VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR J.   G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the right hon.

leader of the government to a paragraph that appears in the Victoria Daily Times, of Tuesday, March 5. It is headed : ' The Duke is coming-Aulay Morrison telegraphs that his visit is practically decided upon' ; and reads as follows :
Upon the opening of the House to-day the premier read a telegram from Aulay Morrison, M.P., stating that the visit of the Duke of York and Cornwall to British Columbia was practically fixed. The announcement was greeted with great applause.
That was on March 5. On March 7, I called the attention of the right lion, gentleman to the fact that the people of British Columbia would like to know whether their Royal Highnesses were going to visit that province or not, and the right hon. gentleman replied as follows :


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I stated some time ago to my hon. friend (Mr. Prior) that we are corresponding at this moment with the Colonial Office upon the subject of the visit of their Royal Highnesses, that the correspondence is not concluded, and that I would not like to make a statement until the correspondence has been concluded. But in the meantime, I think, without divulging any secret, I may assume to say that it would be,
I think, quite proper and fitting that their Royal Highnesses should visit Vancouver, B.C.
Now, Sir, I cannot believe that the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Morrison) sent that telegram without having some


Mr. SPEAKER.: I suppose the hon. member will not make any discussion ?


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: If I am assured by the right hon. gentleman


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish also to state that my mind is not clear that such a question should be brought before the House just now. I cannot see that it is either a question of privilege or a question of urgency. The question may, perhaps, come up later on.


Edward Gawler Prior: I only want to get some information.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am simply stating the rule, which is that when the Orders of the Day are called, the only matters which may be brought up are questions of privilege or questions of urgency. I do not see that this is a question of urgency. Besides, if I may be permitted to suggest, when a question of urgency is raised, it might be better to have an understanding with the government, that the question should be answered without notice being given.


Edward Gawler Prior: Of course, Mr. Speakev if you ruie it out of order, I cannot say anything more. I wish to get the information from the right hon. First Minister as to whether Mr. Morrison was authorized to -send such a telegram as that-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR-or whether the right hon. gentleman was treating the House in a manner


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR-which, I do not think, was at all proper, in stating that he had not the information to give.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, I gave to the House the only information I could give pending the correspondence, which had not been concluded. I gave no information to Mr. Morrison or anybody else. I never saw Mr. Morrison on the subject at all.
SUPPLY-S. A. WAR-CANADIAN INTERVENTION, &c.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Since I have given notice of the motion which I am now to propose, a double accusation has been brought against me.
On one hand, I am pointed out to the eyes of my English-speaking fellow-citizens as a French demagogue; and, on the other, I am denounced to my own countrymen as a dangerous British Imperialist.
Or course, having made up my mind to say what I think, as I think it, on all matters of national importance, I will not trouble myself with the opinion of this paper or that one: it would be easier to get a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to bring a political sheet to appreciate an idea with complete independence and good faith.
In the course of my remarks, I will have occasion to deal with the charge of French demagogy, to which, I must say, I never attached any importance. The intention of raising a racial agitation on this matter has always been so foreign to my mind and so totally absent from my utterances, that I never took the trouble to confute that accusation. I thought I could rely on the common sense and straightforwardness of English Canadians to do justice on that slander.
As to my imperialistic tendencies, they should not call for much argument either. Nevertheless, the problem has received so little serious consideration, from the Quebec representatives especially, that some explanation may be required. The preamble of my motion sets out my intention clearly enough, I think. I do not recede for one moment from the position which I have taken and kept from the day the Canadian government decided to take part in the South African war; that position being identical to that occupied by the cabinet till the 13th October, 1899.
This proposition therefore does not imply an admission on my part that the government had a right and a duty to interfere in

South Africa. I shall never admit that the country could be thrown in any war by order in council. I shall never acknowledge that the government was excusable, for the sake of power or popularity, or even in order to avoid the nightmare of racial agitation, to open, by a mere cabinet decision, a new era in our relations with Great Britain, without at least enlightening the people upon the real consequences of their action.
I still assert that Canada is not bound and should not be called to any other military action than the defence of her territory.
Such principles being reserved, there is no necessity for my insisting any more upon them at present. The point I want to make is this:	We, Canadians, have been taxed,
some wilfully and some forcibly, to defray the cost of this expedition; we have, therefore, the right to pronounce on the outcome and the settlement of the conflict in which we have been made a party, and we should not allow the British government to presume and decide arbitrarily of our opinion without even consulting us on the matter. As I have stated when I moved my antiimperialist resolution last year ; as I repeated the other day in support of the motion of the kon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan) requesting the abolition of the anti-Catholic declaration forced upon the King on the day of his coronation:
I believe it is our right and duty, as representatives of a self-governing British community, to express an opinion and to make suggestions on any matter of vital interest to British power-provided always we impair . in no way our full liberty and complete selfcontrol of action.
Strange to say, no traces of Imperialism were pointed out in the help given by Canada to soldiers wounded in the Crimean war; nor in the part played by Sir John A. Macdonald in the settlement of the Alabama claim at the expense of Canada; nor in the three resolutions in favour of home rule for Ireland discussed in this parliament; nor even in the motion of sympathy with the gold miners and speculators of the Transvaal adopted by this House at the request of Mr. Rhodes's agent. But now, Imperialism is declared to be the basis of a proposition asking that a conflict in which we have taken an active part should be settled upon the same principles that have made Canada happy and prosperous and which this parliament wanted, some years ago, to be applied to Ireland. Stranger still,
I am told that Canada has not the right to say that an end should be put to a war in which her required contribution of 500 men has been raised to over 3,000, and her national expenditure of a few thousand dollars to more than two millions. And finally when British authorities are unable i to find police recruits in the United Kingdom, in New Zealand and in Australia, when the Cape Colonists themselves, for the benefit of whom that force is organized, refuse


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: : to enlist-I am denied by Imperialists and by anti-imperialists as well, the right to say i that Sir Alfred Milner and Mr. Chamberlain should not have been allowed and helped to-play any longer upon the candid and enthusiastic naivety of Canadians.
The principles upon which I have based this proposition are not new; they were born with the British nation itself; they were brought by the Saxon pirates from the dark forests of Teutonia to the Celtic island of the north; they were laid down as the corner-stone of the British constitution by a section of that robust Norman race of which the French Canadians are to-day, perhaps, the most direct and thorough offsprings. Many a blow was struck at them; they were reddened by the blood of powerful assailants and of heroic defenders; I hope they will stand the present craze as they stood the attacks of monarehs and mobs, of oligarchists and aristocrats. I mean the right, for all British-subjects, of petition and remonstrance to the Crown, and the right of directing the use that shall be made of their money.
The new Imperialism is the very antithesis of these rights. The tendency of Mr. Chamberlain's ideals, favoured, either wilfully or blindly, by most colonial public men, is to centralize gradually the political, military and economical ruling of the empire, making it as free as possible from independent local action, In order to set asleep the susceptibilities of the Canadian or of the Australian, and to kill their colonial vanity by swelling their jingoistic pride, it is whispered that the capital of the new empire may not stay where it is. But that does not matter: whether worshipped at London or at Toronto, at Melbourne or at Calcutta, the Buddha of the Imperialists will remain the same omnipotent fetich, and the choir of the faithful shall have to howl the same hymn. One of the most remarkable features of the new Britisher is that the more he swells in ambition the less-tolerant he grows towards differing convictions.
It has been said, printed and sung on all times for over a year, that this war has raised the past subservient state of British self-governing colonies to the rank of free nations allied with Great Britain. Eloquent periods have been thrown to the four winds, celebrating the proud position which we occupy now in the British Empire.
Those triumphant effusions of colonial pride recall forcibly to my mind the decadent years of the Roman empire, when poets and rhetors, forgetful of the rude but free life of their forefathers, were extolling the glories of Caesar and worshipping his golden image, because they were allowed to share in his refined debaucheries ; because the old warriors of Gaul and Brittany, of Iberia and Germania had become the best legionaries of the empire, and could help in conquering more lands, in looting more herds, in burn-
ing more farms, in ravishing more women and starving more children for the everlasting glory of ' Caesar, imperator et deus ' Rome held a vaster empire, her provinces were better subdued, she boasted more of her power on the eve of her downfall than at any other period of her history. But we know now, and her clearsighted citizens knew then, that the time of her greatest moral and material strength was when her statesmen thought more of curing evils at home and of keeping the old Roman spirit of liberty, than of plundering the world and worshipping brutal force and insatiable greed in the person of the Emperor.
But I do not want to add fuel to the fire of jingo feelings. I will simply remind the members of the House, those especially who are most proud of the position we occupy in the empire, that, if we do not want Canada to be considered by the British government as a mere colonial field for profitable speculation, it is most urgent that we should make ourselves respected not only on the battlefield, but also in His Majesty's councils. The time has come when we should tell Mr. Chamberlain that, having had at leisure and unreservedly the blood of our blood and the flesh of our flesh, the tears of Canadian mothers and the sweat of Canadian farmers and workers, in order to enrich himself and his brother and his son and the whole of his tribe, by selling guns and ammunition, he should at least respect the language of the Canadian people, and not distort as he pleases the documents which are sent to him by the Canadian government.
I exposed before the House, at the last session, the strange course followed by the Colonial Secretary; his using our Transvaal resolution of 1899 to say that we were in favour of his provoking and arrogant policy; his acceptation of our offers of help before they had ever been tendered ; the publication by the London papers of his official despatch to Lord Minto before it had reached our government ; .and above all, his insolent reply to the order in council of October 13th. Since then, we have had another manifestation of the growing audacity of the master of the empire. Last year, on the 4tli of June, I put the following question to the government :
Has the government, or any of its members, been consulted as to the conditions upon which the South African war should be settled? Is it the intention of the government to offer any suggestion or opinion on the matter?
To which the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) replied :
Neither the government, nor any of its members, have been consulted as to conditions upon which the South African war should be settled. They are not considering the advisability of offering any suggestion or opinion upon the matter.
And the reply was noisily applauded by the
opposition. This session, on the 18th of February, I put the following question :
1.	Was the Canadian government, or any of its members, consulted by the British government on the South African question since the 1st of June last?
2.	Did the Canadian government, or any of its members, offer any opinion or make any suggestion to the British government on the matter?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The Canadian government was not consulted, nor any of its members, by the British government on the South African question since June 1st last. No member of the Canadian government offered any opinion on the matter.
Let us now cross the ocean, enter Westminster Palace, the mother of parliaments, the source and safeguard of British liberty, of British justice, of British truth. On the 7th day of August last-I read from the Times' parliamentary report :
Mr. Faber (York) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering the part taken by Canada and Australia in the South African war, it was proposed to ascertain the views of the government of those countries in regard to the settlement and government of the Transvaal and Orange State when the war was over.
And remembering the declarations made by the Prime Minister of Canada on the -1th of June, 1900, and on the 18th of February, 1901, let us hear the reply of the oracle of the new British world :
Mr. Chamberlain.-I have already made myself acquainted with the views of the colonies of Canada and Australia in regal'd to the main points of the future settlement, and Her Majesty's government are in complete accordance with them as to the necessity for annexation, the establishment of a government supported by military force, with the ultimate expectation of an extension to both colonies of representative self-government. (Cheers.)
Yes, cheers on both sides of the Atlantic, -but which is which ?
One would he tempted to qualify such a flagrant contradiction in terms that would call for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But, after all, this was not much worse than when being told officially that the Canadian government were permitting the enlistment of the first contingent because they considered that the colony was not committed to any future action, the Colonial Secretary replied officially that the British government were accepting our troops as an evidence of our willingness ' to share in the risks and burdens of the empire,' and as a proof of our sympathy with his policy in South Africa. That first distortion having been tacitly accepted here, the Colonial Secretary was only encouraged in his methods. But I think it justifies me in appealing to the members of this House in the name of Canadian selfrespect to put a stop to that arbitrary treatment. I appeal to those at least who have not reached that point of devotion to Mr. Chamberlain that to be made tools of in his

hands is to he considered a great honour to Canada.
In that new alliance with Great Britain which has changed our state of humble servility into a glorious matrimony, I would like to know how long we are called to play the part of a deceived but contented husband. In national intercourse as well as in private life that role is not yet considered as one to be much boasted about- by the husband at least.
I do not see that I have to apologize for anything I said in the past on this question. My course has been twice endorsed and emphatically approved by my constituents. It has been said that the almost unanimous voice of the people of Canada approved of our intervention in South Africa, and therefore, that we, the few members of this House who condemned that intervention. must be in the wrong. I deny this proposition in toto. It is false both in principle and in fact. First, number does not make right what is wrong. Majority rules, but not always in truth and equity. I am an optimist. I firmly believe that, on the whole, good is prevalent and that right conquers might at the end. But there are periods of moral depression when thousands and millions of men, when entire nations seem to lose the path of justice and even the sense of self conservation. If it is but an accidental attack of fever, a reaction follows which restores health and common sense in the body politic. If it is the last illness, the nation disappears and a new one takes its place under the sun. And the world goes on under the guidance of God. Fortunately for Canada, signs of reaction are already noticeable; and I can foresee the day when the judgment of the people of Canada, English as well as French, will not be so hard on me as the speeches, the votes, the songs and the howlings which illustrated the debates of last session. That reaction is not yet of such a character to warrant the confidence of my Quebec Liberal friends who naively believe that Imperialism is a fake or a dead issue. But the change is strong enough to give hopes to those who dread for our rising nation the brutalizing effect of soldiery rule, the development of the spirit of conquest and plunder, and the heavy burdens of Imperial militarism. Even in England the reaction is manifest. In fact the wave of jingoism never reached there the point it attained here. As usual, the true colonial jingo outdid the loudest London cockney. Before going to the polls, Mr. Chamberlain the master of the British administration, made of his war the main, nay the sole issue of the electoral contest : ' A vote against the government is a vote for the Boers,' said he in his peculiar Bismarckian way. And in reply to this passionate appeal, and in spite of the disorganization of the Liberal party, 1,603,537 suffrages were given for the Boers-to use the Colonial Mr. BOURASSA.
Secretary's own stamping-in 427 divisions, and eighty ridings returned oppositionists by acclamation. And every one admits that the vote would be far more favourable to the Liberals now than last fall. The change effected in the editorship of the Daily News is quite an indication of the change of sentiment. We may see before long a repetition of the anti-war feeling which followed the deplorable Crimean expedition. Now take the result of the London county council elections just held last week. The Moderates, despairing to get a majority on straight municipal issues, dragged the khaki cry in the contest. ' Do you want a pro-Boer council ? ' was their war cry ; and what was the reply ? An increased majority for the Progressists.
As far as Canada is concerned, the verdict of the electorate has been interpreted by the people of Great Britain and of the empire at large with such an ignorance of the real issue that it is most proper to make a short analysis of the situation. In order to give to the House an idea of the way British opinion was misguided on Canadian feelings, by the leading Tory organs, I will just quote a few lines from the London Times. In a letter from its special correspondent in Toronto, dated September 24, and published on the 6th October, the political situation in Canada and its bearing on Imperial affairs is very ably considered. After saying that the French Canadians are more thoroughly Canadian than all others, and consequently less interested in British and Imperial concerns, the writer adds these words, which I commend to the attention of the House :
It was a singularly fortunate circumstance that at this critical time in nati.uial tifiairh a French Canadian statesman was at the head of the Dominion government. Without his leadership, Quebec might have caused trouble. A French member of the cabinet and more than one private member of parliament objected to the conditions on which the Canadian contingents were sent to the front.
Then speaking of the hesitations of the Prime Minister in sending the troobs :
No doubt he (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) felt that his compatriots required to be educated by degrees to the full demands of British citizenship.
I would like to hear from the right hon. gentleman on what lines and how far he is prepared to carry on that course of education. After the elections, the great English Tory organ thought it was good policy to interpret the Liberal majority as a victory for Imperialism. In an editorial dated November 10th, it said :
Both parties in Canada are Imperialist ; and we believe that the Conservatives, if they had been in power, would have pursued, in this respect, the same course that was pursued by the Liberals. Nevertheless, it fell to the Liberals, as a matter of fact, to do the work, and it was done with a promptitude, a gracefulness, and a liberality which could not have been surpassed,
and which Great Britain will never forget. As far as obtaining popularity in this country was concerned, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his cabinet had a magnificent opportunity and they employed It to the full. That they should do so was the more gratifying when we consider that the back bone of their strength is derived from the French population of the Dominion and especially from Quebec which from circumstances which we, perhaps, do not fully understand, was less strongly represented in South Africa than some other provinces.
I think this is rather hard on hon. gentlemen opposite who are mostly stout Imperialists but whose Imperialism would have no doubt been greatly strengthened by access to power, even at the hands of French dominators. But the most peculiar appreciation by the Times of the electoral result in Canada appeared in its Toronto letter, dated November 10, and published on the 24th. I quote the following words :
On one point of national importance the election has cleared the air. It is now manifest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has not been injured among his French Canadian followers by his British Imperialism. So far as Quebec is concerned, the sending of the Canadian contingents to South Africa was fully ratified by the vote of last Wednesday. The Premier had never shirked the responsibility which he assumed in the matter, and the issue was fairly before the French electors. ... So far as Imperial politics are concerned, therefore, the decisive attitude of Quebec is satisfactory.
The conclusions of tihe two last quoted articles are utterly false, and the intelligence of Canadian affairs displayed in the former is an evidence of the wilful had faith of the two others.
The question of Imperialism was put neither squarely nor fairly before the people of Canada. In the English-speaking provinces, it was kept on the ground of sentiment where it had been placed in this House, each party claiming the first prize In their competitive devotion to the mother land ; but the constitutional aspect and the ultimate consequences of our military expedition were not discussed.
In the province of Quebec, when the issue was raised, both parties were simply charging each other with being the cause of that display of jingoism which had forced the hands of the government. What was claimed in one part of the land as an act of virtue, was denounced in the other part as a crime. I may tell, in passing, to all those who are sincerely seeking for peace and harmony between the two races who compose the Canadian nation, that they vainly endeavour to reach that happy result so long as they keep up that double-faced system of treating great national problems. I will come back to this point later on.
Let me now place before the House a few facts which prove that the sentiment of the English-speaking people was not so decidedly one-sided as it has been stated in this House and throughout the country. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) was quoted as having said at a public meeting shortly after last session :
I voted lor the expenditure of $2,000,000 in South Africa, although I admit the justice of the position taken by Mr. Bourassa, and believe there is nothing in the constitution to warrant such expenditure. I simply voiced the wishes of my constituents in this matter.
On the eve of polling day he was bitterly denounced in the organ of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson). The above words appeared on nearly every page of the Winnipeg Tribune in heavy type with headings and comments like these :
No Contingents for Him.
Puttee Stands with Bourassa.
Voted Against his Convictions.
Too British for Him.
If Mr. Puttee had had his way, there would have been no contingents sent to South Africa in defence of the empire. His sympathies were with Mr. Bourassa.
Winnipegers want a representative at Ottawa who is a Britisher at heart and who will stand by the empire on principle.
These are ultra-loyal appeals


Mr. PUTTEE.: The paper that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) has quoted was incorrect on that occasion and admittedly so.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I was just coming to that point. I do not say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) used these words, but I simply say, that, on the eve of the polling day, if the passions of the people had been aroused to the point that was stated, if there had been such a current of public opinion, a man simply supposed to be what is called a pro-Boer, and supposed to have said that the government should have hesitated a little before committing this country, would have been swamped by his opponent. What was the result 1 The hon. gentleman was elected by a majority of 1,183, while, ten months previous, when he had the strength of two governments behind him, he was elected by 8.
In the east riding of Lambton the member-elect (Mr. Simmons) was denounced by the local Liberal organ, the Petrolia Topic, as a pro-Boer. True, the hon. lion, gentleman denied the accusation; but the paper kept it up and, in reply to the hon. gentleman's denial, published half a dozen interviews with residents of the town affirming that, in several instances, the hon. gentleman had not disguised his disapproval of the position taken by the British government on South African matters. I do not pretend that the statement was founded ; but nobody will deny that, had the war feeling been overwhelming in that riding, such accusations would have proved hard against the Conservative candidate. And here he is, returned by the majority of the people in a constituency which was represented last session by his opponent, a worthy and honourable citizen no doubt popular in his riding.

But here is a case still clearer. Dr. Weldon, who represented the riding of Albert, N.B., in this House from 1891 to 1S96, is a distinguished professor of international law in the loyal city of Halifax. His disapproval of British policy in South Africa was widely known. He went as far as dedicating one of his lectures to the interpretation of the conventions signed between Great Britain and the South African republic ; and his conclusion was a thorough condemnation of Mr. Chamberlain's attitude. I was told that he even dissuaded his son from starting for South Africa and taking part in a war which he considered unjust. This did not prevent that honourable and distinguished gentleman from being chosen as the Conservative candidate in the county of Albert and from being accepted as such by the very men who nearly fell into fits of apoplexy in this House when I gave expression to similar sentiments. True, Dr. Weldon was defeated; but in a contest where the Liberals have made tremendous gains in that province, he reduced his minority of 243 in 1896 to 116 in 1900.
These are the only three cases where it may be said that there was a slight indication in the English-speaking provinces, of what jingo prophets call pro-Boer feelings on the part of candidates. And I do not think the results show that to differ on this question with Mr. Chamberlain and even with the leaders of both parties in Canada has been considered a national felony.
Other indications of reaction against military jingoism have been manifested in our English provinces since the election. On a previous occasion, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) spoke of the enthusiastic reception tendered in Halifax to volunteers returning from South Africa. I know Halifax to be very sentimental. Even its dry fish and hardware dealers cannot refrain their poetical ardour and introduce patriotic rhymes-not home-made, I must say-in their board of trade reports. But elsewhere, the enthusiasm was not quite so pronounced. Commenting on the arrival of our boys in the metropolis of Canada, the Montreal Gazette of December 25tli last, said very philosophically :
The second detachment of the Canadian infantry received only a moderately warm welcome on its return from South Africa. The country is getting used to heroes, it would seem. It does not esteem them loss, but it is less demonstrative rf its feelings.
Of course this was in disloyal Quebec. But let us cross the Ottawa river and penetrate to the heart of the good old sister province, the bulwark of loyalism. Woodstock is an Ontario town, and if I am not mistaken. not largely peopled with pea-soup eaters-unless my hon. friend from North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has educated his constituents to the taste of that healthy food. Here is a description of the quiet way in which returned soldiers were receiv-Mr. BOURASSA.
ed in Woodstock, according to the Sentinel-Review of December 26th last:
When the train moved in yesterday morning
about one person in twenty cheered; a minute after the men had alighted and before the band recommenced playing, there could hardly have been greater quietness at a funeral ceremony. Have we forgotten how to cheer?
I could contrast that funeral reception with the warm welcome which greeted Major Fiset on his return in the French town of Rimouski. I would suggest to the hon. member for North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to get our colleague from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to deliver there some essays on Krugerism and Huttonism. And if these stimulants do not succeed in infusing enthusiasm in the Woodstockiaus, let him secure the musical services of Mr. G. E. Foster and Dr. Montague to sing the National Anthem in Woodstock three times a day in open air for the length of time they used to pass here.
Speaking in a general way, the Toronto Star, one of the Canadian papers which kept best its cool senses during the jingo spree of last year, gave this advice to our returned heroes on December 31st last :
Get Back to Business.
The men who have come from the war have received welcomes that greatly surprised them. People in country places especially are generally very slow to exhibit enthusiasm over young men who belong to their own towns. Yet in a great many cases young man in khaki have been welcomed in royal style, banqueted and presented with watches and sums of money. They should not harbour the hope that they can continue to walk on air.
The wise ones will get back to earth as soon as they possibly can, will put away their regimentals and get to work again. An old saying may be amended to read that nobody is a hero to the people of his own village.
I must beg pardon to the House for multiplying these quotations from English papers. But I am bound to do so. Should X make such utterances on my own account, they would be called ' manifestations of French disloyalty.' In the same copy of the Gazette which I have just quoted appeared a long editorial dealing with the alleged mutiny of some colonial troops in South Africa. The whole thing is a lecture to British authorities on what they should expect and not expect from colonists :
Lord Kitchener's statement, published in our yesterday's issue, makes it clear that all that occurred was the refusal of some time-expired men to go on duty when ordered to do so. .	.	.
If they are not willing to serve any longer, they cannot be blamed, certainly not by men who were unwilling to serve at all. . . . They were in the field before the C. I. V. and the Household Cavalry, and they have seen the latter return home not without suspicion that social
influence had weight in the preference	
It has evidently taken some of the British officers a long time to learn how the colonial troops should be handled. . . . The enthusiasm for the war is waning, and the men are probably right in the belief that the rest of the cam-
paign will be mainly police work	
They have done all they promised to do, and have done It in a way to make us proud of them.
But the best expression of sentiment in that sense was given by the Evening Telegram, of Toronto, on October 25 last. It appeared as the leading editorial, under the title :
' Did Well to Come Home.'
It was not exactly Col. Otter's duty to accept on behalf of the Royal Canadian Regiment Lord Roberts' cordial invitation to remain in Africa until the war was technically over. The instincts of a professional soldier like Col. Otter, do not seem to be in line with the inclinations of all the volunteers under his command. They have, their rights and did well to exercise these rights, and not be browbeaten into staying in Africa when they wanted to come home. They gave the empire good service in the hour of danger, and could well afford to leave professional soldiers to complete the remaining stages of the campaign.
This gem of common sense must have been a cause of amazement to all those who heard here its responsible author, the late member for East Toronto, Mr. John Ross-Robert-son, lecturing the government for not voting sufficient money to pay for the total maintenance of our troops in South Africa, even if England refused our alms.
Every man of good faith will admit that we are far from the frantic appeals of October, 1899, for troops and horses, for guns and cartridges.
My conclusion to all this is that loyalty is almost as elastic as a politician's conscience. At the start of the war, when nobody in Canada expected it could last more than a few' weeks ; when the British government wanted only 500 men from Canada -not to fight, but to express our sympathy with Mr. Chamberlain's policy-I was branded as a traitor because I wanted the government to pause a few weeks and give to the representatives of the people an opportunity to discuss the consequences of this new military policy. A year later, when the situation was darker than ever, when the British army found it hard to hold its few positions, and could not prevent the enemy's invasion in British territory, the very men W'bo put me under the ban of Britisli opinion, plainly said to their beloved mother land : ' Get out of the mess the best yon can ; for us, we have enough of the game. Come back home, boys ; God save the Queen ! '
At the end of December last, it was announced that some more Canadians would have a chance to go to Africa, and this time for a long period and a good pay ; with full opportunities to loot cattle, to burn houses and farms, to steal clocks, mirrors, jewellery and money, to chop pianos just for the fun of it, to turn penniless, on the veldt, women and children at the mercy of barbarous and lustful natives. I take all those words from letters from Canadian volunteers. At the risk of being called a 'little Englander,' I venture the
opinion that Lord Wellington's humane methods of warfare will remain in history as more glorious to the name of Great Britain than Lord Kitchener's improved system. And, perhaps also, the military glory of the wise tactician of the Torres Vedras and of Waterloo will not be totally eclipsed by the ferry trade of Sir Redvers Buller.
Anyhow, when it was decided to raise Canadian recruits for the South African constabulary, the explosion of enthusiasm was not defeaning. On December 31 last, the Toronto Star published an article entitled : ' We need our men at home,' in which I read the following lines :
This country cannot therefore regard as1 a favour that a thousand of our young men are to be accepted as volunteers for police duty in Africa, Asia, South America, England, or anywhere else. We need them at home. This country has no reason to consider a kindness, either, that commissions are offered our young men in the Imperial army, for these are prizes that wean them away from the tasks for which this country educates them. We need more young men than we can grow and we grow better ones than we can import.
It is all right for this country to jump into the middle of the ring in a time of crisis and strike a few blows for the credit of the family, hut what we have to remember is that in making Canada what she ought to be, one native is worth a wagon load of immigrants. *
At the risk of abusing the patience of the House, I will also quote two articles which appeared in the Canadian Military Gazette.
I take for granted that this publication is neither an anti-militarist organ nor a French disloyal mouthpiece. The first article was published on January 15 last, and read as follows :
The South African Police.
Now that recruiting depots for the South African police are to be established in different sections of the Dominion, much unfavourable comment is heard. Surely the Canadian government did not express a desire to the Imperial authorities that such should be done, and if the latter acted on their own initiative, they certainly took a step that was ill-advised. Our aim in this country is to get population not to send our young men abroad. It appears that ranchers and other of that class, to be found mainly in Manitoba and the Territories, are the men preferred and by holding out the inducement of big pay it is hoped to entice away one thousand or more of the flower of our manhood. Canada can ill spare these men, and as a term in the South . African police means, in the large majority of cases, that they will ultimately settle in the country, the Dominion is actually being denuded to populate another portion of the empire.
The Imperial government should be plainly told that, if it is absolutely necessary to have men from Canada to fight for British supremacy in the dark continent, this country will send not 1,000, but at least 10,000, but we have no men to spare for doing routine police duty, while millions of acres of the finest land in the world lay untilled for want of population. Until the men are urgently required, the Canadian authorities should not hold out any inducements to recruits in the country. Canadians wishing to join the police of their own free will should be

permitted to do so, but it is not fair to the Dominion that they should be encouraged to enlist.
On February 19, the same paper came again to the front and said :


The S.   A.@: Constabulary.	.
According to the Army and Navy Gazette, of London, Eng., usually one of the best-informed service journals published in the United Kingdom, the basis of all applications for membership in the South African constabulary is taken to be that ' those sending in their names desire to settle in South Africa after service with the force.'
Such has been strongly suspected in Canada, although the authority have taken the utmost pains to conceal the fact from the public, and the Gazette, after reading the article referred to in our English contemporary, is more strongly than ever opposed to the action of the Canadian militia authorities in encouraging the virtual deportation from our country of a large number-for us-of the best settlers obtainable anywhere in the world.
As has been said on several previous occasions, this journal is not by any means opposed to sending men to fight the empire's battles, if they are required for that purpose, but in this instance it is not even pretended that such is the case, the statement being that they are required for doing police duty in the conquered country, the ultimate aim and object, doubtless, being at the expiration of their three years' term of service that they will be induced to settle in Africa, to the exceeding great detriment of the Dominion.
In this connection, it may be said that the government of New South Wales, being evidently better seized of the facts than ours at Ottawa, have emphatically refused to permit an Imperial officer to recruit for the force in that portion of the empire, and the Gazette is of opinion that recent developments justify the course.
Let all who desire to join the force of their own volition do so without throwing obstacles in the way, but to cajole and encourage men to enlist is not fair to the land we live in.
A few days later, on February 25th, the Montreal Witness, following along the same line, said :
Canadians seem to be taking all too kindly to the establishment among them of recruiting depots, whose object will be to withdraw the most vigorous of our youth from nation-buildiug to the adventure of war. We presume that in every community as full of virility as the Canadian people there will be a certain proportion irresistibly drawn towards such a life. The wild beast has not yet died out of our human nature. if there are some called by nature to military life, and there certainly are many who seem better adapted to success iu that than [DOT] in any other calling, it is better that they should enlist in the service of their own empire than in that of strangers. We cannot, how-over, look on the whole thing without much regret.
With regard to the attitude of the government of New South Wales, I have gone through the London Times to ascertain the truth ; and the first thing I find is a despatch from Sydney, dated February 17, as follows :-
Sydney, N.S.W., Feb. 17.-Sir Alfred Milner having notified the government of New South Wales of his intention to send an officer to recruit in Australia for the South African con-Mr. BOURASSA.
stabulary, the government has replied that the colony objects to such a proceeding.
From the London Times of February 20, I find the following despatch :
Cape Town, Feb. 18.-There is no foundation for the statement contained in telegrams from London to the effect that Sir Alfred Milner proposed to recruit men in Australia and New Zealand for the South African constabulary, and that the New South Wales government had objected.
For those who have followed the course of Imperial authorities on this war question, it Is easy to read between the lines of these despatches. It is now said that no applications were made in Australia or New Zealand for recruits ; but the fact seems to be that the British government, having confidentially asked for the opinion of the governments of those colonies as to the feasibility of recruiting, and learning that they were not willing to be played upon by Sir Alfred Milner, the statement was put forth that the request had not been made. I may here also read tbe following despatch which came in the month of January :
New York, January 14.-The London correspondent of the Tribune says: The announcement is made by the Post that the scheme for raising a colonial police force has been abandoned for the present. The rates of pay were not considered tempting enough by the people living in South Africa, and of 16,000 men who applied to tbe United Kingdom to join the force, only 500 or so were selected as suitable.
Sir, I was perfectly justified in the opening of my remarks in saying that the British authorities, having found that they could not obtain in South Africa or in Australia recruits for the constabulary organized for tbe protection of South Africa, they came to this rich land of Canada to ask from us what other British colonies declined to give, and what the only colony directly interested in this war is not able to give.
I may add that the attempts on the part of Imperial authorities in South Africa to keep our young men as settlers is not a new feature of this war. As early as the 24th November last the Montreal Herald's special correspondent with the Strathcona Horse wrote from Potehefstrom a letter which appeared in the Herald of January 5. It begins as follows:-
The eye of the Canadian volunteer is turning towards Rhodesia, tbe most northern inheritance of the British South African Company, as a prospective place of settlement, attracted by the exceptional inducements offered by the Chartered Company, and the tales heard on the march or by the camp-fire, of the mineral and agricultural wealth of this portion of South Africa. In the ranks of Lord Strathcona's corps are twenty or thirty Canadians who are at present deeply interested in the country, and may yet make it their future home. . .	. The
special inducements to settlement extended by the British South African Company are offered only to Canadian, Australian and New Zealand volunteers and English Yeomanry who will volunteer for the defence of Rhodesia.
With the Military Gazette, 1 regret strongly that the Canadian government, which is taxing the people of this country to bring in foreign immigration, should have assisted British authorities in the draining of our best blood for the benefit of Mr. Rhodes. And again that step has been taken without the consent and knowledge of parliament. The cabinet cannot invoke this time the excuse of popular will. I did not hear of the slightest protest against the articles of the Toronto Star and of the Military Gazette which, I think, expressed the general opinion. And it cannot be pretended that this is another case of urgent necessity. On the 8th of January last, Lord Raglan, Under Secretary of State for War, said to a representative of the Associated Press :
The condition of affairs in South Africa absolutely forbids prophecy. You cannot call it war, yet in some respects this is worse than war.
. . . . The secret of the whole thing consists in horses. We have enough men there, but not enough mounted men.
A strange war indeed ! At the outset, the defeats of the British army were attributed to a lack of strategic science on the part of the mules ; and now we are told that the Imperial forces being unable to conquer this remnant of a handful of peasants, horses only can do it. Anyhow, since horses only were required, why did not the government offer to the British authorities all the horses they wanted, and told them to leave here where they are badly needed the men they do not want.
I go further : I say that the moment the government were convinced that the war was over-and convinced they were as early as the 7th of June last when they congratulated the Queen on the end of hostilities-it was their duty to notify the British government that Canadian soldiers should be sent hack here at the expiry of their first period of engagement, that is, after six months of service. That duty became imperative when Lord Roberts annexed the two republics and every minister in England boasted that the war was over, and that the few Boer desperadoes who were still foolish enough to keep on fighting should not be considered as belligerents. If I understood well that popular voice which forced the hands of the government, our soldiers went to Africa and we paid them for the defence of the empire. But our purpose was not. I presume, to keep there at the expense of Canada a force of men to loot farms and do police work in a war which is not a war, as Lord Raglan termed it three months ago, or but a ' technical war,' as Mr. Ross-Robertson, of the Evening Telegram, would qualify it.
Coming back to those articles of the Toronto Star, of the Military Gazette, of the Montreal Witness, I am most happy to observe the revival of that robust common sense and of that practical spirit which
every true observer of modern nations admires as the backbone of Anglo-Saxon strength, and to which the Anglo-Saxon shall have to come back if he does not want to see his power vanishing. But, to be impartial, I must point out the weakness of reasoning which characterizes those articles. If we admit the desirability of military expeditions outside of Canada, even scarce and accidental, we must prepare for them. Not only must we go in expensive purchases of weapons and ammunitions, we must also develop a military spirit in our peaceful community. If we make ours the quarrels of Great Britain ; if we wish to have at least 10,000 young men ready to start at England's first call in Europe or Africa, in Asia or Oceania, we must prepare the youth of this country for such emergencies. From the cradle, through the kindergarten, the school, the college, the university, the ear of the Canadian boy must be made familiar with the clang of arms and the strident appeal of trumpets. He must be taught to drill and to shoot and to love camping and loafing with spurs at his boots and a sword at his belt. Instead of war being painted to his eyes under its true colors as one of the chastisements of God over a sinful humanity, as one of the worst social scourges, more cruel and detrimental to the welfare of nations than cholera or famine, his young enthusiastic mind must be imbued with the barbarous, anti-Christian notion that war is the true path to glory, the' most healthful and noble aim of a strong people. And the result will be that, not only by loyalty, not only in cases of imperative necessity, not only to defend the flag and the land, hut simply to follow its new instincts, the ' flower of our manhood ' will he ready to start at any time, for any cause, good or bad. In time of peace, that new martial education of the youth will lower to their mind the ordinary but fruitful occupations of life. And thus will be lost to our country the best of its bicod, of its intelligence, of its vital strength. Military passion is brutal, and cannot be controlled easily by reason. I am glad to find out that some organs of the English-speaking community are beginning to agree with me ; but without any desire to discourage their honest and well-directed efforts, I may be allowed to say that if they want to avoid the consequences they must try to extirpate the causes.. They have helped in throwing a bad seed to the national ground ; if they dread the harvest, let them go and unroot the crop ; cutting a few of the heaviest ears is but a childish and useless game.
Coming now to the province of Quebec, the attempt made by the London Times to interpret the almost unanimous vote given to the government in that province as an approval of the war, or of the participation

of Canada in the conflict, is simply preposterous. I regret that some members of the cabinet have contributed to propound that false impression. They may have done it with a good purpose ; but what Is the use ? Not only good intentions, but honesty, clearsightedness, and frankness, are the best policy always.
At a banquet which was tendered to him at Toronto, on the 11th of December last, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) was reported by the Toronto Globe as having said on Imperial issues :
In the province of Quebec the main attack that was made upon the government was on account of the Imperial policy which was followed by our right hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) The issue that was mainly raised there between the Prime Minister and his supporters and their opponents was as to whether Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, the French Canadian Prime Minister, who had inaugurated the British preference, who had sent the troops to South Africa, whether he was to be supported in taking that action ; and we have only to look at the newspapers which were circulated by our Conservative friends in the province of Quebec, at the literature which was circulated by those gentlemen in Quebec, to see that that was the main issue upon which they appealed to the province of Quebec, and their appeal was that the people of Quebec should declare against Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier because he was an Imperial statesman, because he had thrown in his lot with the British empire. (Hear, hear.) What did the people of Quebec decide? What was their verdict? Was it for the men who attacked our hon. friend? No ; it was an endorsement of everything he had done to cement Canada more closely to (he British Empire.
The hon. gentleman appealed to the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to uphold his views. But these two gentlemen remained perfectly silent on that point, and for good reason : both of them were too polite to contradict their colleague and too sincere to strengthen him in his delusion. Of course, this opinion of the Minister of the Interior was an after-Tor-onto-dinner thought, and this may be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance. The hon. gentleman is, I know, a total abstainer. and the very opposite of a jingo ; but it may be he was affected by the Toronto atmosphere in the same way as a friend of mine who was once visiting the London docks : just by passing through the huge warehouses where all sorts of liquors are stored, he was nearly intoxicated by the
and in every minister there are at least three-unless the man is perfectly null by himself and takes all his brains In his portfolio, which is far from being the case with the hon. minister. So that a member of the cabinet may very sincerely entertain and express quite opposite views on the same subject, according to whether he uses his personal brains or his ministerial mind. In spite of his keen experience and sound judgment as a man and as a politician, the Minister of Inland Revenue is officially the Benjamin of the cabinet. I think he relied exclusively on his young and fresh ministerial brains, naturally excited with the joy of victory, when he gave his opinion of the Quebec vote on the 9th of November last. He was reported as follows by the Ottawa correspondent of the Montreal Herald :
, It was not at all a question of race or contingents. Even Mr. Chauvin, who voted in the House against sending contingents, was defeated by Mayor Prefontaine, who supported their going, while the majorities of both Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Monet were materially reduced.
After having referred to the Manitoba school question as one of the most important issues in the contest, he added :
The second topic of most opposition speakers was the increase of debt resulting from sending soldiers to South Africa at a cost of $5,000,000. This was the complaint against Laurier; Mr. Chauvin's defeat was the answer of the people, And by the Ottawa Evening Journal :
The two great issues which the opposition had put forward were the Manitoba school question and the sending of the troops to South Africa. The opposition asked the electors to condemn the Laurier administration because the school question was not satisfactorily settled by the government, and also because the premier had sent the contingents to South Africa. It was Sir Wilfrid particularly who was held responsible for this. The vote ha;.v shown that the government has been endorsed for its action in regard to these questions. Mr. Chauvin, Conservative, who voted against sending the contingent, was defeated. The majorities of Monet and Bourassa were reduced. . . .
I regret, or rather I rejoice, that in my case, the hon. minister spoke under misinformation. My majority was larger by a few votes that in 1890, In spite of tbe fact that the lists were much less favourable and especially that 1,000 voters at least were absent from the localities where I took the strongest vote.


Mr. COWAN.: You were lucky.
alcoholic emanations which filled tbe air. In Toronto, jingo microbes are sucli in quality and quantity that even when stimulated only by Apollinaris water, they can affect tbe most solid brain.
The case of my bon. friend tbe Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) is harder to diagnosticate-unless I call It an outburst of juvenile enthusiasm. Not that I don't acknowledge and respect the experience and solid mind of tbe bon. gentleman ; but in every man there are two men,


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, I was lucky to represent an intelligent constituency. My friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Monet), whom I am so happy to see here again, ready to fight with me for the Canadian flag, should we even remain for some time yet in a glorious isolation, could tell to the House that the reduction of his majority was due to causes entirely foreign to the war question. In fact, his opponent took the same view as he did of the war question and said he would have voted


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: in the same way as my hon. friend did on this matter. I could also point out the vote in the counties of Two Mountains, Bagot, Charlevoix and Mas-kinonge, where members who voted with us on this question were all returned by increased majorities. I do not think that any of those gentlemen receded, during the electoral campaign, from their former position on this question. I know that in Charlevoix and Maskinonge especially, the mem-bers-elect (Messrs. Angers and Legris) fought the battle straight on our lines. And I know as a matter of fact that before going to his political death in Maskinong'6, Sir Adolphe Caron vainly endeavoured for several weeks to get the nomination in his former constituency, Three Rivers and St. Maurice ; and if he could not succeed, his position on the war question was to a certain extent an obstacle in his way.
Since the Minister of Inland Revenue has mentioned the defeat of Mr. Chauvin in Terrebonne as the result of his vote on my motion of the 13th of March last, and as an evidence of the sentiment of Quebec in favour of our military expedition to the Transvaal, I feel bound to give a few details about that election. I have here the political manifesto of the present member for Terrebonne (Mr. Profontaine), who represents at the same time the riding of Maisonneuve. It is a long and interesting document treating of the Manitoba school question, of the financial prosperity of the country, of the progress in agriculture-but not a paragraph, not a line, not a word about the war, or the sending of contingents, or Imperialism. It appeared in I,'Avenir du Nord, a Liberal paper published at St. Jerome, and largely circulated not only in Terrebonne county, but throughout the whole district. This paper, ably edited, has not a little contributed to the liberalizing of the counties of Terrebonne and Two Mountains, those old fortresses of the Conservative party. It is one of the strongest anti-imperialistic publications in Quebec, one which denounced most bitterly the sending of troops to Africa, approved all along of my position, and congratulated Mr. Chauvin on his vote of the 13th of March last. I may say even that it has gone very often much farther than my own sentiments would lead me. I am anti-imperialistic, but strongly attached to British institutions ; this paper is almost a secessionist. One may think that it changed its tone in order to support the Liberal candidate against Mr. Chauvin. Not at all ; on the contrary. First, in the same copy announcing that Mr. Prefontaine had been chosen as the Liberal candidate, Mr. Chauvin was denounced as a cowardly capitulator on the question of Imperialism. The article dated September 13, begins as follows :
Mr. Chauvin, Capitular!.
The county of Terrebonne is represented at Ottawa by a [DOT] eapitulard ';
I do not know if my hon. friends whose native tongue is English quite understand the meaning of that word. It means not merely a capitulator, but a coward capitulator, one who capitulates without reason. -Mr. Adolphe Chauvin himself.
At Beauharnois he declared that he was following Sir Charles Tupper's flag with the whole Conservative-yellow-blue-Tory party united as one man .... Ha ! Mr. Chauvin has tried to play the man of character at Ottawa with the ! Bourassas, the Monets and the Ethiers ; but our representative was really not built to keep up that role. He has capitulated ! Nay, he has surrendered without striking a blow. He does better : He goes back with arms and baggage to the camp of the militarists and the mountebanks of Britishism.
In the next issue L'Avenir du Nord published an article on Mr. Prefontaine's candidature. After a well-deserved eulogy of our worthy colleague, it goes on as follows :
One may tell us : ' All what you say is very true, but Mr. Prefontaine is an Imperialist.'
What evidence on this point can be given to us ?
No, we do not believe that Mr. Prefontaine, who has in the past given so many striking evidences of patriotism and of national zeal, may have, as a wish in his heart and as an article of his programme the participation of Canada in the foreign wars of the British Empire. No, we do not believe that Mr. Prefontaine admits, that in principle, we should give millions and shed our blood to defend England In conflicts, the motives of which are more than suspicious. We do not believe that Mr. Prefontaine is in favour of a military Imperialism which would afflict our peaceful country with the horrible wound of militarism, and this for the benefit of another nation.
Then, after proving that the government's policy on that question was less dangerous than Sir Charles Tupper's, It says :
Well ! Mr. Prdfontaine who, as a supporter of the government, has approved the sending of contingents, but under the condition that this action shall not commit us in the future, is yet to he preferred to Mr. Adolphe Chauvin, who, after having pronounced himself against the sending of contingents in the House, walks now on the steps of Sir Charles Tupper whose Imperialistic ideas he endorses without restriction .... On that question of Imperialism which we have fought and shall always fight, Mr. Prefontaine is less to be feared than Mr. Chauvin. Then, on October 4, appeared an article, the third of a series, in which the Imperialistic tendencies of both parties were cleverly analysed-the conclusion being that Tory Imperialism is worse than Liberal Imperialism, that between the two evils the less should be chosen, and Mr. PrSfontaine preferred to Mr. Chauvin.
Then, on October 11 :
Is Mr. Chauvin of the same opinion as Sir Charles Tupper,. his leader, who solicited the government to send contingents to Africa-or Is he not ?
Then, on October 25, appeared a leading article on ' Responsibilities as to the send-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I now invite hon. gentlemen who say ' hear, hear ' to listen to another declaration from the same gentlemen whom they applauded last session as one of the patriotic French Canadians standing for a united empire.
A few days after the session was over, there was a big Conservative rally at Ivamouraska, where Messrs. Casgrain, Chapais, Bergeron and other pontiffs of that dying worship once called the Quebec Conservative party, gathered and fulminated their first excommunication decrees of the season. The member for Montmorency made an appeal to the electors of Kamour-aska against the Imperialistic tendencies of the Liberal party, and in a most pathetic display of paternal sentiment he cried out to the people :
I am ready to see my only son fly at tile defence of my country; but I refuse to sacrifice him for the quarrels of England, though just they be.
Why do not hon. members opposite applaud now ? They are silent.
But I need not go out of my own constituency to give an illustration of the tactics of the Conservative party. Of course, in Labelle, the ground was much clearer than in most of the other constituencies. I fought the battle on that question, though I had great trouble in keeping my opponent on these lines ; he wanted to do as all the straight party candidates in Quebec, and try to shift the issue. His position was that the cause of our expedition was to be found in the Prime Minister's speeches at the jubilee ; that the honour of the country was engaged, and that, after all, the inconveniences of the war were well compensated by our sales of hay, cheese and horses; a business point of view, as you see. In fact, he approved more than he disapproved of our participation in the war. But his eloquence dealers were more decided in their opinions. In the English-speaking section of the county, the Tory committee sent a young patriot, who said that in Labelle It was no question of Liberals or Conservatives, of Laurier or Tupper, of good or bad administration ; it was and should be:



' Down with Bourassa, who opposed the Canadian contingents to South Africa ! ' In the northern extremity of the county, all French-speaking, Mr. Nantel, an ex-provincial minister-the same gentleman who, for over a year, in his organ, Le Monde Cana-dien, and in his public utterances, had been denouncing the war, the contingents, and the Imperialistic movement-came full of ardour and denounced me as a hypocrite, because, although 1 voted against the war and declared myself ready to oppose any future military expedition, I still called myself a Liberal and a supporter of the government on its administrative policy. He admitted that Sir Charles Tupper had some slight Imperialistic tendencies, but almost imperceptible compared to the deep Imperialism of Sir Wilfrid Laurler. The former was only in favour of commercial Imperialism, based ou reciprocal terms ; whilst the latter was in favour of commercial Imperialism, all in favour oi England ; of political Imperialism, swamping our legislative independence ; and of military Imperialism, committing us to participation in all Imperial wars.
In a letter to his constituents, published shortly after the crushing defeat of his party and the downfall of his dynasty, the senior member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hib-bert Tupper) said :
No one would be surprised, still less complain, that natural sympathy existed in Quebec for a French Canadian leader, but when the French Canadians have almost to a man rallied around him, can1 we believe that this result has been due to any other cause than race feeling, so fostered, manipulated and developed by Messrs. Tarte, Bernier, Bourassa, Monet, and others, skilfully played upon by ihe Prime Minister himself. At any rate oar French Canadian friends who have been swamped by this temporary craze of Quebec, tell us so.
I am ready to give to the hon. gentleman the benefit of extenuating circumstances. A>
convict is allowed twenty-four hours to curse his judges. A defeated leader, hurt not only in his political and personal ambitions, but also in his filial sentiments, for which I can but admire the hon. gentleman, may be given a few weeks to exhale his bitterness. But that natural explosion of bad temper should not have gone to the point of slandering his opponents and a large proportion of his fellow-citizens. As to the general accusation of racial appeals made by the Liberal party to the French Canadians, and as to the reply given to those appeals, I will say a word later on. As to my personal position, the hon. gentleman should apologize to at least one of the gentlemen with whose names he coupled mine in his letter. I mean the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier). I have for the hon. minister the greatest personal esteem and friendship, and I trust he entertains the same feelings towards my humble self. But to put him and me'in the same canoe, as far as this question is concerned, is rather grotesque. Why ? Ever Mr. BOURASSA.
since the hon. gentleman entered the cabinet, we paddled in the very opposite direction. He wanted to run down the stream, and I persisted in facing the current. The chief French Conservative organ in Montreal, Le Journal, even announced one day that I would accept the candidature against him in St. Hyacinthe. I must say, however, that this was a pure Tupper-ism.
As to my appeals to the electorate. I defy the hon. member for Pictou here and now to quote one sentence of my public or private utterances justifying his accusation. Let him search all the newspapers in which my speeches throughout the whole province were reported-and I give him free access to respectable organs of all shades of opinion, both English and French ; let him unearth any witness, French or English, Scotch or Irish, Italian, German or Belgian -all those nationalities are represented in my constituency ; let him pick the man, credible under oath, who will say to my face that I have resorted to any racial appeal in my election or previous to it, within or without my county. He will never find that man ; because such appeals 1 never made ; and I could not have made them for two excellent reasons : First, the idea that the Transvaal question and all its incidents and consequences in Canada could be discussed on racial lines, always appeared to me as most foolish and absurd ; second, nothing is more repugnant to my heart and conscience as that basis of political argument. And what is not in my heart has never reached my lips. I do not expect to ever be a minister of the Crown or a Knight of this or a Commander of that; but I cherish the ambition that my humble name shall never be used to enrich the Canadian glossary with a synonym to Tup-perism. True, racial prejudices were aroused in my county during the last campaign ; they fermented constantly from the day I resigned my seat to appeal to my constituents on this question in October, 1899, until the very last polling hour of the 7th November, 1900. But they were not raised by me, nor on my behalf ; they were set against me by a small group of English-speaking Liberals and Conservatives, who denounced me for a year as a French rebel and a traitor, and thereby gave votes to my opponents, the candidate of gentlemen opposite. In all justice to that gentleman, 1 must say that if he profited by those tactics, I do not think he was responsible for them. That campaign was started long before he was a candidate. I could have retaliated and made counter appeals to my Frenchspeaking constituents, who represent at least two-thirds of the electorate of La-belle. But, I did not, and I would not ha.ve done it, had even my success depended ou those tactics. Sir, it is my pride, my legitimate pride that the position which I took on this question, I kept it rigidly on the solid ground of respect to the constitution
and of true devotion to Canadian interests in preference to Mr. Chamberlain's political aims ; and in doing so I remained all along faithful to the true traditions of British Liberalism. I am happy to say that my attitude was well understood by the free citizens who sent me here. Although I lost a good many English-speaking supporters, the true old Liberal Scotch stood by me. I never felt prouder in my life than at a public meeting held in a thorough Scotch settlement of my county, two days previous to the election, when two of the leading residents, one Conservative and the other Liberal, told me with the approval of their fellow-citizens : 'We are especially satisfied with your position on the war question. You stood independently for Canadian rights. England is rich enough to look after her quarrels ; let us mind our own business and live peacefully in Canada.' Speaking now of the general position taken by the Conservative party on this question : I hold in my hands two electoral pamphlets which were largely circulated by Tory heelers in Ontario and Quebec. The former is a leaflet entitled ' The Case of Bourassa and Monet;' it contains extracts from our speeches carefully stripped of the context which only could give our correct and complete views on the war question, and it denounces the government for uot having excommunicated us. The copy I have has been sent to me by an elector of the riding of West York. The other document is the famous pamphlet No. 6, being one of a series of brochures prepared, printed and sent broadcast to the four corners of the province of Quebec by the Central Conservative Committee of Montreal. This pamphlet is well known to all the members of this House. Apart from the school question to which it refers, it arraigns the Liberal government for having dragged us in English wars ; it reprints my motion of March 13, 1900, and extracts from the Prime Minister's reply to my speech ; and it contends that the Liberal party is responsible for the introduction of Imperialism in Canada. The title is in itself a poem:
Imperial Federation-Laurier approves of it, Tupper condemns it.
South African War-Laurier says we shall take part in other British wars if needed.
And, mind you, the trade oi this gem was not lessened for a moment after the pious denunciation of Sir Charles Tupper. I really think that this very denunciation lost more votes to Sir Charles Tupper in Quebec than any of the other blunders he and his friends committed-and indeed they were numerous and gigantic ! It opened the eyes of the few Conservatives who still naively believed that their leader was the great opponent of Imperialism ; but above all, it convinced a great many more that the Tory party in its desperate effort to climb to power was prepared to resort to any means. The result was that many votes given to Liberal can-424
didates were not inspired so much by love and admiration for the party in power than by a thorough disgust for Tory tactics. This may seem hard on the opposition and doubtfully flattering to the government, but it is true. I hope the selection of the present leader of the opposition, whom I am pleased to honour as a broad-minded man and a true patriot, means that the Conservative party is opening its eyes to its misdeeds of late years and preparing to go back to its most respectable traditions, those of the time of Macdonald and Cartier. I am one of those who believe in the necessity of a sound opposition as well as of a good government. But a bad seed has been thrown to the ground and it needs to be exposed thoroughly in order that it may be sterilized. Like the member for Plctou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper), several Conservative leaders and organs attributed their defeat to the French cry in Quebec. It seems as if they did not realize that the people from that province do not only read their French newspapers, but follow up closely at the same time the movement of ideas in the other parts of the Dominion. It is true that the people of Quebec voted largely in favour of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The right hon. gentleman will pardon me for naming him. It is the best way to express the meaning of the vote given in favour of his government by all the Frenchspeaking groups of Canada. But I deny utterly that this vote implies a spirit of French domination or racial exclusiveness. The French Canadians did not vote for the Prime Minister because he was a French Canadian ; (but the Prime Minister having been led to the pinnacle of power by the people of Canada, they did not want to see him thrown down simply and solely because he was a French Canadian. Mr. Tarte having been selected by his leader as Minister of Public Works and having done good service in that capacity, they did not see why he should be scouted because he was a French Canadian, and thought fit to say so. And I claim emphatically that it was the right and the duty of my countrymen to do so. Had they done otherwise, they would have proved basely unworthy of the free institutions which their fathers struggled so long and so painfully to obtain ; unworthy of the noble flag which guarantees the equality of all nationalities and creeds in this land ; unworthy to be the subjects of the Queen, who was herself a living example of toleration. The French vote is not the challenge of a race to another. It is the calm, dignified, constitutional reply from a worthy class of citizens, from one-third of the Canadian people, to the frantic appeals of fanatics. It is an assertion of liberty, of equal rights, of true British citizenship. And as such it should he applauded by all men of good-will who sincerely wish the welfare of Canada. And no one should speak of garrisoning British troops at Quebec to face possible emergencies. If our word of honour kept true for 140 years, and sealed

twice with our bloodshed in defence of the British flag when assailed by the Englishspeaking Puritan fathers, uncles and cousins of the hou. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), is not a sufficient guarantee of our loyalty, a British garrison in Quebec would not make it any better. A few red coats would just be the proper thing to make us, not pro-Boers, but real Boers.
But to interpret the French Canadian vote as an approval of the special action of the government in sending Canadian soldiers to the Transvaal, and further still, as an expression of (Imperialistic sentiment, is so absurd that nobody from that province, I think, will venture to make that assertion here-unless one cares very little for truth or accuracy. On the contrary, I affirm categorically that the strength of the Liberal vote in Quebec was largely increased by the anti-war feeling, though, I repeat, the question was kept as much as possible as a side issue. As the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said in France, 99 per cent of the French Canadians detest this war, as the whole civilized world does, as nearly one-half, if not more, of the United Kingdom does. They think that it could have been averted by arbitration ; they believe that the political difficulties in the Transvaal did not justify it; they are convinced that Mr. Rhodes's rapacity, that Mr. Chamberlain's arrogant and brutal refusal to arbitrate, were the real causes which precipitated the conflict ; they wished that it should be stopped. The Colonial Secretary and his faithful may call them pro-Boers. They are pro-Boers, just as Mr. Bryce, Mr. Morley, Mr. Courtney, Sir Robert Reid, Sir Edward Clarke and millions of Englishmen and Scotchmen. They are not pro-Boers because they are anti-British. But their instinctive sympathy goes to a small nation struggling for independence. Their fathers have been forced to rebellion and led to exile or dragged to the scaffold by a policy similar to Mr. Chamberlain's, and a repression similar to Lord Kitchener's ; they still remember of Lord Colborne and his farm burnings at St. Eustache and St. Benoit. Peace and liberty were restored here by a policy the kind of which Lord Grey and Mr. Gladstone inaugurated in South Africa and his true disciples are urging now to be applied anew. Supposing their feelings went as far as rejoicing at the success of Boer arms, they should no more be taxed with disloyalty than William Pitt when he openly vowed for the triumph of American rebels, because, in his opinion, that triumph would open the eyes of the British nation and crush down that spirit of arrogant domination which had seized at that time the rulers and the people of England, and was leading the kingdom to its perdition.
Now, as far as the contribution of Canada in this war is concerned, it is no use to make any mistake about it. Inasmuch as it was discussed before the people of Quebec, the action of the government has not Mr. BOURASSA.
been approved but excused ; and excused on the ground that it was not a precedent and that the Tories were more to be dreaded on that question than the Liberals.
There is a fact, a great national feature which our English-speaking neighbours do not realize perhaps, but upon which they should open their eyes. While they have been wandering between narrow provincialism, whence we all started, and unbounded Imperialism, we have been developing quietly but constantly on the solid ground of Canadianism. We may be from their standpoint less British, but we are more thoroughly, more exclusively and, I may be allowed to say, in all good spirit, better Canadians than they are.
I have quoted the London Times previous to the election and its false deductions of the vote after it was taken. I will now commend to the attention of the members of the House a series of letters written from Canada to the Manchester Guardian by a distinguished English journalist, Mr. Harold Spender. That gentleman came to Canada and remained here during the electoral contest in order to study by himself the real sentiments of the Canadian electorate and especially of the French Canadians. He very soon grasped the true situation. I may be permitted to quote a few extracts from that interesting correspondence :
With some similarity to our recent struggle in Great Britain, both Conservative and Liberal candidates, With very few exceptions, tumble over one another in applauding the empire and waving the flag. -!3ut behind all these party appearances is the solid, sombre fact, which neither party can conceal, that the French Canadians hate the war and are using most of their political influence to oppose the war policy.
. . . . In short, like their friends in Great Britain, the Tories out here are just trying to crush the Liberal party by the cry of ' pro-Boer.' Another bond of empire, indeed! But under this there are tragic possibilities, for by all this they are gradually alienating the French Canadians and dividing race from race.
In another letter, speaking of the lack of interest which the war question, as it was discussed in Canada, would offer to his English readers, be says :
They may even prefer that the Canadians should reserve to themselves the right of discussing, a year after, the event, whether Sir Wilfrid Laurier "Sent away the Canadian contingent a month too late or too soon. It is not for us to enter into that domestic quarrel, which is really the only form in which the war question has been seriously raised here outside the constituency of Mr. Bourassa	
I have said that the Canadians have not fully considered the issues of the South African war, and if any Canadian reads these words I shall probably he fiercely blamed for this opinion. Well, I have talked to many on the subject, and I could number on the fingers of one hand those whom I have found familiiar with the causes of the quarrel or the details of the despatches	
Of course, the majority of Canadians support Laurier in the ' contingent ' policy. But if Tupper had been in power the opposition of the



190L

[Stage Direction]
French Canadians, whose sympathies are with the Boers, would have made it impossible. As it is, Laurier persuaded Quebec, and Ontario had already taken the lead in urgency. But though the French Canadians follow their idol, even in his South African policy, their real mind is voiced by Tarte, with his ' no precedent ' cry. That is the issue of the future-Is the South African war to be a precedent? The Imperialists of Toronto are raising it by pressing that arms should be stored and barracks built in order that Canada may become a military power ready to support the empire in any venture. Quebec Liberals are sullenly but obstinately opposed to all this	But men
like to know what they are lighting about, and thu3 the war has raised the profoundest issues of Imperial government. How is it that none of these issues have been raised in the political warfare here? I have already noted that there is no discussion and no real knowledge about South African questions in Canada; the war is now scantily reported, and no interest is taken in the settlement. This is partly parochialism
[Stage Direction]
I draw the attention of my lion, colleagues to the following words :
-but partly also due to a certain lack of courage that runs through all Canadian politics. As in the States, so in Canada ; politics are much dominated by electioneering. Perhaps we ought not to preach, but there is in English politics a tradition handed down from men like Bright and Cobden, and sometimes dimly followed, that principle is more important than party or place. Canada still wants that tradition of political martyrdom.
I will end these quotations by the following remarks on the subject of Imperialism as viewed in Ontario. They were written from Toronto after the elections :
The majority of business men know that peace Is the most important asset to Canada, and many look askance on the whole Imperialist movement as dangerous to the progress of the country. ' How do we know,' said one to me today, ' that we may not be drawn into trouble any day? One never feels safe.'
This is an expression of opinion with regard to Canada; and the other day the statement was published that the New Zealand government were urging the British government to use their influence in the Asiatic sea to acquire a couple of islands in the neighbourhood of New Zealand, because of that swelling sentiment of aggrandizement which is now seizing the whole British world. New Zealand also wants to form its little confederation; it wants to enlarge and expand. Suppose the British government acceded to that request, and suppose on its way to realize it, it came into conflict with the interests of some other European power, and war were declared, we Canadians, in pursuance of this new policy which lias been entered upon, might be called upon to expend money and send soldiers to help New Zealand in her schemes of extension and aggrandizement.
I have dealt with military Imperialism at some greater length than I wished to do. But. I felt bound to set myself right, at the opening of this parliament on that vital
question of the relations between Great Britain and her colonies. In spite of the efforts of scared politicians to shift the issue or to convince themselves that the question is not at stake, this is to be the great political and national problem of the near future throughout the empire. The so-called statesmen and their followers who scorn the idea and pretend to believe that this is only a temporary movement of opinion, are simply imitating the ostrich in the desert, when being chased by the hunter, it conceals its head under its wing and thinks it is safe because it does not see the danger. I thought it my duty also to tell the truth- not the political truth, not the party truth, but the plain truth-about the real feelings of the French Canadians on that question. The eccentricity of my position in this House allows me that freedom of speech. I did not do it with the purpose of arousing racial feelings; on the contrary. The best way to avoid national frictions is not by imagining that all sections of this country entertain the same opinion, should even that opinion be the best; but by looking thoroughly through tlie minds and hearts of all the racial groups which form the nation in order to prepare a sound public opinion based on mutual respect and conciliation. My utterances have not been inspired either by a sentiment of animosity or indifference towards the British flag and British connection; on the contrary again. It is because I prize highly the advantages of British institutions which we have made ours- in spite even of British authorities-that I believe it is an imperative duty to us all to prevent any danger that might threaten them in the future. Should we leave the British government and the British people under misapprehensions as to what they can expect from Canada-not in a time of enthusiastic ferment, but when the popular mind will set again on its normal basis- the moment might come when they thought they could rely upon us for more than what we would be ready to give. A mistake of that kind would be the cause of serious complications which for my part I wish to be avoided.
I go further. This war and its bearing on British and colonial concerns have led me to a new and deeper study of British history, of British institutions, of British politics, of British character. And the more I have analysed the vital parts and the solid limbs of that splendid body politic, its strong nerves and its rich blood, the wider has grown my admiration for Great Britain. I used to be a contented British subject, as most of my countrymen are ; 1 feel now the full pride of British citizenship. But the Britain that I love and admire is that noble, progressive, industrious, peace-loving nation which has done so much for the development and the welfare of humanity; that mother of true liberalism who, from the time of Simon de Montfort
[Stage Direction]
down to the days of William Ewart Gladstone, through good and bad fortune, under the sun of her glorious days as well as in the midst of political storms, worked slowly, but steadily, to the betterment and the reform of her laws, of her constitution, of her political and social life. The Britain that I love is that great apostle of liberty, who preached and practiced the worship of freedom for herself, but who respected also the rights of others. The Britain that I love is that steady, laborious, persevering community of workers, of settlers, of tradesmen, who while enriching themselves have thrown open to the world so many hidden treasures. The Britain that I love was boastful of her qualities, but she did not refuse to listen to the voice of her conscience and never hesitated to correct and to expiate her crimes and her weaknesses. And the more I have known to love that Britain, the true Britain, the more I have hated and cursed the vampires who are now trying to suck and to poison her blood.
Under the guidance of her statesmen, that great nation had extended her power on all seas. She had found on the globe the space required for the natural growth of her magnitude. Her petty tyrants of to-day, like that of the Fable, are torturing her body either to shorten it to the size of their patriotism or to lengthen it to the measure of their ambitious madness. When ruled by true British statesmanship, England may have excited the jealously of other nations: she was at least respected, admired and feared. The canker worms of to-day are endeavouring to make her an object of hatred, of derision, of contempt to the world. Refusing to accept the patriotic and clear sighted warning of General Butler, they have been forced to immobilize on the ungrateful soil of Africa the best of her armies and to send her bravest sons to die of fever under the commandment of incapable officers. In the meanwhile, Great Britain was obliged to humble herself under the tutelage of Germany and of the United States, and to become a silent accomplice of the monstrous barbarity of Russian Cossacks, in order that her name should not be totally forgotten in China, where she ruled for half a century under the wise policy of the so-called Little Englanders. If I were the Anglophobist that so many charge me with being, I could not wish for better means to be taken for bringing the downfall of British power. But although some of my words may have fallen hard upon those who look at things from a different standpoint, they should at least have the good faith to admit that my vehemence or my bitterness or even, if they like, my rudeness is not caused by disloyal sentiments nor by racial animosity.
Now, I think my motion should receive the support of all fair-minded men in this House-whether they agree fully or partially with me on the merits of this war, Mr. BOURASSA.
or on the Imperialistic movement, or whe-they we differ totally on either of those questions. This resolution does not deal with the causes of the struggle ; it does not revive old and irritating controversies ; it does not discuss the political consequences of our contribution to the war ; it does not treat of Imperial federation or of Canadian independence. It leaves to every one a free hand and an uncompromised position on all those matters. It does not even trace a rigid line of conduct to the British government on the settlement of the war ; it simply lays down the principles upon which that settlement should be effected, leaving to the British parliament a full sway of action as to the point where such principles can be carried under actual circumstances. It is simply intended to express the wish of a peace-lovii)g British community, praying that a long and cruel war should be stopped, and that this new century, which has seen the death of a noble and kind-hearted Queen, and the accession of her worthy son, should not be a century of race hatred and struggles in His Majesty's possessions in South Africa. As Canadians, as loyal subjects of the British Crown, we are all interested in the peace of every part of the empire. If peace can be made in South Africa, let peace be. And the only peace that can be made to last must be of such a character to cure the deep wounds inflicted to the heart of the Afrikanders, not only those of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but those also of Cape Colony and Natal. Such peace is not the brutal and pagan crushing of the vanquished by the conqueror. It is the kind, generous, Christian treatment of the weak by the mighty,, the forgiveness of offences suffered so that committed offences may be forgiven.
For the last sixteen months I have been branded, not only in Canada, but throughout the empire, as a disloyal subject, as an ungrateful beneficiary of British favours, as a traitor and a rebel. I have been hissed and hooted in this parliament because I refused to throw ridicule upon the British Crown by celebrating the end of a war which is yet raging ; because especially I refused to slander our noble Queen by making her responsible for Mr. Chamberlain's policy. Nine months have passed since we declared that the war was over, and the struggle is fiercer than ever. The death roll gets longer and longer every day ; the stream of blood is overflowing ; the public exchequer of Great Britain is neavily strained, and we may feel here before long the effect of financial depression in England.
It is no more a war between combatants ; it is the beginning of a savage conflict of races. Should even General De Wet and his heroic followers be captured to-morrow, I say the war is not over. The actual fight may be ended, but this is only the first act of the tragedy. For every
Afrikander homestead burned by order of British commanders, one hundred brands of hatred have been lighted up ; they may be covered for some time with the ashes of defeat and repression. But let a blast come from the Orient or the Occident, from the north or from the south-a rebellion in India, a conflict in China, a war in Europe ; and, the occasion may not be far away, if jingo rule is to be left a free hand for some time yet in England-and the blaze will again be lighted ; and once more shall the decimated compatriots of William the Silent astound the world. Do you want to extinguish that fire for ever, go to those stern, ignorant, fanatical Boers-give them the epithets you like-but make tnem to understand that Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Rhodes, that Lord Kitchener and Sir Alfred Milner are not the British people ; that behind and above the unscrupulous politicians, the money-grabbers, the brutal soldiers, the bureaucratic martinets with whom they have come in contact for the last ten years, there is a broad, generous nation, upon,which they can rely for the safeguarding of their national and individual existence.
' Oh, but Mr. Chamberlain is in power, the empire is safe,' cry out the jingoes ; ' let us teach those brigands a lesson they shall never forget.' Take care only that they do not remember it too long ; you may pay later on with your own blood the cost of that bloody education.
Yes, Mr. Chamberlain is in power, and the war is not stopped-but Queen Victoria is dead ; and the public rumour, and the public conscience, and the public sentiment tell us that her days have been shortened by that disheartening and unglorious war. Up to the da-y of her death, two thoughts had always kept me lighthearted in the midst of insults and slanders. I knew that I was actuated solely by the pure love of Canada ; I felt also that I was in no way responsible for the bloodshed on the veldts of Africa nor for the tears shed in so many Canadian homes. Now a new thought fills my heart with happiness ; i am not an accomplice of murderers of the Queen.
I sincerely believe that in urging the House to support this proposition, I am simply asking the parliament of Canada to respond to one of the last and most heartfelt desires of her late Majesty. I move it as a tribute of homage, of admiration, of love to her memory. It is modest, compared with the magnificent and pompous necrologies that have fallen from the lips of kings and statesmen. But, it is free and sincere ; it has not been paid and does not expect to be rewarded by any prize or honour ; it is pure of all speculation upon the name of that noble and venerable woman. It is simply the wish of a true Canadian and a true British subject, and in that spirit I move, seconded by Mr. Angers :
That, whilst strictly adhering to the fundamental principle of Canadian autonomy, and refusing to admit that the intervention of Canada in South Africa has committed this country to any future participation in the wars and policy of Great Britain,
This House thinks that the contribution of Canada in the South African war. both in armed help and public expenditure entitles the Canadian people to express an opinion on the matter.
This House, therefore, humbly reminds His Majesty, King Edward VII., that the glorious reign of his august mother, Queen Victoria, whose memory shall ever be cherished by Canadians of all origins and creeds, was inaugurated in bloodshed and rebellion in this part of her dominions ; that peace and prosperity were subsequently restored for ever when Her Majesty's advisers understood, as Lord Grey told in his instructions to Lord Elgin, Governor of Canada, that it was ' neither possible nor desirable to carry on the government of any of the British provinces in North America in opposition to the opinions of its inhabitants ; that since that time, Her Majesty has found in no portion of her empire a more faithful, devoted and contented people than her French Canadian subjects.
This House, therefore, expresses the hope and desire that His Majesty's government will endeavour to conclude in South Africa an honourable peace founded upon the law of nations which guarantees independence to all civilized peoples and upon the true British traditions of respect to all national and religious convictions and to the spirit of colonial autonomy.
This House further declares that there is no necessity for sending any more Canadian troops to South Africa, and that the enlistment of recruits for the South African constabulary should not he allowed to take place in Canada.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that it is with a great deal of regret and with some surprise that I have seen my hon. friend persist in his determination to move the motion of which lie gave notice some few days ago. and which he has now placed in your hands. Well remembering the uncompromising hostility which my hon. friend showed to our policy, nearly two years ago, of sending contingents to South Africa, well knowing from a long acquaintance and a long friendship the logical mind of my hon. friend, remembering also that lie bad on more than one occasion announced himself as entirely opposed to wliat he calls Imperialism, remembering also that he had somewhat ostentatiously and most persistently refused assent to the policy we advocated of sending troops to South Africa for the prosecution of the war, I must say I was little prepared for the present attitude of my hon. friend. I would have supposed that he would be a stalwart to the end. and that, having refused to send troops to South Africa be would uot ask us to send advice to England. But my hon. friend has taken an attitude altogether different from that. He would not allow us to offer troops ; he now wants to send advice. He would not fight for the cause of England, but be is

willing to sit at the council board in discussing the cause of England to-day. How this conduct of my hon. friend is in keeping with his former well-known views is a problem, as to which I shall offer no opinion of my own, but which I shall leave for his own pondering. As to the right on our part, asserted in this motion, of making representations to the Imperial authorities on all questions that may affect the British Empire in whole or In part-that is a right which is no longer in question. We asserted it nearly thirty years ago, when, on the 20th of April, 1882, we passed a resolution in favour of home rule for Ireland. We asserted it again a few days ago, when we passed a resolution on the coronation declaration. The fact that we sent contingents to South Africa almost two years ago does not in any way affect our right in this respect. It is to-day what it was before ; it has not been altered in any way ; it is no larger and no smaller than it was. We have a perfect right to offer advice, and we claim we have the privilege of making representations to the Imperial authorities. Therefore, we can approach the question submitted by my hon. friend on its merits and on its merits alone. The question which we have before us is not so much the speech of my hon. friend, but the motion itself. Shall we adopt this motion or shall we not ?	[DOT]
Before I approach this subject, let me say that I care not, to go into the long speech which my hon. friend made us. Eloquent, as all his speeches are, it yet has no relevancy to the question placed before the House. I care not to go into the question of the significance of the late election. I care not as to the attitude of any portion of the community. And certainly it is not fair nor right to judge any of the issues which have been involved in the last election simply by the comments of isolated newspapers. Why, my hon. friend himself gave us an idea of the little value which we must attach to the comments of interested newspapers on one side or the other when he told us at the very outset of his speech that he had been misrepresented on both sides of this question-that as to the very motion which he now has brought before us on one side he was represented as a demagogue, and on the other as an Imperialist. That being the case my hon. friend will permit me to say we can dismiss all the arguments he has brought forward to prove a thesis which he has not placed before the House. The question before the House is : Should we adopt this motion ? The conclusions of it are to be found in the last two paragraphs. First, let me read the last one :
This House further declares that there is no necessity for sending any more Canadian troops to South Africa, and that the enlistment of recruits for the South African constabulary should not be allowed to take place in Canada.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: As to the first conclusion of this proposition, that there is no necessity of sending Canadian troops to South Africa, I must say I altogether agree with my hon. friend -not for the same reasons that have prompted him, but for the reason that the war is at an end. There may be still some guerilla warfare, there may still be some brigandage under the name of war, but the war is no longer at issue. Though my hon. friend pretends to be very much in doubt as to the issue of the war, for my part I am ready to leave the issue in the hands of the men who have it in hand now, and to say, with my hon. friend, that there is no necessity for sending Canadian troops to South Africa. As to the other portion of the conclusion that enlistment of recruits for the South African constabulary should not be allowed to take place in Canada, I ask my hon. friend what reason can there be why the enlistment of men for this force should be put to an end in Canada ? If there are men in Canada who-I care not for what motive, whether high or low, whether dignified or undignified, whether because they desire to get a living, or 'from a spirit of adventure, or from the nobler impulse of fighting for their sovereign- wish to take service in the South African constabulary, on what principle should a Canadian government interfere to prevent their liberty being so exercised ? My hon. friend has spoken well and eloquently upon the cause of liberty, on which he has constituted himself the champion in this House, and almost alone; but I must ask him, what kind of liberty is it which will not permit a British subject, if he so chooses, to offer his King to serve him, no matter in what capacity ? I am a Liberal as my hon. friend declares himself to be, but my idea of liberty does not agree with one that will not allow that freedom to every British subject in Canada. But, Sir, the gi*st of the motion of my hon. friend is in the last paragraph but one, which reads in this way :
This House therefore expresses the hope and desire that His Majesty's government will endeavour to conclude in South Africa an honourable peace, founded upon the law of nations, which guarantees independence to all civilized peoples, and upon the true British traditions of respect to all national and religious convictions and to the spirit of colonial autonomy.
If this means anything, it means that we are to invite the British authorities to restore to the two republics, the South African republic and the Orange Free State their independence. My hon. friend will not deny that this is the meaning that he has in his mind, but, strange to say, he never said a word as to that proposition. I would have expected him to deal at length with this point which, after all, was a noble subject to consider, and one which might invite discussion. I would have expected him to give his reasons and arguments why the
British authorities should he invited by the Canadian parliament to undo what they have done and to restore to the two republics the independence which they forfeited on the 9th October, 1899. My hon. friend did not speak a word upon that subject.
Sir, perhaps I might sit down here. And I would do so, and not utter another syllable upon the subject, were it not for the fact that my hon. friend, in some of his arguments has been so unjust, so unfair, to the British government, that I feel constrained to place before the House the other side of this question. My hon. friend, if he means anything, means this, that the two republics, the republic of South Africa and the republic of the state of Orange, should be restored to their independence, should be restored to the position which they occupied on the 9th of October, 1899 ; that the supreme arbitrament of war which they themselves invoked should be set aside ; that all the blood which has been shed should count for nothing ; that all the suffering which has been endured should be forgotten ; and that Mr. Kruger and Mr. Steyn should be restored to the positions of which they made such an abuse.
My hon. friend spoke eloquently of the miseries of war, of the destruction of farms, of the burning of houses, and I agree with him, I take no exception to what he said in that respect. Miserable indeed is the [DOT]condition to-day of the once proud South African republic, miserable by reason of its ruined farms, its closed mines, its cities arrested in their growth, its people impoverished, and its aged president a fugitive in Europe, a fugitive from the misery which he brought upon his own country. Miserable indeed is the condition of the once bappy state of Orange, which had no quarrel with Great Britain, but which was precipitated into the horrors of war and of invasion by the man to whom it had entrusted its destinies, himself to-day a selfconstituted outlaw in his own country. These men appealed to the God of battles, and the God of battles has pronounced against them. They invaded British territory, their territory was invaded in turn, and it was annexed to the British domain in consequence of the terrible logic of war.
If I understand my hon. friend aright to-day, he would have the government and parliament of Great Britain undo what has been done and bring the rebellious Boers back to the position which they occupied on the 9tli of October, 1899. and which they had forfeited. My answer to the hon. gentleman is a very simple one. Whether he will agree with me or not, I am sure everybody else will agree that in the terrible uncertainties of war, in the series of successes and reverses which generally make up the history of war. the leader of the defeated people has no right to complain if he receives from his victorious opponent the
same treatment which he had previously applied to liis opponent in the hour of victory. Now, the hon. gentleman knows very well that when Lord Roberts invaded the state of Orange and raised the British 1 flag in Bloemfontein, when subsequently he invaded the Transvaal and raised the British flag in Pretoria, and when he annexed the state of Orange and the Transvaal to the British dominions, the hon. gentleman knows very well that Lord Roberts then and there applied to the vanquished the very same law which had been proclaimed as a law of war by the Boers, in the first stages of that war. Sir, my hon. friend is aware of the insolent ultimatum by which President Kruger went to war with such a light heart on the 9tli of October, 1899, he is aware that the following day the state of Orange, which had no quarrel with England, joined hands with the Transvaal Republic, and that President Steyn called upon the Eree State burghers to stand shoulder to shoulder against what he called the oppressor; my hon. friend is aware that that very same day the Boers invaded the British colony at Natal; that within the following-week they invaded several other places, they 1 invaded Newcastle, Laing's Nek and Harry-spruit. My hon. friend is aware also that within a week of that time the Free State burghers invaded the British colony of the cape, that they occupied no less important a place than the district of Kimberley; and that by a series of proclamations, which I have here, from the commandants of the invading army, they annexed the district of Kimberley and the state of Orange. Well, Sir, those things took place in the beginning of the war. My hon. friend pities to-day and laments the condition of the Dutch citizens. Sir, I have here in my hand the evidence of British subjects in the district of Kimberley, who were forced to serve in the Dutch army, and when they appealed to President Kruger were told that the district of Kimberley henceforth would be part of the state of Orange.- I will quote for the information of the House upon this subject a most suggestive affidavit which has appeared in the last blue-book on this subject, and which 1 think my hon. friend will agree with me affords a justification to the British government for ail that they have done :
Stephen Strydom, sworn, states
I am field cornet for ward No. 4, Albert district, and reside at Leeuwplaats. I remember the Free Staters entering Burghersdorp about the middle of -November last. About three days after this I received orders from Landdrost Rens-burg to report myself the following day at the Landdrost's office. I came to Burghersdorp and saw Rensburg. He said to me, ' We want you to commandeer the people in your ward.' I understood him to mean he wanted me to commandeer men to take up arms. I said, ' I don't understand this thing,' and told him I was a field cornet under the British, and had taken the oath of allegiance. This conversation took place in the Landdrost's office. He told me

to go outside and read the proclamation on the blackboard in front of the office. I went out and saw a proclamation, signed by Commandant Swanepoel, of the Free State, declaring the district of Albert Free State territory. I again saw Rensburg and said that I still did not understand. He said, ' This is Free State territory, and you are a subject of the Free State. After further conversation, I refused to have anything to do with them. The same day my assistant field cornet, Jan Hendrik Coetzee, of Nooitgedaeht, commandeered me to go to the front. I refused to go and returned to my car. In January I was again commandeered by Jan H. Coetzee. I refused to go. I then made up my mind to go to Bloemfontein and interview President Steyn on the subject. About the 10th of January I obtained a pass to go to Bloemfontein. I was accompanied by Geo. Aldrich, of Groot Vley. We arrrived at Bloemfontein and met President Steyn in his office. I told him that I had been commandeered to go to the front. I also told him that I was a British subject and a field cornet under the colonial government, and that I had taken the oath of allegiance, and I explained to him about the commandeering in my ward. I asked him for protection, as Commandant Grobler had promised all British subjects protection. He said, ' You are not a British subject any more or a field cornet or justice of the peace, but a private burgher of the Free State.' I told him that Albert had been declared Free State territory. I asked him if annexing the district and commandeering the people was according to international law. He said it. was, and that precisely the same thing had taken place in the Franco-Prussian war.	'
Well, Sir, those were the first stages of the war. But the tide turned. The Boers who invaded British territory were repulsed, and their own territory was invaded and annexed to the British territory. They again invaded British territory and were again repulsed. Now, X ask my hon. friend what injustice can the Boers urge against the British government, when the British government treated them exactly as they had treated British subjects and British territory. What injustice can they urge in receiving exactly the same treatment as they had meted out to their opponents when they were in the ascendant ? Mr. Speaker, I believe that there was logic in the method followed by the burghers. In the opening stages of tlie war they laid down the principle that South Africa had to be either Dutch or British, and the verdict of the God of armies has been that it should not be Dutch, but that it should be British.
I could go on multiplying these examples. Let me give another argument. If I understood my hon. friend aright, and I think I did in that respect, he would like the British government to go back to the policy of Mr. Gladstone in 1881. Mr. Gladstone was magnanimous towards the Boers in 1881, magnanimous, perhaps, to a fault. When he had the Boers in his power he treated them with the greatest generosity, expecting that when they had British subjects in their power they would treat them with the same generosity. That was a mistake, he Sir WILFRID LAURTER.
measured the men with whom he had to deal with the measure of his own great soul. If magnanimity be a fault, and if that was a fault with.Mr.-Gladstone, everybody must admit that magnanimity has never been a fault of Mr. Kruger. If Mr. Kruger had had the slightest touch of the magnanimity of Mr. Gladstone, there would have been no war ; if Mr. Kruger had shown towards British subjects the elementary piinciples of justice there would have been no war ; if Mr. Kruger had simply kept his pledge towards Mr. Gladstone and his commissioner, there would have been no war.
What are the facts upon this question ? They must be recalled in the face of the speech we have heard to-day from the hon. member for Labelle. In 1881, when the Boers had gone to war against England and after their ephemeral success at Majuba Hill, the government of Mr. Gladstone filled the country with British troops. Lord Roberts was ready to take the field and the issue could not have been in doubt, but Mr. Gladstone, in his great soul, resolved to give the Boers another chance, to give them their independence, retaining only the British Crown suzerainty. Commissioners were appointed to settle the terms of peace. The commissioners were Sir Hercules Robinson, Chief Justice de Villiers, a Boer, of French descent, like my hon. friend and myself. He is of Huguenot descent. The third commissioner was Sir Evelyn Wood. This commission had to settle the terms of peace, and the terms of peace implied the independence of the Transvaal, and the independence of the Transvaal implied that there were British subjects who would become Dutch citizens. Naturally, the commissioners were anxious as to what should be the position of these British subjects under the new regime, and naturally, the British commissioners negotiated upon this point. There were negotiations, and Mr. Kruger was questioned as to what would be the fate of the British subjects who then became Dutch citizens, and here is the answer which was given by Mr.. Kruger. Sir Hercules Robinson, addressing himself to Mr. Kruger, said :
Before annexation had British subjects complete freedom of trade throughout the Transvaal? Were they on the same footing as citizens of the Transvaal?
Mr. Kruger-They were on the same footing as the burghers; there was not the slightest difference, in accordance with the Sand River Convention.
Sir Hercules Robinson-I presume you will not object to that continuing?
Mr. Kruger-No;, there will be equal protection for everybody.
Sir Evelyn Wood-And equal privileges?
Mr. Kruger-We make no difference as far as burgher rights are concerned. There may, perhaps, be some slight difference in the case of a young person who has just come into the country.
That was on the 10th May, 1881, and a few

days later, on the 26th May, Dr. Jorissen explained what was meant by a young person.
According to our law a new-comer has not his burgher rights immediately. The words ' young person ' do not refer to age, but to the time of residence in the republic. According to our old Grondwet, you had to reside a year in the country.
There you see all the rights of citizenship were reserved for British subjects and a residence of one year was enough to entitle them to these rights. But, my hon. friend knows that this pledge given by Mr. Kruger was not kept, that the rights of British subjects were abridged, that the period of probation which prevailed at that time was extended from one year to five years, from five years to ten years and from ten years to fourteen years. Naturally, this caused a great deal of comment and of complaint on the .part of the men who had gone into the Transvaal at the instance, afterwards, of Mr. Kruger, to develop the country, who were taxed mercilessly, who founded cities over which they had no control whatever, and who, when they asked for the privileges of citizenship, were told that they could not have any. It is no wonder that the best men in the Transvaal and in South Africa protested against that treatment. My hon. friend has laid the blame of the war upon Mr. Chamberlain and the British government. It is not part of my duty to defend Mr. Chamberlain, who has shown that he can take care of himself upon every occasion It is not part of my duty to defend the British government, but I may say to my hon. friend with all frankness-and he knows the great friendship that I have for him-that, notwithstanding that friendship, the attitude which he has taken is so unfair and unjust to the British government that I deem it my duty to place the facts, which he had left to oblivion when he had brought that question up, before the House. Who is responsible for the war ? I deplore it as much as he does, but, I ask him again : Who is responsible for the war ? Is it the government of Great Britain ? Sir, the man who is responsible for the war is Mr. Kruger himself. He was the president of the South African republic. A great deal of light has been shed upon the Transvaal question by the correspondence found at Pretoria after its occupation by Lord Roberts. Amongst the ablest men in South Africa today is Sir Henry de Villiers, chief justice of Cape Colony. Amongst this correspondence letters written by Sir Henry de Villiers proved that in the summer of 1899, when negotiations were going on between Mr. Kruger and Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Henry de Villiers went almost on his knees to Mr. Kruger to induce him to make concessions to the Outlanders. Here is a letter which he wrote on the 21st May, 1899, addressed to Mr. Steyn, President of the Orange Free State :
I sometimes despair of peace in South Africa when I see how irritating and unjust the press is on the one side and how stubborn the Transvaal government is on the other. On my recent visit to Pretoria I did not visit the president, as I considered it hopeless to think of making any impression on him, but I saw Reitz, Smuts and Schalk, burghers, who, I thought, would be amenable to argument, but I fear that either my advice had no effect on them, or else there opinion had no weight with the president. I urged upon them to advise the president to open the Volksraad with promises of a liberal franchise and drastic reforms. It would have been so much better if these had come voluntarily from the government instead of being gradually forced from them. In the former case, they would rally the greater number of the- malcontents around them; in the latter case, no gratitude will he felt to the republic for any concessions made by it. Besides, there can be no doubt that as the alien population increases, as it undoubtedly will, their demands will increase with their discontent, and ultimately a great deal more will have to be conceded than will now satisfy them. The franchise proposal made by the president seems to be simply ridiculous.
He goes on to say, and I call the attention of the House to this further part of Sir Henry de Villiers' letter :
I am quite certain that if in 1881 -it had been known to my fellow-commissioners that the president would adopt his retrogressive policy, neither President Brand (Orange Free State) nor I would ever have induced them to consent to sign the convention. They would have advised the Secretary of State to let matters revert to the condition in which they were before peace was concluded; in other words, to recommence the war.
I ask the hon. member for Labelle to-day : Is not the conduct of the British government justified when Chief Justice de Villiers, himself a Boer, told President Steyn, in 1899, that, if he had conceived when he was acting as peace commissioner in 1881, that Mr. Kruger would so abuse the power vested in him, that, instead of advising the independence of the Transvaal, he would have advised the British government to go_ to war again ? There never was a greater justification of the policy maintained by the British government than this letter of Chief Justice de Villiers. I could go on multiplying these letters. There are four or five published in the same book which I have now in my hands, but I will give simply the letters of a man who is a friend of the Boers, Mr. Merriman, a member of the government of Mr. Schreiner, himself an Afrikander of extreme views. In 1888, Mr. Merriman wrote to President Steyn in these words :
One cannot conceal the' fact that the greatest danger to the future lies in the attitude of the president, Kruger, and his vain hope of building up a state on the foundation of a narrow, unenlightened minority, and his obstinate rejection of all prospects of using the materials which lie ready to his hand to establish a true republic on a broad, liberal basis. The report of recent discussions in the Volksraad on his

finances and their mismanagement fill one with apprehension. Such a state of affairs cannot last; it must break down from inhereift rottenness, and it will be well if the fall does not sweep away the freedom of all of us.
In another letter, written on the 1st of January, 1899, and addressed to President Steyn, again Mr. Merriman uses this very singular language :
I had the opportunity the other day of a long talk, or rather several talks, with Lippert about the Transvaal. He takes a very sane view of matters there, and is very hopeless. He represents Kruger-as others describe him-as more dogged and bigoted than ever, and surrounded by a crew of self-seekers who prevent him from seeing straight. He has no one to whom he turns for advice, and he is so inflated as to have the crazy belief that he (Kruger) is born to bring about peace between Germany and France. If he falls or dies, who have we to look to? All this plays the game of Rhodes and his brother capitalists.
In the last letter written just after the outbreak of hostilities, on November It. 1899, to Mr. Piet De Wet, who was a member of the Cape legislature, Mr. Merriman said :
If the republics had not made the fatal mistake of sending the ultimatum when they did, things would have gone differently; but it is of no use going back on what might have been. There was the mistake. It was the sending of this fatal ultimatum which brought all these calamities upon the Boers which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) deplores now. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the responsibility for this does not lie upon any other head than on the head of the late president of the Transvaal republic, who has himself been the first victim of his own doings. And notwithstanding all his faults, and notwithstanding that he has brought all this on his own head, considering his great age, I cannot help feeling for Mr. Kruger a great deal of sympathy. My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) deprecates the war. I do not deprecate it to the same extent that he does ; but I do believe that it is, perhaps, the greatest calamity which has befallen England within the last forty years, because it places on England the burden and the duty of governing South Africa, with its two races estranged, perhaps for generations, by the cruel memories of war. But, Sir, even so, we must take the situation as it is. The problem of South Africa is this : That you have in that country two races *so mixed and so intermingled that it is not possible to separate them. These two races must be governed by the same power and the same authority, and that power has either to be the power of England or tin' power of the Dutch. It has either to bo the liberal and enlightened civilization of England of to-day. or the old bigoted and narrow civilization of the Dutch of two hundred years ago.
Let my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) forget for the moment that he and I are British Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
subjects ; and in the name of civilization, in the name of humanity, I ask him which is the power that ought to govern in that distant land. Is it the enlightened power of England, or is it the semi-barbarous civilization of the Dutch


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is but one future for the Dutch. They have been conquered, but I pledge my reputation and my name as a British subject, that if they have lost their independence they have not lost their freedom.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is but one future for South Africa, aiid that future is a grand confederation on the pattern of the Canadian confederation. It is a federation in which Cape Colony and Natal, and the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal, and Rhodesia, shall be united together under a federal constitution, under the British flag, and under the sovereignty of England.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) will agree with me that when they have the British flag over South Africa, they shall have that which has been found everywhere, during the last sixty years, under the British flag : liberty for all, equality for all. justice and civil rights for English and for Dutch alike.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: For these reasons, I have to ask the House not to agree to this motion and to vote it down.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I had obtained the floor for the purpose of making a personal explanation in regard to an allusion made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and also for the purpose of making some remarks on the question before the House. While I do not suppose that a very large number of members agreed with my hon. friend, even among his own fellow-countrymen, and while perhaps it is not necessary to attach a very great degree of importance to the position he has taken, yet I think the question is one of such great importance that a full discussion upon it, now that it is under the consideration of the House, is not only proper, but in the highest degree desirable.
I can compliment the hon. member for Labelle upon his eloquence aud his evident sincerity, although I do not feel able to pay as high a compliment to liis discernment.
I think he is radically wrong, and I believe that the positions he advances are untenable. The hon. gentleman at the outset took the government to task for having acted in the matter of sending a contingent to South Africa without first having consulted parliament. Now, governments must in every case of emergency be prepared to assume responsibilities. Under our form of government the action taken by a ministry is subject to review by parliament, and if that action fails to command the assent and approval of parliament, the government of course suffers the consequences; and the government of my right hon. friend, in determining to send a contingent to South Africa, determined at the same time to assume all responsibilities and face all the consequences of that determination, and if they failed to secure the approval of parliament for their action, there was no course left open to them but to resign.
Then the hon. gentleman contended that we have a right to participate in the settlement of this war. Mr. Speaker, we are participating in the settlement of the war. The war is being settled exactly on the lines we desired when we sent our contingent to South Africa. Those troops were sent to South Africa to help to maintain the British cause, to assert the supremacy of Great Britain in that country; and if that object is secured and the rebellion suppressed, we are aiding in the settlement of the war upon the lines we designed.
The hon. gentleman also told us that it is desirable to settle this war upon principles that have made Canada happy and prosperous. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what the British government proposes to do. It proposes to settle this war upon the same principles that apply in the Dominion of Canada. It proposes to give to all classes in South Africa, whether they are Boers or English or Germans or Americans or natives -it proposes to give to every man, woman and child in South Africa the rights that pertain to British subjects under the law- the same rights enjoyed by His Majesty's subjects here in Canada. So my hon. friend's desire in that respect will be met.
The hon. gentleman will, I think, upon reflection, perhaps regret that he cast aspersions upon the conduct of British officers and British soldiers and upon the conduct of the British government in the management of this war, by comparing their career and conduct in South Africa to the conduct of Borne at the time her mercenary legions were guilty of ravage and rapine and all kinds of outrages. He tells us that our troops availed themselves of opportunities to burn and loot and turn out harmless and peaceful citizens from their homes. Sir, I must take exception to this assertion; I believe there is not a shadow of foundation for it. I believe the conduct of the British troops in South Africa has been marked in the highest degree by kindliness, by abstaining from outrage and violence, and, so far as the laws and the necessities of war would permit, by respecting the rights of combatants and inhabitants of the country.
The hon. gentleman proceeded to tell us that there is evidence that this war is growing unpopular, that there is a degree of public coldness manifested, that our soldiei's when returning from South Africa do not receive that same effusive greeting which characterized their going forth. Well, I suppose it is a characteristic of warlike operations always and everywhere that men tire of the slaughter that is necessary, tire of the efforts and the sacrifices that it is necessary to make ; and that is a test of the endurance of a nation-when it stands up under these untoward circumstances and pushes the contest through to the end. And while there may be a lack of that effusive enthusiasm which characterized public sentiment at the outset, there still remains that grim determination which will put this thing through to a triumphant issue.
The hon. gentleman gave expression to some criticisms about permitting recruiting in Canada-criticisms which were answered so magnificently by my hon. friend the leader of the government; and stated that this was not permitted in Australia. If I am not misinformed, the objection to recruiting in Australia was that the Australian government desired that the force raised in that country should be officered by Australians. There was no objection to recruiting there, but it was a mere question as to how the force should be officered.
The hon. gentleman desired to treat this question, not on the ground of the interests of the empire, but on the ground of Canadian interests. I would inquire whether it is possible to separate the interests of Canada from the interests of the empire. As long as we are a portion of the empire, as long as the British flag waves over Canada, our interests are identical with the interests of the empire; and the empire can suffer in no part, in no interest, in no manner whatever, without injuriously affecting our interests. We depend upon Great Britain to a great extent for our market. We sell to that country 64 per cent of our exports. The prosperity of the British Empire, its commercial and manufacturing prosperity, and its territorial integrity, are matters in which we are directly and intimately interested; and if we aid in maintaining the integrity of the empire, and in averting disaster from it, we are shaping our conduct on the lines of Canadian interest as well as upon the lines of Imperial interest. Then the hon. gentleman told us that he had a great admiration for Great Britain, but the Britain he loved was the peaceful, industrious, non-combative Britain; the Britain which flourished and grew by the exercise of the arts of peace. That is very well. But the steady, progressive, in-

without protest, or without attempt to remedy the difficulties that existed in the Transvaal ? Between January, 1896, and December, 1898, Paul Kruger was guilty of the following abridgements of British liberty, and the following outrages upon the rights of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal :
First of all, he abolished the high court, which stood in the way of carrying out his arbitrary and unlawful purposes. Then he gagged the press ; then public meetings were prohibited, and the Uitlanders, if they assembled in numbers of more than three or four together, were liable to arrest, and were arrested. Then the president took upon himself the power to expel from die Transvaal, by his own edict, any person he pleased, without any reference to an edict of the court, without any legal proceedings, without any reason whatever except his own will. Then military service was established, and the Uitlander was liable at twelve hours notice to take up arms on behalf of the government that was depriving him of all his rights, and to serve without pay, sundered from his family, dragged from his business, and put into the ranks of the Transvaal soldiery at twelve hours notice. Then the taxation of the municipal government was oppressive. The city of Johannesburg, with 100,000 inhabitants had 250 voters, and these voters were all Dutchmen. The taxes collected in that city for school purposes could only be applied in schools where the teaching was in the Dutch language ; and the great proportion of the men who paid the taxes in that city were entirely disfranchised and were at the mercy of a few Dutch burghers who happened to reside in that city. Then taxation without representation was increased. New monopolies were established, dynamite monopolies, a monopoly of transportation, a gunpowder monopoly. Any business or anything in the Transvaal that could be made the subject of a monopoly for wringing money from the Uitlanders, was made a monopoly ; and the money drawn from the Uitlanders in this way was squadered amongst the Dutch burghers. Then, the acquisition of the franchise was made impossible by the fact that when the Uitlander had lived in the Transvaal for fourteen years he could have the franchise if three-fourths of the burghers in the municipality where he lived voted that he should be invested with it. This condition made it absolutely impossible that any Uitlander, after residing fourteen years in the Transvaal, should exercise the right of the franchise.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Then they would have shifted it instantly to twenty-four years.


John Charlton: Every one of these outrages was the result of a settled, deliberate purpose on the part of Paul Kruger. What Mr. CHARLTON.
was declared to be the purpose of the Afrikander Bond ? I have a work here on the South African question by Mr. Beill and at page 31, I find this statement as to the purposes of this organization known as the Afrikander Bond :
The bond knows no other nationality but that of Afrikanders, considering everybody as such, no matter what his origin may be, who shall bind himself to advance the welfare and prosperity of South Africa.
The object of the Afrikander Bond is the establishment of a South African nationality by fostering true patriotism.
This object shall be attained by encouraging Afrikanders, from a political as well as a social point of view, to assert themselves as a>
nation: (a) by establishing this Bond in all the states and colonies, and by creating an organization throughout South Africa.
Now, this Afrikander Bond was hostile in every purpose and in every movement to British supremacy, or to the continuance upon any terms of British authority in South Africa. Paul Kruger declared in a despatch to the New York Tribune, to use his own words, that the trouble in South Africa
-was a struggle for supremacy in South Africa by a combination against the English.
There was talk about an independent federation of states, and Mr. Chamberlain, of whom we have heard a good deal to-day, in dealing with this question, made the following statement:
It is an inspiration which cannot be accepted by the people of this country, and until it is frankly abandoned, there cannot be a final and satisfactory settlement, but, short of this, we are ready now, as at all times, to give the fullest and most favourable consideration to the wishes and sentiments, even to the prejudices, of all parties in South Africa, and to co-operate with them in all measures for the good of the whole community.
Could anything more be asked than that, any broader or more liberal condition of settlement than this foreshadowed in the statement I have just quoted ? Sir Alfred Milner, at the Bloemfonte'n conference, used the following language :
It is my strong conviction that if the government of the South African repupblic could now, before things get worse, of its own motion' change its policy towards the Uitlanders, and take measures calculated to content the reasonable people among them, who, after all, are a great majority, such a course would not only strengthen the independence of the republic, but it would make such a better state of feeling all round, that it would become far easier to settle outstanding questions between the two governments.
Again he says :
I know that the citizens of the South African republic are intensely jealous of British interference in their internal affairs. What I want to impress upon the president is, that if the government of the South African republic, of its own accord, from its sense of policy and
justice, would afford a more liberal treatment to the Uitlander population, this would not increase British interference, but would enormously diminish it. If the Uitlanders were in a position to help themselves, they would not always be appealing to us under the convention.
Later on ihe says :
No doubt it is a difficult business to get different races to pull together inside one body politic. That is the problem all over South Africa. But it is solved in other parts of South Africa more or less. It would be solved altogether and for ever, if the principle of equality could be established all round. It is the one state where inequality is the rule which keeps the
rest in a fever	I see it suggested
in some quarters that the policy of Her Majesty's government is one of aggression. I know better than any man that their policy, so far from being one of aggression, has been one of singular patience, and such, I doubt not, it will continue. But it cannot relapse into indifference.
True it is, Mr. Speaker, that the British policy in South Africa has been, a policy of singular patience. Since Majuba, in 1881, the British government have borne and foreborne, and they never made an effort to place a military force in South Africa until rebellion had reared its crest, until two states had given unmistakable signs of an intent to raise the flag of rebellion against British authority. Well, the Bloemfontein conference was held, the negotiations failed and wrongs went on unredressed. Then came the ultimatum to which the Prime Minister has referred this afternoon, issued upon the 9th October, 1899, and 1 think it well, Mr. Speaker, to place the demands of this ultimatum upon record in this House. This ultimatum, in two Instances, spoke of the independence of the Transvaal republic being threatened. The ultimatum was as follows :
That all points of mutual difference shall be regulated by the friendly course of arbitration, or by whatever amicable way may be agreed upon by this government with Her Majesty's government.
That the troops on the borders of this republic shall be instantly withdrawn.
That all reinforcements of troops which have arrived in South Africa since June 1, 1899, shall be removed to the sea coast, with an assurance that they will be removed from South Africa within a reasonable time, to be agreed upon with this government, and with a mutual assurance and guarantee on the part of this government that no attack upon or hostilities against any portion of the possessions of the British government shall be made by the republic during further negotiations within a period of time to be subsequently agreed upon between the governments, and this government will, on compliance therewith, be prepared to withdraw the armed burghers of this republic from the borders.
That Her Majesty's troops which are now on the high seas shall not be landed in any port of South Africa.
Well, this is a refreshing piece of assurance, a refreshing piece of impudence. One 43
wonders, in the light of subsequent events, what the burghers of the Transvaal and what Mr. Beitz, the Secretary of State, who penned this ultimatum, imagined the feelings of the British government would be- the troops on the borders of the republic to be instantly withdrawn, troops that had been landed since June 1st, of that year to be sent to the sea coast, troops then on their way from Great Britain to South Africa to be diverted from their destination and sent somewhere else. Why, the most powerful nation of Europe, the greatest empire in the world, would not have ventured to dictate an ultimatum of that character to a first or even a second rate power. This ultimatum left no doubt-if doubt had previously existed-of the tendency and the trend of events and the inevitable struggle that was at hand. And immediately upon the issuing of this ultimatum, the Orange Free State wheeled into line. There was concerted action between the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. It was perfectly well understood that the two were to act in concert, and the sympathy of a very large portion of the Dutch inhabitants of Cape Town were in the same direction. Then came the invasion of Natal following almost immediately by the investment of Ladysmith, Kimberley and Mafeking, and the annexation, as the right hon. the First Minister told us this afternoon, of British territory to the Orange Free State. Then came the flight of the refugees, which was characterized by the infliction of great cruelty and barbarity on the part of the Dutch inhabitants of the Transvaal. Here is one little incident mentioned in the work of Mr. Bell:
The cause of the assaults was that the refugees left the trucks or carriages for the purpose of obtaining sustenance on their long and painful journey. For this they were lashed and assaulted by armed Boers of the Free State, although they offered no provocation, and although no state of war existed between the republics and Great Britain. Women in the crowded trucks, in some, instances, gave birth to children, passengers were spat upon, and in one case, of which I have particulars, the father of a thirsty child was beaten back to the train, only to witness the death of his child from thirst, although water was obtainable at the station at which he endeavoured to procure it.
This is a specimen among many that might be cited of the atrocities that were perpetrated by these men, on whom the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) expends his sympathies, the Boers of South Africa.
The issue, whatever the hon. member for Labelle may believe, of this war. has been from the outset plain and clearly defined. The issue has been and is to-day : Is South Africa to be Dutch or British ? That is the issue, and there is no middle ground between these two conditions. South Africa must be the one or the other. If we insist upon staying in that country, it will be British, but if my hon. friend from Labelle has his way, It


John Charlton: A Dominion of South Africa will be the realization, in all probability, of the near future, a dominion, where these states will be confederated provinces, where this Boer population, now discordant and hostile, will settle down into peaceful aud loyal citizens. We have already in history one instance of the absorption of a Dutch colony-the colony of New Amsterdam forming now the state of New York. This colony was conquered by England. The same bitter hostility existed among the New Amsterdam Dutch that exist to-day in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, but this population became assimilated with the Anglo-Saxon and merged with the other population of the United States. The Knickerbocker element in New York is distinct to-day to some extent from the other elements, but it is as thoroughly loyal, thoroughly Americanized, thoroughly English-speaking in the broad sense -as any element in the United States, and the same results will be produced in the case of the Dutch element in the Gape Colony, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. It will be one of the great works in which England is engaged to assimilate, to render the different elements of the population homogeneous, to introduce amity and goodwill among them by the influence of British institutions which will give to all these people their rights, under which no one will have the advantage over another, but all will be equal before the law-all British subjects, secure in the possession of their rights and property. These very misguided Afrikanders will in the near future realize the mistake they made in resisting an authority which wjll confer upon them blessings such as they have never enjoyed or even dreamed of in the past.
These contrasts exist to-day between the purposes of those two elements. The Boer leader desires to oppress the British, the British leader desires to grant every human and every natural right to the Boer. I do not need to dwell upon the impertinence of this resolution which professes to instruct England in the proper course for that great nation to pursue in the settlement of a matter with which we really have no direct connection. The effect upon our interests in Canada of our participation in this struggle has been most salutary and beneficial. Canada has secured a recognition from the world at large that she never had before. The world realizes that in this vast region north of the United States there is growing up a nation ; the world realizes that this country now has a population which possesses energy and courage and devotion to the interests of the empire, and is worthy of respect and worthy of consideration. The cost of sending the contingents from Canada to South Africa is infinitely more than recouped to this country by the beneficial influences which are the result of that action, and which will redound in so
many ways to the credit and to the advantage of the Dominion. Our interest in this matter is a direct one. It is not a matter of pure sentiment, although sentiment had much to do with it, but our material interests are of a character to have rendered the participation of Canada in this struggle a natural thing to do. As I have said, England is our great market. We can only maintain that market by maintaining ttie power and the prestige and the prosperity of the empire that affords it. We have been driven to seek that market. We have been driven from the markets of the United States. We market torday $70,000,000 worth of farm products in Britain out of a total of $80,000,000 that we produce. We cannot afford to lose that market, and it is a matter of the most vital importance to Canada that England and all her interests shall be maintained inviolate. And so it goes beyond the sphere of sentiment and comes down to the sphere of actual material interests, when we take our position as a portion of the British Empire and are prepared to bear our share of the sacrifices, and of the cost in blood and treasure, if that be necessary, for the defence of those interests. The integrity and the glory of this empire is our individual interest. We have a sentimental interest, but speaking from the low standpoint of material interest alone we cannot afford to see Britain's career in Africa, or in any other quarter of the globe, hampered or made to fail. These, Mr. Speaker, in brief, are some of the thoughts I wish to present to this House in reference to this great question which has been brought up for discussion to-night in the manner in which it has.
In dismissing this question, I wish to refer to a personal matter. My warrant for doing so is an insinuation or direct charge rather, made by the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa). I am sorry, Sir, to trouble the House or to take up the time of the House with a matter of such trivial consequences to the country as the one I am about to allude to. and I shall allude to it as briefly as possible. My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) with an evident animus that did not indicate the possession of the most friendly kind of feelings, referred to the report that has been circulated with regard to an alleged utterance of mine during the late election in a speech made at Delhi, in the north riding of Norfolk. I suppose I need hardly say to members of this House that in the heat of an extempore speech upon the hustings, men sometimes undoubtedly make use of expressions which, if they had time to carefully weigh their words, and had an opportunity afterwards to revise their speech, would appear in a different shape before the public. At times the reporter who is giving a synopsis of the speech may unintentionally convey a false impression or an impression not warranted by the language of the speaker. He may at times misunderstand the speaker. The speaker may in the hurry and

excitement of an extempore speech fail to express in language exactly the idea that he intended to convey. In the speech in question, if I remember correctly, I distinctly made the statement in reply to the chairman, that I disclaimed any intention to cast an aspersion or an insinuation upon the loyalty of my French Canadian fellow-citizens. This House is no doubt aware that I have on different occasions spoken highly of the loyalty of the French Canadians ? I remember upon one occasion referring to their loyalty, when thirteen years after the conquest of Canada an attempt was made at the time of the revolt of the thirteen colonies to detach them from their allegiance to Great Britain, and when that attempt signally failed. The French Canadians then, with only thirteen years experience of British rule, proved steadfast and true in their allegiance to the institutions of England. I have spoken of their loyalty upon other occasions. On the 5th day of March, 1900, in conection with an attack made in this House upon my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) growing out of certain incidents that arose in the riot at Montreal, I referred to this question, and without quoting from that speech, I ask my French Canadian fellow-members to do me the kindness to read the speech which is reported in ' Hansard' of the 5th of March. I state here now that that speech expresses my sentiments and that I stand by the assertions made therein.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, the great importance of maintaining friendly relations between the diverse races in this Dominion. I realize that the man who would do anything to disturb these friendly relations ; the man who would wantonly create bitterness and friction is an enemy of his country. I realize that we must go on together side by side and hand in hand in the development of Canada, if we are to make a success of the experiment of British institutions on this North American continent. Of course I am not of French descent ; I am an Anglo Saxon ; I am a Protestant, and all I ask is to have my own particular views respected and be allowed to entertain them, while I grant equally and fully the same privileges to the man who does not agree with me. We have got to build up our in-stitut'ons upon the broad basis of civil and religious liberty. We cannot make religious tests here, and a few days ago I spoke from this point of view in a manner which will clearly indicate the position I take with regard to religious tests and declarations which are offensive and unfair to any body of Christians, or any sect in the Dominion of Canada or in the British Empire. But, Sir, I say again that in taking this position I surrender no tenet that 1 hold, no principle that I entertain, and I ask no other man to surrender any of his. I repeat that I ask of him to respect my rights under the broad principle of civil and religious liberty, and I

pledge to him that I will endeavour to respect his. So much for that point.
How, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question as to whether, in the speech referred to, I gave expression to the opinion that it would be a good idea to have a British garrison at Quebec, I say I did express that opinion; and the difficulty arises when there is attributed to me, for the expression of that opinion, the belief that disloyalty in Quebec rendered such a step necessary. It was not upon such a ground that I expressed the opinion that it would be a good thing in the interest of Canada to have a garrison at Quebec. On the contrary, Sir, I believe it would be in the interest of all Canada to have the great strategic position of Canada garrisoned.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. Mr. Tarte).: Why not Toronto ?


John Charlton: Why not Toronto, or any other place ? Why should it be taken as an imputation on the loyalty of any place that a garrison is stationed there ? Is it any imputation on the loyalty of Halifax that there is a garrison there? Is it any imputation on the loyalty of Yictoria that there is a garrison at Esquimalt ? I would make Quebec the military headquarters of the Dominion ; I would put the arsenal of the country there for the store of arms ; I would make that citadel an impregnable stronghold. I would do it for the purpose of bringing into contact with the French Canadians influences that would have a tendency to make the two races better acquainted with each other-for the purpose of letting the French Canadians see the British flag, mingle with British officers, and enjoy the social relations that would naturally grow out of that circumstance. I go further : I believe in making Quebec-and I hope the Minister of Public Works will pardon me-the great commercial centre of this Dominion ; and I think my hon. friend the premier understands that to be my belief-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.
Mr. CHARLTON

for I once waited
upon him with a delegation for the express purpose of promoting the commercial interests of Quebec. It seems to me absurd to dig a hole in the bottom of Lake St. Peter, when we have a harbour 130 miles further down the river, which can be kept open two or three months longer than the harbour of Montreal, possibly the whole year. Vessels from Port Oolborne can go to Quebec as well as to Montreal to transfer their cargoes to deep-draught ocean steamers.
So, upon commercial, social and political grounds, I am in favour of making the city of Quebec the headquarters of the military system of Canada, and the commercial headquarters of Canada, bringing it great prosperity, running a railway line to James Bay, and. diverting the trade of that


John Charlton: region and of other regions to Quebec by through lines to the interior, and centering at Quebec great resources, great buisness interests, great prosperity, and a great population. What will be the effect of that, in a political sense ? It cannot do otherwise than accelerate that process of assimilation and the creation of that homogeneity and affinity which we all desire, and which must be the precursor of the full exercise of the powers of the Dominion in the line of progress. It always makes me sad to reflect that there are, perhaps, a million people in Quebec who cannot speak the English language, who are deprived of the opportunity to test their powers, who are, deprived of the opoprtunity to make headway in the world, who cannot do justice to themselves because they are not In touch with the race which flas the commercial transactions, the business transactions and the capital.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I did give utterance to the opinion that there should be a British garrison in Quebec, for the purpose of bringing into contact with each other, to the extent that a garrison would do so, the two branches of the population. Quebec ! Why, I have love for Quebec, Mr. Speaker. Queenly Quebec, beautiful for situation, with its white hamlets and its green fields, surrounded by its mountains ; Quebec, the impregnable old fortress ; Quebec, the strategic centre of North America, Quebec, the gateway of the north, at the foot of whose citadel-crowned promontory the waters of the great inland fresh water seas and the Atlantic mingle, and from whose harbour there extends westward the shining pathway over which her early explorers and voyagers sought the far west and founded the French posts around in the rear of the English settlements along the Atlantic. Historical Quebec, where one of the great epochs of history was wrought out, and the hand of fate decreed that the course of an empire should be changed. I should not like to contemplate the possibility or the probability of retaining that grand historic spot as a city where there would continue to be ten speaking French to one speaking English-as a city which would not fulfil the destiny which Providence designed for it. I want to see Quebec the great centre of this Dominion, in commerce, in wealth, in activity; one of the great factors in assimilating the two populations whose united efforts, if they do unite, will be so conducive to the prosperity, the wealth and the advancement of Canada.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that these explanations which I have made with regard to this matter will set at rest the aspersion which has been levelled against me, that I insinuated that we wanted a garrison at Quebec because, forsooth, we wanted to keep a disloyal population overawed and in order.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that under all the
circumstances it would have been just as prudent for me, at the time that speech was made, to have said nothing about a garrison at Quebec; it gave opportunity for misconception. If I were making the speech again, I would no doubt avoid saying anything about it. But, nevertheless, I do not take back water, and I am in favour of putting a garrison at Quebec, centering railroads there, centering business there, and making Quebec a great business and social centre.


Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, I really do not think I should interfere in the little family party that has been going on this afternoon on the other side of the House. We first find the very eloquent and charming member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) introducing, a rather radical resolution. Then, we find the right hon. premier coming on with his silver-tongued oratory, completely setting at nought the arguments of the young member for Labelle; and I must congratulate the right hon. gentleman on the very excellent, patriotic and really loyal speech he made. Then, we find our good friend, the independent member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), coming on to-night, and, I believe, from his conclusion, that the real object of his speech was to square himself for a speech which he delivered on a previous occasion. He says that if he had to do it over again, he would not deliver that speech. I have heard it whispered that that speech won him a very easy election. Inasmuch as it has been referred to, I have a copy of that speech, which I will read to- the House, in order to let the House see whether the speech in question has justly caused this little turmoil or not. It is taken from the Toronto Globe, of October 20, 1900. The hon. gentleman starts out in that pious manner which is characteristic of him, by saying :
God forbid that he should say anything against the French or call their loyalty into question, but he could not be ignorant of the fact that the tri-colour is shown in Quebec a thousand times where the Union Jack is shown once. These people look back with regret to the time when the empire passed from the hands of France to England, and the history of North America was changed, and while he would not abridge one iota the privilege the French Canadian possesses or insinuate aught as to his loyalty, yet he would say that the safety of Canada lay in Anglo-Saxon hands, and realizing that, he felt it would not be improper to have a British garrison stationed in Quebec-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: To make it a commercial centre, or perhaps apply the provisions of his Seduction Bill.
Mr. HUGHES (reading)-
-ready at any moment to assert British authority under any circumstances or emergencies that might arise.
Did I hear some one say something about commercial union ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I said it was to make of Quebec a commercial centre, or perhaps apply the provisions of his Seduction Bill.


Samuel Hughes: I thought it was a commercial union that was spoken of. However, I was glad to hear to-night the right ring from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and I was sorry this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Labelle waste his eloquence in the way he did. I thought that he would have presented the other side of the question-because every question has two sides-in a logical manner, and one characteristic of that hon. gentleman on most occasions ; but I think the House will agree with me that little pickings from newspapers here and there, up and down the country, could not be considered argument in any sense. I trust, however, that he will see the error of his ways, and that when another session rolls on we will find him on the floor of the House using his splendid eloquence along the right lines, in building up the British Empire and defending everything noble in the cause of humanity.
Had it not been for one or two statements, I would not have spoken to-night, because a short time ago I spoke in this House, at considerable length, on this question from a historical standpoint. My hon. friend stated that Britain was unable to find recruits for her forces in South Africa, and therefore had to call on the colonies. But surely my hon. friend, who has evidently been reading the papers very assiduously, must have found out in the course of the last few weeks, in the English and Canadian newspapers, items by the score, showing that Great Britain does not know what to do with the number of men who have volunteered to serve in South Africa.
I was very sorry to hear the hon. gentleman this afternoon join in the slanders that have been cast at the British troops in South Africa. He referred to the conduct of British soldiers in insulting women. I was more than pained to hear a member of this House, who should have been inspired by the chivalric instincts characteristic of the race from which he springs, speak the way he did. The city of Ottawa has furnished an instance of how these slanders have arisen and how they have been utilized by the pro-Boer party in England. We have Lieutenant Morrison, an officer in the artillery, of this city, quoted all over the United States and the British Empire as having written certain things slandering the British troops, showing how cruel they have been in their treatment of the Boer women and children. Yet we find that Lieutenant Morrison was misquoted, and when what he did say was put alongside of the garbled version of his utterances, the conduct of those who circulated the slander is clearly shown to the light.
Let me give an instance that came under my own personal notice when in South Africa. One of the officers in command at one of the stations received a letter from a Boer lady, whose husband had been one of

the chief members of the war committee, and was a prisoner. She complained that her house had been broken into the previous evening, and that she had been insulted by two British soldiers. The matter was taken promptly in hand and a patrol visited the place. There was not found the slightest sign of the house having been broken into, and when questioned the woman said that it was not her house, but a neighbour's. Her letter was produced, in which she had alleged that it was her own house, but she pleaded that she had written it in a state of great excitement, and had intended to say it was her neighbour's, a woman by the name of Mrs. Schalkurjk. A visit was made to the neighbour's house, and Mrs. Schalkurjk told the patrol that her only ground for saying her house had been broken into was that two soldiers had stopped there the previous evening, as they rode by, and made some inquiries. These men had never offered the slightest word of insult, yet this woman had the hardihood to write to the officer in charge of the station that her house had been broken into and herself insulted. All these facts are on record, but if that story had been allowed to go uncontradicted it would have afforded campaign material to be utilized by gentlemen of the views of my hon. friend from Labelle.
That hon. gentleman spoke of the failure of the British army in South Africa. Well, I took occasion recently in this House to point out that the rule in war is that one man behind a fortification breast high is equal to eight or ten advancing against him. And when instead, the ordinary fortification on the plain, you have fortified the mountain fastnesses and kopjes, you can quadruple the strength which each defender has against the enemy. The House must not forget also that Great Britain was upwards of 7,000 miles from the scene of hostilities, and had to transport men and materials all that distance. Hon. members must equally bear in mind that the Boers had 95,000 men in the fighting line, and in order to cope against a force of that size, with all the advantages in their favour that the Boers possessed, Great Britain required to have about 500,000 or 600,000 men in the fighting line. But, instead, she had less than
325.000	men. Little disasters did occur, as will occur in any war, but in the history of the world the qualities shown by the British army in South Africa have never been surpassed. I do not pretend that the generalship on all occasions has been good, but there never has been a war yet where it has always been good, and there never will be. But the fighting qualities of the British soldier, and the general success of the British arms, have never been surpassed,- when we consider the difficulties under which the troops laboured.
The hon. gentleman has referred to New Zealand and New South Wales. I like to Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
believe him honest, for I think he intends to be, but he must know as well as any man in Canada that New Zealand has repeatedly sent contingents to Africa, and New South Wales has sent five contingents to fight there.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But no policemen.


Samuel Hughes: New South Wales sent five men to one sent by Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Soldiers, not police.


Samuel Hughes: These policemen whom we are sending are to be in the service of His Majesty, and not in the service of the colonial government, and may be utilized for fighting purposes if necessary.
I take this opportunity of summing up my hon. friend's position. He is always ready to give advice to Great Britain. The other day he wanted to amend the coronation declaration. Then, some years ago, he voted in favour of the motion, asking that home rule be granted to Ireland ; but he accepts the advantages of the British consular service ; he benefits by the guarantee of the British Empire for the Canadian loan in the money markets of the world ; he profits by the advantage to Canada in the guaranteeing of her national debt, and by the expenditure of British capital in the development of this country.
But he, as a French Canadian, and his fellow-countrymen, enjoy under British rule liberties and advantages that they could not have under any other country that ever existed on God's green earth. And yet, while he enjoys the protection of Britain's army and navy throughout the world, he stands in this House and slanders His Majesty's soldiers fighting the battles of the empire in South Africa. And he says we must not fight. That is not the kind of patriot we want. That is the kind of patriot we saw in France at the close of the eighteenth century ; for instance, in Robespierre, one of those gentry who would weep if he trod on the foot of a cat, one of these tenderhearted men who, did not believe in quarrelling, but who preached the doctrines advocated by my hon. friend from Labelle, and who brought France to the position of which the poet speaks when he says :
But France got drunk with blood to vomit crime, And fatal have her saturnalia been To Freedom's cause in every age and clime.
Liberty is not secured or advanced by the doctrines preached by the hon. gentleman this afternoon. I shall not go into the details of the causes of the Boer trek. I spoke of that here the other night. We are told by the hon. gentleman that the Boers trekked from Cape Colony on account of British tyranny. They trekked because Britain freed the slave, because the Wilberforce Act passed in Great Britain had freed the slaves wherever the British flag flew. The
credit of British discovery was not due, as my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said it was primarily, to Livingstone, because he had not reached there when this work' was begun by Moffat and other devoted missionaries who had preceded the Boers on the fertile lands beyond the Orange river and the Yaal. It was through the discoveries of these men that the Boers knew that to the north there was pasture land infinitely better than the barren karroo in the southern part of Cape Colony. The Beers trekked to escape British taxation, or rather that they might have the levying of taxes themselves. As one of themselves puts it, the Boer believes in no taxation except that levied by himself on the British and the Kaffirs. They trekked there that they might see no other white man's smoke, and that they might lay the foundation of a Boer republic with Durban as its seaport. And history from that day to this proves that the Boer has never given up his hope of driving the British into the sea. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, the lack of a seaport in South Africa was Britain's weakness there. In 1795 and 1796 no less than 1,500 British merchantmen were captured by French cruisers operating from Mauritius alone, this being made possible by the fact that Britain had no naval base in South Africa. The fact that Britain must have a naval base in that country makes it absolutely necessary that the country in the rear must be friendly ; and for that, if for no other reason, Britain must control the whole of South Africa from the Zambesi to the sea. I fully expected that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) would enter into the causes of the war. Both the leader of the House and the member for North Norfolk have pointed out the disabilities under which the Outlanders laboured. But there was one reason, chief of ail, to which these hon. gentlemen did not refer. The American war of Independence was in the main an assertion of the principle that there shall not be taxation without representation. That principle was ruthlessly violated in the Transvaal, and that fact alone was sufficient justification for the Outlanders to resist and for Britain to step in to the assistance of her people. There is another point-in 1877, when Britain annexed the country, Kruger could not pay his own taxes. But to-day he is worth more than Her Majesty was at the time of her death. And Kruger's sons and grandsons, as has been aptly said by a prominent Afrikander, possess more power in South Africa than Queen Victoria's sons and grandsons do in Great Britain. Notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) says in his speech, the last thing that Kruger and his oligarchy wanted was an independent republic. Kruger knew that the moment that the people had a voice in the management of affairs, that moment he and his oligarchy would disappear. Why. in that whole country, there were only 15.-
000	voters-not as many as in one ward in the city of Toronto. Here was the real motive that was at the root of many poor fellows being brought into the war. The agitators held out before them the vision of Kruger's wealth and told them : Let the Boers join us in a republic and you will soon become wealthy out of her mines too. They went to those farmers who were in debt to mortgagees or shopkeepers-nearly all the money being owed to English people-and said to them : Join us in this war and when it is over your debts will be wiped out, for we shall drive the English into the sea. They commandeered the poor people. On every farm there were a number of poor whites.
1	reasoned with some of the women folk of these poor people. I remember one family, three of whose men were slain one morning. Reasoning with the women as to why they had allowed their men to go to war, their answer was something like this : Even in times of peace we are slaves, we have not laid by enough to move us to the next town much less resist these burghers or to take an independent stand against them ; they have the power over us even in times of peace. How much more is their power when martial law is declared ? For. Mr. Speaker, this territory had all been annexed to the Free State or the Transvaal and the condition of these poor people was worse than slavery. There were some Boers who were patriotic, who fought for what they regarded as a principle ; but their patriotism was of the negative kind-they fought rather for hatred of Great Britain than for love of their fellows. I agree with much that has been said with relation to these people. I am sorry that my hon. friend did not do them justice. They are a great people, and when they become civilized, when they come in contact with the people of the world I am perfectly satisfied they will make a great race. History shows them to be descended from the greatest races the world has ever seen, the Huguenots of France and the Dutch-races that resisted tyranny for ages. Yet, as soon as the Huguenots reached South Africa they were persecuted by these very Dutchmen, and were compelled to give up their language and adopt the manners and customs of the Boers. Consider how the Kaffirs are treated by the Boers. A Kaffir dare not. walk upon the sidewalk, but must take the middle of the road. He could not own an acre of land ; he must not carry on a trade in vegetables ; until two vears ago he could not be married legally. More than that, he had to be attached to some baas and wear a bandage on his arm with his number on it. If he did not wear this bandage, he might be arrested and be made a slave of the state. The system has not always worked very creditably, for they really had indirect slavery in the Transvaal. However, I will not go into these details.
Reference has been made here to-night to the reception accorded to the soldiers re-

turning from South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Labelle, that the returned soldiers do not look for receptions. The soldiers who went to South Africa realize that they have done their duty, and that is all the reward they look for. No doubt many lion, gentlemen present have read this old adage :
When war's proclaimed, and danger's nigh,
' God and the soldier,' is the cry ;
, When war is over, and wrongs are righted,
God is forgotton and the soldier slighted.
The soldier realizes this, and he looks for no favours. He knows that there are people in any community, especially a community such as this, who oppose soldiering in any form; he knows lie will get no sympathy from them. He knows, moreover, that for every one who went off to the front there were fifty others anxious to go, and these will naturally look with a little jealousy if exceptional favours should be showered upon those returning. As a consequence, if he is a sensible soldier, he will, on coming home, go back to his business, and by respecting himself endeavour to command the respect of the community. I tell my hon. friend from Labelle that lie would do himself credit, he would do credit to the chivalrous race to which he belongs, were he to rise in his place to-night and ask the indulgence of this House while he retracted the foul slander that he has cast upon the British soldier in South Africa for his conduct towards women. I say he would command the respect of this House and of the people of this country also, were he to retract the foul slanders which he has cast upon the soldiers of His Majesty in calling them loyal murderers. I trust my good friend will accept these suggestions and act accordingly. I could quote copious extracts from Afrikanders and Boers to refute the slanders of the.hon. gentleman; because all Boers are not disloyal. Many have been loyal to Britain, and have fought manfully for the British flag in South Africa, and have spoken manfully, and used their efforts in every way to put an end to this unhappy war. But it is not necessary to quote these extracts under the circumstances, inasmuch as the hon. gentleman made no attempt to defend his assertions. I have merely taken this opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Labelle on account of his slandering of British soldiers.


Mr. JABEL KOBINSON (Elgin).: Inasmuch as I have a resolution on the paper which has a bearing upon the question now before the House, I shall content myself with saying only a few words. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke this afternoon for something over two hours, and although he spoke loudly, it was difficult for me to learn all his sentiments, but I did learn sufficient to convince me that his sentiments are not the same as my own.


Samuel Hughes: 
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is the House ready for the question ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I shall not abuse my right to reply.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) has no right to reply.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Is this not a motion ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is no right to reply on a motion in amendment to go into Committee of Supply.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, there are one or two words that I would like to address to the House in regard to this motion. I think there is a great deal of point in what my hon. friend (Mr. Robinson, Elgin), who has just spoken, lias brought to the attention of the House. It is that this resolution was very unnecessarily introduced, and that we really have wasted a whole day in this House without any possible benefit, so far as I can see, that can in any way accrue from the introduction of the resolution. I am bound to assume that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) intended some good by this resolution ; I am bound to assume that, because I have the pleasure of that hon. gentleman's acquaintance, and I have seen nothing of him which would induce me to think that he brought this resolution before the House without some definite aim, but, I am equally bound to say that I cannot, for the life of me, conjecture what idea he had as to any good which could result from the introduction or this resolution. I cannot believe that the hon. gentleman supposed that this resolution would pass the House. A very large portion of the speech he delivered in the House to-day I have heard before, certainly on one occasion, and, I think, on two occasions, in the last parliament. The hon. gentleman obtained, on those occasions, an expression of the opinion of this House, which, I think, should have convinced him that no possible good could result from the introduction of this resolution, and I regret that the ability and talents that we must all concede to that hon. gentleman in a high degree have not been put in this House to a better use than they were put by that hon. gentleman. I say this to my hon. friend without in the slightest degree desiring to be offensive to him, and I assure him that I say these words to him in all possible sincerity and friendship. He dealt with all manner of subjects, from the customs and laws of our
Teutonic ancestors to the causes of Mr. Chauvin's defeat in the province of Quebec, and he dealt with the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as well as with the position of both political parties in the late election in the province of Quebec. Well, I do not quite see, as the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was unable to see, the relevancy of all this to the particular motion which we are invited to pass in this House. And, I would go further


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think the leaders did not like it.


Robert Laird Borden: I trust that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) did not take up the time of the House merely for the purpose of saying something that would be displeasing to both leaders. For my part, 1 am bound to say that a portion of the hon. gentleman's remarks was displeasing to me, not that portion of his remarks which reflected upon the political party which I have the honour to lead in this House, because, 1 intend to let those remarks of my hon. friend pass without a single word ; but, I do regret that the hon. gentleman introduced into his speech certain remarks which seemed to me to invite controversy along certain lines which, I, for one, do not desire to see introduced in this House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. leader of the House has stated that the speech which was made by the hon. mover of this resolution was irrelevant. I entirely agree with that statement, and I go farther; I say that the resolution itself, so far as the preamble is concerned, is absolutely irrelevant to the conclusion. How does the hon. gentleman invite us to deal with this subject ? He invites us, in .the first place, to bring to the attention of His Majesty that we are not committed to any future participation in the wars and policy of Great Britain. Well, that is a matter as to which I, at once, concede the hon. gentleman is entitled to have his opinion. I find no fault with him because he differs possibly from my opinion in regard to that. He proceeds to say :
That the 'contribution of Canada in the South African war, both in armed help and public expenditure, entitles the Canadian people to express an opinion in the matter.
Well, it may entitle the Canadian people to express an opinion in the matter, but, certainly, it does not entitle the hon. member for Labelle to express an opinion in the matter, because he has from the first to the last held that we should have nothing at all to do with it, and should not be expected to contribute to it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: As long as the contribution was not paid I objected to the payment of it, but the moment our contribution

was made, as well as the contribution of all British citizens, 1 became entitled to express my opinion on the matter as well as any one else, whether I pay willingly or am forced to pay.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman may be regarded as having waived his former position. He is willing to take advantage of the contribution we have made for the purpose of introducing this resolution into parliament. 1 am very glad to know that the hon. gentleman has been converted to that small extent, but the hon. gentleman was not very logical, as the right hon. leader of the House pointed out, because, while he is very desirous of giving advice to the Imperial government, he is not at all dsirous of giving any assistance in the wars of the empire. I think the hon. gentleman was hardly worthy of himself when he suggested, that, no matter what force assailed the empire, we, in Canada, were to stand to one side until the soil of Canada was assailed. Does the hon. gentleman expect that the empire will stand to one side when only the soil of Canada is assailed ? Suppose that such an eventuality should occur, as it may possibly occur, although we all hope and trust it never shall, that the soil of Canada should be assailed by an armed invader, whom we were unable to repel, would the hon. gentleman then think that the remainder of the empire should say : We have nothing at all to do with Canada, we are not assailed, we shall stand to one side ? Unless we are prepared to accept that position, how shall we say. while enjoying as we do all the protection of the British Empire, and the British navy, that we are never to join the forces of the empire unless the soil of Canada is assailed ? I known my hon. friend (Mr. Bou-rassa) has a generous nature, and I trust and believe that when he comes to consider this matter in its true aspect, he will not always adhere to some of the opinions which I have heard him express in this House in regard to it. Let us look at the rest of his resolution. He then proceeds as follows :
This House therefore humbly reminds His Majesty King Edward VII. that the glorious reign of his august mother, Queen Victoria, whose memory shall ever be cherished by Canadians of ail origins and creeds, was inaugurated in bloodshed and rebellion in this part of her dominions; that peace and prosperity were subsequently restored and for ever when Her Majesty's advisers understood, as Lord Grey told in his instructions to Lord Elgin, Governor of Canada, that it was ' neither possible nor desirable to carry on the government of any of the British provinces in North America in opposition to the opinions of its inhabitants;' that since that time, Her Majesty has found in no portion of her empire a more faithful, devoted and contented people than her French Canadian subjects.
Possibly I would be inclined to say that my hon. friend might have simply used,


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: with regard to that, the word ' Canadian subjects.' I tbink that would have expressed his meaning just as well, and would have been equally true.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman too frequently, but I may be allowed to state that my intention was to point out that in countries where there are different races, the government of these races could not be conducted unless by the application of those principles which I contend are not applied in South Africa. Therefore, I wish to point out that the non-British population of this country have come to love the British flag on account of the application of these principles.


Robert Laird Borden: I must remind my hon. friend that it was not French Canadians alone who were in rebellion in 1837, because in the province of Ontario English Canadians, if I may so designate them, were in rebellion also. Therefore, the hon. gentleman's views as expressed in this resolution have no more application to the French Canadians than they have to the inhabitants of the province of Ontario, who were endeavouring in the same way to obtain redress of the grievances under which they believed they were then labouring. But I desire to ask the hon. gentleman: what has all this historical reference to wrongs which were suffered in Canada in 1837 to do with the invasion of British territory by the Boers-because my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) proceeds afterwards to say in his resolution : therefore, we are to resolve so and so. Two hostile states, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal invaded British territory in South Africa, and Britain used force to repel them. They not only invaded British territory, but it is beyond doubt that they invaded British territory for the purpose of making that territory their own. I will not ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) to take my statement with regard to that, but I will ask him to accept the statement of the Boers themselves and here is their own language ; the language of the Boer Peace Committee, addressed to the people of Cape Colony, and reported in the London Times of the 9th of January last. Referring to the misery and desolation that had been brought about by the war, they say this :
All this misery is caused by a small and obstinate minority who will not bow to the inevitable and who make the majority suffer. Any encouragement to the men still on commando to continue the hopeless struggle can only injure us and cause us further misery.
I call the attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) to what follows :
We have done our best and fought to get Africa under one flag, and we have lost.
There is the Boers' statement that this war was precipitated for the purpose of bringing all the British possessions in South
1365 MARCH 12,1901 1366	
Africa under the Boer flag. Does my hon. friend suggest, in view of that, that when that invasion has been repelled, when (as has been pointed out by the right hon. the Prime Minister), British territory has been declared to have been annexed to these hostile states ; does my hon. friend suggest that we are to hold our hand and leave the British possessions in South Africa still menaced by the very same danger which has been present during the past ten years, and which has recently assailed them. This letter continues as follows Let there be no mistake about this. England has spent millions and sacrificed thousands of lives, and no reasonable being can believe for one moment that she will now give up the fruits of victory. It is, therefore, a duty for us, her beaten foe, to accept the terms offered by our conqueror. . . . England has definitely announced that she will not restore the independence of the two republics. Let us, in the interests of lasting peace in South Africa, accept this announcement as final, and let us work for conciliation on that basis. There is a suggestion in these words which my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) might well have taken to heart before he ventured to make the speech which he has made in the House this afternoon, and before he ventured to introduce this resolution. For my part I do not think that the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) really required any answer in this House. I would have been content to vote on the question, upon the basis that the hon. gentleman had confuted himself. I do not think that the question of the causes of the war comes properly under discussion at this present time, and while I do not say that it was not advisable for the right hon. the Prime Minister to go into that, yet I do say that it was not necessary. Under the circumstances which now exist in South Africa ; in view of the fact that the Boers themselves admit that conquest of British territory was the object of the war they began ; in view of the fact that the great majority of the Boers admit that they are beaten ; in view of the fact they they admit (as they do admit in those letters) that the terms which are offered to them by England are fair terms-it was not necessary to introduce such a resolution in this House at all. I venture to think that we have work to do in this parliament at this session which is more worthy of our attention than matters of this kind. It has been our hope and our expectation that we should finish the business of this session within some measurable time, and for my part I say in all sincerity that I have endeavoured to expedite the business in this House, and I intend to do so in future. But if we are to take up a day or two days at a time for the purpose of discussing matters which are of purely Imperial concern, it seems to me that we are going to have only a very moderate amount of time to devote to subjects that really do concern this par-	liament. I am prepared to vote against this resolution, and I would have been prepared to vote against it even if I had not heard the very able and eloquent speech which the right hon. the leader of the government delivered to this House, as well as the speeches of the other hon. gentlemen who followed him. House divided on amendment (Mr. Bourassa) :
 YEAS : Angers, Monet-3. Bo urassa,
 NAYS : Alcorn, Legris, Arehambault, Lewis, Ball, Logan, Barker, Loy, Belcourt, Macdonald, Bell (Addington), Mackie, Bell (Pictou), MacLaren (Huntingdon), Bennett, MacLaren (Perth), Bernier, Maclean, Bickerdike, McColl, "Birkett, McCool, Borden (Halifax), McCreary, Borden (King's, N.S.), McEwen, Bourbonnais, McGowan, Britton, MeGugan, Brock, Mclsaac, Brown, McLennan, Bureau, Madore, Calvert, Marcil (Bagot), Calvin, Matheson, Cargill, Meigs, Carscallen, Mignault, Christie. Morin, Clare, Morrison, Clarke, Murray, Cochrane, Northrup, Copp, Oliver. Costigan, Osier, Cowan. Parmelee, Culbert, Prefontaine, Davis. Pringle, Dobell, Prior, Dyment, Proulx, Edwards, Puttee, Erb, Reid (Restigouche), Ethier, Richardson (Grey), Fielding, Richardson (Lisgar), Fitzpatrick, Robinson (Elgin), Flint, Robinson (Northum-Fortier, berland, N.B.), Fortin, Roche (Marquette), Fraser, Roddick, Ganong, Rosamond, Gauvreau, Ross (Ontario), Geoffrion, Ross (Victoria), Gibson, Rousseau, Gilmour, Russell, Gould, Schell, Oourley, Scott, Guthrie, Shorrilt, Hackett, Sifton, Harwood, Simmons, Heyd, Smith (Vancouver), Holmes, Smith (Wentworth), Horsey, Stephens, Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Sutherland (Essex), Hughes (Victoria), Sutherland (Oxford), Hyman, Tarte, Johnston (Cape Breton), Taylor, Johnston (Cardwell), Thompson, Johnston (Lambton), Tisdale.

Kaulbach,
Kemp,
Kendall,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lang,
LaRiviSre,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), La veil,
LeBlanc,
Lefurgey,
Tobin,
Tolton,
Tucker,
Turgeon,
Vrooman,
Wade,
Wallace,
Ward,
Wilmot,
Wilson,
Wright-144.
Amendment negatived, main motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Government of the North-west Territories-Insane patients	 $45,000
Mr. LaRIVIERE. There is a decrease of
85,000.	How does that come about ?
['That will enable us to appoint a person at\nmore than $400 a year. We cannot appoint a person and pay more than $400 a year, as we have no authority to do so under the law. The law requires that we shall start a temporary writer at $400. We do not want to make permanent appointments, because this is not permanent work. We simply want to appoint temporary help.\nSome resolutions reported.']
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under an arrangement made by order in council some years ago, we pay a fixed amount per day for each patient to tho Manitoba government, who provide for the patients in the provincial asylums. We simply estimate the amount which we think will be necessary, and according to the number treated, a bill is rendered to us, which we pay.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What was the amount expended last year ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: 839,992,22.
Schools in unorganized districts, including
clerical assistance	 $6,500


Mr. WILSON.: I would like the hon. minister to tell us how many schools there are in the districts occupied by the Doukhobors. I have seen articles in some newspapers, in which it was stated that there were practically no schools located among the Doukhobors, and I would like to know what portion of this vote is for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: None of the schools referred to are in the organized parts of the territories. None of them therefore are amongst the people to whom the hon. member refers. This vote is for the purpose of assisting in carrying on schools in the far northern portions of the country which are unorganized. The schools are mostly conducted by the different churches among the Indians and halfbreeds, under an arrangement that has been in operation for some years. I can give the hon. gentleman a list of schools if he desires it.


Uriah Wilson: No, but what I would like to know is what provision the government are making for the education of the Doukhobors.
The MINISTER <5f THE INTERIOR. We are not making any special provision at the present time, because the work of edu-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
cation in the organized territories is carried on by the North-west government. They are required to look after the education of the people out of their subsidy.
Grant for schools, clerical assistance,
printing, &c	 $332,979


Uriah Wilson: Under this item perhaps the hon. minister can give us some information with reference to the schools established by the territorial government. I am of opinion that something ought to be done in some way for the education of the Doukhobors. They ought not to be allowed to live in communities by themselves without some provision being made for their education.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The North-west government have had for years past a school Act under which they organize school districts just as is done in other portions of the western country; and they give a special grant to each school district in proportion to the amount of work done. I do not know that I have any special information with regard to the arrangements they are making for school districts amongst the foreign settlers; but I can give the hon. gentleman the statement made by the North-west government with regard to education in applying for this grant. During the year just closed they have expended in all 8187,591. Petitions were received during the year for the erection of ninety-nine new school districts, of which forty-nine have been erected and fifty are in process of construction. The heavy immigration of the past two or three years causes a rapid increase in the expenditure on schools.
In discussing the estimates with the members of the North-west government, they urged very specially upon me during the last couple of years the necessity for an increase in their grant on account of the increased amount of educational work to be done in the new settlements. Last year an increase was given, but in this vote there is no increase. My impression, however, is that next session we will have to ask an increase.


Jabel Robinson: Are the children taught the English language ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No other language is taught.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I would like to have a statement from the hon. gentleman as to the erection of the portion of the Territories into a province. Is that likely to happen after the census is made ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: A deputation consisting of two members of the North-west government, Mr. Haultain and Mr. Ross, were in Ottawa some time ago on other business, and took the opportunity of discussing this question. I may
say that while during the last three or four years they have uot addressed any official communication to the government, yet from time to time they have discussed with myself and my colleagues the question of giving the Territories provincial status, and lately they handed us a memorandum on that subject. We have not officially replied to that memorandum as yet, but ex. pect to do so shortly. This is a matter, of course, requiring serious consideration, but I may say in a general way that I am of the opinion that it will have to be dealt with in the very near future. The people of the Territories are as capable of self government as any other people in Canada, and have shown their fitness by the admirable manner in which they have carried on their present administration. Of course the financial question is a serious one. The subsidy required for the Territories in the course of a few years would have to be greatly increased, and there is the question of the control of public lands and matters of that kind which would have to be settled.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the hon. member for Selkirk, who knows a good deal about school matters among the Doukhobors, would favour us with his views.


Mr. McCREARY.: I do not think that any schools receiving assistance are yet established among the Doukhobors. In some of the outlying villages they attend some of the schools that were established before they arrived; and there are one or two private schools' started by the Society of Friends of Ontario. Some provision should be made with the government of the Territories for the establishment of schools among those colonists, and I think there should be a condition imposed on this vote providing that the North-west government should assist those foreigners in the matter of education as they do English settlers. Any one who has been up there will understand the situation. In two or three months there will come into a district sufficient children to start a new school, and in some cases to start three or four schools, and yet in such cases these people have had to do without schools for two or three years. I have known of one family which came out from Ireland and seriously contemplated returning just because of this lack of schooling facilities. There is no doubt that with the increased immigration, the government of the Territories will not be able to provide adequate schooling facilities unless it gets a larger grant.
Salaries and expenses in connection with
the administration of the Yukon territory	 $270,000


Mr. TAYLOR.: What is the reason of the increase of $25,000 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is entirely due to the fact that we
have had to make a readjustment of the living allowance. We have made a readjustment under which the officials are allowed $50 for rent in addition to their salaries. The salaries amount to $104,140, and the living allowances to $118,090. There is a vote of $45,000 for contingencies to cover travelling expenses, care of officials in hospital, freight and express charges, printing, advertising, stationery, telegrams, the contingencies of the Crown timber and land office, and the gold commissioner's office, and to pay expenses incurred with the bank for handling gold.


Mr. BENNETT.: Will the hon. minister state the policy of the government as to the issue of liquor permits in the Yukon ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I laid on the Table of the House the other day an order in council providing regulations for the introduction of liquor into the Yukon. Under that order, provision is made for the issue of wholesale licenses an the territory, and permits may be granted to the holders of wholesale licenses but not to any others.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the practice to be discontinued that has heretofore existed of issuing permits from the department for parties to take liquor in ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That has been abolished by the order in council to which I have just referred.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it to be the rule in future that, on application being made, wholesale licenses will be issued to the parties for the sale of liquor ? And if these are wholesale licenses, what conditions are made with regard to the retail sale of liquor ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No permission is given to the retailers to import. They buy from the wholesalers. The holder of a wholesale license may, on application, get a permit.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do we understand that there will be indiscriminate sale by retail, and that all that will be necessary will be for a party to go to a wholesaler and purchase from him and sell ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The local council have a liquor license ordinance, under which they issue retail licenses, just as is done in any of the provinces, and parties holding these licenses will have the right to sell.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it necessary to the issue of a retail license that there should be a petition from the inhabitants of the locality, as in the case of the province of Ontario, Nova Scotia and perhaps, some others ? Or is It issued merely on applica- ' tion from the party who desires to sell ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: Speaking from recollection, I do not know that there is any provision in the liquor licenses ordinance for a petition from the ratepayers. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will see that the conditions are not the same as in an older place, and that a petition there would not be the same safeguard that it would be here.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so, but I wanted to ascertain what safeguards there are with regard to the character of the person to whom a license is given, the manner In which he is likely to conduct his establishment and his observance of the laws generally. Does the council pass upon these matters without evidence of some sort, or do they make an inquiry, or do they depend upon their own knowledge ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: Provision is made for inspection by an officer appointed for that purpose, and on that a license is granted. That is my recollection of the liquor license ordinance, though I have not read it for something like a year.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any restriction as to the number of licenses granted in a particular district ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I do not recollect at the moment, but the ordinance wias laid upon the Table of the House last session in pursuance of the statute in that regard.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it printed ? The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR. I think so, but, if not, I will furnish my hon. friend with a copy to-morrow.
Dominion Lands-Chargeable to Capital- Surveys, examination of survey returns, printing of plans, and including $13,000 for irrigation surveys, &c. Salaries of temporary officers and clerks may be paid out of this sum at rates exceeding $400 per annum, notwithstanding
anything in the Civil Service Act...$240,000
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I made an inquiry the other day from the minister with regard to a survey that is required in the south eastern portion of Manitoba. We have a railway there which has been partly built and which is attracting the attention of the public, running from Winnipeg in a south-easterly direction. There is a large tract of land there that is still unsurveyed, while there are a large number of settlers who are seeking to settle upon these lands, but who cannot locate them for want of a survey. In fact, I believe the whole of that district east of the Red river, and between the river and the Lake of the Woods should be surveyed. It will all now be available for settlement, and it is only natural that when the settlers come into these districts they should be able to locate their lands. I hope that orders will be given to have all that part of the province surveyed before another season.


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: In -the list of surveys provided for under this vote I have provision made for one part of that country. We have also a miscellaneous vote for unforeseen requirements to the extent of $18,000. I am quite satisfied that we shall be able, with the money which we have asked parliament to vote, to provide for the surveys to which my hon. friend (Mr. LaRiviere) refers. Our object in dealing with the surveys as we do is to keep ahead of settlement. We cannot at all undertake the policy of a systematic survey of the whole country. We get the best information we can and send surveyors to those parts of -the country into which settlers are going and in which, therefore, surveys are required. Our effort is to keep ahead of settlement.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I am sorry to say the hon. gentleman has not kept ahead of settlement in this case.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: In some cases, we have not been able to do so ; but if my hon. friend will call my attention by letter to any particular part of the country where surveys are required for settlement, I think we can provide for the work that is necessary.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It is along the Canadian
Northern Railway-the line that used to be the South Eastern.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Has the whole amount of the appropriation of last year been expended ?	.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: My deputy informs me that there was a small amount left over from last year's vote.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. In connection with this survey, I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that in some cases, cases that I have been apprised of, surveyors coming from the east hire people in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and they do not pay them. I know an instance where a man was employed by one of those surveyors who owed him $178, which is a big sum for a poor man. Upon inquiry in the office of the Surveyor General, I ascertained that this surveyor was paid in full, and, therefore, the amount cannot be collected either from the government or through the government. I think the surveyor who is responsible for such an act should not be given a -contract in the future unless he pays his accounts. If the government contractors do not pay their men, I think the government might be liable. I -hope the minister will see to it that in future no claim such as the one I have mentioned will have to be brought before the attention of the House.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: If my hon. friend will give me the particu-
lars of any case, I will be happy to do what he says.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I have communicated with the officials of the hon. gentleman's department, and the correspondence is there.
I do not care to divulge the facts before the House, but an official of the department informs me that this man has been paid in full, though he has not paid the men he had employed.


William Forsythe McCreary: I regret the minister has not seen fit to put in a larger amount for these surveys. There were 8,000 homesteads taken last year, and suppose there are 40 homesteads in a township, 200 townships would require to be surveyed. I understand a surveying party can do in a season about five townships, consequently, they are not going to be able to keep up with the requirements of the people coming into the country. In my opinion, within two years there will be no surveyed lands ready for occupation, because, as the member for Provencher (Mr. LaRiviere) has stated, not only have new surveys got to be made, but a great many of the old surveys, both east and west of the Red river, and in the North-west Territories, have got to be made over, because the men cannot find the posts, the fires have destroyed them. Even in surveys made only three or four years ago, it is almost impossible to establish the posts. Now, in one township alone there are twenty-two Swedes from the United States who have settled, and I am aware that many of them have built their houses off their own quarter sections. This is a great hardship. I understand last year the department had twelve parties in the field doing survey work upon homestead lands, whereas, to keep pace with the actual homesteaders coming in, even if the number should not be increased, it will require forty parties of surveyors to do five townships each. This ought to be taken into consideration before we reach that particular point that we cannot go any further, because a great many of those townships surveyed, or portions of them, are unfit for settlement. I would like if the minister could see his way clear to increase that amount. I think I drew the attention of the government to it when I was an official.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We had something over twenty parties at work last year, and we are preparing this year to send out thirty-one. I am aware that in the future we shall have to make preparation for more surveys to keep pace with increased emigration.


Mr. McEWEN.: The hon. gentleman says that these posts were burned out two or three years ago ; why should we not put down iron posts ? Iron posts would be very nearly as cheap, and would not require to be renewed in consequence of fire.


Uriah Wilson: Last year there were 6,680 homestead entries. The report says there were 7,426, but you must deduct from that number 746 that w>ere made in the previous year.


William Forsythe McCreary: I have not got the report with me, but I think my figures are correct. I have got the figures for the months of January and February of this year, and there is an increase of 40 per cent over last year.
Salaries of inspectors, Dominion lands and
Crown timber agents, sub-agents and
clerks in the outside service	$74,000


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman explain the reason of this increase of $8,500 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have been in the habit, for some time past, when there was a pressure of business, of employing temporary assistance. At present we are adding clerks in the following offices, but they are not permanent : One at Winnipeg, $480 ; one at Calgary, $480 ; one at Edmonton, $360 ; one at Lethbridge, $600, and a forest ranger for southern Manitoba, $900. We have had a system drawn up during the last four years, in consequence of the increase of settlement, under which we have had sub-agents. In order to make entries at the land agencies, settlers would have to travel a considerable distance, and we have inaugurated the practice of appointing sub-agents at points where a good deal of settlement is going on.
We have had the system of requiring the settlers to pay fees to these subland agents. We are abolishing that system and we propose to give the subland agents regular salaries, $300 being the largest salary paid. There are eleven of them altogether, and the total salaries will be $3,000. We have additional clerks to appoint at some of the land offices. There is an additional clerk at Yorkton at a salary of $900, an additional clerk at Red Deer at a salary of $720, an additional clerk ht Regina at a salary of $900, and an additional clerk at Brandon at a salary of $1,200, making altogether $3,720. But $2,500 was provided for these items last year, thus making the net increase only $1,220. Then, increases have been given to the following clerks : Mr. A. J. Fraser, land agent at Lethbridge now, increase $105. He has been in the service for a great many years. Mr. B. H. Humphrys, in the commissioners office at Ottawa and, who has also been in the service for a great many years, will receive an increase of $128.75. Mr. Richard Breen, another official gets $120 Increase. Mr. R. C. Kisbey gets $180 increase, Mr. E. W. Burley $200, Mr. E. Trudel $200. Mr. W. McMillan $200, and Mr. G. A. Hogarth $200. the increases in all amount to $1,333.75. The total of these items. $2,820, $3,000, $1,220 and $1,333.75, is $8,373.75. The salaries in the Dominion lands branch,

although the work is fully twice as much as it was in 1895-6, are not yet as large as they were then. The salaries then amounted to $82,500, whereas last year they amounted to $71,550.55. With these increases they will still not be as much as in 1895-6.


Uriah Wilson: I see there are eleven homestead inspectors. Would the hon. minister explain what the duties and salaries of these officials are ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The homestead inspectors are a class of officials who are provided for and have always been since the homestead system was introduced under the Dominion Lands Act. Their business is to examine the homesteads of such settlers in respect to the applications which they may make for their patents. When a settler finds that he is in a position to apply for his patent, having fulfilled the settlement duties, he notifies the nearest land office that he is in a position to make his application, and the land agent notifies the homestead inspector. The homestead inspector makes an inspection of the homestead and he has a printed form in which certain information has to be given. He makes his report to the land agent, the land agent makes a report and these reports are forwarded to the commissioner's office where the case is adjudicated upon. If the duties have been performed, the settler gets his patent. These are the principal duties of the homestead inspectors. In addition to that, wherever necessary, they act as forest rangers, taking precautions in regard to fires where the land is timbered. They also make valuations of land where they are required to do so by the department, and they do any additional work which the department may require them to perform. They get $1,200 a year each and actual expenses.


Uriah Wilson: Has there been any increase in the number lately ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Lately a man who was appointed a forester has also been appointed an inspector. His name is McMillan, and he lives at Treherne.


Uriah Wilson: The reason I asked this question was that from general report a very great number of people are going into that country, and I did not see how the same number of inspectors could be doing so much more work than they have been doing here- * tofore. I thought perhaps there had been an increase in their number. I do not know how many the hon. gentleman had before. They certainly appear to be well paid at $1,200 and expenses.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think the hon. gentleman will find in that evidence that these homestead inspectors are doing more work than they did formerly.


William James Roche: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of the Interior if Mr. Mr. SIFTON.
J. W. Thompson, homestead inspector of Marquette, the gentleman that the hon. minister induced to resign his position in order to contest Marquette with myself, was reappointed to his office as soon as the election was over, and if the hon. gentleman does not candidly think that he comes within the term of an active political partisan ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Thompson was reappointed. I have not under my hand the exact date when he was reappointed, but it was a couple of months after the election. I have no information before me that Mr. Thompson has acted the part of an' offensive partisan since he was appointed, but 1 presume that he acted somewhat as a partisan when he contested Marquette with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche). I hope my hon. friend will not take it as an offence if I express some regret that Mr. Thompson was not more successful.


Mr. CLANCY.: This is rather an extraordinary attitude that nothing has come to the notice of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to indicate partisanship. One of his own servants, a gentleman in the employ of his own department, resigns his seat, contests a constituency, is defeated, and then he is rewarded. A string is p'ut on Mr. Thompson when he goes out in order that he will be able to go back in the event of his defeat. Mr. Thompson had nothing to lose by contesting this constituency, and I want to say to the hon. gentleman that he has set an example that does not contribute much to the public morals of this country. The hon. gentleman has his officials, occupying responsible positions throughout the country and living on the public funds, in training to be candidates for the hon. gentleman when the election comes on. I think there are several hon. gentlemen holding seats in this House who came in under such circumstances, who resigned their positions and who equally had a little rope upon them. I have no hesitation in saying that no more vicious principle could be thought of or adopted than the one which is now being carried on in the hon. gentleman's department. Just let the hon. gentleman picture the case of his own officials who are in daily contact with the people who go into that country and try to imagine the undue influence that a man is able to exercise under such circumstances. To say the least it is scandalous in its character. I say it is scandalous inasmuch as 'it is manifestly unfair and unjust and must detract from anything that one would consider in the light of justice, fairness, or right.
Let the minister look at the other side of the question, and see how it would operate. Why, the heads of officials who did absolutely nothing are falling into the basket every day. All that is necessary is to hatch up a charge against some innocent official,
and his head comes off, and there is not even the pretense of a trial. Yet, the minister (Hon. Mr. Sifton) brings out his own officials in a campaign and he brings them back and takes care of them when they are defeated. There is no defence of any kind for such a proceeding, and before these estimates go through the minister must explain whether it is the policy of the government, and his own policy in particular, to continue that state of affairs. Is he going to lay down the policy that an official may look forward to his promotion because he is the candidate of the minister ? I would like to know whether, under such circumstances, an official will serve his country or will serve his political master. He must serve the latter, and do as he is told, because he is not depending upon the merits of his service, but upon the smiles of his superior. I am bound to say that the Minister of the Interior has not been hardhearted, and that he has rewarded his friends. Does he enunciate to this House that that is to be his policy in the future.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is asking me to enunciate a policy upon a very large question. This particular gentleman was offered the nomination by a party convention and he accepted it and resigned his office. I was at the convention, but I had not the least idea that the gentleman had any intention of being a candidate. If he had I knew nothing about it. When I went to the convention I had not the least idea who was going to be nominated. I have had very little acquaintance with this gentleman, and I am not sure that I ever saw him before the occasion of his nomination. If I did I certainly had no particular acquaintance with him. So far as my knowledge goes, and so far as the knowledge of the department goes, he is a competent officer, and I do not see that the fact that he was a candidate in the election is any reason why he should not be reappointed. I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) that if the department systematically went into the business of appointing candidates it would be objectionable.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that the minister (Hon. Mr. Sifton) has dealt with this question in the way it should Ibe dealt with. We had an announcement of policy from the right hon. the Prime Minister as far back as 1897, in which he stated that if any public servant of this coutnry desired to be a politician he would give him every opportunity of doing so by dismissing him. The doctrine which the right hon. gentleman enunciated then is particularly applicable to this case. The Minister of the Interior says there is no reason for not appointing this official because he was a candidate at an election. That is not the point raised by my hon. friend from Both well (Mr. Clancy). What 44
he denounces is the vicious principle of giving an opportunity to a public servant to resign his position for the purpose of being a candidate for one political party or the other, with the understanding that he will be appointed again if he is unsuccessful.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There was no understanding of that kind directly or indirectly.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be, but I have a pretty strong opinion that this gentleman felt sure in his own mind that if he were unsuccessful he would be appointed again. At all events, it is not a good precedent to lay down, and the thing has a very suspicious look in the face of it. We have had many criticisms of offensive partisanship, made by hon. gentlemen opposite. Postmasters getting a salary of $50 or $60 a year have been dismissed by this government because they attended political meetings or something of that kind. For my part I never favoured any such action by one government or the other, because I think a man who gets $50 a year for discharging duties of that kind might very well take such part in public affairs as he thought fit. But the policy of this government has been to turn these men out of office for what they call political partisanship. The pretention of gentlemen opposite is that it is unpleasant to the feelings of Liberals that the man who gives them their mail in the post office should be a man who takes an active interest in public affairs. How much more is that applicable to cases of this kind ? Take a public servant performing the duties referred to in this case, and he may be using his office for three or four years, looking forward to a candidature, while the public, whether of one party or the other, are entitled to the services of that man without any bias. Are they likely to get his services without bias, if that official is looking forward to be a candidate with the exjjressed or applied understanding, or if you like confidence, that if he be unsuccessful he shall stand a good chance of retaining his office 7 The Minister of the Interior might very well act upon the principle which his leader has laid down : that if any public servant in this country desires to be a politician he shall be placed in a position to devote the whole of his time to that particular business. That principle would not justify the minister in reappointing an unsuccessful candidate to this position.


William James Roche: The peculiar feature about this is that Mr. Cox, the predecessor of Mr. Thompson as homestead inspector, was dismissed because it was said he was an offensive political partisan, and the only thing Mr. Cox did-and he was a very successful and experienced



officer-was to write a letter to one of my committee stating tliat lie was going into the Dauphin district, and that if he while there could do anything on the quiet to assist my candidature, so long as it did not leaye him open to the imputation of being a partisan, he would do so. He wrote in words to that effect. This letter was stolen out of the office of one of my committee men, and it was sent to the Minister of the Interior, and, as the minister admitted on the floor of this House, Mr Cox was dismissed on the strength of that. There was no other charge against Mr. Cox. The minister (Hon. Mr. Sifton) admitted he was a first rate officer. No investigation was held. Mr. Cox offered to do something, but the letter was not even replied to. Mr. Cox did not lift his hand in my interest, but in this letter he showed his favour towards me, and therefore, he was considered by the government an active and offensive partisan, and his position was given to Mr. Thompson. Every person who lives in the town with Mr. Thompson, Liberals as well as Conservatives, know that there never is an election held, whether provincial or Dominion, without Mr. Thompson being one of the most active workers in the Liberal ranks. I told the acting minister last session that I could give him the name of a homestead inspector, if he wished, who had been most active in the last provincial election. Mr. Thompson has always been told off to look after the Scandinavian vote located some twenty miles north of the town in which he resides. He was sent up to look after that, and did look after it, while homestead inspector, one year ago last fall, at the time Of the local election, and he openly stated that if there was a change in the Dominion government, he wmuld not wait to be dismissed, but would resign ; he did not make any bones about it. Still, he can do all this and not be considered an offensive partisan. I presume the Minister of the Interior attaches the same meaning to that term that exAttorney General Cameron did in the local legislature, when accused of keeping in the government employ Mr. McDonnell, a member of this House, and an offensive partisan. Mr. Cameron's reply was : 'He was not *offensive to us.' So, I presume the Minister of the Interior discriminates according to the particular party this man is offensive to. As I stated before, I would not bring this case up if it were the only one. Mr. Jerome, one of the hon. gentleman's forest rangers, was allowed to resign his position and run as a candidate for the local legislature. He was successful, and yet got his position back, and he is a member of the local legislature to-day. Is he not an offensive political partisan ? This homestead inspector will be using his position as a lever for getting votes for himself at the next election. I do not object to nis being a can-


William James Roche: didate, because there is no other gentleman I would prefer to have as an opponent.


James Clancy: Surely the Minister of the Interior does not propose to sit silent in the face of a charge so grave-that he goes to a public nomination meeting by accident, that he did not know this gentleman, but that by his presence he gave his sanction to one of his own officials being a candidate. Yet, the hon. gentleman sees no wrong in it, and does not think it worth while to make a statement to this committee about it. It seems to me one of the most appalling things I ever heard of. The hon. gentleman cannot laugh this matter away. If he found his political opponents taking a course of that kind, there is no gentleman who would put more energy and heat into his protest than the hon. gentleman, and very properly too. My hon. friend cites a case of a gentleman being dismissed because he wrote a letter expressing his strong sympathy, and declaring what he would do under certain circumstances. The circumstances never arose, no proof was given that he ever acted, and yet he was dismissed. What followed ? The very gentleman who dismissed _ him puts up one of his own officials, who' was at that time, as the leader of the opposition stated, paving the way for his own election, to be a candidate. No official need hereafter ask permission to run, because, from what has been stated to-night, we can see that it is the policy of the hon. gentleman to allow his officials to do that. I would again ask the hon. gentleman to say whether he disapproves of the candidature of Mr. Thompson, and whether he proposes in future to permit actions of that kind ? I think that is a fair question to ask, and the committee has a right to have a straightforward, unequivocal answer from the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not see that the hon. gentleman or any one else could prevent a government official resigning and running as a candidate for parliament. That is what the hon. gentleman is finding fault with.


James Clancy: No, I am finding fault with the hon. gentleman appointing him afterwards.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not see why he should not be appointed afterwards. If the leader of the opposition had said that I had gone to this man beforehand and asked him to be a candidate, and promised him, if defeated, he would be reappointed, there is no question that that would have been a very reprehensible transaction. I said to the hon. leader of the opposition that there was no understanding between Mr. Thompson and myself, directly or indirectly, in any shape or form ; and that Mr. Thompson had not the least reason to believe, from anything said by me or by my authority, or from
anything said by any pex'son on my behall' or on behalf of the government, that he would be reappointed. When he made his application to be reappointed, he stood in the same position as any other applicant. He might or might not have been appointed. If he had not been appointed, there would have been no grievance against me.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: Did the hon. gentleman appoint any one In his place while he was away during those two months ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, one of the officers of the staff went up and discharged his duties. Of course, I see the point my hon. friend desires to make, which is, that the fact that there was no permanent appointment made was due to my wish to keep the office open for Mr. Thompson. There was no idea of that kind in my mind, and no understanding of any kind that if he was defeated he would be reappointed. Mr. Thompson was offered the nomination and accepted it. When he made application for the position again, I appointed him. I had no obligation to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: How long after the election was it before Mr. Thompson was reappointed ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
About two months, I think.


Robert Laird Borden: How long before the election did he resign ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
He resigned on the same day he was nomi-ated.


Robert Laird Borden: How long was that before the election took place ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The convention was on September 3.
Mr.	ROCHE (Marquette).	When Mr. Thompson was nominated, was the position promised to any other person ?The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
No.


James Clancy: When the position was vacant, were there any other applicants for it besides Mr. Thompson 1
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I cannot say positively, but I think I shall be safe in saying that there were a large number.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman did not touch on the other portion of the partisanship which I refer to, that is, the part he took in the provincial election.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I never heard of it. I was in that part of the country and took an active part in the provincial election, but never heard of Mr. Thompson doing so.
44*


Robert Laird Borden: Was there not any one of those numerous applicants capable of filling the position 1 There were a great many applicants after Mr. Thompson resigned and his resignation covered a period of two months before the election. Was none of these applicants capable of taking his place 1


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Speaking in a general way, thes'e was a number of applications. I do not remember the names of any of the applicants, but I recollect receiving a great many letters from different people. At the time in British Columbia a couple of elections took place after the general election, and I went out to take part in those elections. As soon as I got back and learnt the details, the appointment was made. There were no delays but those which occurred in the natural order of things.


Robert Laird Borden: It was remarkably fortunate for Mr. Thompson that the hon. gentleman was so busy during these two months that he was not able to make the appointment.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am afraid my hon. friend is skeptical.


Robert Laird Borden: Not at all. I am accepting his word and am simply mentioning how extremely fortunate it was for Mr. Thompson that the hon. gentleman happened to be so much engaged during these two months. I have no doubt that Mr. Thompson will always select an occasion of that kind when he again decides to resign, an occasion when the hon. gentleman will be too much engaged to deal with the numerous applicants for the position, and Mr. Thompson will thus be amply safeguarded. And when the matter does come up before the hon. gentleman afterwards, Mr. Thompson will have had his election matters disposed of and his name will be at the head of the list. There will, of course, be no understanding expressed or implied, but without any such understanding Mr. Thompson will always be moderately safe. On that account, I can rejoice on Mr. Thompson's behalf that things will be made smooth for him without any understanding expressed or implied.


Jabel Robinson: Such actions as those will make every official in the North-west an active politician, because if he is not elected he will be sure to getting back his office. It is a very wrong thing to do, and I am very sorry that this government should have done such a thing.


Mr. CALVIN.: Did this man receive any remuneration for any portion of his time after his resignation ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.


William James Roche: There is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. gentleman. The land agent at Minnedosa is an over-worked official. He had an assistant, Mr. Jarvis, who was a very faithful official and occupied the position about nine years. In the Northwest rebellion he met with an accident which entitled him to an annuity from the government. There was no charge of any kind ever made against him, but he was dismissed without cause, and his dismissal was justified by the hon. gentleman on the ground of economy. Yet, strange to say, the land office at Dauphin, the work of which Was largely done through the Minnedosa office by Mr. Jarvis, required a new man, and instead of removing Mr. Jarvis to the Dauphin office the hon. minister appointed a green hand, from the same town, The treatment of Mr. Jarvis was certainly not fair. If he Was not required in Minnedosa he should have been utilized at Dauphin.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: When was he removed 7


William James Roche: In 1897, just when a new man was required in Dauphin.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The appointment at Dauphin was some time after that.


William James Roche: Mr. Hogarth was sent to Dauphin just about the time Mr. Jarvis was dismissed. Mr. Jarvis certainly should have been taken on at Dauphin instead of a new man who knew nothing about the business. Mr. Fletcher, the present land agent, has to get help from Winnipeg at the end of each month. Mr. Stevenson has admitted that Mr. Fletcher has too much to do and on more than one occasion' said he would report it to the department. Mr. Thompson, the homestead inspector, has frequently to be taken from his regular duties and placed in this office to assist Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Fletcher should be given permanent help.


Mr. HAOKETT.: It may appear strange that one coming so far from the east should inquire into what is going on in the Northwest, but a friend of mine from Prince Edward Island went to the North-west some seventeen years ago and was appointed inspector of homesteads. He worked under the government for a number of years until the present administration came into power. He was a Frenchman, John J. Arsenault, a most capable man, and was dismissed without cause and without any investigation. I would ask the hon. minister to deal with him fairly and not have his head go Into the basket without an opportunity of being heard.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The case of Mr. Arsenault is one I happened to be personally acquainted with. I do not think the hon. gentleman or anybody else


Mr. SIFTON.: could complain of his dismissal. He had practically been the election agent of the Conservative party in the part of the country where he lived for some years before his dismissal, and I do not think that his own political friends expected the government to retain his services.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the date of the resignation by the hon. member for Selkirk of the position he held prior to his election and the date of the appointment of a successor ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not remember the exact date. It was about the time he was nominated, and his successor was appointed a month ago.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then his resignation was in at the time of the official nomination or a week prior to the 7th of November 7


William Forsythe McCreary: I was nominated on the 25th December. I had not seen the Minister of the Interior for six months, nor had I any letter from him when I ran for Selkirk. I was appointed in 1897, and was mayor of Winnipeg, and had been aider-man a number of years, and was requested to be mayor the following year. I had a salary of $1,200 which I resigned. During the entire time I occupied tne position of commissioner of immigration-you will pardon my referring to it to-night, but I do so because it has been referred to by one or two members-during the three years that I occupied that position, not a Conservative in Manitoba or the Territories would venture to say that I took any part in politics. At a meeting of the whole board of trade, with over 400 citizens of Winnipeg present, Mr. A. M. Nanton and Mr. E. L. Drewry respectively, formerly president and vice-president of the Conservative Association-the deputy minister was present and will recollect it, and the papers of that time will bear out what I say-stated that I have never taken any part in politics while I held that office. And let it be noted that while I was in office I did not work under the civil service rule. It was not a case of going to the office at ten o'clock and quitting at half-past four. I was at my office generally at 8.30 in the morning, and I was there until six o'clock in the afternoon ; four out of the seven days of the week I was there in the evenings until ten o'clock; and we never had Saturday afternoons. The office of the commissioner is open every Saturday afternoon, and five or six of the staff are there for half the day on Sunday. It was not my intention when I accepted that office to remain for ever a civil servant. I had ambitions ; and when I was offered a county I accepted it. I did not know, twenty-four hours before, that I should be nominated. After I was nominated, my work being behind, I went to the office of the commissioner and remained
there for the following week or ten days,
X think that my resignation took place on the 1st of October. I asked the deputy minister to credit me with three weeks holidays for each of the four years I had been a civil servant, and allow me salary for that time. He refused. I said to him : Why not allow me, then, for the extra hours that I have put In? But he would not do it.
I do not think it any disgrace to be a civil servant, if one is a conscientious one, as are many in Winnipeg and the Territories. In that immigration hall, in the office to which I was attached, 95 per cent of the employees are as conscientious people as you could put into office.


Edward Gawler Prior: Who said they were not ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Well, reflections have been cast. If I, as a civil servant, earn fairly every dollar paid me by the government; and I say that I will retire and run for the Commons or for the local legislature, surely that is all right. And suppose I run and lose, and there is no blot on my record in any way, is it wrong for the minister to appoint me to another office ? If there is anything wrong in that, I would like to know it. For my part, as I see it at present, I do not know what there can be wrong in it, supposing, of course, that while a civil servant, I did not use my position in any way to advance my own political Interest.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not reflecting on the hon. gentleman, and simply asked the question to know the circumstances of his resignation. First impressions are always lasting, and I think the impression the hon. gentleman has shown as to the chances or prospects of returning to a position in the event of defeat must certainly have been in his mind at the time for his resignation, and, no doubt, there were facts to bear out that impression.


William Forsythe McCreary: I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) that if I accepted any position or had it been offered to me I did not think that it would be the same position. If the hon. gentleman were as tired of a position as I was of that, he would not accept reappointment. When you handle from 25,000 to 40,000 people a year 8,000 or 10,000 of whom cannot speak English, you get pretty tired of it.


James Clancy: We have had splendid exhibitions of innocence. The minister is innocent, the officials are innocent. An hon. gentleman has declared that he resigned his position without the knowledge of his superior, but thought that if he failed in gratifying his ambition to become a member of the House he might be given a position again. I do not blame the officials who
acted on that view, because they understood, without being told, just what the minister would do. I would like to know whether, supposing a Conservative official, one appointed under the late government, had thought fit to accept a nomination, and had been defeated, no matter how good an official he had been, he would have been appointed. The Minister of the Interior, I venture to say would not have consented to his resigning his position to allow him to be alternately an official in the department and a candidate in an electoral contest. I do not wish to misrepresent the Minister of the Interior. It is well that we should have his view embalmed in ' Hansard,' to use an expression of a former member of this House. He declared in most unmistakable terms that had he been a consenting party to Mr. Thompson's resignation and to his candidacy for election, and had he then appointed him after his defeat, he would have been guilty of a most reprehensible act. What, then, would be the difference in case be had found one of his officials nominated as a party candidate and had neither protested nor disapproved, or had written a letter declaring his full approval of that gentleman becoming a candidate, and then, after his defeat appointing him to another ? Was not this merely carrying on a sort of pantomime ? He did not make the arrangements in words, but acted it. Will any one say that Mr. Thompson did not understand that if he were defeated he would be reappointed ? And in this have we not a state of things that is far from creditable. I have not reflected upon those gentlemen who were formerly officials. If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to find shelter behind such a plea, they must set up that shelter themselves, for no one has alleged anything against these former officials. At the same time, I have not deprived myself, should the occasion arise, to consider the question, and to express my views as to whether these gentlemen were good officials or not.
But at this stage no such allegation has been made. The allegation has been made of unseemly conduct on the part of the government. I do not blame the hon. gentlemen who took advantage of it. They had the assent of their minister, and the minister to-day has made a statement that 1 think is a very alarming one. The hon. gentleman has been accused of permitting his officials to become candidates. Before they became candidates they must certainly have had the consent of the minister. I repeat that the minister might just as well have written a letter calling him into his office and saying to him: You may become a candidate, and if you are defeated, just come back to me and you will have your office again. I am glad the hon. gentleman has put himself on record, and the country will judge accordingly :

Inspectors' expenses, travelling expenses of commissioner, superintendent of mines and homestead inspectors, contingencies of Dominion lands and Crown timber agents, and at bead office, removal expenses, stationery and printing, &c	r	 $36,000


Robert Laird Borden: Will the bon. gentleman kindly explain tbe reason of this increase of $5,000 ?
be made of tbe Cypress Hills country, in tbe
Medicine Hat district. I wish to ask if that work will be provided for this year ?


Tbe MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Provision is made for that survey.


James Clancy: Will tbe minister say bow many extra clerks there are, and bow much is paid for tbe clerks, and bow much for advertising ?


Tbe MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That consists of tbe following items : First, there are nine homestead inspectors and five forest rangers continually employed, and to provide for their travel and living expenses it is estimated that tbe sum of $8,000 will be required. It is proposed to make a more frequent inspection of tbe Dominion lands and Crown timber offices, which will cost probably $1,000. Provision has been made for temporary help at agencies, should there be a rush of work, $2,500; expenses of inspector of agencies, $1,000; expenses of superintendent of mines, $1,000; contingencies of Dominion lands and Crown timber agencies, $14,000; printing and stationery. $0,000; express and freight charges, $700; legal expenses, $600; temporary help, $1,200; miscellaneous and unforeseen, $1,000.


William James Roche: Who is tbe commissioner of Dominion lands ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR J.   G.@: Turriff.


William James Roche: Is he in the city now ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, he Is out west with one of the immigration agents of the department. He went about a week ago in company with an English journalist who is writing a series of letters in the English papers. Our immigration agent came across with him, and I sent Mr. Turriff along with him for the purpose of assisting him.


James Clancy: How many Dominion land agents are there and how many homestead inspectors ? How many perform the double duty of homestead inspector and Dominion lands agent ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am informed there is one homestead inspector in British Columbia, in the Kamloop district, who takes entries from settlers, but he is the only one. None of the other homestead inspectors are permitted to take entries.
Members of the hoard of examiners of Dominion land surveyors, including contingent expenses of board	 $300


Mr. SCOTT.: On the previous item respecting surveys, I wished to ask a question, which I will ask now. I understand that representations were made to the department asking that further subdivisions Mr. CLANCY.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, The increase in the salaries, $7,000, is made up altogether by the appointment of temporary clerks at the head office. I need not read the names, but I have the list here. There are two subjects especially which have caused a very large amount of work in the department. One is the issuing of half-breed script in the North-west, which has entailed a large amount of clerical work; the other is the issuing of patents for the railway land grants. The amount of clerical work that has to be done in connection with both is very large. These clerks have been appointed only lately, and we are taking a supplementary estimate for the purpose of paying them for the balance of the present year. We will require to keep them on during the next year. They are all known as temporary writers. There are thirty-, two clerks. The total salaries will amount to $14,607.50; advertising, $2,302.50.
Protection of timber lands in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and tree culture in the North-west Territories	 $15,000


Robert Laird Borden: This is an item as to which, I understand, there will be some discussion, not so much in regard to the item as in respect to the subject it refers to. Possibly this particular item might be allowed to stand for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, I would be very glad to leave that over.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps we may go on with the next one.
To provide for extra service in connection with Dominion lands, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil
Service Act	 $5,000


James Clancy: That covers, I think, somewhat the same service.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am asking for this vote in connection with the preparation of patents for railway land grants. The department will have to have some special assistance other than the young ladies who are hired as temporary writers. We will probably have to have one or two men of some experience in work of that kind.


James Clancy: This item involves a very considerable question, as a new service is being entered upon in regard to the work of reforesting the country.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have no objection in allowing the previous item to stand.


James Clancy: I take it that this item has no relation to the one provided for reforesting ?	.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, none whatever.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I understand that the item respecting reforesting remains, and that the other item is adopted.


James Clancy: The item of $15,000 remains.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The only one we reserve is that for the protection of timber lands, &c.


James Clancy: The hon. Minister of the Interior has not stated what is the nature of the extra services that he requires..


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This item has reference to the work of issuing patents for railway land grants. 1 have explained to my hon. friend that we will require some special assistance in connection with this other than that of those parties who are simply temporary writers. We will have to get, probably, the services of a solicitor, and possibly two, in order to check the work that is done by the others. We do not want to make permanent appointments, because this is not permanent work.


James Clancy: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that that $17,000 is additional to this sum for extra services ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 am asking $5,000 separately, because there is a clause which says ' notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act.' The other appointments are made under the Civil Service Act.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Do T understand that the hon. minister intends to employ clerks who are already employed by the government for their services ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We will use the staff of the department to the' extent we can, and then we will have to secure some additional assistance. There will be no extra pay to any officers of the department.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Then, why put in these words ' notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act.'


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That will enable us to appoint a person at
more than $400 a year. We cannot appoint a person and pay more than $400 a year, as we have no authority to do so under the law. The law requires that we shall start a temporary writer at $400. We do not want to make permanent appointments, because this is not permanent work. We simply want to appoint temporary help.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900.-(Hon. W: S. Fielding.)

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I would like to mention to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, which has been called for to-morrow, has been postponed. We are desirous, for the purpose of expediting the business of the House, that that committee should meet at once, and I understand from hon. gentlemen who are more familiar with the work of that committee than I am, that they desire that there should be at least two meetings each week. I am not, I think, a member of the committee myself, and, therefore, I am not familiar with its work, but that is what I understand from hon. gentlemen who are familiar with its work and who know what it will be called upon to do. I would like also to mention, on behalf of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), that the papers respecting the pay of ' C ' Battery have not been brought down. He desires that they should be brought down at an early date, so that they may be used for purposes connected with the estimates. I understand from the hon. Minister of Finance that we may look for the budget on Thursday.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the budget speech will be delivered on Thursday. In regard to the Public Accounts Committee, I may say that as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was out of town, I told my secretary, that if he could find whoever was acting in his place. I would be glad if it should be found convenient to postpone the meeting to-morrow, as I was anxious to be present. I received notice that the postponement had taken place. I may say. in regard to future meetings. that I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty after this week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 Wednesday. ,
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, March 13, 1901.