1919-05-22

[Stage Direction]
MOTION BY MR. NIOKLE TO ADOPT REPORT OIF THiE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
On motions being called:
Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston) moved:: That the report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the question of conferring honours, etc., upon subjects of His Majesty resident in Canada be concurred in.
He said: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on April 14, as an amendment to a motion proposed by me, the acting leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) concurred in a special committee being appointed which should, without partisanship, consider the questions involved in the motion and certain other questions raised by him on his amendment. At the time concurrence was reached with reference to that committee the hon. the leader of the Government impressed on me that his wishes would be best met if at the earliest possible moment the committee's report was presented to this House for consideration and decision.
As a result of his injunction and of the desire of the Committee, consideration was first given on the 24th of April, to the subjects that were to be taken under review and the committee's report was, as

you will remember, presented to the House on the 14th of this month. In justice to the committee I should say that during its deliberations full consideration was given to the questions passed in review, and that while the debates were at times vigorous they were never characterized by anything that could be otherwise considered than in the very best of friendly spirit. I can assure you, Sir, .and the House that careful consideration was given to the subject matter viewed from every possible angle. The report of the committee in tire main reflects what I might call its unanimous opinion, although some findings did not secure unanimity.
Those who took an interest in this matter last year will remember that among the recommendations adopted by this House was one to the effect, that hereafter no hereditary titles of honour should be conferred on a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada. The Acting Prime Minister in his address to this House directed the attention of hon. members to the fact that the reply of the British Government was couched in the following language:
His Majesty will not hereafter (be advised to confer any hereditary honour upon a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada save on the formal recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada.
The British Government in its reply seems to have overlooked the fundamental principle enunciated by this House, that this House, expressing the collective wish of this country, desired that no hereditary title be hereafter conferred on any Canadian, and the British Government went no further than to say that no such title should be granted except on a formal recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. SHEARD :: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that that was carried by this House?


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member for South Toronto quite correctly understood me. The recommendations of the Prime Minister last year, embodied in the Order in Council passed prior to the debate taking place, were summarized by the Prime Minister, and the third recommendation was:
No hereditary title of honour shall hereafter be conferred upon a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada.
The amendment of the Prime Minister was passed by this House on a vote that
I do not think can have escaped the memory of the hon. member for South Toronto.
Now, I wish to direct the attention of the House for a moment to the principle which I was discussing. This House laid down the principle that we, as Canadians, did not want hereditary titles to be hereafter conferred. The British Government did not appear to be willing to recognize that principle in its full operation, and simply went the length of saying that they would not grant hereditary titles provided the Prime Minister o>f the country from time to time did not want such titles granted. The result was that in its report this year the committee enunciated the principle- in so far as that principle is now being passed under review by me-that the Canadian Parliament did not want any further hereditary titles granted in Canada.
The fourth recommendation contained in the amendment adopted last session by the House, was as follows:
That appropriate action shall be tanei. whether by legislation or otherwise, to provide that after a prescribed period-
I direct the attention of the House to this language.
-to provide that after a prescribed period no title or honour held by a subject of His Majesty now or hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada shall be recognized as having hereditary effect.
The resolution adopted by the House last year did not define what was meant by the phrase " after a prescribed period." This year the committee goes further than the resolution of last year by deciding beyond the possibility of doubt that the expression "after a prescribed period" should be taken to mean "at the death of the present incumbent of the honour" or "at the death of the person at the present time enjoying the honour." In other words, it is recommended that when a person enjoying an hereditary title should pass away,, the hereditary character of the title should cease with him, and that those who follow him should not be enabled to have the recognition or to enjoy the title.
The reply of the British Government to the resolution of last session, which I have just read, and which asked that after a prescribed period no title or honour held by a subject of His Majesty now or hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada should be recognized as having hereditary effect, is in this language:
This presents many difficulties that would require very careful consideration. Action for the present remains in abeyance.

Translated into the language of the street, this reply means that the British Government say: " We see very great difficulties in the way, and, appreciating those difficulties, we are not at the present moment prepared to meet them." Speaking with all deference from my place as a member of this House, I think that I would not be going beyond the limits of propriety if I said-in reference to the suggestion in the reply that I have just read, that many difficulties would require careful consideration-that careful consideration ought to be given in the spirit that prompts action and that assures results by finding a way or making it. We do think that the deliberate expression of the opinion of this House in respect of a matter that is particularly within its jurisdiction and that affects in a peculiar way the people of this country is entitled to be very carefully considered, and considered in such a way that we may obtain results. It cannot be that the British Constitution, concerning the flexibility of which we hear so much, is rigid on this particular point; that when something that Canada particularly wants is concerned, the flexibility becomes rigidity and it is impossible to secure the realization of that desire because constitutional difficulties stand in the way.
The resolution adopted by this House last year confines itself to a very great extent to what I might call ministerial responsibility and to the question of hereditary titles and titular distinction. The committee of this year, which passed in review the questions now under discussion, goes further in the report than the resolution last year went, and, in paragraph (a) of their report, recommend that an address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty might be graciously pleased to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of his subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character, or which appertain to an office. The effect of that recommendation, if adopted by the House, would be to do away with what are commonly-known as titular distinctions, and also-if they are not included in that expression, which I think they are -with what are known as the lesser classes of the various orders.
I shall not re-argue this question. It was debated fully in 1918; it has been debated fully in the House this year, and certainly it was debated fully before the committee. Anything that I might say would simply be a re-statement of what

has already been better stated, perhaps, than I could state it now. It would, if I may speak figuratively, be threshing straw that has already been threshed, and I therefore would no't be justified in taking up the time of the House. I shall say nothing further than this: The effect of the recommendation to which I have just directed attention, if acceded to by those who have authority in England, would be to take away entirely titular distinctions in this country.
A further finding of the committee was in reference to foreign titles. The question was mooted before the Committee that if the committee were to go the length-as it did go-of reaching the conclusion that titular distinctions should be not granted by the British Crown, it was only consistent and proper that titular distinctions and honours should not hereafter be received by Canadian from foreign rulers or governments. A recommendation to that effect was carried, which reads as follows:
Your committee further recommends that appropriate action he taken by legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.
Having made that recommendation, the committee were confronted by the suggestion that hereafter the titles of "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" should be not further recognized in this country. The committee reached a conclusion, which reads as follows:
A suggestion was made that the titles of " Right Honourable " and " Honourable " be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet with the approval of the committee.
The questiofi of such decorations as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Long Service Medal, and so on, was also considered, but there was unanimity of opinion that nothing should be said in the committee's report that would lead the House to the conclusion that the committee disapproved of the granting of these decorations. The language of the committee's report in this regard is as follows:
Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.
Generally speaking, so far as I have been able to appreciate public sentiment as gathered from the press and from communiea-

tions that have reached me, the mass of the Canadian people seem to approve the findings of the committee. Possibly, however, I would not be doing my entire duty if I did not say that there are a few who do not seem to go quite as far as the committee's recommendations go. There are those who say that the principle of titular distinction is not wrong, is not objectionable; that what is objectionable is the method that has been followed in this country and elsewhere for some time past in awarding these distinctions and dignities.
There are those who say that it is not desirable to abolish titles of distinction entirely, and that the matter should be left to His Majesty the King and to his constitutional advisers, but that greater discretion should be displayed in the selection of recipients, and the number to be decorated. Needless to say I am not one of those. In my judgment, the granting of these titular distinctions, these titles of honour, is out of tune entirely with the spirit that should, and that, I believe, does prevail in this country. The attitude to which I have just directed the attention of the House and Which they seem to lay down as a principle to be followed in Canada, namely, that these recognitions are right in principle, but that greater discretion should be shown in the selection of recipients, and that a lesser number should be decorated, carries with it the conclusion, as the night follows the day, that those gentlemen would advocate the establishment, if I may use the expression, of a super-selected class; that to this class only the few should be admitted, and that in place of a generous recognition, if I may use that word, as we have had heretofore, there should be a very restricted recognition, in fact, the engendering of an aristocracy, in the true sense of the word, in this country of ours. There is a fine irony in that idea that greater discretion should be displayed in the selection of recipients. We have heard much that these honours come from His Majesty the King, and yet those who advocate that greater discretion should be displayed in the selection of recipients, have the audacity to suggest that His Majesty's attention should be directed to the fact that he lias not been exercising his constitutional prerogative with the care, judgment, and discernment that certain people think he should. The whole thing is stamped with inconsistency, and the inconsistency lies in this; that those who are advocating the continuance of these dignities and honours, seem afraid that the thing should be seen
in its true light. They are afraid to strip the veil of mystery from what might be called the Imperialistic prerogative.
There is not in this House a man who has listened to these debates during the past few years but knows that these titular distinctions and honours do not emanate from His Majesty, but are granted on the recommendation, of ministers from time to time. And last year, in reply to my resolution urging ministerial responsibility, the leader of the House, Sir Robert Borden, by the Order in Council that had been passed prior to the debate being precipitated in this House, recognized the principle of ministerial responsibility, and stripped forever, if I may use the expression, the camouflage from the idea that these honours, titles, and dignities originated from His Majesty. Because the House, by the adoption of the resolu tion and the principle enunciated in the Order in Council made it abundantly clear that, in so far as Canada was concerned, once and for all we recognized that honours, titles, and distinctions did not come from His Majesty of his own motion, but should come from His Majesty on the recommendation of the man who, from time to time, happened to be the leader of the Government in this country.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Did the committee give any consideration to titles of honour conferred on judges. For instance, a judge is referred to as " His Lordship."


William Folger Nickle: I think the title of " His Lordship " was not, so far as my memory goes, discussed by the committee. Certainly no formal resolution was passed regarding the matter. I doubt very much if the title of " His Lordship," as used in the courts, comes from His Majesty at all. My opinion would be-and I am giving only the opinion of the moment-that that is simply a title of courtesy, just the same as a man is called " Mr.". I have no knowledge of such a title emanating in any way from His Majesty or being conferred by any formal document.
Let me just for a moment direct the attention of the House to the position of those who advocate that the granting of these titular distinctions is not wrong in principle, but that it is the method of distribution only that is wrong. Might I say that it seems to me that those gentlemen fail to appreciate the significance of what has prevailed and is prevailing in the old country to-day? So far as we are concerned, Britain is the parent State, and if

it has been found impossible there to devise a method that will permit these honours and distinctions being granted without corruption becoming rampant, how -can we hope to do better in this country? Last year, I read to this' House at great length from the debates that took place in the House of Lords in 1914, and again in 1917, and if I ever proved anything by documentary evidence, I proved that in the granting of these titular distinctions in Great Britain corruption prevails. I was criticised severely in certain parts of this country for daring to. rise in my place in this House and direct attention to what was taking place in Great Britain; II was told that it was none of my business, was not the business df the House to consider how Britain administered her domestic affairs. Again to-day, as last year, I want to take issue with those who take that position, and so long as we occupy the position that we now do, and so long as we are a part of the British Empire-and may we long continue to be a part of that Empire- so long do I say that we are concerned with the methods .that are evolved, with the principles that are allowed to prevail, that have anything to do with the selection or election of those who compose the British House of (Commons or the British House of Lords, and it is not beyond the purview of this House to direct attention to irregularities in the selection of those who may, from time to time, obtain a seat in the House of Lords.
And I think that those who argue that titular distinctions, honours, and decorations should be granted at the present time fail to appreciate the magnitude of the national effort as measured in this war. How are you going to determine to whom recognition shall be given? How are you going to say what man shall receive and what man shall not receive, or what woman shall get and what woman shall not get? How are you going to determine sacrifice and service? How are you going to determine or measure the proportion of the sacrifice of the individual? Are these recognitions to be given only to him or to her who does great things in relation to the national effort? Are we to leave out of account entirely the great individual service of the person who occupies a humble position in life? Is the man who gives $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, or $100,000 to a great cause to receive recognition, while the widow who gives her all, who gives her years of labour, is to be overlooked? Have those who advocate the principle to which I have just directed

attention forgotten the parable of the widow's mite? If that parable was good in the time of Christ it Is equally good in the year 1919, when Canadians were rallied to the flag to fight for liberty, for freedom, and for the rights of the humble people. The philosophy of those who so advocate is bad in this, .that it endeavours to establish the principle that the hope of recognition is the incentive to service.


An hon. MEMBER :: Hear, hear.


William Folger Nickle: Recognition should not be the incentive to service to a man who has a true appreciation of duty. The consciousness of duty well done should ibe reward enough for any man, and I say that the true philosophy that underlies the granting of these titles should not be that recognition is that which prompts to action, but should be a keen appreciation ithat what rankles in a man is neglect and oversight; that recognitions are soon forgotten, and that men who have done their utmost and women who have given their all will smart and chafe under the neglect that leaves them without anything white others who apparently have done much more from the national point of view' but infinitely less as viewed from the personal standpoint, receive recognition.
As I have said, Sir, this trouble is not altogether confined to 'Canada; it is not purely a local issue. The subject matter of the discussion I have brought before this House this afternoon is shaking social England. I do not ask you, Mr. Speaker, nor do I ask the House, to take my words alone. Being a lawyer, I realize that if you want to sustain an argument it is an excellent thing to have a precedent, and if you want to win a point it is well to cite a statute; and when I say that the principles I am enunciating this afternoon are stirring social England, I do not state it on my own authority alone. I can support it by a letter I am now about to read from the London Times of the 29th of August, 1918. The letter reads:
Sir,-Even in the midst of the anxiety arising from the war we think it necessary to (point out in public the serious danger which may arise from a continued bestowal of honours without any real safeguard against abuse. Habits contracted in time of trouble and pressure, if unchecked now; will be difficult to counteract hereafter. This subject has been debated in the House of Lords. Before those debates some of us endeavoured in vain to procure from the Government such .public assurances as might avert the necessity of a Parliamentary discussion. When the discussion came on, the scandal was neither denied nor defended, but the securities embodied in resolu-tdonis have proved inadequate. There has been

some improvement in the form of the Gazette notices, hut the root of the evil remains. Nominally the Prime Minister is responsible for the advice given to the Grown. In reality, it has become obvious that a minister overwhelmed b public duties of the most arduous kind cannot possibly supervise the distribution of honours or prevent the monetary corruption and debasement of standards which will assuredly ensue. He would be obliged to neglect other vital duties.
The same mischief shows itself in another direction. A new Order, that of the British Empire, has been instituted, and in a recent Gazette the names cover no less than 60 quarto paiges. We make no suggestion of corruption in connection with this Order, but (the wholesale scale upon which it is granted makes it obvious that no responisibl-e minister can control the selection of recipients, much less that it is ;a real mark of His Majesty's favour.
Our feeling is that, unless the bestowal of honours and titles is protected from this sort of cheapening and iis unmistakably cleared from the danger of a peculiarly mean kind of pecuniary corruption and reserved for real merit, honours may come to be regarded as dishonours, leaving no way out except their entire abolition.
It is an additional and very grave evil that the money obtained by the disgraceful traffic in honours has gone to swell and, if rumour Sis true, has mainly constituted1, the large party funds which are at the service of party leaders and are used for party purpose;-;.
We have no sort of desire to embarrass the Government. It is quite impossible for Mr. Lloyd George to spare the time necessary for supervising these lists, and yet it is due to the Grown that the constitutional advice to which it is entitled shall not emanate, almost without being filtered in its passage, from underlings accessible to all kinds of influence. Signed by:
Balfour of Burleigh. P. G. Banbuiry. Beresford of Metemmeh. Carnock.
R. Cavendish. Chaplin.
Dartmouth.
Desart.
Durham.
Halsbury.
George Hamilton. Laurence Hardy.
Henry Hobhouse. Fred Huth Jackson. Loreburn.
Herbert Maxwell. Fred Milner.
Francis Mowatt. Parmoor.
Phillimore.
Salisbury.
Selborne.
Edward Seymour. Sumner.
Sydenham.
I therefore think I may take it as proven that the -conditions which I allege may prevail in -Canada are undoubtedly prevailing in Britain to-day. Then-, I desire to read to the House a few words from the London Globe of Friday evening, May 2, commenting on the discussion that took place in this House on May 14, 1918.
So it has come to this: Honours and titles have heen distributed in such a haphazard and undiscriminating manner that Canada, at any rate, wishes to have no more of them. South Africa, too, has already shown that it is more or less of the same opinion, almost the whole press of the Union having criticised and ridiculed the honours conferred last year on South Africans. One Cape newspaper in referring to the question remarked that when South Africa had ceased laughing over the honours it would
assuredly resent having been made a laughing stock in front of the rest of the Empire.
In view of recent Honours lists, and especially in view of the one issued this week, we are inclined to share the opinions of our colonial brethren; indeed, conservative though we be, and always will be, it seems to us that a motion regarding the conferring of honours on residents in the United Kingdom, similar to that introduced by Mr. Nickle regarding Canadians, might with advantage be put forward at Westminster.
To the attention of lion, gentlemen who say it is not wrong in principle to grant titular distinction- if the methods adopted are proper, I would direct the last words of the article I am reading:
If we saw any hope of titles being given in a thoroughly equitable manner or of honours being conferred on those to whom honours are due, whether the latter be soldiers or sailors or civilians, we should think otherwise. But we see no such hope.
And if the editor of a British paper sees no -such hope, then I think it is not beside the mark to -suggest that we in Canada are at least purblind where they are blind. I may now read an extract from the London Daily News of May 5, 1919. It reads:
It has always been the hope of those who realize the pernicious influence of titles that the evil would be. kept out of the overseas dominions. Canada yielded in some measure to it, and there have been symptoms of late that Australia -and New Zealand were in danger of succumbing; but the hostility which has taken such vigorous shape in Canada may he expected to fall like a killing frost on the very objectionable weed everywhere.
The self-denying ordinance of Canada extends to the O.B.E., the latest distribution of which is now imminent. In that connection it is useful to recall the Olympian defence of the Order which the Earl of Crawford, Lord Privy Seal, made in the House of Lords on Nov. 13 last:-
I suppose, without being in a position to speak with great positiveness., that that defence was -matte in answer to the article I have just reaxl from the Times. This is what Lord iCraw-ford said:
The people who have heen receiving the Order of the British Empire are humble people who have heen, and are, doing great work for the country. It has been my duty on more than one occasion to make recommendations to that Order, and I cannot say how bitterly I resent the comments of persons of high standing and full of honours about the humble people who-are receiving well-earned recognition for work of incalculable value.
Those who are doing great work for the country, those people who are doing services of incalculable value, can only receive the Order of the British Empire, while those who are full of honours ai*d high distinctions are to be awarded with peer-

ages and hereditary titles. Let us ponder on what the editorial writer says:
It is possible that the " humble people " in question will find the frankly hostile comments of " the persons of high standing " rather less insufferable than the high-born patronage of their defender. But one never knows. Perhaps " humility is the badge of all their tribe." Perhaps it is as members of the Order of the Humble that they accept these crumbs from the high table where Earl Crawford sits. In any case, it is gratifying to know that the new list is to be the last and that henceforth people may serve their country without any suggestion of being engaged in a vulgar scramble for meaningless distinctions.
That is all I am going to offer from the popular press of England, but I want to quote a short extract from the London Spectator of May 3, 1919:-
The Honours List was Issued on Monday evening, during an outburst on the part of our wonderful climate, which did its best to make us forget that the list had been postponed from the New Year. The list contains four new Barons, twenty-three Baronets, and forty-nine Knights. Lord Burnham and Lord Rothermere both go up a step in the Peerage and become Viscounts. The new Barons are Sir J. H. Roberts, Sir R. T. Hermon-Hodge, Sir T. R. Dewar, and Mr. T. H. A. E. Cochrane. Among the Knights we notice with interest the name of' Mr. Harry Lauder.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
But the feature of the list is the steady stream of honours which flows through Fleet Street.
Fleet street, as hon. gentlemen know, is the newspaper centre of Great Britain.
The Navy and Army are still unhonoured. *****
Lord Burnham, of the Daily Telegraph, and Lord Rothermere, of the Daily Mirror, as we have already said, both go up a step. Lord Burnham has been a most faithful liaison officer between the daily newspaper press and the Government, and Lord Rothermere worked hard at the Royal Army Clothing Department and figured less successfully at the Air Ministry. A baronetcy goes to Mr. Sutton, who is connected with the Daily Mail and its kindred papers; another baronetcy to Mr. Davison Dal-ziel, formerly proprietor of the Evening Standard, another to Mr. Edward Hulton, who is proprietor of the Daily Sketch, the Daily Dispatch, the Sunday Chronicle, and other newspapers, and who is the only colourable rival to Lord Northcliffe; and yet another to Mr. W. T. Madge, managing director of the'People, and formerly manager of the Globe.
What is the insinuation contained in that article? The insinuation is that these men gained their dignities, titles and promotions, not by virtue of any great national service that they had rendered, but by virtue of the fact thflt they had been instrumental in maintaining a certain Government in power.
[Mr. Niekle.j
Let me read a word or two further from the Saturday Review (London) of May 3, 1919:-
Lord Rothermere's promotion to a viscounty will be gall and wormwood to the irate Polypapist on the Riviera, as the brothers are not on very good terms and there has always been a certain amount of jealousy between them.
That is Lord Northcliffe.
Unless Lord Northcliffe is quickly made an earl, the war of Carmelite House on the Premier will grow hotter. We fail to see why the miracle of turning water into whisky, and selling it at exorbitant prices, should he rewarded with a coronet. If political services go for anything, the peerage of Sir Robert Hermon-Hodge, a hero of many campaigns without an enemy, has been well earned. It would be interesting to learn a little more specifically what are the services to Parliament and the public which entitle the company promoter, Mr. Davison Dal-ziel to a baronetcy. As for the knights, with the exception of a couple of music-hall mimes (Sir Harry Lauder is a genius), they may be dismissed, as the Morning Post dismisses1 minor arrivists, toy the words "and many others." We are astonished, and grateful, that no Canadian financiers have been ennobled.
We at least have this satisfaction, that the debates that have taken place in this House have apparently had the effect of holding up the list of honours in Canada. I have spoken longer than I intended when I rose to address the House. I have endeavoured to put before the House the argument and principles as enunciated in the resolution of last year; I have endeavoured to place before the honourable members the principles that moved the Special Committee which was appointed to consider this matter this year, and I have endeavoured to show you that the position that I take to-day is exactly the same position that I took over a year ago.
I tell you, Sir, and I tell this House, that when I introduced this matter over a year ago I was moved by a sincere desire that there should be a reform. I thought that the grappling with this problem had been too long delayed. I do not stand for any halfway measures with regard to it. Some men on your right or on your left may call me an extremist, but my experience in public life has led me to the conclusion that if you want to get anywhere, or if you want to advance toward the achievement of that which is right according to your conviction and judgment you have to be prepared to sacrifice something for the attainment of that principle.
I believe that the spirit of the Canadian people is against the continuance of the practice of granting honours, dignities and titular distinctions to Canadians. The press, the conversations that you have with people, and the platforms enunciated by various

political and social organizations all show that the people are against it.
This is not a quarrel with merit; it is a quarrel with the principle that seeks to give recognition to some, not because they are more successful or more entitled to it than others, but simply because thfey are more successful in obtaining recognition. If I might express my sentiments in a word, in language more apt than I could use, I would say: " Let us be done with the bush ness. Let us build up a public opinion, which repudiates these things as an insult to democracy, which holds honest and disinterested service to the Commonwealth as its own reward, which regards the offer of a title as an indignity and its acceptance as a personal degradation."
I have much pleasure in moving the adoption of the resolution.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the very eloquent speech of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I suppose we have a right to assume that the attention of this honourable body of legislators would not have been got so promptly or kept for so long a time on various occasions by the hon. gentleman unless he felt he had a subject of paramount importance to present to the Hpuse. I cannot work myself into a fury over this question, because I do not think it is worthy of the great attention that has been bestowed upon it. I do not think it is such a crisis in this country as to warrant it taking up the time of the House to the very great extent that it has taken up our time for the last two years. I would submit to my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle), who has talent and ability to burn, that there are a great many things in this country which require his attention much more than titles. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he would have won the plaudits of the people if he had dilated to-day to the same extent on the situation of some poor boy who could not go to school because he had no shoes, or some little girl who did not have a proper dress, or of some poor children who had to go to bed hungry.	'	[DOT]
This subject will have to be disposed of, and I do not wish to belittle the ideas put forward by rny hon. friend. I would like to tell him that the discussion should not be prolonged too much, for fear that he may change his mind and vote against his own resolution.
Some hon. MEMBERS; Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope, to recall the old saying, that we may strike the iron when it is hot and catch his vote on this occasion. The hon. gentleman seemed to be very much disturbed about the way in which the British people govern themselves. He seemed to think that there was a serious danger to the world if the British people should be permitted to deal with their own affairs, and that we must step in and tell them how to apply democratic principles in that country.
I do not share in that fear; I, believe that the British people are quite capable Of looking after their own affairs. I submit, Sir, that the granting of titles is entirely a matter for the people; and if we can educate our own people to say that titles are unnecessary, that they should not be recommended and that Canadians should not receive them, then they will not be granted. If the granting of titles' is coming to be a matter of disgrace, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nickle) said, and a matter of corruption in the Old Land, the British people will deal with that, and they will see to it that a Government will be put in power who will not make those^ recommendations which should not be made. That I think is the way in which this question must be effectively dealt with.
It has been acknowledged by the hon. gentleman, and I think quite truly and properly, that His Majesty the King is not responsible for the creating or making of these titles; that he is simply carrying out, or allowing his name to be used in connection with recommendations made by the Government of the day in every country in which those titles are being conferred. It is one of the basic principles of our constitution, under responsible government, that the King can do no wrong. We have to stand by that principle, and to realize that the King''acts upon the recommendation of his advisers, and that his advisers are responsible to the people; and if there is any abuse of His Majesty's prerogatives or power, the abuse must be visited upon the Government and rectified by the people and not make any direct representations to the King himself. I am in favour, Sir, if I have anything to say about it, of the language of this resolution. I am not in favour of bringing this matter directly to the notice of His Majesty, but I do believe in this House declaring itself, as a principle of democracy, against titles. When that happens we are declaring, as far as this House can declare,


Charles Sheard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the adoption of the report, for the reason that I consider it unwise in its expression, unconstitutional in its tendency and unreasonable in its application. If I may quote from the report of the committee, I find that we approach His Majesty with what is practically a rebuke. We, the -people of Canada, as represented in this assembly, ask His Majesty in paragraph (a) "to refrain." As one of His Majesty's Commoners in this Parliament, I entertain too high a respect for His Majesty to approach and address him in that particular form. I venture to say that if we had set forth the facts; if this committee is prepared to vouch for the facts and to submit evidence to His Majesty in a proper form to illustrate and to substantiate the view that the people of this country are greatly perturbed about the granting of titles, it is right and proper that that evidence should accompany so peremptory a demand as the report of this committee appears, to my mind, at least, to make.	-
The hon. member for Kingston has said that the heather is on fire in the Dominion regarding the distribution and application of these titles; that there is a tremendous stir, not only throughout Canada, but throughout the British Isles, and that in England some newspaper writers, notably


Mr. BURNHAM:: The hon. gentleman is surely aware of the fact that Lister ascribed all his achievements to Pasteur, and that Pasteur had ho honour or distinction of any kind.	i	:	,	'


Charles Sheard: I am well aware of Sir Joseph/Lister's achievements; I know what they were long before he was raised to the peerage. I am also aware of how much he owed to the distinguished Frenchman, Pasteur, the very apostle and centre of all germ theory and germ progress. But I fear that the hon. member has failed to grasp my point, which is this: the distinction which Sir Joseph Lister secured did not affect him so much as it affected students, workers, and votaries in the same class, at a time when men were defaming him and decrying his efforts and his claims because, it was contended, they had no value.
I will give another illustration. Sir James Y. Simpson, the discoverer of chloroform, struggled alone in his back office for twenty years trying to demonstrate the feasibility of anaesthetics as a benefit to patients who were undergoing surgical operations. He was actually expelled from the surgical society of the city of Edinburgh because of his theories and experiments in this regard. His critics said: "He has gone crazy upon an impossible condition." It was not until Queen Victoria permitted him to administer to her an anaesthetic, and afterwards knighted him, that it was clearly demonstrated to every one that anaesthetics were of value, that their application was feasible, and that their use enabled the surgeon to gain access to parts of the human frame
172}
which previously he had been unable to-reach.	*
I go further and give to my hon. friend' [DOT]another illustration-one nearer home. I was fortunate enough to toe intimately associated with and a personal friend of one of the most distinguished physicians Canada ever produced. That gentleman worked in the same scientific field with me, occupying a professional chair in the University and Medical Faculty of McGill College, Montreal. He devoted his energies to what? Not to the making of money, but to increasing and improving the status and condition of the medical profession throughout the length and breadth of this country. He put in hours and hours, aye, often day after day, week in. week out, and year in, year out-he devoted as many as four, five, and six days' service in the week amongst the paupers and poor in the public hospital of the city of Montreal. His efficiency 'being recognized, he was invited to become the assistant of Pepper, of Philadelphia, and I well remember his being with me when he was about to remove to that great centre, and -while driving him over to the General Hospital in Toronto, I asked him: "What are the emoluments in connection with your new appointment?" " Oh," he said, " the emoluments are nothing; they are not enough to live on, -but the field is large, and the possibilities for scientific achievement on behalf of medicine in this country are very great, and it is that which attracts me and makes me anxious to get into the work that I want to serve." Then when he was transferred from there to Johns Hopkins University, one of the most famous institutions upon the North American continent, he revolutionized the clinic in the medical department, establishing a clinic that was world famous. And when from there he was invited by the University Authorities to take the Chair of Medicine in Oxford University and created a baronet, there was not in the Dominion of Canada a man but was proud to see him so honoured, and there was not in the rank and file of -the medical profession a man but who felt stimulated to greater service and endeavour, because one so worthy had been so greatly honoured. I need hardly -say that I refer to our great and distinguished Canadian citizen, Sir William Osier.
I do not want .to say that all the advantages are to the doctors. I might quote almost every branch of science and art to show where titular distinctions have been

of advantage. Indeed, no man who knows the history of or anything about art will deny how much the National Art Gallery of Great Britain has owed to the work and teachings of Sir Joshua Reynolds. Yet, Sir Joshua Reynolds did not receive much attention until he accepted the distinction of knighthood, because, even in "the early part of hist career, artists in England were classed with sign painters and interior decorators of buildings and houses. There was no real admiration for art for art's sake. There was, amongst the rank .-and file, a general impression that such [DOT]effort was only wasting time and trifling and frittering away greater and more glorious [DOT]opportunities, but by the conferring of titular distinctions amongst its votaries and leaders who, because of their work, genius and calling, received a separate and official distinction, the whole art of painting was benefited and blessed.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the hon. gentleman aware that Zeuxis, Praxiteles, and Leonardo da Vinci bore no titles?


Charles Sheard: I am not saying that for a second. The hon. gentleman entirely misunderstood me. I am not saying that titles and distinctions are'the only things in life. But titles have their use, and the abuse of them is no argument to put up that they are an injury to a progressive and democratic people. I was about 'to refer when interrupted, to that great astronomer who under the greatest difficulties and objections from the populace, developed under the patronage of George III, and discovered the planet Uranus, and history records of him that as regards all the facts in connection with the demonstrations of astronomy, no man has done so much for astronomical science as Sir William Herschell. Some one may say: Did the title make him do that? Certainly not, but it altogether separated him from the common remark-" star-gazer and trifler and fool that wants to find out something where there is nothing.'' It showed that there was an expression of national spirit, a national feeling, a national judgment, that that science in its greatest votary was a thing to be recognized, restored, and esteemed amongst the people.
When I come to the arts, painting, literature and the like, hon. members will remember what was said of Englishmen during the last of the Georges and on the accession of Queen Victoria. It was said on "the continent of Europe that the English were nothing but a nation of shopkeepers, and why? Beeauser nothing had been said or done to distinguish the man of art, of
fSIr, Sheard.]
science, of letters, in the nation. I say that these very distinctions counteract that tendency amongst the people of a new country and a new land, and they have value.
II take the resolution and I see a weakness in it at the start. This resolution proposes to leave untouched distinctions and honours acquired by military men. That was very wise on the part of the committee at this present time. Those distinctions may be trifling in intrinsic value, but they are the dearest possessions of many a soldier whose breast they adorn. Will any man in this House dare to say that above all the treasures a true British soldier possesses, the Bronze Cross that adorns his breast, the Victoria Cross for valour, is not amongst the highest of his achievements? It is but a recognition in military life what knighthood, forsooth, may be in civil life. It has stimulated to greater effort and sacrifice; it has developed and produced throughout all the officers and all the rank and file a determination that they will sustain the men who have been so decorated by His Majesty the King. If such be true of men who have borne so much sacrifice, sacrifices so great in the military ranks of this Empire, does it not illustrate the fact that decorations, although different in kind-acknowledgments conferred with honour and formality-have also the same and equally useful purpose in the great work of civil life? These are the decorations which keep life, hope, and courage in the hearts of desperate men, and without them there would be, in my humble judgment, a lack of effort and a lack of energy. Go to the great republic to the south, the great home- of democracy. The exemplars of democracy live in that nation, and what do we see? We see that there the great measure of success is not a peerage, it is not a titular distinction, it is the bank account of the individual and the size of the cheque he can subscribe. I do not for a moment wish to say anything derogatory of that great, energetic, progressive people. I do not for a moment wish to say that there have not been noble patriotic men there who have come forward with liberal donations to every scientific enterprise and every philanthropic work. But I 'Contend, and I say it cannot be denied, that underlying it all is a keen and earnest desire for some distinction or other which may designate them as separate and apart from the money value of the man. And to so great an extent has this been carried that it has become a matter of common remark throughout the length and breadth of this country, that

the efforts of Americans, backed up by their gold, to ally themselves with the peers oi the realm of Britain and the aristocracy of England, have amounted almost to a disgrace. So that for all your democracy, there is still what I describe as an innate physiological trait in the human species, a longing for something still more distinctive. And, I could cite instances in justification of that assertion. This is a time of unrest after the war. This is a time when, in my judgment, we have to consider carefully every motion and every movement which tends to set class agains class. History repeats itself. Some one in this House, I have forgotten who, just now cited an illustration of the Louis's of France and what happened to them in the French revolution. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that no man will adduce that period in support of this resolution and recommendation, unless he carefully analyzes the period and its history. What happened there? They dethroned Louis of France, but what did that carry with it? Every art, every culture, every moral surrounding. Yes, more Than that. They obliterated all advice and opinion, and those who held contrary ideas hesitated to speak until it was too late. Men of genius and culture came-forward. The whole family of genius gave forth their treasures and nobly did ' they yield them upon the altar of their country's exigency, but too late. The rabble blasphemer would have none of it then, and they called their polluted deities from the brothel and the fall of the idol extinguished the very flame of the altar. We need not, however, go so far back. We can go back to the Franco-Prussian War of 11870. Any man who visited Paris after that war and siaw the devastation wrought and the injury done to works of art and decorations historic in their character, and saw the rabble incensed against all government, crowd the streets with cannon and grapeshot, must realize .what comes to those who inspire revolutionary conditions, heedless of results, heedless of the lesson of history, but willing to go any lengths to abolish class and to bring about an equality which does not exist. I well remember, too, after that time the great French painter, Gustave Dore had to flee from Paris with his precious treasures and instal them in Regent street in his gallery. And many a quiet hour have I spent watching him at work with his brush and palette, doing his pictures so dear to his heart, when he had not even the wherewithal to buy his meals and to pay his rent. But at that time he could have no home in Paris because the Communists
had got control, and had no regard for science, nor art, nor culture, nor for men. I of such pursuits. And I remember on one* occasion, if I may tell it, while I sat in his gallery, a rich and proud American came to see his pictures and implored him to sell one. He offered Gustave Dore $20,000 for the painting, but Dore, with the true ideal of the Frenchman, refused to consider the offer. The American came back and importuned him, and finally offered him, for what was probably his greatest work of art-Christ leaving the Pretorium-$100,000. I well remember when he was pressing that offer; it was in Dore's open gallery in Regent street. I was then a student and I was watching this ideal of the great painter. Dore dropped his brush, gazed upon the painting, and saw there what he had produced upon that canvas, the great central figure of the Christ, with its lights and shades surrounding. And as he looked upon it he turned upon his would-be seducer and said: " No; money can never buy that painting, for itrepresents the life and work of Gustave Dore." I will not say positively, but I believe that France afterwards adopted these works as national treasures, and bestowed upon Gustave Dore the cherished distinction of the Legion of Honour.
I have another point to which I wish to draw attention. The report of the committee says:-
Tour committee further recommends that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.
Well, if I were fortunate enough to be distinguished by the Government of France and had had conferred on me the Legion of Honour I should wear it, and if I had the button and had the right to wear it in the lapel of my coat I should wear it. I do not care what resolutions were passed by this Parliament I should wear it, because I presume I would have some idea of what it meant. And then what would you do? Either you would fall down in your resolution and your law, or you would have to pass an amendment to the Criminal Code to cause my arrest and imprisonment because a foreign nation had deservedly decorated me and I was proud of the distinction and desired to acknowledge it publicly on all occasions. And you want to argue upon the floor of Parliament that after two years' careful deliberation of the question, and after debate and a most earnest consideration of what is wisest and best to do, the

maturity of your deliberations and the expression of the opinion of the people of Canada is such a recommendation!
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if Canada ever hopes to attain a place, or maintain a position, amongst the civilized nations of the world. I do not know if this Parliament of Canada is ever hopeful to realize and recognize the proud stand of our soldiers who fought for liberty, and for their King. But if Canada is to be relieved from the stigma of a transaction of this kind which can only be characterized as a farce, she must eradicate from her records that ridiculous resolution and recommendation of the report which I feel convinced will only be regarded as a laughing stock by the country.
I said that I did not wish to speak very long upon the subject and I have probably exhausted my allotted time. I hope this House will no.t be hasty. I hope it will delay the acceptance of this report. I do not know that I can be altogether carried away with admiration of the ability, the statesmanship, or the mind which at this particular time would introduce here debates and resolutions which, I think, every man must realise, have for their object and effect the setting up of class against class. We are the common people; we are a united people, we are a peace loving body of citizens in Canada, and I hope that amity, unity, and admiration for all that is good and great and noble will yet be the characteristic of the true Canadian without distinction or difference.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) in whatever blame or praise is due to him for bringing this matter before the House. There has been a reproach urged against him to the effeot that this is not a matter of first rate importance and that it has taken up too much of the time of this House. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Is that the fault of the hon. member for Kingston? I should say it is not. One evening last spring the House of Commons was prepared, in my humble opinion, by an overwhelming majority, to adopt and carry the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson), along the same lines as the resolution before the House to-day. It was not the fault of the hon. member for Kingston, and not the fault of the hon. member for Brome, who had seconded the resolution, that it was not carried on that occasion. It was the fault, if fault there be, of the Government

of the day which made the matter a nonconfidence motion and whipped their followers into line. If the House of Commons had been allowed on that evening to express freely and frankly its opinion, the amendment of the hon. member for Springfield would have passed by an overwhelming majority and, in so far as this House is concerned, the matter would have been disposed of.	.
This session, when the hon. member for Kingston brought this matter up, urging again the same position as was assumed by the hon. member for Springfield last year, the motion would have been carried by a substantial majority had not the Government of the day thought it wise to refer the question to a committee. I believe firmly that the hon. member for Kingston has been absolutely sincere and courageous in this matter and I am proud to associate myself with him. I would say to him not to mind the sneers and jeers of those who state that he would employ his talents to greater advantage if he used them to forward some other reform. Every reformer has had to meet that. If people do not like a reform they say to the reformer: Why do you urge this reform; why do you not urge the other reform? You remember what was said to the woman with the alabaster box: Why was this ointment not sold for much and the money given to the poor?
The speech of the hon. member for one of the Torontos (Mr. Sheard) started off by saying that this resolution was a rebuke to His Majesty. His Majesty has no more to do with this than he has to do with a writ issued by a court in Canada which reads: George the Fifth, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, and King of the Dominions Beyond the Seas, [DOT]to so and so, a bailiff of the superior court. It is merely a matter of form and every one knows it. His Majesty has nothing to do with the granting of titles and everybody knows that. The people in England who have to do with the granting of titles are the whips of the political parties and the people in Canada who have to do with the granting of titles are the Government of the day. If the title factory is continued in operation in Canada and the practice grows, -the member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and if we on this side of the House get into power and this pernicious system still exists, my hon. friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) will say who is to be called a knight or a squire.

The members from Toronto are so numerous that I cannot remember all their geographical descriptions, but the distinguished medical gentleman who sits for one of the Torontos need not go very far to find evidence of popular disapproval of knighthoods. He has merely to turn to the distinguished gentleman who sits beside him and whom I congratulate on his support of democracy in voting against knighthoods last session.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman's reference to a distinguished gentleman sitting beside my hon. friend from Toronto I can take to mean only one person and that is myself. I rise to a point of order. I want the hon. gentleman to correct himself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Had I been referring
to the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) I would have call him the "most distinguished.'' However, the next statement-I cannot characterize it by the appellation of argument-made by the hon. member for South Toronto was that in colleges and schools we have great incentives in the medals that are granted, and he asks why we should not have titles to take the place of medals after the college life is over. May I point out to this House that medals are open to all, not only the rich students, but the poor students, and that medals are granted on a democratic basis on examination open to all and in which the poor boy, often by the fact that temptations to waste time are removed from him, has a better chance, or certainly as good a chance, as the son of the rich man.
My hon. friend went on to detail a list of worthy recipients of the honour. Of course there have been worthy recipients of the honour. There is Sir William Osier, a most worthy man, but I would like to ask my hon. friend before he leaves the Chamber if his admiration for Sir William Osier is due to the fact that he said that all men over sixty should be chloroformed, or is it due to the fact that he said that no man after forty had ever done anything worthy of commendation.
Now as regards military decorations. In our report we distinctly did not touch the question of medals or military decorations. The committee was glad to learn from a gallant and distinguished member of this House that at the front those who originated the giving of medals and
decorations were the rank and file of the army, who transmitted instances of particular bravery to their superior officers, who in turn transmitted them to their superiors. That has nothing to do with the question of titles.
My friend also spoke in eloquent terms and "worked himself up to almost a fury of eloquence in denouncing the worship of money in the United States. Let me tell my hon. friend that since the children of Israel worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness, all nations have suffered from the same disease and have worshipped the same false god. But when the argument is attempted to be made in this House that the American people are greater sinners than others in this respect, I beg to give that statement a most emphatic negative.
I thinik of Thomas Jefferson, who died a poor man, and who was a typical American democrat. He was so fond of an entire absence of titles that he preferred to call a man by the plain name of John Smith, and not even John Smith Esquire. I think also of William Howard Taft, who left the greatest position in one of the greatest nations in the world, a comparatively poor man, to go back to be a college professor.
I think of Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who was forced out of the presidency of Princeton University because he was against rich men's clubs in the university as being undemocratic; they -forced him out of the presidency of Princeton University and into the presidency of the United States. Then we had a tirade against the French Revolution.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: But there was an English Revolution before that, and there was a Charles who was beheaded.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There was an English revolution, and there was a Charles beheaded; but I would not hurt the Royalist sentiments, or the tender Stuart proclivities of any hon. gentlemen who sit opposite by referring to those events. But I might speak with pride of the revolution of 1688, when William of Orange came over the North sea and landed in England to found a new dynasty there when the former king disappeared. I believe such a reference as that will not be ungrateful or ungracious to the ears of some hon. gentlemen opposite; they, like me, are warm admirers of that great Dutchman, William of Orange. But we have heard a tirade against the French Revolution. If you will pardon a personal reference, Mr. Speaker, some years ago I had the pleasure of being a student at Edinburgh

University. I belong to a literary and debating society there called the Dialectic Society, which had been in existence a little more than a hundred years. Those Scotch students of the Dialectic Society discussed the French revolution when it was in progress and spread upon their minute book- (I saw the resolution)-that the French revolution would result in greater benefit than harm to mankind. And they were right, because whatever were the extreme measures which characterized that revolution, whatever were the extravagances of those connected with the movement, it was a great liberating movement, a great forward advance in the march of liberty.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to confuse the French revolution proper with the period of anarchy and Bolshevism?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.
jSir SAM HUGHES: I hope not.
Mr. MdMASTER: But I say that these great changes in the history of mankind are often accompanied by turmoil, disorder, anarchy and crime.


Samuel Hughes: Every one has endorsed the revolution.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Every one has got to
endorse the French revolution. My friend from Toronto-I am not sure from which geographical division-has read history, if I may dare to say, through Torontonian eyes if he does not appreciate the French revolution.
Now we come to the last argument that in this House attempting to do away with knighthoods and distinctions of this sort we are trying to set class against class. That is what they said of John Bright when he was trying to free from taxes the bread of the poor in Great Britain.


John Hampden Burnham: And voted against the Factory Acts.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He voted against the Factory Acts only as regards men.


John Hampden Burnham: And women and
children.
Mr. MdMASTER: He did not in the case of women and children, that is where my hon. friend is wrong. Let him read Trevelyan's life of John Bright, he will find that John Bright supported the Factory Acts for the protection of women and chidren, but he believed that as far as men were concerned-I think he was wrong as a matter of fact'they could get better 
economic justice for themselves through their unions than through legislation. It is an old, old story that John Bright opposed protecting women, and especially children, against the rapacity and the selfishness of their employers. Setting class against class! Why what we are trying to do by this resolution is to endeavour to have true democracy in this country. No one will tell me that knighthoods can be distributed except to those who have got the wealtja to support them. Perhaps one of the least harmful features would be the granting of knighthoods to soldiers in the field; but you cannot knight generals unlesis you are prepared to knight colonels; you cannot knight colonels unless you are prepared to knight captains; you cannot knight captains unless you are prepared to knight lieutenants; you cannot knight lieutenants unless you are prepared to knighit sergeants; and you cannot knight sergeants unless you are prepared to knight the rank and file. T say that as far as heroism and unselfish devotion to duty are concerned, that the rank and file will compare with those of any other branch of the Canadian or any other army. No1, we are not attempting to set class .against class, but we are attempting to do away with a system which we believe has no place in the free air of North America. 'Therefore, I give my most hearty, sympathetic, and warm support to the report which has been submitted by my gallant, brave and unselfish friend from Kingston.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise with any purpose of dealing with this question on what one might call its merits; I think that is unnecessary afteT the very eloquent and able speech, from my point of view, of the hon. member from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard).
I rise with a double purpose, Sir, in my mind: The first purpose I have is to give a slightly different view of what happened before the Committee than is given either in the report, or in the speech which we we have had to-day from my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I was a member of that Committee and I did not get the notice calling the final meeting for the adoption of the report until the meeting itself was breaking up. The reason for that was: The notices culling that meeting iwere not posted in the post office until nine o'clock the night before, and sometimes business is of such a nature that it does not detain members after that hour. I understand there was only a bare quorum

when the report was adopted. If I had been present I should have made it quite clear that I could not concur in the report as adopted because, to my mind, it is illogical, iit leaves certain anomalies, and if we analyzed the report carefully, the House, by its adoption, would be going very far towards lending its countenance to the absurdity.
Now with regard to the question of hereditary titles. I do not think there is much difference of opinion in this House or in the country. The question of heredity is totally apposed to the question of the distinction conferred upon a man in his own	lifetime-opposed	in principle. A man who gets a distinc< tion in his own lifetime, from a monarch or any one else, presumably has earned it.
But the man who only gets it from his father has inherited it, and has had nothing to do with the earning of it. I take it that this whole House would be opposed to any continuation of the hereditary principle.
But with regard to the other findings of the Committee, I can scarcely think that a majority of the House will support them when they understand exactly what the report recommends. It is said, for example, that we are to recommend His Majesty to insure the extinction of titular distinctions. The paragraph immediately succeeding that which makes this recommendation says that "a suggestion was made that the titles of * Eight Honourable ' and ' Honourable ' be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet with the approval of the Committee.'^ I submit to this House that the titles " Honourable " and " Eight Honourable " are titular distinctions. As a matter of fact, what happened was that I had the duty of moving that those titles, if Parliament abolished all titles, must go likewise, because I wanted to be logical. That was voted down on the Committee by only six to three. There were only nine members at the moment taking sufficient interest in the proceedings of the Committee to give a' vote on what I conceived to be a very important point.
We are asked by this report-in which I should have been very sorry to concur, because I cannot, the way my mind is trained, concur in anything which is the embodiment at once of democratic cant and illogical nonsense-in one paragraph to recommend His Majesty to abolish all titular distinctions in Canada, and we are asked in another paragraph-by a six, to three vote of the same Committee-to retain the titles " Honourable " and " Eight Honourable," which I contend, on any fair interpretation of the English language, are themselves titular distinctions. What is the difference between the " Sir " which goes with a knighthood and the " Eight Honourable" which goes with a Privy Counsellorship? The one comes to a man because he is made a member of the Privy Council; the other is conferred directly by the Sovereign. The same applies to the term " Honourable " to this extent, that while the " Sir " is conferred directly by the Sovereign, the title " Honourable " comes under the provisions of the British North America Act, if I am not mistaken, to members of the Senate and to the members of provincial or Dominion Administrations. Wen, with regard to the present occupants of portfolios, whether in the provincial governments or in the Dominion Government, I suppose we are all prepared to say, " Brutus is an honourable man; so are they all, all honourable men." But I am perfectly sure in regard to the history of some of the men who have held that title of honourable in the past, the title was very much needed, because a good many people would not have suspected the existence of what the title suggests.


William Folger Nickle: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to show me where the word " abolish " appears in the report?


Michael Clark: "Extinction" is the word !l used.	.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member used the word " abolish." I do not see it anywhere in the report.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is only a mind like that of the hon. member for Kingston that could see a difference between abolition and extinction. When I am extinguished I shall be pretty badly abolished. I do not want to dispute this point. I quoted the word " extinction," and if my hon. friend is out for literary accuracy in dealing with the report, why, Sir, he can have the word " extinction." Extinction is coming to us all, and when we are extinguished we shall be abolished.


William Folger Nickle: May I have the privilege of asking a question?


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I shall really have to ask the hon. member for Kingston not to interrupt.


Mr.   SPEAKEK@: The hon. member for Eed Deer has the floor.


William Folger Nickle: Yes, unless he gives me the privilege of putting a question, and I think he should do so. May I have the privilege of putting this question? Then I will not

interrupt again. Does my hon. friend not see " to insure the extinction " applies only to hereditary titles?


Michael Clark: The point has the merit of a very slight distinction. What my hon. friend will admit is that the paragraph which asks for the extinction of hereditary titles asks for the discontinuance of the conferring of knighthoods.


William Folger Nickle: It does nothing of the sort.


Michael Clark: Then I do not understand the report.


William Folger Nickle: That is the difficulty.


Michael Clark: Then, Mr. Speaker, if a member of the Committee does not understand the report, I can only say that that would be a very good reason for the next Committee over which my hon. friend presides sending out notices for the final meeting rather more than twelve hours before the final meeting is called; and it would also be a very good reason for this House taking some considerable time to study the report before endorsing or amending it. I understood that we were to recommend His Majesty to confer no more titles of the knighthood order in Canada


William Folger Nickle: That is correct.


Michael Clark: That is what I said a minute ago. Then 'my hon. friend interjected that the report did nothing of the kind.


William Folger Nickle: No.


Michael Clark: That is exactly what I said a minute ago, and I must say that my hon. friend has wrought himself up to such a pitch of excitement on this question that he forgets one moment afterwards what has been said one minute before.


William Folger Nickle: Look at to-morrow's Hansard.


Michael Clark: I must retuim to my argument in spite of these interruptions, which are of a somewhat persistent and disorderly nature, Mr. Speaker. At the time when my hon. friend intervened to make a distinction without a difference I was pointing out .that this report asked the House of Commons to recommend His Majesty to extinguish the custom of giving knighthoods, and in the next paragraph it says that it does not reoommend His Majesty to interfere with the titles of "Honourable" or "Right Honourable." And I had arrived at the point in my remarks when comparing the title "Honour-
IMr. Nickle.]
able"-which is a title that goes to hon. members of the Senate-with the title "Sir"-which is the prefix of knighthood,-[DOT] I was pointing out that what we would actually do if we adopted this report in its entirety would not be to abolish titular distinctions >ait all, but to abolish titular distinctions conferred by His Majesty, while we ourselves would continue those which come to our fellow citizens un* der the British North America Act. So that the report of the Committee brings us to this position: We have more respect for what was done in the British North America Act by the titled gentlemen who occupied the House of Lords fifty or sixty years ago and their comrades in the House of Commons, than we have for His Most Gracious Majesty at present occupying the throne of the British Empire. I contend that that is an absurd recommendation for any committee to make to this House, and that we should be illogical in the extreme if we adopted it.
Another reason why I would not have concurred in this report if I had been at the last meeting of the Committee is because of the recommendation in regard to foreign titles. Mr. Speaker, just think of what is actually recommended in that part of the report. It reads:
Your committee further recommends that appropriate action he taken toy legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or utoe any title of honour or titular [DOT]distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.
The House will observe that we cannot interfere with a foreign monarch. But the Committee recognized that it would be a great anomaly to recommend our own Sovereign to confer no titles upon people resident in Canada and yet to allow people in Canada to accept similar decorations from a foreign monarch. But the difficulty of the whole subject as it is dealt with in this report will at once be brought home to the mind of the House when we reflect that there had to be a recommendation that legislation be passed by this House to prevent our citizens from receiving titular distinctions from a foreign monarch. Now, legislation, to be effective, must carry with it a penal clause. Therefore, what is recommended by this report is that we should pass legislation with a penal clause, sentencing to fine or imprisonment men who have been so distinguished among their fellows that they have been picked out by monarchs of foreign countries to be the recipients of dis-

tinction. It is the thought of that condition that led me to say in the opening of my remarks that if we adopted this report in its entirety we should be passing very nearly into the realm of the absurd. That is a brief history of the arguments that came before the *Committee as they appealed to at least a minority of the Committee, of which this report is not the unanimous finding.	_
The second purpose, Sir, for which I rose was to say that I thought the feelings and sentiments of the Canadian people would be met on this subject at the present time if they accepted the guidance which was to be had in the very sane, constitutional speech of my hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). I think he indicated, without doing so specifically, the lines which would meet the average thought of a majority of the thinking people of this country. For the principle of heredity I do not think any one has any use. But I feel that, what was in the mind of my hon. friend who leads the Opposition was that to go much further than a recommendation to governments that greater care should be taken in the conferring of distinctions would be going further than would be wise, having regard to all the circumstances.
I was very much impressed by the argument of my hon. friend by which he made it clear to the House, or clear to my mind anyhow, that in practice the King confers only those distinctions that are recommeded by governments. What I think my hon. friend wanted us to infer from that was that it would be a wise thing, it would be a temperate thing, to keep the King out of this thing altogether. If it is governments that do this, then let us, as a House of Commons, be reasonable and address ourselves to governments and tell them what we think is the average opinion of the people of Canada upon this subject. I am confident that the prevailing sentiment of this country is that the principle of hereditary titles is utterly bad and that there has been an abuse of the giving of titles; that titles have been conferred upon people that the majority of the Canadian people would not have honoured in that way. If these two points were brought clearly out in a recommendation to this Government, in conjunction with the Imperial Government, we should keep the monarch out of tire matter; we should take a step in advance along the line of what those who feel keenly about it feel is the line of reform; and we should leave a large
number of people with the satisfaction that they derive from the thought that constitutional proceedings which have come down through centuries should not be too lightly or too rudely interfered with at this particular period of our history.
The leader of the Opposition laid down an excellent principle when he said that he was for freedom in these matters-he added,
I think, " in all matters." Well, I was particularly glad to hear him say that, because I at once added mentally that he is not only for free titles, but for free trade as well. I hope I did not misunderstand his generalization. If that is the state of his mind, it has come about suddenly; but after all, there have been sudden conversions in history that have been very beneficial to mankind and I should rejoice with unspeakable joy and without any reserve if the case of Saul of Damascus was repeated in the case of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I think that freedom might well be allowed to rule in this matter, for a time at any rate. I repeat that so far as I can interpret the mind of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) he has, on this question anyhow, interpreted the mind of the country. The country would be very well satisfied at this time if the House could see its way to pass some resolution or to amend this recommendation so that we express ourselves strongly against hereditary titles and strongly in favour of more care being exercised in the conferring of any other titles.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say
a few words on this subject, because I believe it is of vast importance. Many things which appear to be trifling because they are splashy nevertheless hide a great deal of rottenness, and that is the case with the whole scheme of titular distinctions, without exception. The day has passed for the triumph of aristocracy.
We have reached the age of democracy, and it would be well for the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. dark) and the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Sheard) to remember that fact. If hon. gentlemen fancy that they are not interpreting the wishes of their constituents by voting for the resolution and if they are in favour of the continuance of titles, let them go on and vote for titles they will find out what their constituents think about the matter the next time they go home or the next time they stand for election. I do not intend to debate this question at great length, as we have heard about it for years. I

brought up the subject in 1913-14, and I was knocked out by two heavy weights, the great and much lamented late leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Eaurier, and the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). This seemed too much for me to go up against at the time, so I retired for a sponge-off and a glass of water. But there intervened a war, and it seemed to me that it was inadvisable, under all the circumstances, to interpose a row about titles in the much greater row that was going on in Europe. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. iSTickle), however, after consulting me about the matter, took up the question and has dealt with it with the object of stemming the tide of decorations which was about to flow in consequence of the war. He is no doubt well advised, and he had more courage than I, or perhaps more wisdom. I thought the day was coming when, undoubtedly, people in Canada as elsewhere in the world would insist that titular and class distinctions must disappear. We could well afford to wait. We have waited for hundreds of years for this consummation to be brought about, and surely, when we view the world over, we may well and confidently say that those who are in favour of class distinctions will disappear with the junkers of Germany and the aristocrats of Russia.
We find in the world to-day very little in support of the arguments of these hon. gentlemen. We find that the last desperate stand of aristocracy made in Europe as it has been, has been a signal failure, and the only reason that it has stands apparently solidly in Great Britain is that in that country it has been less abused than, perhaps, anywhere else in the world, and therefore, it has more apologists. But to argue, as has been argued here this afternoon, that because certain men like Joshua Reynolds were knighted, therefore, that knighthood, is a distinction conferred upon art, is to give the whole case away.
_ All I need to do is to refer, as I did in my interruption of the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Sheard), to the fact that all the greatest men with the exception of Sir Isaac Newton remained without titular distinctions. You have to begin if necessary with Homer, Buddha, Confucius, Thucydides, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Seven Wise Men of Greece, with all the historical characters of Europe, unless you appeal to the great rascals such as Nero, Commodus and the like. Surely hon. members do not think that Scipio Africanus required a title. Surely they do not think that our friend Julius Caesar

was smaller for not having, a title. And these hon. gentlemen show their ignorance of history when they say that these distinctions confer honour on the arts. What about Titian, Michael Angelo, Velasquez, Correggio, Rubens, Rembrandt, Raphael, Corot, and Hod knows what other great names. Do not entangle these great men with these little trappings of titles that hang like spit curls at the side of a woman's head, and that amount to nothing. These great men tower majestically over all these little things which arose from what? They arose from property owners, and not from the people. They were not recommendations of the people. They were what the aristocracy gave to themselves before the people had the right of franchise or had any liberty at all; but when the time cann that the people rose strongly in their own might and shook off these things, they shook off class distinction's, and these hon. gentlemen here to-day who have spoken so strongly in favour of titles, so insidiously and in many ways, so cunningly, are compelled to acknowledge that the rottenest branch of the whole tree is hereditary titles, the greatest and highest of all. If it be the case that the 'topmost branch, the great culmination, the apotheosis of the whole titular business is absurd, it follows that the lesser is only less absurd, unless logically you choose to argue that it is more. I am not going to condescend to argue the question against titles. If hon. members are so ill-read in the history of class and class distinction's in the struggle of the people as to continue to wish that titles and class distinctions and all those abominations should be perpetuated, let them go on, but they will reckon with their people at home some day, and I am content to leave the matter to the great mass of the people of this country, if the members of the House do not wish to exterminate these titular distinctions to-day. We have been told-and I believe it is true-that the Government wants this to be a fight to a finish. We have been beaten several times; we have been more or less jockeyed-and I do not say that in any nasty sense. I brought a good deal of opprobrium last year upon my humble self by having endeavoured to find out from the late lamented leader of the Opposition if he intended to let the Opposition have a free-for-all. I found out that the Prime Minister regarded that as a constitutional mistake, and I retired under my bed, and I did so promptly, but I do not purpose getting under the bed any more. I do not mind being moderate nor endeavouring to be discreet; but

this question is one of great importance to the people, and if some of these gentlemen will go to Winnipeg or Toronto or to some other place where there are great gatherings of the masses of the people and deliver the speeches which they have delivered to-day, they will have a reception which will astonish them, or I am mistaken.	,
Brigadier-General GRIESBACH (Edmonton West) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) that as regards Scipio Africanus, Scipio was the gentleman's name and " Africanus " was the title conferred upon him. The point to which I particularly desire to direct attention is the paragraph of the report which says:
Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.
This paragraph must be construed, I take it, somewhat as a legal document, and inasmuch as certain decorations have been mentioned, it may be assumed that those which are not mentioned are thereby excepted. As I understand this paragraph and as it has been explained to me by the Chairman of the Committee, it would, if adopted, prevent recognition by the granting of an honour or an award to any officer in the Canadian service above the rank of captain.
That is what this proposal means. It excepts the D.S.O., the C.M.G., and the C.B. and the Distinguished Conduct Medal, for some reason unknown to me, although some 1,204 have been granted to Canadian soldiers in the war. The Victoria Cross, of which fifty-three only, although that is a laTge number, have been granted to Canadian soldiers, is a decoration which can really only be won by non-commissioned officers and junior officers. Only in very exceptional cases can it be won by officers above the rank of captain, because when officers are in their proper places and in the proper discharge of their duties, a major or lieutenant-colonel will be too far away from the scene of fierce activity to win this distinction. The Military Medal can only be won by non-commissioned officers and men and the Military Cross by warrant officers, lieutenants and captains. The Conspicuous Service Cross is unknown to me.
An hon. MEMBEB: That is naval.
Brigadier-General GRIESBACH: I do not know what it is awarded for. Therefore, if this report means what it purports on the face of it, this House, by implication, is asked to say that decorations which have been won in the last four years, and which are being proudly worn by distinguished soldiers of the rank of major and upwards, and n.c.o's and men shall he-barred in the future. For although these distinguished officers and men may wear these decorations, they will do so in face of the implied opinion of this House that they are unnecessary and do not stand for anything, and that the wearing of them is dangerous and pernicious. That is what this report virtually asks the House to declare in reference to the deco-rations worn by Canadian officers of the rank of major and upwards. I shall vote against the adoption of this report because of that aspect of it.
With regard to foreign decorations, Canadian .soldiers are to-day wearing a considerable number of French orders and Belgian orders which have been awarded to them by the governments of those countries for services rendered by them in France and Belgium during the war, and the same observations apply to these decorations as to the British decorations. Those who have them at present may keep them, but they will not be permitted in the future, and I would direct attention to the situation that frequently arises, and will arise,1 in connection with rescues at sea by British ships. At the time of the earthquake in Italy British ships went into the harbour, and British sailors, displaying admirable courage, and at a serious risk to life and limb, rescued people who were buried beneath the ruins. What position would the Canadian sailor be placed in if, having performed such a splendid act and having been graciously offered some recognition of his service, he had perforce to decline the honour which a foreign government desired to bestow upon him? The question as to whether this country can legally make it impossible for citizens to receive these decorations is a matter for the legal gentlemen to consider; but I can conceive of no legislation short of a penal law that could prevent a man from accepting such a decoration if it were conferred upon him. The argument which may be urged against the decorations that are of the nature of orders is that such orders lead to knighthood. The report of the Committee

declares that there is an objection to the C.M.G. because it is the third class of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and the C.B., because it carries membership in the Order of the Bath, and because in these _ orders there is promotion to knighthood. The Committee are objecting to the C.B. and the C.M.G., although in themselves they are not knighthoods. In themselves they are not titular distinctions or titles of honour, for you can hardly go around appending the phrase "Companion of the Bath" or "Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George" to a man's name when speaking of him, no matter how respectable his companions may be. The situation that would arise, then, assuming that this report is accepted, would be that in the future Canadians serving in co-operation with Australians, South Africans, New Zealanders or British troops, would be unable to accept such honours and awards as might be bestowed on officers of equal rank in the other forces. It may occur to some one, Mr. Speaker, as being a matter of very small moment; but I assure you, as a soldier, that it is, on the contrary, of considerable importance. A soldier does not ask very much; he does not get very much. But he does wear with proper pride the ribbons and the distinctions of the orders which he has gained. These distinctions cost the soldier a great deal, and are earned with a labour that is inconceivable to those who are not of his calling. It is almost futile to attempt to convey to the civilian mind all that they do mean to him. But let me assure the House, even if I repeat, that they mean a great deal. They round off his military career, and inform others exactly where he has been and what he has done; and if, without any endeavour to safeguard the well-earned and dearly-bought distinctions of these men, you indiscriminately abolish all these decorations, you are introducing, in my judgment, a very serious innovation. We find in the Army that these distinctions^ are necessary. Not only has this, during the past four years of fighting, been true in the British Army, where the full value of these rewards is recognized, but the Americans, who came into the war practically without any medals of any sort, found it necessary during the struggle to evolve a complete system of decorations. Before this Committee's report is' adopted, I earnestly desire that every hon. member will seriously consider the position of our Army in the future when called upon to co-operate with other armies [Brigadier-General Griesbach.]
in the Empire; and I ask that the House will weigh well the feelings and sentiments of many gallant soldiers who are not able to speak for themselves here to-day, but who will, without doubt, feel keenly the effrontery and insult which this report, if adopted as it stands, will reflect upon them.


Mr. ROBERT JAMES MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the honour of being put upon this committee when it was appointed, but I had hoped that when this committee brought in its report the report would be in such a form that it would be accepted by the House practically without discussion and that probably, as soon as it had been accepted we would be able to get back to the discussion of some of the really practical things of life, such as the cost of living, and so perhaps the cutting down of some of the Bolshevism and revolutionary feeling in this country. However, as the report has come in and as I had nothing to do with framing it, I-must say that it is not entirely satisfactory to my mind, therefore I should like to offer an amendment, if it is permitted, on the report of the committee. I do not know whether it will be in order or not. I did not intend to speak at this moment, but perhaps I might proceed with the discussion and leave the point of order to be considered afterwards. The part of the report that I do not wish to agree with was that which was taken up by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Griesbach) that Tefers to the cutting out such distinctions as C.B. or C.M.G., which do not carry any title. Therefore, I believe these distinctions need not have been cut out by the committee. I^believe it was the feeling of this House last year, and that it was the feeling this year when the question was up for discussion, that hereditary titles and knighthoods, which give the titles of Sir and Lady, should be discontinued. I do not think that anybody in this country who has been bothering about this question really cares how many letters you place after a man's name, if you leave off the aristocratic touch of knighthood.
The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) made a very eloquent speech this afternoon, one of the most beautiful that I have ever heard him deliver, and I have heard him many times in the old days in Toronto. But, I believe that many of his points were beside the question. For example, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and those who are supporting

the report, are not making any attack upon those who have been given knighthood. Nobody in this House has greater respect from me than the hon. the leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) who has a knighthood. Such distinguished people as Sir William Osier, Sir Joshua Reynolds and Sir James Simpson, the discoverer of chloroform, and the other distinguished men whom the hon. member for South Toronto mentioned, are not being attacked by tho.se who are supporting this resolution.
I should like to get the view of the House upon making a motion to do away with hereditary titles of all kinds, and knighthoods, ih this country.
I understood the hon. member who has just taken his seat to desire that titles should be given to certain officers who have performed good service overseas. I understood from his remarks that he believes that knighthoods should be retained at least for certain officers, those in charge of divisions or brigades who have not been discriminated against, hut who have more or less been forgotten up to date and who might be given knighthoods by the Crown. Am I right in that?
Brigadier-General GRIESBACH: I did not say anything about that at all. I hope the hon. gentleman will confine his remarks to what he himself thinks. I have said what I have said; I did not say anything about what the hon. gentleman has said. '


Robert James Manion: That is quite possible. 1 do not wish to put any words into my hon. friend's mouth that he did not use, but I understood him to say that certain men who had served at the front if they were forgot, ten would feel that they had been insulted by this country. That is my understanding of what he referred to, but I do not know whether I am right in that or not. If I am not right I will be glad to be corrected.
Brigadier-General GRIESBACH: What I said-or what I meant to say-was that by accepting this report barring out C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., D.C.M., this House would be reflecting upon a number of gallant men who have gained these distinctions in the past I concluded by stating that it would appear that the framers of this report considered the granting of such distinctions to Canadians as unsound, dangerous, and pernicious.


Robert James Manion: I accept the hon, gentleman's statement. I, perhaps, have been carried away to a certain extent by the fact that I understood that he had made that
statement to the committee, but I accept my hon. friend's statement absolutely. I agree with the hon. gentleman that such distinctions as C.M.G. and D.S.O. should be continued. But I certainly do not gather from the report of the committee that they should be discontinued. The report says:-
Tour committee however do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, *Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.
I distinctly take that into account.
Brigadier-General GRIESBACH: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman ask the Chairman of the Committee to state what *the Committee does say.


Robert James Manion: We will leave that question out for the present. I have just heard there is an amendment to be made by the hon. member for East Algoma which will cover the point that I wish to make in my amendment.
There is an objection to making a distinction .between military men and others in regard to the conferring of knighthoods. In the first place, the war has been carried on for four years against the German military caste or aristocracy. I do not think that we wish in this country to establish any such military caste to take the place of the military caste that was destroyed in Germany. The second point I wish to make in regard to the conferring of distinctions upon military men is this: The real heroes of this war have not been Sir Arthur Currie, gallant soldier as he is, or the staff officers, or the commanders of divisions, brigades, battalions or the medical officers but they have been the ordinary private soldiers who went over the top. The private soldiers are the men who have endured the greatest hardships, who have faced the greatest dangers and who have displayed the greatest courage in this war and yet, not by any stretch of the imagination, would any of these private soldiers be given a knighthood. The greatest soldier of all, Ferdinand Foch, has no title except his military title of Marshal. I might go further to exemplify the point that a title is not necessary in order to enable any man to be great. On the contrary, three of the greatest men at the Peace Conference are plain Misters, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Georges Clemenceav and Mr. Woodrow Wilson, and they would not have been any greater if they had had titles.

I am not belittling the officers of the Canadian army, of whom my friend from Edmonton (Brigadier General Griesbach) is one of the most gallant, but I think there should be no distinction in the giving of titles, titles should be allowed to be given to all or none. The hon. member for South Toronto mentioned the discoverer of chloroform and a number of other discoveries in medicine. I think that if the day should come that some Canadian would discover a cure for tuberculosis he will have performed a greater service to humanity than any general or hero who has served at the front in this war -and he would deserve a title. I do not like to see any distinction made by giving titles to one class and not to some other class. In other words, we should teach our youth to aspire to proficiency in the constructive arts of peace rather than in the destructive arts of war.
The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) as I understand it, is going to move an amendment along the lines that I suggest-that is that we do away with hereditary titles of all kinds, and do away with knighthoods in this country. That is the only point I wish to make; I think the rest of the report might easily be omitted.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (Algoma East):: 

dent in Canada, the greatest care should he exercised in the selection, and that special regard should toe paid1 to the personal merit and distinguished services of the recipient thereof.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the limited opportunity I have had of looking into the wording of this motion, I am inclined to the . opinion that it is not in order. When a motion is made for the adoption of the report of a committee, it is competent for the House to adopt it, to reject it, or to refer it back to the committee with or without instructions. Or, a motion may be made for the six month's hoist. I do not think it competent to move to amend the report of a committee.


George Brecken Nicholson: Would I he in order, -Sir, if I should ask to amend the motion so as to conform to your ruling.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the circumstances,
the hon. member should ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.


George Brecken Nicholson: With the consent of the House I will withdraw the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Amendment withdrawn.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will move an amendment in these words.


Mr. PROULX:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has already spoken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member still
has the floor.


George Brecken Nicholson: I move:
That the report of the committee toe referred hack to the committee, with instructions to amend the same in the following manner:
That all the words after " that " of the said motion be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:
That only paragraph (b) respecting hereditary titles of the report of the sub-committee appointed to consider the question of conferring honours, etc., upon subjects of His Majesty resident in Canada be concurred in; and that this House is of the opinion that in making recommendations to His Majesty for the conferring of knighthoods or other titular distinctions upon persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, the greatest care should be exercised in the selection thereof, and special regard should be paid to the personal merit and distinguished services of the recipient thereof.


William Folger Nickle: I rise to a point of order. There is no word " that " in the report following which everything else can be struck out. If hon. gentlemen are going to sub-

mit an amendment, may I suggest that they take time and draw it properly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In my opinion, the
motion as put by the member-for Algoma East (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) is in order. The main motion is that the report of the special committee be concurred in. Mr. Nicholson moves, seconded by Mr. Sheard, that the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to amend the same " in the following manner." The question is on the amendment.


Air. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Air. Speaker, as one of those who were charged with the duty of taking under consideration the matter of titles, I feel called upon to make just a few remarks on this occasion. The report, I may say, was satisfactory to scarcely any man on the committee, and I do not think I am giving away any secret when I make that statement. But that some of us pursued a logical course I think I shall be able to ' show the House, if hon. members will have the patience to follow what took place in the Committee. I have always endeavoured to be consistent in any matter that I have undertaken to do in the House or the country, and if I fail in that regard it is because my judgment is at fault and not because I wish to err. I have endeavoured in every respect to be absolutely consistent in dealing with the matter that was submitted to the Committee for report.
In the first place, the question of hereditary titles came up. It was assented to practically unanimously by the Committee 

and I believe it is almost the unanimous opinion of this House, that the Committee was right in its decision-that all hereditary titles in Canada should be discontinued and that -sudh as now exist should die out when the then present owner of any title dies, that is, that his title should not descend to his posterity, the belief being that posterity has done nothing to deserve it. I think that in that respect the Com-rqittee was a unit.
The next matter, and perhaps the most crucial, was with regard to knighthood or the title of "Sir," and the lesser titles that are said to be stepping stones to the title of knighthood. I am one of those who have always endeavoured to support the throne and dignity that surrounds it, and while there may be cosmopolitan members, such as the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McAIaster) who do not see any use in "frills" and titles and so on, the average citizen is built on different lines, and he recognizes that in order that the best may

be made of this life there must be divisions as there always have been and ias there always will continue to be in this world. They cannot be done without, as was shown very conclusively by the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Sheard) this afternoon. The matter of competition begins in the very earliest days of childhood. The child appeals to the approval of its parents or to the applause of the older or younger members of the family. That is recognized	in human	nature,	and
in spite of all the	insistence of
the hon. member for Brome and other extreme radicals, that can never be thoroughly eradicated from the human breast. I believe with others that His Majesty the King and the pillars of the Throne that surround him, be they who they may for the time being, are the best authorities in the British Empire to say whether or not a man should be distinguished amongst his fellows. Ii His Majesty who occupies the Throne of the Empire at the present moment, believes that during this war certain persons, be they soldiers or sailors or civilians, have done acts of valour and distinction and national service, in my opinion, it rests with him to say whether or not those gentlemen should be recognized on his part as those whom the King delights to honour. We have examples, from away back in ancient history right down to the present time, that these distinctions have always existed, and they always will exist in this world in spite of all the drastic proposals that have been made by some members of the committee, that we should do away forever with all titles, that we should throw them into the waste paper basket or the garbage can and get rid of them. That is not a wise conclusion, and when we undertake to address His Majesty as we do in this resolution, the least we can do is to talk with sense and dignity


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: Hon. members should not say "hear, hear" too soon. I may have something to say a little later on to which they will not feel like saying " hear, hear." The least we can do is to talk with sense and dignity, and not to endeavour to approach His Majesty in any way that, at the present time, which is a very critical period in the history of this country, may lessen the hold that he has upon his faithful subjects. Whether I am alone in this or not, I do not know, but I see something beneath the surface in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I have said so in the committee
and I am not afraid to say so here, that I see something beneath the surface, and that I purpose letting the House know what I see in it. If hon. members do not think there is anything in it, that will be all right, but I shall feel that I have tried to do my duty according to my light and knowledge. There are but very few ties between the Dominion of Canada and the Empire at the present time, and they have been described on more than one occasion as being lighter than^ air, but strong as iron. The conferring of* titles by His Majesty is one slender thread that has been recognized ever since we became a Dominion up to the present time as one of the prerogatives of the Throne and that we have allowed to go unchallenged until last year. Another is the appeal to the Privy Council, and it is rather strange to say that many of the same men who are at the present time bent upon destroying titles are also of opinion that in matters of litigation there should be no appeal beyond the high courts of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. OOiCKSHUTT:	This demonstration
only goes to prove the truth of my words. Gentlemen sit upon the Opposition benches who would destroy appeals to the Privy Council. Let them wait until I cite the other two. There are many who have told me privately-I have not found one man who has got up on his feet on the floor of this House and stated that, but probably some one will do so before we are through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, legs, if you
please, then. I say that those two-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Foster Cockshutt: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker, or not in the words I used?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If hon. members have any point of order to raise, they should raise it.


William Foster Cockshutt: Probably I was not
as dignified as a man who supports titles should be, and I will take it back to that extent, and I will endeavour to be more circumspect, because I believe we are all walking uprightly or trying to do so, and we are not using four legs to do it. I was only speaking figuratively. These same gentlemen who want to abolish titles want also to banish appeals to the Privy Council, and if one talks privately with many of them, one will find they will state that the Governor General of Canada.

is a figurehead and costs a great deal of money to the country and ought to go. Time and again I have heard that stated, and it cannot be disputed, although some of them have not the courage to get up and say so. What other ties remain? We have simply the Crown and King left to bind us to the Motherland, and three legs having gone it will not be hard to knock out the fourth, and then we shall have the whole Empire tottering and coming down. In my judgment, every one of those ties, light as they are, is a silver thread that holds us to the Crown and to the Empire.
Believing that, I said in the committee, and I say here, that if any one is qualified to bestow distinctions and titles on soldier, sailor or civilian, it is His Majesty the King and his faithful advisers that surround the Throne. Having laid down that principle and having been defeated in the committee, I say I was perfectly consistent when I said, "If you do not take titles from His Majesty you shall not take them, with my consent, from any one else." We therefore moved- an extreme radical and myself working hand in hand-that "Honourable" and "Eight Honourable," not having come from the Throne, should also be banished. Strange to say, the gentlemen that said "We are out to pull up all titles by the roots and to banish every distinction," voted in retention of the appellations "Honourable" and "Eight Honourable," while we Imperialists voted for their abolition. Fine consistency, Mr. Speaker. Beautiful consistency. Surely the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) can see that even he was getting somewhat out of hand with himself when he had to support the retention of "Honourable" and "Eight Honourable" and at the same time do away with all titles emanating from the King. Now, Mr. Speaker, seriously-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, if my hon.
friends do not think I am speaking seriously they may say "hear, hear." I have the commendation of my own conscience in the matter and have better proof of the correctness of my position than the applause of hon. gentlemen opposite, because when they applaud me I always think I am going wrong. I say that "Honourable" and "Eight Honourable" are the most disagreeable and most uncalled for of all the titles we have. Suppose you call me "Honourable" and I am not.entitled to the term; I have to come back and say I am not honourable. Then you say: "You are in the dishonourable 
class," and rightly so. Therefore, I say that the man who presumes to be called "Honourable" arrogates to himself certain characteristics of mind which require that he shall deal truly with his neighbour, that he shall not oppress the poor, that he shall not wrong his neighbour to the extent of a single dollar, and that he shall live an absolutely circumspect life. If he does not fulfil these obligations, he does not deserve the title "Honourable," for it carries within itself elements of character which none of the others have. A man might be a blackguard for all his title of "Honourable;" but the man who deserves the title must live up to all the attributes it implies. Therefore I believe we were absolutely consistent when we moved that the titles "Honourable " and '' Eight Honourable " should be abolished. But that was not all. We have heard some criticism of the last clause, which is about the only one I may be said to have fathered, and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. I think I was the mover of that in the Committee, and strange to say though I have been in a great minority most of the way through, even the Democrats swung round finally, when they were shamed into it, and voted for this. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that we had gentlemen upon that committee who, having held that His Majesty the King and his advisers should not bestow titles upon Canadians, had the wonderful audacity to get up there and tell us that though we would not accept titles from our own King whose advisers had no right to send them to Canada, yet we would take them from every other nation in Europe. What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker? Can hon. members cheer at that, or at the action of those gentlemen on the committee who, having said that no titles should come from the King at the head of the British Empire, were prepared nevertheless to take them from every European country? What does that indicate?


An hon. MEMBER:: Disloyalty.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, disloyalty and
worse than that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, my friends
may think that I have nothing to support my arguments in this respect, but I have taken the precaution to fortify my position as to the consistency of the course that I have followed, and I have a document here that will prove to this House that I was absolutely consistent in what I did in this

matter. This is an order that I got this afternoon from the Department of External Affairs, from the hands of the titled gentleman whose honour is above reproach,-Sir Joseph Pope. It reads:
Regulations respecting Foreign Orders and Medals applicable to Persons in the Service of the Crown.
Orders.
1.	It is the King's wish that no subject of His Majesty in the Service of the Crown shall accept and wear the Insignia of any Foreign Order without having previously obtained His Majesty's permission to do so, signified either:
(a)	By Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual, or
(b)	By private permission conveyed through His Majesty's Private Secretary.
2.	Permission given by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual will enable the Insignia of the Foreign Order to be worn at all times and without any restriction.
Private permission will only enable the Insignia to be worn on occasions specified in the terms of the letter from the King's Private Secretary conveying the Royal sanction.
3.	Full and unrestricted permission by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual is contemplated in the following cases:-
For a Decoration conferred-
On an Officer in His Majesty's Naval or Military Forces lent to a Foreign Government; on an Officer in His Majesty's Naval or Military Forces attached by his Government to a Foreign Navy or Army during hostilities; or on any British Official lent to a Foreign Government and not in receipt of any emoluments from British public funds during the period of such loan.
In the case of decorations awarded in recognition of services under the Red Cross, permission will only be granted where such services have been rendered in a war in which the Empire has itself been engaged, and by persons serving under one of the officially recognised British voluntary aid societies of under similar societies of Allied States duly recognised by the Government of those States.
4.	Private or restricted permission is contemplated for Decorations which have been conferred in recognition of personal attention to the Head of a Foreign State, and which are therefore of a more or less complimentary character, and will, as a rule, only be given on exceptional occasions when in the public interest and for political reasons it is deemed expedient that the acceptance of a Foreign Decoration should not be declined. Private permission will generally be given jji the following cases:-
For a Decoration conferred-
(1)	On British Ambassadors or Ministers abroad when the King pays a State visit to the country to which they are accredited;
(Note.-A State visit is defined as one on which the King is accompanied by a Minister or High Official in attendance.)
(2)	On Members of Deputations of British Regiment's to Foreign Heads of States;
(3)	On Members of Special Missions when the King is represented, at a Foreign Coronation, Wedding, or Funeral; or on any Diplomatic Representative when specially accredited to represent His Majesty on such occasions; and such Members of his Staff who actually attend the ceremonies in their official capacity ;
(4)	On Naval and Military Attaches only after completion of five years' service at the post to which they are appointed in that capacity.
(5)	Private or restricted permission will not be given to-
(1)	British Ambassadors or Ministers abroad: when leaving;
(2)	Members of British Missions announcing the Accession of a Sovereign;
(3 British Officers attending Foreign Manoeuvres ;
(4) Naval Officers of British Squadrons visiting Foreign Waters.
There is considerably more, but I think I have read enough to show that foreign titles are not to be recognized in this country without the permission of His Majesty* by special request. I see my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) smiles at this. He probably is wearing his decoration without that permission because it may have been bestowed before this order was made. But this document which I have just received from the Department of External Affairs absolutely defines the procedure, and I believe that the Privy Council has the right to decide, when a foreign title is bestowed upon any citizen of Canada, whether or not he shall wear it. If there were no such provision what would be the situation? We have been having a war, though, judging from the amount of attention we are devoting to such trivial matters as the question now under discussion, one would hardly credit the fact. These foreign titles are coming into Canada, and I as a Britisher was amazed to find that on that committee there were men who would support the practice of accepting foreign titles after having denied their own King the right to bestow British titles on Canadians. I was astounded at a proposition of that kind. The hon. member shakes his head, but what I say is quite true.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is making remarks in reference to members who were appointed on the committee. That has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment, which is to refer the subject back to the committee.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have just taken the Chair this moment, and haye been unable to follow the hon. gentleman's remarks. But I understand the hon. gem tleman has the right- not only to discuss the amendment but to discuss the main motion at the same time.


William Foster Cockshutt: When that interruption took place I was about to show the

position that we are going to get into if we allow these foreign titles to come in and be scattered broadcast through this *country. Where would they come from? They would come froim France, Belgium, Italy, Russia and, last and most serious, they would come from Germany itself. Does any hon. gentleman in this House tell me that we are going to allow Iron Crosses to come in from Germany because a man, during the war, has blown up a bridge of the Canadian Pacific or has despoiled His Majesty's possessions in this [DOT]country? Will any man tell me we are -going to allow titles to come in from foreign [DOT]countries while we deny to His Majesty 'the right to send them in? That is what will happen if these foreign titles are not shut out. I say that the rein that is placed upon the bringing in of these foreign titles is a very wise provision, and I would he very much surprised if every hon. member does not say that I was absolutely, consistent when we were discussing the abolition of titles to say that if any titles are going to be abolished the foreign titles should be the first to get out. I tried to give them a good hard kick in that direction and I think I was right. We would have these foreign titles streaming in here and I think this is a good reason why this committee and this House should take very careful note of what is going on in the country now.
The adoption of such a report as we have before us now would be a very dangerous and serious matter. If we take time, as we have had to take time, for the discussion *of this question, I think the time will not he wasted if we come to a wise decision on the matter. I have my opinion of the intelligence and loyalty of any one who is not ashamed to send over such a pronouncement as appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the 14th May although I do not wonder so* much at it. It was hard for one to hold himself in restraint while such democrats as the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) and the hon. member for Brume (Mr. McMaster) were overshooting the mark in their attack upon titles.	.	,	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Did not the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) say that some of the recent appointments had enraged him?


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: Wait till I get through the sentence-that is shouted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. COCKSHUTT.: I will take my time. I say I am tired of that democracy which is shouted from the platform but is not ingrained in the life. That is the kind of democracy I do not like. They talk about titles and aristocracy as if they were something to be shunned, despised and kept out. Some of the gentlemen who hold the same opinion as- I do are not ashamed of work. They know work, they were brought up to work, and although I am an older man than the hon. member for Kingston or the hon. member for Brome, let me tell them that I will meet them at the woodpile.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was brought up to work and I am not ashamed of it. It has been one of my best assets all through life; and I have had to struggle for what I have saved. I have made my way like a man, and I am ready to do it both in peace and war.
I have tried to bring up my family in the same direction. I take no credit to myself, it was due to the soundness of my bringing up; I was fed on oatmeal porridge and the Bible, and in my early days I was brought up to work, and I worked as hard, I believe, as any man of my age in this House can say he worked at that time. Therefore, I knew the dignity of labour and I do not despise the workingman. I am a democrat of the democrats when it comes to meeting the workingman, and I am not
ashamed to say it. If I can do anything, Mr. Speaker, to lighten the task of the workingman at the present time I am prepared to d'o it. I have tried to do it during my life. I have tried to carry out that principle when living among my. fellow-men and among my workmen, a number of whom I am glad to say I represent here, although they may not all agree with me. I say that I have endeavoured to live that sort of life among them, and I challenge any man to impugn my honesty or my integrity when I say that I think this report should be thrown out-that it is unworthy of this House and unworthy of . the committee that prepared it. I tell you, gentlemen, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that your duty to-night is to see to it that His Majesty the King is not insulted by any such rubbish as is contained in this report; and I hope you will send it back to the committee with instructions to amend it and to intimate to some of the democrats who sit in that committee that you expect, whether the report they bring in goes to the King or not, that such report shall be worthy of the dignity of a committee of this House and worthy of the subject they undertake to legislate upon, and not make- I was going to say foolish men of hon. members here who, I believe, have in them some wisdom as well. I hope that the course I am now advocating will be followed and that the men responsible for this report will be taught that this is not the kind of thing that will make for the dignity of this House or for the uplifting of the democracy of this country. I have much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for East Algoma.


Mr. LUCYEN CANNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, in August, 1789, when the Three Estates met in Paris it was proposed by one of the members that the titles given to the French nobility and borne by them at that time should be abolished. One speaker got up and made a speech in support of titles, and the privileges of the French nobility, and was as eloquent and as vigorous as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. I refer to L'Abbe .Maury. He was then the man who sang in the French constituent assembly the [DOT]swan song of the titles given to the nobility of France; and I think Mr. Speaker, that I can say to-night, without being mistaken, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. iCockshutt) has sung the same song for titles in Canada. I admire the hon. gentleman; I admire the vigour with which he expresses

himself, and I admire the robustness of his Toryism; but unfortunately he represents a period which is passing. I was astonished to hear the hon. gentleman talk as he did about the hon. member for Kingston, and to heat him declare that the latter's motives may have been tainted with disloyalty. In making that statement I think the hon. gentleman was carried away by the warmth of his sentiments. He, surely, does not believe that any man in this House could be moved by feelings or sentiments of disloyalty.


William Foster Cockshutt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I think the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) has mistaken my observations. If I applied any such words as he attributes to me to the member for Kingston, I beg to apologize to that hon. gentleman; I certainly had no such intention. I was making a general remark, and I applied it to nobody as far as I know.


Lucien Cannon: I was sure it was only necessary to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the expressions he used to elicit from him the apology that any gentleman would give to the House and to the hon. member referred to.
I was also surprised to notice that the hon. gentleman omitted from his speech a very important feature of this question, and failed to give us his views on it. What will become of the titles actually borne by the bishops of the Anglican church? According to this report, if I understand it correctly, the archbishops and the bishops of the Anglican church will be deprived of their titles if the report passes. Is that the intention of the gentlemen who composed the committee which sat on this question and made this report to the House? Before casting my vote I would like an answer on that point. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Anglican bishop of Toronto would be very much surprised if this report is adopted, to find himself debarred from using a title which gives him a distinction over a Methodist minister. I think this is a very important feature of the question and one which should be considered very seriously by the members of the House before they record their votes.
Both the hon. members for East Algoma and Brantford declared they were very much surprised to see that upon the conclusion of the war, when the people of Canada have serious problems to face, this Government has not brought forward enough legislation to keep members busy, and that the House has already discussed upon three occasions

during the present session the very useless question of titles. Not very long ago, Mr. Speaker, a question of great moment to the people of Canada was introduced here, namely, the question of dealing with our Canadian railways. I can state without any fear of contradiction that the discussion on that question lasted not half as long as the discussion on the present subject, nevertheless, the Government, through the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) invoked the closure against the Opposition. Why should we be allowed to discuss matters of this kind and waste the time of the country while the Government sits there merely listening? I will tell you the reason: it is that the Government is not ready to undertake the problems that await a solution;, the Government is not ready to bring down a solution of the reconstruction problems that is demanded; and it would rather have the House discuss questions of this kind than tell us what it intends doing to see that Canada is made a great and united country as it should be. I may be told by hon. gentlemen opposite that the discussion has been long because this question is a very difficult one to solve, and has many aspects and many sides. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to think that is true, judging by the many sides that several members opposite have taken on this question; and before I cast my vote I would like to be sure that the gentleman who moved the adoption of this report will not vote against it.
I wish to call the attention of the Government to another matter, Mr. Speaker. I think that the moment is ill chosen to ask the representatives of the people to discuss a question of this kind. To-day we know the situation all over^Canada. We hear the cry of discontent coming from the Prairie Provinces; we know the situation that exists in Winnipeg; we know that Canada is on the brink of revolution-and the Government does nothing.
-Some hon. MEMBERS:	No, no.


Lucien Cannon: And the Government asks us to discuss- a question of this kind. Mr. Speaker, I think the sooner this Parliament gets down to real business the better, for discussions of the character we have had to-day tend to aggravate the people rather than to content them.
On the merits of this question: Am I in favour or against titles?-my answer is very simple. I am a plain, -simple, ordinary Liberal, and I am against titles. I will tell you why.

I think that titles and distinctions in many cases have been nothing but a bait to the cupidity of people, a screen to their infamy at times, and a reward for their servility. The hon. member for Brantford has mentioned the situation which exists in England. I admire the British nobility. It has given throughout the centuries examples of devotion and of self-sacrifice that no other class of people have ever equalled. But, Mr. Speaker, I say that these English people have so borne themselves not because they are dukes, or earls or viscounts, but because they are British people and.
_ nothing else.
But if we study the history of the nobility all over Europe what do we find? Take, for example, the noble families of France. If you go back to the origin of many of those families you will find that their titles were obtained very often because the founder was nothing more than the illegitimate son of a king. Turning to England, take the great family of Churchill-a family of which every Britisher is proud. The founder of that family obtained his title on account of the infamy of his sister. Mr. Speaker, those are historical facts. Titles have been used in that way throughout the history of the world, and should we keep them here in Canada?
How and why are titles given here in Canada? The last Emperor of Brazil, Bom Pedro, was a very clever man. In his memoirs he tells u/ that he had to build a hospital in his capital of Bio, but the Government did not have the necessary funds, so he decided to try the following plan. He sent out a statement to the effect that people who subscribed a certain amount would have their names inscribed in letters of gold on the front wall of the hospital; that the people who subscribed a lesser amount would have their names inscribed in letters of silver; and that the people who subscribed a still lesser amount would have their names inscribed in letters of bronze. When the hospital was built through the money thus obtained, Dom Pedro had the names inscribed, and' above he added this sentence: "This monument has been erected to charity through human vanity."
Well, we have before us to-night a monument erected by the Premier of this country, not through the charity of our country, but through the vanity of man. This monument, which we call the Borden Government, is a government that has been bought-that has been built through the vanity of its members. The builders who
have contributed the bigger amounts of money will see on the front wall in letters of gold their names, such as those of Sir Joseph Flavelle and Sir Clifford Sifton; the names of people who have done less, but also have done quite a lot, will appear in letters of silver, such as those of Hon. Mr. Calder and Hon. Mr. Rowell; and in letters of brass will be seen the names of Hon. Mr. Blondin and Hon. Mr. Sevigny; and, Mr. Speaker, in letters of chalk, so that they may not remain very long, will be seen the names of Hon. Mr. Crerar and Hon. Mr. Carvell.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I admire the convictions of people like the hon. member for Bradford. They stand for the old institutions, for what was very noble. They stand, like the noble people in the French Constituent Assembly, who fought for their king although he was to die. But although we admire these people we have got to combat them, because their ideas are away behind the times. I am in favour of progress, I am in favour of Liberalism, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that the abolition of titles will bring a better state of things in our Canada that we all love.


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss this subject upon its merits. Having accepted the honour of a title, I feel debarred, as I stated when the matter was before the House on the last occasion, from taking any active part in the discussion. I desire, however, to state the position of the Government on the motion now before the House.
For two sessions this subject has engaged the attention of this Parliament. Prior to the' assembling of this session the Prime Minister requested that the matter be referred to a special committee of the House so that a deliberate and reasoned judgment of the committee and of the House might be had. When the House met the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. N'ckle) placed his motion upon the Order Paper. I saw him about it, informed him of the request which the Prime Minister had made, and I asked if he would be willing that his motion should he referred to a special committee of the House in order that it might have full consideration, with a view later to discussion in the House, and such action as it might be thought desirable for the House to take. He stated that he would consult with some of those who were especially interested in the matter and inform me whether or not he would

agree. Later, after giving the matter consideration the hon. member consented to my suggestion, with the result that when his motion, which was that of a private member, was before the House I moved that it be referred to a special committee. I say that in explanation because some reflections have been without warrant cast upon the hon. member for Kingston by reason, as has been alleged, of his changing his vote. He did not change his vote, Mr. Speaker, he carried out honourably his undertaking with me. The disposition of the motion was entirely in accord with parliamentary practice, and it was perfectly open to my hon. friend to agree to it. I make that statement in justice to the hon. member for Kingston.
I desire to say this with regard to the position of the 'Government: This motion does not involve a question upon which the Government has any pronounced policy, as I stated when the matter was last before the House. The Government, therefore-I desire to make this perfectly clear-makes no request to any members supporting it with respect to the matter; it is perfectly open to each member here, so far as the Government is concerned, to vote as he may see fit. The same remark applies to members of the Government. This is a matter upon which members of the House, and members of the Government themselves, may hold different views, and as it is not a question of policy it is the desire of the Government that the House should express its view freely upon this question-which, notwithstanding what has been suggested by some hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-day, 'is one of considerable importance. The member for Kingston has brought the question forward for two sessions. His speeches leave no room for doubt as'to his earnestness in the matter. It is fairly before the House, and what the Government desires is a frank expression of opinion upon it.
The hon. member for Kingston stated this afternoon that I had requested him to have the report of the Committee submitted to the House at as early a date as possible. That is true, and the Government is willing to assume the responsibility of this matter now being before the House. It was my belief that it could best be dealt with in the first instance by a committee which would consider it in all its aspects. The Committee chosen was one which commanded the entire confidence of the Hohse, and I feel that I should express to all the members of that Committee my thanks for the attention which they gave to the subject and for

their promptness in bringing it down for final action.'
I have stated that I feel rather debarred from discussing this matter upon its merits by reason of the fact that I have had the honour of having a title bestowed upon me. I feel very much disposed to agree with much of what the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) said this afternoon; there was a great deal of sound common sense in what he said. My own view is that this matter has assumed a disproportionate importance. It is an important question, but I do not believe it is so important, either intrinsically or in the eyes of the public, as the debates in this Parliament would' indicate. However, each hon. member is to judge for himself as to that. The chances are that if the academic or abstract question was put to, any body of citizens in Canada, or elsewhere for that matter: "Are you in favour of titular distinctions?" the answer would be "No." But I submit that is not a fair test. The question is, what would the answer be if the matter could be fully discussed and considered with and by those people? It seems to me that the real test that should be applied by the House of Commons is this: What is in the public interest? So far as individuals are concerned, they need not be considered. Whether this or that or the other citizen receives a title is of minor consequence; the true principle upon which this House should proceed is: What is in the national interest? Is it wise that titular distinctions and all that they imply should be abolished? My own view is that there is not and should not be objection to the principle of titular distinctions; but I do believe that the circumstances surrounding their bestowal are of utmost importance. I think that in all the British-speaking countries the bestowal has been on. altogether too generous a scale and has not proceeded upon the principle that it should have proceeded.
I believe that if the question of bestowal had received more careful consideration in the past by all Governments in Canada, this question would not be before us to-night.
I am not going over the ground which has been so ably traversed this afternoon with respect to the propriety and advantage of distinctions. But I submit this: There are men in this country, and in other countries of the Empire-in fact, in all the countries of the world-who give very distinguished and very valuable public service without reward, in the money sense, such as comes to those who attain success in other callings.

I do not say that to those men a knighthood would be an incentive. To the best of them,
I do	not	believe it	would; to	someof them it	might. I	do not believe	that	men	who serve	the State	putforth	their	effort with	any idea	that
they are to be rewarded by a title. On the other hand, I do believe that men who have put forth effort of the greatest advantage to the public, who have served the State for long years-the Prime Ministers of this country, for example-should receive some distinction as a mark of the State's appreciation of their advices. Take the Prime Ministers of this country. Take Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and a Provincial Premier, such as Sir Oliver Mowat. If the question had been submitted to the people whether these men should be deprived of their titles, there would have been an overwhelming vote in favour of their being allowed to retain them; the people would say: These men are entitled to have their public'services marked by the conferring of titular distinction upon them. Appreciation encourages men. I do not believe that men who serve the State-men such as those I have mentioned-are at all inspired to effort by any hope of titular distinction.
But I do believe they are encouraged to go on in their work by the conferring upon them of a .distinction which marks the appreciation of their services to the State. After all, men are only boys grown up. As has been pointed out to-day, at school, and in college, and on the battlefield, and in campaigns, there is no doubt that prizes are looked upon as rewards and do stimulate to effort. More than that, they encourage further effort. Personally I fail to see the distinction which is made between the awarding of prizes, military medals or other decorations to soldiers and distinctions to men in public life or in some other walks to which I shall refer a little later on.


John Hampden Burnham: I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if this does not involve the question of precedence and, therefore, become a class distinction and not a decoration.


William Thomas White: I will come to that just in a moment. Who will say that the Cross of the Legion of Honour has not always powerfully appealed to the French soldier, to inspire and to stimulate him to effort? Who will say that the Victoria Cross has not powerfully appealed to British and Canadian soldiers? The principle of conferring distinctions for action that is unselfish, that is altruistic, that is for the benefit of the people, is a sound one. I am the first to admit the very great difficulty in the matter of bestowal of titles and, as I stated before, I think it has been the unwise, too wide bestowal of titles and particularly the conferring (bf hereditary titles that has caused this question to be more or less of an issue in this House. But in public life, and also in the world of science, of literature, and of philanthropy, it is very much in the national interest that some means should be open to the Government-because the responsibility belongs to the Government-to mark the nation's sense of appreciation of distinguished service rendered in those fields, and if the bestowal of titles could be confined to that class. I do not believe the people would raise any objection. It has been put forward here that many distinguished citizens of Canada have been offered and have refused titles, but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that titles should not be granted. It is open to any citizen in this country to refuse any title offered to him. As the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) suggested this afternoon, it is a matter of the point of view, and I am sure many gentlemen who have refused titles would not necessarily take the view that the principle of the bestowal of titles is unsound.
With regard to hereditary titles, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that I concur in the report of the committee, but I have grave doubt whether, from the standpoint of national interest, this report as it stands to-day should be adopted by this House. I am speaking, not as leader of the House in the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), but simply as a member of Parliament expressing my individual View, and I do not desire to be taken as .speaking in any other capacity. My view is that the report of the committee as it stands is too sweeping, I think the Prime Minister of Canada advanced the matter as far as it should be advanced when he caused the Order in Council to be passed, which was brought down last session and which has been referred to in this debate. That is my individual view, and that is all I desire to say at the present time to the House


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this question before the vote is taken. Before, however, referring to the

question under consideration, I want to enter an emphatic protest against an expression used by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) who spoke before the acting Prime Minister. In referring to the troubles in Winnipeg and other parts of the country, he said that this Dominion was on the brink of revolution. That is going entirely too far, and I do not think the actual circumstances in any respect warrant such a statement as that. It is perfectly true that a very large body of men are on strike in the city of Winnipeg from which I come, and it is also true that some very unreliable, untruthful and improper reports have been sent from that city by way, I think, of the United States. Emphatic denials have come with regard to the reports, and we learn, from Government sources, that the situation is thoroughly in hand; that the constituted authorities are in command, and that the situation is steadily solving itself, so that I do not think the country need be unduly excited over the situation as it exists either in Winnipeg or in any other portions of the Dominion.
With regard to the subject under consideration, I think that too much emphasis has been laid upon the point that a great deal of the time of this Parliament has been consumed in the discussion of this question. It is perfectly true that last session we occupied considerable time in discussing the matter in Parliament, and during the present session we have also spent some time, but I dissent from the view that it was entirely misspent time. If the Prime Minister of this country had taken the position that the Acting Prime Minister has taken this session, the question would have been disposed of in perhaps two or three hours, and I believe it would have been satisfactorily disposed of, because the House was almost unanimously opposed to the granting of titles. Put the Prime Minister who had the question under consideration with the home authorities staked the existence of the Government on the issue, and many of us on this side of the House, although we were very much in earnest in regard to the abolition of titles, felt it would be undesirable that the country should be plunged into a parliamentary crisis on a question of perhaps subordinate importance, at least, a question that could wait for solution until a later time. That was the reason why the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), myself and some others declined to take

the responsibility of overthrowing the Government on the question of titles.
Then the question came up at the present session, and the resolution was again introduced by the hon. member for Kingston as it was introduced by the same hon. member last session. Last session I moved as an amendment to his resolution, which dealt only with hereditary titles, that all titles should be extinguished. At this session, when the hon. member for Kingston introduced his resolution, he adopted my amendment of last session which provided for the abolition of all titles, inclusive of hereditary titles. I had given some study to the question, and I came to the conclusion that there might be a constitutional difficulty so far as the British authorities were concerned if the few hereditary titles that exist in the Dominion at the present time were extinguished or if an attempt were made to extinguish them immediately.
So I conceived the idea of moving an amendment at the present session that these titles should expire with the death of the holders. That amendment has been implemented or embodied in the resolution of the committee that is before the House to-night, and that is the method that is being adopted. The Acting Prime Minister when he referred to the hon. member for Kingston as having agreed to allow his motion this session to stand until the matter might be inquired into by a committee, might also have stated, had he thought of it, that he discussed the matter with myself before the vote was taken and indicated to me the course that he, as Acting Prime Minister, purposed to take. The hon. Acting Prime Minister nods his head, in acknowledgment of the accuracy of my statement. I decided to follow the lead of the hon. member for Kingston, and naturally came in for a considerable amount of criticism from a few of my " friends "-if I may be permitted to put the word in quotation marks-and when I rose to vote in the House I was jeered at by certain members of the Opposition. However, on the principle that he laughs best who laughs last, I felt I could afford to endure the con-temptable sneers from a few insignificant characters, if in the end the object that we *who are opposed to titles had in view, was attained. I could not help feeling that although the matter could have been summarily disposed of, the fact that it should be referred to a special committee which would make a thorough inquiry, might, after all, furnish a stronger reason in the minds of the masses for the adoption of such a

report as is embodied in that before the House to-night. I have no particular reason to change my view in regard' to that.
I want for a moment to call attention to the report itself, because there are some members of this House who some days or weeks ago were in favour of abolishing all titles, and in two or three cases they have now expressed some doubt because they were persuaded by the eloquence of our good friend the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard?. En passant I must say how greatly I enjoyed the oration which he delivered this afternoon. It was wonderfully dramatic and in some respects moving, but it had, in my judgment, very little bearing upon the real issue. He tells of certain worthy people who received distinction at the hand of the King-if you call it a distinction-by being knighted. But the point that we who are opposing titles in this House have in mind is that while it might, >as the hon. leader of the Government said, be excused in certain cases, it has been so scandalously misused in Canada as to become an offence in the nostrils of the people. And I want to say to any of my good friends who may think of voting against this report of the committee, that they had better pause and consider the effect of their vote, not necessarily on their political position, but on the country at large. The country on the whole is deeply disturbed, and perhaps that is quite natural following so great a wax as we have just passed through. But times have changed, in my judgment; and however much the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) or other hon. members may deplore the fact, a change has come over the spirit of the dreams of the people of this Dominion, and the democracy is not only being ushered in, but it is in fact ushered in. And in my opinion such a step as we propose to-night could not fail to be effective in appeasing this uneasy public opinion. The abolition of these social distinctions could not fail to have a beneficial effect. Now, let me for a moment, for the purpose of putting the question fairly before any weak brethren-if I may be allowed to use that expression-read what the report actually says, because I think there may be a misapprehension on the part of some members, who, as I said, were probably over-persuaded by the eloquence of the hon. member for South Toronto. Paragraph (a) reads:
(a) To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of
a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
That paragraph means the extinction of knighthoods, C.M.G.'s, and O.B.'s. C.M. G.'s and C.B.'s are merely steps in the ladder to knighthood, and in coming to the decision which it reached, the committee only aimed at extinguishing such titles as placed a prefix to the name of the recipient, and we felt that if we voted against the conferring of knighthoods we ought also to abolish C.M.G.'s and C.B.'s, and made a clean job of it. That is the object of that paragraph. I need not discuss the paragraph with regard to the abolition of hereditary titles, because the House seems to be unanimously agreed that they must go. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) and my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) waxed, I think, unduly eloquent, or perhaps unduly warm would be a more accurate description. They indulged in statements of much more warmth than one would expect from either of them with regard to the alleged titles of " Right Honourable " and " Honourable," and the statement was made that the members of the committee were to be censured for not recommending the abolition of those two distinctions.	"


William Foster Cockshutt: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: My hon. friend
from Brantford says, " Hear, hear," so he agrees with my statement of the case. According to my recollection of the situation-and I would like hon. gentlemen to particularly note the point-the reason we did not touch the distinctions " Honourable " and " Right Honourable " was that these are authorized by the British North America Act, and are conferred by virtue of a provision in that Act. So that the committee, and indeed this Parliament, would have no power to deal with them, and the House will agree with me that it .was particularly desirable that we should refrain from recommending the abolition of these two particular appellations. Paragraph (4) says:
Tour committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.
I want the House to be particularly clear with regard to the position of the committee in this connection. We refrained .absolutely from interfering in shape, form o.r manner with military distinctions and
27.34

decorations which might be conferred for valour upon the field. We had before us the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach) who gave the committee very valuable information. He addressed the House this afternoon and it is possible that he left the impression that the committee had not been as fair with the military profession as it should have been. However, I want to assure the House that [DOT]the committee was scrupulously careful not to interfere in the slightest degree with the conferring of distinctions upon naval and military men. That will relieve the committee from any blame or censure in .this respect. I want to deal with the question of foreign titles, to which my friend the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. .Cockshutt) referred to a few moments ago, I shall not say with eloquence, but rather with undue heat, and I believe that even he will agree with me, as I am sure the members of the House will, that he did not present the case with perfect accuracy, when II state the facts as they are. Let me first read the clause of the report dealing with that matter.
Tour committee further recommends that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident In Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government. I
I may explain how that came about. The committee had no warrant to deal with the matter of foreign titles. It had come before the Cabinet in a certain manner and they referred the question to our committee for a decision. There were a number of members of the committee who, like myself, felt that inasmuch as the reference of the particular questions to the committee did not embody that point the committee should not deal with it. I was one that took that ground, and after some discussion the matter was ruled upon by the chairman of the committee. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) thought it came within the jurisdiction of a committee appointed to make a general finding and be so ruled.
The hon. member for Brantford indicated with great warmth that the members of the Committee were actually in favour of foreign titles being received by Canadians. I want to absolutely dissent from that statement, and I think in doing so I shall be borne out by all the members of the Committee. Excepting himself, there was not, according to my recollection, one single member-I see the hon, member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thom-

son) agrees with me-of that Committee who took the view that foreign titles should be received intq this country. It was merely a question as to whether or not we should deal with the matter. The position taken by the hon. member for Brantford entirely falls in that regard.


William Foster Cockshutt: There was an amendment moved by the hon, member for Qu'Ap-pelle and afterwards we were asked to get together, which we did, and we framed the resolution which was passed.


Mr. LEVI THOMPSON:: I want to say that the statement made by the hon. member for Springfield is absolutely correct- that there was no member of the Committee expressed himself as in favour of continuing foreign titles.


William Foster Cockshutt: You moved an amendment.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I did.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not wish to suggest that the hon, member for Brantford desired to deliberately misrepresent the case, but he got carried away with the sound of his own voice and the enthusiasm of the moment, and I think he consequently misrepresented the position of the committee. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) will make >a statement later and I am sure he will endorse my description of what bajipened at the committee. The hon. member for Brantford told us here with great enthusiasm that he had got from the Under Secretary of State this afternoon a statement that Parliament had nothing to do with foreign titles, anyway, and that no one in Canada could receive or wear a foreign title Without the permission of the King. If that be so there can be no possible objection to that particular clause in the report being adopted. Anyway, it leaves the matter to the Government to deal with in some proper manner later on, If the permission of the King must be received to accept or wear a foreign title, we need not worry very much about the existence of that clause in the report.
What I want to impress upon hon. members is that the report embodies nothing but what has been generally accepted at one time or another by the majority of the members of this House since the question was brought before it last session, and during the present session. Under the report hereditary titles are to be extinguished on the death of the holders, and knighthoods are to cease from the present time.

The hon. member for Brantford spoke of the insult that was offered to the King by addressing him in the manner proposed in the report. As a matter of fact, the King has really no responsibility, although he finally "does the trick," in connection with these titles. The recommendations for titles are made by the Prime Minister of the day. No doubt the whips and the corporations may have considerable influence on the Government of the day in reference to the conferring of titles. But the King should not be charged with the responsibility. This is the only way that this House has of putting an end to what we regard as an improper practice, as a practice which has led to very much heartburning throughout the country and which, I believe, is not in the general interest of the public, a belief which I am convinced is shared by the great mass of the people of the country. The members of the House should have clearly in their minds the point upon which they are voting when they come to record their votes in a few minutes. Members need not worry at all about foreign titles when the King is the supreme authority in that regard. The committee only made a finding in regard to it because the matter was referred to it by the Government. We have absolutely guarded the military ranks in this country. The two things we have done are, first, to recommend the ending of hereditary titles and, second, 'to recommend the ending of knighthoods. That is practically all that the members are asked to vote upon.
I think that this country owes a considerable debt to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) for his courage and pluck in bringing this question before Parliament and for the ability and care which he has displayed in presenting the case on the different occasions that it has been brought up in this House. I resent the reflection of the hon, member for Brantford, although he has explained it, in saying that there was something disloyal behind this attempt to wipe out titles in this country. Doubtless there are many little crosscurrents in evidence, but I do not think there is anything sinister behind this movement against titles; I am quite sure that the hon. member for Kingston, who sent two of as brave boys as this country has produced overseas to fight the battles of Canada in the great war, is not influenced by any sinister or improper motives. On the contrary, I think the hon. gentleman interprets the feeling of the country very clearly with regard to this question. It may be that many members think that we
have devoted too much time to its consideration, to the exclusion of other matters which they regard as of greater importance.
I repeat, however, that it is a question that means a great deal to the people of this country, and in the long run I believe that if titles are abolished, as this report proposes, we shall have done a good day's work for Canada, and the time which has been devoted to it will not have been spent in vain.	.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the position of the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), who said that members who regard this question lightly will probably discover that they have made a great mistake when they come to discuss it with their constituents, and when they find what the real feeling actually is throughout the country with regard to it. T believe that is a fair statement of the situation. While the people are not perhaps especially excited, still I believe that if this issue could be referred by a plebiscite, uninfluenced by other considerations, to the entire population of Canada, it would be carried by the enormous majority of twenty, thirty, or fifty to one, because people generally, I reiterate, are sick of the institution of titles and the manner in which they have been misused by the governments of the day since Confederation.
There is one other point to which I wish to refer before resuming my seat. I read a letter in the press the other day, and I want to give a brief extract from it to the House. The writer says:
What chanoe is there outside of an aristocracy for the development of the following virtues: Modesty, truthfulness, sincerity, regard for the-feelings of other people, genuineness-what chance has any one of them in the fierce competitive struggle of democracy? Not the smallest. They get choked out-stifled in the crowd, killed.
Proof-take our Toronto or Montreal crowds -a necessity. We Canadians-born believe that a nation-not a mob, but a nation-should have-one part of its population in which such things can be preserved.
I shall not enumerate the list, but I invite the House to recall and scrutinize the galaxy which holds the doubtful honour. I would not like to be understood as saying: an offensive word against the gentlemen as a class who enjoy the doubtful distinction, as there are undoubtedly some excellent and deserving men upon the list. Hon. gentlemen, however, no -doubt recall the reasons for which many of the decorations were conferred by the governments of the day.

If the virtues of -modesty, truth, sincerity and tenderness are to be found only in the ranks of our belted knights, and especially if these virtues which should be universal are mostly confined to that limited and interesting collection of citizens, then I think, with all earnestness, we should invite you, Mr. Speaker, when at the opening of each session, you invoke the Almighty to save the King, to also implore the Deity to include the country as well.
In Canada titles have not been generally distributed because of the possession of the qualities of genius, or because of any distinguished service to the country but largely because of political services rendered to this or that party or corporation, whose conduct may have been glaringly inimical to the best interests of the people.


John Wesley Edwards: I shall not occupy more than one or two minutes in discussing this matter, and I would not take that much time were it not for the fact that it so happened I was not present, when the debate occurred last year on this matter, nor was I in attendance when the debate took place on a former occasion during the present session. The hon. members for Springfield and Brome paid very high tributes to the hon-. member for Kingston for his courage in bringing this matter ito the attention of the House. I would not for one moment wish to be understood as reflecting in any way on the courage of that hon. gentleman; but if the statements made by the three hon. gentlemen referred to are correct, that eighty or ninety per cent of public sentiment is in favour of the motion moved by -the hon. member for Kingston, the thought occurs to me that it requires little courage to move such a motion, but it does require some courage to express opposition to it. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) in the course of his remarks intimated that it would be a grave mistake for this House not to pass this report because of the effect it might have on the prevailing situation as indicated, for instance, in- the city of Winnipeg, and that it would add if anything to the unrest which is exhibited in that city at the present time. I happen to have in my hand a -clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press. That clipping gives an account of a meeting held by the Great War Veterans in Winnipeg, and I quote in answer to the statement made by the hon. member for Springfield, an- expression of opinion by one

of the Veterans, named Captain Wheeler, who said in reference to titles:
" What do we care about titles," declared the speaker, " what we want is a chance to live pro-perly and to know that we can be able to buy food for our wives and children at the lowest possible price."
Apparently, if we are to take the words of -that gentleman as any guide, the people of Winnipeg are not very much concerned about the question of titles. Furthermore, I express my own opinion, which, of course, may be. wrong, when I say that I think there is very little concern in the country with regard to this whole matter; I think the people generally are very little -concerned about the question of titles.
I do believe that opinion throughout the country as in this House is practically unanimous in regard to hereditary titles; but I do, think there is a difference of opinion in regard to the granting of other titles. Personally, I do not believe in the granting of these titles at -all, and in so far as Canada is concerned, I think we can get along very well without them. But they have been conferred upon men in this country,-some of whom have been mentioned by previous speakers, and I rather incline to the view that the public generally were pleased rather than otherwise, not that the title of "Sir" was conferred upon John. A. Macdonald oi Wilfrid Laur-ier, but that the head of the British Empire took a means of signifying his appreciation of the services of men of that type. But titles have been conferred rather promiscuously, and I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the wealth of the individual apparently has had a good deal to do with the -matter, -although there are notable instances in this country of titles having been conferred on men who are not by any means wealthy.
I think the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) expressed the situation very well indeed; at least, my view coincides with his. It has been stated, and this is one of the -things that appeals to me, that the King does not confer these Canadian titles except on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada. If that is true, why not address the opinion of this House to the Government of this country? Why address it in the form of a demand to be placed before the King? Is it that the House believes that an expression of opinion addressed to the Prime Minister would be ignored by him? I do not believe for one moment that the Prime Minister would ignore the opinion of this

House addressed to him in the words of the motion asking for the adoption of this report; and if he did not ignore such expression of opinion, there would be no recommendations made to the King asking for titles to be conferred on Canadians resident in Canada, and consequently no titles would be conferred.
After all, there are two parties to this question; there is the party here in Canada, and the party over in the Old Country. There are different sentiments in the two countries. I feel inclined to respect the sentiments of the people in the Old Country, although I do not agree with their views in regard to titles. But, while I am willing to vote for any resolution expressing the opinion of this House as against the granting of hereditary titles or titles of knighthood, I do not think we should go beyond that and place our opinions in the form of a demand that the King should take this or that action. I have the greatest respect for those who hold a different view in regard to the matter. If it comes to a vote I am going to vote against the adoption of the report for the reason I have stated. My opinion may be misrepresented, and there may be some who will say that I am in favour of the continuance of titles in this country. Very well; I am willing to take my chances in regard to that, notwithstanding the remarks of some bon. members that it was as much as one's political life was worth to take that course.
I repeat, Sir, that in my view we should be perfectly within our rights in expressing the opinion of this House that it was in conformity with the sentiments of the people of Canada that hereditary titles should not continue to be conferred on Canadians resident ir. Canada. I believe that such an expression of opinion would get us just as much as we would obtain by placing a demand before the King and saying: " We want you to do thus and so." That seems to me to be a rather harsh way of treating the matter.
Distinctions have been made even in the resolution. I know, of course, that many object that it is undemocratic to have certain men ;n this country who are known as " Sir This " or " Sir That." I do not approve of it myself. But if they want to play with that sort of a trinket, why, all right; I do not think the public cares very much about it one way or the other. But if it is improper and undemocratic that I should address a gentleman in this country-who has had a knighthood conferred upon him- as Sir,-and really I cannot treat him courteously unless I so address him-then is it democratic for my friends, the hon. member for Kingston and the hon. member for Brorne-both lawyers-when they go into the court room bowing and scraping to the gentleman on the bench to say, " May it please you lordship" or "Your worship this " or " Your worship that," or " Your honour this " or " Your honour that?" Of course, to suggest that that is undemocratic, or that it is undemocratic to refer to the dignitaries of some churches as " My Lord Bishop," I suppose, would be carrying democracy a little bit too far. But to be perfectly consistent, I cannot see why one should object to my speaking to John Jones-if he has been knighted-as " Sir John," if it is proper to refer to a judge on the bench as " Your lordship."
Nor do I think that it is altogether consistent that we should make no effort to do away with the titles of " Honourable " and " Bight Honourable." Of course, it is true that those are titles which may come to some honourable gentlemen in this House, if they reach the height of their ambitions, -and no doubt they are worthy of holding those titles-and we would be lacking in courtesy if we did not address them as " Honourable " or " Right Honourable."
I repeat, Sir, that I believe the sentiment of Canada is opposed to the granting of titles; but I think we will be going as far as we should go in taking action on this .matter in this House if we give expression to that opinion and carry our request to the Prime Minister or to the Government.


Hon. F. B. CARVELL (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not much sympathy with the contention, which has been made a number of times this evening, that time has been wasted in the discussion of this matter in the House. I have always had the idea that the people elect representatives to come to Parliament and to take whatever time may be necessary for the discussion of matters that come before them. If the Government was criticised during the lasit session of Parliament for one thing more than another, it was on the ground that sufficient time was not given for the discussion of matters which many members wanted to discuss. I took the ground this year that Parliament should be called as early as possible and should sit as long as members wanted to sit and should discuss matters 'of public interest affecting the people.
I am rather inclined to agree with the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that there is not the demand for the abolition

27,'58

of titles in Canada that some people think there is; still, I do believe that if the proposal were put to a vote it would carry by a large majority. I believe that the sentiment of Canada is against the conferring or retention of these titles. I a<m opposed to them-not, perhaps, from the standpoint taken by some hon. members, but as a matter of principle. I do not believe that the aristocracy of Great Britain during the last thousand years has been the advantage to the country that some people have tried to make it out to have been. One had only to go to Great Britain before the war-and the condition would be much exaggerated since the war-to see the great gulf that existed between the classes and the masses. What has been the origin of all the social revolutions that have taken place in Great Britain since the repeal of the Corn Laws if it has not been the fight between the classes and the masses; if it has not been the fact that the aristocracy were arrogating to themselves rights and powers and privileges which were considered by the common people as inimical to their best interests, and taking to themselves rights which the common people believed they were being deprived of? The principle upon which I shall vote on this question is this: I do not want to see that condition of affairs built up in Canada. It has been admitted here by all sides-I am not blaming one political party more than another-it has been admitted by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), that there has been an abuse in connection with the granting of these titles during recent years. Many men have received them who, perhaps, are not entitled to them; and were it not for that abuse, I assume that this matter would not be under discussion to-night.- Personally, I have no objection to a man receiving a distinction from his sovereign who had become a great inventor or a great scientist, had contributed something to the uplifting of the world, had been honoured by being made Prime Minister of his country, or something of that kind, because in nearly all these cases the distinction would be actually conferred by the sovereign or by the ruling power as a reward for what the recipients of the honours had done. But we might as well get down to the ordinary condition of affairs and realize that where there was one of that class there would be a dozen whom the King did not know at all and about whom he cared nothing. The King has nothing to say about it, except in these few outstanding cases. People are made knights 
because they want to be made knights; because they have sufficient influence with their political friends, or in some other way. After all, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation for the creation of a knighthood in Canada comes from the Prime Minister, from the Government.


Mr. MARCIL:: In all cases?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I think in all cases, although there may be some outstanding exceptions. I have no doubt that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the present Prime Minister, after being elevated to the Premiership, received their titles direct from the King. But in the great majority of cases it is the building up of an aristocracy because people want to become the aristocracy; and that is the principle I am opposed to.
In a sense, I am sorry to see the matter before the House in the shape it is. It has created a good deal of feeling; there has been a good deal of discussion about it. I was afraid, on coming into the Chamber just before six o'clock-I had not been able to listen to all the debate-that in some way the report of the special committee, if adopted, would ask the King to refrain from granting military distinctions. I listened to the member for Edmonton, and immediately got a copy of the report and read it over; but I saw nothing in it to bear out that contention. Evidently the committee deliberately avoided expressing any opinion derogatory to the granting of military decorations; and that is as it should be. They have asked the King-and that is only the manner of asking, because really the request goes to the Government of Canada; they have asked the powers that have the right to recommend these distinctions to refrain from granting hereditary titles. That everybody agrees with. Secondly, they have asked them to refrain from granting ordinary knighthoods1-about that there seems to be some difference of opinion. I have no feeling against any gentlemen who have accepted titles in the past, or who might accept them in the future, because that is largely a matter of individual opinion. But holding the views that I do, believing that the creation of a privileged class is not in the best interests of a country like Canada, and having regard to the fact that the question is before Parliament for the expression of its opinion, I intend to vote against the amendment and for the adoption of the report of the Special Committee.


Levi Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken up any

of the time of the House had it not been for the rather serious reflections and insinuations made by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) against the other members of the Special Committee. I felt, as the hon, member was speaking, that he was rather telling tales out of school that might better have been kept quiet. However, I would not have minded had the statements been correct. In referring to other members of the Committee and to those who were opposed to him, tire hon. gentleman used the term " disloyalty " over and over again. He apologized so far as the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) was concerned, but he evidently still considers the rest of us as disloyal-and every other person who opposes him on the question.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not think the hon. gentleman is justified in making that statement. 1 pointed out that there were four threads that held us to the Empire and that the cutting of those was an element of disloyalty. If the hon. gentleman did not cut any of the threads 'he certainly does not come in that class.


Levi Thomson: The hon. gentleman has no right whatever to impute disloyalty to me, even if I did believe in all the things he says'-which I do not. He has no more right to impute disloyalty to me than I have to impute disloyalty to him because he holds an opposite opinion. This talk about disloyalty is getting threadbare; it is a shame that that cry should be used in this House in connection with the discussion of any question that comes before it. Any cause which has to be supported by talk about disloyalty is a pretty weak cause; it is only because of the weakness of the cause'my hon. friend supports to-night that he uses that cry.
The hon. gentleman tried to leave the impression with the House that the members of the Committee who were opposed to him on most questions that came before the Committee were in favour of those foreign titles being received. Not a word was said in the Committee that would justify that statement. In support of his statement, he says that I moved an amendment. I did move an amendment, which the hon. gentleman himself accepted and put into his motion. If you saw his motion here you would consider it unworkable-a rather strange looking motion. I do not think he would care very much to quote it himself.


William Foster Cockshutt: Has the hon. member got it?
I74i
Mr. L. THOMiSON: My hon. friend was very willing to accept it. We were told that this resolution which we proposed to submit was an insult to His Majesty. It was a resolution [DOT] addressed to His Majesty asking him to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction and so on, but my hon. friend says he supports the amendment which provides that we ask His Majesty or demand of His Majesty:
To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, dignity or title, as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domi -ciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any personand so on. It is a tremendous insult to His Majesty to say: We do not want you to confer knighthoods, but it is all right to say: You must not confer peerages on Canadian citizens. It just shows how hopeless a case my hon. friend has when he brings forward such absurd arguments. One thing is undignified and insulting, while another thing, absolutely the same, if not a little worse, is all right. I do not propose discussing -this question, because it has been pretty fully discussed. Like the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) I do not know that there is a tremendous agitation in regard to this matter, but notwithstanding that, I believe the general public think that we should act. I am not saying that I believe a lot of time has been wasted in this House, and I do not purpose wasting any time myself, although I have noticed that the members who spoke most about wasting time took up a good deal more of the time of the House than they needed to do, and I do noP intend following their example. I am following rather along the line of what the Minister of Public Works said, and the reasons given by him are my reasons, and for those reasons, I purpose voting against the amendment and for the resolution.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just one or two observations before the vote is taken. The question of hereditary titles is not open for discussion at the present time; that question was settled more than a year ago. The Order in Council which was passed by the Government and submitted to the House expressly set forth that no hereditary title of honour

shall hereafter be conferred upon a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada, and further provides that :
Appropriate action shall be taken, whether by legislation or otherwise, to provide that after a prescribed period no title of honour held by a subject of His Majesty now or hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada shall be recognised as having hereditary effect.
That Order in Council sets forth the most advanced position which any Government in this country had, up to that time, taken on the question of titles in Canada. Those provisions were approved by the House, and that decision has been communicated to the Imperial Government, so that both Government and Parliament are committed to that policy in relation to hereditary titles, and I am sure that appeals to the judgment of the people of Canada.
Referring to the question of knighthoods, while there may not be the same unanimity as there is on the question of hereditary titles, I believe the overwhelming mass of the people of Canada have reached the conclusion that it is not in the interest of the country as a whole that further titles of knighthood should be conferred. I think they have reached that conclusion on very sound grounds. The Minister of Public Works and other hon. members have already spoken on the subject, and I shall not repeat their arguments. I do not believe it is consistent with the democratic conditions prevailing in a country like Canada that we should continue to mark in this way certain men, no matter how honourable, no matter what distinguished service they render; for experience has shown us that we cannot limit it to the few men whom every one would recognize as properly entitled to be so marked. From our* experience, I believe we must reach the conclusion that it would be wise to discontinue that policy in the future. I listened with great interest to it'he hon. member for Edmonton West, and if I understood him aright he pointed out that under the report as printed it would interfere with the conferring of military distinction. If that is true, I should like to see the report amended so that it would not interfere with conferring any distinctions, decorations or titles upon men who had served in the present war, my reason being that large numbers have already been so recognized, and further, I know of some who have been recommended for recognition. The matter came before the Government some time ago, before this House met, and the Government wisely and properly declined to take

action until this question had been considered by a Committee of the Whole House. Personally, I cannot see why military men who have already received recognition should stand in a better position than those who have earned but have not yet received such recognition. Some may say: No military men should receive recognition. All I am suggesting is that they should all receive the same consideration. I must vote against the amendment because it says that we should continue to confer knighthoods on citizens of this country. I should be glad to vote for an amendment that would refer the report back to the committee to amend it so as to make it clear that it would not interfere with recognizing men who have served in this war and would pat those men in the same position as those who have already received recognition, tout if no such amendment is proposed I shall vote for the report.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a
few words, not of argument, but rather of explanation. I was a member of the committee appointed to consider this question, and as I was not able to concur in the report, perhaps it is not objectionable that I should offer a few words of explanation why I was not able to agree with my colleagues. On the question of hereditary titles there is practically no difference between us, and I take it to be the view of this country and of this House that, neither on the recommendation of the Government or without it, and neither on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or without it, so far as this House has any influence, shall any hereditary title be given in Canada hereafter. I take that to be the meaning of the report, and on that I presume there is no difference of opinion.
Coming now to the question of titles generally, I have assented to the views of the majority on that question, but not without some hesitation and reluctance. I do not concur in the views of my hon. friends who claim that as a matter of principle the granting of these titles is wrong. In the earlier years of Confederation, in the years before Confederation, when honours of this character were granted tout seldom, and always granted to men of undoubted distinction, there was no public opinion against them. Nobody found fault with the conferring of honour, say for example, on Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir George Etienne Cartier, although I believe in tlhe beginning there was a little cause for

jealousy and trouble. It is historically known that when Mr. John A. Macdonald received his knighthood Mr. George Etienne Cartier was offered a minor honour, 2nd that this caused trouble and jealousy and an uncomfortable situation. Mr. Cartier resented it and Mr. Cartier's friends resented "it more freely. In the end Mr. Cartier received a consolation of a higher prize, in the form of a baronetcy, than that received by Mr. Macdonald. The authorities had ascertained that Mr. Cartier was not blessed with a son and that, therefore, the title would not last long. Beyond a little jealousy of that character I do not think there was any manifestation of public opinion against the granting of these honours so long as they were granted rarely and for services of undoubted merit.
It is only when in later years-and I am not speaking now of one party or the other-these honours were offered in greater abundance that any question began to arise concerning them. I think if we look over the list from A to Z, of the men who have been honoured with knighthood there will be found the names of a great many gentlemen of eminence and of long public service, men of distinction, with the recognition of whose merits no one can find fault. Indeed, nearly all on the list will be found to be honourable and estimable men. But when you ask yourself the question, why was this or the other particular man honoured, you find yourself in a quandary. True, some one who is honoured may be an honourable man; but there are thousands of honourable men all around him in the community. True, he is estimable, but there are estimable men in his neighbourhood in the same line of business, and of equal distinction, who receive no honour. As time went on and these conditions continued, there began to develop an opinion against knighthoods. It will be said with some force that the abuse of anything i$ no valid reason why you should abolish it; but the opponents of knighthood have argued with equally great .force that if the system should continue the evils will coexist with it; because if the appointments are made by the Government or on the recommendations of the government of the day it is inevitable that they will be characterized by favouritism of some kind, political or personal. These considerations, I think, have led to a considerable volume of public opinion against these honours. I do not think the country is at all excited about the matter, as some hon. gentlemen seem to think, but there is considerable
public opinion against it, and for that reason with some reluctance, and not as a matter of principle, I have concurred in the view that, as respects knighthoods,- an adverse recommendation should be made. If I could have an opportunity of voting on these matters separately, if there were submitted a question concerning hereditary titles, I should undoubtedly vote/against such titles, but I shall not have that opportunity. And if I could have the opportunity of voting distinctly on the question as it relates to ordinary knighthoods, I should with some reluctance vote against those titles. But 1 shall not have that opportunity either. Now, why did I differ from the committee? I thought that whatever public opinion there was in the country-and I am not magnifying it-had relation to hereditary honour and what is called ordinary knighthood. Public opinion did not concern itself with anything beyond that; why then should we do so? Why should we worry over C.M.G.'s, C.B.'s, and I.S.O.'s, which no one in the world except very few knows the meaning of? I doubt whether very many ordinary men know the significance of " C.M.G." It is a badge of honour and distinction, but five out of six men in the street, generally speaking, could not tell you what O.M.G. and C.B. meant. And if it pleased His Majesty in the ordinary course to make somebody a C.M.G. or a C.B. I see no reason why we should break our hearts over the fact. It may be that these two honours, C.M.G. and C.B. are steps in the order of knighthood, one in the Order of the Bath, and the other in the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and I suppose that if these orders generally were marked with disapproval, these minor honours would also be regarded with disfavour. But I do not see why w.e should worry about-it. Then there is the I.S.O.-The Imperial Service Order-given sometimes to old public servants. I could not tell you all who have it in Ottawa, but it never hurt any one. I do not see why minor honours should have entered into consideration at all.
Now we come to foreign titles and decorations. I was not present in the committee during all the proceedings, and during my absence some [DOT] resolutions were reached which I did not concur in. But very naturally and properly they were carried into the report of the committee. If it suits any foreign authority to grant a mark of distinction to any citizen of Canada, which distinction does not carry with it the title

of knighthood, I do not see why in the world we need object. These honours come seldom, being most frequent in the case of the French Republic, and a number of our fellow-citizens have had conferred upon them the Legion of Honour. I do not think we should seek to prevent any one from receiving such an honour if it pleases the French authorities to offer it and the recipient to accept it. Whatever public opinion there was on the subject was confined to hereditary titles and knighthoods, which involved the prefix, " Sir." Beyond that I do not see that there was any demand, and I do not think there was any need for the committee to present to the House a report concerning these things. The committee reported according to their judgment, and I am not finding fault with them. I am merely stating my own views. And inasmuch as I believe that there was no need for a consideration of these minor honours, I cannot agree in that, and I dissent from their report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of that committee and voted in support of the various resolutions which form the report now 'before the House. I have not changed my mind and shall vote in favour of the adoption of the report. It is not the time or the place ito split hairs, Mr. Speaker. The committee by a very large majority adopted the report. I think there were only three members opposed to the broad principle embodied in it, and the last speaker was not one of them. The committee adopted the report after a full discussion oh the matter, and the principle which was at stake was whether or not in Canada we should put an end for the future to any class distinctions. The committee almost unanimously decided that we should do away with all attempts at maintaining in this country any class distinction whatever. Sir, we are not living in Great) Britain. If we were, I would understand that perhaps members of the House might have some diffidence in the matter. There they have a different civilization and a different tradition as regards these distinctions. For my part, I wish to pay my respects to the British nobility. I know what has been the role of that nobility in history and how well it has behaved during the recent war. But, as I say, we are not in Britain; we live in Canada, in a democracy, and at the present hour, in view of what is taking place in the country, I do not know that Parlia-
ment could do better than abolish all *class distinction. Some hon. gentlemen have spoken about military decorations.
I am not opposed, Mr. Speaker, to military distinctions, such as the V.C., D.S.O., or the Military Cross,but I am of the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mir. Manion) that if you are going to give decorations to the higher officer you are creating again an invidious distinction between that officer and the modest, unassuming private who went over the top. The private is as much entitled in this war to any decorations, any distinctions as the higher officer.


Mm MANION:: I never said a word
about decorations; I said knighthoods.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir, in this war the private was a knight, in my judgment, as much as a colonel, the major, or the general. They were all knights and if you make a distinction, ll say that the greatest knights of all are the dead. Where are the decorations for the dead? Wooden crosses! Reference has been made by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and he made it with that chivalrous spirit which generally inspires his thoughts and actions in this House and outside of it. As a matter of history, it is well that we should know how it came that my late leader became iSir Wilfrid Laurier. It is of record that in the campaign which preceded the election of 1896, at a meeting held in Ontario, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the famous declaration; " I am a democrat to the hilt." After he became Prime Minister, the Queen's Jubilee took place in England and he was deputed as the representative of Canada on that occasion. He had not altered his views; he had not changed; he was, as ever, a democrat to the hil{. But how could he refuse the honour, the distinction, when, without being consulted, on taking his seat at Windsor Castle, as one of His Majesty's Privy Councillors he found his title in front of him. That is the history of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's knighthood. If he had been consulted he never would have accepted it, but if on the other hand he had refused on that occasion it would have been looked upon as a lack of courtesy on his part. But, as we all know, he was a grand gentleman. The manner in which the honour was conferred upon him on that occasion reflected his modesty, his true chivalry, and at the same time his devotion to the interests of 'Canada. But let me give here another instance from

Sir Wilfrid Laurier's career. It may throw light on what look place on the occasion to which I have, just referred. It will show, Mr. Speaker, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier always was a democrat .to the hilt in the sense he meant when he made that declaration prior to 1896. It is not known to the members of this House, it is not known to the public, but in the history of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which is being written at the present time, it will be made public. On one occasion, perhaps on two, but certainly on one, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was offered a peerage and he declined it. That was the spirit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The true democrats of this country can well look up to him as a guide.
I do not intend to say anything more on the subject. The problems that confront us are very serious indeed. I do not know that it is wise policy on the part of this or any ..Government to make a last-ditch fight for the maintenance of those titles which in the past have been so lavishly distributed. I have in my mind some titles which were given not very long ago and which shocked the public conscience, titles given to men who had no right and no claim to them. I am positive they were given without His Majesty knowing anything about them. They were the gift of the whips of the parties; that is all. They were given to these men because of some consideration. It has been stated publicly in England over the signature of responsible parties that titles were offered before general elections for a consideration. Why should we perpetuate that system in this young country of ours? Public opinion is absolutely opposed to any class distinctions in Canada, and the people will hail the result of the vote that we take on this question to-night.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I submitted was drafted hurriedly. I have another here the phraseology of which is a little better. 1 do not know whether I will be permitted to substitute it. It does not change the principle of the amendment in ahy sense.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an amendment before the House and it is technically in order. What the hon. member asks is that he may put the same substance in better form. That can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. I will read the altered form of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Algoma:
That the report he not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the Special Committee with instructions to amend the same by striking out paragraph (a) of the proposed Address to His Majesty, and by striking out all the paragraphs after the said proposed address, and by adding the following paragraph to the report of the said Special Committee:-
" That in making recommendations to His Majesty for the conferring of knighthoods or other titular distinctions upon persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada the greatest care should be exercised in the selection of the persons recommended, and that special regard should be paid to the personal merit and the distinguished services of the said person."
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have permission to substitute this for the amendment proposed?


William Folger Nickle: If no other hon. member desires to speak, I should like to exercise my privilege of closing the debate. I may say that this afternoon I have found myself in the position in which Mr. Storey, later Judge Storey, found himself after he had been appointed to the Supreme Court bench. In his earlier years he had drafted an Act of Congress that was considered by him as a model of perfection. He felt assured that no matter what attacks were made upon it, it was impossible that ambiguity would arise in reference to the legislation of which he had been the author. But in later years when he had risen to the Supreme Court Bench, cunning lawyers, in arguing certain questions before him as being applicable to the Act that he had drafted, so confused him that he said that he hardly understood what his own legislation meant, and he found himself almost unable to interpret 'it. That is very much the position in which I would find myself to-day if I were to lend myself to the cunning arguments which have been submitted against the report. They have attacked it from every point, from the point of view of logic in this way, from the point,of view of logic in another way; they have criticised it on the grpund of loyalty and they have criticised it on the ground of inconsistency.
I would not care at this late hour to say very much in reference to the attacks that have been made, but I do not think, in justice to myself, that I can allow a personal remark which was made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) to pass unnoticed. lit was a remark that cast the imputation upon me of having been inconsistent in my conduct and vote in this House on the 14th of last month.
The hon. the leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) has certainly been most courteous in giving to this House an explanation of what occurred, and I may say that the explanation given by him is correct in every detail. When I introduced

the resolution into the House at the first of the session it remained on the Order Paper for a somewhat protracted period until my attention wias drawn to it by the Government. A few weeks prior to the discussion, the acting leader of the Government asked me if I would be prepared to take a fair, non-partisan and representative committee which would consider and discuss in a judicial manner the involved and difficult points covered by the resolution. I told him that such a committee would be acceptable to me. I explained the position to those who were supporting my motion and I had their concurrence in the arrangement.
I was amazed the night the debate took place on the 14th of April, when suddenly a political situation developed, and I found myself confronted with this difficulty: I had to take a position that certainly would be construed by the country as being inconsistent, or I had to break my word to the leader of the Government; and there are some things that a man of honour, even *when faced with the likelihood of severe criticism, must consider, more particularly when the breaking of his word would mean the breaking of a Government. I had pledged my word, and those who were behind me had pledged their word, that we would accept that committee. Men had left this House and gone to their homes for their vacation-the Easter vacation I think it was -believing that a committee was to be accepted; and it would have been the rankest perfidy, the rankest treachery on my part, if, when I found the Government of this country in a precarious position, I had not kept my word to a man whom I had known for twenty years and who in all that time never in the slightest tittle deviated from that which he had promised me. That is my explanation of the vote I gave that night. I used the wrong word in saying the word "explanation." It is not an explanation; it is a reason for the vote I gave that night. I had told the right hon. leader of the Government that I would accept that committee, and I had told many men who spoke to me in reference to the matter and had asked me if there would be a vote, that the matter would be referred to a committee; and would finally be discussed in this House free from being considered as a party question.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would like to know why it was, under those circumstances, that the resolution was introduced in the way it was, and why in it the committee was not recommended?


William Folger Nickle: The resolution had been
on the Order Paper for some seven or eight weeks. That length of time elapsed, if hon. gentlemen will remember, before the resolution was debated. I had simply to take it as it was*, before I was permitted to know what the conclusion of the Government was. Then the offer of a committee was extended to me and I accepted it as a fair solution of the difficulty. It may have been badly managed, I am not making any defence in regard to that; I am simply endeavouring to make it clear to the House that the Acting Prime Minister kept his faith with me, and I kept my faith with him.


John Archibald Campbell: You did not intimate in any way that there was such an arrangement.


William Folger Nickle: I am not saying for one moment that certain gentlemen did 'not find themselves in an awkward position; not for one moment am I arguing that.


An hon. MEMBER:: You did not care.


William Folger Nickle: Yes, I did care. I do
not know what* riding the hon. gentleman represents who said I did not care. I oared more than most men think, and I would never have spoken if the matter had not been brought up in this House to-day-my lips would have been sealed.
Now, Sir, I want to direct the attention of the House not to a personal matter, but to the issue which is before us. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) spoke this afternoon with marked eloquence -an eloquence which shook the House, and shook the argument that I had advanced in favour of the resolution that I had introduced. It was a remarkable effort. But was the hon. gentleman consistent? He- waxed most eloquent in criticising the language in which the report was drafted. He said the language was an insult to His Majesty. He shook with vigour, and with. feeling, as he denounced the arrogance, if I might use the word, that prompted the Committee to say that His Majesty should be approached to provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise, to ensure the extinction of titles. The hon. member for Brantford (Mir. Cockshutt) shook with similar indignation this afternoon when he approached the subject in the same way; and the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) trembled with indignation as he approached the matter from the same point of view. In imagination I could see His Majesty

shrinking back as this terrific and terrifying resolution was presented to him for consideration, and I said to myself as these gentlemen spoke; "Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel." Because I remembered that in 1918, on May 21st, the right hon. leader of the Government moved his amendment to my then resolution and the very gentlemen, who shook wiith indignation this afternoon and evening, voted for exactly the same' language that the Prime Minister put in his motion as the language that I put in the resolution which I submitted this afternoon. The resolution of the Prime Minister which carried in this House in 1918 read thus :
We, Tour Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, humbly petition Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty hereafter may be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any titles upon your subjects domiciled or living in Canada.
And so on, and so on. The division took place on that resolution, and is recorded at page 2448 of Hansard, and among the names recorded in favour of that resolution I see the names of Edwards, Cock-shutt, and Sheard. When I drafted this report-because my hand was known in the drafting of it-I used the very language that the Prime Minister used so that an imputation could not be cast upon me in this House that I had acted in a disloyal manner. Because I have heard, not only in this House but outside, that there was an element of disloyalty in approaching His Majesty and asking that a certain concession be made that the Canadian people wanted. Where is the disloyalty in making any such approach? Is the monarchic institution so weak that it cannot stand by virtue of its worth? Do the hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this House want the House and the country to understand that the attachment between Canada and the Empire is so weak that it cannot be preserved except by the maintenance of titles of distinction? I do not believe it. I do not think this country believes it, and I do not think the members of this House believe it. Five hundred thousand men did not go to the Front and sixty thousand of them do not lie in Flanders fields because they hoped to win distinction; they went to the war because they were moved by patriotism; they went to the war called by a sense of duty. And I say it is an insult to the memory of those men to say that titular distinctions is the tie that binds the Dominion to Great Britain. Titular distinctions probably have no effect in binding the Dominions to the Motherland; but it is that warm bond of sympathy, the sentimental tie, that unites the Empire that covers all the seas and has made it so strong in the face of a mighty foe.
I want to say a word or two more. I want to say a word or two in reference to something the member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) said this afternoon. He is a magnificent debater. The flow of his language, the vigour of his intellect, the rhythm of his sentences, carries you along in a majestic flow. But what did he say this afternoon in the House? Not content with his marked abilities, not content with being the premier debater of this House, he used this afternoon in reference to me these words, and I did not rise to my feet at that time because I could hardly believe my senses when I heard the member for Bed Deer speak as he did.
He said:
X cannot, the way my mind is framed, concur in anything which is the embodiment at once of democratic cant and illogical nonsense. We are asked to concur In this report and recommend in one paragraph His Majesty to abolish all titular distinctions in Canada and retain the titles Honourable and Right Honourable, which I contend by any fair interpretation of the English language are themselves titular distinctions.
"Democratic cant"! Am I not to be regarded as being as sincere in advocating the abolition of titles as the hon.. member for Bed Deer is to be thought sincere in maintaining ithe position that free trade would be a sound economic principle for this ' country to adopt? If I cannot get all I want in. one bite, am I to be thought any more insincere than, he because the Government may give him something, but possibly not all he wants? Does he not realize that no well-matured policy, no great advance in public affairs is made by jumps? Progress is made little by little in any great reform; and I say to the members of the House to-night who are asked to vote for the amendmenJt of the hon. member for East Algoma that a subterfuge is being cast about the issue. It is not a question of whether this thing or that thing, in reference to logic, shall be the determining factor. The question is, shall this House or shall it not stand for what the people of this country want? The people of this country do not want titles continued. The hon. member for Frontenac has said that they do not want them continued, yet he shrinks back in horror from the vote. Why?

Because he thinks His Majesty may be insulted. And yet last year he voted for a resolution couched in exactly the same terms. The member for Bed Deer says that it is illogical nonsense. There never was a more logical committee than the committee that sat to deal with titles, .honours and distinctions. Let u 4 draw the veil aside and see what happened. The committee met and there was no question as to hereditary titles and their extinction; on that we were agreed. The next point was in reference to knighthood; on that the vote was 17 to 3, if I remember correctly. The next vote was on the minor classes of orders, and there the difference in the vote was not quite so marked-I do not know exactly what the vote was. The committee adjourned, and at the next meeting the hon. member for Red Deer raised the question that the titles " Honourable " and " Bight Honourable " should go if we were to be consistent. I said to him, " If you believe that, put it in the form of a resolution, and submit it to the committee, and let the committee vote upon it." The hon. member for Red Deer did put it in writing, and this is his resolution:
Mr. Clark moved : That this committee is of opinion that in case Parliament finds it expedient to abolish titles in Canada, steirs must necessarily be taken to see that no citizen of Canada resident in Canada wears henceforth the prefix [DOT] Honourable " or " Right Honourable."
What happened ? If the committee had accepted that they might have gone outside the reference, for the reason that the prefixes " Honourable " and " Right Honourable " did not form part of the subject matters that had been particularly discussed in the House. But if the committee had accepted that amendment I have no doubt whatever that the members who were opposed to the action the committee had taken on knighthood and the orders would have steadily pressed, and pressed, and pressed, one resolution after the other until they had reduced the whole thing to an absurdity. It would not have made any difference where you drew the line. No matter where it was drawn, imputations of being illogical and absurd would have been cast upon the committee. The committee were extremely logical. They said: " The subject matters that were before the House and the country were hereditary titles, knighthoods and the various classes of the Orders, and that is as far as we are going to go in the matter. And there they stopped. Therefore I submit, Sir, to you and to this House that there was nothing illogical in the action

of the 'Committee in voting on the question of the titles of " Honourable " and " Right Honourable."


Michael Clark: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask a simple question? Is the term " Right Honourable " before a man's name a title?


William Folger Nickle: I should certainly consider it a title. Now, another question has been raised, and by the member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt), who was also a member of the Committee. I must admit (that I am a little lost in following his argument. He sltarts out with a burst of eloquence, stating that the King confers titles, and yet last year, at the instance of the Prime Minister, he voted for a resolution ratifying an Order in Council that distinctly and emphatically declared that the King no longer should confer honours except on the advice or his ministers. In other words-


William Foster Cockshutt: Might II correct my hon. friend? I said " the King surrounded by his constitutional advisers," and I do not want those words left out.
Mr. NI'CKLE: It makes very little difference which way the hon. gentleman puts it. I am quite willing to take it as he now expresses it. If he puts it that way the loyalty cry is exploded and gone.
Now I come to the question of foreign titles, which came before the Committee in this way. I, as Chairman of the Committee, received from (the President of the Privy Council this letter:-
Dear Mr. Nickle,-
By direction of Council I enclose herewith a copy of a communication from the Secretary of State with certain enclosures relating (to titles. It raises the question of residents in Canada accepting: titles from other sovereigns.
There was also enclosed another letter from the Under Secretary of State to the President of the Privy Council, directing the attention of the President of the Privy Council to the fact that a foreign dignitary had offered a title to a Canadian citizen, and the opinion of the committee was requested in reference to the matter. Now, what happened was this. One of the members raised a point of order, that consideration of that question was out of order. But the fact that the matter had been referred to the committee by the President of the Privy Council, and that the reference read this way, made the chairman reach the conclusion that the matter was not out of order. Here was the reference:
It referred to the committee various things, together with the question of conferring hon-

ours, titular distinctions and decoration^ upon subjects of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada, including those who had performed overseas, in Canada or elsewhere naval, military and civilian services in connection with the war.
In the resolution there was no limitation as to the conferring of titles being restricted to British titles, and it was therefore ruled that the matter could be discussed by the committee. What was the result?
On motion of Mr. Cockshutt it was resolved that inasmuch as this committee has decided to recommend that no further titles or orders be conferred by His Majesty the King on Canadians. the committee is opposed to the acceptance by Canadians of titles or orders from foreign rulers or governments.
And yet the member for Brantford stands in his place to-night and says that he is prepared to vote for an amendment that negatives the very resolution that he prepared in the committee. O! consistency, thou art a jewel.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go for it.


William Folger Nickle: And the member for
Brantford jocularly spoke of the wedding guest clothed in luxuriant wedding attire. But I wish to draw attention to the fact that the gentleman who was clothed in wedding attire always wears his attire on State occasions while the member for Brantford appears similarly attired on all occasions.
Now, Sir, I want to go further-and I must speak quickly because it is getting late.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go for it.


William Folger Nickle: The member for Algoma directed my attention to a few things, particularly to the irregularity, as he saw it, of the words, "professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office," being used in suibclause (a) of the first paragraph of the report. Let us see what is meant and decide if this report is or is not regular. Does the member for Algoma know that when a lieutenancy is given to a man and he gets his commission, it is issued in His Majesty's name? Does he know that when a man is appointed a notary public for the purpose of taking oaths his commission is issued under the name of His Majesty? Does he know that when a man is appointed to any judicial position his commission is issued under His Majesty's name? In the name of common sense how are you going to make an exception unless you use language to express your idea? The committee was perfectly consistent in the report. Let me
read it to the House. !I leave out the preamble :	'
We, Your IJajesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, huimbly approach Your Majesty-
And in passing may I suggest to you, Sir, that I do not see anything in the nature of a demand when you say that you humbly approach His Majesty.
-praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased:-
(a) To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
What does that mean in plain language? It simply means that the committee recommended to this House to pass an Address asking His Majesty to refrain from conferring titular distinctions on his subjects domiciled or living in Canada, but that that should not stop His Majesty from issuing commissions appertaining to such appointments as a lieutenancy, a notary public, or a judgeship. There is nothing out of the way in the reference; it is a sound and proper expression of an idea, and I am rather surprised that the member for East Algoma took the position that he did tonight.
I wish to revert for a moment to the member for Brantford; I cannot leave him altogether without a few remarks. He professes to speak for his constituency, and, if I understood him aright, he endeavoured to lead the House to the conclusion that his people were not interested. I hold in any hand a telegram addressed to the Chairman of the Titles Committee, Ottawa; as follows:
Resolved that this Brantford trades and labour council strongly resent the attitude of W. P. Cockshutt in the granting of Imperial titles to Canadian citizens and repudiate the insinuation that Brantford workingmen were not opposed to the same. The above council represents 1,487 Unionists.
A. G. Brown,
President.
I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House to decide just who speaks for the riding of Brantford.
When my attention was first directed to what I considered a wrong in this country, I determined, if my weak efforts would bring about a reformation, to do what I could .to secure a reform. I brought the question into the House last year in reference to hereditary titles. I stated at that time that if an amendment were moved

and if I .thought the sentiment of the people warranted it, I would support a resolution to do away with all titular distinctions. The Prime Minister took the position last year that as the Government had stated its policy in an Order in Council, he was not prepared to go further than the Order in Council went; and the inevitable happened-the House sustained the Prime Minister. This year I again introduced the subject; and I told you at the beginning of my few remarks just what happened when the matter was discussed in this House on the 14th of April. I said that evening that I had approached this matter with sincerity; that I wanted results, not notoriety. I am just as sincere in the advocacy of the principles that I am enunciating here as other men are in their advocacy of principles on the floor of this 'House, and I expect from them exactly what I am prepared to accord to them-recognition of my good faith, and of my desire at least to carry out a reform as I see it. As I have said, a gulf lies between the position taken by myself and those who support me and the position taken by the member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). I believe that the granting of these titular distinctions is pernicious, and that it has a bad national effect. The member for South Toronto says: You are wrong; the principle is all right; it is the method employed in granting these distinctions that has brought about the grievance you decry. This House to-night has to decide which way it is going. It bas to make a decision that will probably regulate and influence our national life for the next fifty years, because if the House decides in accordance with the amendment moved by the member for East Algoma, the probabilities are that there will he such a flood of titles that the flood-gates, once opened, cannot be closed for years.. There is no use in trying to camouflage the issue; it is clear-cut and well defined. The issue before the House and the country to-night is this:	Is the Parliament of Canada in
favour of titles and titular distinctions being granted to Canadians? You cannot hide this thing any longer under a veil of mystery. The question that has to be decided is this:	Are you in favour of
giving to any Government the right, to denominate who shall have titular distinction? If you are, vote for the amendment submitted by the member for East Algoma. If, on the other hand, the members of this House are consistent in standing by the principles that they have enunciated 
in times past, then I ask them to stand by the report of the Committee. In my judgment, that report honestly expresses the intention of the Committee, honestly expresses the wishes of the people; and its adoption will be not only a step forward, but also the attainment of a goal in doing aw.ay, once and for all with a pernicious principle in this country. If this report is. adopted Canada will take the position she should take-that, being' a true democracy, she is opposed to priorities and personal recognitions and declare that all men are equal and that what is good enough for one man is good enough for all.


William Foster Cockshutt: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Foster Cockshutt: Before .the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Nickle) sits down, I wish to ask him a question.


Georges Henri Boivin: With .the
consent of the member for Kingston.


William Foster Cockshutt: Does the member
for Kingston permit me to ask him a question?


William Folger Nickle: Yes.


William Foster Cockshutt: Why did the member for Kingston, as chairman of that committee, carry that telegram in his pocket for two weeks, and not produce it before the committee instead of before this House? He informed me that it was going to be filed with the documents; I want to know why he did not produce it before the committee.


William Folger Nickle: That is a very fair question, and deserves a straight answer. I showed the telegram to the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) within half an hour of receiving it. At a meeting of the committee I directed the attention of the committee to the fact that I had received the telegram; but my practice in life has been never to go gunning except when the game is in sight.


William Folger Nickle: I move:
That the said Address he engrossed.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is not worth while engrossing it and we should not spend the
money on it. I suggest that it be not engrossed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Folger Nickle: I move:
That an Address he forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General, praying him to transmit the foregoing address of this House to His Majesty the King, in such manner as to His Excellency may seem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the Throne.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Folger Nickle: I move:.
That the said Address he engrossed, and presented to His Excellency the Governor in Council by such members of the House as are of the Honourable the Privy Council.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not altogether
sure as to whether the motion previously passed that the address be engrossed is not sufficient


William Folger Nickle: May I explain the position? The first address that has to be engrossed is the address


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member will permit me to conclude my remarks. I submit the motion because I believe the hon. member is following the usual form.
'Sir SAM HUGHES: As I am a member of the Privy Council I must respectfully decline to have the House or any other body dictate to me what I shall do with any address.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Does the hon. member want to be a pallbearer?


Samuel Hughes: I respectfully refuse to have my name put on any such address. Motion agreed to.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisk).

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What Senators and Members of Commons went overseas in 1917 as representatives of the Canadian Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association?
2.	Were the Senators and Members of the Commons who made the trip selected by a vote of the members of the association? If not, how. was selection made?
3.	Were any of the expenses of these gentlemen paid by the Canadian Government? If so, what was the amount paid in each case?
4.	What was the total cost to Canada of the trip?


William Thomas White: The Government has not this information, but I [DOT] understand the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Her-

bert Ames), who is chairman of executive of the Empire Parliamentary Association, will be able to supply it.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: 
Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	There has been. Work of this section of the Canada Food Board ceased April 1.
2.	Its purpose, object and function was to increase the use of fish in Canada as a substitute for meat, to help secure supplies for overseas shipment, and to generally stimulate fish production and sale.
3.	Capt. F. W. Wallace, Mr. E. O. Sawyer.
MARKETING CANADIAN PISH OVERSEAS. Mr. STEELE:
1.	Has the Canada Food Board rendered any assistance in the marketing of Canadian fteh overseas?
2.	Did the Canada Food Board place any orders in Canada for the purchase of fish?
3.	If so, with what companies were such orders placed and what aire the total values of any such orders placed with each company?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes. The Canada Food Board Co-operated with the War Purchasing Commission and the British Ministry of Food in securing supplies for overseas,
2.	No.
3.	Answered by question No. 2.


TORONTO, (MONTREAD AND WINNIPEG POST OFFICES.
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What is the gross revenue of Toronto post office for the fiscal year 1918-19?
2.	What is the gross revenue of (Montreal post office for the fiscal year 1918-19?
3.	What is the gross revenue of Winnipeg post office for the fiscal year 1918-19?
4.	How many employees are there on the present pay sheets of the above offices respectively?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	$4,431,977.42.
2.	$2,400,565.98.
3.	$2,317,091.31.
4.	Toronto, 1,542; Montreal, 1,304; Winnipeg, 553. These ifigures include the men away on military service and also their substitutes.	.
QUEBEC AND HAMIDTON POST OFFICES. Mr. HOCKEN:
1.	What is the revenue of the Quebec post office for fiscal year 1918-1919?
2.	What is the revenue of Hamilton post office for fiscal year 1918-1919?
3.	What did it cost in salaries to rui, the Quebec post office for above period?
4.	What did it cost to run the Hamilton post office during the same period?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	$342,179.14.
2 $470,955.84.


POST OFFICES IN QUEBEC.
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	How .many post offices are established' in the city of Quebec within the corporate limits of that city? (a) Head office. (b) Postal stations, (c) Independent post offices at which postmasters are in charge, (d) Sub-post offices, (e) On any other basis?
2.	What salaries are paid postmasters in each case, what allowances are made, and what are the reasons for such allowance and salaries being paid?
3.	Why is the postmaster at Candiac, Quebec, paid $1,431 salary and allowances of $175 for rent, heat, light, etc., as a sub-post office?
4.	Is letter carrier delivery established in the district in which this office is situated, and is this office within the corporate limits of Quebec City?
5.	Is Faubourg St. Baptiste, Quebec, a sub-*post office of Quebec City? If not, why?
6.	Why is the postmaster paid $800 salary and $400 for rent, heat, light, etc?


Hbn. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	(a) Head office, 1; (b) postal stations, 5; (c) independent offices, 0; (d) sub-post offices, 5; (e) on any other basis, 2.
2.	(a) Head office, salary $4,000, the amount he is entitled to under schedule "B" to the Oivil Service Act.
(b) Postal station "B" is run by a staff of five clerks and one porter from the Quebec Post Office and an appointed postmaster whose salary is at the rate of $1,400 a year. By order of the Postmaster General in 1912. The post office is a Government building.
St. Roch Post Office is run by a staff of seven clerks and one porter from the Quebec Post Office and an appointed postmaster whose salary is at the rate of $1,200 a year. By order of the Postmaster General, 20th October, 1911. The post office is a Government building.
Faubourg St. Jean Baptiste Post Office is run by a staff of three clerks from the Quebec Post Office and an appointed postmaster whose salary is at the rate of $800 a year. By order of the private .secretary to the Postmaster General, 23rd November, 1914.
St. Sauveur de Quebec Post Office is run by a staff of two clerks and one* porter from the Quebec Post Office and an appointed postmaster with salary at the rate of $1,000 a year. By order of the Postmaster General, 1st June. 1898. The post office is a Government building.
Candiac Post Office is run by a staff of two clerks from the Quebec Post Office and an appointed postmaster with salary at the rate of $1,413 and rent allowance of $175 a
year, the amount the revenue of the office entitles him to in each case under the scale of payment.
(d)	Sub-ipost offices: Two at salary of $200 each; three at salary of $100 each, the amounts the revenue of the office entitles them to under the scale of payment.
(e)	Limoilou, salary $300. By order of the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, 19th December, 1916.
Sans Bruit, salary $500. By order of the Postmaster General.
3.	The postmaster at Candiac is paid by percentage on revenue, with the usual allowance for rent, light and heat. The office is not a sub-post office.
4.	Yes.
5.	No. By order of the private secretary to the Postmaster General.
6.	The office is not on the sub-post office basis, and the postmaster is paid a special salary. By order of private secretary of Postmaster General, 17th November, 1914. This department has paid no rent since 1917.


Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Is Rue St. Joseph a sub-post office in Quebec City? If not, why?
2.	Is this office situated within the corporate limits of Quebec City?
3.	What amount is paid the postmaster at St. Roch de Qubbec?
4.	Why is he paid that amount?
5.	Is St. Roch's a separate post office, or is it a postal station under the control of the postmaster Quebec? Why is it so carried on?
6.	How far Is this office from the General Post Office. Quebec?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	$1,200 a year.
4.	By order of the Postmaster General.
5.	St. Roch post office is run by a staff of seven clerks and one porter from the Quebec post office, and an appointed postmaster. By order of the Postmaster General.
6.	One mile.


WOMEN IN CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. COOPER:: 1.	What is the policy of the Civil Service Commission regarding the employment of (a) Married women whose husbands are living; and Ob) Daughters of people who are well able to support them?
2.	Is it the intention of the Civil Service Commission to dispense with the large number of Civil Servants who are now employed throughout the Dominion and replace them by women who have to earn their livelihood of necessity?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1. (a) Married women whose husbands are in a position to earn a livelihood are

not to be employed in future, (b) Single women who qualify by passing the Civil Service examinations are, under the Civil Service Act, 1918, entitled to positions after soldiers who have qualified have been placed.
2. The Civil Service Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter of removals from the service. That rests with the Governor in Council with regard to the permanent service, and with the departments With regard to temporary employees.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. STEELE:: 1.	Were any orders for the purchase of fish for shipment overseas placed with any companies in Canada by the Canadian Government, or any department thereof, or the War Purchasing Commission, in the years 1915, 1916,' 1917, 1918. 1919?
2.	If so, what are the names of the companies, and the value of the orders placed with each?


THE WINNIPEG STRIKE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: (Maison-neuve): Has the Acting Prime Minister had any further news in regard to the situation at Winnipeg?


William Thomas White: The situation remains unchanged. There is no disorder, and the reports we have are more favourable for settlement.


DATE OF THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister when we may expect the Budget?


William Thomas White: I think I can say definitely week after next. I shall endeavour to give a week's notice.


PROHIBITION.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister), Bill No. 107, to confirm the Order in Council of the 24th day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of 12th day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council), Bill No. 116, to amend the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act, was read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 12 midnight.
Erid'ay, May 23, 1919.