1911-01-31

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 104) to amend paragraph (1) of section 2 and paragraphs (n) and (o) of section 9 of the Post Office Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to introduce in the larger post offices of the country a new device called the self stamp selling box. It is a box by which any man, by putting in it a cent or a penny, can get his stamp of that denomination. At the same time, the use of this box saves to the department a large amount of money, as no commission has to be paid to any vendor of stamps. The box has been tried in two or three large post offices in Canada, and is found to be a great advantage to the public, especially in the rush season at Christmas time. It is used in Australia, where the invention was first taken out, and is also largely used in Europe. On the second reading of the Bill I will give fuller explanation.
Mr. FOSTER.: Is it the same kind of box that has been used in the Ottawa post office for some time ?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I think there is one in the Ottawa post office.


George Eulas Foster: The minister, in his peregrinations, may not have heard of the incident that took place down at the Ottawa

post office. A young lady wanted a cent stamp, she put in her cent and the one cent stamp came out. But the blamed thing kept on turning out stamps one after the other, without additional money. It frightened the young lady, and she took to her heels and ran away. She made complaint, and I believe either the police or the engineering department was called in, and in due time they stopped the thing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The use of the box at first was an experiment, and there may have been something wrong with it. The hon. gentleman, I know, will be pleased to learn that one great advantage of this box is that it rejects all kinds of false coins.


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

George Eulas Foster: I would like to call -the attention of the Minister of Finance to a document which has been received from the United States by various members of parliament, a document issued, I suppose, by one of the departments of the administration at Washington. It is a most complete document; all the proceedings, all the data and a complete set of statistical tables are appended under one cover. It is a most important thing that full statistics should be in the hands of the members of parliament and available at as early a period as possible. I cannot think that the Minister of Finance has been a fortnight at these negotiations with efficient help with him, and that he has not had that basis or data for his negotiations that evidently, the United States Commissioners had very skillfully prepared and very full and comprehensive in all its parts. If the Minister of Finance had that, what reason in the world is there that the House has not been put in possession long before this of an equally comprehensive statement, The Minister of Finance seemed yesterday very unwilling to adopt a practice of the United States for fear that it might be unconstitutional here. I think the House would forgive him in that respect if he would give us something on a par or an equality with what the United States administration have given to their people.


Air. FIELDING.: My hon. friend has overlooked the fact that at the moment of presenting the matter to this House I laid on the table or made accessible to ' Hansard ' a somewhat elaborate statement containing comparisons which at the moment I thought probably covered all that any hon. member might desire. We had two most capable officials with us in Washington, .a most efficient staff, tout high as is my regard and esteem for these gentlemen, 87
I would not say they were equal to tlhe large army of officials which was available to our friends of the United States government, Day after day as incidents occurred in the negotiations they were able to turn the matter over to their army of officials, and they could have statistics prepared very much more elaborately 'than we could possibly expect to have within the same time. I quite agree, however, that it is desirable that the fullest possible information, and practically along the same lines should he given to this House ; our officers are now engaged in preparing it, and I will promise to expedite the return and see that it is laid before the House within a reasonable time before the discussion is resumed.


George Eulas Foster: Meanwhile, as it seems to be so difficult to have that done here, perhaps, through the kindly offices of the administration, we might toe aible to get a supply from Washington.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend thinks it desirable to have some extra copies of the statement prepared at Washington I would be happy to ask them to favour us in that respect, but I would thifik that the House would prefer to' have the information prepared by our own people. I think the House will agree that we are not to be blamed if we were not able to have more statistical information when we were so far away from home. We did have all the information which we thought necessary for an intelligent study of the subject but it could scarcely toe expected that after the negotiations were completed we could go to work and prepare the statistics while we were on our way back to Ottawa. There is no comparison between the two conditions. I will adopt my non. friend's suggestion, and ask our friends in Washington to give us some extra copies containing this information, tout I think the House would like also the information prepared by our own officials.



CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo).: I wmuld like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to a statement made by Mr. Mclnnes before a commission at Vancouver to the effect that he discussed with the Prime Minister the desirability of taking the head tax off Chinese immigrants, and I would also like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any truth in the evidence of Mr. Mclnnes?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: My attention was called to an article in the Victoria ' Colonist ' from which I read this paragraph :


Mr.  T. R. E.@: Mclnnes says that Sir Wilfrid Laurier told him that he contemplated the



possibility of doing away with the present restrictions on Chinese immigration.
I have no recollection at this moment of having discussed the matter with Mr. Mclnnes, tout I have no doubt that if he says so it is true because I discussed this matter not only with Mr. Mclnnes, if I did so, but with several parties when I was in British Columbia last summer, and since I came home also with different friends who take an interest in this question, not with the view, however, as stated toy Mr. Mclnnes of withdrawing the present restriction on Chinese immigration so as to make immigration from China absolutely free as it is from Europe, but I probably discussed with Mr. Mclnnes. and certainly with numerous parties, the advisability of abolishing our present legislation with regard to Chinese immigration, and if possible obtaining from the Chinese government such an arrangement as we have at the present time with the Japanese government which has wrorked admirably. The House is aware that we have at the present time an arrangement with the Japanese government whereby they undertook, some three or four years ago, themselves to restrict their own immigration to Canada to a certain figure. This arrangement has been faithfully carried out by the Japanese government and Japanese immigration has been kept, under the arrangement, constantly in check. At the present time, we have, and we have had for some twenty years on our statute-toook, a law which imposes a capitation tax upon every Chinaman coming into Canada. Last year the immigration suddenly went up to a pretty high figure, to something like 1,400 or 1,500. It is said that this 'was the result of frauds which had been committed, and the capitation tax is now the subject of an investigation in Vancouver. Whether there has been fraud or not I am still of the opinion that if it were possible to Obtain from the Chinese government such an arrangement as we have had with the Japanese government it would be far preferable. But, at the present moment, I have no recollection of discussing the matter with Mr. Mclnnes although it is quite possible I did so. I certainly discussed it with many other persons.


Mr. SPROULE.: As I see the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) in his place I would like to ask if his attention was drawn to an intimation which appeared in the press of this morning regarding a mill which is said to have taken place under the Marquis of Queensberry rules between one Jardine and the Minister of Inland Revenue, and to inquire how the encounter ended, whether the account of it which we have received is absolutely correct or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: Mr. Speaker, as so many hon. members in the House seem to be interested in the subject, I may say that the account, as it appears in the Morning ' Citizen ', is very highly coloured.


George Eulas Foster: What is the correct version?



SPRINGHILL COAL STRIKE.

Mr. KING.: I would like to further answer my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) who asked me a question yesterday with reference to the Springhill strike. On inquiry I find that there are still at Springhill some 30 members of the Canadian militia, but the manager of the Springhill mines informs me that he does not think it likely that they will remain there much longer. They have been kept there at the request of the local authorities to assist in maintaining order. I might just say to my hon. friend that a short time ago the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) moved for a return of the papers respecting the strike at Springhill and they were brought down immediately. He intimated to me that it was his intention to ask some questions on this subject when the House went into Committee of Supply on the estimates of the Department of Labour. If my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) had intimated to me when he was asking the .question yesterday that it was his intention to bring the matter up I should have been prepared to give him a definite answer at the moment.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 47) to amend the Immigration Act.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved the third reading of Bill (No. 97) to prohibit the improper use of opium and other drugs.
Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: When this Bill was being considered in Committee of the Whole on Thursday evening last, some question was raised by my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) as to the propriety of the twelfth clause which provides that no conviction, judgment or order in respect of an offence against this Act shall be removed by certiorari, and the hon. gentleman said that he could not understand the Department of Justice giving the advice that such a provision should be inserted in the Bill. In view of what then took place, I wish to make an explanation that it was, I think, at my suggestion that this clause was inserted in the Bill by the Minister of Labour when the Bill was in preparation. Such a provision used to be of very considerable importance thirty

years ago before the courts possessed the power that has since been conferred upon them to amend technical defects in summary convictions. Hundreds and hundreds of convictions were quashed by the courts upon [DOT] technicalities where no question whatever existed but that the offence had been committed, and that the defendant had been justly convicted. The courts, however, at that time, possessed no power to make even the slightest correction or amendment in a conviction, which had to be dealt with, on its being removed by certiorari, in exactly the condition in which it came before the court; and, for that reason, I have no doubt, a provision of this character was very frequently inserted in Acts both of the imperial parliament, and of this parliament with a view to preventing justice being defeated by objections which had no merit, but which took advantage of some slip on the part of the convicting magistrate or of the person who had prepared the record of the conviction. The courts held, however, both in England and in this country, that notwithstanding such a clause in any statute, which, apparently, prohibits a court from issuing a certiorari to bring up a conviction, the courts still might do it if it could be seen that there was an absence of jurisdiction on the'part of the convicting magistrates to have entertained the complaint. The courts took the view that, in the absence of words clearly indicating the intention of parliament to take away this remedy which might be of the greatest use, the legislature could not have been supposed to have intended that the courts could not give relief if magistrates had acted in total absence of jurisdiction. So that the presence of such a clause never was an absolute prohibition against the courts reviewing the proceedings upon certiorari. Since the amendments which I have referred to have been made in our statutes, under which the most liberal power is now conferred upon the superior courts to correct technical mistakes in convictions which may be brought before them on certiorari, there is probably not very much value in a clause of this sort. But still it would have the legal effect of restricting the cases in which a convicted defendant would have the right to obtain certiorari to cases in which there was absence of jurisdiction on the part of the convicting magistrates. And, for that reason, when considering this measure, it seemed to me that it might be of use in furthering the purpose of the statute that such a provision should be inserted. And that was my reason for suggesting it to my hon. colleague the Minister of Labour. It is a provision which appears in the Canada Temperance Act, and which has been of effect in the history of the Canada Temperance Act t^ save from destruc-87}
tion a very great number of convictions where the defendant had no real merit in his effort to get rid of his fine or other punishment, but where, but for the existence of such a clause as this, the courts would have been compelled to quash the proceedings. This legislation is of very much the same character as the Canada Temperance Act, and it seemed to me that just in that view such a clause should be inserted in this Bill. But I wish to disclaim altogether the idea that I favour the presence of such a clause as a general thing in statutes which may be passed by this parliament creating criminal offences. I agree entirely in the views which were expressed by my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) when this Bill was in committee, that such a clause ought to be very sparingly used; and it was only because it seemed to me that the purpose of this Bill was of rather exceptional character that I recommended the insertion of the clause. There was another point in the committee which was more discussed. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) pointed out the objections which, undoubtedly, ordinarily would exist to delegating to the Governor in Council the right to make new offences, new crimes, by adding to the schedule of the statute. That objection was possibly cured in this [DOT]case by an amendment of the clause which delegates this power to the Governor in Council, an amendment made in the committee which limits the authority of the Governor in Council to add to the schedule the names of substances which may be derivatives or preparations of the drugs which by the Bill are prohibited, and, that amendment being made, I understood the objections to this particular clause or feature of the Bill were very much minimized, if not quite removed.
The hon. member for East Grey expressed a desire that, upon the third reading of the Bill, I should state my opinion with regard to that feature o'f the statute. And, while I do not think it is any question of law, I am willing to say, speaking simply as a member of this House, that I think such a course, while perfectly within the power of parliament, is one that ought to be very seldom and very sparingly taken.


Mr. DOHERTY.: The hon. gfentleman (Sir Allen Aylesworth) referred to the question raised about the desirability of the provision under section 14, that the Governor in Council shall have power to add to the number of substances, the possession, sale, or handling of which would, under such legislation, constitute a crime. I desire to say

and I think I made that clear the other evening-that there was no suggestion on my part that there was no

legal power to do this; but I did point out, what I am glad to see the minister finally recognizes, that it was very undesirable that a power in as wide terms as were set forth in the section originally, should be conferred on the Governor in Council to create a crime. The terms of the section, as originally introduced, were wide enough to make it possible for the government, without any intervention of the legislature whatever, to add any substance whatever to the schedule, and to make the possession or the handling of that substance a crime; and I think that before we got through, we were all pretty *well agreed that that was not a desirable kind of legislation. -But I never suggested, or wished to be understood as suggesting, that there was any question of the power of parliament to do this if it chose to do it.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["Hear, hear.\nMr. FOSTER-and I will invite the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), who looks serious enough just at this moment, to join with me in those prayers, is that a little more sensitiveness of conscience may be imparted to the members of the administration from the Prime Minister down to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) when those awful things are exposed to the House and when that publicity which is the guardian and the guarantee of private and public life sp eulogized by the Prime Minister to-night is fought for by this side and the door is banged and bolted on the other side of the House.\nBut, I am not going to leave this discussion without bringing forward just one further thought, and it is this: Outside of this particular instance as it affects the office and as it affects the man in the office and the canons of public and private life, there is a very grave consideration which none of us, I am sure, will leave out of account. It is the power of example. Of all men in the whole public service, that man who ought to be the most careful, that man who ought to be the most circumspect, that man who ought to avoid the least suspicion or comment is the min-\n\nister of the department and the minister of the government who is to set an example to the whole public service and to the public life of this country. What would we think to-morrow morning if the customs collector in the port of Montreal, were to have had a meeting of his friends and admirers in the city of Montreal, and they had subscribed a testimonial of $50,000, had had a banquet and had all this beautiful publicity, tout had failed to give the names of the subscribers and it went out through the length and breadth of this country that the collector of customs in the port of Montreal had received gifts from his friends and admirers ? What would the public opinion say ? Is it not proper for me, knowing the collector of customs in Montreal, to say, that, in my opinion, he is not rich and that he is honest? If, because a man is poor and honest in the case of a minister of the Crown is a reason why the sound canons of political morality should be violated, what reason is there that the collector of customs, a sub-officer under the Crown, should not take from his friends and admirers, on the ground that he is poor and honest, a testimonial, because this is the sange reason as that which is given why .ministers should accept it ? If the Minister of Finance may take $120,000 from his friends and admirers, why cannot the Minister of Public Works take $120,000 from his friends and admirers ? But I will venture this that if to-morrow morning the news went out through this country that the friends and admirers of the Minister of Public Works had given him a secret donation of $100,000 there would be ructions in this country. When the example is set, when the principle is formed and the practise is laid down in the case of one minister of the Crown, how are you going to prevent other ministers of the Crown from following it, and in exactly the same way the pernicious influence goes through the whole service and permeates the whole country. Your sub-officer or under officer, if you may speak of him as such, says:\tWell, the high muck-a-mucks take\nthese gifts from their friends and admirers because they are poor and honest* I am poor-mighty poor-and I am just as honest as they are; why cannot I take a little gift on the side too, without any unnecessary publicity ?\nI have not the least doubt in the world that demoralization, swift and sure, along the whole _ line follows this unfortunate movement in the wrong direction. To-night we find the Prime Minister with his party behind him, and this latest advocate closing the debate on that side, declaring that it is perfectly right for ministers of the Crown to take gifts if only they are poor and honest. Have any other members of the government taken gifts?-(Don't all speak at once!)-\nIs the Prime Minister a sinner in that respect? Would that make his feelings kind towards the Minister of Finance? Are any other ministers in similar positions for lesser sums? How soon this will spread, how far it will go, now that the supreme sanction of the Prime Minister and the Liberal party is given to the reversal of the law and rule of parliament which has existed for twenty years against it and which tonight they propose to abolish, leaving this matter wide, wide open.\nHouse divided on amendment (1\t\nBoyce). Ames, Armstrong,\tYEAS: Messieurs Lennox,\n\tLor tie,\nArthurs,\tMacdonell,\nBaker,\tMcCall,\nBarnard,\tMcCarthy,\nBest,\tMaddin,\nBlain,\tMagrath,\nBorden (Halifax\t), Meighen,\nBoyce,\tNantel,\nBradbury,\tNorthrup,\nBroder.\tPaquet,\nBurrell,\tPerley,\nCampbell,\tPorter,\nCowan,\tReid (Grenville),\nCrocket,\tRoche,\nCrothers,\tRussell,\nCurrie (Simcoe),\tSchaffner,\nDaniel,\tSexsmith,\nDonnelly,\tSharpe (Lisgar),\nEdwards,\tSharpe (Ontario),\nElson,\tSmyth,\nFoster,\tStaples,\nFraser,\t[DOT] Stewart,\nGilbert,\tTaylor (Leeds), Taylor (New West-\nGoodeve,\t\nHaggart (Winnipeg), minster),\t\nHenderson,\tThornton,\nHerron,\tWhite (Renfrew),\nHughes,\tWilcox (Essex),\nJameson,\tWilson (Lennox an\nKidd,\tAddington) and\nLake,\tWright.-63.\nLalor,\tNAYS:\nAllard,\tMessieurs McCall,\nAllen,\tMcCraney,\nAylesworth,\tMcGiverin,\nBeauparlant,\tMcIntyre,\nBickerdike,\tMcKenzie,\nBlack,\nBoyer,\nBrown,\nBureau,\nCarrier,\nCarvell,\nCash,\nChampagne, Chew,\nChisholm (Antigonish). Meigs, Chisholm (Inverness), Michaud,\nMcLean (Sunbury), McMillan,\nMajor,\nMarcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's),\nMartin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,\nClark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,\nConmee,\nCurrie (Prince Edward),\nMolloy,\nMurphy,\nNesbitt,\nNeely,\nOliver,\nPapineau,", '282*\nDelisle,\nDemers,\nDevlin.\nDouglass,\nDubeau,\nEcrement,\nEmmerson,\nEthier,\nFisher,\nFortier,\nFowke,\nGauvreau,\nGeoffrion,\nGerman,\nGervais,\nGordon (Kent), Graham,\nGuthrie,\nMarty,\nHedging,\nHunt,\nKing,\nKyte,\nLachance,\nLafortune,\nLanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),\nLanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,\nLaurier (Sir Wilfrid) Law,\nLeBlanc,\nLemieux,\nLoggie,\nLovell,\nLow,\nMacdonald,\nMacNutt,\nMcAllister,\nMcCoig,\nBrodeur,\nBorden (Sir F.), Harris,\nS1! atton,\nTalbot,\nKnowles,\nMiller,\nGli.du,\nGirard,\nBoland,\nRoy (Dorchester), McLean (Huron), Amendment n\nPardee,\nParent,\nPaterson,\nPickup,\nPronlx,\nProwee,\nPugsley,\nRankin,\nReid (Restigouche), Richards,\nRivet,\nRobb,\nRoss (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),\nRoy (Montmagny), Rutan,\nSavoie,\nSchell,\nSealey,\nSeguin,\nSinclair,\nSmith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,\nTempieman,\nTobin,\nTodd,\nTolmie,\nTurcotte (Nicolet), Tureotte (Quebec County),\nTurgeon,\nTurriff,\nVerville,\nWarburton,\nWhite (Victoria, Alta.) and\nWilson (Laval).-118.\nPairs.\nMessieurs\nHaggart (Lanark),\nCrosby, -Beattie,\nGordon (Nipieeing), Owen,\nStanfield,\nWallace,\nMonk,\nClare,\nLancaster,\nMiddlebro,\nMarshall,\nigatived.']
Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (Victoria and Haliburton).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I am pleased to state that I observe by yesterday's 1 Globe ' that the editor of that journal has been fully restored to his wonted vigour. On the front page of that paper there is a long telegram from him which shows that whatever rumours may have been around the country to the contrary, he is in possession of his usual mental faculties. However, I regret that I am called upon again to dispute some of the positions that gentleman has taken. I would not refer to the matter but that this is the-first occasion on -which he has appeared in the arena directly. The ' Globe ' editorial, referring to the public says:
To them it may be necessary to say that the editor of the 'Globe' has not at any time or under any circumstances made an arrangement with any person under which he agreed to advocate any fiscal policy as lending itself specially to the cause of universal peace.
I never said that he did ' agree ' to it, Sir. What I did say was that Dr. Starr-Jordan and Mr. Macdonald and those other gentlemen, whether they agreed to it or not, are actually doing it, and I proved it the other day by reference to Dr. Starr-Jordan's own speeches here-that while preaching peace, they were at the same time preaching reciprocity between Canada and the United States along lines which could only have one termination, that is, the annexation of this country to the'United States. Mr. Macdonald's telegram, after a long newspaper extract, in which is used Mr. DOHERTY.
the term * reciprocity ' instead of the term ' peace society,' is as follows:
San Diego, Cal., Jan. 29.-The statement published as having been made at St. Catharines by Col. -Sam Hughes is absolutely false in every essential particular.
I will prove before I am through that it is true in every particular.
I neither was sent nor did I go to Washington in connection with the reciprocity question.
I will show further on that he is quibbling and equivocating on the word ' reciprocity.'
If Col. Hughes cares to know, salaries double the amount he mentions have been offered to me for regular professional services, but never a dollar for any purpose he named.
I am very much surprised, knowing Mr. Macdonald's character, that he has not taken advantage of these large salaries.
In association with President David Starr-Jordan of Leland Stanford University, John R. Mott and others, I am a member of the board of directors of the 'World's Peace Foundation,' established by Mr. Ginn for promoting in every civilized country the settlement of all international disputes by judicial arbitration and not by war. Necessary expenses are paid, -but no director is under salary or makes gain financially.'
We will discuss that later on.
Reciprocity is not on the programme.
Then, why did they put it on?
Tariffs are a matter of no concern.
Then why is the discussion of tariffs foisted on this country by Dr. Starr-Jordan and others?
The task is much more serious. It is to direct the national systematic awakening and organizing of public opinion in every civilized nation on the question of the demoralizing curse of war, and the intolerable folly of increased armaments. We advocate the substitution of independent arbitration as at The Hague.
Neither the founder nor any of the directors favours the political union of Canada and the United States. Personally and in the interests of world peace, I oppose any change in Canada's imperial relations. As a free nation in the empire, Canada can exercise greater influence than is possible through independence. Col. -Sam Hughes' statement is a 'wholecloth' falsehood. Only a slanderer and a coward will repeat it after this.
Well, Sir, I am here to prove that I have not mis-stated a single word, and that I am neither a slanderer nor a coward. Mr. Macdonald has attained to that mental condition wherein the spirit of selfishness, insane ambition and tyranny bordering on a sense of divine right, has become domination, a mental condition which is never found in any of the great men who, like

him, profess to be followers of ' the Meek and Lowly One nor in any of the great editors of the great journals of the country; but it is common among the inferior class of clergymen in all churches, and among the inferior editors generally. I need not again repeat my assertions, Sir, further than to put them in consecutive order, to show that neither Mr. Macdonald nor the ' Globe ' has directly or indirectly attempted to meet my charges.
I stated, first, that Mr. Macdonald went to Washington either on his own personal account or as the confidential agent of this government to conduct reciprocity negotiations.	This Mr. Macdonald technically
denies. I re-affirm it, however, and will prove him to be a deceiver and equivoca-tor.
My next charge was that Mr. Macdonald is not now paid a full salarv or for full time as editor of that great oracle of truth, righteousness and fair dealing, the Toronto ' Globe ', but is paid for only part of his time by the ' Globe '.
My third charge was that for part of his time Mr. Macdonald is in receipt of salary, or expenses, or rake-off, or income, or solatium, or indemnity, or consolation, or alleviation, or balm, or any other word that would fill the bill, from the fund largely provided bv Mr. Ginn, of Boston, named the ' Peace Societv Fund ', such ' balm ' being in the form of golden Yankee eagles, or their equivalent. These three statements were made by me first in St. Catharines on an open public platform. I knew that there would be some coward garbed as a ' Globe ' editor, or some despicable colleague of Mr. Macdonald, imbued with the same spirit of persecution and hypocrisy, shielding himself behind a five cent white necktie and attaining notice not by his personal worth or godliness or ability, but by the atmosphere of superstition and tolerance surrounding him-one of that fry mat bring the sacred name of religion into disrepute; one failing to follow the maxim and practice of the Master as aptly put by Chaucer:
Christ's lore and His apostles twelve lie preached,
But first he followed it himself.
. -one despised by every capable godly minister of the gospel, as well as by every honest citizen and newspaper editor ;-I knew that some such ignorant person would charge me with shielding myself behind the privileges of parliament. Therefore I made the charge first openly on the public platform at St. Catharines, and subsequently in the House. Yet I have been told that one of this tribe, no longer ago than Sunday in the city of Ottawa, in the pulpit of one of the churches here, charged me with shielding myself behind the privileges of parliament in this matter. I am informed that this is the same gentleman who, when an election was being held in the city of Ottawa, a few years ago, went with his five cent necktie on, and pledged himself to a member of the Conservative party that he was sick and tired of the ' rascally Ross government ' in Toronto and would do his utmost to turn it out: yet when the leader of this same ' rascally government ', the Hon. George W. Ross, appeared in Ottawa, the foremost heeler in the gang who paid honour to him was this same individual.
And he would do his utmost to turn them out. Inside of a very few days this same leader of that ' rascally government in Toronto,' the Hon. G. W. Ross, appeared on the public platform in Ottawa, and the foremost heeler in the gang which surrounded him, was this same individual. On another occasion in that same election, in order to still better carry out the plans of the Grit party, this individual- I shall not disgrace the sacred calling of the ministry by calling him a clergyman-: attempted to bring this man Macdonald, the editor of the ' Globe ' from Toronto to preach in his pulpit on the Sunday before the election, so that he might try and convince the congregation of the aggregation of virtue of which that good government was composed; but to the credit of the congregation, they refused to allow Mr. Macdonald into the pulpit. Not content with that, this same parson took a list of the members of his congregation and marked -I do not know in what colour-how they might be influenced to vote or how they might be disposed to vote, and he did this for the Grit heelers of the party in Ottawa so that they might use it for election purposes. This is the gentleman who is backing up Mr. Macdonald.
In his lecture before the Canadian Club on Saturday, and in his sermon on Sunday, Prof. Starr-Jordan said that if we could only do away with the custom house officers, that would be an ideal condition between the two countries. Yet Mr. Macdonald will claim that these peace society speakers are not meddling in reciprocity. Mr. Macdonald's next statement was that he never was sent, nor did he go to Washington in connection with the reciprocity question. But he is quibbling with the word ' reciprocity.' What is the meaning of reciprocity ? He will not deny that he went to Washington in order to bring about negotiations for a change in the United States tariff which would do away with the maximum clause trouble. We wanted to induce the United States not to enforce that maximum clause and Canada humiliated itself by making certain changes. That was the kind of reciprocity that Mr. Macdonald wanted to bring about. .The

meaning of reciprocity is: 1st. Mutual action and reaction; 2nd. Reciprocal advantages, obligations or rights. His next statement was that he was associated with Prof. Starr-Jordan-rather an unfortunate admission after the speech of Prof. Jordan, deliberately advocating reciprocity-and that only his expenses were paid by the peace society, I have it on good authority that he gets a pretty large sum from this society every year and he dare not deny it.
Mr. Macdonald says that reciprocity is not on the programme of the society. Why is it not ? It certainly looms out largely in the speeches of the oracles of that society. He speaks also of the demoralizing curse of war, but inasmuch as my hon. friend from Algoma is anxious to take the floor, I shall not touch that aspect of the case now, but defer dealing with it until another occasion. In speaking of war, Mr. Macdonald reminds me of the small boy who said to his father: You had better give up cussing or leave the church. In like manner, Mr. Macdonald, had better show a little more Christian spirit if he intends continuing in that great cause, the promotion of peace among nations. In this connection, I cannot refrain from quoting the words of Eliza Cook
Never trust the soft breathing that preaches of peace
With a smile on the lips and a tear in the eye-
Hear it all with good will blit be provident still,
With men that are earnest and powder that is dry.
In Dante's Inferno, we are told, that in one of the nethermost regions below there are a tremendous number of gentlemen who parade clothed in pure and spotless white-I do not know whether they are members of the peace society or not-but they wear a rueful aspect, the lining of their garments is the heaviest lead and the road they have to travel is rough, rocky and jagged. These are the hypocrites who once defaced human society. I sincerely hone that so great an evil will not befall this editor of the ' Globe.' Might I be allowed as a layman, to express the wish that he may not be found in this company in this nethermost region in the future. Therefore I would respectfully suggest that some steps be taken to reclaim him-and in that connection, I would do my best to bring him back to what he should be-namely, an open, square man, and have him give up equivocating to the extent he has been practising that art for some considerable time.



Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, for Mr. HUGHES.
the House to go into Committee of Supply, I desire to refer as briefly as possible to a matter respecting which I gave notice last Monday, 'and which was discussed during the latter part of last session. At the close of my remarks I shall offer a resolution on the subject, which, I feel satisfied, from the manner in which it will be offered, and the principle it emphasizes, cannot fail to meet with the approval of both sides from the right hon. gentleman down. At the outset let me say that this is not a motion of want of confidence so that hon. gentlemen opposite need have no qualms of conscience about accepting it if they feel so disposed. All I desire is to intercept the House, on jthe motion to go into Supply, for the short time necessary to consider the principle involved in the resolution I am about to offer. This resolution lays down the principle advocated by the Liberal party-some twenty years ago, and which, in the public interest, it is necessary should now again be discussed. This necessity arises from recent occurrences which call for the application of that principle. I refer to the principle involved in the accepting by cabinet ministers of testimonials in the shape of gifts of money.
In whatever I have to say, I desire this to be distinctly understood, that in bringing this matter to the attention of the House I have no intention of injuring any public man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Hon. gentlemen opposite jeer, but I have learned, in my eight years experience of parliamentary life, that the best encouragement I can receive is the dissent and opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite. I repeat in all sincerity that in the observations I am out to make, I have no desire to injure any public man ; no desire to arouse public opinion against any public man, and no desire to make political capital out of whatever discussion may ensue.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes, I expected that jeer, but I do desire to emphasize this fact that the necessity for what observations I have" now to offer to Jthis House, the necessity for the resolution I propose shortly to place in your hands, emphasizing that position, is laid at the doors and attributable to the right hon. the Prime Minister of this government; to him and to him alone, because, Sir, niine months ago in this House, as was my privilege, and my duty as a public man, I moderately and temperately, and I think in 'no objectionable manner, dTew to his attention certain facts and certain principles applicable to those facts, and what did I get

from the right hon. gentleman, but sneers and contumely? I desire now to emphasize those principles and to draw this matter to the attention of the House for the second time, in the manner in which a great principle affirmed unanimously by this House in 1891 should be again repeated and emphasized. The principle announced, struggled for, claimed as a great victory by the Liberal party in 1891 has been departed from in 1910, and is in danger of being departed from again in 1911; to emphasize further my desire as to the need of a rigid adherence to these principles by asking the House to accept the resolution which I will move at the conclusion of my remarks, a copy of which has already been placed in the hands of the Prime Minister. Sir, the resolution which I shall place in your hands is based upon one of twenty years ago. On August 13, 1891, the right hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, then a prominent member of the opposition of this House moved the following resolution on going into Supply and not as a vote of want of confidence:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be resolved: That the acceptance of gifts or testimonials of any kind on the part of ministers of the Crown or of any member of their families from contractors, government officials or other persons having pecuniary relations with the government, is entirely opposed to sound principles of administration, and is calculated to bring parliamentary government into contempt, and that the example thus given tends to corrupt and demoralize the officials serving under ministers who have accepted or permitted the acceptance of gifts or testimonials as aforesaid.
I shall ask the House to reiterate and reaffirm these words in the light of recent events, and I cannot help noticing that at the time that resolution was passed, lodged as it was against the late Sir John A. Macdonald as well as others, lodged against members of the family of that right hon. gentleman toy my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, Sir John Macdonald had hardly been two months in his grave. Yet my right hon. friend on the 3rd of May last, and his friends now, can jeer and treat me with contumely because I endeavoured, as is my public duty, to refer moderately to that resolution and to express my desire not to go beyond the limits of what would be proper in dealing with a subject inviting such delicate and proper treatment. I have no desire to injure any public man; I am not here for that purpose and I say no one can truthfully say that there is any attempt in referring to this matter to detract from any prestige which the friends of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance are of opinion he has gained by recent events, meaning the negotiations at Washington. I brought this matter to the attention of the
House on May 3 last, and gave notice of my intention to discuss this matter before the return of the Finance Minister from Washington, and when on the day I expected my hon. friend to be in the House I found he was not, I postponed the discussion until he should return. In all that I say about my friend, the Minister of Finance, I spehk after due notice, and I am glad to say in his presence. I say it when his friends laud him, and I am not going to say improperly-think, he is erect in public opinion, when he is in the eyes of the whole commercial world, when his followers believe him to be strong in the confidence of the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The full disclosure now by the Minister of Finance or by the right hon. the Prime Minister of facts and circumstances long withheld from this HOuse and this country can form the only justification of this transaction, and further withholding of information which it is of the utmost importance that this House and this country should have, can only avoid one unfortunate circumstance and that is that grave suspicion must hang over a minister of the Crown of this country.
Let us discuss for a moment the manner in which the resolution of Sir Richard Cartwright was supported. The right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this government, then a prominent member of the opposition, spoke to the resolution as follows: at page 3829 of the ' Hansard * of 1891:
You cannot by possibility-and every man knows that I speak the truth-you cannot by possibility allow a minister of the state to accept gifts of any kind, without, if the practice becomes known, demoralizing in a very high degree the whole society over which he presides.
Those are not my words, those are the words of a minister high in the confidence of this government, of an hon. minister presiding over a very important part of this government, the Department of Trade and Commerce.
At page 3831 of the same ' Hansard,' Sir Richard Cartwright said:
I have observed, Sir, that some of the hon. gentleman's apologists have undertaken to mitigate the error, or the crime, call it what you will, which was committed by the reception of that testimonial under the circumstances, by the plea, which I think was also advanced in the other case, that the hon. gentleman did not know who had subscribed to his testimonial. Such a plea, in my judgment, is a direct aggravation of the offence. A public minister has no right whatever to allow any gift to be made to him unless it is done publicly, and unless he knows from what sources it proceeds; and, Sir, I would say this, that if a minister of the Crown tells

me that he has accepted a gift, not knowing and not choosing to know from whom it proceeded, so far from regarding such a plea as a mitigation, I say that such a plea raises a presumption of guilt. It was his duty to know it; it was his duty to find out; it was Iris duty to see that not one penny went into his pockets or into his coffers unless it came from such sources that he could honourably and fairly receive it.
Now, Sir, the leader of the opposition of that day, who is now the Prime Minister of this country, in the same debate, made use of these words -which I quote from page 3840.
The Minister of Justice said a moment ago in reference to the testimonial offered to the honourable Minister of Public Works, the member for Three Rivers, that that hon. gentleman did not know who were the subscribers. Sir, if he did not know, why did he not look at the list? If the hon. gentleman did not know, it was because he choose to remain ignorant of who were the names on the list, and if he chose to be ignorant of the names which are on the list, is it not because his moral sense told him that he might there find names of persons giving contributions which could not be accepted at all? Is it not simply because his conscience told him that if he were to look at that list he would find there the names of men who were every day supplicants in his office for favours? That is the reason why the honourable Minister of Public Works did not choose to have a look at that list. If that is not the reason why did he choose to he blind on that matter? Then, I call upon hon. gentlemen opposite to tell what is the reason, if there could he any good reason for it. Certainly there could be nothing wrong in the admirers of a man in public life coming to his help and rescuing him; hut it seems to me that the recipient of such favours would he naturally too glad to know who are the persons to whom he owes gratitude, and if he does not choose to know who are those to whom he owes gratitude, it must he because his moral sense tells him that he would find there names which would he a ccndemnation of his accepting such a testimonial.
Sir, these are not my words, they are not the words of any gentleman on this side of the House, they are the words of the present Prime Minister of Canada who is sitting at the right hand of the Minister of Finance. But in conjunction with a testimonial involving the gift of a large sum of money, said to be as much as $120,000, presented last April or May to the Finance Minister, let us see what *was said by the party organs with regard to it, and let us see how much it is in line with what my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said on that occasion. The Ottawa ' Free Press,' the government organ in this city, published the day after the testimonial was presented, made this remark ;
The list of donors is anonymous, and Mr. Fielding is made aware only of the fact that Mr. BOYCE.
the future of himself and his family is provided for.
My right hon. friend says there is only one justification, namely, that there is a list, and that the list is made public ; that if a public man chooses to accept a testimonial in the shape of a gift of money, and chooses not to look at the list, it must *be because his moral sense tells him that he would find on it the names of the men who ought not to -be there. That is the position. In view, therefore, of the fact that the Minister of Finance did, early in the spring of 1910, receive a large testimonial in the shape of a sum of money amounting to a fortune, without knowing who contributed it, the case falls directly under the condemnation of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House. The testimonial,\if we are to understand aright what the right hon. gentleman said on the 3rd day of May last in this House, was accepted ; it was accepted in the presence of the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister of this country who was himself present, agreed to, approved of, and applauded the giving of that testimonial, entirely in contravention of the words and the principles which he had laid down in 1891. Yet there has been no list of the donors made public, and there was a statement, not denied by my right hon. friend, that the Minister of Finance did not know who the donors were. I do not say, Mr. Speaker,
I do not desire to be understood as saying, that under all circumstances and conditions the friends of a cabinet minister may not, in his hour of need, come to his rescue, and in their enthusiasm and admiration for the services he has rendered in a public capacity, make that provision for ' him which his devotion to the pressing cares of state has made it impossible for him to provide for himself. This principle was laid down by the present Prime Minister when speaking to the resolution of the 13th, of August, 1891, and I will again run the risk of wearying the House with a short quotation from page 3840 of the ' Hansard ':
Of course, in the matter of this testimonial, it is an act absolutely indifferent in itself. It may he wrong or it may he good, according to circumstances, but if such an act is done in the open light of day, then, Sir, it is the best prohibition that there can he against any wrong taking place.
I have the utmost sympathy, Mr. Speaker, for any public man who, having devoted the best years of his earning power to the service of his country, finds himself, when the years are crowding upon him, in a state of embarrassed circumstances, which contribute their bitterness to the weight of his care. But I say that public men, especially ministers of the Crown, must realize that gifts of money to releive their embarrassment must only

be accepted under the most stringent safeguards of public honour and national integrity, the most important of which, as has been said, is absolute publicity to the light of day, letting the people know who furnished the funds constituting that testimonial, letting them see that nothing 'is concealed, that there wab nothing wrong, that everything is open to the broad light of day, before all men. Sir, those were the facts before the public of this country prior to the 3rd day of May, 1910, facts which, as I have stated, were banded about in the public newspapers of this country prior to that date- except of course the facts which have taken place since. And how was I then not justified, on the third day of May, 1910, in referring to that matter in this House, with an idea of doing what? Of criticising the Finance Minister? No, Sir, I defy any hon. gentleman opposite to say that the remarks I made on the 3rd of May, 1910, were not offered in a fair and reasonable spirit, that they were not moderate and temperate remarks, and I say they called for a more dignified reception than that accorded them by the right hon. the Prime Minister. I asked the right hon. gentleman if there was a list, I asked the right hon. gentleman whether he would produce that list, I asked him to name the services for which the testimonial was granted; and the right hon. gentleman scornfully and satirically characterized my inquiry as ' curiosity,' curiosity which he emphasized by repeating the word twice. Now, Sir, the Prime Minister's reply, on the 3rd May last, is worthy of some consideration by this House, in view of the circumstances in bygone years when, as leader of the opposition, he was declaiming against the Conservative party. The right hon. gentleman commenced by emphasizing the manifest and undoubted integrity of the Minister of Finance. Who doubted the integrity of the Minister of Finance? I certainly never did. There was no remark made by me which would cast any aspersion on the Minister of Finance. I have no desire now to cast any aspersion upon the integrity of the Minister of Finance further than the right hon. gentleman cast upon him himself by attempting _ to derogate from his honour by placing a shield where the rays of the sunlight of day ought ever to be falfing on a public man. The right hon. gentleman said on that occasion that the friends of Mr. Fielding came to him and that the reply that he gave them was that ' There is nothing too good for Fielding,' to use his own words.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. TALBOT.: We think so still.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have no doubt. The right hon. the Prime Minister, under certain other circumstances said of another minister of the Crown that he was prouder of him than ever. The Prime Minister did not stipulate that there should be a public list, he did not lay down any of the precautions that Shis resolution and his remarks in support of his resolution of the 13th of August, 1891, called for. He did not provide that there should be a list, that that list should be open to the light of day, and to the public and that it should be approved of by the Minister of Finance himself. The Prime Minister made a statement on his own responsibility that no one had subscribed to that list whose name ought not to be there. On page 8791 of * Hansard ' of last session, the right hon. gentleman says that:
The money came from private sources.
Of course it did. It did not come from the public treasury-it was not as bad as that.
The money came from private sources; that I assert on my honour as a man, on my responsibility as the Prime Minister of Canada.
The right hop. gentleman, having pledged his responsibility as the Prime Minister of Canada, that this money came from private sources, is unable to tell me, in referring to the newspaper report that the Dominion Steel Company had contributed, where the money came from because he says that he does not know whether the company contributed or not. There is a remarkable contrast, the remarkable state of things with regard to a very important subject in which a very large principle is involved. May I ask the right hon. gentleman what he meant when he said that upon his honour as a man and upon his responsibility as the Prime Minister of this country he could assert that this money came from private sources, that not one dollar was subscribed by any person who ought not to have subscribed and why he should also say in the same speech and almost in the same breath when asked if the Dominion Steel Company had subscribed, that he had no personal knowledge? With regard to the Dominion Steel Company, he said :
I do not believe there is a word of truth in it. At all events, if such an institution as that had been allowed to subscribe, it would be a gross breach of the understanding which was arrived at when Mr. Fielding's testimonial was started.
How does the right hon. gentleman square one statement with the other? How can he pledge his honour as a man and his responsibility as Prime Minister in answering a very important question upon a very important principle, pledging himself and committing himself to a certain statement,

while, with regard to another subscription, saying that he does not know whether it is so or not and that if it is so it should not be allowed? Therefore, I say in criticism further of the hon. gentleman's attitude on May 3 last, that he did not deal fairly, with me or with this House, or with this country with regard to this question, and I leave it to the judgment of the House in view of what I have just quoted as to whether the right hon. gentleman did or did not. Why should the right hon. gentleman side-track the information in that way? Why should he pledge his responsibility and a moment afterwards confess that he had not personal knowledge upon which to base the responsibility that he pledged before the House on this important matter? On May 3, 1910, I asked for the production of the list and I will just quote from page 8789 of ' Hansard ' of that date the concluding words of the remarks that I then offered to the House:
I shall not attempt to dwell upon the principles involved nor to moralize upon the dangers of the situation, but I feel safe in assuming that my right hon. friend, realizing that he spoke upon this resolution in 1891, and that he congratulated his party upon the signal victory obtained, will see that the grand victory of which he speaks, and which was attained as he would argue through blood and tears, be not besmirched now in 1910 by a derogation from the principles then enunciated. The only way, as I submit, in which my hon. friend can put himself square with the resolution, the only way in which I submit he can discharge the duty he owes to this country as Prime Minister and leader of the government, is to make full disclosure, and publish the names and lay the list on the fable.
The Prime Minister, in effect, declined to do that, did absolutely nothing, took no action, made no statement to the effect that the list should he published, although the list was in existence, absolutely departed from the resolution of 1891 and* from all the principles which he enunciated in support of that resolution. Why has there not been a statement since that time ? A testimonial of so large a sum of money as $120,000, a fortune, presented to a minister of the Crown in secrecy, subscribed by persons whose names are absolutely withheld on the demand of this House-why is there this secrecy ? Can the right hon. gentleman now offer to this House or the country any excuse whatever for withholding the names of those who subscribed to that testimonial, for withholding since that time the testimonial which was given and will the right hon. gentleman now offer to the House any reasonable excuse why the list has not been made public which was demanded on the 3rd May, 1910. I would be very glad indeed to have an answer from the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Mr. BOYCE.
Speaker, I have offered to take my seat end give the right hon. gentleman the floor in order that he might reply to a question which, when he was in opposition, he thundered at the then government, and, Sir, he is speechless. Then, Sir, I hurl my right hon. friend's words back in his teeth, though twenty long years have rolled by since he uttered them. There being a list -and he has admitted that there is a list -and the Minister of Finance not knowing the names of those on the list, then I say to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the words I have just quoted from his speech with regard to moral sense, rectitude and public integrity are borne out, and he, and he alone, under these circumstances, must bear the onus and the odium. What condition of things has he brought about ? What do we find the newspapers saying regarding our public men ? How have the newspapers been reviling the Minister of Finance in a way that no man in private life would tolerate for one half hour. Here I extract firm the St. John 'Standard' of the 20th of January


Mr. CAEVELL.: A bad authority.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am not saying what kind of newspapers these are, but that any kind of newspapers


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is in a class by itself.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: And you are in a class by yourself. In the front page of this newspaper, the St. John 'Standard,' is a flaring headline with these words: 'Mr. Fielding got stolen money.' A nice statement for the right hon. Prime Minister to make it possible to publish in any newspaper ! Will the Prime Minister suggest that any newspaper in this broad Dominion would have the audacity to make such a statement concerning a public man had the Prime Minister given to this country the list of contributors to this fund? Or will he suggest that the editor wfho made such a statement could have remained outside a jail ? Why, it would have been a criminal libel of the most outrageous character, and the newspaper would have been utterly without defence to it, if the Prime Minister had been true to his pledges and to these great principles that he enunciated. This article and others, published in the press throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion, declare that it is reported upon high authority that Wm. E. Travers, late general manager of the Farmers' Bank -now under sentence of six years' imprisonment for stealing money from the bank, falsifying government returns, which led to a terrible financial catastrophe in the shape of a bank failure-had contributed to this testimonial the sum of $2,500. And who, I ask, is responsible for that state-

mentP Who but the Prime Minister of Canada is responsible for the fact that it is possible for anybody to say that Travers, or Sheldon of Montreal, or any other person has contributed a dollar to this testimonial ? I give my right hon. friend this *warning for what it may be worth-that he has gone a step too far. In departing from his principles, in his hysterical effort to cloak and cover up this transaction in which his Minister of Finance is concerned, he has brought down upon his colleague very severe criticism and very grave suspicion under which, unless this list be published, I fear the Minister of Finance -by reason of the action of the Prime Minister-will suffer for some time. Here is the evening ' Capital ' of Saskatoon. I do not know what kind of a paper it is-


Mr. McCRANEY.: It is a Tory paper.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I do not take responsibility for the statements of these papers; I merely indicate what is printed in them to let the public know that the Prime Minister and he alone is responsible for what they say. This is one of the few instances in which one can saddle the Prime Minister with full responsibility for what is published in a Conservative newspaper. In the evening ' Capital ' of Saskatoon, of January 20, instant, appears this heading, ' Convicted bank manager said to have contributed to Fielding testimonial.' Now, I ask the Prime Minister, in all sincerity and earnestness, and realizing the gravity of what that means-and no one knows how intense is the gravity of a personal character for the hon. gentleman about whom it is said-why does not he relieve his friend the Minister of Finance from his lying under an imputation so gross, so awful so criminal as this, when to do so he has only to stick to his principles and publish this list?
It has been suggested that all sorts of people have contributed to that testimonial. My right hon. friend has seen, as I have, the names of different persons given as contributors to this testimonial, persons occupying high positions in this country, many of whom have pecuniary relations with the government in one department or another, but especially with the department of the Finance Minister, almost every day of their commercial lives. Is it fair, is it just, is it in accord with the principle that my right non. friend laid down, that it should be possible that such a statement as that should go out to the public, yet not be brought into this House and denied when by that statement a minister of the Crown is laid under grave suspicion?
I need not mention names of those who, it is said, contributed. It is advisable not to do so in the absence of their verification. I do not know the number of them, although I might give him greater evidence than possibly he thinks I may be able to give with regard to these names. But I say it is not my intention in this debate to indulge in personalities, or to implicate one person more than another. I desire merely to emphasize those grand and noble principles, which my right hon. friend on the 13th of August, 1891, hailed with delight as the achievement of a magnificent principle, a principle long fought for by the Liberal party in this House, and long denied by the then Conservative government, which principle at last, owing to the arguments brought forward and the tactics employed by my right hon. friend as leader of the opposition, they were forced to concede in the interests of purity of government. If that testimonial, in the shape of the gift of a fortune, were given and accepted in the manner and under the circumstances set out in the newspapers of the day, and in the newspapers which have been publishing accounts of it in the last nine months, I say that the giving of it and the acceptance of if would be a brazen defiance of the first principles of parliamentary government, of the resolution of this House, of the pronounced views of the present ministry, including _ the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and of all decent and honest practice which should characterize public men.
That a public man occupying so high a position should toe allowed, and should be led into-because that is the way I prefer to put it, as I fancy my hon. friend engineered the whole deal-led into the position in which he now finds his minister, an absolutely inextricable position, from which there is no outlet except that which he provided for himself in 1891, the publication of the list, is a most startling fact to put before this House, and the country, and I say that if he persists in that position, it is a disgrace to our public men and a tolot on this administration, a blot possibly darker and more flagrant than any of the dark blots which have characterized it. Sir, we have charged in this House since 1896 different scandals against this government. We have charged that under this government there is the reign of the middleman, and the grafter, dishonesty in public affairs, and wantoness in the expenditure of public money. If the Prime Minister clouds this thing with a cloak of secrecy in defiance of his own principles enunciated in this House, it is a fitting climax to the carnival of graft and corruption that has characterized his administration. I ask my right hon. friend now, where did the money come from? I do not ask it lightly ; I ask it in all seriousness ; because he repeated that question himself

in this House in May, 1910, and then gave an answer on his responsibility as Prime Minister of Canada which, if a six-year-old boy bad given at school, he would have been whipped. He first said that the money had come from private sources, and then he said he did not know where it had come from except one subscription which was charged, but if it had come from that source, it -was wrong. I am entitled to know, every member of this House is entitled to know, every taxpayer in this country, man, woman and child, is entitled to know, where that money came from. I am here to know-I am here to demand- I believe this House is entitled to demand- where that money came from ; and if the Prime Minister will awake to a realization of the position in which he has placed this country, and one of his ministers, he will see that it is of the utmost importance to this House and this country, for him now to tell where that money came from. 1 ask my right hon. friend. another question here and now : Can a minister of state accept gifts of money privately subscribed, withholding the list of subscribers, and unhold the dignity of the Crown which he serves as a minister? I ask my right hon. friend to answer ; if he will, I will be glad to give place to him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Sir, my right hon. friend is great at quotations. Sometimes he likes to quote the blunt and rugged honesty of the words of the late Hon. George Brown. My right hon. friend is quite an admirer of the writings, and the position taken by that late hon. gentleman on certain great questions. I want now, for the benefit of my right hon. friend particularly, and for the benefit of this House, to quote to him words of the late Hon. George Brown with which I have no doubt he is very familiar :
If, Sir, a public man avows certain principles, agitates those principles and seeks to overthrow the government of the day and establishes those principles, and if when he attains power he laughs at his principles and casts his professions to the winds, he is aiming a blow at public morality.
Shades of George Brown, Mr. Speaker! When the right hon. gentleman cannot rise in his place in this House and affirm a principle which he adhered to so strongly in 1891, when he was struggling to attain the confidence of the Canadian people. I say my right hon. friend occupies a very invidious position in the light of the words which I have just quoted, when he declines or is unable to answer a question so pointedly put to him, a question so near the heart of this great question which affects so deeply the honour of this great Dominion. Along that line I might ask the right hon. gentleman another Mr. BOYCE.
question: will he deny that in 1891 he affirmed that if a minister accepted gifts of money without ascertaining himself and then making public the list of the subscribers thereto, he was aiming a blow at public morality? Can my right hon. friend answer that question? Will my right hon. friend deny that if the act of giving testimonials to ministers was done in. the open light of day, it would be the best safeguard that there could possibly be against any wrong taking place? I must confess that I never saw the right hon. gentleman so reluctant to answer questions in this House as he is to-day. I would ask him whether he did not affirm in this House in 1891 that the receiving of such testimonials without publicity was causing the name of Canada to become a byword and a reproach? The Prime Minister stated in May, 1910, that there was a list. An hon. friend near me suggests that I should go further and ask the right hon. gentleman whether he saw the list of subscribers to that testimonial? Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in all seriousness. My right hon. friend evaded my moderate question in this House on the 3rd of May, 1910, by saying that there was no name on the list which ought not properly to be read, and he pledged his responsibility as Prime Minister of this country to that effect. I ask him here and now whether he saw the list of names of persons who subscribed to that testimonial,, and with the utmost pleasure I will takei my seat to give my right hon. friend an opportunity to reply to that most potent question-Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that I gave place to my right hon. friend, he still elects to maintain a silence which' in my humble judgment is anything bufi dignified. I will ask him one more question on this, most important matter: Was he not present and did he not see the testimonial presented to the hon. Minister of Finance, and did he not approve of it, applaud it, and at the time he approved of it had he seen the list of persons who subscribed to it? I ask the right hon. gentleman again whether he was not present when that testimonial was presented to the Finance Minister, whether he did not approve of it and applaud it, and whether he had not at the time a list of those who subscribed to it? Will he answer that question? He is silent, but if any significance is to be attached to the stand he took in 1891 and the charges he made against the Conservative party of that day in that connection, it is of the utmost importance now that we should have from him a full disclosure of all the facts. And I say that he is not upholding the dignity of the, country when he refuses to answer a question of such pith and moment. It is

a question, in the asking of which I am within my rights and privileges in this free parliament, and it is a question, in' refusing to answer which, the right hon. gentleman shows his autocratic contempt for the people and their representatives. In view of the right hon. gentleman's silence, may I again ask him now whether he is prepared to affirm that a cabinet minister may properly receive money from any source and refuse to make public the subscribers of that money, so as to satisfy public opinion that there is no wrong? I see the hopelessness of trying to get from the right hon. gentleman further information and must simply draw the only conclusion which can be drawn from his continued silence.
What is the position in which the right hon. gentieman and the subscribers to this fund have placed the Minister of Finance? In what position is the Minister of Finance after accepting, upon the assurance, no doubt, given him by the Prime Minister that it was all right, that nothing was too good for Fielding-what is the position in which the Finance Minister finds himself after accepting this gift, without seeing the list of those who gave it? What a commentary on the conduct of the Finance Minister must be the declaration of the right hon. gentleman made in 1891 as to what was right and proper in this connection? Can any one urge any good reason why the Prime Minister, in flat defiance of the principles! laid down by himself, should now refuse to publish the list? I am asking him in 1911 the very question which he himself hurled across the floor in 1891. My right hon. friend knew who subscribed to that testimonial to the Finance Minister and he must have pledged his responsibility, not only as a private citizen but as Prime Minister, that there was nothing improper in connection with it. Then, in the name of all that is fair and reasonable, why does he not make the list of subscribers public? How long is he going, to allow this condition of things to continue? How long is it going to be possible for newspapers all through the country, without fear of libel suits, to make statements reflecting on the honour and credit of ministers of the Crown? Why does he not remove the, aspersions that are being cast on himself and his colleagues? If there be no improper subscription, let him publish the list and raise even at this late hour the cloud which rests on the Minister of Finance and which must continue to rest on him so long as this information is withheld. The very evil at which the resolution of the right hon. the Prime Minister in 1891 was aimed is the one which is now being perpetrated by him. I am of the opinion that public men who serve in the capacity of ministers of the Crown should be adequately rewarded. They
sacrifice a great deal, they sacrifice their personal means and health, they give to their country all their ability, all their time and all their strength; and 1 say that when the Minister of Finance in 1905 introduced a measure to provide life pensions for Privy Councillors, he did the right thing. And I know of no valid reason which warranted the hori. gentleman repealing in 1906 the measure which he put through the House in 1905 and in thus subjecting cabinet ministers to embarrassements such as are now being experienced by the Minister of Finance. On the 17th Anril, 1905, the Finance Minister moved a Bill which went through its three leadings based upon this resolution:
That it is expedient that every member of the Privy Council, who has served as cabinet ministers and head of a department for a period of five consecutive years shall, upon retirement from the cabinet, be entitled to receive out of the consolidated revenue of Canada

Not out of personal subscriptions

-an annuity equal to one-half the salary attached to his office.
Out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, an annuity equal to one-half the salary attached to his office, or position at the time of his retirement.
2. If any person receiving an annuity hereunder becomes entitled to any salary in respect of any public office under the government of Canada, or to the additional sessional allowance provided for the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, such salary or allowance shall be reduced by the amount of such annuity.
Sir, what was that Bill for? My hon. friend in moving that said that cabinet ministers were in the same position as judges, they had similar duties to perform, they were in the same dignified position and should be provided for to the same extent. That is a very rational and logical argument and one that calls for this question which I will address to all hon. gentlemen sitting on the government benches: What would they think of a judge occupying a seat on the bench receiving a testimonial from erstwhile clients or suiters, from litigious or lion-litigious persons who might at any date have suits before him? Would my hon. friend think it decent or proper that a judge of the High Court should receive such a testimonial of large sums of money? It would have been far better if the Minister of Finance had stuck to his bill of 1905 instead of receding from it in 1906 and saying that he was in favour of it, that he thought the principle was a sound one but was afraid of public opinion. I wonder if he is less afraid of public opinion now. This is what the Prime Minister said on that question on July 10, 1996:


William Stevens Fielding: having kept faith with me. As it is not too late to retrace your steps, before you go further with this transaction, I want you and others concerned in it, to examine that list, and if you find that inadvertently any man has been permitted to make the smallest contribution to that list, who does not come within the category of those who were to be permitted to subscribe, I insist that you shall send him back his money, and do it instantly. That was the understanding I have had. I have no doubt that that gentleman with whom I was dealing, acted in good faith, I know that he wanted to do what was right in the matter; I know that he and his associates were moved only by what they were pleased to regard as an appreciation, perhaps too great an appreciation, of my services-they were moved by personal regard and friendship for me. They gave me the assurance that they would not permit a dollar to be accepted from sources that would be open to objection. Having received that assurance, and feeling satisfied that they were acting in good faith, and that not one dollar was accepted which would come within the terms of the discussion of former years, I felt, Sir, that I was justified in receiving the testimonial. I confess that, while the testimonial itself was one that a public man would value, and I did value it, T valued still more the expression of good will, confidence and regard which it brought to me from different parts of Canada, from men of all parties, from Conservatives as well as Liberals and, aye, from men who sit on your left to-day, Mr. Speaker, and for whose congratulations I was deeply grateful.
I do not desire to enter into any of the matters, which may be matters of controversy, referred to by the hon. member for Algoma, My purpose is simply to state the facts as they are known to me, the conditions under which this proposal came to me, the conditions under which I accepted it, and, whatever others may think. I feel that those -who know me, whether they be my political friends or my political foes, will believe that the statement I present today is an exact statement of the facts, and I question whether anybody can say that a testimonial accepted under such conditions, is anything that would reflect upon my honour, or the honour of my colleagues, or upon my independent action as a member of this legislature.


Mr. MILLER (South Grey).: Mr. Speaker. and gentlemen,-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Horton Miller: I am very glad


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. MILLER, If, Mr. Speaker, I supplied the word ' gentlemen ' to those sitting on the other side of the House, or to any of them, and if, in saying that, I said anything that was unparliamentary I beg to take it back. Mr. Speaker, I am glad, I am delighted to think that there is but one man in this House of Commons upon either side who could be induced to make the attack which has been made this afternoon. The hon. member who made the attack used these .words :	' I have no desire
to injure any public man.' House flies are said to carry typhoid fever germs, mosquitoes are supposed to scatter yellow fever, there are even said to be in the water we drink millions of little bacilli that are able to conceal themselves in a drop of water, and yet are able to do much harm and scatter disease. I do not think that the hon. member (Mr. Boyce) who has addressed the House this afternoon bids fair ever to become large enough or great enough to do the slightest injury to any public man by anything which lie might say or do. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I was not surprised when the hon. member rose 'to his feet, nor was I surprised by anything he said. I was surprised that some hon. gentlemen, to whom I have been very willing to apply the word 1 gentleman,' applauded him as they did, but I was gratified indeed to notice that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) gave no sign of approval by any applause or any look of pleasure or satisfaction. I was glad to observe that the most prominent, the most influential, the most respected men on the other side of the House did not give any measure of applause. I think. Sir, that the leader of the opposition would have restrained the young man had he reasonably been able to do so, and I shall be astonished if he votes for the resolution which has been propounded. I noticed that some of the most respected members of the other side of the House were wrapped in slumber while the hon. gentleman spoke as he did. The hon. member quoted all the newspapers without asking the names of these papers. He said : 'any newspaper,' and he appeared willing to make his attack from any report, or any newspaper or any other source from which a report could be found or discovered.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
Mr. MILLER-from any source-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am speaking to a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member lias paid me many compliments, but I object to his mis-stating what I said. I mentioned the name of every newspaper from which I quoted, or from which I extracted the headlines.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. member distinctly said ' any newspaper ' and his whole address showed a willingness to use whatever story would help him in his attack.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the hon. member (Mr. Miller) must accept the hon. gentleman's version of his own statement, or his version of what he intended to say.


Henry Horton Miller: I willingly do.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I ask my hon. friend then to withdraw the expression ' any newspaper.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.
Mr. MILLER-Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the hon. member (Mr. Miller) to say that he is willing to obey the ruling of the Chair. The custom is to accept the statement of an hon. member.


Henry Horton Miller: I have not the slightest idea of not observing your ruling in any matter, Mr. Speaker. I do not' clearly understand the point of order. I quoted the hon. gentleman's words. If I quoted them incorrectly I am quite willing, of course, to accept his statement. I am speaking on this occasion because I was a member of the committee which assisted in Collecting the Fielding fund. I might repeat that the understanding from the beginning to the end of the whole transaction, was, as has been stated that not a dollar should be accepted from any government contractor, from any government official, or any person having anything whatever to do with the Finance Department or with the government. It is urged that there ought to have been publicity, that the list of donors ought to have been published. Let me say, Sir, that there is no one who has the power to compel the publishing of such a list. The members of the committee determined from the very beginning that the names of the donors should not be revealed to Mr. Fielding or be made public in any way. The list is not the property even of the Prime Minister. It is tht property of the committee by whom the funds were collected. It is not within the power of any man to say that the list shall be made public because it would be con-, trary to the understanding from the very beginning by the committee who collected the money.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: That is the policy laid down by the Prime Minister himself.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. member for Leeds speaks of the policy laid down by the hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-ner) himself. The whole volume of the 88
attack of the hon. member for Algoma was based upon a resolution supported by the Prime Minister in this House in 1891.' But as was distinctly stated by the hon. member for Algoma, that resolution was adopted because of gifts from contractors, government officials, and a number of persons having to do with the government. That was one thing. The matter before us now is entirely another thing, is as distinct and different as can be. It has been said repeatedly, it has been said correctly, that it was the understanding from the beginning that not a dollar should be accepted from any such person, and that understanding has been faithfully adhered to. Sir, I have collected moneys before, and for different objects, and for different persons, but I have never taken-


Mr. STAPLES.: I would like to ask the hon. member a question. He has told the House that he was the promoter of this great undertaking-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William D. Staples: Then, one of the committee-if you cannot understand, I will be more explicit and quote the hon. gentleman's words; he was one of the committee. Then, I ask the hon. gentleman where is the list?


Henry Horton Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have never undertaken any task that afforded me greater pleasure than did the gathering of that part of the money that I did gather as a testimonal to Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance. Never were requests more cheerfully responded to, never did men seem more willing to contribute. And, Sir, these contributions came from all classes of men, men of all professions and belonging to both political parties; and not one of them within the classes condemned bv -the resolution supported by the Prime Minister in 1891. Many of the subscriptions were voluntary; many came from persons who were not asked to subscribe. And many who subscribed gave the heartiest expressions of appreciation of the value of Hon. Mr. Fielding's services to this country.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I desire


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member from South Grey (Mr. Miller) has the floor. If he consents


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman has said


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for South Grey has the floor and cannot be interrupted.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There must be an understanding, The hon. member for South Grey has the floor


William Cameron Edwards: I want to know if he will permit me to ask a question?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the hon. gentleman does not wish to give that permission.


Henry Horton Miller: Never before has there been a greater example on the part of any Canadian citizen of devotion to duty than the example shown for fourteen years while Minister of Finance by Hon. Mr. Fielding. During that fourteen years, he has served this country as well as any public man ever served any country. And, let me add. expressions of kindliness, of appreciation, of confidence, were just as common from Conservatives as they were from members of the Liberal party. And it may not be generally .known to members of this House or to the people of Canada that, time and again, on more than one occasion, Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance, has been offered, and has refused, from private business institutions salaries far in advance of any he has ever received or any indemnity ever given him as Finance Minister of this Dominion.
As chairman of the Banking and Commerce Committee, during last session and the session before, when the committee was very busily engaged with the general insurance Act, 'in which members of both sides of the House took a deep interest, day after day, I noticed that Mr. Fielding, who was at my side while I presided over that committee, would call a messenger as the hour of adjournment approached, and send him for a lunch to be taken to Mr. Fielding's room. And, in place of spending an hour or an hour and a half as business men are in the habit of doing, in club or lunch-room, Mr. Fielding partook of his lunch while dictating letters or reading correspondence. It is a fact well known to every member of this House and to a great many business men of Canada at least, that Hon. Mr. Fielding has so devoted his time and thought and energy to the duties of his position and the interests of Canada, that he has paid not the slightest regard to his own business affairs, his own fortune, or the accumulation of any provision for himself or his family. I have heard members on both sides speak in the highest terms of Mr. Courtney, who was, until a few years ago, Deputy Finance Minister. Mr. Courtney is a man of experience, and a man of undoubted integrity, and, so far as he has any political leanings those leanings are to the Conservative party; he was appointed by a Conservative government. I happened to be walking one afternoon with Mr. Courtney some time after he had re-Mr. EDWARDS
signed his position as Deputy Minister of Finance. He spoke of Mr. Fielding. He said that Hon. Mr. Fielding came from Nova Scotia to accept the position of Finance Minister of Canada, a fresh vigorous, hearty young man, with hair as black as raven's wings; but, he said, that with these years of devotion to duty and to his country, his hair had become whitened. And he said: ' There is not a man in Canada, whatever may be his politics, who would dare to point a finger of suspicion at Hon. Mr. Fielding, Sir, we are all proud to know that that is true. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), speaking last night, speaking, perhaps, jocosely,- said: ' If the people of Canada were foolish enough to continue in power much longer the government that now controls the affairs of the country.' Sir, if the Liberal party have been in power for fourteen years, and if, as I anticipate, they will be in power for fourteen years yet to come, it is largely because of two reasons, and of two personages. The first is the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). _ The people of this Dominion, the business men, the thinking men, of Canada, for fourteen years., have believed, as they believe today, that there is no other Canadian so well fitted to fill the position of Prime Minister as is the gentleman who now fills and adorns that position. And no less truly do the business men of Canada, whether they be Liberals or Conservatives, believe, as they have believed for the last fourteen years, that Canada has never had a Finance Minister equal in his devotion, in his integrity, in his ability, to Hon. W. S. Fielding. Sir, business men in Canada, even Conservatives, men whose every vote has been cast for the Conservative party, have hesitated to mark their ballots against this government, for the very fear that, some man other than Hon. W. S. Fielding might control the financial affairs of this country. And one of the strongest cards it has been possible to play for the Liberal government in any part of this country is to ask, ' If you vote Hon. W. 8. Fielding out of office as Finance Minister in Canada, whom do you think you are
voting in ?'	. , ,	,,
It would not have been Tight, it would not have been fair, it would scarcely have been honourable or honest,-for Hon. W. S. Fielding, when men who had no connection whatever with this government, not government oflicials, not government contractors, not men who had alliances in any way with the government, chose to Jire-sent him with a magnificent sum of money as an evidence of their esteem, of their confidence, of their approval of his longtime work for Canada-I say that when men of that class chose to present a money token to Hon. W. S. Fielding, it would not

have been right or honourable, having his family in view, for him to have refused that gift. Neither would it have been a nice thing for the gentlemen who proffered the gift to have had it refused in that way. The Hon. W. S. Fielding has given his whole life and has sacrificed his health in the service of this country ; he has refused financial positions yielding much greater revenue; and this he has done out of love for the country quite as much as any military general who has lost his life on his country's battlefields. And, Sir, when a man who has been of such great value to the country of which he is proud to be a citizen, is asked to accept a gift which has been proffered to him by his friends, I say it is not to the credit of this House that even one of its members should have been willing to make the charge which has been made to-day. Sir, I take up the morning ' Citizen ' of this city, a Conservative newspaper, and I read in it the following expression of opinion spoken by one of the clergymen of the city in his pulpit last Sunday morning:
Right of Parliament-Rev. J. W. H. Milne Condemns Actions of some Members.


Rev. J. W. H.: Milne, in his sermon Sunday in Glebe Presbyterian church, in referring to men being able to differ and yet remain friends, said:
Some men in politics can agree to differ. Some men can contend openly and honourably, yet withal retain no unkindly feeling. But even now and then there are men, even members of parliament, who are so venomous in their opposition to those who differ from them that they are ready to suggest or say anything that will leave a stain on the character of an opponent. There is something essentially villainous in the makeup of a man who, in order to gain his ends politically, will accept any story floating about and then ask a question, because privileged, with the object of destroying another who may be opposed to him. But worse still is it for any member of parliament, because shielded by four walls, to bring before the public the name of any man against whom he may have a grudge, on mere pretext of suspicion. Any man may have his name brought before the House by any member. He may be maligned by innuendos. He may, although innocent, have suspicion cast on his character, yet have no means of redress.
This may be called the right of parliament but it is not in harmony with the spirit of Christian civilization. No civilized community would tolerate the highwayman who would jump from an ambush and steal the purse of a respectable citizen and yet we permit political highwaymen, to stand up in the House and rob sincere, earnest citizens of their character. There must eventually be some means provided which will prevent such public outrages.
Sir, if I should make the application of that article which I should like, you would at once rule out my language as unparlia-88J
mentary. I am glad to believe that there is in this country perhaps only one representative of the press who would so demean himself as to have spread that garbled and false report through the length and breadth of Canada as to the contribution from W. R. Travers to the Fielding fund. And I think the hon. member who spoke this afternoon when he knew that a proper denial had been made of the story, ought at least to have been sufficiently manly to have made some reference to that denial. I hope, Sir, that, with more years of parliamentary experience, if by any chance or by any foolishness of the electorate the hon. gentleman is permitted to continue in this House, he will some day regret the action he has taken to-day, and will apologize, as I believe an apology is due, to the House, to his constituents, and to the particular member who was the object of his attack.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough).: Mr. Speaker, I regard it as a subject of regret that any hon. member of this House should be ready to take up a false statement, started by some evil-minded person, and give it so much publicity. I am aware that it is the right of every hon. member to do so;.but with that right| there is a corresponding responsibility. In>
my judgment the man who circulates a>
false story is only a degree less guilty than the man who starts it originally. If an hon. member is to deal seriously and not flippantly with a question of this kind, he ought to be able to 'produce somei proof; he ought to be brave enough to make a charge and put behind it some kind of proof before he brings the matter before the House. My hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) has not had the courage to do anything of the kind.
As I acted as a humble member of the committee in charge of the testimonial question, I think it is due to the House and to the hon. Minister of Finance that I should say a few words. I will not, discuss the general subject of donations! tjQ cabinet ministers. My opinion is that this discussion is brought on, not for the, purpose of settling any general principle* but for the mere purpose of making an unpi'ovoked attack upon the character of the Minister of Finance. This is clearly understood on both sides of the House, and it is very well understood in the country. Now, Sir, I wish to assure the House as a member of that committee that the statement made in the press and repeated in this House by the hon. member for West Algoma on the 23rd day of this month, that Mr. W. R. Travers, the late manager of the Farmers' Bank, contributed $2,500 to the Fielding memorial, is false. Not one dollar of that memorial was contributed by Mr. Travers; not one

dollar of the memorial was contributed by the Farmers' Bank, or I may say by any other hank in Canada. I wish also to assure the House that the committee was scrupulously careful that no money should be accepted from contractors, from corporations, from banks or from any party having any dealings with the government. That was the understanding on which the memorial was started, and that understanding was very carefully carried out by every member of the committee. Every dollar of that memorial was clean money contributed by the personal friends and admirers of the Minister of Finance; and I am glad to repeat, what has already/ been said in the House, that some of those are to be found in the ranks of the Conservative party. I also desire to assure the House that the utmost secrecy Sjas maintained by the committee, and that the names of the contributors were not given to the Minister of Finance. I question if he knows to-day the name of a single man who contributed to the memorial.
The fact that after 30 years of faithful service devoted to his country, his closest friends felt that something of that kind was necessary is of itself sufficient proof of the integrity and honesty of the Minister of Finance, i cannot think that the Conservative party as a whole-and I feel sure that the Conservative party in this House -are not behind the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) in the attack he has made this afternoon upon the Minister of Finance. It is quite clear that the applause which met his remarks did not come from the front benches of the opposition. My hon. friend quoted some newspapers of the baser sort speaking for the Conservative party. Let me quote in my turn from the press, and I shall not now quote from the Liberal, but from the Conservative press. I want to be permitted to read an editorial which appeared in the Kingston ' Standard,' which, I am told, is one of the old time Conservative papers of Ontario. At one time, I believe it was the organ of the late Sir John Macdonald, and is one of the decent and respectable Tory papers in this country-and I am glad to say there are a number of them. It is not a scurrilous newspaper like the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' and others I could mention. It is one of the good old fashioned, simon pure Tory papers which believes in British fair play, and I wish to be permitted to read the editorial. This is what the Kingston ' Standard ' says.
We cannot see how any political advantage is to be gained out of the statement put in circulation by sundry people and newspapers that W. R. Travers contributed $2,500 to the fund which made up the purse to the Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance. In the first place, there seems no warrant or founda-Mr. SINCLAIR.
tion for the statement; and in the second place, it is one of those petty, miserable, nasty charges that usually do their originators more harm than good-and per contra, usually do more good than harm to the person or persons at whom they are directed. Fair play in politics is, it seems to us, as necessary as fair play in business-but this charge is not fair; it is merely contemptible, for we all know, and it was announced at the time, that Mr. Fielding has never been told, has not known and does not want to know who were the contributors to his fund.
For our own part we have felt that in respect to this gift to Mr. Fielding that it could not possibly make any difference to him in his official capacity or conduct. If he is honest-and we think he is-the gift would not make him dishonest. If he is dishonest the gift would not make him more so. But, however this he, one thing is certain, and .that is that no harm will come to him through innuendos and sneers that are not worthy any decent newspaper or any decent man.
It's a great thing to know how to play a game-even a political game-fairly.
That is the opinion of one of the respectable newspapers supporting the party of my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce). It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that in these days the good name of no public man is altogether safe, especially if he takes an active part in political warfare. The late Alexander Mackenzie is now universally regarded as having been a disinterested jpure-minded statesman. Honesty and integrity are admitted to have been his chief characteristics. If any one should happen to mention Mr. Mackenzie he would say of him: Well, there is an honest man. In the history of this country, Mr. Mackenzie is considered as the Sir Galahad of Canadian public life. Yet one has only to 'turn back to the newspapers and to 'Hansard ' of that day to find that the scavengers were busy trying to blacken his character. But, thank God, they failed, and the character of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie stands to-day as an example and inspiration to young men of Canada. This attack of my hon. friend on the Minister of Finance, I regard as an analogous case. The Finance Minister had just returned from a successful mission to a foreign government. Everybody was glad, hon. gentlemen in this House generally on both sides were glad, to welcome him back and to see that his health was improved. The people of Canada, from Cape Breton to Victoria, were listening with interest to the message he brought back from Washington, and he brought back a proposed treaty which ought to earn for him the gratitude of every patriotic ;Canadian ; hut scarcely had he taken his seat in this House when he discovered that an hon. member of this House had been spending his time during his absence gathering up mud to throw at him. I want to say in closing to the scavengers outside this House-I am quite

well aware that if I were to call a member of this House a scavenger, I would be called to order-I want to say to the scavengers that their attempt to besmirch or blacken the character of the Hon. Mr. Fielding will fail. Mr. Fielding is too well known in Canada, and wherever he is known, he is respected, honoured and loved. His 15 years of faithful public service in his own native province have not been forgotten, and the 14 years during which he acted as the lieutenant of our great leader, and helped to shape the course and guide tile destiny of this country in the larger arena will always tbe one of the brightest chapters in the history of Canada. Let me tell you, Sir, that the reputation and the good faith of the Minister of Finance is one of the most precious possessions of the Canadian people. Any one who attempts to besmirch or blacken that good fame will earn the contempt from all decent Canadians that his conduct deserves. Let the scavengers throw mud if they will, it will not stick. It -did not stick to Mr. Mackenzie, and it will not stick to Mr. Fielding.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, I shall slightly vary the trend of my remarks this evening owing to the attitude assumed by hon. gentlemen opposite. I had intended to speak, as far as possible, in a purely judicial way. I shall endeavour to do so' still, but I shall bring into discussion several matters that I would have been disposed to leave out had not supporters of the government assumed such an extraordinary attitude in reference to this motion. We have reached a very unfortunate pass in Canadian affairs if a member of this House, feeling it to be his duty to do so, as it would have been the duty of many other members of this House, may not venture to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House and of the country the extraordinarv circumstances that present themselves in connection with the gift of about $120,000 to a minister of the Crown. I am quite prepared to join with anv lion, gentleman on the other side of the House in paying tribute where it is necessary, not a pecuniary tribute, but a meed of praise to any minister of the Crown who honourably and faithfully discharges his duties. I am not prepared to join with the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) who imagine that _ they should seize a circumstance that certainly reflects no credit upon the government or the Finance Minister as the occasion for fulsome and undeserved laudations such as we have had this afternoon. I have not understood that this side of the House launched any attack upon the Minister of Finance. I did not understand until the hon. member for Guysborough spoke that there was any mud-slinging. I have understood that the member for West Algoma thought it necessary, in view of circumstances that have transpired, to refer again in this House to the language which was so enthusiastically lauded by the First Minister in 1891, and from which unfortunately the ministers have signally and purposely departed. But in referring to that principle no attack has been made upon the Minister of Finance. Circumstances have arisen in connection with a gift to the Finance Minister, which having regard to the declarations of all parties in 1891, call upon the government at the earliest possible moment to make a full and fair disclosure of the persons who contributed to that testimonial. If there is an attack at all it is an attack	upon the
First Minister, certainly there is none upon the Minister of Finance. But I am prepared to say from my place in the House that I distinctly attack the position taken by the First Minister, for when I find an hon. gentleman like the First Minister declaring so emphatically in 1891 the principle and the only principle upon which a public testimonial can be made to a minister of the Crown and then find him in 1909 and 1910 distinctly going back on every statement he made on that occasion, I think it is time to call the attention of the House and of the public to the attitude of the First Minister. It is sometimes said among lawyers that in a certain class o<f cases the most unwise thing to do is to put your own client in the box and there has been no exception to that rule this afternoon, for whereas until I heard the Minister of Finance, I was prepared to believe that should the list be brought down it might establish that there were no improper contributions, I am not now prepared to take that attitude:	I thought that we were vindicating
the honour of the House by asking for the production of this document. I hoped it would show that the people had not been deceived and that contributions had not been made which ought not to have been made. I had hoped that the government would have vindicated their position by bringing down a statement of the names of the contributors and have shown that there was not one improper contribution upon that list. Why don't they do it as the right hon. gentleman said in 1891? Why don't they do it? Because they dare not do it. I challenge the First Minister now, after all that has been hurled from that side of the House, I challenge him again to get up in the House and implement the statements he made in 1891,

and say that for once he will redeem a pledge and a promise, and lay upon the table of the?House the statement that we are entitled to; and I will then join with him, or any other member of the House, in paying any reasonable measure of tribute to the Minister of Finance.
But the Finance Minister made a peculiar statement. He says, I was approached on one occasion many years ago, a gentleman proposed to make me a testimonial, and I absolutely refused. He was not tempted on that occasion. But they came again. Who were they? It would be very interesting to the people of this country to know. On that occasion the hon. gentleman parleyed, hg_hesitated, and to hesitate in a case of that kind is to be lost. He parleyed; his better judgment told him, as he said this afternoon, that the thing could not consistently be done. He says he felt that the probability was that if that subscription list was put in vogue, names would occur on it which ought not to be there, and ithere would be a political scandal. Therefore, tempted as he was- and I do not blame him for being tempted -he resisted their blandishments 'and their suggestions, and they went away. But the tempter came again, in, I think, a more unholy guise than before, came in the person of a gentleman that I will mention presently. I am no seer, but I think I can put my band upon that gentleman- not in this chamber ; but I think I can point him out, and I will point him out through the ' Globe ' newspaper presently. This gentleman came in a more tempting guise and said: We want to get up a testimonial-thoroughly disinterested, not one of the subscribers should derive anv benefit from the government, purely voluntary. Even if we are not disinterested, it is no matter, because we will never never fell who we are. And the minister listened to the voice of the tempter, and he fell; and Mr. Speaker, it was a great fall in the public life of Canada, it was a very unfortunate circumstance in the history of this country, it is something that will take us some time to wipe away. What does the minister tell us? He tells us that he made a bargain. Did you ever hear Mr. Speaker, the like before? He says: We made a hard and fast bargain, then and there, that this would be an absolute and inviolate secret for all time to come; we made a bargain behind the backs of the people whose servants we are. That is what the Minister of Finance tells us. He says: This gentleman bound himself that these names would never be divulged, and I bound myself that I wouid put mv head in the sand like an ostrich, and that I would never look to find out who these men were; and that in the meantime 1 Mr. LENNOX.
would go on as before, as if it had never happened, and administer the affairs of the Dominion of Canada, conscious though I might be, he says, that perhaps a lot of that money came from an unholy source, but I would not know it. So, he says, I made the bargain. I say, Mr. Speaker, that a more infamous bargain than that by which the Finance Minister pledged himself, to use the language of the First Minister, to be ' deaf and dumb, and blind ' for all time, was never made in the Dominion of Canada.
And was the. minister perfectly innocent in the matter ? I came here this afternoon prepared to say that in the career of the Minister of Finance, he had never put his hands into the treasury to enrich himself, that I would be in complete sympathy with him if he received private contributions from private friends, publicly made, in the face of day, before the people of Canada, and I would be glad if he got it, because I recognize that through no fault of his, perhaps, he needed it, and it was no reproach to him that he needed it. But today I have heard hon. gentlemen going out of their way to sling mud at this side of the House, and to laud the Minister of Finance as if, not only was he personally honest up to that time, but as if he were a paragon of political honesty, and an example to the people. I am not quite prepared to go that far, I recollect that in the history of this broad Dominion, where rampant extravagance has prevailed for the last twelve or fourteen years, where worse than extravagance has been witnessed in every part of the Dominion, there has been no member of parliament who has been less careful as to the manner in which he would hold his party in power, no member of this House who has Seen more reckless as to how the public money was being expended for the purpose of bringing grist to their own mill, than the Finance Minister of Canada. Whilst I am prepared to certify to his personal honesty up to this time, I am not able to close my eyes to the fact-which I would not have mentioned, but for the line the debate has taken that there has been no instance in the history of Canada, black as it is as regards the debauching of constituencies, so black as the case of the very constituency which is represented by the Minister of Finance.
Now was the Minister of Finance perfectly innocent in this infamous bargain? The fact that it was a secret bargain is a bad feature, the fact that it is kept secret is a presumption of guilt, and a very-strong one, when persisted in as we find here. But I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have here the most cogent evidence that this bargain, made by the Minister of Finance, as he tells us, with those gentle-

men in ithe guise of friends, was not a fair and bona fide bargain. In other words-the Minister of Finance did not act in perfect good faith when he made that bargain, because he tells us, this mysterious gentleman told me that ' I would never be told who the contributors were.' So far so good. I agree to that, but, he says, before I let him go from me, I asked him for one concession. I said: I may retire from public life, and I might like to know before I die as to who they were who benefited me; will you grant this request that whilst it shall be inviolably concealed so long as it may Be a source of temptation to me to do wrong, it will be divulged to me after I retire from public life? Will the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House, if it was a perfectly legitimate transaction on the part of the Finance Minister and if it was bona fide intended that no gentleman was to contribute to this testimonial who could, in any way come in contact with the minister in his public office, how could there be any difference in the situation after he had retired from office from his situation while he remained in office ? So, in moderate language, I hope, but impelled by a sense of duty as a public man, I charge that the Finance Minister in the statement he made this afternoon, proved conclusively and incontestably that he had an inkling into that transaction and into the nature of it before he parted from the mysterious friend who beguiled him on that occasion.
Well, who was this truly benevolent personage, this truly good iman, who came to him and made this bargain ? It was not the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), it was not the chairman of the Banking and Commerce Committee. It was not he because he is not a big enough man for the position. It was a bigger man than that. If I have said that the gentleman of racecourse fame was not big enough for that situation I need not say that the member for Guysborough would not fill the bill. It was not he who came. Well then, who was it? Was it a gentleman by the name of Jaffray? I think we have pretty strong and conclusive evidence that it was. Let me recall to the House the description by the Minister of Finance of the gentleman who came here and you will see at once that it will not apply to the hon. member for South Grey or the hon. member for Guysborough. He says that he was a man occupying a very important position, a very distinguished gentleman, a man high up in social circles and so on in Canada, a man of irreproachable character and a man of the highest sense of honour. I wish we had him on file here just to examine him. When I got that picture I said to myself that I did not think there was anybody
who could fill the bill except Jaffray, that gentleman of immaculate purity, that white-robed angel, slightly sprinkled with coal dusit, who had performed certain injudicious, but very profitable pilgrimages into the Orowsnest Pass. But why did I think that it was Senator Jaffray ?


George Taylor: He was one of them.


Haughton Lennox: He was one of them and a gentleman by the name of P. C. Larkin was another, and another of the beautiful quartette as far as is disclosed, was the hon. member for South Grey, the Under Secretary, if I may call him that, of the Minister of Finance, the chairman of the Banking Committee and a gentleman who can always whisper into the ear of the Minister of Finance, and tell him what he will; this man ought to go; this man ought to stay, and you can imagine what a valuable character he will be when the great Banking Act comes up for investigation at a very early date. I will have a word to say about the hon. member for South Grey, not because of his position, but because of his connection with this matter, later on.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: And Larkin.


Haughton Lennox: Larkin is a gentleman who is-oh, he is a man of means-a man of ways and means. Well now, a certain newspaper that can sling mud almost as well as we can on this side of the House, as described by the hon. member for Guysborough, was attacking the member who introduced this resolution in its editorial columns on the 25th of January last. This is the ' Globe ' and it speaks of ' The detractors of Mr. Fielding.' As soon as it is asked to have a resolution passed affirming the attitude of these gentlemen, trying to re-establish them in their faith of 1891, the ' Globe ' takeis up t,he cudgels and attacks us as ' the detractors of Mr. Fielding.' In referring to what the hon. member for Algoma had given notice of, it says:
The whole fantastic fabric is founded on falsehood from beginning to end. Had Travers contributed $2,500 or any other sum to the testimonial, Mr. Fielding would never have known of it,

Mr. Fielding never would have known of it. That is rather a significant statement. We have this fact set out by the organ of the Grit party, the first organ of the Grit party in this country, that even Travers or any other criminal, had contributed to the testimonial Mr. Fielding would never have known of it ffnd innocently would have been enjoying the secret fruits of dishonesty.
-for to this day he has not seen or in any other way been informed of the names of the contributors so careful were those who arranged the testimonial to make sure that no

contributions would be given because of a lively sense of favours to come.
These gentlemen appreciate the situation, at all events.
Senator Jaffray

That is the gentleman in disguise who came to the Finance Minister

-and Mr. P. C. Larkin, who obtained the Toronto subscriptions,

And this with Montreal is the big end of it, with the smaller fry here in the House of Commons.
-desire it to be known that neither directly nor indirectly from Mr. Travers or any one on his behalf or on behalf of the farmers' Bank was any subscription received nor' was any subscription asked for or tendered.
Am I not right in assuming that the chief engineers of this whole affair were Jaffray and Larkin? Who is Mr. Jaffray and does he come within the limits of the definition laid down by the Liberals in 1891, by that great and good man, Sir Richard Cartwright, and by that almost equally immaculate gentleman, the right hon. First Minister who leads this House? Is Jaffray a contractor with the government or not?


An hon. MEMBER.: Is Larkin?


Haughton Lennox: Is Larkin a contractor with the government or not? We know of Jaffray's connection with the * Globe ' and we know that the ' Globe ' has a better thing than this testimonial. Why not, when the ' Globe ' is annually in receipt of a tidy little sum from this government, part of it earned and a great deal of it not earned except by fulsome laudations and dishonest statements, of about $8,000 on the average So that this thing is coming fairly well home.
Before I go on, let me say, I am reminded that P. C. Larkin is not the contractor, but a tea man. And the tea men are getting a pretty nice tea party in connection with the transcontinental at the present time.
Now let me call attention to the attitude, which should be assumed by the government of Canada to contributions such as those under discussion, an attitude much loftier than is called for by the resoJ lution moved by my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce). Hon. gentlemen will recall the incident in the life of Mr. Pitt. In 1789, when King George III. was found to be incapable of carrying on affairs of state, it was necessary to appoint a regent. I will read from Mr. Stanhope's work a short quotation which will show how this affected Mr. Pitt's fortunes. On three several occasions parties approached Mr. Pitt-his circumstances being of extreme difficulty-to give him the means of living-very like the Finance Minister in Mr. LENNOX.
that particular, but very much unlike the Finance Minister, in that Mr. Pitt declined on all three occasions; and different in this respect also, that while, when the first offer uras made to him Mr. Pitt was about to retire from public life, when the second proposal was made he had actually retired from public life, but yet, having regard to the fact that he might at some future time( re-enter public life (though it was pointed out to him that the, funds collected would be paid into a bank and he would never know the name of any contributor) he answered that he would never be able to meet any body without feeling that it might be one to whom he was indebted and declined. This is Mr. Stanhope's account of the situation:
By these votes of the Commons and the Lords the ground was cleared for Pitt's proposal with respect to the Regency Bill, a proposal hitherto kept secret, and indeed not yet fully matured. But during the interval he received a most signal token of the public esteem and approbation.
It was well known by the public that Pitt would not be continued one hour in office by the Regent. It was known that he had already taken measures for returning to his first profession. It was also known, perhaps, that his neglect of his private affairs had involved him in some debts, which he trusted to discharge by an industrious application of his talents at the bar. At this very time, however, there was held, by public advertisement, a meeting

his left hand know what his right hand was doing, and never give >a whisper to the Minister of Finance when he wanted recognition as a senator later on? The hon. member for Guysborough is peculiar too. He asks why the hon. member for West Algoma had not the courage to move a resolution? Where has the hon. gentleman been sleeping? Why the hon. member for West Algoma did move a resolution, and he did exactly what the friends of the hon. member for Guysborough did in 1891. It is in really trying to reinstate them in the faith they proclaimed then that we are moving this afternoon. But they will not be reinstated; they have had a. bad career in the meantime. Then he speaks of scavengers. He appears to be sensitive as to that, and I suppose it is hard, for he has been omitted from the list.
Now, what does this all mean? Mr. Jaf-fray and Mr. Larkin in Toronto, and the right hand man of the Minister of Finance, and the aspirant for a senatorship in the House of Commons-this combination of four handling 'this list, which is to be known to anybody they like to tell it to, but is not to be known to the people of Canada. It means this, that we, forsooth, are to take the statement of these gentlemen as to who was not on the list, but we are not to get a whisper as to who were on the list. It is not who was not on the list that we are after, and that the people are asking, and that they have a right to know, but who was on the list ; and they can judge for themselves whether they are proper contributors or not. It looks to me as if it were a general concerted scheme-the. hon. member for Guysborough to represent the maritime provinces, the hon. member for South Grey to represent the province of Ontario, Jaf-fray and company to represent the big financial city of Toronto, somebody not yet divulged-and he will not be divulged after what I have said-to represent Montreal, and somebody from the west-a general levy from God knows whom, because they will not tell us.
Now, I will refer briefly to the attitude of the present First Minister, and the Liberal party in 1891, and I will try to make it clear to the House and the country that the right hon. gentleman, in putting up these gentlemen to oppose this resolution, is taking back every statement he made in 1891 as to the proper conduct of members of the Crown in a situation of the kind. First, we have his first lieutenant, Sir Richard Cartwright, that gentleman whose soul was plunged in misery if anything crooked was done unless he had a hand in it himself. That gentleman, actuated by a sincere and holy desire in 1891, just after the death of Sir John Macdonald, the man who gave him so many and so well deserved thrashings in his lifetime, moved this Mr. LENNOX.
resolution in an effort to throw' mud upon the memory of that great statesman. Although I do not believe all that Sir Richard Cartwright said at all times, I think it quite fair to take him at his word on this occasion. Referring to Sir John Macdonald's need-and he made a few complimentary remarks to make it a little more stinging as he went along. He said;
Under these circumstances, if ever, it was quite justifiable for the hon. gentleman's personal friends and admirers to have contributed for the purpose of relieving his family from any danger of want, and had two or three very obvious and very reasonable precautions been taken, no blame could have been attached to the parties who -were concerned in getting up the testimonial.
That is not as high a code of morality as they have in Britain. According to the British code, a gentleman in public life, or likely to be again connected with public life should not take gifts at all; and I am prepared myself to subscribe to that doctrine although that is not the gist of the resolution this afternoon. But the hon. gentleman proceeded:
Unfortunately these precautions were not taken, unfortunately publicity was not given, as I have always said publicity should be given, to the names of those who subscribed.
What was the gist of this statement of Sir Richard Cartwright in 1891:	It was
that the only thing which could make the transaction defensible, was publicity, not merely publicity of the fact that there was a testimonial, but of the names of those who . subscribed. And the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who sits here and would not speak this afternoon, was the gentleman who congratulated Sir Richard Cartwright very warmly on the excellent speech he had made, and who subsequently was elated over the signal victory the opposition then won in having had this resolution, which we again propose this afternoon, voted unanimously by the Conservatives. Then Sir Richard goes on:
Still more unfortunately precautions were not taken to see that subscriptions to that fund were not accepted, save from sources from which they could honourably he accepted.
The hon. gentleman proceeds to make further observations which are still more, pertinent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to pay particular heed to these expressions and apply them to the facts now under discussion.
I have observed, Sir, that some of the hou. gentleman's apologists have undertaken to mitigate the error or the crime, call it what yon will, which was committed by the reception of that testimonial, under the circumstances, by the plea, which I think was also advanced in the other case, that the hon.

gentleman did not know who had subscribed to his testimonial. Such a plea

And that is the plea advanced toy; the Minister of Finance this afternoon, and which the Prime Minister advanced a few months ago.
-such a plea, in my judgment, is a direct aggravation of the offence. A public minister has no right whatever to allow any gift to be made to him unless it is done publicly and unless he knows from what source it proceeds; and, Sir, I would say this, that if a minister of the Crown tells me that he has accepted a gift, not knowing and not choosing to know from whom it proceeded, so far from regarding such a plea as a mitigation, I say that such a plea raises a presumption of guilt.
How does that meet the case to-night ?
It was his duty to find out; it was his duty to see that not one penny went into his pockets or into his coffers unless it came from such sources that he could honourably and fairly receive it.
Did the rigiht hon. the Prime Minister adopt that view when he congratulated Sir Richard Cartwright some 20 years ago on the speech he then made in this House ? If he did, and he did, how can he justify to the people, how can he justify to his own conscience, his own conduct in swallowing himself as he is doing on this occasion. Well, Mr. Speaker, Sir Richard Cartwright is now a kind of back number, and we will take the utterances of the Prime Minister himself, and ask him to apply them to the circumstances of to-day. Then if he -can get up and tell us that he can honourably discharge his duties and act consistently with the statement he then made, and yet say that the public are not entitled to know who were the subscribers to this fund, he is performing an acrobatic feat in- morals and politics, which I did not think even he was capable of. The right hon. gentleman then said:-
The Minister of Justice said a moment ago, in referring to the testimonial offered to the honourable Minister of Public Works, the member for Three Rivers, that that hon. gentleman did not know who were the subscribers. Sir,

You can imagine the dramatic attitude and pose of the right hon. gentleman as he said these words:-
-Sir, if he did not know, why did be not look at the list


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I ask the right hon. gentleman why the Finance Minister, if he did not know who were the subscribers, * why he did not look at the list '? If the Finance Minister does not know, why does he not? It is because, before one dollar was subscribed to that fund, he entered into this
utterly indefensible bargain as he has said this afternoon, that the whole thing should be done in a hole and corner behind the backs of the people of Canada and that the people should never know, because it might happen that there were subscribers to that testimonial whose names it would not be safe to make public or to disclose to the hon. gentleman himself even after he had retired from public life. But let me go on to quote what the right hon. gentleman then said:-
If the hon. gentleman did not know, it was because he chose to remain ignorant of the names on the list, and if he chose to be ignorant, is it not because his moral sense told -him that he might there find names of persons giving contributions which should not be accepted at all. Is it not simply because his conscience told him that if he were to look at that list he would find there the names of men who every day were suppliants in his office for favours.
Has the right hon. gentleman's moral sense completely died out? Where is it to-night? Will the moral sense of the government permit them to longer continue this infamy, because it is an infamy to hide from the people of Canada these transactions in which they are fnost vitally interested. I ask the First- Minister if it is not simply because his conscience told him that if he were to look at that list he would find there the names of men who are every day suppliants in his office for favours. How is it to-night? Is it not true and does the First Minister not know it that if they were to look at that list they would find there hordes of. men, the majority of them men who, in a political sense, are from day to day suppliants in the office of the Minister of Finance for favours at the hands of the government? The hon. gentleman pronounced judgment upon it himself and I think we will leave it with that judgment. The right hon. gentleman says, summing it all up, that is the reason, the sense of conscience, the knowledge that they would be condemned in 1891 was the reason that they would not look at the list, and he says of the dead minister, that greatest statesman Canada has ever had, Sir John A. Macdonald, that was the reason that they would not look at the list. That is the reason why the Minister of Public Works did not choose to look at that list. And now that is not tihe reason why do they choose to be blind in the matter ? I call upon hon. gentlemen opposite to tell what is the reason if there can be any good reason for it. The right hon. gentleman has for the time being the matter in his hands. He ran refuse to give us this list. If it is a list such as they want us to understand it is, it will redound to the glory and to the honour of the Minister of Finance. If it is an honest list, if it is a list of persons who have the right to contribute, then the fair

name of the Minister of Finance will be vindicated above all question. Is that not a matter of some importance in the interests of Canada? Is that not a matter that ought to commend itself to the First Minister? Is that not a matter which he should grasp with eagerness ? Is it not a reasonable request on behalf of the people of Canada which the opposition are making to-nicnt? If it is not, will the First Minister tell us vhy it is not? I tell the First Minister that when he calls on his followers to vote down this resolution, as he is evidently prepared to do, he is putting a blacker mark upon his record than he has ever put there before, that there' is no more complete and utter denial of a former attitude taken by any political party in this country that the right-about-face of the government and their supporters if they vote down this resolution. Politically speaking I care not at all which it done, Nationally speaking I would be glad indeed if that list were produced, and if it appeared that there was not one name upon, it that ought not to be there, but I despair, after what I heard this afternoon, that this would be the case, for surelv there could be no good reason, there can be and there is no honest reason for refusing it unless it be that the right hon. gentleman and his followers know that they dare not produce if.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Ha, ha.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do these gentlemen who laugh know the circumstances under which that motion of 1891 was made? When Sir Richard Cartwright made his motion in 1891, a Conservative paper in the city of Montreal, a paper which generally supported the administration, had been writing a series of articles appearing day after day, week after week, and month after month, which were republished afterwards in pamphlet form, and in which a charge was made against Sir Hector Langevin, that he had accepted a gift to which public contractors had contributed. Sir, that was the case in 1891. 1 stated last year when this matter came before the House that I did not care to speak of the dead, I did not care to repeat what I said in 1891 in the presence of Sir Hector Langevin, I did not care to read before the House what I then read in the House in the presence of Sir Hector Langevin.
But, Sir, I stated then, and I have to repeat again, that the occasion of the motion made by Sir Richard Cartwright was the fact that it was publicly stated, not in the press of the opponents of Sir Hector Langevin, but in the press of himself and his own friends, that public contractors had contributed to the fund which he had accepted. That was the reason why Sir Richard Cart-wright moved the motion which he did, and which I shall quote at

the present time. Sir Richard Cartwright in the face of that statement which was current, which was repeated day after day, that contributions had been made by contractors, moved this resolution:-
That the acceptance of gifts or testimonials of any kind on the part of ministers of the Crown or of any members of their families from contractors, government officials or other persons having pecuniary relations with the government, is entirely opposed to sound principles of administration and is calculated to bring parliamentary government into contempt; and that the example thus given tends to corrupt and demoralize the officials serving under ministers who have accepted or permitted the acceptance of gifts or testimonials as aforesaid.
Nobody will take exception to this. Everybody will admit that it would be disruptive of all public morals if contractors, government officials, or persons having pecuniary relations with the government should contribute to a fund for a minister. That was affirmed, it was not denied by anybody, it was an obvious truth. That motion was accepted and has ever since been the law of this parliament. It is recorded in our journals that such should be the law which should govern all men having anything to do with the public affairs of this country. I went further upon that occasion, and I stated that, in view of the circumstances, in my humble judgment, all such contributions should he made public.
Now, Sir, were those view's accepted on that occasion by the over-scrupulous gentlemen who now compose the Conservative party? When I stated that in my humble judgment the motion merely was not sufficient but that there should be another one to implement the first and to say that in order to make doubly sure in this case, especially in the case of Sir Hector Lange-vin, there should be publicity given to these proceedings, was the resolution adopted? Was it made the law of parliament as it was decided that the other motion should be the law of parliament? Not at all. My views, I was told this afternoon, were then thundered forth on the other side of the House, but if they were thundered forth they met with no response at all from the other side of the House and it has taken them twenty years to find out that there was some merit in them. But, if the motion and my views which I uttered and which I gave in all sincerity on that occasion had been received by the then government of the day they would have been made the law of parliament, as the motion of Sir Richard Cartwright was, and everybody would have been guided by that law. Now that has been the history of this question in so far as the previous proceedings of the House are concerned.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was approached a year ago, and everybody knows that the Minister of Finance is not a wealthy man. His friends knew that he was a poor man. His friends knew that he was in the condition of Wm. Pitt, that he was still more in the condition of Sir John Macdonald, having a wife and children dependent upon him. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance w'as approached and he stated that he would agree to such a testimonial provided it was well understood that the lines laid down by the resolution of this House were strictly adhered to and that nobody would be permitted to contribute to the fund who was a public contractor, who was a government official, or any other person having pecuniary relations with the government. To anybody who knows the Minister of Finance, nay, I would say, is anybody on that side of the House who knows the Minister of Finance, not convinced that no matter how extremely dire might be the necessity of my friend and colleague he would not accept a dollar or a cent from that class of people who are mentioned in the motion? Is there a man on this side of the House, is there a man in this country, is there a man who has ever had anything to do with the man who is known as W. 8. Fielding, who is not fully aware that his conscience would not permit him under such circumstances to do anything which would he at all contrary to his sense of honour. Sir, I believe I cam say that even on that side of the House, there is not a man who would not be ready to say, and to say now, that the Minister of Finance is incapable of any mean action of whatever kind it may be. The Minister of Finance stipulated first that he would accept this testimonial if it were well understood that the men who would he at the head of the committee would not accept a dollar from any man who w'as a public contractor, a government official or who had any pecuniary transactions with the government. Every man has his own sense of honour, every man is the guardian of his own honour and if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is characterized by any qualities-and he has many qualities to characterize him-he is mainly characterized by his sense of honesty, by his most delicate sense of honour. My hon. friend said he would not want to know those who had contributed to him so that, walking at out, whether it was in public or private life, he wanted to be absolutely unaware of the unknown friends who had come to his rescue under the circumstances in which he was.
Now, Sir, I was sorry to hear my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) a moment ago, deprecating this attitude of the Minister of Finance. I may say again to my hon. friend what I told him a mo-

ment ago, that in his calmer moments, when, to-morrow, having forgotten the sense of excitement under which he was provoked to speak, he reads his own words, he will be sorry for one of the aspersions, the insinuation, which he made against the character of the Minister of Finance. The minister was blamed by my hon. friend because he did not want to know the names of those who had contributed to that fund. He relied upon the honour of the men who had been charged by that committee to levy this fund to ask no government contractor, no government official,.no man having any pecuniary relations with the government to contribute anything to it. He relied that they would comply with that condition, and he stipulated that even the names of those unknown friends who were to assist him should not then be made known to him. My hon. friend blamed the Minister of Finance for this. Well, Sir, I leave it to him whether the Minister of Finance is not right. Perhaps another man would have said : No, I prefer to have them known. But, after all, if the Minister of Finance preferred under such circumstances, that he should not even know those to whom he might be grateful, he consulted his conscience, he consulted his honour; and the man does not live who can find fault with him for the decision he came to. Men there may be on the other side of the House, men there may be on this side of the House, who, putting aside all political proclivities and consulting only their higher sense of public honour and public morality, may differ upon that point with the Minister of Finance and may say that that hon. gentleman would have done better had he scrutinized that list himself. But he preferred to take the course he did; and I say that this is a question which, whether solved one way or whether solved another way, can reflect no dishonour upon the Minister of Finance. For my part, I said, speaking under different circumstances it is true


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER-very different circumstances-that there should be publicity. Publicity, after all, is always the safeguard in matters of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: My words are cheered by hon. gentlemen opposite, in this year 1911; but similar words of mine gained no such response when I uttered them in 1891. But I have to say, the Minister of Finance did not violate the law of parliament as laid down in 1891; he did not violate any code of honour, nor any principle of honesty. He acted frankly and above board. And to-day he gave his version of the matter like a man. If any conclusion
is to be drawn from the words of the Minister of Finance, uttered under great provocation to-day on the floor of this House, it is not the conclusion urged by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox); but tomorrow the name of W. S. Fielding will be dearer to the people than it is at the present time. Say what you will, do what you may, the man is not living who can breathe suspicion upon the character of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, Hon. W. S. Fielding.
I have stated that upon these matters a difference of judgment is always possible. But I am asked: How are we going to judge ? In 1891, there was not only a suspicion against Sir Hector Langevin, there was an open charge, as I said a moment ago, day after day, and week after week these charges appeared in the press and they were published in pamphlet form under the title ' Le Metier de Ministre.' It was openly charged against Sir Hector Langevin that he had accepted contributions from contractors, that at the very moment when he -was sitting in the House he had the money of contractors in his pocket. Is there to-day a suspicion that Mr. Fielding has a cent of public money in his pocket? No, Sir, in this country public men are liable to find charges made against them;-I do not complain of that, it is part of the game. We are liable to be accused, to be traduced; every man who takes his seat in this House, must be prepared for that. But there are, after all, certain things, however we may differ, which, in our heart of hearts, we know to be true. And there is not a man on that side of the House, as there is not a man on this side, but knows that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is absolutely incapable of a dishonest, a low, a mean action, word or thought.
I do not find fault with the hon. member for West Algoma for bringing this question forward again; the only fault I have to find with him is, because of the manner in which he has brought it forward. He brings it forward in such a form that an amendment would be out of order, forcing us on this side of the House either to adopt it entire, or vote it down entire. In his speech, my hon. friend took me to task again and again. He wanted me to speak when I did not feel inclined to speak; he wanted me to do his bidding, when I had no intention of doing his bidding. He must not find fault if I did not respond as he wished me to do; it is my privilege as a man, to speak and act as and when I wish. I do not find fault with the hon. gentleman's speech, but I repeat, that I do find fault with the manner in which he introduced the resolution.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does he find fault with the manner in which the motion of Sir Richard Cartwright was introduced in 1891? This resolution is introduced in precisely the same manner and is stated not to be a motion of want of confidence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have answered that already. When Sir Richard Cartwright moved his motion, if I remember well, it was in the month of July or August, and at a time when parliament had been in session for five months or so. At that time every day was a government day, and Sir Richard Cartwright had no other method of bringing the question forward than that which he adopted. My hon. friend (Mr. Boyce), is not in that position. He could have moved his motion on Monday, on Wednesday, and could have moved it at a time when we might have amended it. But I will go further with my hon. friend. When I came into this House to-day, I was disposed to say that to the first part of the resolution there was no objection whatever; we have voted it before, and would be ready to vote it again; but as to the second part of the resolution, I would have been prepared to ask the hon. gentleman to modify it so as to make it more acceptable than it is. For the hon. gentleman must realize, as the House will realize, that it is couched in offensive language. The first part of the resolution reads as follows:-
That the acceptance of gifts or testimonials of any kind on the part of ministers of the Crown or of any members of their families from contractors, government officials or other persons having pecuniary relations with the government, is entirely opposed to sound principles of administration, and is calculated to bring parliamentary government into contempt, and that the example thns given tends to corrupt and demoralize the officials serving under ministers who have accepted or permitted the acceptance of gifts or testimonials as aforesaid.
I may say to my hon. friend that there was no necessity for his introducing this part of the resolution at all, for it is part of the law of this parliament already. It has been on our Journals for 20 years. Therefore there is no necessity for affirming it now. My hon. friend is not so clever that we cannot see through him: he introduces this part in order to take the other part, which I shall now read:
That in order to maintain this principle the source of any gifts of money to ministers of the Crown ought not to he surrounded with secrecy, and that an authentic statement of the donors should be made public.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The right hon. gentleman's own words.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I said, in the speech to which my hon. friend has al-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: luded, that the testimonial to Sir Hector Langevin was surrounded with secrecy, certainly there was secrecy on that occasion; but would any one say that there was secrecy in this testimonal that was given to Mr. Fielding? Was it not done in open day? Was there not a public banquet at which the testimonial was offered to him? What secrecy was there about it? But, Sir, these words are put into this motion in an offensive way. To me, Sir, as they are put there, they are most offensive, and they have been received with a cheer which shows me that they were only intended to be offensive. If this question had been approached in a judicial and fair spirit, I would have felt called upon to ask the hon. gentleman to modify his resolution and to convey the same idea in different words. But in view of the manner in which it has been introduced, with the evident intention of being offensive, there is nothing for this House to do, while affirming the principle and the truth there is in it, but to accept the fact that this is a vote of want of confidence, put forward in an offensive manner, and to be treated as such and voted down by this House.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Halifax i Mr. Speaker, I have seen the right hon. gentleman in pretty tight places on many occasions, but I have never seen him struggle so hard and accomplish so little as he has done to-night, I am perfectly confident that that is his own sensation and conviction at this moment. I will come a little later on to some of the arguments-I suppose it is necessary, in a parliamentary point of view, to dignify them by that name-and deal with them in detail. For the moment I want to point out to the House that the two strong points which the right hon. gentleman has made are these: first, that Sir Richard Cartwright's motion in 1891 was made about four months after the session opened, while this is made about two months after the session opened. That is convincing argument number one. Now, let us come to convincing argument number two-that in 1891 certain offensive allegations were made in a paper supporting the government of that day, while certain equally injurious statements have been made on this occasion in the press opposed to the government. Why, Mr. Speaker, as I understood my hon. friend from Algoma, his point was that in respect of all such matters there should be such perfect and absolute publicity that no paper in this country, Grit or Tory, would dare to utter even the breath of suspicion. It was only in that way that my hon. friend from Algoma alluded to the rumours in the press to-day, which have been contradicted, and I am willing and happy to accept the contradictions. But my right hon, friend was not ingenuous in dealing

with the position in 1891, because he forgot to mention to this House that the injurious statemeint, which he quoted in 1891, appeared in a certain newspaper in Montreal at a time when that journal was attacking the government, and when on one point at least it was actually opposed to the government and was trying to drive it out of power. When we make that qualification in the remarks of my right hon. friend, we shall see that there is really no distinction; and even if he had made his point, what has it to do, in the name of all that is reasonable and sensible, with the question before this House?
Now, I want to advert to some of the criticisms which have been made on the other side of the House upon the speech with which my hon. friend from Algoma introduced this resolution. There was evidently a pretty concerted arrangement to cast discredit and odium upon my hon. friend. One hon. gentleman referred to scavengers. I would like to ask that hon. gentleman, who were the scavengers in 1891? Because I am within the judgment of any hon. gentleman in this House who cares to examine carefully, as I have done more than once, the debate which took place in 1891, and who has listened to the speech of the hon. member for Algoma, as to whether that speech was not a more temperate and reasonable speech than that which was delivered by Sir Richard Cartwright in 1891; and there are rumours-I do not know whether they may be true or not-that Sir Richard Cartwright is not much more satisfied with the condition of affairs in 1911 than he was in 1891. My hon. friend from Algoma quoted copiously from the speeches of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, and I leave it to the judgment of any one within hearing of my voice whether the quotations he gave from those speeches were not the severest portion of the remarks which he addressed to the House this afternoon. In my judgement they were. No other man, said the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), could have been found to introduce this resolution than the hon. member for Algoma. Well, I will tell the hon. member for South Grey something about that. If it had been a Conservative Finance Minister who had received this gift of $120,000 without any publication of the names of the contributors, I will tell my right hon. friend that two gentlemen, if they were in this House, would have been prepared to take that matter up. One of them is the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier and the other is the Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of the Minister of Finance. I did not see any reason why 89
he should not have taken part in this debate in the ordinary sense, as his name was introduced only by reason of the incident to which I have referred. This resolution does not name him, and is not particularly concerned with him except with regard to the incident to which I have alluded, and because of the desire that parliament should establish a reasonable and salutary rule in this connection. My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, made his statement. I accept absolutely, and not merely in a parliamentary sense, every word he said. I have been in pretty active opposition to him, in poli-,' tical life especially, during the past ten years, but I am perfectly willing to accord to him the tribute of having worked hard, and earnestly in the administration of his department, and I desire to cast no personal reflection upon him. But taking his statement to-day-if I may venture to pass an opinion upon his conduqt, which he has exposed to the House in a very frank way-I feel inclined to say that when he stipulated, or assented to the stipulation, that everything connected with the source of that fund should be shrouded in secrecy, he took a wrong course. The stipulation he should have made was that everything connected with the source of that fund should be, exposed to the utmost possible publicity.! In other words, the better-the only proper course-for him was to say: if you bring me a list of names which I can conscientiously accept, I will be willing to accept the testimonial these gentlemen, offer, but only upon the condition that the name of every one of the contributors shall be published in the press from one end of Canada to the other. That is the standard which the right hon. gentleman himself laid down in 1891. I am bound to say I could not quite understand why my hon. friend the Finance Minister should have desired these names to be kept secret, although I have carefully considered and analysed his statement and I desire to do him no injustice. He was willing, even desirous that the names should be made known to him later on, after his official career had terminated. Well, if the source of this fund was of the character demanded by the resolution of 1891, why should not the Finance Minister know the names now? As a matter of fact, every one of us knows, because we all have common sense, that ignorance with regard to the source of the contributions would in the future be absolutely impossible. In the case of the Finance Minister, holding the position he did, it would be idle for any of us to attempt to keep up the pretense that these contributions could be made and that the Finance Minister would not know who made them. The very idea



seems on the face of it utterly out of thq question. He was told that this money was to come from friends and admirers. Well, he would have a pretty shrewd idea as to who were his warmest friends and admirers, and it would be utterly preposterous to assume for one moment that he would not in the end have a pretty shrewd idea who these gentlemen were. So there could not be very much secrecy about it even if secrecy were desirable; and from the point of view taken in 1891 by the right hon. gentleman, .secrecy was the last thing to be desired.
My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) says that this list was a clean list. I have no knowledge, and therefore I do not for one moment gainsay his statement; but if it is a clean list, then it is a list that ought to be published. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said that this money was clean, money. Neither do I gainsay that statement," but if it was, why should not the names of the donors be published in the. press and laid upon the table of parliament? For what possible reason will it be proper for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to know all these names, ten years hence after. he had passed out of official life, and yet not be proper for him to know them to-day, when he is holding an important position in the government, if this list be of the kind described?
Let us come to the debate of 1891 and( the terms of the resolution now before the House. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) thought it would be difficult to find any one in this House prepared to vote for this resolution. Well,
I would be surprised indeed if there were anything in this resolution that did not commend itself to every member of this House. Why, it is precisely on the same terms as the resolution of 1891, with this one addition. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has characterized that addition as being couched in offensive terms. I fail to find any offence or even suspicion of offence in it; and in order to make my point good in that regard I shall read it to the House:
That in order to maintain this principle, the source of any gifts of money to any minister of the Crown ought not to be^ surrounded with secrecy, and that an authentic statement of the donors should he made public.
If there be anything offensive in that, it is my Tight hon. friend the Prime Minister who is the author of it, He gave the offence in 1891, and Sir Richard Cartwright gave it before 1891. It is all very well for my right hon. friend to deprecate passion and attack but he wras not so scrupulous in the old days. Inside of a couple of minutes I could bring to this House a volume Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of ' Hansard ' in which he declared that judges of the highest court in the province of Quebec had bought their places and that these men were making political contributions to the Conservative party. Respect for the judiciary has usually been inculcated in parliament and these men were not here to defend themselves. My right hon. friend was quite capable of hitting hard and quite willing to hit hard in the old days and he must not be too sensitive if some blows should pass across the floor of the House now, particularly when the severest of those blows comes in the very words which he used himself in 1891. He regards the speech of the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) as offensive. What did he think of his colleague Sir Richard Cartwright in 1891? He thought that he had made a splendid speech and had attained a notable triumph. What occupied more than one half of Sir Richard Cartwright's speech? [DOT] An attack on Sir John Macdonald, then only two months in his grave, in respect of a testimonial presented to him 15 or 18 years before. I have the report of some speeches made by ministers of the Crown as far back as 1877 and I find that even at that date the same colleague of my right hon. friend was raising questions about this matter. Here is what he then said in a speech delivered m the town of Simcoe on September 21, 1877, published by the Globe Printing and Publishing Company and used in the campaign of 1878, no doubt quoted by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in the campaign he made in that year. He said:
Moreover, and it is a point of the very gravest importance as bearing on the conduct of all public men, I bold that it was Sir John Macdonald's duty not to have accepted, he being a public man, any testimonial unless everything connected with it was clear and above board, and capable of being published to all the world. That was his clear duty, and that he should have insisted on from the first Sir, I will not tolerate the poor pretence that he did not know who had subscribed to his testimonial. Before he took that money he should have taken care to prove that it came from 'clean hands, and that he could take it without a smirch on his. One hundred thousand dollars is no small gift, and Sir John knew-no man better-that the " very first principle of all agency is that no agent of any kind or degree has the smallest right to receive a present from any of his principal's customers or clients without the full knowledge of that principal. Sir John Macdonald was the agent of the people of Canada; he was a public man; be ought to have known better, and he did know better than to allow any testimonial to he presented to him without the fullest publicity attending it. Does this seem a harsh rule to impose on a public man's conduct? One moment's reflection will show you not only that it is most just, but most necessary and inexorable. Do away with this, and you throw wide the door for every kind and shape of bribery in

disguise. Do away with this and you may at once and forever blot out every law against tampering with the independence of parliament. (Hear, hear). Such testimonials, unless they are made publicly are, I repeat, a most dangerous precedent, one which no man is justified in accepting, and one which should not be permitted to be given by any people having a regard to their own interests. Well, Sir John M^tcdonald shut his eyes, and knowing only too well what sort of money would be taken to get up this testimonial, declined to investigate the matter, though he did not decline to receive the money.
I would point out to the Prime Minister that that was the tone of Sir Richard Cartwright's remarks and his own remarks all through the debate of 1891. If I might analyse what was said in that debate it amounts to this:	In the first place Sir
Richard Cartwright took the ground, he did not insist on it in the motion, but he did distinctly take the ground that no man in office ought to take gifts at all. I do not think that portion of his remarks has been quoted. He spoke at Ingersoll on November 14, 1889, and he regarded his remarks as so impressive and important that he repeated them in his speech in the House in 1891. He said:
Ministers should not take gifts. Now surely if there is any one maxim in political ethics better established than another, if there is any one thing which ought to commend itself to every honest man of every party in Canada, it is this: that under no circumstance should a minister of state permit himself to accept gifts, either directly or indirectly, while he continues in office.
And further on he said in the same speech:
If a man's political supporters do really desire to _ testify their administration by making him a gift of money let them wait till he is out of office, and then subscribe to their heart's content.
The same position was taken by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1891. I am free to admit that it was not included in the resolution and that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister did not subscribe to it because in his speech he said that there might be circumstances under which the gift of a sum of money to a minister of the Crown would he a matter of credit not only to the men who presented it, but to the man who accepted it. There are two ideals, the higher and the lower. We have not attempted to put the higher ideal in our motion to-day. Sir Richard Cartwright did not attempt to put it iu his motion in 1891. We have been satisfied with putting in this motion the lower ideal but we have accompanied it with a clear statement of the necessity of publicity, which was insisted on by both Sir Richard Cartwright and the Prime Minister in the debate of 1891. That was the first standard which Sir Richard Cartwright set up but which he did not attempt to enforce by resolution. The second standard 89i	.
which Sir Richard Cartwright set up was that gifts ought not to be accepted from contractors or officials or any persons having pecuniary relations with the government. That was embodied in the resolution of 1891. It is also embodied in the resolution of to-day. Then the third principle which was put forward both by Sir Richard Cartwright and the right hon. the Prime Minister was not embodied in the resolution of 1891, but is embodied in the resolution of to-day. It is this ; that absolute and perfect publicity should attend all gifts of money or testimonials to ministers of the Crown. It does not seem to me to require very much argument to show that that position is absolutely good. How are the public of Canada to know, (and they have the right to know) that contractors, that officials, that persons having pecuniary relations with the government are not subscribers to this fund, unless you publish in the light of day, in the press of Canada, so that every man may know, the names of every man who has contributed to any such fund. It is absolutely impossible to work out the resolution of 1891, unless you adopt that principle which was a good principle in the judgment of the right hon. gentleman in 1891. Is it not a good principle in his judgment to-day ? If it is, why is it that he asks this House to vote it down? Further than that, my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance has defended himself against any suspicion in this matter by pleading that very ignorance and secrecy which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister denounced and which the Minister of Trade and Commerce denounced in 1891. The thing that these hon. gentlemen denounced in 1891 is the defence of the Minister of Finance to-day, yet my hon. friend the Prime Minister says that the defence of the Minister of Finance is an admirable one, is a defence to which no. hon. gentleman in this House can take the slightest exception. Let me repeat at the risk of wearying the House one or two of the strongest statements of opinion on this point, taken from Sir Richard Cartwright's speech.
Unfortunately these precautions were not taken, unfortunately publicity was not given as I have always said publicity should be given, to the names of persons who subscribed [DOT] and still more unfortunately precautions were not taken to see that subscriptions to that fund were not accepted save from sources from which they honourably could be accepted.
So right on through the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, couched in the strongest possible terms, and directed with great force against the principle for which the right hon. gentleman stands to-day. The Prime Minister says that publicity is not necessary to-day. Whs' did he say in 1891?

The only thing, however, with which my hon. friend found fault in regard to what was done on that occasion by the friends of Sir John Macdonald was that instead of it being done publicly, as it should have been done, it was done in secret.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance stood up before parliament and 'before the country to-day and stated that he stipulated, in connection with his testimonial, that there should be absolute and perfect secrecy with regard to it. I do not see how you can reconcile that statement of the Minister of Finance to-day with the statement in direct contradiction thereto made by the right hon. gentleman who leads the House when he spoke on that subject in 1891. But that is not all.
It may be wrong or it may be good, according to circumstances, but if such an act is done in the open light of day, then, Sir, it is the best prohibition that there can be against any wrong taking place. ,
What does that mean? That means that if there is absolute, perfect publicity, you have an absolute safeguard that no contractor, no official, no person having pecuniary interest with the government, is a subscriber to that fund. That is what the right hon. gentleman meant by that statement. Yet the Minister of Finance has told us that one of the main stipulations with regard to this fund was that the names of the subscribers should be kept an absolute secret. Then the Prime Minister went on :
If the hon. gentleman did not know, it was because he chose to remain ignorant of who were the names on the list, and if he chose to be ignorant of the names which were on that list, is it not because his moral sense told him that he might there find names of persons giving contributions which should not he accepted at all?
I hardly like to read the strictures of the right hon. gentleman in 1891, because they come home with so much force to us today in view of the statement that was made this afternoon iby his colleague whose name has been brought up in connection with these matters. Further on :
Certainly there could he nothing wrong in the admirers of a man in public life coming to his help and rescuing him; but it seems to me that the recipient of such favours would naturally he too glad to know who are the persons to whom he owes gratitude, and if he does not chose to know who are those to . whom he owes gratitude, it must be because his moral sense tells him that he would find there names which would be a condemnation of his accepting such a testimonial.
Is there anything in the remarks of my hon. friend from Algoma to-day approaching in severity the quotation I have just read from the Prime Minister in addressing this House in 1891? Mr. Speaker, were these principles sincerely held by the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Prime Minister in 1891 or not? Does he withdraw from them to-day, or say that they are not as good now as he deemed them to be in 1891? He has not told us so to-night. This list is a clean list, according to the statement of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). Is there any reason that the Prime Minister can assign, that any hon. gentleman can assign, why it should not be published? I have heard none from any gentleman on the other side of the House, from any gentleman who has spoken to-day. I have heard no reason whatever why this list should not be published. The people haxm the right to read it and to form their own conclusions. Assuming, as I do, the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to be an absolutely true and frank statement with regard to this whole transaction, I say that it affords the best possible reason why that list should he published to the people of Canada without one hour's delay.
Now just one word in conclusion. My right hon. friend has struggled manfully, but in vain, to find some reason why the government would be justified in refusing to accept this amendment. My hon. friend from Algoma has stated that he does not present it as a vote of want of confidence. He follows in that respect the course which was adopted by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1891. The resolution contains no charge against any Minister of the Crown, it contains no reflection upon any Minister of the Crown, it ;s purely and simply a recital, a renewed declaration of a principle agreed on by both sides of the House in 1891. It contains further a statement of principle, of public importance, and even necessity which was put forward in 1891 as an absolutely necessary accompaniment to the resolution passed in that year. My right hon. friend considers this amendment as a resolution of want of confidence. The hon. member for Algoma says that he does not present it in that view. The government call upon their followers to vote it. down. They have accepted within the past ten years at least ten motions proposed in amendment to Committee of Supply, which were quite as much motions of want of confidence as the one now proposed. The government are asked to accept the principle of 1891, together with a further principle which is an absolutely necessary accompaniment and corollary thereto, without which the principle affirmed in the resolution of 1891 becomes easy of evasion and cannot be carried out. Two standards were set up by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce. He set up the standard that no gifts of any kind should be made to Ministers of the Crown. We are not going that far to-day. 1 He set up a second standard, that no gifts

from contractors, no gifts from.officials, no gifts from persons having pecuniary relations with the government, should be accepted. He laid down a third principle, strongly affirmed also by the Prime Minister, that no gifts should be accepted, although they came from absolutely untainted^ sources, unless those gifts were accompanied by the utmost possible publicity in respect of the sources from, which the contributions came. A regard for the proper standards of public life demands that the resolution of 1891 should, be reaffirmed to-day, not only in the form which it took then, which was agreed to by both sides of the House, but in the form now presented by my hon. friend from Al-goma, namely, that any such contributions if made to ministers of the Crown must in the first place come from absolutely clean and untainted sources, and in the second place, those sources should be disclosed fully, and without the slightest attempt at concealment or evasion, to the parliament of Canada, and to the people of this country.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I do not know that I can add much to this debate, but some remarks have fallen from the lips of the leader of the opposition with which I have to take direct issue. The hon. member seems to think that because the mover of this resolution said that he did not introduce it as a motion of want of confidence we must absolutely ignore the linking up with it of the name of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and the well known facts with regard to the subscription to a testimonial to that minister, and the methods, manner and language in which this motion was moved. I may say frankly at once that as far as the substance of this motion is concerned I have no quarrel with it. I would not oppose in any way a substantive resolution which should propose to advance this House farther than it went in 1891. But, when a resolution comes as an attack upon the honour and integrity of a member of the government whose reputation and character are far above attack in this country and beyond the confines of this country I cannot recognize this motion as anything but a deliberate motion of want of confidence in the government, because it undertakes to asperse the character and integrity of one of the most important members of the government. Mere words to say that that is not the meaning of it are ineffective and useless in face of the tone and character of the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Boyce) who introduced the resolution. If he had desired to make this a simple declaration of the parliament of Canada involving what is included in the words of this resolution why did he make the motion as a result of
his inquiries and his statements of a few days ago in parliament as to the subscription of Mr. Travers to the Fielding fund? Why was this the result of that? Why was it introduced at a time when the Minister of Finance himself should be present if it were not aimed at the Minister of Finance? It is not a motion enunciating a general principle, but it is a direct and violent attack upon the honour of a member of the government, upon the honour of the leader of the Liberal party, and I think that the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the leader of this House was well within his rights in calling upon those who have confidence in Mr. Fielding to vote down this resolution. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) quotes deliberately and at considerable length from the excellent speech of the gentleman who introduced the resolution in 1891, and he undertakes to say that the Liberal party has gone back on its principles then enunciated and has changed its stand. He does not say anything about a change of stand by his friends of the Conservative party. I suppose he is so accustomed to such changes that he does not think them wonderful, but if the Liberals do change their front in any way it is open to objection.


George Eulas Foster: Is that meant to be sarcastic?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it is only the plain truth without any sarcasm in it. I will just ppint out what was the origin of the debate in 1891, and I shall quote the few words with which Sir Richard Cartwright introduced the motion. I shall not read the resolution because it has been read already several times, but this is what Sir Richard Cartwright said distinctly and clearly:
This motion declares, Sir-and let this be carefully remembered-this motion does not object to and does not censure the acceptance of gifts or testimonials by ministers of the Crown from their political or personal ad mirers, unless, indeed, these parties should belong to classes having direct pecuniary relations with the government at the time. Such a proposition, it appears to me, ought to commend itself to every right-feeling and right-thinking man from one end of this Dominion to the other, and I go further; it ought to commend itself to every honest man and to every right-thinking man under every constitutional government. There could be, in my judgment, no proposition clearer or plainer than this. There could be no one thing which tends more to the interest of good government, and which is more vital to the proper management 0f the public service than laying down once and for all the declaration on the part of this parliament: That it is not expedient that ministers of the Crown should accept from persons who may appear before them in the guise of suitors, from per-

sons in regard to whom they stand in position of judges, any gifts or presents of testimonials of any kind or description. I repeat again, Sir, that I am not raising the vexed question as to whether a minister of the Crown should or should not accept gifts during his term of office from political admirers. That, I have always held, is a matter of opinion, and it must be determined by the peculiar circumstances in each case.


Haughton Lennox: Go on.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It goes on, but there is no need of reading further.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read on.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friends may laugh and interrupt and they are welcome to read on if they desire to do so. But, I want to point out that the declaration which is contained in the first part of this motion and the declaration of Sir Richard Cartwright when he moved it was a distinct declaration that it was aimed at the acceptance of gifts from contractors, from those who were receiving favours from the minister and from the government and not in regard to gifts of those who were political or personal friends. That is the difference between the situation then and the situation to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. members laugh and say, what is the difference? The difference is this, that at that time Sir Richard Cartwright was aiming at a testimonial which had been given to Sir Hector Lange-vin at a time when everybody, as well as the public press, including the Conservative press, had declared that Sir Hector Langevin was receiving gifts from the contractors in his own department, and when Sir Hector Langevin had been obliged to leave the Conservative government because of mal-administration in his office had been proved against him, mal-administration which shortly afterwards drove him out of public life The conditions and the circumstances are entirely different from the position of to-day.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: What about the principles-are they different?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The principles are the same but the circumstances and the facts are not the same, and principles should apply when the facts are the same and only then. Nobody declares or for a moment suggests that Mr. Fielding has received a favour or a gift from any man whom he has favoured in his public administration of the affairs of this country.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does the hon. gentleman state that to his knowledge the names of no contractors or other persons having Mr. FISHER.
pecuniary relations with the government appear on the list of contributors to this testimonial?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not state it from my personal knowledge, but I have no hesitation in stating it because I know that the committee that had charge of the testimonial was composed of honourable men, that they accepted the trust which they undertook at the request of Hon. Mr. Fielding on that distinct understanding and only on that understanding would he allow them to proceed with the work and allow them to give him a testimonial. Hon. gentlemen opposite shrug their shoulders.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, my hon. friend opposite says ' hear, hear.' I regret to think that there are men who have such a low opinion of the honour and integrity of their fellow citizens and of those who stand high in commercial, banking and other positions in Canada, who stand high in the life of this country, and who have declared solemnly and absolutely that _ there is no man who has that relation with the government who has made a subscription to this testimonial. I am prepared for one to accept that declaration and, I am prepared for one to believe that the friends of Mr. Fielding who surrounded him were sufficiently imbued with his own high honour and integrity to know that if they did that, notwithstanding the conditions which had been laid down by Mr. Fielding, they would be guilty of the basest betrayal of the friendship and confidence of a public man. I do not believe that the committee have said a word that- is untruthful or that they would be so unfaithful to the trust that they had accepted. I am sorry for my hon. friend opposite that he cannot have that faith in human nature.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher), kindly explain what that has to do with the principle declared in that resolution ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has a gcod deal to do with the facts; it has a good deal to do with comparisons between the conditions in 1891 and the conditions in 1910. Arid the whole circumstances, as Sir Richard Cartwright said, when he introduced that resolution, are left to the opinion and judgment of the minister who receives the aiftfrom his personal friends and admirers. And so it is in this Case with Mr. Fielding. Mr. Fielding is reproached because he stipulated for secrecy, and his words and his position are contrasted with those of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who, in 1891, expressed the opinion that secrecy was inadvisable. There is a difference of opinion. The leader | of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax),

said a few minutes ago that if he were to make a criticism of Mr. Fielding at all it. would be because his judgment had allowed him to stipulate for secrecy. There is a difference of opinion and of conduct between two men. I confess that I sympathize a great deal with -Mr. Fielding's desire not to know the names of the men who were contributing to this present, so that, if, in future, any of these men happen to have relations with him, he might not be hampered in dealing with them by the fact that in a day gone by, they had com tributed to a testimonial for his benefit. But that does not in any way acknowledge or pretend, nor should anybody think, that, at the moment that testimonial was made, they had or expected to have any., relations with the government. When this testimonial was arranged for, what was the *declaration of parliament ? It was only the first part of this resolution. This Mr. Fielding knew, and he stipulated that it should be fulfilled to the letter. Mr. Fielding's friends accepted and acted upon and within, not the law of the land, I grant you, but the resolution and opinion of parliament which has the right to give its opinion upon such questions. Let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite that if the right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), expressed an opinion in 1891 that secrecy was inadvisable,. and if Sir Richard Cartwright said the same, the House of Commons at that time, did not accept that view, did not insert that in the resolution, but simply passed the first part of the present resolution and left it there, thus dealing only with the question of those having relations with the government subscribing to testimonials.
Now, I wish to say a word with regard to another phase of this question. Mr. Fielding's name has been forced into this discussion, and none of us can in any way look upon this motion except in regard to Mr. Fielding. I say that frankly, and 1 say that that is the reason why I, personally, feel bound to vote down the resolution, because it is a direct attack and aspersion upon a man who as my colleague, I have known intimately, whom I know to be absolutely above reproach and whose character is such, that I am ashamed of the men who dare to make insinuations of this kind against him.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher), referring to me ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am referring to anybody who has dragged Mr. Fielding's name into this motion and seeks to point the finger of scorn at him in this connection.


Mr. BEST.: There are thousands of them in the Dominion of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not believe that that is a correct statement of public opinion in this country.


John Best: I think it is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member (Mr. Best) represents a certain class of public opinion, but it is not the class, I believe, that is in the majority.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I rise to a point of order. I do not think it is in accordance with the rules of this House that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) should be allowed to state that he is ashamed of any statement made by a member of this House. I covered that by asking if he referred to me, and he replied that he referred to any one who dragged Mr. Fielding's name into the resolution. A3 mover of the resolution, I referred to Mr. Fielding. I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw his remark and withdraw it immediately.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, until you rule that my words are out of order, I will not withdraw them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: At first sight, any statement made reflecting upon the honour of a member is out of order, but in this case, I understand, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) refers more to the argument than to the person. To qualify an argument is different from qualifying a person.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was proceeding to another aspect of this question, upon which I would like to say a few words. Mr. Fielding has received a testimonial from friends and admirers of a large sum of money. There is no doubt that the reason for this testimonial- is that Mr. Fielding, through a long period of public service, has given activities and mental qualities to the public service to an extent which has prevented him from laying up proper provision for his own old age and for the proper provision for his family. He has done this, as we all know, through more than twenty-five years of public service. I make the deliberate statement that he has done this for twenty-five years of public service of the highest character which, in the salaries he has received in the whole of these twenty-five years, have been absolutely inadequately rewarded or paid for. Mr. Fielding was for twelve years-speaking from memory-the Prime Minister of the province of Nova Scotia. I do not know exactly what he received through all that administration, but I think that during part of it he received $5,000 a year, I have no hesitation in saying that having to perform the duties of the Prime Minister's position in a province of Canada and having to fulfil the social obligations of that position and to live in accord-

281S
ance with the position ; having a family depending upon him and being obliged to bring up that family in a way commensurate with the associates of that family while he occupied that position, and being called upon to meet the immense number of calls upon his charity and upon his public spirit which always go with a position of that kind-it was positively and -absolutely impossible for Mr. Fielding to have made any savings or any provision for the future of himself or his family.
For the last fourteen years and more Mr. Fielding has been Finance Minister for the Dominion of Canada. We all know what salary he has received-$7,000 a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak with a certain freedom, because being a bachelor my salary is sufficient for my needs. I speak advisedly, and I speak in all seriousness, when I say that for my needs the salary I have received during the last fourteen years has been sufficient-I will go further and say, with no surplus left at the end of the year. But I venture to say-and I say it so that it may be heard through all this House, and I hope it will be remarked throughout the Dominion of Canada that the salary which a minister of the Crown receives in Ottawa, if he lives according to the position he occupies, if he spends money in the way in which those with whom he has to associate spend their money, is not adequate to the demands upon his purse if he has a family and if he is expected to lay by a provision for his old age and to make provision for his family. When Canada undertakes to so pay her ministers of the Crown that they cannot make such provision, there is only one other way in which those men can be honourably helped if they have sacrificed their lives and their health in the public service, and that way is, if they have no fortune of their own, no resources to fall back upon, for friends and admirers to come to their assistance and relieve them from the anxieties and worries necessarily attendant upon the life of any man who has a family dependent upon him, and who has not made provision for them in case of accident to himself. I say further, that Mr. Fielding's devotion to his public duties, as, we know only too sadly, has to a large extent broken down his health, we trust and believe only temporarily; but, at the same time, when a man reaches the age which ' he has reached, and has not made the proper provision for an older age and for his family's future, it is a cause of worry and anxiety. This in most cases, in any man not so devoted to the public service as Mr. Fielding, would render it very difficult indeed for him to perform the full measure of his public duty, and I say that a public service to the Dominion Mr. FISHER.
of Canada has been rendered by those who subscribed to this Fielding testimonial if by reason of that fact Mr. Fielding is able the better and for a longer time te continue that splendid seivice for his country which he has performed for the past twenty-five years. That is a debt of gratitude which the people of Canada owe to the subscribers to that testimonial, and I am satisfied that the people throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion will acknowledge that debt of gratitude, and will repudiate the accusations which have been made against those subscribers just as much as against the recipient of that testimonial.


George Taylor: Did not that apply as well to Sir Hector Langevin, who died poor?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: How do you know?


George Taylor: I know.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You do not know.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will not dispute it, but I do not wish to resuscitate the accusations or discuss the conditions which were in existence at the time of that former debate. I dealt with that matter a few minutes ago, and I have nothing to add to what I then said and nothing to take back. Sir, there was one part only of the speech of the mover of this resolution with which I had some sympathy. It was that in which he spoke of the government having at one time passed an Act to provide pensions for ministers of the Crown who had administered a department for a certain length of time, and he believed that the government had made a mistake in repealing that Act. Sir, I believe that that Act on the part of the present government was justified, and I believe that its repeal was justified only for this reason, that cavil and criticism on the part of a number of people in this country was raised against that Act to such an extent as to make the ministers of the Crown who might be entitled to such a pension refuse to accept it. Only by reason of that agitation do I consider that the repeal of that Act was a wise act or justified.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Too sensitive.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps too sensitive. I can appreciate that my hon. friend cannot sympathize with that at all; but I thank God that we have some men in public life in Canada who are sensitive. I appreciate the fact that there are men-and I am glad to be able to say that they are not confined to one party, but that there are a large number of Conservatives-who are sensitive in regard to their public reputation and their record in public affairs, and are therefore careful of their utterances and their actions, and for that reason are the better men-the better Conservatives

if you like, but certainly the better citizens and the better Canadians.
I have said these few things, Sir, to show not. only to those within the sound of my voice, but to others, that there is a reason and in many cases a necessity, for friends and admirers to step in and do something for public men who have not wealth at their command; and that is only one of the reasons why a resolution such as this should not go very much further and say that it should be impossible in Canada for men in office to receive anything in the way of gift, testimonial or anything else. But in the condition of affairs which I have briefly described, I conceive that there are conditions and circumstances in individual cases where that is the only recourse to save for the country the continued work and effort of those great men who are thus circumstanced, and the only way in which they can be relieved of the anxiety and the worry which is natural to the father of a family and the husband of a wife. I regret that this motion has been brought forward in the way in which it has been. If hon. gentlemen opposite had wanted to lay down a principle in regard to the future of the public life of Canada, they should have done what the right hon. the leader of the House suggested-brought forward a substantive motion, and at a time when it would have no personal application, without dragging the name of either subscriber or recipient into the discussion. And then I believe that we might have been able to put upon the records of this House a resolution which would have been advantageous to the public credit of the country and be accepted unanimously and thereby, and only thereby, have that force which must be behind any resolution put or carried.


George Eulas Foster: I do not propose to detain the House very long in the few remarks I am about to make on this question. Neither do I propose to argue it in a personal manner at all. I think there is a great principle involved in the resolution before the House, and just at this moment I am a little in trouble as to the fate of that principle if the determination of the Prime Minister is carried out, and the House votes it down. The right hon. gentleman says that we have to-day a rule or law of parliament in existence, that rule and law being the resolution which was passed in 1891, and which forbids gifts to ministers of the Crown by contractors or persons interested. Well, if that be a rule and law of parliament and a good one, established . by the assent of both parties in 1891, and one which the Prime Minister himself then most vehemently supported, what are we going to have in its place after a vote on this resolution is taken and the right hon. the
Prime Minister, through his majority in this House, abrogates that rule and law, negatives it, and leaves nothing in its place? I think that is rather a serious condition especially in view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman's colleague (Mr. Fisher) who has just sat down has elucidated and given governmental sanction to an absolutely untenable and vicious principle. I would ask my right hon. friend the leader of the House, if he will subscribe to that. What is that principle? It is that whenever a man who is a minister of the Crown is unable to take care of his wife and children and bring them up according to the conditions of the life in which he moves, whenever he is unable to do this and meet his other expenses, his friends and admirers are in duty bound to come to his rescue and make him a gift of 8100,000 or so. That is a direct invitation to gift making and establishes a vicious principle-a vicious principle which I do not believe the right hon. the Prime Minister himself will stand for. It is a direct invitation to every minister in the present cabinet to come along with a statement of his finances, and show that ho is not able to meet the demands upon him, that he has to spend so much on his family, that he has to give out so much to charity, and that he has to meet besides certain other furbelows and functions, and finds his salary insufficient; and then, on this appeal, two or three or more of his friends get together and start a foraging expedition and find subscriptions enough from his supporters to deposit the comfortable sum of $100,000 or so to his credit in the bank for his personal use and gratification. If there is anything in that statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), that is the principle involved in it. Does the right hon. gentleman stand by that? Oh, but it is urged, Mr. Fielding is poor and he is honest. Well, what about the other members of the cabinet Are any of them poor? I do not know. Will the Prime Minister draw a distinction between the Finance Minister and the other members of his cabinet? The Finance Minister is honest, but are any of the others dishonest? By what rule, now that you have started and given sanction to the principle as stated by the Minister of Agriculture, can you treat the others differently? Take the case of any other minister, whose friends want to stand well with him, what is to prevent them taking the same course with regard to him? Oh, but the Prime Minister was fine tonight when he was saying that publicity was the very groundwork and guarantee of ministerial honesty in this matter. Publicity, he said, was the modern requirement and the principal requirement, and in this connection everything was done in public. There was a banquet, there wrere speeches and a presentation-the elements

of publicity were absolutely complied with and there was a guarantee of the greatest amount of honesty underlying the whole business. It was fine-no doubt about it- almost as fine as that other flight of his in, this direction. In 1891, it was all right to bring in-not a motion in condemnation of Sir Hector Langevin for no such motion was brought in by the right hon. gentleman at that time-but a general motion affirming a general principle. The argument of the right hon. gentleman then went to show that the resolution was not specially directed against Sir Hector Langevin, but a general one affirming a general principle which became the law, and rule of this House. In what manner was that resolution introduced? It was introduced on a motion to go into Supply, made by myself who was then Finance Minister, and it affirmed a general principle. In the discussion which took place, language was used by the right hon. gentleman himself and his colleagues which was not all honey and balm, and which would compare favourably for strength and vigour with the statment of my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce),.but the resolution was the affirmation of a general principle, and in that sense it was adopted. Sir John Thompson, who . was then leader of the government said: This is introduced on the motion to go into Supply, but it is the affirmation of a general principle in which we agree and therefore we shall assent to it, and join in passing it. But Sir John Thompson reminded the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues that while he assented to that resolution as being the affirmation of a general principle, he did not at all endorse the very strong and emphatic language used by Sir Richard Cartwright, and my right hon. friend. But he did not make such a childish plea as to say that because the man who introduced that general resolution wore a gray coat instead of a black one, he therefore would oppose it and treat it as a want of confidence motion.
But the right hon. gentleman and his worthy colleague (Mr. Fisher) who has just taken his seat go a little further. The right hon. gentleman says : I agree with the first part of the resolution, I am willing to affirm it, I will not affirm the latter part. I am not sure whether he agreed with it or not but it is his own language, the very identical words that he used in 1891, not on a special matter but on a general principle. But the right hon. gentleman has so often disagreed with himself that he would feel out of-common atmosphere, and some way leading off from the general tendency of his life if he agreed just once with the language of which he was formerly the father and the sponsor. But he says this is the reason why he treats it as a motion Mr. FOSTER.
of want of confidence. If my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) had waited two months more and then 'brought it in in the very same way, he would not have treated it as a motion of want of confidence, it makes a difference as to the date of the month on which a general principle is affirmed as to whether it is right for him to support it. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture goes a step further. He not only agrees with the first part tout he agrees with the second part. The whole resolution is absolutely right in the eyes of the Minister of Agriculture. But he has to vote against it. He ranges around the back part of his head to find out what strong reasons can be got up which will fortify him in his statement that although he agrees with it he will not vote for it. What are the reasons that he brings in? Because he believes Mr. Fielding is an honest man, and that this is an attack on Mr. Fielding. Is it any more an attack on Mr. Fielding than the very wording of the original resolution in 1891 was an attack upon Sir Hector Langevin? To-night, Mr. Fielding has not been attacked, he has been used, I think, with great magnanimity, and with great courtesy by the members on this side of the House, a magnanimity and courtesy which were absolutely wanting in 1891 with reference to both Sir Hector Langevin and Sir John A. Macdonald. But the minister, astute reasoner, logician from the early days, has to-night made the unparalleled record, reached the apex of all logical reasoning, and declares that he agrees with every word and line in the whole resolution, which is a general resolution, and the affirmation of a general principle, but will vote against it because he conceives that it might be construed into an attack on the Finance Minister. There are two able gentlemen, one the leader of the party, and the other his able and astute lieutenant. There are their statements as to the resolution, and there are the reasons why they must vote against it. Might I invite my right hon. friend to take that resolution and show in the second part of it one single offensive word. I shall read it, and shall leave it to Mr. Speaker to point out to this House the offensive word.
That in order to maintain this principle the sources of any gifts of money to ministers of the Grown ought not to he surrounded with secrecy, and that an authentic statement of the names of the donors should forthwith be made public.
Mr. Speaker, where is the offensive word? Might I ask my right hon. friend to point out the offensive word or line. Will he do it? That is the only objection the right hon. gentleman has to that part of it. Although it is made as an amendment to go into Supply he is willing to go so far as to adopt the first part and let it run in as a

motion of want of confidence, but he will not adopt the second, his own identical words, because he says it is offensive, and he will not point out to the House a single offensive word or phrase in that resolution. I commend these two hon. gentlemen, not to the tender mercies of this House, they always have them, but to the tender consideration of the public which will wake up to-morrow morning and at its breakfast table read these two weighty arguments *and reasons of these two weighty men. I remember very well 1891, I remember the whole debate and I remember the occasion. At that time, the Liberal-Conservatives met these gentlemen in spite of their strictures and their partisan attacks and said yes, looking at the past, knowing what has been done, we agree now with you on that side *of the House, we all agree to a general rule and law of action which shall bind us in the future. Who has broken this contract? This side of the House has never broken it, this side of the House stands by it to-day, and to-day, when that law is.violated, we ask hon. gentlemen opposite to join with us and reaffirm the general law and rule, we ask them for the sake of the public life of Canada not to remove the salutary law which is at the present the law of parliament, as they say they intend to do, and leave this whole thing wide open, more especially with that wicked principle enunciated .by the Minister of Agriculture, a call to the faithful, to contractors that are and contractors that are to be, lookers for favours for the present and for the future, to come to the assistance of every minister whose salary is not sufficient to keep his house running and his expenses paid. With respect to this $120,000 given with all the guarantees of publicity that have been so eloquently described hy the right hon. gentleman to-night, the Prime Minister has sung as the refrain of his argument to the House and to the country: Will any one say that a word can be brought against the honour of William Fielding? The Minister of Agriculture beat out another and a little different refrain, but for the same reason, that he has given long and faithful services, and is poor. If they have thrown that before the House, it is not my fault if I comment upon it. My comment is simply this, that of all public men in Canada, I do not think you can pick out another whose position in a monetary point of view, in payment for services to the state, compares with that of the Finance Minister of this day. I make that statement, why do I make it? Mr. Fielding had not stepped out of private life into public life until he had a government position with its salary assured to him. Mr. Fielding has not passed one hour of his life from that time up to the present that he has not been a member of a government in receipt of a government salary. My right hon. friend has not had an experience like that. He fought some time before he got into the House. He got in, and he stayed in but a little while, and again he fought for many a long year in the cold shades of opposition. When he came in again in 1896 lie did the work, but he enjoyed the emoluments of the office, the emoluments that this country has said is all that a man should receive from the master to the servant. But, Sir, there is not another example in the history of politics in this country showing so favourable a position as that of the hon. gentleman who is Finance Minister to-day.
Now I will tell you exactly the feeling that ran through me this afternoon when my hon. friend was making his statement; it was a feeling of pity, of absolute pity that any country as rich as Canada is, and any parliament as sensible as this parliament is, would run the risk of throwing its public servants to the tender mercies of contractors and seekers from the government for a provision which they refused to pay them. It is pitiable, Sir, and it no credit to this government nor to this country. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, plainly that if the proposition had been made, and the circumstances set out, and the government had come down to this House last year with this proposition or an alternative: Vote to the Hon. Wm. Fielding $100,000, or turn him over in his old age to the mercy of contractors-I would have voted, cheerfully voted, to pay him the $100,000. What are the circumstances, even in this case? The Finance Minister did not want to know and he does not know, the Minister of Agriculture, whether he wants to know or not, does not know, the right hon. gentleman who leads this House does not know whether the stipulations made by Mr. Fielding have'been carried out or not. The stipulations were right in their way. Where is the evidence that the stipulations have been carried out as they were made? You will never satisfy public opinion, and you will never clear the Minister of Finance or the government, until you place in the possession of the people the evidence of that which you declare is true. The' people of this country are not fools, they are sensible, and the man upon the street, and the man in the club, and the man everywhere will say: What in the world is all the trouble about? If the subscriptions are all right, who is ashamed of them? Are the donors ashamed that they have done so philanthropic an act as the Minister of Agriculture has described to us to-night? I do not think so. Are the donors ashamed that they should be known as public spirited citizens who had come to the aid of a government which is too miserly to make a living provision to its own working Finance Minister? I do not think so. Who would

be harmed, if that list is all right and the stipulations have been carried out, if the list were placed before the people of this country whose servants you and we are?
My view of it is this, and I challenge the Prime Minister to say that it is not the British view and the right view, that no minister of the Crown whilst he is in office, or when he is out of office with an expectation of coming back again in to office, ought to put himself into the position of taking gifts of any kind. That has to be modified only by some great emergent conditions, where a man has met with some disaster, where he has been borne down by hard luck, calamity, sickness and the like of that. I can conceive that a circumstance might arise when his friends might come to his aid. But I am speaking on general principles. Sir, to-day in Great Britain-though I think it may be that in some respects the grade is not quite so high there as it used to be, I will not say that dogmatically-but I say that no British minister could stand for a single hour in parliament with a gift of $120,000 in his pocket, nor with a gift of $10,000 in his pocket. He could not do it, it is un-British, and it is un-British for the best of reasons, that it is unsound as a maxim of public political life that such a thing should be allowed. Sir Richard Cartwright, with all his bitterness of invective and all his strength of expression, is pretty sound upon those constitutional points, and the statement that was read by the leader of the opposition to-night made by Sir Richard was concise, and true, and sane, and healthy, that no minister of the Crown should take gifts while he is in office.
Now I ask again the question which the common people will ask: If this thing is all right, why not let everybody know it. But one thing seems to have escaped the discussion to-night. There are some men that the Minister of Finance does know were interested in it. There are some men whose names are out in the open light of day; we have four of them mentioned to-night, two of them self-confessed, the other two given by the organ of the party-the ' Globe.' No one doubts that the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller) and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), Mr.- Jaffray, the senator, and Mr. Larkin, the party leader and the party supplier of large campaign funds, were the head and front of it. The Finance Minister knows that. Some of those men are before him every day for favours. The hon. member for Grey is before him every day for favours. The hon. member for Guysborough is before him every day for favours and the minister knows that they engineered the funds and that without that engineering he never would have had it. There is an instance, patent to everybody of the violation of the principle, if there ever was Mr. FOSTER.
any principle at all, in the resolution which the right hon. leader of the government in 1891 was so ardent an advocate of.
Now, I will say this in conclusion. I find that the little notes I have .taken are all gone over with the exception of one-I have not prepared a speech, but I have just taken up some points that occurred to me. But. there is one that I think it would hardly be fair for me to let go entirely by. There was a remark made by the Minister of Agriculture, who declared that he was a sensitive politician. Then he thought that he said a wonderful thing when he said that there were sensitive politicians on that side of the House and he must thank God for it. So he was a sensitive politician, he said, and he thanked God that there were some sensitive politicians. The Minister of Agriculture is a sensitive politician when lie is asked to vote for a resolution which he acknowledges to be right, but when he wants to vote against it he is not so sensitive then. There might be some shadow of a shade of an implication against the Minister of Finance and his sensitive soul will not allow him to envisage such possibilities and contingencies as that. Oh, would to God that same sensitiveness would suffuse the sou] of the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues in the case of the multitudinous mal-administration which has been exposed in this House by the opposition and sustained by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. What I pray for, if my prayers go any distance at all


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Mr. FOSTER-and I will invite the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), who looks serious enough just at this moment, to join with me in those prayers, is that a little more sensitiveness of conscience may be imparted to the members of the administration from the Prime Minister down to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) when those awful things are exposed to the House and when that publicity which is the guardian and the guarantee of private and public life sp eulogized by the Prime Minister to-night is fought for by this side and the door is banged and bolted on the other side of the House.
But, I am not going to leave this discussion without bringing forward just one further thought, and it is this: Outside of this particular instance as it affects the office and as it affects the man in the office and the canons of public and private life, there is a very grave consideration which none of us, I am sure, will leave out of account. It is the power of example. Of all men in the whole public service, that man who ought to be the most careful, that man who ought to be the most circumspect, that man who ought to avoid the least suspicion or comment is the min-

ister of the department and the minister of the government who is to set an example to the whole public service and to the public life of this country. What would we think to-morrow morning if the customs collector in the port of Montreal, were to have had a meeting of his friends and admirers in the city of Montreal, and they had subscribed a testimonial of $50,000, had had a banquet and had all this beautiful publicity, tout had failed to give the names of the subscribers and it went out through the length and breadth of this country that the collector of customs in the port of Montreal had received gifts from his friends and admirers ? What would the public opinion say ? Is it not proper for me, knowing the collector of customs in Montreal, to say, that, in my opinion, he is not rich and that he is honest? If, because a man is poor and honest in the case of a minister of the Crown is a reason why the sound canons of political morality should be violated, what reason is there that the collector of customs, a sub-officer under the Crown, should not take from his friends and admirers, on the ground that he is poor and honest, a testimonial, because this is the sange reason as that which is given why .ministers should accept it ? If the Minister of Finance may take $120,000 from his friends and admirers, why cannot the Minister of Public Works take $120,000 from his friends and admirers ? But I will venture this that if to-morrow morning the news went out through this country that the friends and admirers of the Minister of Public Works had given him a secret donation of $100,000 there would be ructions in this country. When the example is set, when the principle is formed and the practise is laid down in the case of one minister of the Crown, how are you going to prevent other ministers of the Crown from following it, and in exactly the same way the pernicious influence goes through the whole service and permeates the whole country. Your sub-officer or under officer, if you may speak of him as such, says:	Well, the high muck-a-mucks take
these gifts from their friends and admirers because they are poor and honest* I am poor-mighty poor-and I am just as honest as they are; why cannot I take a little gift on the side too, without any unnecessary publicity ?
I have not the least doubt in the world that demoralization, swift and sure, along the whole _ line follows this unfortunate movement in the wrong direction. To-night we find the Prime Minister with his party behind him, and this latest advocate closing the debate on that side, declaring that it is perfectly right for ministers of the Crown to take gifts if only they are poor and honest. Have any other members of the government taken gifts?-(Don't all speak at once!)-
Is the Prime Minister a sinner in that respect? Would that make his feelings kind towards the Minister of Finance? Are any other ministers in similar positions for lesser sums? How soon this will spread, how far it will go, now that the supreme sanction of the Prime Minister and the Liberal party is given to the reversal of the law and rule of parliament which has existed for twenty years against it and which tonight they propose to abolish, leaving this matter wide, wide open.
House divided on amendment (1	
Boyce). Ames, Armstrong,	YEAS: Messieurs Lennox,
	Lor tie,
Arthurs,	Macdonell,
Baker,	McCall,
Barnard,	McCarthy,
Best,	Maddin,
Blain,	Magrath,
Borden (Halifax	), Meighen,
Boyce,	Nantel,
Bradbury,	Northrup,
Broder.	Paquet,
Burrell,	Perley,
Campbell,	Porter,
Cowan,	Reid (Grenville),
Crocket,	Roche,
Crothers,	Russell,
Currie (Simcoe),	Schaffner,
Daniel,	Sexsmith,
Donnelly,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Edwards,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Elson,	Smyth,
Foster,	Staples,
Fraser,	[DOT] Stewart,
Gilbert,	Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New West-
Goodeve,	
Haggart (Winnipeg), minster),	
Henderson,	Thornton,
Herron,	White (Renfrew),
Hughes,	Wilcox (Essex),
Jameson,	Wilson (Lennox an
Kidd,	Addington) and
Lake,	Wright.-63.
Lalor,	NAYS:
Allard,	Messieurs McCall,
Allen,	McCraney,
Aylesworth,	McGiverin,
Beauparlant,	McIntyre,
Bickerdike,	McKenzie,
Black,
Boyer,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne, Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish). Meigs, Chisholm (Inverness), Michaud,
McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,

282*
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin.
Douglass,
Dubeau,
Ecrement,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gervais,
Gordon (Kent), Graham,
Guthrie,
Marty,
Hedging,
Hunt,
King,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McCoig,
Brodeur,
Borden (Sir F.), Harris,
S1! atton,
Talbot,
Knowles,
Miller,
Gli.du,
Girard,
Boland,
Roy (Dorchester), McLean (Huron), Amendment n
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Pronlx,
Prowee,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Tempieman,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Tureotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alta.) and
Wilson (Laval).-118.
Pairs.
Messieurs
Haggart (Lanark),
Crosby, -Beattie,
Gordon (Nipieeing), Owen,
Stanfield,
Wallace,
Monk,
Clare,
Lancaster,
Middlebro,
Marshall,
igatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.07 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 1, 1911.