of Mr. Chamberlain, and for that reason I am a supporter of his policy as far as I understand it. In some of its details, I am not quite sure how it will work out.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: Hon. gentlemen opposite are quite welcome to their laugh, but I think that even they will admit that it is not likely that any great policy propounded in this or any other country will be completely free from defects. Human nature itself is defective, and it is only reasonable to expect that even our best considered treaties will be lacking in some respects ; but no matter what arrangement we may enter into with the mother country, we have do right to expect to have everything our c wn way. The policy to be followed should be one of give an take, one of mutual sacrifice, and that is the spirit which governs the relations between the Dominion and the provinces to-day. We in the western provinces pay a duty on coal in order to protect and encourage the great coal industry of the provinces down by the sea. And on the other hand our maritime provinces pay willingly a duty on flour for the benefit of the great milling industry in the west. A similar spirit should govern our relations with the mother country. To unite an empire all its component parts should be willing to give and take, should be willing

to make each a sacrifice in the common interest. .Tust as it is not selfishness, but unselfishness which is the highest attribute of man, so the spirit of mutual sacrifice is that which is best calculated to give strength and unity to a nation and an empire. When we ask the mother country to make sacrifices in our behalf, we should be prepared to make some return, and I trust that every part of the British empire is ready to contribute its share of sacrifice in the common interest of all. Is it not desirable that we should make sacrifices with regard to the mother country with the view of drawing ourselves more closely into this great imperial family? That is the chief consideration by which we should be governed, and a sentiment of that kind is more likely to draw us together than any other consideration we can submit to this House or country. We hear sometimes the possibility mentioned of either independence or annexation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I for one take my stand here-and I am not ashamed or afraid to announce it to-night-for British and imperial unity-the unity of the British empire ; and I trust I shall never be afraid to announce tiiat sentiment either in this House or elsewhere. It is what I feel in my heart and take pleasure in declaring by my tongue. One of the noblest impulses of the human heart is the desire to make a sacrifice for the mother country. Are we to receive all the advantages and bear none of the burdens? For my part I consider it a crying shame and disgrace to this country to-day that we should be in such a position that the finger of scorn can be pointed at us, as being a nation that is quite willing to accept the services of the British army and navy in our defence, but will not contribute a cent tn the cost of that defence. That is a position in which we ought not to be. I believe the clay is near at hand when we will have to decide to do more for ourselves and shoulder our own responsibilities. The British navy i.

 being withdrawn from our shores, the British troops are being removed from Halifax and Esquimalt and there is a serious problem facing us. What means have we at our disposal to defend our own country ? If the strong arm of the empire was not at our back, where would we be to-day ? That is the problem with which we are now face to face, and we cannot long shirk the duty of having to decide whether we are prepared to subscribe a reasonably fair amount in support of the British army and navy. In depicting the dread prospect of war, in which the colonies would suffer equally with Great Britain, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words : ' The weary Titan totters under his more than human load ' and he asked why the colonies should not bear some share of the more than human load laid on the British taxpayer. And I might ask how long is this Dominion going to contribute only a paltry two and a half or three Mr. COCKSHUTT.
millions to the defences of the empire, relying on the strong right arm of the mother country to do the rest ? How long are wc prepared to stand idly by and see the poor workingmen of Great Britain bear all the taxation ? Some will say : You will never ask the working .men of Great Britain to bear a tax on corn. Perhaps we will not, but we are asking them to bear a tax that is weighing them down far more heavily than would the tax on corn and that is the tax of upholding the British defences. We me asking them to pay the vast sum which these entail while we, who are more prosperous than the people in the old land, are not ready to contribute one pound to the maintenance of the British army and navy. How long can we continue to occupy such a humiliating position ? The time has come when we shall have to put ourselves on record with regard to this great question, nnd it is one of the most serious we have to face. Hon. gentlemen opposite profess to view our present position with satisfaction, but for my part I cannot share in their complacency. I must say that I view it with more or less alarm. I may be considered *I pessimist, but I cannot help regretting seeing the last vestige of British troops leaving our shores, and the British navy being recalled from our waters. For my part I fail to see the wisdom of such a course. I do not lsmow what the authorities of the mother country have in view, but it does appear to me that a mistake is being made in withdrawing British troops from our shores, and leaving us unprotected sara for that protection we may have from our own militia. I should be th last man to cast any reflection upon our militia. The men are able, willing and strong, and I am not depreciating their ability and readiness, but I say that any man good enough to man Halifax or Esquimau is good enough to man any British port in South Africa or Australia or any part of the British empire where he may be called on to go.
This is the spirit in which I would enter upon the defence of the empire. If we have anything to contribute, we should do it in an interchangeable way. We can then retain control of the troops to some extent-they can be Canadians, though they have gone abroad for service ; they would be under the British flag, serving the same King and devoted to the same empire.
I had not intended to speak at so great length upon the matter of imperial defence. But before I sit down let me call the attention of the First Minister and of this House to a question in this connection that, I think, is worthy of most serious consideration, and that is the unification of the naturalization laws of the British empire. We are receiving, as I have said, immigrants from all lands. Some of them, of course, may be British in sentiment, others are not; some of them may have ties to the mother country, others have not. But what are we giving

them as an idea to work for ? What are we setting up before their minds as the goal for which they should strive ? What are we conferring upon them in the way of citizenship ? Is there such a thing as Canadian citizenship ? If there is I am not aware of it. The question put to a man in our country when he votes is : Are you a British subject 1 If he is a British subject and otherwise qualified, he is entitled to vote in this country ; but if he is not a British subject he is not entitled to vote. Are hon. members of this House, are the people of this country, fully aware that we cannot make a British subject in this country ? The naturalization laws, as I understand them, wall not permit us to make a British subject in Canada. We may make him a British subject so long as he retains citizenship within the borders of the Dominion. But as soon as he goes aboard ship and is three miles from the coast, he becomes again a citizen of the country from which he came-he is no longer a citizen of Great Britain or of Canada ; he is at the mercy of any nation that chooses to attack him. In effect, he has no citizenship at all. Here is a serious question to be considered. AVe are receiving amongst us citizens and subjects of every country, and we are giving them what they believe to be good British citizenship. But that is not what we give them ; we cannot confer upon any individual in this country the full rights of the British citizen. If a German comes to our shores he may become a British subject while he remains in Canada. But, if he goes upon the high seas, or goes to any other country, or even to the mother country itself, he is a German still, though he has been a British subject while here. A Frenchman may be a Briton in South Africa, but when he goes to Great Britain he will be a Frenchman again, because no British colony can confer full British citizenship upon the natives of other countries. This is a serious question, and one that should be faced. AAre are taking from the country to the south of us at the rate of 50,000 people a year, I am told. AVhen they take the oath of allegiance to the King they lay down their right of citizenship in the United States. What are we giving them in return ? They may think we are giving them full British citizenship, which they are willing to exchange for that in which they were born, but we are not able to confer upon them the rights of British subjects beyond our own territory. What I stand for is a common citizenship throughout the empire. That is a citizenship of which we may well be proud ; it is a citizenship for which .much blood and treasure have been sacrificed ; it is a citizenship for which any of us might be delighted to lay down his life if thereby he might be the means of transmitting to others the liberty that we received from our forefathers. I am not speaking as one born in the British islands. I have the distinction
of having been born in the Dominion and in the province in which I am speaking. I am a Canadian-born British subject, and I speak in the best interests of the British empire. I am desirous of seeing the empire unified, and I raise my voice in behalf of the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from Victoria. This has not been brought in as a mere academic question, as the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) said it was ; it is a very timely introduction of a very great subject to the attention of this House and this country. AVe could easily spend time upon matters of far less importance. This House has sat year after year, but never, so far I know, has it placed itself upon record upon this question. I would like to see it place itself upon record, and so I am glad that this resolution has been introduced. It may not come to a vote to-night. Nor do I say that the resolution is, word for word, as I would have drawn it. But with the principle of (t I am in hearty sympathy. It may well appeal to us as members of this House and representatives of the British empire. It is well that we should take it into our serious consideration that we as citizens of Canada are not doing our duty by the mother country and by the sister colonies. I have referred almost entirely to preferential trade with the mother country. But before I sit down let me say that I believe that the preferential tariff with reference to the West Indies introduced by hon. gentlemen opposite

and. I give them full credit for it-is a masterly piece of service to the empire. Here were these sister colonies suffering through the depression of their industry- the sugar industry. Great Britain turned a deaf ear to their appeals ; in fact, as a free trade country, she could not give them an advantage in her market. But I am glad to say that hon. gentlemen opposite have done a masterly piece of service to this country and to this empire in extending the brotherly hand of helpfulness to our oppressed fellow-citizens in the West Indies. For I look upon them as fellow-citizens. I do not know whether other hon. gentlemen so regard them, but I do. They are living under the same flag, under the sway of the same King and within the borders of the same empire. I regard them as my fellow-citizens, and I am pleased that the Finance Minister has extended his hand to them, and has helped them as he has done. I believe that, under the preferential arrangement he offered, the imports of sugar have increased from $907,533 two years ago to $5 236,451-that is an increase of 377 per cent. This shows the advantage of preference between colony and colony. Having done that for the West Indies, we have done a great service for the empire and have given help where it was most needed. AVe have extended the hand of brotherly fellowship and assistance, and I do not think it has cost us much. It is true sugar is dearer now than it was. But this is not

because we are receiving it more largely from the West Indies, but because the beetroot crop of Europe was a failure last year. Do not attribute the increase in the price of sugar to the assistance we have given the West Indies. But here is an object lesson. We have increased our sugar trade from the West Indies almost four-fold. If that has been done in one item, it could be done in a group of items. Why cannot we receive an advantage on our wheat, our butter, our bacon and other products of the farm in the markets of Great Britain ? I think the British could well give us that advantage, and I hope they will do it in the near future. I believe they must sacrifice, as we must sacrifice something and all must be done for the general good.
I for one believe that we can stand better for British civilization, for British advancement and for the success of the Anglo-Saxon race by remaining under one government and one flag, than we can by breaking up into various homogeneous nations, each one going its own way, every one a different road, every one it may be antagonizing the other. I believe that the future of the Anglo-Saxon race lies in unity. I believe that we can best advance the progress of civilization by retaining the British empire as it at present exists. It is true that the great empires of the world have passed away, all the old empires ; and it remains to be seen, and I believe it will be seen within the present, or at most, the next generation, whether the British empire is going to reverse this order of things or go to pieces. I believe one thing or the other will happen in the very near future. If Canada sets the example of breaking away, it will be but a short time when South Africa and Australia will follow suit. Where will Great Britain be, shorn of her great colonies? That is a question that should appeal to-day to the minds of every British citizen within the sound of my voice, and within this country. I believe that is a consideration that should appeal to every one of us, and that we should be ready to make sacrifices in behalf of it. Great liberties are only won by great sacrifices. The great heritage of the British nation is ours, and are we going lightly to part with it ? Are we going to snap link by link the ties that have bound us to the mother country so long? Are we going to see them ruthlessly broken, and stand by and say, Amen? I trow not. Mr. Speaker, these are considerations that I think are worthy the attention and the very best thought that we can give them. We will be best serving the interests of the nation and of the race by retaining our position in the empire. We can hunt better in a pack than we can in units. In conclusion, with your permission Mr. Speaker, I will break into poetry and give you four lines from Kipling.
Some lion. MBMBEKS. Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am glad to be able to elicit applause from hon. gentlemen opposite. I am going to give you four lines from Kipling to illustrate what I said about the desirability of hanging together as a pack instead of breaking up into units :
Now this is the law of the jungle,
As old and as true as the sky,
The wolf that would prosper must keep it, The wolf that would break it must die.
As the vine that encircles the tree trunk,
The law runneth forward and back.
The pack is the strength of the wolf,
And the wolf is the strength of the pack.


Mr. A. A. BRUNEAU (Richelieu).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the motion of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) is not a new question. He said that colonial representation in the Imperial parliament has been asked for years ago, and in order to prove his statement, the hon. member quoted the opinion set forth in 1851 by the Hon. Joseph Howe. My hon. friend could have gone back twenty years further in the history, when this question was discussed in England. In 1831, when Lord Grey's government introduced their Parliamentary Reform Bill, that question of colonial representation into the Imperial parliament was discussed for the first time. As the number of members of the House of Commons in England was to be reduced by thirty-two through that Bill, it was suggested to make up the difference by granting representation to the British colonies. As the effect of that measure was to be more especially detrimental to the Tory members, Mr. Hume introduced, on the 16th August, 1831, a motion to the effect that the colonies should be represented. But, before that proposition was made, the British press had discussed the question and, strange to say, the reasons given at that time were about the same as those that might be brought to-day in favour of my hon. friend's motion. They wanted colonial representation in the Imperial parliament for the very reason alleged by the hon. member ; they claimed that India and the other colonies with their immense population should necessarily be represented in the Imperial parliament, in order to submit to that parliament their complaints and grievances. Such representation, it was said, would be a desirable innovation, because it would cause the colonies to share in the settlement of matters of Imperial concern. British capital had been invested in these colonies and it was only fair, they added, to allow them to be represented in order to give that capital an opportunity of safeguarding their interests at a given moment.
As regards the members making up that representation, their numbers were not to


William Foster Cockshutt: MAECIi 13, 1905
exceed fifteen of twenty, if statements of the newspapers of those days are to be credited. Canada was to have four representatives, Jamaica two, and so forth. The famous principle:	' No taxation without
representation ' was appealed to, and it was stated that the colonies having representatives in the British Parliament, would no longer have that reason for revolting. Had such steps been taken in years gone by, they said tlie thirteen states composing the union would not have declared themselves independent. Such were the reasons brought forward.
Mr. Hume, member for Middlesex, moved August 16, 1831, that the Reform Bill be referred once more to the committee with power to amend it by granting some representation to the colonies. The main reason submitted by Hume was the necessity of doing away with grievances and preventing them from arising in the colonies. It will be remembered that, at that time, in 1831, Lower Canada, and even Upper Canada, had flooded the British House of Commons with petitions for redress. Hume requested that the colonies be granted nineteen representatives, three of whom for the British possessions of North America; and when he came to particularize as regards Canada, he spoke in the following terms:
I will now come to the British North American colonies. If it be wished to keep these colonies in our power, our object must be to place them upon the most friendly terms with the mother-country. I am persuaded that all the bickerings and unpleasant feelings which, I am sorry to say, do exist in these colonies, might have been prevented if the colonist had possessed any fair and adequate means of stating in this House, from time to time, what are their feelings and wishes, and what are the evils under which they suffer. Year after year have these colonists sent petitions to us,-and I have now a petition from them signed by 10,000 persons,-complaining of grievances which, I am persuaded, never could have existed if the complainants had been fairly represented in parliament. I propose that the older provinces of Lower Canada, containing a population of 423,630 persons, should have one representative in the British parliament. Upper Canada contains a population of 198,000 souls, and I propose that that province should likewise send a member to parliament'. I am aware that in stating the population of the colonies, I have, in every case, made the amount less than it actually is, but I have taken the numbers from the official returns in the Colonial Office. I very well know that the province of Upper Canada, instead of 198,000, contains 265,000 souls.
I now come to the remainder of the British colonies in North America. The province of New Brunswick contains a population of 22,000 souls ; Nova Scotia, with Cape Breton added to it, has a population of 142,000 souls, whilst the population of Prince Edward Island is 23,000, and of Newfoundland 60,000,-in short, these colonies, with the Bermudas, comprise a population of 300,000 individuals, and for these I only ask for one representative in this House. By this plan the whole of the West India islands, and the whole of the British colonies
of North America, will have six members to represent their interests and to express their feelings in the British House of Commons. In Upper and Lower Canada the representatives can be elected by the representative legislative bodies of these provinces, and the other colonies must choose delegates who shall elect their respective members.
As you will see, Mr. Speaker, by reading that part of Hume's speech, in his opinion, tlie representation of colonies was the remedy to all grievances of which these British colonies complained at the time.
One of those who took the greatest interest in colonial questions as they came up in the British House of Commons, and who might be termed the Charles Dilke of that period, and who had specially concerned himself with Lower Canada, rose in his turn and spoke in very strong terms against Mr. Hume's plan. The reason set forth by Labouch&re go to show that colonial representation was not a new subject, even as early as 1831, in the British House of Commons, since LabouvhSre quoted Burke's opinion as to the utter impracticability of such representation, inasmuch as representatives of the colonies could not at the same time subserve the empire and tlie colonies. Such a plan is impracticable, he said, as, on the one hand, representatives of the colonies could not properly vote to levy taxes on the people of England, while British members could not properly vote to levy taxes on the colonies. Mr. Douglas, Lord Althorpe, Sir E. Taunton, Sir Chas. Wetherell, Mr. Burge, Sir C. Forbes and Sir Geo. Murray, fought either for or against Mr. Hume's motion, which was rejected without a vote being taken.
As these facts show, the question of the representation of colonies in the British parliament is not a new one. While this question was being discussed in the papers of the mother country, it was also coming up on this side of the Atlantic; and, what will no doubt be a surprise to many hon. members, the proposal relative to colonial representation in the British parliament was brought up on this side of the ocean, not by an Englishman, not by a Scotchman, not by an Irishman, but by a French Canadian, Mr. Pierre de Sales Laterriere.
Mr. de Sales Laterriere was a political writer who represented the city of Quebec from 1825 to 1829, who was afterwards elected for the county of Saguenay, 1830 to 1834, member of the Legislative Council in [DOT]1832, and member of the special council in 1838, after the suspension of the constitution, following the uprising of 1837. He was the first statesman to advocate here the representation of colonies in the British parliament. I must state just here that his reasons and motives for asking such a measure were entirely different from those set forth by the hon. member for Victoria. Mr. de Sales Laterriere was of opinion that we French Canadians would be annihilated,

swallowed up with our laws, our usages, our manners and our customs, in the vote of the United States, if we did not enter into a closer union with England, barring which we were fatally to fall under the sway of the neighbouring republic. There, in his opinion, lay the remedy to the grievances of the Papineau party.
Tlie lion, member for Victoria stated this afternoon that one of the causes of the uprising in 1837 was the influence of foreign gold spread throughout Canada. I beg leave to contradict this statement. I have made a special study of that period of our national history, and I am in a position to state that never was there such a glaring mistake committed. In going over the records of that period and in trying to unravel the causes which brought about the uprising of 1837 and 1838, has the kon. member ever been struck by the strange situation brought about by the constitution of 1791, which united Upper and Lower Canada ? By virtue of that constitution England had subjected a house which was to comprise a majority of French Canadians to a hostile majority, to the rule of the ' family compact.' Tlie population of Lower Canada, made up for the greater part of Catholics, had elected a certain number of English and Protestant representatives. The French Canadians, always tolerant, had been generous to the point of sending a few of their English fellow citizens to represent them at the outset of the regime created by the constitution of 1791.
But the position was an odd one for, while the French Canadians were a majority in the House, the three superior powers were in the hands of a minority inimical to all our political, civil and religious rights. In the first place, the Governor, who received his instructions from Downing Street; then the Legislative Council, made up of appointees opposed to the constitution of 1791, and lastly, an irresponsible Executive Council, selected, not from among the members of the House, but by the Governor himself ; there was no cabinet responsible to the people.
One of the principal causes of the rebellion of 1837 was the unjust distribution of patronage. The family compact had its nominees, its favourites of power, who, being quite independent of people, submitted them to unjust treatment and, often in offensive terms, showed them they had been vanquished on the plains of Abraham. Then in virtue of the constitution one-seventh of the lands granted were set apart for the support of the Protestant clergy.
All those who are familiar with our political history know to what disputes the land question gave rise, even under the Union. It is under those circumstances, when Lower Canada was thoroughly dissatisfied with the policy followed by the mother country,-and rightly so, I fear not
to say,-it is at the time we were asking redress from the metropolis, that Laterriere suggested that the colonies should be represented in the British parliament. That was on the 10th of August, 1831, six days before Hume put his motion before the Imperial parliament. His letter appeared in ' Le Canadien.' Three days later, that paper, which was at the time the organ of the patriotic party, of Papineau's party, answered Mr. Laterriere : Our colonial system is defective ; it is defective, taking into account the principle and object of colonization ; it is defective from the standpoint of patronage ; it is defective inasmuch as we are deprived of the benefits of responsible government; it is defective as regards the constitution of the Legislative Council.
On October 5th, 1831, Laterriere replied in ' Le Canadien ' :
England has protected her colonies by increasing for their benefit the duties on foreign products. The purpose of England, in looking after her colonies, protected as they are by her strong fleet, has been to ensure markets for her products.
Her colonial undertakings have been pursued on exactly the same principle as that of all nations, ancient and modern.
On the other hand, he added, the constitution gives us the right to complain and obtain redress. Mr. de Laterrifere does not deny that there is not an unfair distribution of patronage ; but the reform Bill will, he adds, swamp the Tory party in England. Government patronage will no longer be inimical to us. Then he returns to his favourite topic and makes the followiug statement :
' We are not in a position to constitute here a nation sui generis ; England will cut us off one of these days ; what will become of us ? There is in England a strong party favouring the emancipation of the colonies.' ' Then,' he added, ' we will surely fall under the sway of the United States.' Then, again, colonial representation was not to interfere in any way with the powers of colonial legislatures. This is almost the very wording of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Victoria.
On the 8th of October, 1831, ' Le Canadien ' answered as follows :
' The real question is this : will such a measure insure redress ? ' No. There are two causes to our ills, added ' Le Canadien.' Exclusive legislation of commerce by the mother country, which reduces business to a state of uncertainty, and government patronage left into the hands of foreign officials.
You wish the colonies to be represented, was it asked ; on what principle will you base that represenattion : I shall put the same question to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). On what principle are you going to base that representation ? Are


Arthur Aimé Bruneau: you going to base it on population ? If you are, you will obtain a perfectly absurd political system, since the colonies would then rule over the sovereign states.
The ' Herald,' of Montreal, which was at that time the organ of the Tory party, entirely approved of the plan submitted by Mr. LaterriSre. ' La Minerve ' disapproved of it.
But the reason set forth in 1831 by Mr. LaterriSre in support of his plea for colonial representation no longer exist. Through changes which have taken place in the Foreign Office of the mother country, a broad and far-seeing policy has been adopted ; England has discarded old prejudices, and better days have dawned for the French Canadians. And that is why we salute her flag with as much respect as we revere the parliamentary institutions which she granted to us after 1837.
No, foreign gold has not been the cause of Lower Canada's uprising in 1837. Our ancestors did not sell themselves. They fought for their rights. Compare the causes which brought about the revolution of 1688 in England and those which brought about the war of independence in America in 1776, with the causes which brought about our own rebellion in 1837, and nobody will be found to defend the colonial system as it then existed.
England lirfs understood at last that her old colonial policy was not in harmony with the spirit and needs of the times, and we have become, shielded by her powerful i arm and under her kindly guidance, one of the happiest countries in the world.
We make our own laws, and as far as I have been able to judge from a personal experience extending over nearly fourteen years, we are succeeding fairly well at it, especially since the Liberal party have come into power.
We have cut up, and are continuing to cut up our country with canals and railways. Me are spending a good deal more money on agriculture than on military barracks.
We are not sinking, as they are in Europe, under the weight of permanent armies. Our favourite arm is the pioneer's axe, a more powerful factor in colonization, in my humble opinion, that the most destructive war engines, including even Krupp or Creusot guns.
We enjoy responsible government, and above ail we enjoy provincial autonomy. Under the constitution, each province has its attributes, its rights and its privileges, and these enable us French Canadians who are the great majority in the province of Quebec, to preserve our civil, political and religious rights.
But if the reasons given by Laterrifere in support of his plea for colonial representation in 1831 do not hold any longer, the same objections which were then made to 1
that proposal have still their full force in 1905.
The hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton has not quoted a single historical precedent in support of his claim. Of course, he stated that the United States were under a federal system as is the case with Canada ; but that does not show the necessity of our being represented in the Imperial parliament. I find only one precedent, and it is in contradiction with the principle of the motion introduced by my hon. friend. The downfall of the Roman commonwealth was the result of the taking in of the allied Italian states. Towards the decline of the Roman republic its allies, who had supported the greater part of the burden of the war, wished to be admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges of Roman citizenship. Civil war was the result of the refusal. In the course of the war which ensued, these privileges were granted to a great number of these nations, piecemeal, as they severed their connection with the general confederacy.
But to-day, thank God, we enjoy all the privileges of British citizenship and these should suffice. On the other hand who is anxious to obtain such representation ? Without in the least wishing to offend the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, who has introduced his motion in very moderate terms, I might observe that he is more of an Englishman than the King himself ; somewhat the same compliment as used to be paid formerly to the Ultra-montaues in the province of Quebec : That they were greater Catholics than the Pope.
The hon. member stated that if we were more closely united to England, the flow of immigration towards Canada would be much greater-and that was the part of his speech which struck me most. It seems to me the correctness of such a statement is very doubtful and would require to be more fully demonstrated.
The reasons given by Labouehere still hold ; and I consider as he did that such a system is impracticable and utterly unworkable. The duty we owe to the empire is totally different from that we owe to the colony. Do you wish to have the proof of this ? I was not in the House at rhe time, but I appeal to the memory of old parliamentarians in our midst, such as the hon member for Victoria (Mr. Costigan). the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). When, in 1879, the protective policy was adopted, is it not the case that a party in the House objected on the ground that British connection would be injured, that Great Britain would suffer ? What was the reply ? Let British connection perish, rather than let protection go !
You may like, Mr. Speaker, to know something of the views expressed by the newspapers of the country regarding the motion introduced by the hon. member for Victoria

-	[DOT] v|
placed by tlie Act of British North America ; and sooner or later the British North America Act will be replaced by some other constitution on whose first page will be inscribed in glowing letters either the principles of Imperialism as advocated by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, or those of Nationalism, so eloquently propounded by the hon. member for Labelle, or those of independence.	.
In 1791 the two Canadas were separated because it was believed that Bower Canada would treat upper Canada unfairly if united with it, as Bower Canada had a larger population. That constitution after all lasted a half century only. The union of Upper and Bower Canada, forced on the latter to make pay a share of the former's indebtedness, lasted only twenty-seven years. The British North America Act replaced it, and sooner or later-witness the history of the whole world from time immemorial as well as ours-that constitution will be replaced by some other. The hon. member for Victoria and Ilalibur-ton hopes to see the colonial tie last for ever. The hon. member for Babelle (Mr. Bourassa) defends the nationalistic principle ; others wish to see the principle of Independence condemned by the hon. member for Brantford, come out with flying colours. And lastly others, although in small numbers and without a voice in this House-would like to see Canada merged into the United States.
Bet me then define, in a few words, the principles of Imperialism, Nationalism and Independence. Imperialism as defined by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, means the unification of the empire. That is to say England first, England second, England always. That is why Imperialists are opposed to Home Rule for Ireland. They wish the colonies to contribute to the military and naval defence of the empire, in opposition to the policy advocated at the colonial conference by the Canadian ministers.
However, recognizing the British political
principle : No taxation without representation, they ask, through the hon. member, colonial representation,- in order to obtain the unification of the empire and our contribution to its naval and military defence. They want a Zollverein, which will make of the metropolis and its colonies a single and permanent commercial entity.
In July, 1904, Mr. Chamberlain said at Rochester :	* I believe we could attain the
great object of imperial federation by putting our people in contact with that of the colonies and that our commerce would be greatly benefited thereby.'
Then commercial federation, as the preliminary step towards the political and military federation of the empire, such is the object pursued by Mr. Chamberlain. England first, England second. England all the time.
To these principles of Imperalism which Mr. BRUNEAU.
I merely enunciate without expressing any opinion as to their merits not more than regarding the merits of Nationalism or Independence, let us now oppose the Nationalist principles which are summed up in Canada first, Canada again, Canada always. Any expenditure undergone by Canada must be for the benefit of Canada.
Accordingly, they have seen with pleasure England recall her troops from the military posts at Halifax and Esquimau. They are favourable to the passing of a commercial treaty with England, which would ensure to both countries reciprocal advantages. They allege that we owe nothing to England. It is not for our benefit, say the Nationalists, that she has conquered India, Egypt, the Soudan, the Transvaal, since, according to Sir Charles Dilke, the British fleet exists for the protection of commerce and not for that of the colonies. They claim for Canada the right to make her treaties subject to ratification by England. They also claim for Canada the greatest measure of independence consistent with the maintenance of the colonial tie. That is why they have approved the appointment of a Canadian officer commanding ; that is why they approve of the provision under which our militia cannot be sent outside of Canadian territory except for the defence of the country. That is why they have approved of the dismissal of Bord Dundonald.
As for those who want independence, they give reasons very different from those given by the hon. member for Brantford. Advocates of independence desire Canada to be a sovereign and perfectly free state. I am not expressing any opinion as to the merits of these various policies ; but I think it might be of some benefit to the House to make known the grounds on which independence is claimed for Canada. It must be admitted that England by handing over to us Halifax and Esquimau has furnished to the advocates of Canadian independence a strong argument, especially if we do not lose sight of the Monroe doctrine propounded by the neighbouring Republic. In accordance with that doctrine, the United States are bound to protect the countries of tins continent against all foreign aggression. Allow me to quote the words of a man who has occupied a prominent position in Canada, and who was a warm advocate of independence :
When Washington, liberator of the United States, stood up for Independence, the population of the thirteen states numbered 2,000,000 only ; their budget was for $S,000,000 only. What progress in the lapse of one century ! People from all over the earth throng towards its borders and take their share of the sumptuous banouet offered for t'heir subsistence. The territory of the Republic is cut up in all directions by railways and canals, which are in such great need for the transportation of products that they hardly suffice to carry them from one end of the Union to the other. And the European nations bless from day to day
23S9

this prosperous Republic which distributes to them, in abundance, gold, raw material, bread, life. The resources of that nation are incalculable. She could give no better proof of it than the way in which she paid up her public debt as rapidly as it had been contracted.
Never has their been a people to show greater ambition, a greater spirit of enterprise, a keener faith in the incredible energy of the human will. Where will they stop ? The wave rolls on with increasing force gathering into the Republic the varying elements swirled into the ocean of its material prosperity. Their wealth and their population are en-creasing at an unheard of rate. Now do you think that i'f the colonies of New England had remained in^ tutelage they would have found such an unlimited scope for development and attained such marvellous results ? Do you suppose for one single moment that if the United States had been held back by the colonial tie, their.genius would have been a-s free, their spirit of enterprise as daring and sublime ? Would they have become in such a short time one of the richest, of the most powerful and of the most .respected nations of the earth, if they had remained colonies ?
Such are the reasons urged by those who want independence for' Canada. They want a sovereign and free Canada.
Let rue quote the following words uttered by Mr. Chamberlain, at Rochester, on Julv 26th, 1001 :
We are speaking of our colonies. You know, ladies and gentleman, that these colonies are not ours, inasmuch as we have no right of ownership over them. The colonies are states absolutely independent. Nothing could prevent them front cutting themselves away from us to-morrow. We would not be in a position, we would not dare, to keep them back by force. They are bound to us by a voluntary tie, the obligations of which have never been heretofore well defined. Had they refused to contribute a single man or a single penny (to help England in the South African war), we would have had no ground for complaint.
Such are the reasons given in support of the principles of Imperialism, Nationalism or Independence.
I do not think there is any necessity of speaking of those who favour annexation to the United States, as their numbers are too small; but allow me, Sir, before concluding, to state once more that we are opposed to the principle of colonial representation for the reasons I have just given. And in so stating, I am the spokesman of the people of my own nationality. However, we do not oppose it impelled by any feeling of disloyalty to the British Crown, as suggested by certain newspapers in Canada who are inimical to us. Some people consider us French Canadians as an obstacle to national unity. In the meantime, we have more than once safeguarded that national unity. Less than a quarter of a century after we had been ceded to England, there was an uprising of the American colonies. At the time we had no very great reason to cherish the 77
military and civil officers which our new metropolis had sent to replace the French governors. Our hearts were still bleeding, and our only solace was the guarantees contained in the treaties. Nevertheless, at the command of our leaders, at the signal given by Bishop Briand, our militiamen followed Carleton and saved the country.
Yes, we were the men who at that time saved Canada for the British Crown. Had we listened to the suggestions of Lafayette, had we taken arms under the Stars and Stripes, England's power on the American continent would have been shattered, and nothing of it would be seen either in Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba.
She would not have retained those provinces any more than she was able to repress the thirteeu states of New England.
And thirteen years later, when the American colonies tried once more to have us follow in their train, ottr French Canadian militiamen, under Mr. de Salaberry, repulsed the enemy. At the call of Sir George Provost, at the call of bishop Plessis, with courage and loyalty, we strengthened the power of England over this country settled by our ancestors and which was then much more the fatherland of the French Canadians than that of the Anglo-Saxon element.
That spirit of loyalty has never failed. At the time of the Trent affair, at the time of the Fenian raids, or whenever it was necessary to contribute men or money, we have shown ourselves to be faithful to our oath of allegiance.
National unity ! Ho you know what will bring it about'? It is the national spirit. And the national spirit is, first, loyalty to the Crown; it is, in the second place, respect due to treaties and compacts ; it is love of the country ; it is discarding of prejudices in all sections of the country. That respect, that love, that discarding of prejudices will bring about a co-operation of muscle, heart and brain throughout the country : and that three-fold co-operation will make of us truly the nation which the fathers of confederation, Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir Charles Tapper and Sir Hector Langevin, Mr. George Brown and Mr. McGee dreamed of establishing in 1867.
A grateful country has erected close to this building a bronze monument to tlie memory of Sir George Cartier. The artist lias represented him holding in his left hand the Canadian constitution, and. with his right hand, showing it to passers-by. If we are willing to respect the fundamental principles of that constitution, the nation dreamt of by the fathers of confederation will be united, glorious and prosperous.


Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) was kind enough to make reference to some remarks that I was said to have made in this House. He was



also kind enough to volunteer some advice which I have not asked. I can scarcely understand why the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) should have assumed to advise me to apologize, considering that, as he claims, he has not a drop of English blood in his veins. I presume that same generous spirit, that same desire to assume other people's burdens made him do this that prompted him to take the responsibility of the South African war off the hands of the British people and to go down to South Africa to conquer the Boers. I believe he did the trick and returned to his grateful countrymen with no greater mishap than having in some unexplained way gut his trousers wet and his boots full of warm water. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I have never consciously wounded the feelings of any man, any individual or any nation. I have for forty years been practising a profession that has forbidden me the time or the opportunity to learn the arts of public speaking. I have had no time to do it, and, by the way, I think it was a pity that the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) had not been barred in the same way for forty years. But I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was speaking on a subject, which is of great interest to every medical man. I was speaking on a subject, which is dear to every; man who loves h's fellowmen ; I was speaking in a very modest way for I have never made any profession to being a speaker. I was a stranger ip a strange audience and I said what I had to say in a very quiet and very unassuming way. I was taken off my course by the siren voice from that gentle spirit that reigns in the breast of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and I did, in repeating a sentence, use the word ' Englishmen.' I might have said just as well Scotchmen or Irishmen.


Mr. BARKER.: No.


Judson Burpee Black: I could just as well have said either of these ; the name of the country dropped from me quite unintentionally. Anybody who listened to me on that occasion knew what I was trying to say, that the money spent in saving the lives of good Canadians was better than money spent in bringing immigrants into this country. Everybody who has the spirit of fairness in him will know that this was what I meant, that I meant no insult to Englishmen, or to any one. I have no reason to insult Englishmen and while I will not apologize at the order or on the advice of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), if there is an English born member in this House who thinks that I did him or his nation a wrong, I shall be most happy to apologize. It was my first speech in parliament as I said before: it was my first slip and I hope it will Mr. BLACK.
be my last. I would be very grateful if that mistake of mine would terminate as the sin referred to by Lawrence Sterne when Uncle Toby swore. Sterne says it was his first oath; it was my first slip. It was ' Uncle Toby's first oath ' and the accusing spirit which flew to Heaven's chancel with the oath blushed as he br.ought it in. And the recording angel as he wrote it down, dropped a tear and blotted it out for ever. Perhaps some kindly reporter may have dropped a tear on that slip of mine and blotted it out for ever. Look in ' Hansard ' and see.


Mr.   H.@: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has opened a subject which has engrossed the minds of some of the best men of the British empire for many years past, and my hon. friend is aware that so far no solution has been found for the problem which has been opened by this question. My hon. friend remembers that, I think some twenty years ago, the Imperial Federation League, which had been created for the very purpose of trying to find some solution, some means of effecting a federation of the British empire, was abandoned and dissolved, and the statement was made openly by the president of the league, Lord Rosebery, that it was dissolved because no practical means could be found of effecting the object which the league had in view. I must say to my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes)' that I do not think a solution is to be found within the four corners of his motion. I do not know how far you can reconcile the first part and the latter part of that motion. In the first part my hon. friend says that it would be advisable to have a full partnership union of Great Britain and her colonies, and in the latter part of his motion he says that such a union will leave to the existing parliaments their present powers and the full control of their tariffs. It is difficult to conceive how it is possible to have a full partnership union of the empire, and at the same time leave to the present existing parliaments their control of the tariffs. If there is anything which would go to make possible a full partnership union, my hon. friend would be the first to admit that it would be the possession by the parliament of such a union of the power to deal not only with financial but also with fiscal matters, and if at the same time the parliaments existing to-day would retain the powers to make tariffs, each as at present with a view to what is best for itself, I think it would be difficult to have at the same time the paramount union of the British empire and her colonies. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) saw the difficulty which would be encountered if we attempted to carry out such an object as my hon. friend I from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam.

Hughes) has in view and at the same time retain the measure of power which we have at the present time. I do not-think that it would be possible to find in any of the self-governing colonies, any desire or any intention to part with any of the powers which they have at the present time. I am disposed to agree, I agree altogether with what has been stated by the hon member from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr! bam. Hughes) that the British empire is a great factor for the peace of the world. It is I think, an advantage not only to the empire but to mankind at large, but at present we are proud to say and to believe that the relations of the British empire within all its parts are absolutely satisfactory and so long as they remain satisfactory I think it is idle to hope or to think or to suppose that any departure will take place from the existing relations. It is not in accordance with the traditions of British history it is not in accordance with the traditions of the Anglo-Saxon race, however, to make any change in their institutions until these institutions have been proven insufficient or deficient in some way. You may follow British history from the time of the Roman conquest to the present day and you will be obliged to admit that not one of the constitutional changes that have made England so great and proud hs,s taken place except when some grievance has been found to exist in the realm. As soon as a grievance was found to exist in the realm the British people, not at all rapidly, somewhat slowly, but always effectively made the necessary changes. If, however, the conditions existing at the present time in the British empire are deficient and no longer answer the purposes of the empire, I have for my own part no doubt that means will be found to remedy these deficiences. But so long as they are found satisfactory, so long as there is contentment in every part of the British empire, as there is to-day, I am sure that all efforts to change these relations will be futile. The British empire to-day is composed of nations; it is an aggregation of nations all bearing allegiance to the same Sovereign, and there is this difference between the British empire of the present day and the empires which have been seen in the past, that whereas the empires of the past rested on force, the British empire so far at least as the great colonies are concerned, rests altogether on the will of the colonists themselves, under such circumstances, my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the people of Canada, a question which I believe is not ripe at the present time. I do not find fault with him for doing so; it is a question which can always be treated, and treated advantageously even though at the present time it seems to be premature. 1 hop,- my hon. friend will withdraw his motion 77}
'Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carletou, Out.). I desire to add only a few words to what the . nme Minister has said. I am very glad indeed to learn that the right hon. gentleman regards the relations of Canada with the empire as so entirely satisfactory, for it is not more than eighteen months ago when he himself announced in this House, that they were so absolutely unsatisfactory that we must attain to a greater share of the treaty making power. I do not know what my right hon. friend then meant: that is what he said, he may have meant something else and it is for himself to explain at the proper time. The right hon. gentleman certainly took very strong ground at that time with regard to the relation of this country to the rest of the empire by reason of the occurrences which led up to the Alaska boundary award However that may be, if the right hon. gentleman entertained any-doubt on that subject he has changed his mind.
I agree with him that the development of our relations with the rest of the empire came by a process of gradual evolution and as necessity required. That has been the history of our country for the last one _ hundred and fifty years ; it has specially been the history of the advances we have made in our rights of self government from 1837 up to the present time. It has been step-by-step that we have gained the almost complete-I might say absolutely complete-rights of self government which we enjoy in Canada to-day. Another thing that might be added is that in respect to all these matters the initiative has been taken by the people of Canada through the public men of Canada. It is therefore a very worthy subject which the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has brought to the attention of the House. Even those of us who may not be disposed to absolutely agree in all his remarks, nor in the words of the resolution-* indeed some of us see difficulty in practically carrying out the scope of liis resolution according to the proposals suggested in it-but all of must agree that he has brought before the House a very interesting question, and one on which it is well worth while that the House should deliberate as it has done to-day.
As to the financial features of the resolution, I for one have been of opinion for a number of years, that the material prosperity of the empire, and the ties which bind Its different portions together, may be improved and strengthened by a system of mutual trade preferences within the empire. I have advocated a policy of that kind, so far as tin's country is concerned, both in this House and upon the public platform. I have seen no reason whatever to take back anything I have ever said on that question, and I absolutely believe at the present time that that policy is a good one for this country and for

the empire us a whole. I realize to the full, that while we are at perfect liberty to form our own conclusions in Canada as to the wisdom of that policy for the empire at large and for Canada especially, nevertheless it is equally within the right of all other portions of the empire to come to a conclusion for themselves. A movement was inaugurated by Mr. Chamberlain in the British Isles some two or three years ago ; it is a movement that no one of us expected to see begun for the next fifteen or twenty years, although most of us believed that it would be inaugurated sooner or later. It has encountered a great deal of opposition, and what the outcome of it shall be at the next general election we do not know. In so far as it touches the material welfare of the British Isles it is a matter entirely for the people of the British Isles. Speaking for myself as a Canadian, I am heartily in sym-paiuy with the movement and I believe that the people of Great Britain, the people of Canada, and the people of the other dependencies of the British Empire could come together upon a business basis and make an arrangement by which each would give to the other certain preferences and certain advantages, in trade matters which they do not extend to other countries. If this could be accomplished, it does not seem to me there is room for doubt that it would result in great benefits rot only to Canada but to all portions of the empire. I for one sincerely hope that many who are within sound of my voice, may live to see that great project become an accomplished fact.


Samuel Hughes: I am highly gratified with the result of the debate. We have obtained an expression of opinion from the First Minister, and also from the member for Richelieu (Mr. Bruneau) and also from the leader of the opposition, I would like to compliment the hon. member (Mr. Bruneau) upon the very able speech he delivered, but 1 regret that my want of familiarity with the language in which he addressed the House has prevented me following his speech closely. However, I knew enough of it to know that the first to uphold colonial representation in the imperial parliament was a French Canadain. I learned among other important and new facts contained in that speech, that the time is not far distant when others of that race in Canada may be found advocating the same imperial policy.
Before the dinner hour the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson)-who is now conveniently absent from his place- rose to reply to my remarks and by his profession you would imagine he was a follower of the meek and lowly one, while from his practice you would think he was a representative of the nether regions, judging by the manner in which he plunged into your humble servant, because, as he said, X fiad charged members on that side of the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
House with favouring independence and annexation. I hold in my hand ' Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party ' by Willison and on page 114 will be found an aiticle from the pen of the present Prime Minister, written long years ago I admit, and not at all in accord with his views of to-day. I will not now place it on ' Hansard. It I referred to the fact that gentlemen on that side of the House had favoured such views, it was only to show what power there is behind the old silken cord that binds Canada to the motherland, to win such a distinguished gentleman as the Prime Minister of Canada to the views which we are pleased to know he entertains to-day. I could show that the hon. the Postmaster General has also been won around, and that he is to-day among the first to wear the decoration of his sovereign. I have here also a magazine called the 'World's Vlork, ni


,4-i /il	tltn tlf*ll
of an hon. member of this House, a young gentleman who is personally one of the greatest favourities I have in the Dominion.
I shall not read that article. I do not find any fault with my hon. friend for writing it I am tolerant enough to let any man in this country hold whatever views he wishes.
I hold my own views and I am prepared to meet any man face to face and eye to eye in friendly- assertion of those views. I trust that" long before another half century rolls around we will find my young friend following in the footsteps of his worthy leader, to become one of the most ardent supporters of imperial federation. But, Sii, when the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) charges me with intolerance, lie is not speaking by the eard. I presume that the parallels he drew were of subjects nearest his heart. I am not sufficiently at home in the society referred to, to know exactly the kind of professions of virtue to be found among the people to whom he referred ; I am willing to accept him as a competent authority on all such matters. 1 think the House will agree with me that from first to last I made no profession of my superior patriotism or my superior
loyalty.	,	,
Therefore the hon. gentleman s remaiks fell very flat. I was also very much surprised to hear him stand up in this House and censure his leader. I presume that it was the right hon. the First Minister to whom he evidently referred when he spoke of shouldering rifles ; I was thunderstruck to hear the hon. member for Vancouver stand up and censure the right hon. gentleman for the remark he made about shouldering a musket in 1885 on the banks of the Saskatchewan over a paltry question of land surveys. I think the j-p.-ht hon. First Minister should take the hon. member for Vancouver to task. Times are going hard with the right hon. gentleman to-day, and I think the least the hon. member for Vancouver could have

nolle would have been to hold his tongue in solemn silence. on such an occasion. Another hon. gentleman has endeavoured to make an apology-I do not know where he is from-has told us how he has been for forty years practising medicine. Well, we all know what some of these worthy gentlemen are who go bumping around the country-they think they own it.


An hon. MEMBER.: The member for Hants (Mr. Black).


Samuel Hughes: Is that where he comes from ? Long years I used to have r high opinion of the people of Hants. I must say that, unless there has been some misadventure, I shall have to change my opinion of the people there. This gentleman came to the House and undertook to cast a slur on a great many people of this country who imp pen to be of English descent. We accept the apology which lie has made to the House with very bad grace, and I trust that he will not do it again. He has been taught a lesson which may take the bumptiousness cut of him. It is said that the Divine architect of the universe stamps on each countenance the type of conscience that lies beneath. I am satisfied that the hon. members who heard the speech of the hon. gentleman on that occasion, and have seen the abject, crawling manner in which lit' got out of it, will realize that stamped on the hon. gentleman's whole outfit is the framework of the conscience that lies beneath it. I again thank the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Bruneau) for his remarks, although, as far as I could glean them, they were not strongly favourable to the views I have presented here to-day. Nevertheless, they were kindly given, and they opened up the discussion of the whole subject. And let me say to my worthy leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) as I say to the First Minister, that long years ago when I had the honour of standing in this House and advocating colonial assistance in imperial wars, I managed for two years in succession to coax a Conservative member of the House, military man at that, to second my resolution. I could not get a seconder except by courtesy. I was told that it was impossible to carry cut the scheme, and any who turn up ' Hansard ' will find that on those occasions I had to speak alone. I am not very old; it is not very many years since those ideas were first placed before the House, and the motion withdrawn, as I intend to withdraw this motion. 'My object was to educate the people. I have great faith in the horse sense ernl sound judgment of the people. My object was then, as it is now, to place the facts before the people, and I am satisfied that the result, ultimately, will be to bring about the aim I have in view. I have lived, and the First Minister has lived, to see my
idea of colonial assistance in imperial wars carried out and carried out successfully. The colonies were all represented in the South African war on the identical lines proposed again and again by me ; and which lines were pronounced impracticable by all parties sixteen years ago. I hope that the First Minister and all of as will live to see, perhaps not in the exact form in which I have laid down here to-day, but in some suitable form, the idea of a full partnership between Great Britain and her colonies carried out-a partnership in whicli ail members of the empire will have equal part. I understood my hon. friend from | Richelieu to say that Canada would be only a small part of the great imperial concern. Well, Canadians are not noted for taking a back seat, on the contrary, they are noted for being aggressive ; and I feel satisfied that in any such confederation as that which has been spoken of to-day, we shall have the voice not only o^Canadian representatives, but representatives from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. I hope it will be only a year or two before we meet with Great Britain in full partnership parliament and if the motherland insists on the dog wagging his tail, the tail may take the i.otion to turn around and wag the dog, for the colonies will soon, combined, be more powerful than the motherland. But there would he no question of Motherland vs. Colonies. The lines would be drawn otherwise. I thank the First Minister for his kind words and the leader of the opposition for his kind words, and above all I thank my good friend from Richelieu for the kindly manner in which he has discussed the subject which I have had the honour to lay before the House and the country. I beg Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the motion.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Mr. Speaker, before this matter is finally disposed of, there are just one or two observations that i desire to make in tile absence of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson). The hon. member for Victoria and Hali-berton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has intimated that my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) is conveniently absent to-night. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to state that the hon. member for Vancouver has good reasons for being absent, and the insinuation comes with very bad grace from my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that he has other than good reasons for not being here. But so far as regards the observations addressed by my hon. friend from Vancouver (ill-. Macpherson) to this House, I have only to say that I endorse every one of them.


Samuel Hughes: Just what I would expect.


Alexander Johnston: No doubt, and I have no doubt also that that is just what every member of this House would desire

the hon. member for Victoria should think. It ill becomes him to stand up in his place and cast insinuations of disloyalty and pass reflections on the loyalty of hon. members on this side. I might give the hon. gentleman the record of some of his own leaders in the past. When I was young in politics I heard the same old insinuations cast against the loyalty of the Liberal party in this country, but the more I have studied the history of that party the more I am convinced that at all times it has been distinguished by its loyalty to the British empire. In the days when the Liberals were in opposition their loyalty was as strong to the Crown and empire as could possibly be that of the party of which the hon. member for Victoria is so distinguished an ornament. But what do the records of that party show ? Do they not show that the only men in this country who signed manifestos asking for annexation to the United States were menjwho led the Conservative party, one of whom was the Conservative First Minister in the House of Commons, of whom the hon. member for Victoria was a meek and humble follower ? My hon. friend, however, conveniently forgets that little fact when he is treating this House to his philippics on loyalty. I am not going to take my cue from him and make any insinuations against the quality of his allegiance to the empire, but, like my hon. friend from Vancouver, I am quite prepared to resent any similar imputations from the hon. gentleman or any of those he supports. A few moments ago, when addressing this House, my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) professed that he did not understand the allusions made to rifles by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson). Well, Mr. Speaker, I propose to give my hon. friend a little enlightenment on that point. If he will turn to the Montreal ' Gazette ' of the 27th February last he will find there an explanation of that allusion. He will find there an interview with a gentleman by the name of Sam. Hughes.


Samuel Hughes: Read it.


Alexander Johnston: I intend to ; and I think that after I have read it, the House will come to the conclusion that it ill becomes that hon. gentleman to get up here and prate about the unity of the empire. If there is one man in this country who has sought to foster a spirit of disunion in this country, it is the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). Let there be no mistake about that.
Some.hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Alexander Johnston: My hon. friends opposite, who are seated around the hon. member for Victoria, may well laugh at him. I do not blame them. They are doing the right thing when they show their opinion of their colleague by laughing at him.


Alexander Johnston: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Alexander Johnston: I knew my hon. friend's opposite could not refrain from showing by their laughter the opinion they have of their colleague. The people of this country after all can be trusted for their good judgment in matters of this kind ; and it is comforting to myself, as I am sure it must be to every hon. member on this side, to find that even my hon. friend's own colleagues, the men who sit behind him on his own side, think so little of his professions and declarations in a matter of so much importance that they cannot refrain from laughing at him. It is rather gratifying to us on this side to find that the opinions of this hon. gentleman are regarded as of so little importance even by his own friends. But what does the hon. gentleman say ? He was interviewed in Toronto a short time ago regarding an important question before the people of this country to-day. And let me say here that this is peculiarly a time when men who desire that our people should live in unity, -when men occupying respon-ible positions in this country and anxious to see good will prevail among all classes, should speak calmly and preach moderation and tolerance. We are here of different races, different origins, different religions, and it is important that we should live in union, peace and harmony side by side ; and, so far as I am concerned, I am determined that what little I have to do in public life shall be in the direction of bringing about a better union and greater harmony among the various people, races and religions which make up our nationality. But what does my hon. friend from Victoria do, and what are some other hon. gentlemen who occupy front benches on the Conservative side doing 1


Mr. LALOR.: How about your own side ?


Alexander Johnston: Have no fear with regard to my side. Let me say to my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) : You do not find any appeals going out from the front benches of the Liberal party or the back benches of the Liberal party to the people asking them to stir up religious strife throughout this Dominion. But such appeals have gone forth from the front ranks of the Conservative party. They have gone forth from the man who occupies a seat to the right of the hon. gentleman who leads the Conservative party in this country.	-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Alexander Johnston: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. A. Johnston) has made a statement with regard to myself, has alleged concerning me a certain fact. I emphatically deny that statement, and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


Alexander Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if the statement I have made is not absolutely in accordance with the facts, I shall be glad to withdraw it. But let me submit to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) the point whether-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. I want the statement withdrawn. He has no right to make that statement in this House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) denies the statement his denial must be accepted and the statement withdrawn.


Alexander Johnston: I cheerfully accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw the statement I have made concerning my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). However, I am sure that my hon. friend is not prepared to deny that he sent out a circular to people in this country asking them to interfere in a matter that is now under public discussion, and to interfere in a manner calculated to bring about misunderstanding between the various classes of our citizens. Will he deny that he has at least gone that far? I have made the statement that from the front bench of the Conservative party has gone this appeal to the people asking them to bring about a condition of affairs calculated not to draw the people closer together but to drive them further apart. Is that the lesson we wish the people to be taught? I think not. Yet, those who would teach this lesson are those who come before this House and undertake to read their fellow-members lessons in loyalty. We are not taking any lessons in loyalty from our hon. friends opposite. But I rose chiefly to justify the statement made by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) this afternoon. If we look at the Montreal ' Gazette,' which is an excellent authority and will be accepted as such by my hon. friend from Victoria and Hali-burton, we find that in its issue of Feb-mary 27, a despatch which is of interest in this connection. It appears under the startling headings, ' Will be trouble.' ' Separate schools will breed rebellion, says Colonel Hughes.' I do not know whether this Colonel Hughes is the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, but, report has it that this Colonel Hughes and the hon. member are one and the same person. And here is how the despatch begins
Toronto, February 25.-Colonel Sam. Hughes, interviewed here to-night on the Northwest separate school question, said :	Mark my
words

It seems to me these words have an aroma of antiquity about them. But we have not marked his words.

Mark my words, there will be a rebellion in
the Northwest if the Dominion parliament forces separate schools on the new provinces.
Is that bringing the people of this country closer together? Is that in harmony with the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Sam Hughes) this afternoon ? I am sure I can safely appeal to my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) who sits immediately alongside of him that these are not desirable words to come from one who, for the time beiug, occupies the important position of representative of the people in the Canadian parliament. I am sure that many hon. gentlemen on that side, as well as many on this side, will agree that these are not timely words to come from one charged with the responsibility of representing the people of Canada on the floor of parliament. But, what more does he say ?
The Bill is the most tyrannical piece of legislation ever introduced in Canada.
' Tyrannical.' This is teaching a lesson of unity and harmony indeed.
It resembles acts of the dark ages.
Let me say to my hon. friend


Mr. INGRAM.: I rise to a point of order. We have legislation before this House which is not under consideration now, and the question the hon. gentleman is discussing is not the question before the House, but legislation that is on the Order Paper.


Alexander Johnston: If I may be allowed a word, I am discussing the question that has been raised in the discussion precipitated by my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton. The question of loyalty to the mother country has been running through this whole discussion, and I am considering whether we are doing what we ought to do to teach the people of this country to be loyal to the British empire.


Andrew B. Ingram: I again raise a point of order. What is before the House is the motion for leave to withdraw a motion.


Alexander Johnston: My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) must bear in mind that you, Mr. Speaker have not yet put that question.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: As I understand, what the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) is speaking to is this : The hon. member for

Victoria and Haliburton is his speech made reference in some way to guns


Samuel Hughes: How do you know that, Mr. Speaker ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Because I heard him. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Mac-pkerson) had in the same debate, made reference to the same matter. As I understand it, in the opinion of the hon. member (Mr. A. Johnston) who now has the floor, the hon. member for Vancouver was misconstrued, and it is to rectify what he believes to be an error that he is speaking


Samuel Hughes: But Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) will not interrupt, but will allow me to finish my ruling. It is in order to rectify a misunderstanding and it is to that point, I understand, that the hon. member (Mr. A. Johnston) is directing his remarks.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to correct you, Mr Speaker


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is my ruling, and if the hon. gentleman


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a question of fact


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) desires to take exception to the ruling he (has his remedy, which is to appeal from that ruling.


Samuel Hughes: I take exception to the statement made to the House by you, Mr. Speaker. You made the statement that in my speech I made reference to guns. I made no such reference, directly or indirectly, and therefore your statement is entirely wrong.


Alexander Johnston: I desire to continue the observations I was addressing to the House. I know that hon. gentlemen not only on this side, but on the other side, are anxious to know what my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton had to say in Toronto 011 the 25th of February, with regard to bringing the people of this country closer together-for that is a question which is ever present to his mind. This is what he said
The Bill is the most tyrannical piece of legislation ever introduced into Canada. It resembles acts of the dark ages. Rifles will be used if necessary.
Is that the way to bring about harmony between the various classes of this country and of the British empire ?
Roman Catholics will fight if they are allowed.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Alexander Johnston: ' Hear, hear,' the hon. gentleman says. As one of the Mr. SPEAKER.
Catholic representatives in this House let me tell the hon. gentleman that the Roman Catholics have no desire to fight. When the time comes, should it ever come, when the British empire is in danger, my hon. friend will find the Roman Catholic people of Canada prejmred to do their duty to the empire. When it is a question such as the hon. gentleman was discussing, when it is a question of bringing the various classes of our people closer together instead of driving them further apart, my hon. friend will find the Roman Catholic people doing their duty and doing it loyally. He will not find them advising Canadians to take up arms in order to do injustice to others. As one who preteuds to know something about what the Roman Catholics of this country are thinking about at this moment, let me contradict my hon. friend's statement that they will fight if they are allowed. I give that statement a most emphatic contradiction. What else does he say ?
Protestants will fight to a man.
The hon. gentleman may know better than l do, but if I know the Protestant people of this country-and I was brought up with them and have lived with them all niv life-[DOT] he does not correctly represent Protestant opinion in Canada when he says that they will fight to a man. We can safely appeal tc the Protestant people of this country, and we are not taking any stock in the deliverances of the hon. member from Victoria and Haliburton in his speech at Toronto to the effect that the Protestants of this country were desirous of rushing to arms over this question. What was his purpose in speaking at Toronto ? Was it to bring about union among the people, or was it for the purpose that is. perhaps, more dear to his heart, of tearing them further apart than they are to-day ? It is for him to answer that question. I am bound to say that the language he used in Toronto speaking to the newspapers, language that has been telegraphed over the country, would seem to bear the construction that is put upon it even by some of his own friends. He says :
The Galicians will fight. They came to Canada. for liberty.
The Galicians, I want the hon. gentleman to know, will bear testimony to the fact that in Canada they have found liberty, liberty of the highest kind. I want to tell him that in my judgment and in the judgment of men who know the Galicians, they are satisfied with the freedom they have found here. Does the hon. gentleman desire to convey the impression to people abroad that if they come to Canada they will not find freedom here ? He is a member of the Conservative party, perhaps he desires that his words should be

telegraphed to the United States and to European countries in order to create the impression that if people come to Canada they will not find freedom here. There is nothing to justify such a statement from the hon. gentleman. I had hoped that some of his own friends would take him to task for it ; I had hoped that representatives of the Conservative party would correct the impression that might have been made by his statement, occupying as he does the prominent position in that party. I hope they will yet avail themselves of the earliest opportunity to say that so far as they are concerned they are not willing that the impression should go forth that this is the opinion of the Conservative party. That is not the opinion of the Liberal party. Long before the Liberal party came to power in Canada they were striving to bring about freedom of the very best kind, and the best order in this great country. But how is it with the Conservative party ? In their press from end to end of Canada, prominent newspapers have undertaken to preach the same doctrine propounded by the member for Victoria and Haliburton. If he is desirous that peace and harmony should reign in Canada, let him address himself to the newspapers of his own party, and ask them to take the lesson that he attempts to preach to lion, gentlemen on this side of the House. There are many other things that have been spoken during the course of this debate that I would like to comment upon, but I will not detain the blouse longer. I did not intend to say all that I have said. I rose for the sole purpose of doing justice to my hon. friend from Vancouver (Hr. Jlacpherson) who spoke before six o'clock, and I have done so. I have now to ask the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton to say if he can that he never authorized this interview with the ' Montreal Gazette,' and if he can say that, he will do much to remove an unfortunate impression that has been caused by that interview.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for ('ape Breton (Mr. A. Johnston) generally contents himself when he rises to ask a question. But to-night he is playing a different role. As a general thing this House recognizes the fact that no man requires information worse than he does, and the House takes him good naturedly and endeavours to satisfy his curiosity. But sometimes he gets beyond bounds, as he has done to-night in attacking my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). It is not my purpose to defend my hon. friend, he is quite capable of taking care of himself. I would not have risen to speak at all were it not that the hon. member for Cape Breton unnecessarily, unreasonably, improperly, and I was going to say. untruthfully, made a statement with regard to myself that I had endeavoured to arouse passion among the people of this 1
country, that I appealed to a certain class of people.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is the hon. gentleman that said hear, hear ? It is the cigarette smoker. Of course he is entitled to special consideration.. He requires^ that we give him two kinds of pardon-I will not tell him what they are.


Mr. ARM AND LAVERGNE.: He does not write circulars to the papers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since the hon. gentleman has come into this House he has received courtesy from this side of the House, though his conduct at times has not invited courtesy ; but if he does not conduct himself with a little more decorum, he will not receive as much in the future as he has done in the past. Now, with regard to the question before the House, the hon. member for Cape Breton says that the member for East Grey has endeavoured to arouse passions and create discord. Upon what authority does he make that statement ? Is it upon the authority of the petition that I sent out to the general community in accordance with the right of every British subject to petition parliament to do a certain thing that he thought was right ? Is that not my right and the right of every British subject under the Crown ? It is recognized in parliament and out of parliament to be the highest right of a British subject. I was availing myself of that right, and I was quite within my right. I shall read the letter so that there may be no mistake as to what it contains, and if the careful examiner finds that I have done a very improper thing I shall be greatly surprised. In view of this important question that was coming up and was likely to create discord-and let me remind the hon. gentleman that it was his leader who brought it into the arena and not mine, and that upon this question one of the most important ministers resigned, and in doing so he was quite within his rights-it was in the endeavour to prevent the calamity and the political trouble that I foresaw that I adopted the measures that I did. What did I do ? I addressed to a society to which I belonged, which is a law-abiding society, no matter what part of the country it is in, composed of tolerant, respectable citizens.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS.: Tolerant ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, tolerant. I addressed them in the following language :
Ottawa, February 16th, 1905. Dear Sir and Brother,-
We believe an effort is about to be made to impose separate schools for all time on the people of the new provinces, now being established in the Northwest Territories. It behooves every lover of liberty, and especially every Orangeman, to lend a helping hand, to prevent this injustice being perpetrated on a liberty-

loving people. Being comparatively weak and helpless, they must largely depend on others to fight their battles for them.
The effort made In 1896 to compel Manitoba to grant separate schools nearly drove the people of that province into rebellion, and had it not been -abandoned, would doubtless have resulted in serious consequences. In view of this, is it not little short of criminal folly to attempt to deprive the people of these new provinces of the right to control their own educational affairs as to them seems best. I would suggest that every member of our order lend a helping hand to prevent this outrage by writing or wiring and getting others to do so as well, the member for his constituency to oppose any legislation or -enactment for that purpose. If we speak out freely and do our duty no government would dare to disobey our request. Brethren, let' us do our duty ; also get accompanying blank petitions signed by all friendly to our cause, giving name and occupation in every case, and forward to me to House of Commons post office, Ottawa, at earliest possible date.



T. S. SPROULE.

[Stage Direction]
And here is the petition that accompanied it :
To the Honourable the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned electors of the electoral division of	do pray that in granting
provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories the Dominion parliament will not by any enactment or otherwise withhold from the newly created provinces full and unrestricted freedom of action in all matters affecting the establishment, maintenance and administration of schools-
Is there anything improper in that ? Is there any appeal to race prejudice, or to passion, or to creed ? Is there anything but the most respectful prayer that could he presented to parliament by any British subject in the country, and that for the purpose of preventing the importing into the political arena of Canada at the present time of one of those vexed questions that would result in arousing a great deal of feeling and doing a great deal of injury ? Was I within my rights or was I doing an improper thing when I did this ? If I was wrong in asking parliament to do that, the Minister of the Interior must have been wrong in resigning. Who induced me to do this, who compelled me ? The very acts of the Prime Minister himself by the "introduction of this Bill induced me to do it. Then who is responsible for it ? Is it I who was trying to prevent it being done or the party who was importing the element of discord into this House and into the country at large, that element which had created so much bitter feeling in the past, and which experience has told us we had better avoid if possible in the future ? Which one was doing the proper thing ? In view of that, does the hon. member who has just taken his seat think he was justified in his endeavour to castigate the member for East Grey in the peculiar Mr SPROULE.
fish-wife style to which some speakers are so admirably adapted ?
Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does he think that he was within his rights and doing the highest type of parliamentary duty when he gave vent to the utterances which we have heard to-night ? If I was wrong in petitioning in the direction I did what has the hon. gentleman to say for himself and his leader and his friends, who have addressed petition to their confreres in Quebec, copies of which are being presented at the present time, some of which were presented to-day, against the very petition I have read ?


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers).: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) says there was one petition distributed in the west, and a different one in Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Permit me to say that I distributed this petition through the province of Quebec the same as in'other provinces, and it has been signed by the electors of that province and I presented
several petitions from the province of Quebec to the House.


Jacques Bureau: I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) who is one of the leaders of the party if any of these petitions which l hold in my hand were distributed in Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I never saw them before.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid we are getting perilously near losing sight of the motion in question before the House.


Mr. MONK.: I rise to make a personal explanation because my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) lias referred to me by name. For the first time to-night I have heard of these petitions. I have not been to Montreal for quite a time ; I do not think I have been in the Jacques Cartier Club since the beginning of the session, and I know nothing whatever of these petitions. I am sure there is not a member in this House from the province of Quebec who would lend himself for a single moment to the ignoble role which has been suggested by my hou. friend.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, this is the outcome of allowing too much latitude in debate, if members were to confine themselves to the actual question before the House, probably you, Sir, would have less difficulty in controlling the House, and probably it would be more creditable to members on both sides. A good deal has been said about the legality of these petitions. and I take it that probably there are Conservatives throughout the Dominion who are in favour of the legislation as well as those who are opposed to it, and both sides have a right to petition this House so long as as they do so in proper form. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) may have made some statements of a controversial character but I do not think he went to the extent which my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. A. Johnston) charges him with going. If the hon. member (Mr. A. Johnston) wants to evince a disposition to allay strife and ill feeling in this country I can assure him that he has taken the wrong method to-night.


Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester).: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. A. Johnston) referred to the member who was sitting near the leader of the opposition, and I want to know if he alluded to me ?


Alexander Johnston: Most certainly not.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I am told he mentioned the member for Dorchester.


Alexander Johnston: I made no reference to my hon. friend (Mr. Morin) when I spoke of the gentleman who sat beside the leader of the opposition.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I am told you spoke of the member for Dorchester and if you did I am the man.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker I have just a few remarks to make


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member has exhausted his right to speak unless he desires to make an explanation as to matters on which he has been misconceived.


Samuel Hughes: I do not wish to depart from your ruling, but if necessary I shall have the debate adjourned.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is quite open to the hon. member.


Samuel Hughes: I want to make a personal explanation ; I dont't want to continue this circus any longer.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member must' not speak in that manner to the chair. If the debate is to be conducted properly the hon. member must address himself properly to the chair.


Mr.  H. J.@: L>. REID (Grenville) I move the adjournment of the debate.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) has gone out of his way to quote some remarks which are attributed to me in a newspaper, I had no idea that the prophecy would be fulfilled so soon; I had no idea that the rebellion would take place in the Liberal party; I did not think they would be in rebellion as they are at the present time over those Bills. I thought it would be confined to the people of the west, but I see I am a prophet before my time. The hon. gentleman said, that it was Conservatives who had signed the petition for annexation to the United States. I do not know who are Conservatives and who are not, but I happen to know a number that are Liberals and here are some names : J. Aumais, A. Archambault, J. Barsalou, L. Boyer, John Cassidy, .T. N. Fournier, S. Fournier, L. H. Holton, Acliille Hebert, J. J. Lamontaigne, R. Laflamme, A. C. Papi-neau, and a number more. However that is neither here nor there. I will just point out that the question at that time was not annexation to the United States or no annexation to the United States ; it was immediately following the rebellion of 1837 and it was in response to the passage of a Bill, justly or unjustly passed by the legislature of Canada, to compensate the rebels whose property was destroyed. The cry of loyalists was ' no pay to rebels,' and on the passage of the Bill they were much annoyed and signed in their anger the manifesto. I rose to make that correction, and to ask that my motion be withdrawn.
Motion to adjourn the debate withdrawn.
Motion (Mr. Sam. Hughes) withdrawn.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: 


Robert Laird Borden: What business may be expected to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will consider the resolution in reference to the packing and sale of certain staple commodities, and on which I am told several gentlemen wish to speak. If government business is advanced we will ask the House to go into supply on Public Works estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 14, 1905.