1910-02-16

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MAGRATH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 143), to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said: The object of the Bill is to surround our western water-powers with greater safeguards than at present exist. Under the Dominion Lands Act no period is fixed for which licenses shall issue. Under the regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council that period is restricted to 25 years. I believe it is in the interest of the public, who own these water-powers, that that period should be fixed by law. There is no intention in this Bill to lessen the authority of the Minister of the Interior who issues these licenses. The Bill provides that no license shall be issued for longer than 25 years in any of our northwestern provinces nor for longer than 10 years in any unorganized territory.
[Stage Direction]
There is the further provision that a license shall not issue without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That idea is expressed in this language:
And any such license or other authority so issued shall contain a clause providing that the same shall not be exercisable until there is endorsed thereon the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province wherein such license or other authority is exercisable and subject to such conditions and regulations as may be imposed by such Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Mr. MONK.: The legislation proposed by my hon. friend is certainly in the right direction. I would like to inform my hon. friend that the section of the Conservation Commission which has in charge the question of our water-powers is now preparing a Bill very much on the same lines as that of my hon. friend, and is getting information on the subject from different parts of the Dominion and from men experienced in these matters; and as soon as that Bill is finally adopted by that section of the commission, it is intended, with a very brief delay, to lay it before the House.


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

[Stage Direction]
NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION. Mr. LAKE:
, L What properties have the National Battlefields Commission bought in Quebec for the purpose of making the park and driveway, from whom were the properties purchased! and what was the price given in each case?
2.	Is it the intention of the commissioners to widen Gilmour Hill, the Belvedere road and parts of St. Louis and Ste. Foy roads? If so, when is the work to commence?
3.	How much money have the commissioners on hand, and what has been the cause of the delay in beginning the works?
["Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm) will not\n\naccuse me of any disrespect toward him if I confess myself as at present quite unable to answer him. Besides my inability to follow him in many of his learned disquisitions, I am under the misfortune of not having heard some portions of the horn gentleman's speech when he turned aside to address gentlemen behind him or lowered his voice. Therefore, if I attempted to answer his speech, I fear that I would make myself ridiculous by confusing banana belts with Hudson bay, hitching posts with Dreadnoughts, or committing similar confusions which might make it appear that I was ridiculing the hon. gentleman's effort. I have no doubt that upon that effort the hon. gentleman has bestowed a great deal of time and learning, and I think it would be impossible for me or any one else, merely from hearing such a speech, to make an appropriate answer to it. One thing stands out perfectly plain and clear from his speech, and that is, that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has in his ranks another gentleman who has: another policy to propound on this naval question. I regret that certain portions of this debate have assumed a tone which I think not quite worthy of this House. Let me begin with my hon. and learned friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I have always listened-as I think most men in this House have-with great respect to any speech made by the hon. gentleman. I know of no man in the House who has more dignity of bearing, a better parliamentary style, more learning, better reasoning faculty and greater eloquence, but I venture to say that the House will share my opinion, when I assert that he descended to a plane not worthy of him when he ventured to characterize hon. gentleman on this side as' having entered into the plan proposed by the right hon. the leader of the government, merely because, if they did not, they would be deprived of patronage. Sir, hon. gentlemen on this side are as high-minded and conscientious as is my hon. friend, and are no more influenced in the views they express and the positions they take by the lust of patronage than is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.\nAnother passage in the hon. gentleman's speech was, I think, unworthy of him; and for it I believe the hon. gentleman, if he were present, would, on his attention being called to it, express regret that he had so far forgotten himself as to accuse the right hon. the Prime Minister, of being a master of circumlocution and deceit. Such language does not raise the tone of the debate in this House. On the contrary, it lowers debate from that lofty plane on which every well wisher of Canada, every one solicitous for. Canada's fair fame and renutation, would desire to see it carried on."]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: I beg to submit the reply to the hon. gentleman's question, supplied by the chairman of the Battlefields Commission:
1.	The following properties have been bought by the commission:	(a) a lot of
land situated on the north side of Ste. Foy road, being subdivision No. 58 of lot 26 of the cadastral plan of the Banlieue of the parish of Notre Dame de Quebec, belonging to one Pierre Cauchon. Area, 16,060 square feet; price, $7,846.55. (b) Part of lot No. 4440 on the cadastral plan for Montcalm ward, in the city of Quebec, belonging to 'Le Seminaire de Quebec'. Area, 1,137,111 square feet; price, $129,137.99. The following properties have also been deeded to the National Battlefields Commission, without cost, for the purpose of the park: (a) Tim piece of ground commonly designated as 'The Plains of Abraham', covering an Mr MAGRATH.
area of 88 arpents and 71 perches (French measure), (b) The plot of ground on which is erected the monument known as Le Monument des Braves', on the Battlefield of Ste._ Foy. (c) A certain parcel of land on which Martello Tower No. 4 is erected.	.
2.	(a) Yes, if reasonable arrangements can be made with the landowners interested. (b) As soon as possible after the lands required have been secured.
3.	(a)	$348,387.56. (b) Certain le<ml
points which have arisen in connection with the mode of procedure under the powers of expropriation given to the commission.



Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	Hare any repairs been made to the Halifax custom house since it was handed over to the customs authorities by the contractor ? If so, what was the nature of the repairs, were they done by contract or by day work, and what was the cost, and who did the work?
2.	Were any repairs made to the Queen's wharf or the Lumber wharf at Halifax during last year? If so, what was the nature of the repairs?
3.	Was the work done by contract or day work ?
4.	If by contract, who was the contractor, what was the amount paid, who were the parties asked to tender, how were they asked, and what were the amounts of the different tenders ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1. The following repairs have been executed:
$ cts.
Repairing roof, copings,	&c..	1,131	80Repairing floors	
554	68Re-glazing	
60	25Re-hanging windows	
400	00Re-laying floor in doloment	[DOT] [DOT]	564	90
2,711 63
Materials were supplied and work was done by Malcolm & Johnston. Frank Reardon, Nickerson Bros, and the Montreal Doloment Company, under the supervision of C. E. W. Dodwell, district engineer.
2, 3 and 4. No expenditure by this department.


WINNIPEG POST OFFICE SUNDAY CLOSING.
Mr. A. HAGGART:: 1.	What applications have been made to the government or the Post Office Department for the closing of outer doors of the post office on Sundays, and what persons or institutions have made these aoplications?
2.	In what post offices have these outer doors been recently closed and box holders refused access to their post office boxes on Sunday ?

3.	If tlie post offices have been closed on Sundays, what are the reasons for such action of the government or the department?
4.	Is the action of the government or department only an experiment, or is it the final determination of the government to close the post offices on Sundays for all time to come?
5.	Why should the department receive on Sunday a letter for transmission and prevent its delivery at its destination on that day?
6.	Does the Post Office Department know that in Winnipeg for over thirty years box holders have had access to their post office boxes on Sunday, and that the present action of the department, it is alleged, will cause serious inconvenience to a large number of citizens ?
7.	Is it known to the Post Office Department
that <a large Dumber of commercial men are said to so arrange to pass Sundays in Winnipeg with their families, to receive and answer their mail on that day?
8.	What good purpose will be served by the recent action of the government in closing the outer doors of post offices on Sunday?
9.	How many post office officials in Winnipeg, by reason of the closing of the outer doors of the post office to box holders, will be relieved from work on Sundays?
10.	If the present action is only an experiment, then why did the government or department not make full and complete inquiries, and obtain sufficient information before taking any action?
11.	What orders were given by the Postmaster General or his department to the postmasters in reference to this Sunday closing?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1.	Numerous communications and petitions have been addressed to the department from the local branches of the Lord's Day Alliance, and also from the citizens and business men throughout the west, asking that the lobbies of the post offices in that section of the country should not be opened for the convenience, of box holders on Sunday.
2.	At the following post offices, viz: _ Bat-tleford, Saskatchewan; Brandon, Manitoba; Calgary, Alberta; Dauphin, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Esquimau, British Columbia; Fernie, British Columbia; Lethbridge, Alberta; Macleod, Alberta; Maple Creek, Saskatchewan; Medicine Hat, Alberta; Moosejaw, Saskatchewan; Nanaimo, British Columbia; Nelson, British Columbia; New Westminster, British Columbia; Portage la Prairie, Manitoba; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Qu'Ap-pelle, Saskatchewan; Regina, Saskatchewan; Revelstoke, British Columbia; Ross-land, British Columbia; St. Boniface, Manitoba; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Vancouver, British Columbia; Victoria, British Columbia; Winnipeg, Manitoba.
3.	The post offices have been closed on Sundays in the west in accordance with what is believed to be the spirit of the people of Canada-that Sunday should be observed as a day of rest and cessation from business. The privilege of keeping the post offices open in the west was given or rather taken in the early days when the train service was scarce and irregular and the arrival of mails uncertain. When great numbers of the people coming into the country as settlers, or prospective settlers, had their mail directed to certain points where they exepcted to be at certain dates, and when it was important that they should obtain their mail so that their progress in travelling should not be obstructed. Moreover, the offices were a great distance apart, and settlers only went for their mails on the days when they were least busy and when the exigencies of their business permitted them. This usually occurred on Sunday as even then the settlers, moved by the spirit of their early training, did not usually devote themselves to business and labour for financial gain, and a great majority of them went into the towns where the post offices were situated for the pur-, poses of public worship. Now, the situation is entirely different. The country is becoming settled, is intersected in all directions by lines of railway, and mails are received as regularly and frequently in all centres of the west as in the other and older parts of Canada, and the necessity which existed for keeping the offices open in the large towns and cities of western Canada, has entirely disappeared. Furthermore, it has been reported to the department by its officers, by many leading citizens, and men in religious and commercial life, that the result of business men obtaining their mails freely on Sunday has led to . the transaction of business at these western points and the forcing of employees to labour on Sunday almost as much as on week days, at all events to a sufficient extent to interfere with their enjoying any advantage which might accrue by Sunday being granted a day of rest. The statement that conditions in the west differ from those in the east is due to the fact that, not the mass of western people, but great numbers of business men have imported into Canada the practice of carrying on business on Sundays the same as any other day, notwithstanding that it is absolutely opposed to the best interests of labour and the laws and spirit of the Canadian people, viz:	That every man may
enjoy where possible the benefit of Sunday as a day of rest.
4. The action of the government is not an experiment, nor is there any necessity for such an experiment. This has been tried in the cities of the east for many years, and it has been found that not only is no inconvenience caused to business, or to the travelling public, but that it has received the unanimous support of all classes of the community, who have found it to

be in the interests of both the employee and the employer.
5.	The vast number of letters posted on Sunday, in fact, it might be said the whole of the letters posted on Sunday are not for local delivery, but for outside points and in most cases far distant points.. The refusal to receive these letters on Sunday would mean a delay during the week of perhaps 12 to 24 hours and serious inconvenience to business, and it cannot be compared with the delivery of mails on Sunday to addresses locally, where all unnecessary work is supposed to cease, particularly, in view of the fact that all such letters are delivered in plenty of time for the opening of business on Monday morning. Moreover, these trains would run whether mails were placed on them or not, and the public and business people would naturally resent any failure on the part of the department to .forward the mails on all running trains, involving as such action would make a delay of 24 hours in the transmission of a large portion of the correspondence for business centres. This has been specially recognized by parliament and exempted from the working of the Lord's Day Act.
' 6. The department is aware that for many years box holders have had access to their boxes on Sunday, but is not of the opinion that the present action will cause any serious inconvenience to the citizens at large, and has reason to believe that outside of the few business men who take advantage of Sunday delivery for the purpose of working themselves and their staff on Sunday, as well as the other days of the week, there is no desire for the keeping open of the post offices on Sunday.
7. The department is not aware that a large number of commercial men are said to arrange to pass Sunday in Winnipeg with their families to receive and answer their mail on that day.
3. Better opportunities for the observance of Sunday, and protection to labour.
9.	The men engaged in sorting for Sunday box delivery will be relieved from duty. The department is unable to say definitely how many clerks require to be engaged in this work, but there must always be a considerable number of men engaged in sorting these mails for Sunday delivery.
10.	The present action is not an experiment, but was taken after the fullest consideration by the department.
11.	A circular was sent out from the department on the 20th January, 1910, to the postmasters of the offices above mentioned, instructing them that on and from the 1st February, 1910, the lobbies of their offices must be closed to the public on Sunday.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 


BOAT HARBOUR, TONEY RIVER, PICTOU, NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	What was the amount expended in each year to date on construction of Boat hai'bour at Toney river, Pictou county, Nova Sootia?
2.	What is the total paid to date?
3.	Is the work completed?
4.	What further sum is to be expended?
5.	Who were superintendents or overseers of the work, for how many days and how much was each paid?
6.	What is the length of each wharf constructed?
7.	What is the depth of water at the outer end of the wharf at high tide and at low tide, respectively?
8.	How much further out will the wharfs be extended?
9.	When so extended what will be the depth of water at outer end of high tide, and at low tide, respectively?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1 and 2.
In 1905-6	$4,727	551906-	7	
2,103	111907-	8	
758	051908-	9	
1,793	02Total	$9,381 733.	No.4.	$2,000.5.	H. McKinnon (1806-8), 169 daysat $3	$507	00
D. A. Barry (1908-9), 29 days at
$3.50	
101	50D. A. Barry (1908-9), 24 days at $3	
72	00Total	$680 50
6 and 7. The works referred to are protection piers on east and west sides of a channel 11 feet deep at low water and 71 feet deep at high water; the east side protection pier is 291 feet long, and the west side one, 235 feet.
8 and 9. Fifty feet on each side, the depth of water at outer ends remaining the same as at present.


MR. BENJAMIN BOURGEOIS.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	At what dates were the services of Benjamin Bourgeois, division engineer, district ' B,' National Transcontinental Railway, dispensed with, and for what cause?
2.	At whose instance was the investigation held, who investigated, and what is the report or finding?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: The following information is supplied by the Transcontinental Railway Commission: On the 31st January, 1910. The chief engineer having reported that the services of Mr. Bourgeois were unsatisfactory, an in-

vestigation was ordered by the chairman to be held. It took place in Quebec on 17th December last, when Mr. Bourgeois was examined by the chairman and the chief engineer on matters relating on residencies 2728, division 7, district ' B,' namely, as regards rip-rap returns, and the admission of Division Engineer Bourgeois that he was wrong was deemed sufficient to justify his being discharged.


EASTERN DIVISION, GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Is the Prime Minister aware that the following formed a part of the speech from the Throne, read at the opening of the present session of parliament: ' The eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway is now open for traffic from Winnipeg to Lake -Superior Junction, and thence by the Grand Trunk Pacific branch to the lake itself ' ?
2.	Is he aware that the Minister of Raii-[DOT] ways did on the 4th day of February make
the following statements in the House of Commons : ' There is no regular traffic over the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway, from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction. The engineers say that the contractors offered to put in a certain service; but I think they are not yet doing a regular traffic business on the road. His, Mr. Grant's, recent report to me is that it will be practically complete and ready to carry wheat almost in another year ' ?
3.	Has the Prime Minister had any communication with His Excellency in regard to this matter, or has he any explanation to make to the House in regard thereto?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The words which the question purports to quote seem to consist of portions of different places in ' Hansard ' (unrevised), columns 3163, 3153 and 3154, not spoken in the order or connection quoted, and from which intervening sentences and portions of sentences are omitted.
3.	What was in fact said on the subject by the Minister of Railways, as reported in ' Hansard,' is not in conflict with the statement in the speech from the Throne, and does not call for any explanation.
His Excellency has not been communicated with on the subject.


TORONTO SUB-POST OFFICES.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Is there a sub-post office at 253 Avenue Road, Toronto? If so, in whose building is it kept, by whom served, and what is the yearly cost thereof?
2.	Is there a sub-post office at 1160 Yonge street, Toronto? If so, by whom kept, in whose building, and what is the yearly cost thereof?


Rodolphe Lemieux: '
1.	There is a sub-post office at No. 253 Avenue Road, Toronto, which is known as ' Sub-Post Office No. 27.' The office is in charge of Mr. E. G. Seyler. The salary attached to the office, including commission on stamp sales, &c., is $319.80, for the year ended March 31, 1909. The Department is not aware who owns the building in which the office is kept.
2.	There is a sub-post office at 1160 Young street, known as ' North Toronto Sub-Post Office.' This office is in charge of Mr. Jas. A. McKenzie. The salary attached to the office, including percentage on stamp sales, was $549.33, for the year ended March 31, 1909.
The department is not aware who owns the building in which the office is kept.
The various sub-post offices and letter boxes in the city of Toronto are all served under one contract, which is in the hands of Mr. R. Newell.


MR. JAMES H. McKENZIE.
Mr. FOSTER:: 


Is James H.: McKenzie in the employ of the Inland Revenue Department at Toronto? If so, in what service, at what salary, and what portion of his time does he devote to that work?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN.: Mr. James H. McKenzie is employed in the excise branch of the Inland Revenue Department at Toronto He is a deputy collector with a salary of $1,700 per annum, and gives full attention to his official duties.


QUEEN'S OWN RIFLES.
George Eulas Foster: (a) Is the government informed that the Queen's Own Rifles are to go to England during the coming summer to take part in the Aldershot manreuvres? (b) If so, is the government to bear any portion of the expense of the corps?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1. (a) Yes. (b) No.


HAY AND WOOD PERMITS, MANITOBA.
Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: 1.	What amount was collected by the government during 1908 and 1909 for hay permits from Dominion lands in Manitoba?
2.	What amount was collected by the government during 1908 and 1909 for wood cutting permits from Dominion lands in Manitoba?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	1908, $859.25; 1909, $762.85.
2.	Total revenue from timber cut under permits in 1908 $44,932.50; total revenue from timber cut under permits in 1909, $38,042.98.


THE GERMAN SURTAX.
[Stage Direction]
, Mr. ARMSTRONG. Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the hon. the Finance Minister a few questions with regard to the German arrangement which the hon. gentleman brought down last evening. Is what is called the German conventional tariff the lowest German tariff? Does the schedule that has been placed in our hands contain all the articles that are likely to go into Germany under that favoured clause and are we giving to Germany access to our markets for all German goods under our general tariff while the German people are only granting to us a portion of their most favourable tariff? Will the minister be good enough to bring down the letters and negotiations leading up to the present arrangement between this government and Germany?
William Stevens Fielding: There is no information to be brought down in addition to what has been placed before the House. Negotiations have taken place, almost entirely in the form of personal interviews between the representatives of the German government and the Minister of Finance. What little correspondence there is, is unimportant, but is necessarily of a confidential nature. There is, therefore, nothing more to be brought down. My hon. friend asks whether the articles mentioned are all the articles we might be * able to send into Germany. That is a matter of opinion on which every hon. gentleman must form his own judgment. We think the list covers the things of most importance and which would be most valued by Canadian shippers. Whether or not every article on that list is of greater or less value than some other article would, I fancy, be a matter of some difference of opinion. At all events, we think the list . comprises the things that are of most importance. The last question of my hon. friend whether we permit all German goods to come in under our general tariff while they only permit a limited list to enter Germany. That is correct, but it is worth remembering that we do not give to Germany favoured-nation treatment. We are not giying to Germany, under this arrangement, all that we were willing to give Germany at a previous stage of the discussion, we are refusing Germany the advantages of the French treaty. That is a matter that is left for further negotiations if it is found in the interests of Canada to have further negotiations. The arrangement is that we give up the surtax only; Germany in return for that gives us the benefit of her lowest tariff upon a specified list of articles which, in the judgment of the government, are the most important articles to the Canadian shipper.


Mr. OLIVER.: 


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Has the minister taken into consideration the fact that there are manufacturing interests in this country that have been built up under the surtax and" that require perhaps some different treatment than this?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think my hon friend is quite correct in saying that any manufacturing interests have been built up in Canada relying on the surtax. The surtax was a war measure. Germany demanded that she should receive the same consideration in the markets of Canada as we gave to the products of Great Britain. That was the bone of contention. So long as Germany adhered to that view, we could make no arrangement with her. When Germany abandoned that contention, we felt we were free to negotiate with Germany. I am quite sure that any manufacturer in Canada who has given any attention to the question must have been aware that this surtax was, if I may so describe it, a commercial war measure, and that just so soon as Germany receded from what we regarded as her unjustifiable position of a few years ago, we should be free to remove the surtax, retaining as we now do the general tariff which was the basis on which, I think, all manufacturing establishments have been created in recent years.


Mr. LALOR.: Has the minister considered, or will he consider, the question of the removal of the duties upon raw material that is used by manufacturers, who will be affected very materially by the removal of the German surtax? i speak from knowledge and experience, especially in connection with the knitting business, one of the industries that will be affected to a very great extent by the removal of this duty. It does not seem fair to these manufacturers that their raw materials should be taxed so heavily when they are brought in direct competition now under the regular tariff, with German goods.


William Stevens Fielding: What does my hon. friend mean by raw material, as applied to this industry? It is rather difficult to give a general answer.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: 
William Stevens Fielding: That would be a question with regard to the general tariff policy of the country, and I would hardly be able to answer that off-hand. I do not quite see that it has any particular relation to the surtax, because the surtax was not adopted as a revenue measure, nor in a sense was it even a protective measure; it was something over and above the revenue and protective elements in the Canadian tariff. It was imposed to meet a hostile position of affairs on the part of Germany, and when Germany abandoned its hostile attitude we felt free to remove the surtax. My hon friend's question would have relation to the general question of the duty on raw materials, and I would not be free to answer that off-hand.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Would the Minister of Finance tell us the precise difference, if there be any difference, between the treatment accorded by Germany to Canada under this new arrangement, and the treatment accorded by Germany to the rest of the empire in respect to tariff matters?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that Great Britain receives the full conventional tariff, and in return for that Great Britain necessarily guarantees to Germany the most favoured terms that are granted to any foreign country. We have declined to grant to Germany, for good reasons we think, the most favoured terms that are granted to any foreign country, and so we have made only a partial arrangement. We receive the German conventional tariff on a specified list of articles in return for the abolition of the surtax. Great Britain would receive the full conventional tariff without any limitation.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the empire as a whole. Does the hon. gentleman mean by the term ' Great Britain ' to include all the rest of the empire, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, &c.? It is most particularly in regard to them that I was asking.


William Stevens Fielding: All the self-governing colonies, of course, in all recent negotiations, are treated independently of the United Kingdom. I will look into the matter from the point of view of Australia and New Zealand.


Robert Laird Borden: While it is only a matter of recollection, I understood that after the German treaty was denounced, another treaty was entered into between Germany and Great Britain, the terms of which included all the dominions of the empire except Canada. I would like to know whether or not the German conventional treaty, so called, applies in full force not only to
Great Britain alone, but to the rest of the empire under any such arrangement.


William Stevens Fielding: I will look more closely into that, but the essence of the arrangement in any case would be that if any portion of the empire receives the full conventional German tariff it must guarantee to Germany most favoured nation treatment, and as we are not prenared to guarantee that to Germany to-day we would not be in the same position to demand the full conventional tariff. However, it is a matter of reasoning. I will endeavour to ascertain the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not altogether a matter of reasoning, but it would rather depend on the terms of the treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no difficulty in knowing that the German conventional tariff will be given in its fullness only to portions of the empire which are willing to give most favoured nation treatment to Germany. That is one of the first principles of international negotiation, and I think my judgment of it is right, but I will look into the facts as suggested by the hon. gentleman.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Mr. LENNOX.: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to a return ordered by the House with reference to Transcontinental railway matters on the 24th January, last. I have reason to believe, from certain things that have transpired since, that the return has been ready for some time although it has not been laid on the table.


Mr. STAPLES.: I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux) to an order that passed this House regarding papers dealing with the establishment of a post office at St. Charles in the constituency of Macdonald, and I would like to ask when we may expect these papers to be brought down.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will see that they are brought down as soon as possible.


Mr. OWEN.: I wish to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) if he has issued an order that parcels sent by registered post must be signed for at their destination by the party to whom they are addressed before they will be delivered up.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend (Mr. Owen) will put a question on the Order Paper I will answer. This is an order from the department of' which I may not have had any knowledge.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster General to an order issued on December 13, and to a return brought down by the Minister of

Public Works on January 20. The return called for reports, documents and correspondence between the two departments and other documents as well in connection with providing proper post office facilities for Lethbridge. The return evidently was prepared bv the Public Works Department, but I think it has escaped the attention of the hon. gentleman's department as there is no correspondence with his department shown in the return, and I know there is certain correspondence that has been had with his department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will look into the matter and see if anything has been left out but I do not believe it has been left out. I may inform my hon. friend that his wishes in the matter have been carried out. I know he has taken some interest in the Lethbridge post office. He is probably not aware that proper post office facilities in Lethbridge have been arranged for. At all events I will see that the correspondence is completed.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I thank the minister for his courtesy in giving me this information, but it has come to me already through other sources from Lethbridge.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That shows that the post office is well organized.


THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95), respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr. BEAUPARLANT (St. Hyacinthe).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed at the outset to express my thankfulness to my hon. friend from Victoria,
N.B. (Mr. Michaud), who was kind enough, at mv request, to move last night, on my behalf, the adjournment of the debate, the state of my health preventing me from addressing the House at such a late hour. I have also to thank the House for having graciously acceded to such request, customary as it is to do so.
I had the pleasure of listening to part of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve). He is entitled to congratulations on account of the able manner in which he expounded his views, though distasteful to me. There is nothing beyond criticism in this world, and I shall single out two references in his speech to which I am bound to take exception. In the first place, he was in no way warranted in referring to the management of the Department of Marine in the manner he did. While technically a man occupying a position of trust may be called Mr. MAGRATH.
to account before the public for certain happenings, even if he be laid up and unable to attend to business, the hon. member should in all fairness have pointed out in what respect the management was inefficient in so far as the minister was concerned; and moreover he should have supplied some proof in support of his contention, and that was lacking entirely. He was content with making a few broad statements reflecting more or less on the minister whom illness confines to his house, and in support of these he has not adduced any facts, I repeat it, although he and his friends have had a whole session and a prolonged investigation devoted to unearth such facts. In the second place, the hon. member shows some inconsistency when directly after taking exception to the government's proposal to entrust forthwith, without consulting the people, the management of the proposed navy to the Department of Marine, he turns around and approves of the pi'oposal of the leader of the opposition to send to England forthwith and without consulting the people, two war-steps of the latest design, representing an expenditure of some $25,000,000.
I am now coming to the question which has been brought up for the fourth time in this House within a year. As might be expected, the data in relation, thereto have been pretty well sifted out. It has, moreover, been discussed at the last conference in London at which the Dominion government was ably represented by the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) and the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden).
The question is assumed to be entirely new. At page 3075 of the unrevised edition of Hansard, for the current session, my hon. friend from Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Monk) is made to say:
There can be no doubt that the policy is entirely novel, and that the people have so far been kept in the dark as to its real meaning and import.
Then at page 3078:
Will my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or any of the gentleman who sit behind him, from the province of Quebec at any rate, state that even this has been laid before the people of our province? They have never heard of it, in that shape or in any shape, and have never had any occasion to pronounce their opinion upon so important a matter.
Nevertheless, the memorandum of 1902. quoted on a previous occasion by the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), is quite clear. Again, in the course of the debate which took place on March 13, 1903, previous to the two last general elections, and which was as usual widely distributed and discussed, I find that the following clean cut statements were made. At page 37 of

the French edition, Mr. R. L. Borden is thus made to speak:
Reference has been made, in the proceedings of the colonial conference, to a proposal by the Canadian government to establish a local naval force.
And the hon. Prime Minister, at page 51, is credited with the following utterances:
I confess that we owe it to ourselves as a nation-as we claim to he-to assume our own defence. And so far as that goes, if we have to spend more money upon military and naval service, I am sure that parliament and the Canadian people will not grudge any sum demanded for that purpose.
Then the hon. member for Jacques Cartier at page 64:
Sir, I listened attentively to the right hon. leader of this House when he spoke in regard to the colonial conference.
One could not possibly acknowledge receipt of notice in more explicit terms.
With such statements before us, theTe is not much ground for contending that the question is an entirely new one. On the other hand, it would be a matter of surprise were a matter of such importance to be threshed out without developing a new departure of some kind.
Men who are interested in throwing cold water on propositions of all kinds, contend that the proposed navy cannot possibly be autonomous. Notwithstanding which, I take the responsibility of stating that the principle of leaving the management of the various navies to the various governments building them is inserted in the Bill, in the same way that it prevailed at the London conference in August last and in this House on March 29, 1909.
True, that settlement of the question is not an ideal one. Of course, merchantmen are preferable to men of war, and such ideal settlement of the question could be brought about only through an international conference which would put an end to warfare for all time. Unfortunately, mankind has not reached as yet that degree of perfection and the settlement proposed is to my mind for the time being that which is best in accord with our political status and present conditions.
However, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and the government should not expect us to-day, any more than when the matter was brought up for the first time, to welcome this proposal of an expenditure for military purposes with as much enthusiasm and earnestness as if it were destined to promote agriculture which supplies, or manufacturing which transforms, raw materials and adapts them to the uses of man, or else trade which acts as an intermediary between the two. It stands to reason that means of destruction
should not he viewed in such favourable light as those things which minister to our sustenance and our comforts. So it is not to be wondered at if members of this House or citizens of this country feel like approving of proposals of this kind only under circumstances when such expenditure cannot be dispensed with, and pending the adoption by the various powers of some more equitable means of settling their differences, than sheer force or luck, through the clashing of fleets or the hurling of explosives of all kinds.
We might, on the other hand, postpone actipn, as suggested by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and others. We have not been attacked for a long time past. There is no danger in sight. A fleet yet in its incipient stage will not enable us to face all emergencies for many years to come. Then our relationship to Great Britain and the neighbourhood of the United States may be considered either in the light of objection to the government proposals or of assurances of security for us. On the other hand, the landlord who has remained several years without feeling the need of carrying any insurance, may not always have the same luck. Then again, it will be acknowledged that there is some remissness in delaying armament until the attack is on. As regards the third objection, if Japan and the United States, whose organization and development were effected in recent years, had taken such a stand as is implied in that objection, fifty or sixty years ago, they would never have evolved into the great powers which they are to-day. Lastly, while recognizing the sterling qualities of the British people, while sympathising, as some of us may do, and as I for one do sympathize, with the neighbouring republic and its institutions, we cannot fail to perceive that neither the inhabitants of Great Britain nor those of the United States will be very prone to tax themselves to defend us as well as themselves. And should they be of any service to us in that respect, should they undertake to defend us at their own expense, we may rest assured that they will be expecting some remuneration for their services. That may take the shape of preferential duties, or may come through the settlement of boundary disputes, or be embodied in the clauses, of some treaty, or result in a direct call of funds to meet the cost, the amount of which would be in due proportion, as we may well expect, to the expenditure incurred, to the risk undergone. Or possibly such a kindly ally would not mind retaining for himself something worth while, some fine section lopped off our territory. That is exactly what Uncle Sam has done in retaining Porto Rico as compensation for having helped Cuba to fight Spain ten years ago. That is also

what France did, in retaining Savoy, as a compensation for the help tendered in 1860 to Italy in the fight against Austria. That is also what England has done in obtaining the transfer of the major part of the Suez Canal stock and practically getting the control over Egypt after taking a hand in righting the finances of the country rather upset through the bungling of some khedive or other.
Should such developments take place, you may be sure that Cape Breton, which is the most important vantage point on the whole Atlantic coast, from the North Pole to the South, on account if its coal mines, would be greatly coveted by the United States, and it will be readily understood to what extent the holding of the Gulf and River St. Lawrence would be made difficult, were Cape Breton to fall into the hands of a foreign power.
Whoever contends that any government, whether American, French, English or other, will exact sacrifices of money and of men from their peoples, towards protecting, without compensation therefoT, the interests, whatever they be, the trade, the welfare of a foreign country, is imposing on the good faith of his hearers or readers who take him seriously. No, Mr. Speaker, there never existed, and there does not exist today a country on the face of the earth that has not had to provide for its own defence, whether directly or through others, but always at its own expense.
I am not any more a spendthrift or a bravado than the most firmly convinced of the advocates of peace. I also, am opposed to militarism, and I trust that the idea of arbitration will prevail in the end. On the other hand, as long as international intercourse is carried on under the present system, I cannot agree that Canada should remain the only country in the world with coasts to protect, but without a single ship suitable for their defence.
The fair treatment which to this day is granted to those who are not in a position to defend themselves, is such an uncertain quantity, that not only a feeling of national pride, but one of self respect and the very instinct of self preservation should induce us to look for something better.
As we are aware that question was not at first a popular one in the province of Quebec. There are questions which it is advisable to take up first from the point of view of their drawbacks. Such is the proposal of undergoing a heavy expenditure for military purposes. Moreover our opponents took the lead. However, while such a policy has its drawbacks, its weak points, it has its strong points, its justification on the grounds of caution, dignity and the need of protection, and these will not be lost sight of any more in Quebec than in the other provinces of the Dominion. And when as the actual facts war-Mr. BEAUPARLANT
rant us to do, we inform the people of Quebec that their opposition members in this House-averse as they are to contributing anything - greeted with tumultuous applause the proposal of the leader of the opposition to contribute at once the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts, or about $25,-000,000-a foregone conclusion-and when we add that the major part of that opposition who advocate an immediate contribution, applauded in the same way the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and his few followers, the electorate of Quebec and other parts of Canada who do not like double dealing, will say, as they have said since 1896, that they prefer the outspoken attitude taken by the government who for all sections of the country declare that we have reached the state of manhood, that consequently we are bound to act as men and to see'to protecting ourselves, which is more satisfactory, and ultimately will be cheaper.
It has been contended that if the people were called upon to express an opinion, the answer would be against the proposed expenditure. If it were so, do you believe the leader of the opposition, after spending ten months in poising public opinion, would be willing to go even farther than he had decided to go in the footsteps of the government on March 24 last?
These hon. gentlemen are free to seek encouragement from audiences made up mainly of opponents of the government- which they have the right to be-and who have numerous other grievances against us. It is an easy matter to find flaws in a measure of such importance; but numerous queries remain unanswered after our opponents have stated their platform.
If through the courtesy of England and the United States we are to be dispensed with the burden of maintaining a navy, it is preferable to be a colony to being a sovereign state. In that case the inhabitant of the metropolis would be made to pay tribute to the colonist. That is certainly not in accordance with history, and the experience of all people the world over and from time immemorial upsets such a contention. There is no example of a nation having preferred the status of a colony to that of a sovereign state, as its ultimate condition. If a navy is an unnecessary thing, how is it that all countries of any standing in the world have provided themselves with one?
It is stated that there is no attack impending. As a matter of fact, there is no immediate danger, but Canada with its young and enterprising towns and its vast plains is the country which has the greatest attraction for immigrants from the old world; and if Japan has had the pluck to take exception to the management of schools in California with a view to protect-

ing Japanese children attending such schools, it is likely enough that this same power might be disposed to question the wisdom of our immigration laws. Now, Japan, which was very little known fifty years ago. has an already powerful fleet.
Only a few days ago, British diplomacy, seconded by the prestige of the British navy, secured for us from the government of Uruguay an amount of $50,000 as compensation for the illegal seizure of some of our fishing boats along the coasts of that -country.
In many cases a navy cannot be put to any use, and so much the better. It then has indirectly its usefulness in accordance with that rule, which though objectionable in practice, has some strong points in its favour: ' Si vis pacem, para helium.'
In his speech of February 3rd, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier recalled an incident of those troublous times of 1837: a British officer present at the trial before court martial of a patriot took pleasure in -sketching the prisoner as he would appear on the gallows. Now, there is not a member of this House, there is not a Canadian, whether of English or French lineage; but will repudiate such cruelty, such cynical insult to misfortune. The very perpetrator of such an offence must have been ashamed *of himself as soon as the first period of excitement was over. On the other hand, I fail to see what argument the member for Jacques-Cartier will draw from this incident either in favour or in condemnation of the government's proposal. Excesses of that kind cannot be charged against our forerunners, who were the victims and not the perpetrators of such deeds.
During that same debate of February 3rd. the hon. member for North Toronto depicted the former prime minister of Quebec, the late Honore Mercier, under rather unfavourable colours. He represented him as anti-British, and in so doing he was speaking of a man of whom he had a very imperfect knowledge. Mercier, who had a free hand in Quebec about 1888, was well disposed towards Ontario. We all remember how such disposition materialized in 1890, when unfortunately the university of Toronto was consumed by fire. I refer to this fact, not that it has a great meaning in itself, but as showing what were the real feelings of the man and how uncalled for are the aspersions cast on his memory by the member for North Toronto on February 10. If that hon. member only took the pains of ascertaining the facts in regard to Quebec's representative men. he would have to modify a good many of his utterances.
Now, as to those who would be disposed to contribute cash or the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts.


Mr. PAQUET. (Translation).: Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: Certainly.


Eugène Paquet: The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe asserts his willingness to defend Canada on land and on sea, but will he go so far as to say that he approves of the idea of our taking part, in case of emergency, as stated in clause 18 of the Bill, in all imperial warfare?


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: If the hon. member will take patience, he will see in the latter part of my remarks what position I take. I propose voting for the Bill and clause 18, subject to amendments: which may be made in committee.


Eugène Paquet: Then you are in favour of the proposal of Canada participating in imperial wars?


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: In so far as I am concerned, I do not wish to be debarred from the privilege of entering into an alliance with whomsoever I may deem it useful to make such an alliance in my country's interests. As a French Canadian I have just as much the right to enter into an alliance with England whenever I believe it in the interest of Canada, in the same way that the French people in France have themselves formed an alliance with England previous to the Crimean war in 1854. I take just as much pride in my French Canadian ancestry as the hon. member for l'Islet may take; and it is this very desire of doing my duty as such which enjoins me to take all means possible of promoting the interests of Canada according to circumstances, under the control and responsibility towards the representatives of the Canadian people of the Minister of Marine of Canada. I would not be doing my duty as a French Canadian, by laying down as a principle never to enter into such alliance or other, under any circumstances, even though should that alliance be useful to us.
Now, those who are willing to contribute purely and simply, forthwith and unconditionally $25,000,000, or any other amount, or who, in other words, would be disposed to hand over the whole outfit to be controlled exclusively by the home authorities, do not appear to Tealize that differences may arise between the mother country and the colonies, or else .should such differences arise, they would allow the matter to be settled at the sweet will of the adverse party. Now, that is not at all in accordance with the Anglo-Saxon's love of liberty, or desire of upholding his rights, nor with .his legitimate craving for managing his own affairs.
Differences of that nature do not arise solely between foreign nations. The Spanish colonies of South America, the peoples

who colonized North America, though homogeneous and of either Spanish or Anglo-Saxon undoubted origin, have not always had interests or views similar to those of their mother lands, neither have the northern- and southern sections of the United States, following the war of independence, always had similar views. And the Question of bi-metalism, while it did not bring about such grievous animosities between the East and West, was an occasion of serious differences.
Within the very bounds of the Dominion, British Columbia, has not always been in unison with the other provinces on the question of oriental immigration-as my eloquent friend from Nanimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) is aware- neither as regards its financial arrangements with the Dominion government. The Dominion government and the Ontario government have also been at loggerheads, especially regarding the license law, a difference which culminated in the carrying of the Hodge case, though unimportant as regards the amount involved, to the foot of the Throne. The province of Quebec has also occasionally differed from the other provinces. Finally, in England, a country wherein order and public opinion have a predominating influence, and make for stability to a remarkable degree, harmony has not always prevailed on important issues.
Some may object that these are questions of local government, and that when it ccmes to a question of national defence, the whole forces of the nation should be made to converge towards the attainment of one! same object. But, in such a case the least that could be done would be to provide representation in the same measure as new obligations are imposed. And the plan proposed by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) though I cannot approve of it, would be more in harmony with the principle ' no taxation without representation,' than the system which consists in handing over the control to a country over whose administration we have not the slightest control.
Now, if diversity of interests and differences of opinion have arisen within the bounds of a single Dominion, there is still greater reason to expect that such differences exist or will assert themselves oe-tween countries separated by oceans. And the diplomatic wording, the ominous expressions, wherein such an emergency is deftly passed over, is necessarily pregnant with concealments and reservations.
Whoever puts himself at the mercy of others might just as well at the outset give up all contention of his own. The proposal agreed to at the last conference, the principle of which has been retained in this Bill, is preferable to the former system, inasmuch as it provides for the protection of Canada's special interests, and if, as we Mr. BEAUPARLANT.
have reason to hope, the navy is to be built in Canada, it also ensures to the Canadian producer and worker the benefit of such contributions as we are called upon to make. That is why I approve of such proposal in preference to that of contributing without anything been granted in return, while we are ourselves deprived of all means of control.
It is that liberal policy of the home authorities which ensures to Great Britain the loyalty of its colonists and helps in maint-lining her in the forefront of the nations of the world. Of all the dependencies of Great Britain, Ireland alone has been deprived of its autonomy, of its self government, and that at the beginning of the last century. Now, if I am not entirely mistaken, there is not much sympathy towards England to be found in Ireland than there is in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or even South Africa, whose conquest is of such recent date.
Equal rights and mutual consideration are better cemen.ters of durable and true alliances than the mere exercise of force. However, it is frc.m another view point that I propose dealing with this question.
If the philathropic idea which inspired the Hague conference had been fully put into practice, the question which we are considering, as well as all questions of militarism, would have been solved in a thorough, final and world-wide manner. And if it were Canada's power, even through the expenditure of an amount equal to that necessitated for the establishment of a navy to take a hand in bringing about such a result, I do not say that I would oppose the government's proposal, for then there would be of course no occasion for the government introducing such a measure.
Of course, the great powers only are in a position to deal effectively with such a matter. The voice of a colony, whatever its importance, would not be heard. Sovereign countries, only had representatives at the Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907. On the other hand, conferences between the mother country and ourselves are of frequent occurrence; and that means is always open to us of reaching the international concert, should we be more fearful of assuming a status of complete sovereignty, an isolation which may be deemed alarm-ing,-than other colonies which though weaker at the time than we are to-day, have been bold enough to assume such a status.
. Universal peace is a dream of philanthropy, the carrying into effect of which may be permitted to wish for. Apart from heT own forces and those of her colonies, England may rely oh the help of the neighbouring republic a natural and powerful ally, and on the co-operation of her oldtime rival, France, a friend to-day; and we

have reason to believe that the combined influence of those three great powers and of ithose who naturally follow their 'lead, would bring about the acceptance of certain all important clauses in the treaty for universal peace. The United States, France and England after coming out victorious in war, would crown their achievements by a final victory in peace.
These humanitarian views have been given expression to by the official delegates of the British workingmen, Mr. Appleton, who at the International conference held at Paris last summer, deplored in bitter terms the fact that while England was spending two billions for the maintenance of the army and the navy, she was spending fifty millions only towards education and the development of arts and sciences. And bear in mind that England is one of the countries of the world wherein the illiterate are in the smallest numbers, and one of the countries of Europe, at any rate wherein military service is less exacting, inasmuch as it is not even compulsory.
The feeling in France in this respect has also already received semi-official expression. As the result of a competition bearing on the question as to who was the greatest Frenchman of the nineteenth century, a competition initiated by a great French newspaper, modestly designated ' Le petit Parisien/ militarism was relegated to the fourth place by a majority of subscribers to this paper, who represent practically French public opinion, and the first place was assigned to philanthropy, which commends itself to the human reason and to the good feelings of men, when not vitiated by circumstances. Through that plebiscite France proclaimed that her greatest citizen of the last century was Pasteur, the healer, the benefactor of humanity, and not Napoleon, the scourge of humanity.
French and German advocates of peace, forgetting their broils of recent occurrence, and their old-time grudges, extend a friendly hand and unite in denouncing those constantly recurring conflicts and armaments by their respective governments.
The president of the United States, Mr. Taft, and Canadian statesmen, among others the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), whom I now see at his seat- have also with marked satisfaction, during the recent festivities at Burlington, celebrated the centenary of peace maintained between Canada and the United States, and that along a frontier of 3,000 miles m length.
In this Dominion of Canada, in Toronto, that hot-bed of loyalty, there has been established a Canadian association for peace and arbitration, of which Mr. William Mulock is the president and Dr. C. S. Eby, the secretary. In the course of a sermon 1174
delivered at the Crescent street Presbyterian church of Montreal, an English preacher, the Rev. W. W. Dickie, has not hesitated in condemning before a numerous audience the policy of militarism as a disgrace to civilization.
Finally, the two conferences both held at the Hague in 1899 and 1907, may be pointed to as events of a novel character to this day, as regards their humanitarian inspiration, preciseness of their object, the plausibility of their methods and the evi dent good faith of their promoters. The human conscience, which for centuries past has not tolerated that differences between private owners as to property rights should be decided by handicuffs on the street, is beginning to be impatient at -witnessing the settlement through pitched battles of differences arising between sovereign countries of boundary disputes or other international conflicts.
Ethics should not be made to vary in accordance with the importance of the interests at stake. These are, amongst many others, indications of a desire to see universal peace firmly established, a result which the heads of the ten principal states of Europe and America should and might bring about through the making of an international code which would be finally and permanently accepted.
What the heads of the ten leading states of Europe and America have not had the courage or power of accomplishing, delegates of the working fraternity the world over who are to meet in London next summer, have decided to attempt at their conference. On that account they are entitled to universal gratitude.
The acceptance of an international code carries with it the establishment of tribunals. Tribunals are human institutions; as such, they are not always above reproach; but their decisions as a rule should be more equitable than the rule of the sword.
It has been objected that there exists no sheriff, no bailiff in international matters, to carry out the orders of a world-wide tribunal and ensure their observance. That would be the part assigned to the common international force to which the various nations would contribute units much smaller than their present armaments. And if a bailiff, single-handed can enforce on individuals the will of the nation, a few thousand men will be in a position to enforce the observance of international decrees.	_'
These are facts, theories and hop s on which the advocates of universal peace rely for ultimate success; but, it should be admitted that the spirit of warfare is far from being yet extinct on the face of the earth. While making a pretense to peaceful intentions, the various powers are all verv self

asserting. At the Hague conference motions for postponing the settlement of various questions were more likely than any others to carry unanimously. Many are the reservations made in regard to the final conclusions. And if we are not willing to be content with what other nations despise, if we are desirous of being on a footing with other countries, at any rate on a par with a few of the 47 states who .weTe represented at the Hague, apart from Canada, we wiP have to make sacrifices somewhat similar to those made by mature nations, at any rate until the time comes when international conflicts aie settled through arbitration .
While adapting Canadian politics to meet the needs of the moment, we -should strenuously deprecate those doings -which are the main causes of international strife; the excessive ambition of nations, of institutions, and even of individuals, self conceit, prejudice, the coveting of riches, the spirit of domination, and above all possibly that false patriotism, the outcome of which is merely to set up each nation as the foe of all others.
Patriotism, as it- is oftentimes understood and advocated, is a deplorable evil which has done humanity more harm than all other covetings and wr-ong-doings of men We often hear people dilating on the ardent love men should have for their country. Now. that love of country, which in itself is worthy of admiration, ceases to be such as soon as it depends for its sustenance! on the hatred of the foreigner. If in France, the people are to be taught to love France jealously, exclusively, if in England the people are to be taught to love England jealously, exclusively; if in Germany, in the United States and in the various other countries of the world, the same policy is followed, then bloody wars will ensue and to horrible condition will humanity be brought.
A theory cannot be considered good, if the consequences it leads to are undeniably deplorable. If only we habitually viewed our fellowmen as human beings and not as fellow-citizens or foreigners, those in the majority, the great powers, and those in authority would lose nothing of their privileges, while minorities, small nations and weaklings would -obtain some improvement in their condition.
Let appeals to national prejudices be discarded, and grasping individuals, institutions or nations, who have existed under all climes and at all ages, will thus be deprived of the means of preying on the naive heroism -of the masses, and finding themselves unsupported, will lose all hope of attaining their object. Though it may be designated as patrotism, such exclusiveness is nothing more than egotism and selfishness extended to the nation is neither Mr. BEAUPARLANT.
more generous nor worthy of greater admiration, while the consequenecs are proportionately more disastrous as it extends from the individual to the nation.
No, Mr. Speaker, though suostantial progress has been made in that direction, the problem of universal peace has not yet been solved. And we have to choose between making sacrifices in proportion to those made by other nations, or else be content with what others will be willing to concede to us. Now, history and experience have long ago apprised each one of us that if we expect to get fair treatment when left at the good will of others, we will be sadly mistaken. As long as international intercourse is ruled by the customs now in force, it would he folly on our part to put ourselves in such position.
Our opponents entreat us in the name of what is dearest to us, to abstain even from providing the basis of a Canadian navy. That is pure rhetoric, which may appeal to an audience made up for the most part of opponents of the government, who have numerous other reasons for fighting us, but it is no answer to a question which requires to be solved by a growing people, who have reached the adult stage, and who unwilling to continue subsidizing others directly or indirectly for their defence, have resolved to undertake that task on their own account. We might as well and with better cause state that it is in the interest of those who are dearest to us that we consent to the necessary sacrifices being made with a view to laying the fouhdations of status superior to that of mere wards or dependents of other nations, and to ensuring to the Canadian people and to every one of our fellow-citizens security, consideration, greater independence and more comfort, either at home or elsewhere; to the merchant on the ocean, as well as to the farmers and manufacturers who supply his cargo. Whether powerful or not, whether rich or poor, for the stay-at-home as well as for the traveller, for the diplomat, the shipmaster or the crew of the fishing craft navigating in foreign seas, for the youthful emigrant seeking fortune' in neighbouring countries, as well as the hardy pioneer who winds his way to the mining regions of Alaska or the poor miner who goes down into the depths of a Pennsylvania colliery. It is better to belong to a nation esteemed and respected then to a nation enjoying no such considerate in.
In conclusion, the proposed expenditure is of a most undesirable character. It is not at all necessary to be in the ranks of the opposition eo recognize that. However, it cannot be avoided under present international conditions, unless we are willing to abide by whatever concessions foreign nations are willing to make in our favour. As long as other nations go to the length of

appropriating money for armaments, we cannot reasonably suppose that they will not be more exacting than ourselves as regards the shoring of powers, riches and other advantages.
And if we Canadians are obliged to make further sacrifices towards armaments, let us at any rate retain control, and not only in principle or in theory, but practically, effectively and permanently. We shall thereby occupy a better position in matters of international import, and obtain better treatment should we become a party to some treaty of alliance, or otherwise, with other nations.
However, let us hope that before these ships that we are about to build have become old, out-of-date, through the progress of aerial navigation and otherwise, the arbi-tiators of international peace1 will have accomplished long ago, that is they will have contributed to the settlement of that question the required quota of good will in the shape of mutual concessions, and that these ships instead of being used as a means of pnlonging such unreasonable rnd onerous conflicts, will have for the greater part been remodelled and made to develop international trade, that powerful agency for promoting international prosperity and welfare.


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).: I am sorry I was not able to follow very closely the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beauparlant) who has just sat down. If I understood him correctly, however, he directed a good deal of his discourse towards the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and also the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). While I applaud his enthusiasm and the patriotic way in which he delivered himself, I detected however, a strain of selfishness in his address, for he seemed to confine his patriotism almost entirely to the province of Quebec. Now I will just say that the Dominion should be taken as a whole, we should have equal loyalty to every part of this Dominion. The province of Quebec is not the whole of Canada; and there seems to be in some quarters a feeling that the proposed fleet should lie in the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Again, I think we should take in the whole of the British empire into our consideration, just as we should take in the whole Dominion. We should look to the safety of the British empire, feeling that we are citizens of that empire. I am sure that if the province of Quebec were attacked, the other eight provinces would rise as one man to go to her defence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have followed this debate very carefully for a number of days, and I have tried to do so with an open mind. I feel that we should conduct this
discussion entirely above politics, and it is in that view that I desire to discuss it myself. In the first place when this question began to be discussed, I was under the impression that we should have a Canadian fleet built by Canadians, built in Canada, and of Canadian materials. However, ^ as the discussion has gone on, one question struck me continually, and I waited day after day and hour after hour to hear _ that question answered. That question is this: What are we going to do for Britain and the British empire if the British empire is attacked within the next five years? We have no guarantee that peace will be maintained for five years, that Germany will not attack Britain within the next five years. But we are told plainly that it will take us one year to enlarge our dry docks, and four years at least to build our little Bristols. Now what are we going to do in the meantime? Are seven and a half millions of King Edward's loyal subjects on this side of the Atlantic going to stand with folded hands and see the old land taken by an enemy, see her robbed of her wealth, see our beloved King Edward led oft a prisoner as Napoleon the Third was? Are we to stand idly by for five years without doing anything to ward off such a catastrophe?' Until that question is answered I feel that I cannot agree with the Bill that is now proposed for our consideration.
After listening to this discourse for a considerable time, I feel it my duty to speak out boldly and freely in regard to a question of such vital importance as the defence and preservation of Canada and of the British empire. I do this the more freely, because I have some suggestions to make which I think might be of use if they were properly considered, but which I fear will scarcely be in accord with the views of either the leader of the government or the leader of the opposition. I may say however, that some of my constituents and many others whose opinions I value very highly, seem to think that my views are. sound, safe, economical and businesslike. Of course I may be wrong, but I am open to conviction. Let me say, however, that there must be something more to convince me than mere bald assertions. That has been tried on me already, and it has failed. I must have logical arguments put up to me, arguments founded on known facts and founded on common sense. In the meantime I feel that I would not be doing my duty to my country and to my constituents if I sat silent in this House, and beheld one of the greatest and most far reaching follies that was ever perpetrated in a civilized country enacted before my eyes. My duty becomes doubly imperative when I find that some hon. gentlemen on my own side of the House are inclined

to advocate measures that I do not find quite satisfactory. You will, therefore, gather from what I have said that I do not think that either of the two great political parties in Canada exactly realize how they can most effectively assist Great Britain in the present emergency.
That there is an emergency, I make no doubt. No one has yet proved that there is not an emergency. The very fact that the Asquith government brought in a budget imposing extra taxes to meet an emergency, that they required so much more money, and that the budget was so unpopular, that the Asquith government was nearly defeated, shows that there is an emergency. Since that election was over they have ordered the building of four extra Dreadnoughts, showing that in Great Britain at least an emergency is believed to exist. Actions speak louder than words. Now, an emergency requires emergency measures, and these are generally of a temporary character. Therefore, it seems to me that all we have to do at present is to make some temporary arrangement that will enable Britain and the empire to tide over the present crisis. Now, in the old days when a great general met with a military emergency in the shape of a great river that impeded the onward march of his army, he did not stop to build a stone bridge with solid stone abutments, and erect thereon a steel structure; if he had done so, he and his army would have been taken at a great disadvantage, and would have been ruined. Instead of that, he built a bridge of boats over which he safely transferred his army. Similarly, by adopting the principle of a temporary arrangement, I am prepared to show how Canada can give to Britain seven extra Dreadnoughts until this crisis is over. Now, Sir, you may say that is a strong assertion, but I will ask you not to condemn it until you have heard my argument. Besides that, I think I can show you how -we can save millions and millions of dollars at the same time to the Canadian people without spending nearly as much money as either of the proposed plans -would entail, simply because it will be a temporary measure. Now, if I undertake to prove that big proposition, it will be necessary for me to examine thoroughly the ground and establish my arguments on a solid foundation, because there is no doubt that I will have the whole House against me.
In the first place, I will take up the question of dry-docks. I am in favour of the enlargement of our dry-docks, and I think the government in that respect are going in the right direction. It is absolutely necessary that we should enlarge our dry-docks. Our' trade and commerce require it. Take the dry-dock at Levis, Quebec, only 600 feet long and 62 feet wide. Suppose the ' Oceanic ' wished to come to that Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
port, she is 685 feet long and 68 feet wide, and if any accident should happen to that vessel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence she could not be repaired on this side of the water, she would have to cross the ocean before she could be repaired. Now, we know that a vessel, when injured, generally draws more water than she did before. Therefore, I say that the dry-dock at Levis should be enlarged. We have many other vessels plying to Quebec which the dry-dock is too small to accommodate. We have sailing the ocean such ships as the 1 Kaiser William II.,' the ' Deutschland,' the ' Cedric,' and the ' Baltic,' the great size of which renders it necessary that dry-docks must be made larger and larger. Why, not so long ago, the ' Empress of Ireland ' had to be taken across the ocean to be repaired. I say, Sir, that the require- -ments of our trade and commerce demand that these dry-docks should be enlarged. If we are to compete with an enlarged, and deepened, and improved, Erie canal, we must do everything in our power to keep up the good name of the St. Lawrence route, and to provide that insurance rates on that route shall be reduced. For my part, I would approve of the dry-dock at Halifax being enlarged, and I may say here that I am in favour of the establishment of a naval college in Halifax, or anywhere else, wdiere it may best be located.
I believe also that the dry-docks at St. John and Esquimalt should be enlarged. But, Sir, I object entirely to saying that such improvements are to be_ charged up to the motherland as something we have done for her or on her behalf. Why, to say that, would be acting on the principle that if a man had a fine residence in this city with beautiful grounds, and some tramp was to attack him in his garden, and a neighbour came across to assist him, and after the melee it was necessary to take that neighbour into his house, get a surgeon and have his wounds attended to, and then when he would be going away, instead of the man thanking him for coming to his assistance he would say: I built this big house and fixed up these grounds for your special accommodation and benefit. In a similar way, if a war vessel of Britain is ever injured in Canadian waters, it will be when she comes here to protect the cowardly Canadians who will not defend themselves, and surely we might give these British ships the benefit of our dry-docks until they get their wounds repaired. _ There is another matter which I think should be taken up by the government, and that is the encouragement of aviation.
I think this government should have done something for Messrs. McCurdy and Baldwin, when they attended the military camp at Petawawa last summer. We are told that the government gave them the use of some sheds on the grounds, but what the gov-

ernment ought to have done was, to pay their way there, maintain them properly when they were there, and pay their expenses back again at least. They are considering in other countries the question of the navigation of the air and Canada should not be behind. I notice that is the course of one experiment made in California a man had gone up in an airship and was able to drop 200 pounds of sand on to a piece of white paper ten feet square. If the science becomes so perfect as that it might be possible to destroy even Dreadnoughts by airships. We know what they are doing in Britain in this matter, we know what Zeppelin has done in Germany, we know what success they have had in France, and why should not Canadians be encouraged in the development of aviation. When we consider that Messrs. McCurdy and Baldwin had backing them a man of such genius as Dr. Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, surely this government should have accorded them some practical help. I notice that Mr. D'Almcida, in a lecture before the Engineers' Club, of Toronto, stated that he thought the time was near at hand when airships would be considered the safest, cheapest and best means of transportation, and added that the time may come when we will be able to go around the earth in seventy hours. Surely, there may be some wonderful developments in the future when such remarks are taken cognizance of by an intelligent and educated body like the members of the engineers club. Now, why are we neglecting this very important factor in the defence of our country? It is stated in the Toronto 'Globe' of the 14th instant-and no doubt it is true when the ' Globe ' prints it-that a military airship in Britain was launched for the use of the British army, and that she answered her helm perfectly on her trial trips, even when speeding in the teeth of a stiff breeze. Well, our Canadian people should be encouraged in the pursuit of this science and in the near future it may mean more than a fleet of little cruisers, or even Dreadnoughts. Indeed, the control of the navigation of the air may mean more to Canada than either of the propositions now before the House. This is an important day in the history of Canada; it is an important day in the history of the British empire and the world, because I believe that to-day the eyes of every nation on earth are turned towards Canada. It is known everywhere that a perilous time and fearful crisis in the affairs of the British empire is approaching, and the world is wondering what Canada will do. I would remind the House that the very moment it was known that this crisis was near our younger, smaller, and weaker sister nations did their duty and did it vigorously. They did not wait to write, they cabled assistance to the mother country, and Canada has been the only tardy child,
the only laggard in this great family of nations. It was known right here in Ottawa more than a year ago, that this danger was coming, and what have we done? Deliberately in the face of that knowledge we spent the whole of the year 1909 in passing, unanimously it is true, a very high sounding and loyal resolution. We made a noise but we did nothing. The session of 1910 is well advanced now, and still nothing practical has been done; we have had a great deal of talk, Grit talk and Tory talk, but we have done nothing. I think it is admitted that we will have to spend 1911 in enlarging our dry-docks, and then I suppose we will spend 1912 in building the slips on which, in 1913, we will begin to build our little cruisers. If we may judge by the progress that is usually made in erecting public buildings and the construction of government works in this country we may safely assume that the ships cannot be ready before 1920. The Prime Minister said it will take four years to build the cruisers and it is admitted it will take one year to enlarge the dry-docks; the leader of the opposition says the cruisers will not be ready for fifteen years, but I will take a happy medium between the two and say they will be ready in ten years.
Could the enemies of Britain wish anything better than to know that under these circumstances we are to have a Canadian-built navy composed of little vessels or cruisers that are sure to be obsolete and out of date before they are constructed? Why, if the government were in league with the enemies of Canada, it could not give them a better guarantee. It is simply a guarantee that even these little cruisers will not be ready for_ from seven to ten years, and will not be of any use when they are ready. Britain has a great many of these small vessels now, and has had them for a good many years, before Dreadnoughts were built. She could only use a few of them in a struggle in the North Sea, because these little vessels of the Apollo and Bristol type are used only as scouts; they are used to evade the enemy, to run away, not to fight. They would be worse than useless in a contest on the ocean unless there were a Dreadnought or super-Dreadnought in the neighbourhood behind which they could run for shelter. There is no doubt, however, that Great Britain can use all the little vessels she has to good account, without taking them into the North Sea, to guard her cotton raw material and food supplies. Those who are pretty well on in life remember well the great suffering that there was in Lancashire when the cotton supply was cut off at the time of the American war. If Britain's cotton supply were cut off tomorrow, there would be the greatest possible suffering, and if her food supply were

cut off, she could be surrounded like a beleaguered city and starved out in a month. We have recently heard a great deal in this House and out of it about the immense aggregate tonnage of Britain's warships. This is a very plausible argument, but it is just as deceptive and misleading as it is plausible, and it is unworthy of a great man and a clear thinker. We all know that the smaller ships are so far out-classed by Dreadnoughts that in a battle on the ocean they could not get near to a Dreadnought or .injure it in any way. Therefore, in future nothing but the tonnage of Dreadnoughts and super-Dreadnoughts will count. I often think that Canadians who live hundreds or it may be thousands of miles away from the ocean, have a small idea of what a fearful deathdealing monster a Dreadnought really is. We can only convey this idea to them by comparison and description. We cannot take them to see one. Some idea can be formed when I say that a Dreadnought has a displacement of 22,000 tons, whereas the little ship in which Jacques Cartier first crossed the ocean and landed in Canada had a displacement of only 60 tons. A Dreadnought is simply a death-dealing monster covered with nickel steel eleven inches thick and armed with ten 12-inch guns, any one of which, if discharged at close range, would send a ball through a solid mass of wrought iron three feet thick. It requires 200 pounds of cordite for a single .charge and it throws a shell weighing 750 pounds; so that if the ten guns were discharged all at once, they would hurl forth nearly four tons of metal bursting shells whch would be deadly at six miles. Now, Germany will have a great many of these Dreadnoughts by 1912 or 1913. We have heard so many different estimates here, and they are so confusing that I scarcely know how many she will have; but from what I can gather, she will have from 17 to 20 of thtse marine monsters in 1912 or 1913. Britain will have as many or a few more; but she cannot, like Germany, put all her Dreadnoughts in the North Sea at the same time, because she has many outlying points to guard, in the Mediterranean and elsewhere; and she will have to guard Quebec too. More, owing to her insular position, she must in every case guard the line of her food supply, and protect it perfectly. It is as important to guard that as it is to meet the German fleet in the North Sea. We would still have an adequate idea of the preparations which are being made to dismember the British empire if we had not some idea of the invincible land army with which Germany is now guarding the Dreadnoughts which she is building. A writer for McClure's magazine for November last, gave a very good description of that. He Mr. T. CHISHOLM
said that Germany could on 12 hours notice hurl 400,000 men, fully armed and equipped, and 800 guns upon either her eastern or western border; that in two days she could increase that number to a million, in two weeks to two millions, and finally to four millions, the greatest and best army on this earth. Germany has in her war office ready for use, plans for the invasion of every country in Europe. She has an intelligence system that seems to make known to her what is going on in every part of the world. She has accurate maps of every country on earth, and every officer and man in that vast army has secret mobilization orders that will enable him, when notified by telegram or telephone, to take his place immediately in the great German fighting machine. The railroads of Germany are mostly owned bv the state, and are part of her military machine. She has armoured trains ready. She has bridge-building materials lying at suitable places, and at the great fortress of Spandau, near Berlin, this writer says, she has many hundreds of sacks of gold, a part of the French war indemnity, which is carefully guarded, and which forms the nucleus of a war fund. I might also call your attention to the fact that Germany has a magnificent air fleet capable of thundering destruction from the skies. At Ehren-breitstein not long since that air fleet had military manoeuvres and a sham battle that lasted three hours. So that in every direction Germany is preparing for the conflict; even her air ships are ready for action; and I think we know what all these preparations are for. Germany has an immense population, rapidly increasing, of more than 60,000,000 people, cooped up in a little territory of 208,000 square miles, about four-fifths the size of our new province of Alberta. Her farmers are thoroughly protected, and therefore they are prosperous and numerous; and by means of her technical schools and the wonderful industry of her population she has become one of the leading manufacturing countries in the world. Germany wants more room and new markets, and there can be no doubt that is the origin of the trouble. This is no false alarm, because we find the Krenz Zeitung, a leading German paper recently said that for England to think that Germany was not building her Dreadnoughts for the purpose of opposing Britain, was simply to adopt the policy of the ostrich which sticks its head into the sand and then thinks it is safe.
During this debate, we have had the names of eminent statesmen quoted to us time and again-men who are leaders in both the great political parties in the old land, men who have the means of knowing and who do know, men whose word and wisdom are above suspicion-and

these men have told us that not only the integrity, but the very existence of the British empire is threatened. If Germany is not making those preparations to attack Britain, why is she building so many Dreadnoughts? She does not require them to attack France or Russia or any other land power. She is evidently building them for one purpose, and that is the destruction of the British empire. Her evident intention is to outclass and outnumber and defeat the British fleet on the North sea, seize the very heart of the empire, plunder the country, exact an enormous war indemnity, and perhaps carry away our beloved King, a prisoner, as she did the Emperor Napoleon III, and then proceed to crush and conquer the colonies at her leisure, and as a matter of detail. When the German Dreadnoughts are ready, she can choose her own time to make an attack; and there is no doubt at all, that when she does strike, she will follow her usual course of striking quickly, and when least expected. Just look at her strategical position. She has everything to gain if victorious, and if defeated she has nothing to lose, for all her fleet has to do is sail back to the protection of her invincible land forces; whereas should she win she can dismember the British empire, capture its immense wealth, control the ocean, and become the leading power in the world. That is something for Germany to fight for; and if we do not watch ourselves, there is little doubt that she will succeed. Judging by her past record I fear she would make a merciless conqueror and a hard taskmaster. We know what she has done to others. In 1864 she picked a quarrel with little Denmark, and despoiled that kingdom of two provinces. In 1866, owing to the discovery of her needle gun, she succeeded in crushing Austria in a single battle. In 1870, she overran France, seized two of that country's most favoured provinces, took the Emperor Napoleon away a prisoner as a hostage, and allowed him to die at Chiselhurst, and exacted the until then unheard of war indemnity of $1,000,000,000. Need we expect that this hitherto invincible power will spare Britain and her colonies if that unfortunate day should come when conquered Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen and oversea Britons would have to plead for mercy before their victorious and unrelenting masters. Germany, it is said, has spent thirty years in preparing for this. In the meantime she has consolidated her empire, she has enlarged and improved her old canals, and built many new ones. She has been increasing and perfecting her invincible land army, and also supported and encouraged the enterprising firm of the Krupps until it has become the greatest manufacturing establishment of military supplies in the world.
Germany has the advantage of being able to attack Britain by sea, whereas Britain cannot attack her by land; and I would just 3ay that should the day come when Germany shall have conquered Britain, and a German tax be put on our products going to the British market, our Canadian farmers will suffer very severely. Even that is something to look after. Should the day of peril ever come, those silly Canadians, who are willing to trust to our little unbuilt cruisers, would then find out* when too late, that their cjuisers, even if built and going out to meet the fleet of German Dreadnoughts, would simply be the laughing stock of the world. And what is still worse, if these cruisers were manned by loyal Canadian citizens and seamen, the poor fellows would be slaughtered before they could raise a finger to defend themselves. They would be simply butchered to make a German holiday.
As to those other foolish Canadians who depend on the Munroe doctrine, they would find, also when too late, that though the United States might not be willing, to allow a European country to take perma-ment possession of Canada, they would never think of going to war, especially with the conqueror of Britain, for the purpose of preventing Germany from levying on Canada a war indemnity of such astounding proportions that it would simply mean the ruin of this country.
In the face of all this, we are told there is no danger, that these preparations do not mean anything; and although one of the greatest military disasters that could befall a civilized country is almost upon us, our government is doing nothing but waving the old flag, shouting loyalty and marking time. I had a letter from one of my constituents the other day in which he said the people were becoming alarmed and suspicious. He said that they heard the ' hail master ' and the giving of the kiss, and were beginning to be afraid of what might follow. Britain requires Dreadnoughts in the North sea. She requires them without delay. Why then this policy on the part of our government of putting off, doing nothing, Hilly dallying? Is it any wonder that our 3ister colonies are beginning to suspect Canada's loyalty to the British Crown? In my opinion Canada is loyal, but the whole trouble is not a lack of loyalty on the part of the government, as some of our friends seem to think, but simply their want of promptness and business ability, because there is neither promptness nor business ability shown in their proposal to build those little cruisers. In the first place should the crisis come upon us, we have no time in which to build them, we have not the trained mechanics, we have no mills with facilities to roll plates of nickel and steel


Mr.   T.@: CHISHOLM	.
noughts. The original Dreadnought cost not qute $10,000,000. Therefore, $20,000,000 is the amount. We have not $20,000,000. If we pass a resolution to-day to give to Britain $20,000,000, or two Dreadnoughts, we have neither dollars nor Dreadnoughts to give. We will have to go to Great Britain to borrow the money, and if we gave the Dreadnoughts, we would have to go to Britain to get them built. We would be like a child going to his father in the Christmas holidays and saying: I want to get $100 to buy you a new watch, to make you a present. The father to please the child might give the $100, but he would know he was weakening himself financially, for if he kept the $100, he could certainly make a better bargain than the little boy.
Another objection to a money payment is that by it we would be paying for protection instead of fighting for our freedom. Canadians are not such cringing cowards that they are afraid to fight. They are ready to fight for the empire but here we are going to give them a few dollars and say: Let us away. That is the part the coward always plays, he does not want to meet the foe but hires a substitue, he gives a little money. In this connection I may say plainly that no nation that has long depended on hired protection has retained its liberty for any length of time. We have an example of this in the old days. At the close of the Persian war, the Athenians and the minor Greek states met together and arranged to raise a fleet for the protection of their common interests. It was arranged that three small states should have fleets of their own and that the others should pay an annual subsidy to Athens and she was to keep a fleet for their protection. This went on for a short time until after a while, some of the smaller states requested that Athens should account for the money she had received. Pericles told them: Oh this is a tribute, you have no right to ask for an accounting. He had command of the fleet they had paid for and they had to continue in subjection. What was the result? These hitherto invincible Greeks remained subjects and were enslaved for nearly 2,000 years, being mastered by the Macedonians and the Romans and the Turks in succession. But we have another example more easily understood by people in this country. After the Romans left Britain, the people of Britain who had been doing no fighting for about 400 years, were unable to protect themselves against the Piets and Scots. They hired the Germans under Hengist and Horsa who came over to assist them and it runs in my mind that the descendants of the Saxons who came there at that time are there yet, they took possession of the country. We have also an example in our own country. When Champlain came to our country the Algon-

quins, a powerful people, employed him to assist them in their wars against the Iroquois, and we see to-day that Champlain's friends have possession of this country and the once powerful Algonquins are simply subjects of charity, wards of the people of this country.
In the course of this debate the example was brought up that Britain at one time gave a great deal of money to Frederick the First) to assist him in his wars. Great Britain gave a great many million dollars to Frederick the First of Prussia. What is the result? That same Hohenzol-lern family that laid its foundation so solidly and deeply in British gold has today grown to such dimensions that it is threatening to take possession of the British throne. The old story of the Saxons repeated, hired assistants trying to take possession of the country that employed and paid them.
Another objection to a money contri-buton is that it proclaims to the world that Great Britain is financially weakening under the strain of the war-of ship-building which has been put upon her. It is, as it were, making a pauper of her. It is a case of telling Germany that Britain is in difficulties, that her colonies have to give her money, that she cannot continue this warship building which has been put upon her.
Another objection is that we do not keep control of the money which we raised. I know that there are examples of cases in which we have given away money; we gave $50,000 to the French in Paris, we gave money to Italy and to San Francisco in times of disaster,'but these are only small sums, no more to Canada than $5 or a $10 gift would be to a town council. When we come to give away millions of dollars, I do not consider that the peoples' representatives have any right to make any such valuable gifts of other peoples' money. It is contrary to the principles of responsible government, because it is a grand principle of the British constitution that those who pay the tax should have a voice in spending it.
Now I am ready to put my proposition before the House. I shall proceed to prove that we can give to Britain during this crisis the use of seven extra Dreadnoughts, and at the same time not spend more than one-third of the money that s called for by either of the other propositions. I must explain that Britain's food supply must be protected. She cannot get it from the Mediterranean, because Austria will have 13 large war vessels in the Adriatic by the time the crisis is expected in 1912 or 1913. She cannot get it from Australia, or India, or New Zealand, or South Africa, because the lines of food supply would be too long, .and it would take too many ships to protect them. You could not depend on a foreign nation like the United States. In the United States one man out of every four is either a German or of German origin. There are 20 millions of people in the United States of German origin, out of the 80 millions altogether. Then Britain has other enemies in the United States besides the Germans. I think, therfefore, that in time of war Britain could not depend upon the United States even if they did not actually declare war. Now then I come to this point, that Britain will be compelled to get her food supply from Canada. For that purpose it would be necessary for her to put all her spare small vessels and at least four Dreadnoughts on the line of that food supply, because that line would extend from the south of thei island of Newfoundland away into the centre of the Atlantic, and it would be difficult to guard. Now Britan must have many small vessels on that line, whether we do anything or not. It is only a matter of business for us, we are as much interested in giving her the food as she is in getting it, and it is only a business transaction that we should do something to protect her food supply while it is being conveyed from Canada to the shores of the motherland. I would propose that Canada lease a certain _ number of these small vessels from Britain until this crisis is oveT, lease as may of those vessels as she can get, say each year for $1,500,000. In the meantime we would have a few Canadians trained in our naval college to put on those vessels. Now $1,500,000 would pay the interest on $50,000,000. Britain can borrow money at 3 per cent; if we borrowed it we would have to pay 3J or 4 per cent. Britain can pay the interest on $50,000,000 and with the money that we will give her, she can pay the interest, and not a single extra dollar of taxes would be put on the British people. With the $50,000,000 Britain can build five Dreadnoughts, and when the crisis would be over Canada could negotiate with the motherland on the grand old British principle of the budget that if we have to pay and to fight we should have a voice in the expenditure of money and in the making of war and the declaration of peace otherwise we will take over $20,000,000 of the debt and two of the Dreadnoughts, one for the Pacific and one for the Atlantic. She can build a Dreadnought in from 20 to 24 months, and she can have these extra five Dreadnoughts in time for the crisis. Not a single extra cent would the British people have to pay, and the people of Canada, with that small amount of money, would accomplish that great work. Now I will show you how we could give her two more Dreadnoughts. The line of food supply from Canada would be a very long one, and a difficult one to guard. I would propose that we should open up the Hudson Bay route, that would shorten the line of

Britain's food supply, and would be so much safer and more easy to guard that she could take off two of the Dreadnoughts which she would otherwise be compelled to have on the long line, and then there would be seven extra Dreadnoughts for - the North Sea. I know I am undertaking a difficult job to open the Hudson bay. But as' I said in the beginning, I am speaking impartially. I would say to the government that their proposal to build the Hudson Bay Tailway may do more to aid Britain than both plans the two parties are offering to-day. I know that in proposing to open up the1 Hudson Bay route, I have to face powerful antagonisms. I know that the Hudson Bay Company succeeded in making us believe fori 274 years that we could raise no grain in our whole northwest. A British nobleman some years ago talked about the immense deserts of North America covered with ice; and we know that a French king signed away Canada with the remark that it was only a few acres of snow. I have here a little pamphlet published by the government dealing with this question, which says:
According to Dr. Saunders, the head of the Dominion Government's Experimental Farm system, and an authority second to none, if only one-fourth of the suitable land in Manitoba and the southern parts of the two other prairie provinces were annually under wheat, the yield would be more than 812,000,000 bushels, reckoned at the Manitoban average of 19 bushels per acre. This, he points out. would not only feed a population of 30,000,000 in Canada itself (at present there are only about 7,000,000), but would meet the present requirements of Great Britain three times over.
Now, Sir, there is just as much fallacy current about the navigation of the Hudson bay as there was about our wheat lands. There are certain powerful companies interested in keeping the shores of the Hudson bay as a fur preserve. There is another great obstacle in the way, and that is our transcontinental railways. They are very much opposed to opening up the Hudson Bay route, because it will take away their trade. I know that eastern Canada is opposed to it, but I am a big enough Canadian to give western Canada all her rights. I see no advantage in being so narrow minded. We have now four lines of railway running from Winnipeg to Fort William; we have the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and a double line of the Canadian Pacific railway, and these have all they can do. In the Agricultural Committee the other dav we were told that only six per cent of the available wheat lands in the west is under cultivation. Now it is only a calculation for a ten year old boy to figure out. If six per cent of the wheat land in the northwest requires four lines of railway to move Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
the product, how many lines will it require when the whole hundred per cent is under cultivation? It will require 64 lines. Then why should we dilly-dally about the opening^ up of the Hudson bay route?
Now I am going to deal with the climatic conditions of Hudson bay, and first I will read something that I find in ' The Dominion of Canada,' published by the Hon. Sydney Fisher, as part of our immigration literature. Here is what he says about the Hudson bay and about Lake Superior. We have only two ways of getting our food from the wheat fields of the west or our meat from the ranches, either by the Hudson bay route or by the Lake Superior and St. Lawrence route. Now here is what this book says:
The large bodies of water inland greatly modify the severity of the climate. Hudson bay is 1,000 miles long by 600 wide, with an a r#a of 444,000 square miles. Its temperature is 65 degrees F. during summer; in winter it is 3 degrees warmer than the waters of Lake Superior.
This is the point I want to make, that the waters of the Hudson bay in winter are warmer than those of Lake Superior. Why? Because the waters of the Hudson bay are on the level of the ocean, while the waters of Lake Superior are 600 feet above the level of the ocean. Take the mountain of ,Ben Nevis in -Scotland, 4,004 feet high, with sheep grazing at the foot of it and snow all the year around at the top; showing that if we could raise the water of Lake Superior six or seven times as high as it is now, it would be frozen all the year round. But there are other agents. The -water of Lake Superior is soft and the water of Hudson bay is salt. I have here a document published by the Marine Department which tells us that:
Immediately after its formation sea ice contains a noticeable quantity of salt, chlorides as well as sulphates, carbonates and other salts. Such ice is very different from freshwater ice in its physical properties. It melts below zero, and begins to show signs of melting by contraction of volume at temperatures far below zero.
Now then it takes 13 degrees more cold to freeze salt water than fresh water. I have shown that there are three degrees more cold in Lake Superior owing to the elevation, and there are 13 degrees more in favour of Hudson bay on account of the water being soft. Not only that, but the ice of the Hudson bay is more porous, and the ice is more easily smashed. There is another reason. It is a well known law of physics that large bodies cool much slower than small bodies. The Hudson bay, being a thousand miles one way and 600 miles the other, is a very large body of water, while Lake Superior is a smaller body and will cool more rapidly than the water of the

Hudson bay. We have not only to compare the large body of water at Hudson bay with Lake Superior, but we have to compare that with our shallow canals, and with our little shallow lakes that we meet with in the St. Lawrence route. Then there is another reason, which I would commend especially to our friends from the west. The climate of western Canada will improve very rapidly. I will undertake to show that the climate will be so much improved inside the next 50 or 100 years that we will be raising wheat further north than the mouth [DOT]of the Mackenzie river. I commend that idea to the government. Here is another point. Science tells us that black is the warmest of colours. We can prove that any time during the next month, when the suns rays are getting stiong, by taking a piece of black cloth and putting it on the snow and near by it a piece of white cloth. A little further away cover a piece of snow of the same size with a matting of grass or hay. After four or five days you will find that the suns rays have penetrated the black cloth, they have not been reflected, while the heat rays falling upon the white *cloth have been reflected, and consequently you will find that the black cloth has sunk into the snow, while the white cloth will not have sunk so far, because it has rejected a certain amount of the solar heat rays. But when you ' come to the spot that has been covered with hay or grass, what will you find? You will find that the snow has sunk away from it on all sides, because snow and grass are not a conductor of heat. If you wish to keep ice during the summer we will cover it with hay or straw. My good friend from Pinchex Creek (Mr. Herron) tells me that he went to that country first thirty years ago, and that at the end of July he dug down into the ground that was covered with hay and grass and found ice two feet from the surface. Now, that black is the warmest colour I have had frequent opportunities to prove in travelling through the country for 33 years.
I would have occasion in the spring of the year, after the sheep were sheared, to go *out through the country, during the night time, and as I drove along I would find flocks of sheep lying right on the black road. I would drive over them, and I had the greatest trouble in the world trying to avoid them. I wondered why the sheep lay on the black road, and I thought it was more reasonable that they should lie on the grass at the side, but, these sheep had been sheared, they were cold and they naturally got upon the black road, because the black road absorbed the heat by day and gave it out at night. Therefore, when our western country is all black, when it is all ploughed, it will absorb the heat through the summer day, give it off at night, and you will have no more summer frosts to
kill the wheat. All that we have to do is to wait a little. I think I have given' a scientific reason why the climate will change. Most men have read Caesar's De Bello Gallico-I read it when a boy-in which he described the climate of Germany, and from which it is evident that they have overcome the disadvantages of climate in the same way there. He talks about the fierce Germans, the rigour of their climate, and the Hyrcinian forest. That forest has been cleared up and drained, and it is now a vineyard, and it is there that the celebrated hock wine is made. The same can be said with regard to the climate of the whole of Europe to-day, the change being so great that it has made a difference of ten degrees of latitude. That means a difference of 695 miles, or, let us say, a difference of 600 miles. That being so, it means that we will be growing wheat as far north as the 73rd parallel of latitude. If you can go 600 miles north, our wheat district will extend to that limit just as soon as the whole country is blackened, or cultivated, and we will be raising wheat on the islands of the Arctic that Captain Bernier is going to look after. There is another reason why the Hudson Bay route will be the better one. It is not only that it is in a better position than Lake Superior, that it is open longer, but it will be benefited by this improvement in the climate much more than Lake Superior will, because that blackened and consequently warmer country will be nearer to Hudson bay. There is another reason why the Hudson Bay route will be preferable. We hear a great deal about drift ice coming down from Fox channel, and we have a great many reports about this drift ice. I had the old principle instilled into me when I was a boy that the whole is greater than its parts. The drift ice coming through Fox channel must come through the Fury and Hecla straits, and it occupies only about one-sixth of the width of Hudson straits. It is impossible that the drift ice coming through Fury and Hecla .straits can fill the whole of Hudson strait. All the reports we have about ice in Hudson strait are reports of ice along the south shore of the strait. The floe ice coming down Fox channel will naturally lodge on the southern shore of Hudson strait. At the same time it is quite evident that theTe cannot be enough ice to fill the whole of Hudson strait, and there must be clear water to the north. Wireless telegraphy, signal stations, &c., would remedy this by giving warning and information to passing ships. I will read to you what some people say of the navigability of Hudson bay and straits. I have a few authorities here. There was a committee appointed by the legislative assembly of Manitoba in 1884 to inquire into this subject. It was composed of Messrs. Harrison, Greenway, Killam, Lea-

cock, Wilson, Davidson, Cyr, the Hon. Mr. Brown and the Hon. Mr. Miller. On page 14 of the report of this committee we find the following:	.
1.	Captain James Ifackland has been employed by Hudson Bay Company 39 years. First navigated Hudson bay in 1843, and was in command of Hudson Bay Company s schooner for 16 years from that time.
He says, 'the straits are open all the year round, never freezes; there is no reason why steamships should not navigate the straits at any time. The navigation of Hudson bay is not considered dangerous. There are no shoals, there are few fogs. During that sixteen years, navigation was never impeded by fog/
Page 16:
2.	Walter Dickson was twenty years in the employ of the Hudson Bay Company, from 1853 to 1873. I lived for thirteen years on the coast of Hudson bay, and for seven years in the interior between James bay and Lake Superior. I have had an opportunity of gaining information respecting Hudson straits from my long acquaintance with Esquimaux who reside about the straits, and from my personal observation of the bay itself. I have every reason to believe that the Hudson straits and a great body of the bay proper, are navigable at all seasons of tbe year and afford no peculiar difficulty to ordinary navigation.
To Manitoba and the Northwest, the route via Hudson bay is very important, giving them a shorter and cheaper route for both export and import than can possibly be had by any other route. I believe that Hudson straits are never frozen over in winter. My reasons are first, that the latitude is not too high; second, that the current and tide are too strong to allow of a general freezing over at any time.
Page 18:
3.	That the Esquimaux make use of skin boats for ordinary hunting and travelling purposes in winter, and during a residence of thirteen years amongst them, I never heard of any Esquimaux crossing the straits on the ice. Icebergs, properly so-called, are not formed in Hudson hay and straits, nor can they get there so far as I am aware. The nature of the ice found in Hudson hay is shore ice, generally from 21 to 3 feet thick, and at many places along the coast is porous at all seasons.
To my knowledge, there have been fewer losses or disasters to shipping in Hudson bay and straits than any known route of travel during the past 250 years. I do not know the rate of insurance, hut believe it to be less than the average. I believe the Hudson Bay Company have ceased to insure their vessels, deeming the route so safe as not to call for it. Hudson hay is less subject to storms than the great lakes.
Page 19:
From what I have observed of the movements of ice in the Hudson hay during the summers I passed there, I am perfectly as-Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
sured that an ordinary iron screw steamer would never have any difficulty in getting through or around that which is usually met with in the bay and straits. The chief reason why the old sailing vessels of the Hudson Bay Company often met with detention in the ice was that at the season when floe ice is met with, there is generally very little wind, and sailing vessels are consequently as helpless amongst the ice as they would be in a dead calm in the centre of the Atlantic or elsewhere. Hudson bay has always been found of easy access to a good and careful navigator.
Page 27:
Dr. Bell obtained from the company's offices in London, a record, which, printed in his report, shows the date of arriving and sailing of their vessels at York Factory for ninety-three years, and at Moose Fort for 147 years. These lists show that in some years, several vessels were sent in charge of British-men-of-war, and there has been almost every year during the past two centuries, ships of various classes and sizes navigating the strait without loss, and it seems almost incredible that such a number of voyageseould be made, extending over 274 years without the loss of over one, or as is claimed by some writers, two small sailing vessels.
Page 28:
It is but a comparatively short time since it was claimed that it would be impossible to navigate the St. Lawrence with steamships.
Page 29:
The lower St. Lawrence, notwithstanding its comparative narrowness, is partly open even in the middle of the winter. But the difficulty, as in the case of Hudson bay, in tfye apparent impossibility of getting into the harbours. Harbours, such as Churchill or York on the Hudson bay, would have the advantage over Quebec or Montreal of connecting directly with the open sea, and hence, in autumn, vessels would not be so liable to be frozen in, as occasionally happens in the St. Lawrence, as for example, in the autumn of 1880, also in the autumn of 1870, when the outward bound shipping got frozen in below Quebec, occasioning a loss, it is said, of over a million dollars.
Page 46:
James Hargrave was at the Factory on Hudson bay from 1867 to 1871 in the employ of the Hudson Bay Company. Have heard the captains of vessels and sailors say that the Hudson straits are navigable all the year round.
Page 47:
President of the Northwest Navigation Company, Winnipeg, says, ' I am interested in the carrying out of the Hudson Bay scheme, and during the time I was in England in January last, I conversed with many persons in Liverpool and London as to the project. I also met in London, some gentlemen from Berlin and conversed with them. The opinion of all with whom I conversed was that the straits and hay were navigable for powerful steamers all the year round.

Page 52:
James Ward left Stromness on the 6th July, 1882, on the Hudson Bay Company's ship, ' Prince of Wales,' Captain Hard, who commanded the vessel, told me that was his forty-sixth trip through the straits. Hudson bay was clear of ice and as smooth as glass. The bay and straits are open all the year round.
Page 53:
I am surprised how people can doubt the navigation of the straits or bay on account of ice. Not one man that has come over the route but believes in its practicability. Mansfield island will be a good place for a lighthouse and station. There is a little lake of good water on that island.
In the annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals at page 22 I find the following reference to the Hudson Bay survey:
It might be mentioned here in passing, the greatly increased difficulty a hostile fleet would have on blockading the Atlantic coast of Canada were the Hudson Bay route opened. The fact that ships may enter and leave Port Nelson all the year round is a fact worth remembering when the possibilities of war are considered.
In a publication by the government called ' Canada's Fertile Northland' I quote from page 117:
Evidence of Robert Bell, M.D., C.M., F.R. G.S., C.E., &c., of the Geological Survey of Canada, given before the Select Committee. March 12, 1907.
Dr. Bell explained that he had been through Hudson strait nine times. The first time was in 1880 in a ship called the ' Ocean Nymph,' a small sailing vessel, and the last time was in 1897 with Commander Wakeham. His trips were distributed over those seventeen years between 1880 and 1897.
All his trips were between June 22 and about October 10.
In navigating the strait during the season between those dates, with a steamship, they never had any difficulty.
W it ness never heard that the strait was frozen across in winter.
Dr. Bell said he did not know any more desirable piece of navigation in the world, excepting the middle of the ocean and even then a common sailor who could not take an astronomical observation could sail through the straits with perfect safety. That is what Henry Hudson's men did after putting him and part of the crew into an open boat and leaving them behind.
Now, Sir, I think I have shown that Hudson bay is navigable and that it is open for ten months in the year, instead of being frozen for ten months, as some people allege. We have evidence that wheat can be raised at the 63rd degree of latitude, and do you mean to tell me that a salt water bay located in a latitude without fear of summer frost, is frozen up for ten months in the year.


Mr. CONMEE.: And where there is a fairly high tide.


Thomas Chisholm: Yes. The Gulf of
the St. Lawrence has always been looked upon as somewhat dangerous for navigation, and before its coasts were equipped with wireless telegraphy and its waters charted and modern aid3 to navigation erected, it was difficult of navigation and the insurance rate on ships was high, and is still high, a thing which has handicapped us in competition with the Erie canal If we go back we will find that when John and Sebastien Cabot sailed along .the north coast of America in 1498 they did not venture into the inhospitable Gulf of the St. Lawrence. We are told that Verazano and Cortereal also sailed along the Atlantic coast, but there is no proof that either of them entered the gulf. The first man who had the courage to navigate the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, so far as history tells us, was Jacques Cartier, a native of Normandy, and he had in his viens the daring blood of the sea kings. He sailed from St. Malo on the 20th of April, 1534, and we find him in the Baie de Chaleurs in the latter part of July. We do not know the exact date, but we know that the weather was very hot, and 30 he christened that sheet of water ' Baie de Chaleur ' (Hot Bay). Then he went to Gaspe and erected a cross and took possession of the country in the name of his King, Francis the first. The Indians told him there was a great river , not far off, the source of which they did not know, and Jacques Cartier sailed for that river and arrived at the Island of Orleans, near Quebec, on the 7th of September, which shows that it was far on in the season before he entered the gulf. There he was met by Donacona. Cartier did not tarry long in these waters on that voyage because he feared being caught in the ice so late in the season. Next year he came back, but he took good care that he would not reach the St. Lawrence even in July, for we find that he landed on the 10th day of August, the feast day of St. Lawrence, after whom he named the bay and the river.
Then he sailed along and succeeded in reaching Hochelaga on the 2nd of October. But he made out to get back to the mouth of the river, but was there frozen in all winter, and could not get away. The next indication we have of the sailing conditions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is in the coming of Champlain. Did he come in January or February or March or April or May or even June? No. He landed on the third of July, and we have recently celebrated the tercentenary of his landing. All this shows that the Gulf of St. Lawrence was looked on as far more dangerous to navigation than Hudson bay. Now, I think I have shown that Hudson bay is open. The next thing is to show how to get out;

*because I have still these tw-o Dreadnoughts to put in the North Sea. I am trying to show how to shorten the route for the food supply and in that liberate two Dreadnoughts. Remember, it was the small vessels I proposed to rent, not the Dreadnoughts, which would be required to complete the fleet units on the longer line.
I can go to Mr. Gouin, at Quebec, and say to him:	11 see that not long
ago you were in Toronto, where you and Sir James Whitney were talking pretty loyally. We are go'ing to give you a dry-dock at Quebec, and we are going to give you something else. You want that great "territory of Ungava; there is in it a great deal of land and also timber, fish, minerals and water-powers. That territory does not belong to you; it belongs just as much to British Columbia, to Nova Scotia and to Ontario as it does to you. But we want to make a bargain with you. We will give you that, but you must do something for us. We want you to build a railway right away from the St. Lawrence river to the Gulf of Ungava. That will develop that country. You do not know what you may find on the road. It may contain great mineral deposits. The Ontario government have built a railway towards James bay, and in the process they discovered Cobalt, the royalties from which will pay for the whole road. You build a railway to Ungava bay; we will give you the land, and you can borrow on the land the necessary money to build the railway.' Then I go to Sir James Whitney and say to him:
You have been shouting loyalty a bit lately, and we want to give you a chance to do something to prove it. Your railway is now wdthin 129 miles of Moose Factory. You want a portion of the territory of Kee-watin. Finish the railway to Moose Factory, and we will give you a portion of that territory.' Then I go to Manitoba, and, as Mr. Roblin is away, I shall probably find there the Hon. Robert Rogers, who we know is pretty loyal, and I will say to him:	' Here is a bargain for you. You
want to get a piece of Keewatin; we will give you that, with the land, the minerals, the timber and everything, only you must build a railway from Winnipeg to the mouth of the Nelson river.' Then I go to Premier Scott of Saskatchewan and I say to him: ' You have no lands or timber or minerals; you should have had them long ago; but we will give you all these now if you build a railway from Regina to the extreme north of your province, with a branch to Fort Churchill.* I go with a similar proposal to Premier Rutherford of Alberta. In that way we shall have five railways built to Hudson bay by 1912 or 1913, like so many spokes of a big wheel, and the Dominion government will build Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
a sixth. We need them all. I have shown that the Hudson bay is navigable and how much safer and shorter the Hudson bay route will be for the products of the Northwest, and how quickly we can send the two Dreadnoughts to the North Sea, because we can spare them on the shorter line. My plan is a business plan. We rent Dreadnoughts from Britain in a business way, temporarily, paying for them $1,500,000 a year for four years, by which time the crisis will be over. That will only take \$6,000,000 altogether, and it will give Britain seven extra Dreadnoughts in the North Sea. Then look at the strategy of this arrangement. If our Atlantic sea-board were blockaded, Britain would send her fleet to Ungava bay, and convey an army to relieve Quebec. If Toronto were attacked ian army could be landed at Moose Factory. If Winnipeg or Regina or Edmonton were attacked, Britain could send an army of relief via Fort Nelson or Fort Churchill. By means of this plan we would develop our country to such an extent that instead of our population increasing by half a million a year, as it has done recently, it would increase by more than a million a year, and in twenty years from now we would have 30,000,000 people in this country; the country would be developed in width as well as in length; the farmers of the west would get ten cents a bushel more for their wheat and $10 a head more for their cattle, while the goods they used at home would be greatly reduced in cost because of reduced freight rates. We have an immense country to build up, and when we have a population of 30,000,000 I shall be in favour of a Canadian-built navy, and one equal to that of Great Britain. I have no doubt that there are men living to-day who will see the time when Canada will have a navy larger than that of the mother country. We shall have one of the greatest inland seas on the face of the earth for the manoeuvres of a military fleet. Look over the whole world and you can find no place equal to Hudson bay for the manoeuvres of a great military fleet, if the country around it were only properly settled and developed. I think I have shown that this is a business proposition and that it violates none of the principles that I have laid down. I think I have shown that by this means where we have to fight we must pay. We do not want to hire any one to go on fighting for us. Our French-Canad-ian fellow citizens can truly and proudly say that at one time the heroes of Chateau-guay saved Canada to the British Crown, and to-day Canada has the opportunity to have it said of her in the future that she saved Britain to the empire.


Mr. F. T. CONGDON (Yukon Territory).: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm) will not

accuse me of any disrespect toward him if I confess myself as at present quite unable to answer him. Besides my inability to follow him in many of his learned disquisitions, I am under the misfortune of not having heard some portions of the horn gentleman's speech when he turned aside to address gentlemen behind him or lowered his voice. Therefore, if I attempted to answer his speech, I fear that I would make myself ridiculous by confusing banana belts with Hudson bay, hitching posts with Dreadnoughts, or committing similar confusions which might make it appear that I was ridiculing the hon. gentleman's effort. I have no doubt that upon that effort the hon. gentleman has bestowed a great deal of time and learning, and I think it would be impossible for me or any one else, merely from hearing such a speech, to make an appropriate answer to it. One thing stands out perfectly plain and clear from his speech, and that is, that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has in his ranks another gentleman who has: another policy to propound on this naval question. I regret that certain portions of this debate have assumed a tone which I think not quite worthy of this House. Let me begin with my hon. and learned friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I have always listened-as I think most men in this House have-with great respect to any speech made by the hon. gentleman. I know of no man in the House who has more dignity of bearing, a better parliamentary style, more learning, better reasoning faculty and greater eloquence, but I venture to say that the House will share my opinion, when I assert that he descended to a plane not worthy of him when he ventured to characterize hon. gentleman on this side as' having entered into the plan proposed by the right hon. the leader of the government, merely because, if they did not, they would be deprived of patronage. Sir, hon. gentlemen on this side are as high-minded and conscientious as is my hon. friend, and are no more influenced in the views they express and the positions they take by the lust of patronage than is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.
Another passage in the hon. gentleman's speech was, I think, unworthy of him; and for it I believe the hon. gentleman, if he were present, would, on his attention being called to it, express regret that he had so far forgotten himself as to accuse the right hon. the Prime Minister, of being a master of circumlocution and deceit. Such language does not raise the tone of the debate in this House. On the contrary, it lowers debate from that lofty plane on which every well wisher of Canada, every one solicitous for. Canada's fair fame and renutation, would desire to see it carried on.


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
I do not think there is much necessity to deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman. I take it for granted that one or two members in this House may be found to support it, but it embodies a principle so novel in the history of Canada and so much at variance with our theory of responsible government, that practically it implies a change in the principles and methods underlying our constitution. At all events, whether open to this objection or not, it is sure to receive so small a measure of support, that I do not think it deserves very serious consideration.
The most important matter to discuss is the amendment proposed oy the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). In respect of that, I desire to say that it starts out with a statement which very nearly ventures on the borders of audacity and ends with an inconsistency. It starts out with the assertion that this scheme of the government is not upon the lines laid down by the imperial conference of 1907. True, the policy outlined in this Bill does, to some extent, vary from that proposed in the imperial conference of 1907; but does the hon. gentleman accept the doctrines of that conference as absolutely conclusive or final? Has he run aground upon the conclusions of that conference, and is he not willing to allow even an imperial conference, directed by the admiralty, presided over by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to advance a step in regard to these matters. Because it is plain, from the correspondence which has been laid on the table that, though in some degree the proposition in the Bill mav slightly vary from that originally entertained in the conference of 1907, it does not at all depart from but absolutely carries out the conclusions arrived at by the conference of 1909; and surely, in regard to these matters, we are not bound up by the conclusions of any one imperial conference, but are at liberty to follow from time to time the latest developments and adopt the latest conclusions in that connection.
In the conclusion of his amendment, the hon. gentleman was guilty of the inconsistency so well pointed out by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). It assumes that, without reference to the people,- it is quite proper for this House to vote $25,000,000 to meet the cost of two Dreadnoughts, and send the money over to England to be used there, but that it is improper for us to construct a Canadian navy of our own, out of our own material, by our own men, and man it by our own people, without submitting that proposition to the people of this country. It seems to me inconsistent to say that you shall take so large a sum of the revenues of our people and send it over to the mother country,

[Stage Direction]
and allow it to be spent there without submitting that proposition to the people, but that when you come to consider the proposition of improving our naval capacity and establishing a Canadian navy, you cannot do that without referring it to the people and taking a fresh vote with regard to it.
Another point in the resolution, which requires to be dealt with to some extent is, that it is founded on the idea that an emergency is actually in existence. One would imagine that we were in the midst of a long and arduous military and naval struggle with Germany, that the conflict between the British and the German empires was only now reaching the stage which required us to intervene and collect our resources into the shape of a bill of exchange and send it to Britain to save her from destruction. This matter of panics is not a new one in British history. Shakespeare, in Henry IV., indicates the cause of their origin, when he puts in the mouth of Henry IV. this advice to Prince Hal; ' Therefore, my Harry, be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels, that action thence borne out, may waste the memory of the former days.' In those days, when it was necessary to busy men's minds with foreign quarrels, the advice was addressed to stout-hearted men who believed: ' Come the three corners of the world in arms, and we shall shock them, nought shall make us rue, if England to itself do rest but true.' There was nothing like panic then. But in modern times a degenerate spirit has entered the minds of some men, because when they want to divert attention from domestic to foreign matters, they do not busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels, but busy giddy minds with dread of foreign countries.
If you come down through the years, you find as early as 1847, a change with regard to this, and that all these panics have been at one time or another, initiated by old men who have lost their nerve. Mr. Asquith, the British premier, says they have usually been initiated by old women of both sexes. I would not desire to use that expression, because coming from me, it contains a measure of insolence, but I say that from the first panic of 1847 down to the present time, there is not one of them which has not been instigated by some elderly gentleman who has completly lost his nerve. Get Cob-den's history of the three panics, and you will find in each one the same little alarms we hear to-day; in each of them- heated speeches, plans of invasions and senseless talk about silent toasts-all those absurd things raised to-day to induce the British empire to imagine that the Emperor of Germany, without any reason or cause, is building up his power for no other reason than to make an unprovoked attack on the liberties -and rights of Britain. There Mr. CONGDON.	[DOT]
is a class of Englishmen who have inherited nothing but the tendencies of their old Saxon forefathers to dread foreign invasion -who keep peering out over the North sea, imagining that the Danes and Saxons are coming to invade their shores, sack their homes, and put their king to ransom. This endeavour to excite a panic by Teason of anything in the relations between Britain and Germany is absurd-just as absurd as were those panics which took place in 1847, 1851, 1854, 1858 and 1859.
These panics exhibit in a mo-st remarkable degree as has been well said by a recent clever essayist ho-w much in the shape of illusion can be accomplished by the resolute lying of a few respectable men. There is no falsehood that has not been urged to prove in former cases that France was contemplating an invasion of England; that later on, Russia was seeking to attack Great Britain, and recently that instead of France or Russia, these old powerful enemies of Great Britain, Germany is taking their place and endeavouring to attack the British empire. In 184748 the panic was begun by a pamphlet written by Prince Joinville, a Frenchman. There was nothing alarming in that pamphlet. He pointed out what he considered the inferior position of the French navy, and paid what were considered by many thinking Englishmen, to be extensive compliments to the British navy. But it was seized on by some panic-mongers _ in England as an indication that the prince was endeavouring, not merely to induce the authorities of France to bring the French navy to a state of efficiency, but that it was intended to build up at once in France a navy that would threaten_the integrity of the British empire and attack Great Britain. That brought forth a letter from the Duke of Wellington to John Burgoyne, which the duke afterwards said he never intended to have published, but which was secured by some person and published. That letter contained an expression to which only the venerable age and the great ability of the duke would have given any weight or influence whatever. In it he said that there was a portion of the southern coast of England which at any season of the year, in any state of weather, or any condition of the tide, could be assailed by France, and an army of 50,000 troops landed without difficulty. As was pointed out by Mr. Cobden, no one would have paid the slightest attention to such a remark from an ordinary man because there is no coast of twenty miles in the world in respect to which the statement of the Duke of Wellington could be considered to be true. There is no coast of that extent where in any state of the weather, in any condition of the tide, or at any time of the year it would be possible in the brief space of a few hours to land

so considerable a body of men as 50,000. The campaign relating to that panic went
on through 1847 and 1848. It was ended by something similar to what was sought .in the recent budget as a cure for the late panic in England; the panic of 1847-48 was largely cured by an addition of five pence to the income tax. Hume pointed out that these panics in olden times were produced by old women, but that this panic and recent panics differed from the former ones in this regard that they are occasioned not by old women, but by too many clubs in London of half-pay officers who desire employment, and have nothing else to do except write letters to the papers pointing out the defenceless character of the empire and the danger of attack from this, that or the other enemy.
It must not be forgotten that Canadians must have regard to their own interests as well as to the immediate interests of Great Britain. It is no disloyalty to say that. By the way, there are some people who imagine that if a gentleman in this House, or in Canada indulges in a criticism which would be taken as a matter of course, a matter of ordinary intellectual interest in Great Britain, if say an Englishman who has come to this country, and is living here where he should be ' in Britain with elbow room and doubly free,' makes use of an expression that would attract no attention or would simply provok s >n answering argument in England, the moment he says it in this country, the answer is that he is disloyal and a traitor. I claim as a British subject living in Canada that 1 am not going to sacrifice one of those rights which the Britisher who remains at home exercises constantly. Mr. Fred. Jane, recently Unionist candidate in Plymouth, has made a most effective reply to the remarkable book of Captain Mahan on ' The Influence of Sea Power In his answer he discusses the question of what must be the ultimate destiny of the great dominions of Britain beyond the sea. He argues and argues with great force and strength that the ultimate destiny of these great dominions must of necessity be independence. He invokes in support of that, history and all the thousand reasons that can be urged in favour of it. Does any one in England say that because Mr. Jane argues that the ultimate destiny of the great dominions must be independence, he is a traitor? And yet I find the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and even the hon. and learned member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) citing as disloyal a passage from a speech which I had the honour of making in the House last year on this subject in which I introduced Macaulay's reference to the New Zealander standing on London bridge and viewing the destruction around him. No one would ever accuse Macaulay of being 118i
anti-British, and yet, because a Canadian happens to venture on a line of argument like that, not indulging in any overt acts or doing anything to break the connection, but pointing out what may be the ultimate destiny of this country, he is met, not by argument or reasoning, but by the wild flopping of the old flag, and shouts of disloyalty. The time has -come in this country when the people are sufficiently advanced to permit, without danger to our relation to the mother country, without the slightest danger to the interests of the empire or of Canada, every citizen of this country to indulge in the freest and most open possible manner, not only thought and intellectual exercises in regard to these matters, but open and free discussion of them.
The next panic that occurred in England was the panic from 1851 to 1854. That panic was raised in very much the same way. It was said that England was going to be invaded and occupied by an army of 50,000 Frenchmen. There was the usual complaint of some French General proposing and laying out the whole scheme for the invasion of England. He denied ever having made such a plan._ No one ever produced it, but again arid again it was reported that such a plan had been proposed by him. There were all the usual incidents of these panics, 'our special correspondents' at Paris kept writing about the vast increase in the French navy, and the same inquiry was made that has been made in this House repeatedly: What does France want of these ships, if not to attack England? The same cry that we hear to-day except that instead of France it is Germany, what can Germany be building ships for except to attack Great Britain? I want to know if France in those days, if Germany to-day, has not as reasonable and fair a right to build up her naval strength as Great Britain has? You must find and show some reasonable ground for believing that it is directed solely and wholly against Great Britain before you can start any complaint in regard to it. It is the duty of every great people to provide for their own defence. There never will be a time, I trust, when any portion of the British empire will not be ready to engage in the greatest sacrifice in order to protect itself against attack from without. But I say that it is the duty of every loyal subject of the British empire, that it is the duty of every man who is loyal to civilization and the happy progress of the world, not to go around howling and raising prejudices against Germany or any other country.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) read a number of German extracts, from articles for which I do not know how much had been paid by the magazines. One gentleman seemed to say that every na-
[Stage Direction]
tion must have one other nation that it hates and the nation that Germany had especially selected for hatred was the British empire. Does the hon. gentleman want us to cultivate something of that same spirit in order to meet this hatred? Is it necessary that the people of the British empire should take pains to instill in the youthful breast of every British subject hatred of Germany? Is it not better that we should rather be silent on these subjects than incur the danger of creating in this country a hatred of Germany and increasing the corresponding hatred of Germany to us? Is it not better that, if we have any causes of ill-feeling and friction with Germany that we should have such pleasant removal of it as we see to-day, in the conclusion of an agreement by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fieiding) with the hon. the Consul General of Germany and endeavour to remove all possible cause of friction between these two nations.
The remarkable feature of this panic to which I have been referring, from 1851 to 1854, was that, as Cobden said, had a British subject left England on a certain day he would have been in the midst of a panic created by the possibility of a French invasion of Great Britain. Had he gone to New Zealand, and immediately returned to Great Britain, he would have seen two fleets lying side by side in Besika bay, the British and the French fleets. And knowing only what he knew of the relations of the two peoples when he left England he would naturally be solicitous to know what would be the result of an encounter between the British fleet and the French fleet, and he would be overcome with surprise when he learned that these two fleets which he contemplated as only enemies to one another were lying side by side in alliance against the great power of Russia. That panic was concluded by the alliance between France and Germany, the two nations that took part in the invasion of the Crimea. Then came the panic of 1858-59. Notwithstanding the fact that the Emperor of France, Napoleon the Third had always been friendly and was then engaged in Italy in his war against Austria, notwithstanding that apparently all the rest of the world considered that his hands were full with the management of that conflict, the panic started. It was represented in Britain that the French soldiers at Rome were chafing in their eagerness to get across the channel to take part in the sack of London. That panic continued until the Mason and Slidell incident-the Trent affair. On that affair arising Great Britain found it necessary to rush forces to Canada. Great Britain found that she was short of long boots and the French government sent a message across to England offering the British gov-Mr. CONGDON.
ernment 1,500 pairs of boots to supply the soldiers who were going to Canada. Further than that, notwithstanding the attacks made upon it by the panic mongers, the French government joined with the other governments of Europe in urging upon the government of the United States that it had made a mistake in this seizure, that it had violated the law of nations, the result of these representations being that the United States government returned the two gentlemen who had been taken off the British vessel by an American man-of-war. That incident was closed in that way. Yesterday the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) went over the history of the later panics, and it seems to me that no one can review the panics of this kind without being persuaded that it is absolutely necessary and essential as a common sense people that we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by panics of this kind, but that we should endeavour as far as possible to assume the part of true statesmen by not creating, increasing and arousing panics but by honestly and sincerely endeavouring to allay them. There is found a passage in a speech, or possibly a pamphlet, of Sir Robert Peel who will be recognized by every one as one of tte most cautious and sagacious statesmen that Great Britain produced in the last century. His language ought to appeal very strongly to all Conservatives, because he was undoubtedly one of the great Conservative leaders of the last century, and it seems to me that his language in this regard contains so much truth and common sense as to be worthy of being inculcated in the minds of all sane people. He was speaking of this eagerness for armaments in time of peace instead of reserving the gigantic efforts of the nation for times of war and he said ' We must consent to incur some risk.' He is urging retrenchment and he is pointing out that the nation is not fitting itself best for war if it expends too great a part of its resources on war in time of peace. Sir Spencer Walpole referring to the old Roman maxim si vis pacem, para bellum-in time of peace prepare for war-points out that it is a maxim which has been greatly modified in modern times by the recognition of the fact that money is the sinews of war and that the best preparation for war is by husbanding our resources in time of peace. As Defoe said it is not the longest sword, but the longest purse that wins in the end, and it is wise to he governed in these matters by a certain conservatism and to recognize that if not only Canada, but the whole British empire expended all its resources in endeavouring to secure itself against attack, such an expenditure made by the mother country and by all the great dominions in the endeavour to secure the em-

pire against every possible risk would not probably achieve its object as completely as would be done by merely initiating proper movements of defence and consenting with regard to the rest to incur some risk.
The great trouble about all these discussions is that the very starting of the idea of danger, the mentioning of another nation as possibly coming in conflict with Great Britain, the statement that the British empire may soon be involved in war with Germany, the very consideration of the subject, tends to produce in both nations a spirit that inevitably must help to lead to war. Let me say in regard to this country, that I do not think that any real danger of trouble in the future is likely to come from any of those gentlemen in this House, or throughout the country, who are frequently made the objects of attack as being disloyal and traitorous to the empire, but rather from the ultra-loyal gentlemen, who, not being satisfied with their devotion to the British empire, must exhibit on all possible occasions their hatred and detestation of all other nations. It does not seem to me that the man is extremely loyal, however much he may think he is, who, not satisfied with loving and serving .to the utmost his own country, but thinks it necessary to pin-prick and create hostility in the minds of other nations and incur difficulties in the future. I believe, myself, that a moderate course in this regard is the proper course. I do not believe that it is wise for us to continue to the extent even that we do to-day this policy of endeavouring to dominate the world. It is enough for the British government to dominate the British empire, it is enough for the people of Canada to dominate the vast domain which they possess. More than that, is a spirit which is provocative of war. It may lead to the ultimate destruction of civilization if we are not satisfied with controlling our own dominions and treating other people with that same respect and regard with which we wish them to treat us. I heard a gentleman, not long ago, not in this House, but elsewhere, state that our children and, if not our children, our children's children, would see the time when Canada would dominate the whole of this continent. Could anything be more absurd than an idea of that kind? Could a gentleman who expects to see his children, or his children's children dominating this continent, including the great republic to the south of us, which has so much power to-day that it would have no great difficulty in dominating this country if it desired to do so, complain if the Americans say, if this is the spirit which is to dominate civilization, we will be guided by it also, and we will attempt to dominate the American continent? Lord Beaconsfield originated the absurd policy, which he was obliged to withdraw, the policy of claiming for Great Britain ascendancy in the councils of Europe. Why has Great Britain to arrogate to herself ascendancy in the councils of Europe? Does Great Britain expect to have ascendancy in the councils of France, of Germany, and of Russia? Is it not to be expected that Frenchmen, Germans and Russians will resent such a policy, and what would be thought if they attempted theniselves to dominate any portion of the British empire? It is not the spirit that should dominate the Canadian people in endeavouring to aid the British empire and her colonies.
Now, I shall come more directly to the question before the House, although I think that the discussion that I have already entered into is incidental to the assertion contained in the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), that there is an emergency which requires this aid. I think what I have said is germane to that in showing that there is no more evidence of hostility to-day than tjiere was on every one of those previous occasions, and history shows that every one of these panics was so utterly and inexcusably absurd as to render the old gentlemen who created them absolutely a subject of laughter to those who read the history of that time.
Let us come directly to the question: What is it necessary Canada should do, having due regard to her own self respect, in the way of taking part in the defence of the great empire to which we belong? There are several courses before Canada. I am not speaking now as to the form of the defence, but as to whether she shall continue to rely upon the defence afforded by the vast naval power of Great Britain? If Canada is to continue to do that then no one who has any regard for his self respect could refuse to aid in a reasonable and proper proportion in the defence afforded to Canada by the British navy. One gentleman, in his newspaper, has repeatedly opposed the policy of the government as well as the policy of granting two Dreadnoughts, and he has said that Canada for her defence is amply provided for if she depend upon the Monroe doctrine. Well, I am one of those who believe that there is no reason why the Munroe doctrine-which by the way originated with a great British minister-should not supplement materially in assisting not merely in the defence of. Canada, but in the defence of the whole empire. But I do say this, and I think most Canadians will concur in this view, that even if we were safe under the protection of the Munroe doctrine, the self respect of a courageous people, such as undoubtedly the Canadian people are, will not let them accept such defence without contributing their portion of assistance towards what is required to maintain the Munroe doctrine. Therefore,
[Stage Direction]
in my humble judgment, whether we. continue to rely upon the protection of the great _ British fleet-and every one of us in this parliament is anxious and willing to make the greatest possible sacrifices in order that we may so continue whether we so continue, or whether we are to abandon British connection and rely solely and wholly on the Munroe doctrine for our protection, our own public spirit, the pride and self respect of our people will certainly declare that whether protected by the navy *of Great Britain or by the navy of the United States we must contribute a fair proportion to the support of the protecting navy. I think it is perfectly evident from my observations made in this House on former occasions, that I am one of those who do not believe in militant imperialism. I believe that, the imperialism that is going round flopping the flag and insulting, and causing quarrels with other nations is the greatest mistake in the world. And, even though some gentlemen who deem it extremely loyal to flaunt the flag, may think that one who objects to that is not loyal, I venture to say that the highest and truest loyalty to the British empire is to be found in the endeavour to keep that empire out of difficulty and trouble. If you regard the condition of the German navy at the present day you will find certain curious things. In the first place you find in Germany a most remarkable growth of naval power. It is only a few years since there was no German navy. I must confess that I sometimes think it is the irony of history that to-day Great Britain is being cursed to a very considerable extent by the dread of a German navy, when I recollect that in 1850, in the days before the German empire was established and when the German confederation existed, there was a difficulty about Heligoland, and when the Germans sent out some of their hired fleet, they were notified by the British government that there was no such flag known on the seas as the German flag, and that any vessel flying that flag would be treated as a pirate. I do not think that any one who has any conscience at all would to-day justify on the part of Great Britain such treatment of the inferior naval power of Germany at that time. At all events Germany has reached a position to-day that no vessel flying the German flag is longer in danger of being treated as a pirate. It is within the memory of most of us living, when Germany scarcely had a sea-port and when the German empire had to buy five square miles from the Dutchy of Oldenburg to get a naval station. We know that the naval stations of Kiel, Wilhelms haven, Emden and Elbing are practically artificial, and that when the present German Emperor came to the throne Germany scarcely had the semblance of Mr. CONGDON.
anything approaching a navy. The progress made by Germany in creating a navy is surprising to every one who studies the evolution of the nation. The great progress of Germany in the construction of warlike ships has been accompanied by equal progress in the building of merchant vessels, and by the industry, the aptitude, and the intelligence of her people Germany has today placed herself in a very considerable position among the nations of the world, as regards both her naval and merchant service. It is a noticeable fact that the decline of ship building in Canada was practically concurrent with the growth of ship building in Germany. It was due undoubtedly to the fact that wooden ships had passed their day, that steel ships were coming into vogue requiring mechanics, artisans, stokers, electricians, all congenial to the scientific bent of the German people. Germany started to build a navy, and Germany has to-day a navy that is certainly remarkable considering the short time spent in its development.
On the motion of Mr. Congdon the debate was adjourned.
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at six o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
Thubsday, February 17, 1910.