The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved :: That the report of the judges on the petition and cross petition relating to the election held in the electoral district of East Queen's, P.E.I., together with the evidence taken before the said judges on the trial of such petition, and all other papers, documents and reports sent to Mr. Speaker by said judges be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES moved :: That Mr. Speaker be instructed to issue his writ to fill the vacancy now existing in said electoral district.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 35) respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 30) respecting the Great Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. LaRiviere.
Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Bishopric of Iveewatin.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 38) respecting the Hudson's Bay and North-west Railway Company, and to change its name to the Great Northern Transit Company.-Mr. Oliver.

Mr. LEIGHTON  G.@: MCCARTHY moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 39) to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: This Bill is to put the forgery of copyright on the same basis as the infringement of trade mark, which is punishable under the Criminal Code, while the forgery of copyright is not.


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

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Militia and Defence for the year ending 30th June, 1900.-Hon. F. W. Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Sir 'CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. May I ask the Minister of Public Works as to what progress is being made with the return in reference to telegraph construction in the Yukon.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. 1. Tarte).: I am as sure as one can be that it will be down this afternoon. I will telephone.



SUPPLY-THE CORONATION OATH.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
["I accept my hon. friend's statement, but if his suggestion were carried out, there would be nothing left in the declaration, and there would be no necessity for any declaration at all in connection with the coronation oath. It has been said that this motion has been introduced in such a way as to prevent any amendment being moved, but it will be seen that there is no necessity, there cannot be any necessity, for any amendment, because the question is simply one as to whether this declaration should not stand as it is with respect to those features in it which are complained of, or whether we should say to His Majesty that it is quite proper that the declaration should remain as it has stood for upwards of 200 years.\nAt six o'clock. House took recess.", "After Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.).: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a few days ago,
I now rise to perform a duty which I feel incumbent upon me, and a duty which I have postponed the discharge of until the present occasion for the reasons which I stated to the House when I had the honour to give notice of the resolution. In rising to move this resolution, which I hold in my hand, and which I intend to place in your hands, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I am assuming some responsibility, but I feel at the same time that I am discharging a duty and a conscientious one, and that I can appeal to the good sense and the intelligence of the Canadian parliament to receive and consider this question in the spirit in which it is introduced. I am afraid that outside of parliament a misapprehension exists in the minds of a portion of the people with regard to the meaning of this movement and the complaint covered by the resolution which I hold in my hand. If such a misapprehension exists, I hope that every member of this parliament will feel it a duty, no matter what his views on this question may be, to assist in removing that misapprehension and in having the question fairly understood.
The motion which I am speaking to will explain itself. We are entering upon a new century ; we are beginning to discharge the duties of a new parliament. We have welcomed home from a foreign and distant

land our brave soldiers who went to defend the honour and the glory of the British Empire. There is no divergence of opinion in the hearty welcome we give to those soldiers. They fought upon the same battlefield in the same cause. There was no question as to what altar they worshipped before, or what their differences of creed might be. They were brothers in arms, discharging the same duty, maintaining the dignity of the British Crown, fighting the battles of the empire, and gaining fresh laurels for that empire, the greatest that exists in the civilized world. With that feeling evinced on so many occasions by the most intelligent and the best people in this country and in the empire, is it too much to expect that we should wish to give further force and meaning to the sentiment that we are all British subjects, and that there is no necessity for any cause to divide us, but that we may join together and shoulder to shoulder perform all the duties of citizenship notwithstanding any differences of race or creed that may exist among us.
In moving the resolution which I intend to move, for an address to His Most Gracious Majesty, I do so because I feel impelled, on behalf of those I represent, to ask this parliament to sympathize with the demand we make that we be relieved from certain expressions connected with the coronation ceremony-not with the coronation oath, as has been said outside of this House, and also, I understand, inside it. We do not complain of the coronation oath. I do not and would not propose to touch it to the extent of the crossing of a ' t' or the dotting of an ' i'. The coronation oath remains intact. It provides for the succession of Protestant sovereigns in the British Empire. Every sovereign who ascends the Throne is bound to take and subscribe to that oath, by which he is sworn to maintain the Protestant religion as established by law. What I am dealing with is not the coronation oath at all ; it is a declaration beyond and beside the coronation oath. It is one as useless, so far as any practical purpose is concerned, as a fifth wheel to a coach. It is useless for all good purposes. If any lion, gentleman in this Chamber will show me that in asking for the removal of this declaration, which I consider perfectly useless, except for the purpose of wounding the susceptibilities of a portion of His Majesty's subjects-if any hon. gentleman will satisfy me that in the carrying out of this request any injury is done, or that we are impairing the strength of the Crown, or interfering with the permanence of the succession of the Crown as now arranged, I shall be willing to withdraw my resolution. But surely, when I appeal to the good sense of the House, and ask them to take the same view of the matter as prominent Protestant


John Costigan: writers and public men, they will come to the conclusion that this declaration is entirely unnecessary, and might be done away with.
This is the object I have in view, and it it on these grounds that I ask the House to accept this resolution. I may give a few reasons why I think the House ought to accept it. I do not propose to make a lengthy speech or a lengthy appeal to the intelligence of the House on this question. I think that all it requires it to put the simple facts before the House, and leave the House calmly to use its own judgment upon them. But I must make one or two quotations and refer to one or two incidents to show how strongly the Protestant mind feels on this subject. When the question was discussed in 1867, I think in the British House of Commons, Earl Kimberley, who had formerly been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and as such had been obliged by the law to make this declaration, just as His Majesty is obliged by the law to make it-because the King is obliged to obey the law as well as the subject-Earl Kimberley said-I give his own words :
He had himself been called to make this declaration before the Irish Privy Council in the presence of a large number of persons of the Roman Catholic faith, and he must say that he had never in his life made a declaration with more pain than when he was required, before men holding high office, and for whom he had the greatest respect, to declare the tenets of their religion to be superstitious and idolatrous.
Now, I lake the issue of a newspaper of a later day, the Guardian, which I am credibly informed is one of the most respectable Protestant organs published in England. It gives over a column to the question of the coronation oath, the declaration, and the attendant ceremonies ; but I will read the closing paragraph as bearing most directly on this question :
However unreasonable and objectionable in its terms the declaration may be, it is satisfactory to know that it cannot, under any circumstances, with the long-established custom of deferring the coronation, be uttered in Westminster Abbey. But it will be highly unfortunate if the necessary legal steps cannot at once be taken to relieve Edward VII. from the necessity of uttering, even in Westminster Palace, words which cannot but be singularly offensive to millions of his subjects, not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout his great dominions across the sea. Christian charity has made great strides in two and a half centuries, and if this declaration of the time of Charles II. has long ago become too offensive to be used by any of His Majesty's subjects, why is the studied insult of calling all his Roman Catholic subjects idolaters to be maintained as a part of the King's accession duties ?
A quiet ana dignified declaration of personal loyalty to the Church of England Is all that is necessary. If unhappily the law officers of the Crown see no way out of the difficulty in the

short interval before the King meets his first parliament, the deliberate use of such a string of offensive terms cannot fail to produce mischievous heartburnings and dangerous misunderstandings. International notice is nowadays far more keenly awake to royal declarations than it was in the early times of the Hanoverian dynasty. We shall be heartily sorry if Edward VII. is obliged to use words which will brand the King of Portugal, the King of the Belgians and many other royal mourners by the good Queen's grave as superstitious idolaters.
This is the opinion of one of the most prominent Protestant journals published in England. I might quote a good many other authorities, but do not think it necessary. I do not think it would be paying a compliment to the intelligence of the members of this House, with the opportunities they enjoy of making themselves acquainted with the subject, with the records in the library at their disposal, with all the information available to them, to undertake to argue a case to which, it seems to me, there cannot be two sides.
Therefore, I beg to move :
That a humble address be presented to His Most Gracious Majesty the King, as follows :- Most Gracious Majesty :
Your Majesty's most faithful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, beg leave most humbly to represent :
That as a token of the civil and religious liberties and of the equality of rights guaranteed to all British subjects in the Canadian confederation, as well as under the British constitution, the British sovereign should not be called to make any declaration offensive to the religious belief of any subject of the British Crown.
That by virtue of the Act of Settlement of 1G89, the British sovereign, on the first day of the meeting of the first parliament, or at the coronation, is called upon to make the following declaration :-
' I, A. B., by the grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever ; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare, that I do make this declaration, and each and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, and without any hope of such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever, should dispense
with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.'
That such declaration is offensive to the convictions of all Roman Catholics.
That the staunch loyalty of Your Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Canada and throughout British possessions should exempt them from any offensive reference to the religion by their sovereign.
That, in the opinion of this House, the above-mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to quote from the Act of Settlement which requires such a declaration, so as to make it clear that it is required by law ?


John Costigan: I have quoted it in the resolution.


Mr. ARTHUR S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: On any occasion I would consider it an honour to have the opportunity of seconding this resolution, but I appreciate the distinction all the more since I have the honour of representing a constituency which formerly formed part of that which in 1820 secured, for the first time in the nineteenth century to a Roman Catholic a seat in a British legislature. It may be of some interest to the House that I should state the circumstances. In 1820, Mr. Richard John Uniacke, a Protestant, and Mr. Kavanagh, a Roman Catholic, were returned by the constituency of the county of Cape Breton to the legislature of Nova Scotia. Mr. Kavanagh was willing to take the oath of allegiance to the King, but he declined to violate his religious belief by subscribing to a declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation, and he was consequently not permitted to take his seat. His colleague, Mr. Uniacke, took up the battle in his behalf, and by means of the great influence which he wielded, had a petition adopted by the legislature addressed to the King, with the result that on April 3, 1823, when the next session of the legislature took place, Mr. Kavanagh was allowed to take his seat without subscribing to the objectionable declaration.
But the legislature of Nova Scotia did not stop there. A few years later, this same Mr. Uniacke, with the assistance of Mr. Haliburton, caused the following resolution to be adopted by the House :
That a committee be appointed to prepare a hnmble address to His Majesty, requesting that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to dispense with the declaration and test oath against Popery which His Majesty's subjects in this colony are called upon to take.
And let me say, Sir, that in a House of forty representatives-only one of whom was a Roman Catholic, the remaining thirty-nine being Protestants-this resolution passed unanimously. And in accordance with this resolution, a petition was forwarded a

few days later. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, X shall read a few paragraphs from the petition :	-
We have already, under the sanction of Your Majesty's government, removed every restrictive law upon Your Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of this province, which has been followed by their gratitude; unwilling to pause, we would now solicit the gracious exercise of Your Majesty's prerogative for their additional benefit, and in compliance with the unanimous voice of your faithful Commons. We solicit that you would be graciously pleased to dispense with the ' declarations against Popery and transub-stantiation,' as inapplicable to the present situation of this country, and tending to create invidious distinctions among Your Majesty's loyal subjects.
Devoted to our duties as the representatives of Your Majesty's faithful Commons, we feel confident Your Majesty will accept this address. And when Your Majesty considers that) we appeal to heaven for the due fulfilment of our duties, and that we consecrate, by the sanctions of religion, our natural attachment to Your Majesty's person and government, Your Majesty will accept these our solemn pledges as adequate securities.
Confident of Your Majesty's favourable consideration of this address, your faithful Commons hope, eventually, that though at our several altars we may practice our several faiths, yet at that public altar where the spirit of our country presides, the only creed will be that of Christianity.
You will observe, Sir, that this petition sent some seventy-four years ago to the home government, was, in substance, the resolution now before the House. For my own part, 1 regret to say that my thoughts do not flow with sufficient ease, and I have not the resource in language to enable me adequately to express my conviction and sentiment on this matter-conviction and sentiments which, I believe, are shared by the overwhelming majority of the enlightened Protestants of this country. On the occasion to which I refer, Uniacke made the following exclamation :
When I look around, I think I scarce can discern the countenance of a bigot. Not one is there within these walls whose voice will not gladly concur in the prayer of this petition.
And, Sir, may we not hope that, in this boasted Canada of ours, three-quarters of a century after that resolution was passed in the legislature of Nova Scotia, the glorious nineteen century which has for its greatest boast that it has dissipated the ignorance of the dark places of the world with the lamp of knowledge and the teachings of the Prophet of Nazareth, a similar unanimity may be found to prevail ? May we not hope that in this Canadian parliament not one constituency in Canada has sent here a man who will not concur with the prayer of this petition. Sir, we do not ask for our Catholic citizens a favour, we only demand that a right which has been too long denied them shall be restored. For myself, I may Mr. KENDALL.
say, I am a Protestant of the Protestants, and I know I can say to my Iioman Catholic citizens, without fear of offence, that not under any conditions would I subscribe to many of the tenets of their faith. Yet, I would be unworthy of the position I occupy in this House, if I could not cheerfully stand up and demand for my fellow-citizens of another faith the right which, under similar circumstances, I should demand for myself. Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, the House may, not unnaturally perhaps, expect from me, since it has fallen to my lot to be the first adviser of the Crown in this country, and to be entrusted with leadership of the House in its deliberations, that I should at once express the view which, in my opinion, ought to prevail upon the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan). Let me say at once-and to this I am sure-there will be no dissenting voice-this is not a question as to which there can be any party feeling; it is altogether apart from and beyond the scope of party controversies. Let me say also that it is not the intention of the government to make it a ministerial question. This is one of those matters which had better be left altogether to the judgment of every individual member to be voted upon, to be acted upon, either one way or the other according to his conception of what is best for the country and for the empire of which we form a part. Personally, I may say, I favour the resolution of my hon. friend, though, if I had had the drafting of it, perhaps, I should have expressed the prayer of it in somewhat different language. But, even with this, such as it is, I favour the motion ; and I have no doubt-that if this motion were accepted unanimously by this House, it would have a most beneficial effect for the peace and harmony of all creeds and all races not in this country only but though the whole British Empire. But the question will be asked :	Why
should this resolution be introduced in this House ? It is not within our jurisdiction; it is not within our competence; we have no power to affect it one way or the other; at all events we have no power to affect it directly;. and, whatever may be our judgment or even our action upon it, it cannot have any effect as to its abiding force, for this is altogether within the purview of the parliament of Great Britain. Such an objection, if it had been made some twenty years ago would have had, no doubt, great force, and, perhaps, it would have been found to be valid. But, I submit that, in this year 1901, when Canada has attained the development she now has. such an objection has very little force, if it has any force at all. We have, on more than one occasion, affirmed our authority, affirmed

our right and privilege to act beyond out-legislative sphere, and to oiler to the Imperial authorities our views, and to make our representations upon questions which were not within our immediate domain, hut which affected British subjects in whole or in part. Thus, on one, two, and if I mistake not, three different occasions, this House passed resolutions in favour of home rule being granted to Ireland. Thus, at a later day, not yet twenty months ago, we passed a resolution of sympathy in favour of the Outlanders in the Transvaal. I am bound to say that, as a matter of history, at the outset, our representations were not accepted with any very great favour in England. I have a distinct recollection, which is shared, I am sure, by many of the members of this House that, we were told, in polite though frank language that we should confine our deliberations within our own sphere. That was years ago. Times have changed since then. Canada has progressed and developed since that time; and of late years, when we have chosen to offer to the Imperial authorities our views affecting, not Canadians, but British subjects in whole or in part, I am pleased to say that our representations have been met with favour and with courtesy. In order to make this point clear, let me recall what took place when we last offered our views to the Imperial authorities in 1899. The occasion was the unfortunate condition of things which then prevailed in the Transvaal, and on the 31st of July, in that year both Houses of this parliament passed the following resolution :
Resolved, that this House, representing a people which has largely succeeded by the adoption of the principle of conceding equal political rights to every portion of the population, in harmonizing estrangements and introducing general contempt with the existing system of government, desires to express its sympathy with the efforts of Her Majesty's Imperial authorities to obtain for the subjects of Her Majesty who have taken up their abode in the Transvaal such a measure of justice and political recognition as may be found necessary to secure them in the full possession of equal rights and liberties.
This resolution did not meet with the disfavour which similar resolutions had received in former years ; it was accepted, not only as an act within our scope, within the sphere of our legitimate aspirations, but it was accepted with great favour, and the following reply was sent :
London, Aug. 22, 1899.
To the Governor General of Canada,
Ottawa.
I have received from the Speaker of the Senate and the House of Commons. Canada, copies of resolutions unanimously adopted by those Houses on August 1 and July 31, respectively, with regard to the present situation in South Africa.
Her Majesty's government will be glad if you will convey, on their behalf, acknowledg-rnents of those resolutions, together with an ,
expression of their appreciation of the support thus afforded to them in their efforts to secure eqfutl rights and liberties for all tha white inhabitants of the Transvaal.
This came directly from Her Majesty and was transmitted through the instrumentality of the Colonial Secretary. Now, Sir,
I would like, if possible, to approach this subject in a spirit wholly uncontroversial. and I put it in the sense of justice and of fairness on both sides of this House, that if our resolutions were thus appreciated in England, if we were not only permitted, but as it were, encouraged, to give an expression of our opinion and our sympathy in the efforts which were then being made by the Imperial authorities to secure justice and equal rights to a section of Her Majesty's subjects in a very distant land, why should not our efforts this day be accepted when they tend to relieve the conscience of at least twelve millions of His Majesty's most loyal subjects ? Only a few days ago Lord Salisbury had to speak upon the subject, and is reported by the Associated Press to have expressed himself in this way :
Lord Salisbury, in the House of Commons today, referring to the anti-Catholic declaration contained in the oath which King Edward took at the opening of parliament, said that though he deplored the language in which the declaration was couched, it must be remembered that the enactment represented the views and feelings of the period when it was adopted. The passions of the people now were not so strong, but there were undoubtedly parts of the country where the controversy whieh the declaration represented still flourished, and where the emotions which it produced had not died out.
I have no doubt whatever that these words of Lord Salisbury are true. I have have no doubt whatever that there are still portions of our fellow-countrymen in the old country and iu parts of this country where these emotions of two centuries ago still exist. The best reforms are always slow to come. Nobody expects that prejudices will disappear in one day, or even in one generation ; but if such a resolution as is now before you were adopted by this House, even if it had no other effect than to do away with such prejudices in the mind only of one of His Majesty's subjects, still I think this resolution would not have been adopted in vain.
With regard to the legislation which is mentioned in the motion in our hands, Mr. Speaker, and which is now almost two centuries old. I have to say no more than has been said by Lord Salisbury, that to say the least, it is deplorable. Such legislation would not be adopted now. It is repugnant to the spirit of this age, it is a remnant of those intolerant ages which for many centuries desolated Europe. It is a sad commentary upon our Christianity that for three centuries two of the leading

Mark the distinction.
-at the time of his or her taking the said [DOT]oath (which shaill first happen), make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration men-

tioned in the Statute made in the Thirtieth Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second, intituled ' An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's Person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.'
You see there that this declaration, which was enjoined upon the subjects of the King who happened to sit in the House of Lords, who happened to sit in the House of Commons, and who happened to be servants of the Crown, was extended to the King, and had to be taken as well by his subjects. Now, it is a matter of history that this oath, in so far as it applies to subjects of the King, has been long ago abolished. No peer of the * realm, no member of the House of Commons, no servant of the Crown, is bound to take the oath, but it is still enjoined upon the King, and it has been found quite consistent with the security of England to dispense the subjects of the King from taking that oath. It is still enjoined upoi! the King, and the object of my hon. friend from Victoria is to represent to the British Imperial authorities that this oath should be dispensed with by the King as well as it has been dispensed with by his subjects. Let this be acted upon, and there is nothing which guarantees the Protestant supremacy in England which will not still be in existence. I may be permitted to say, as a Roman Catholic subject, that this legislation in England is not altogether according to my views, but I know too well the temper of my fellow-countrymen, I know too well the necessity in which they are in England, to even offer the slightest objection, and for my part, I am quite content to be a subject of the Protestant King of England. All the disabilities which at one time affected Roman Catholics have been removed from the laws of Eugland ; they have been removed, and let me call the attention of the House of Commons to the severe struggle to achieve that result, and, against the objection, I am free to say, of many and many a man who thought that if Roman Catholics were admitted to civil and political rights, perhaps the liberties of England would be endangered. It is a well-known fact, for instance, that William Pitt long entertained the hope and wish to give Roman Catholics emancipation, but it is also a matter of history that George III. would not agree to it, and that Pitt died before he carried out this wish of his heart. In 185(1, the ministry of Lord Granville, in which Charles Pox was, took the matter up and attempted to bring in legislation for the emancipation of the Catholics, but the King, who, as we know, and as history tells us, was a good man, a pious man and a moral man, thought that the dignity of his Crown, and the liberties of his subjects would be endangered thereby, and he promptly dismissed his ministers. The matter was taken up again later on. and in 1829, at last, an Act was consum-2.3
mated, Catholics were emancipated, they were given civil rights, they were given political rights, and they were placed on the same footing as their fellow-subjects, but, we know that George IV., who was then sovereign, hesitated a long time before he signed the Act. We know that he was not like his father, either a good man, or a pious man, or a moral man ; still, he held the same views upon the subject, and it was only upon the strong remonstrances of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel that he finally agreed. Now, I would ask : Is there, amongst our fellow-countrymen of the Protestant religion, let him be ever so strong in his convictions, a mail who would not say to-day that it was a happy day for England when the Roman Catholics were granted emancipation ? Is there a man who would go back to the condition of things that prevailed up to that time ? Look at the services, which, in this country, and in this age, since 1829, have been rendered to the Crown and people of England by Roman Catholics, and you have the answer. Had not the Act of Catholic Emancipation been passed in 1829. England would not have had the services of the late Chief Justice of England, who was a Roman Catholic. And if there is one man to-day who has done more than, perhaps, any other during the last twenty years for the prestige of England in the Orient, that man is Lord Cromer, who, toy his services in Egypt, has rendered imperishable services to his country, and Lord Cromer is a Roman Catholic.
Let us look at the cause of all this exceptional legislation against Catholics, apart from the prejudices which existed at the time ; prejudices which were just as common then to Roman Catholics as to Protestants, and to Protestants as to Catholics. In the European civilization of that day these prejudices were common to both religions. Wherever Catholics had the power they persecuted Protestants; wherever Protestants had the power they persecuted Catholics, tout if you go to the bottom of this legislation in England, there is one thing which the English people had in their mind in passing all these laws, and that was that they would not have the Pope to rule in England. We need not mince matters ; it is just as well to go to the bottom of things. That was the thought in the minds of English Protestants. Time has dispelled many of the misconceptions as to the power of the Pope, and let me say here as a Roman Catholic of the twentieth century that the Pope has no authority or jurisdiction whatever in secular matters. His power and jurisdiction and authority are exclusively in spiritual matters, and we Catholics accept him as the power which has the final authority to pronounce upon all controversy in matters of faith and morals. Beyond that the Pope has no more authority than any



member of this House. He has no jurisdiction over secular matters in any shape or form, and Catholics do not claim that he has. Then, Sir, if these views are well understood and do prevail, it seems to me that there can be no reason whatever to maintain this legislation upon the statute-books of England.
I may be asked : Why should this declaration be removed from the law. It is simply because it is offensive. It is simply because it is painful to Roman Catholic subjects who honour their King, and are loyal to him; who are ready to fight and need be to die for his Crown ; it is painful to them that their King should take such an oath against dogmas which are dear and sacred to them. That is the reason ; the only reason. Sir, I do not desire to approach the subject in any controversial spirit. Whether this motion pass or does not pass ; whether if it is passed it is heeded or not heeded in England ; whether this oath is maintained or not maintained in the law ; the loyalty of Roman Catholics will not be affected thereby. They will continue to be as they are to-day, willing and cheerful subjects of His Majesty King Edward VII. and of his successors. But, Sir, it can be well admitted that the pride and devotion which we all take in this great empire which was the first refuge of liberty of conscience when liberty of conscience was still banished from the rest of the world ; would be enhanced and would be more enthusiastic if that legislation, the last remnant of persecuting ages, the last vestige of these ages of which I have spoken ; were to be blotted out for ever from the statute-books of free England.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussion which has taken place in the press of the United Kingdom, and in view of what has been said by men eminent in public life in the mother country, it seems to me highly probable that without any action on the part of this House the offensive portion of this declaration would probably be eliminated therefrom at a very early date. Therefore, I question very much the wisdom of the hon. gentlemen who have introduced this motion here, because the discussion of matters of this kind among men who have strong opinions either one way or the other is sometimes productive of more harm than good. As has been well said by the right hon. gentleman, this is a matter into which party consideration should not enter. This is a matter which should be above all party considerations and I, for one, as long as I have any voice in this House or in this country shall protest against any question of race or creed being introduced into the party politics of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: In what I am saying ; in what I am about to say I speak


Robert Laird Borden: entirely for myself, and I recognize that every hon. member of this House, whether he be on the one side or the other, must vote on this matter, according to his judgment and to his conscience.
The declaration is one which at first was not applied to the Sovereign of England at all. It was applied in the first place to peers and members of parliament, and the object of it was to prevent persons professing the Roman Catholic religion from sitting or voting in either House of Parliament in England. In the first place by the statute which is known as the Bill of Rights which was passed in 1689, it was set forth that this declaration should be taken and subscribed to by the King or Queen of the realm ; and by a further statute which is known as the Act of Settlement which was passed in the year 1700, it was provided :
That every King and Queen of this realm, who shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this kingdom by virtue of this Act shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them at their respective coronations according to the Act of parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary, entitled an Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath ; and shall make, subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited, mentioned or referred to In the manner and form thereby prescribed.
That brought into operation the words of this declaration as contained in the Act of 1662, passed the thirteenth year of Charles II.
As has been well said by the right hon. the Prime Minister, this is one of a series of statutes which two centuries ago imposed many disabilities upon Roman Catholics in Great Britain. These statutes have one after one been repealed, except in respect to one or two matters. In 1774, by an Act of the Irish parliament, Catholics were allowed to take a special oath of loyalty to the King. In 1778 an Act was passed for the relief of Catholic bishops and priests with respect to schools and with respect to the holding of property. In 1791 an Act was passed with respect to the necessity of taking the oath of supremacy and making a declaration against transubstantiation. In 1793 an Act was passed for the relief of Scotch Catholics with regard to the holding of property. In 1817 an Act was passed for the relief of officers of the army and navy, making it unnecessary for them to take oaths that were offensive to their religious belief ; and in 1829 was passed the Catholic Relief Act, which is well known to all the members of this House. The result is that this declaration remains as a declaration to be taken by the sovereign, that the sovereign of this country must under the law be a Protestant, and that two officers at least-the Lord Chancellor, who is supposed to be the keeper of the King's conscience, and I think the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland-are still by vir-

tue of the constitution required to he Protestants.
Now, the question I first ask myself with regard to this declaration is, in case it should he amended or abolished, whether the constitution establishing the Protestant succession to the Crown is in any way in danger. Looking, in the first place, at the Bill of Rights, and in the next place at the Act of Settlement, which recites the Bill of Rights, it seems to me that all those securities which are dear to the convictions of a great many people of this country are sufficiently safeguarded without this declaration. The Protestant succession to the Crown is affirmed and declared throughout both these Acts. By section 2 of the Act of Settlement, which recites the Bill of Rights, containing somewhat similar provisions, It is provided that the succession to the Crown must devolve upon persons of the Protestant faith. Section i) of the Bill of Rights deals with the possibility that a person otherwise entitled to succeed to the Crown might be in communion with or become reconciled to the Church of Rome, and in such case it provides that :
The Crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing, or marrying as aforesaid, were naturally dead.
That is to say, if the Crown should descend to any person or persons to whom it should belong, and that person should enter into communion with the Roman Catholic church, or marry a Roman Catholic, the Crown should descend to the next in -descent, who should be a Protestant. The same is affirmed in the Act of Settlement, which also provides :
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England,as by law established.
It is therefore clear that without this declaration the succession to the Crown is by the two statutes I have quoted absolutely secured. Then it seems to me that it is a right thing and a proper thing, so far as this declaration contains matter which is offensive to the religious belief of any British subject, that it should be abolished or amended ; and I for one am prepared to state that in this House or before my constituents, or upon any public platform in this country.
The coronation oath which has been referred to by the right hon. leader of the government is another safeguard, and 1 also desire briefly to refer to that. The coronation oath, as adopted upon the accession of George II., and four successive sovereigns, and also, I believe, as used upon the accession of his present Gracious Majesty, is as follows :
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of Great Britain, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the respective laws and customs ol' the same ?
I solemnly promise so to do.
Will you to your power cause law, and justice, and mercy, to he executed in all your judgments ?
I will.
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed religion established by law ?
And so forth, and the King answers : ' All this I promise to do.'
Now, it is desirable that those of us in this country who are Protestants should look at this declaration from the standpoint which would be presented to us if the Roman Catholic faith were the established faith of this country, and if the 12,000,000 people who are now in the minority were Protestants. Would we not feel a sense of injustice if a King whom we loyally served, whom we were ready on all occasions loyally to serve, should be obliged on his accession to the Crown to make a declaration with respect to the Protestant faith which contained matter so offensive as that which is found in this declaration ? I ask my hon. friends all over this House who are of the same religious belief as myself to take that into consideration, and to say whether they would not feel like making some effort to have an injustice of that kind redressed ? And the feelings which would animate us in the ease which I have supposed are those which animate our Catholic friends throughout Canada. Therefore, although we may question the wisdom of introducing this matter into this House at this time, nevertheless we can well understand the feelings which animate hon. gentlemen in making this motion, and we can better appreciate the standpoint from which we should regard their action.
I do not desire to say very much further except with respect to the right of this House to pass any motion or tender any suggestion with regard to a subject of this kind which properly appertains to the Imperial parliament. The way that matter presents itself to me is that this parliament has, as has very truly been said, offered suggestions with regard to Imperial matters in the past. But, irrespective of all considerations of that kind, let us look at the question from another standpoint. No King, from William the Conqueror down, has ever become truly a King of England until he has taken the coronation oath, and made the declaration, if any, prescribed by law. He becomes King in the true sense of the word when he has done those two things. These are part of the compact between the Crown and the people. We are a portion of the British Empire. The compact which the



King makes with his people when he ascends the throne is a compact which he makes with us as well as with the people of the mother country ; and it seems to me that it might be competent for us in this House, without its being regarded as going beyond our legitimate sphere, to respectfully make a suggestion that that compact should not be expressed in terms which are offensive to a large body of the citizens of this country. It seems to me that in that way we might justify this resolution, although I do not disguise from myself the fact that it is a question upon which there may be a legitimate division of opinion in the House.
We all know how very slowly and painfully the world has learned the lesson of toleration in religious belief. We have seen how slowly even the institutions of our own country have permitted themselves to progress in that respect. I trust and believe that there is in Canada at present very little intolerance in respert of such matters, and that in the future there will be still less. We know that we have men in this House and country who hold strong opinions on one side or the other with regard to such matters. May I venture to express the hope that whatever views are advanced, whatever opinions are expressed on this question, they will be advanced and expressed in a generous and moderate spirit so as not to arouse any religious animosity which we all so much deprecate.
May I be allowed to make a suggestion to the hon. gentleman who has moved this resolution, and the hon. gentleman who lias seconded it. I venture to think that the conclusion is a little inconsequent, having regard to what proceeds. The resolution sets out, in the first place, that:
As a token of the civil and religious liberties and of the equality of rights guaranteed to all British subjects in the Canadian confederation, as well as under the British constitution, a British sovereign should not be called upon to make any declaration offensive to the religious belief of any subject of the British Crown.
Then the resolution sets out the declaration referred to and proceeds as follows :
That such declaration is offensive to the convictions of all Roman Catholics.
I am glad that the hon. the mover of the resolution has seen fit to alter his proposed motion with respect to the next paragraph, because he has amended the language of it at first presented. He proceeds to say :
That the staunch loyalty of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Canada and other British possessions should exempt them from any offensive reference to their religion by their sovereign.
It seems to me that we all might agree in the resolution so far. but what the motion proceeds to say is this :
That in the opjnion of this House the Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration.
Would it not be better for my hon. friends to consider whether that particular paragraph should not rather be amended in some way. If you logically follow the language that precedes this paragraph, all you would require to say would be this :
That, in the opinion of this House, from this declaration should be eliminated anything offensive to the religious belief of any subject of Her Majesty.
In all sincerity, and with every desire to prevent this matter becoming the subject of controversy, 1 would suggest to my hon. friend that he might very well consider this change, and, I hope, adopt it. He will remember that he has introduced his motion in such a manner that it is impossible to offer any amendment, and lie thus handicaps gentlemen in this House who are extremely anxious that this should not become a matter of controversy. He handicaps them by introducing his resolution in this particular way so that it cannot be amended. Therefore, it seems to me, that my hon. friends who moved and seconded the motion should be all the more ready to adopt some suggestion of this kind, which might express the views of hon. gentlemen who cannot bring their consciences to vote for the resolution exactly in the way in which it is framed. If my hon. friend should entertain that suggestion, and desires a little delay to consider it, I am sure there will be no objection in this House to concede him the delay he requires; but, I would trust and hope that he would not require much time to consider the suggestion I have made, and which I have made in the utmost possible good faith and sincerity.
I regret that I have trespassed so long on the attention of the House, and, as I have said before, I sincerely hope that this will not become a matter which will arouse any controversy in this House.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: I have listened with pleasure to the temperate and dispassionate address of the hon. the leader of the opposition, and I find in his remarks very little to criticise. The hon. gentleman has expressed a doubt-and I am free to confess that the same doubt has existed in my own mind-as to the propriety of introducing a resolution in a colonial legislature dealing with an Imperial question. We have, however, precedents for this course, and, I suppose that we have, as individuals, and in our collective legislative capacity, the right of competition.
The resolution offered by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan) is simply a petition to the Throne asking for the redress of an alleged grievance; and even with the views I entertain on the propriety of


Robert Laird Borden: keeping strictly within our own sphere of action, I still do not realize that there is any particular incongruity or impropriety in the proposed action with regard to the declaration to he taken by the British sovereign that we are now considering.
The hon. the leader ol' the opposition informs us that this- declaration dates back from the year 1689, and prior to that time was required from peers, and members of the House of Commons, and that upon the occasion of the inauguration of William and Mary, it was, for the first time, required of a British sovereign. The hon. gentleman went on to inform us that from time to time these declarations and laws and other requirements of a similar character have been modified, and various individuals and officials and collections of individuals in the United Kingdom relieved of the obligation of making such declaration. This of course is an argument leading directly in the line suggested by the hon. member for Victoria, that the change should go further, the modification be made greater, and that as peers and members of the House of Commons. and other officials have been relieved from the necessity of making this declaration, the time has properly come to relieve the sovereigns of the British Empire from the same necessity.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions which existed when the obligation to take this declaration became law, if we consider them carefully and with a due degree of charity, will lead us to the conclusion that the step taken was, under the circumstances, a natural one. We must remember that when this declaration was taken by William and Mary, in 1689, it was at the end of eighty-six years of strife in England, eighty-six years of turmoil and internal dissension, eiglity-six years of attempts on the part of rulers to break down and override constitutional government and to destroy the liberties of the people, eighty-six years of persecution and the violation of human rights in almost every sense and particular. We must recollect the occurrences in the reign of Janies I., of Charles I., of Charles XI., and James II.-who was the mere pensioner of the King of France, who was the tool of the Papacy, who was determined to override the constitution and to destroy civil and religious liberty in the Kingdom of England. This condition of things led to the calling in of William and Mary and the passing of this drastic legislation that seems to us in this age so severe, so unnatural, so uncalled for and so unjustified. But, Sir, our forefathers who established these precedents in legislation are deserving a degree of consideration as to the circumstances under which they were led to take the action we are discussing to-day. The coming of William and Mary introduced a new order of things in England ; and in the 220 years since then, great changes have taken place. England at once assumed again under William and Mary the position she had occupied for a brief period under Cromwell, when she commanded the respect of the world and was a factor in human affairs. She became a great power and has continued to be a great power, disseminating the blessings of civilization, enlightenment and religion not only over the British Isles, but over vast territories of the earth. And the curse of things in these 220 years has brought us an evolution of conditions which leaves us hardly able to realize the state of public sentiment that existed at the time the legislation that we have under consideration was placed upon the statute-book. As evidence of this change in public sentiment among the English-speaking people we have the Treaty of Paris to secure to the inhabitants of French Canada their rights under the Napoleon code, their rights as Catholics, their rights as a French Canadian people. We have the erection of the great republic of the United States, where all recognition of religion is carefully avoided, and where it required a decision of the United States Supreme Court to establish the fact that it was a Christian nation. It is a nation where no oath with regard to religious belief, no conditions with regard to religious belief are possible; where the Christian, the Jew, the agnostic, the Mo-hommedan, the Pagan, all stand on the same footing before the law and receive the same protection from the law. And we have this condition of things which has gone on from year to year, from generation to generation, so that it resulted, in 1829, in the Emancipation Act which removed the disabilities from Catholics. And the last relic of the condition of things that existed at that time is this very declaration that we now have under consideration. We can hardly realize the intense bitterness, the animosity that existed between various classes in the days to which I have referred. The Catholic persecuted the Protestant ; the Protestant persecuted the Catholic; the Protestant persecuted the Protestant-Cla-verhouse, the envoy and agent of the papacy of England harried with fire and sword the covenanters of Scotland, the Puritans fled from the persecution that went on in the old land, and established their institutions in New England and they, in their turn, persecuted the Baptists and burned witches- all sects, all nationalities, all classes were imbued with the spirit of bitterness, of vindictiveness and animosity that could make uo allowances for differences of opinion, but must make the world pronounce its own shibboleth and conform to its own views.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come, as I said a moment ago, for taking a step in Canada that will, at least, place upon record the views of the Canadian House of Commons as to the propriety of removing the last relic of the condition of things that existed at the time to which I refer. Of course. I wish to define my position

as a Protestant. In making this declaration I do not wish it to he understood that I subscribe to any doctrine that is denounced in this coronation declaration. I do not wish it to be understood that I believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, for I hold to the old declaration of the Puritan Divine, who defined the Lord's Supper as being a sacrament established by Christ in which the use of the bread and wine set forth his death, and that these elements were partaken of not in a carnal manner, but by faith, and the use of these elements was made to represent the death of Christ. I believe that that beautiful simple ceremony that was established by our Master at the end of the last Passover Feast he celebrated, when he commanded his disciples to take the bread and wine and use them in remembrance of him, did not warrant the doctrine of transubstantiation, for he was there to dispense the elements. I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the worship of saints or the Virgin, for I remember the words of Christ, ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only thou shalt serve.' And I remember Paul at Lystra who refused adoration from those upon whom he had exercised miraculous power. But these are matters of differences in doctrine. The belief in transubstantiation does not deny the divinity of Christ. The belief in the worship of the Virgin does not deny the sovereignty of Christ and the existence of an overruling Providence. But it is a farfetched conclusion and unjustifiable to characterize those who believe in these doctrines as idolators. While, as a Protestant, I do not believe in them, I say that the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Cos-tigan) has a right to believe in them-and he may as well be right as I, for neither of us is infallible. I have no right, nor has the government any right, to stamp him with the odious name of idolater because he happens to differ from me in matters of doctrinal belief. Therefore, I say, sweep these things away. As a Protestant, I do not say I believe these things are true, but I say that the hon. gentleman has as good a right to believe them as I have a right to believe the doctrines which I hold.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the existence of religious and civil liberty is the basis upon which our institutions rest. The existence of religious liberty is incompatible with stating any conditions, or denouncing any belief on the part of the law or on the part of the rulers of the country. If wo are to have religious liberty, we shall find such a declaration as the one we have under consideration entirely incompatible with the exercise of that right. If we are to build up the institutions of this country upon a foundation of religious liberty, we must eliminate from our laws all conditions, all declarations, all statutes that are inconsistent with that principle ; and it is proper, it is necessary, it is imperative, Mr. CHARLTON.
if we are to hold to the doctrines of religious liberty, that a declaration which requires the sovereign of Great Britain to declare that the man who believes in transsubstantiation and in the worship of the Virgin Mary, is an idolater, should be swept away, or we have no claim to possess institutions which rest upon civil and religious liberty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is always a good idea to ' put yourself in his place,' if you are going to arrive at a conclusion as to whether your antagonist is right or wrong. I have asked myself the question : What would be my feelings if the conditions were reversed ? What would be my feelings, if as a Presbyterian or as a Protestant, my coreligionists were in the minority and the Church of Rome was in the majority, and a clause was put into the coronation declaration of the sovereign of the realm which declared me, and those believing as I do, to be idolaters ? Would it be relished by me ? Would it be relished by those who believe as I do ? Would it be just ? Would it be warranted under the circumstances and under the institutions and laws of this country ? It would not be warranted, it would be unjust, it would be trampling ujjon my rights, it would be a declaration that I would resent, it would be a declaration that I would fight to remove.
I do not look upon this question from my own standpoint alone. I turn to the hon. member for Victoria and 1 say, that while-his belief is different from mine, while this odious designation of idolater does not rest upon me and does rest upon him, it would be equally unjust if the ease were reversed, and he was placed in a position relieved from the odious declaration, and I was subjected to it. For this reason I believe iu giving others that which we would claim for ourselves ; I believe in giving to our Catholic fellow-citizens that justice which we ourselves would claim if we were placed in the position which they occupy. I do not believe in pressing a cup of bitterness to the lips of any of His Majesty's loyal subjects.
I believe, Sir, that the existence of this declaration has very much to do with the unrest that exists in Ireland, and that the removal of this declaration, the removal of the last remnant of those .ages of hatred, of refusal to respect religious rights, of refusal to tolerate differences of opinion, ot refusal to listen to anything but our own shibboleth-I say I believe the removal of this last relic of those old intolerant ages would have a most beneficial effect upon the pacification of Ireland, and would have a good effect upon our French Canadian fellow-citizens, who must feel themselves aggrieved in consequence of their sovereign being required to take the declaration under discussion. As a Protestant who would stand to the utmost and to the last for the vindication of his principles, I do not ask

for tlie retention of a condition with regard to others which I would spurn and resist with regard to myself. For this reason, I believe that the motion of my hon. friend amended in any way that he should choose to amend it, should pass.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the point which I spoke of at the opening of my remarks, and that is the only difficulty I feel in relation to this matter. I approve of the resolution per se; I have some doubts yet as to the propriety of this legislative body presuming to pronounce an opinion upon a matter pertaining to Imperial interest, Imperial legislation and Imperial affairs. As I said at the outset, I think we may be justified in doing this upon the ground that we have the right of petition, upon the ground that we are British subjects, subjects of a King whom we petition, that we are British subjects who are affected by this condition as much as if we were living in England ; and the expression of our opinion on this matter surely will not be considered an impertinence, and surely will do no harm in the ultimate settlement of the matter which we have under our consideration to-day.


Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).: I have always regretted that questions of religion should be brought to the attention of this House of Commons. There is no reason, in my judgment, why it should be so. We have enormous questions to deal with. We have the business of building up a great nation in the British possessions on this North American continent, a work which taxes the resources of the ablest minds in the Dominion of Canada. But, from time to time, we have these religious or racial questions thrust upon the attention of the House of Comomns, calculated to provoke strife and discord and those feelings which we know by experience produce no good results.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the mover of the resolution (Mr. Costigan). He has, during my experience, never made a speech in this House of Commons calculated to promote the advancement and prosperity of this Dominion. Every speech, during the long period that I have been here, made by him has been on racial or religious lines, and calculated to provoke that very strife which we should seek to avoid, and to avoid which he tells us that he has in view in bringing up this question. Why, Sir, from the earliest days when the hon. member for Victoria was a member of this House of Commons, he brought in religious questions which disturbed the House of Commons, but which were relegated, as they should have been, to the province of New Brunswick, where they were settled amicably, because they belonged to the province of the New Brunswick legislature. At a later period, in 1882. I remember, the hon. member for Victoria
brought in a resolution about Home Rule. In a few observations that I made upon that occasion, I ventured to say that the member for Victoria was trying to boom himself for position, and force himself into the government of the day. He got up and with the greatest vehemence denied the imputation ; but the result was that within a very few weeks afterwards he was made a minister of the government of Canada. Is he afraid to-day that the mantle of oblivion is falling upon him again, and is it because he wants the people to know that he is still alive and a member of the House of Commons, that he has brought up another religious question for our consideration ?
I listened with a good deal of interest, also, to the right hon. the First Minister, the supposed beneficiary, the intended beneficiary, if any beneficiary there be outside the member for Victoria himself, of the proposition made to-day. The right hon. First Minister had cuteness enough and power enough to prevent this question coming before the House of Commons in 1900, because an election was pending at that time, and the First Minister did not want this question brought up then..


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the matter ? He had, I say, sufficient influence and authority then to prevent that question coming up for consideration in the House of Commons, because an election was coming on at that period. To-day he is not satisfied with the power that he has, and the solidarity that he has acquired in the province of Quebec, and he feels that he requires something more to strengthen his position in that province. I think he should be satisfied, and more than satisfied, with his handy-work, and the handy-work of his colleagues in the province of Quebec. In reference to myself. I have always protested against questions of this kind coming up for consideration in the House of Commons. Even when my own political friends in recent years, thought it the proper thing, I protested against their course. I do so to-day. I believe that when we review all. the circumstances we should carefully and cautiously proceed in a matter of this kind, and better still, I think we should take no position at all. If a wrong has been inflicted, the British government and the British parliament are strong enough, fair enough and generous enough, and have the instinct of doing right sufficiently to remove any wrong that may exist in that regard. They tell us that the language of this declaration is very strong. So it is, Mr. Speaker. It deals in very strong language with the question that is now before the House for discussion; it deals with it very straight-

ly. The language is strong in the declaration that the King of England has to make, and which he has to make, either on the first day of the first session of the parliament, after he comes to the Throne, or upon taking the coronation oath. He has, I presume, with the advice of his government, chosen to have that declaration made upon the first day, and not to wait for the coronation which will take place some time in the future. He has made that declaration. There is no question to-day as to how it will affect the present King of England. The only person it will affect will be his successor in office, and we all pray that another occasion for making this declaration may not arise for a long long time to come. I have said that the declaration to be made by the King of England is a very strong one. Well, Sir, it is not the only strong expression that obtains to-day. I listened to our good friend the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who in his vigorous language said that if you must call them idolaters, referring to our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, it is unfair, and that if he were one he would resent it, and fight to have it removed. He did not believe in pressing the cup of bitterness to his neighbour's lips. Our good friend tells us this afternoon that he is a member of the Presbyterian Church. We know that he is a distinguished dignitary of that church ; he not only performs the duties of the layman, hut, I believe, he gets into the pulpit too, and preaches the gospel. We admire him for it, and we hope that he practices what he preaches. The church of which he is such a distinguished member have also views upon this question. The views held by the Presbyterian Church upon this question are in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, page 109


Mr. MACLEAN.: Which edition ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The edition that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) does not know very much about. The distinguished gentleman who has just spoken in this House, and who is such an ornament of the church to which he belongs, will find on page 109 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, endorsed. by two parliaments, one of the articles of the doctrine that he has to subscribe to before he gets into that pulpit. The hon. gentleman speaks of calling them idolaters ; I may be mistaken, I speak subject to correction, but I submit that the oath does not call any class idolaters, but it calls certain things idolatrous and superstitious. Here is what the hon. member i or North Norfolk and that great and distinguished body of ministers of this country, belonging to the Presbyterian Church of Canada, say in regard to this question :
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antiChrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exhalted himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was waiting to hear the hon. member for North Norfolk get up and say that that was the doctrine of his church, and that he would stand by it.


John Charlton: I will get up, and 1 will inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) that the Westminster Confession of Faith is under discussion in the Presbyterian Church, that there is a very large proportion of members who are in favour of its modification, and that I belong to that wing.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Westminster Confession of Faith, I presume, being a statement of the faith of intelligent men, of men of education and learning, has been under discussion and criticism . from the first day it was adopted. 300 years ago, down to the present day, and ' when the hon. member tells us that it is under discussion to-day, he is not telling us anything we do not know. Why, of course it is. He is not giving us any information by telling us what we all knew before. That is one of the beliefs of the Presbyterian Church ; they have not amended it. Our good friend tells us that they have it under discussion ; it may be under discussion for 100 years, and it may be made still stronger, and still more positive than it is stated here. I do not know, and our good friend does not know either. Now, Mr. Speaker


John Charlton: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) what this has to do with a political question-the creed of a church or the tenets of the Presbyterian Church, on the Westminster Confession of Faith.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think it is a very proper question to ask. and I say ' hear, hear.' too. To-day the King of England is head of the Presbyterian Established Church of Scotland, and he is head of that church which accepts the doctrine which I have just read. That is the reason why my statement has something to do with the question, because the King of England has to subscribe to that doctrine as well as the hon. member for North Norfolk. You will notice that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) ds in quite distinguished Company.


John Charlton: He does that in his private capacity as an humble member of the church.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: 


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He does It in liis public capacity as head of the Established Church of Scotland. Here again the Westminster Confession of Faith, says :
Private masses, or receiving the sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone, is likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of the sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
Further on article G, page 119, says :
Transuhstantiation or the changing of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood by consecration of the priest or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason*, overthroweth the nature of the sacrament ; and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
Here we have things more offensive and more objectionable to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) in the Westminster Confession of Faith, than there is in the coronation oath, and the Westminster confession has to be made by the King of England. And this gentleman who is going to go over to England, and present his humble petition at the foot of the Throne, we never heard his eloquent voice from one end of the Dominion to the other raised-to say that these things should be changed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, until this afternoon, when he said that there was going to be a conference sometime in the future to consider the subject.


John Charlton: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Wallace) evidently did not notice that X professed to some extent the same views in my speech.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is that ?


John Charlton: The hon. gentleman
evidently did not understand me in my speech, as endorsing to some extent these views, as my own views, as a private individual and member of the church. That has nothing to do with the question however. I stated that the views of the hon. gentleman from Victoria. N.B. (Mr. Costigan) were divergent from mine, but neither of us had the right to make these views the criterion by which the King shall be governed in his declaration of office as ruler of an empire which is composed of subjects of different religious views.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That does not answer the statement I have made. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton), said :
To call them idolaters would be unfair, would be unjust, would be odious. He would resent it, and he would fight to the death to remove it.
That is what he has told us in a few minutes as his own confession of faith, and
he said he did not believe in pressing the cup of bitterness to his neighbour's lips. But where is he now ? He tells us that he had stated that he shared the views which I have expressed. If he did say so, I must apologize to him, because I caught the very opposite meaning from his remarks. Now. Mr. Speaker, there is something else in regard to this matter. There is another church, the glorious old Church of England; that church which has done so much to evangelize the world, and to spread the belief of its own religion, without being open to the accusation of being partisan, or without being unjust to those other churches that have clustered around it in Great Britain and other countries as well. There are thirty-nine articles of faith. Mr Speaker, i shall not read you the thirty-nine articles.


Some hon. MEMBERS: . ' Hear, hear.'
1 Dispense.' ' Thank you.'


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) thanks me very much, but I think if I did refresh his memory with the thirty-nine articles, he ought to thank me very much more, because I do not know any gentleman of my acquaintance who seems to have so utterly forgotten the essence of so many of these articles as the Minister of Railways and Canals has. The twenty-second article is the one to which I would call his attention on page 192. and that article is subscribed to by King Edward VII., our glorious monarch, as the head of the Church of England. Tlie English church is established by law in England, not in Canada, because we have no established church in Canada except the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec, and we read in the papers that they are trying down there to override the civil power in some cases.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But this is one side of the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I say that in Great Britain the King of England is the head of the Church of England. He has to shb-scribe to the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England; he has to take communion in the Church of England. Article 22, reads as follows :
The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of images as of reliques, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.
That is the declaration the King has to make. I will not read article 28, because it is a long one, and it might tire out the Minister of Railways and Canals, but it is


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman should not refer to an hon. member by name.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am not speaking of him as a member. I am speaking of him as the reviser of the Thirty-nine Articles. Ml-. WALLACE.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: By the rules of the House-and the hon. member knows them very well-it is not parliamentary to refer to an hon. member by name.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I know, Mr. Speaker, that a member is not to refer to another member by name in connection with the business of the House ; but I was referring to him in another capacity.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order. Chair. Take it back.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would not for a moment break any of the rules of the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member knows very well that it is not parliamentary to refer to another member by name, either in his private capacity or otherwise.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Of course, I submit to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I say I will protest in the most vigorous way I can against the member for Victoria, N.B., revising the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, or the Westminster Confession ; and I am sure that in this way I shall secure the cordial assistance of the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton).
Now, Sir, I referred to these matters to show that even if the declaration which is complained of were abolished, the King of England wrould still have to make declarations which are stronger and more vigorous in language, both as the head of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and the Established Church of England in England. So that the proposal made by the hon. member does not remove the difficulty he complains of.
You may say this language is too strong and too vigorous. Well, Sir, it may be; that is a matter of opinion. But these churches are to be the judges in these matters themselves, and the House of Commons cannot interfere with the churches in this country-less even with the churches in England and Scotland-as to what their beliefs may be. What did the Pope of Rome say the other day in that celebrated interview with the Duke of Norfolk ? He said that under the British flag the Roman Catholic Church had rights and privileges and a freedom such as it had in no other country in the world. It is true, and, for my part, as a citizen of Canada I rejoice to know that that is the case. I am proud to live in a country where it may be said of any citizen, that so far as his religious beliefs are concerned, no man dare make him afraid, but he has the full, free privilege of worshipping his God in any manner he chooses. I have done my part throughout this country in preaching and promulgating that doctrine

Some bon. MEMBERS. Ob, ob.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Tbe jeers from tbe opposite side of tbe House come from those who know nothing about it, and I ehal-lenge them to point to a speech of mine in tbe House of Commons or out of the House of Commons-and I have spoken freely everywhere on these matters-where a contradiction has been given to the statement I am making to-day, or a line to justify a contradiction to it. They cannot do it, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge them to give us the proof before they use their sneers. A sneer is not a reply or a con-tradlction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the Church of Rome ? I have spoken of the Church of England. I have read its declarations, j made in the strongest and most vigorous ; language, of the beliefs that it holds. 1 have read the declarations of the Presbyterian Church. And what I say of those two churches, I think I can safely say of all the other Protestant churches, that their beliefs are founded on the same lines as those of the Presbyterian Church and the Church of England in that regard ; so that the statement I make about those two churches in a general way applies to all Protestant churches. Now, about the Roman Catholic Church I do not wish to say anything, because I am not a Roman Catholic. I could read you a mass of evidence ; but I will just read the oath which is taken by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church when they are consecrated to the bishopric. In the Roman Pontifical, printed at Rome by authority in the year 1818, and on page 62 of that volume, will be found this form of oath to be taken by every Roman Catholic bishop at his consecration. In it he swears :
To be faithful and obedient to his lord the Pope and his successors ; to assist them in maintaining the Roman Papacy and the royalties of St. Peter against all men; to preserve, defend, augment and promote its rights, honours and privileges; to persecute and impugn, with all his might, heretics and schismatics, and rebels against his said lord.
That has never been repealed ; that is the law to-day. Our good friend the First Minister said to us to-day that they would not tolerate the interference of ecclesiastical authorities in civil matters. I read in the London Times as follows :-
What is going on in Austria at present ought to serve as a warning to those Englishmen who have failed to understand that the interference of the Vatican can have none but evil consequences. The spirit of even such a Catholic people as the Austrians has at last been aroused against the political priest.
And we know, Mr. Speaker, that in Spain and Portgual there are rebellions to-day against the interference of the clergy and tbe various religious societies of that
church in civil affairs ; and we know that the same state of affairs is prevailing in Italy and France. In the face of these facts, we have the evidence, as I have read, of what the practice is in the Church of Rome. I am not going to refer to past history, because I do not think it is necessary, though it is provoked by the resolution which is proposed here to-day. But I can say this, that the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., would be much better employed in curing those evils in his own church than in coming here and proposing to revolutionize the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church or the other Protestant churches. He will find, as every one of us will find, I am sure, ample work to do in that regard in the churches to which we individually belong.
The British people have decided that their King shall be of the Protestant faith. They have endeavoured to surround that with all the safeguards and provisos that they think necessary. Those safeguards and provisos are mainly the declaration and the oath, and the fact that the King is the head of the Church of England and the head of the Church of Scotland-the Presbyterian Church as well-the fact that he is head of those two churches, and has to subscribe to their doctrines and make the declaration, is a guarantee that the will of the people will be carried out.
There is another point which, to my mind, is of great importance. We are told that the Roman Catholic conscience is outraged by the declaration. And the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall), who seconded the motion, has told us that in the old days in Nova Scotia there was a member of the legislature who refused to take the oath with regard to transubstantiation, which had to be taken at that time, and that shortly afterwards that oath was repealed. I am delighted that it was repealed, and that throughout the British Empire no man's religion is a bar to his attaining civil power, except in the case of the King of England and the keeper of his conscience, the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. So far as the King of England is concerned, he has to make that declaration, but none of his subjects, save the exceptions I have mentioned, have. In the old days, members of parliament and judges and others had to make it, but that has been abolished, and there is no grievance in any domain under the British Crown to-day in that regard. Bri-tisli subjects may be Brahmins or Hindoos or Mohammedans, or belong to any of the | Christian churches, or be Jews, there is no disability on that account attached to them. That, in my opinion, is right, but the people of England, who have the say in the matter, have declared-and they continue to declare, I assume, because otherwise they would change the law-that they will have a ; Protestant King on the Throne of Englaud.

The history of the past they consider, and I consider, justifies them in taking that position. So that, if the King of England has to make that declaration, not one of his subjects, barring the two I have mentioned- the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland-has to take it, no matter what position he may occupy. We have an illustration before us to-day. The right hon. gentleman who occupies the honourable position of First Minister of the great Dominion of Canada is, he tells us, of the Roman Catholic faith. That does not place him under any disability, and there was no disability against his predecessor, Sir John Thompson, who was also or the same faith, and whom I individually supported with all the vigour I possessed constantly, from the hour of his accession to the day of his lamented decease. Listening to the speeches this afternoon, one would come to the conclusion that hon. members of this House were under some personal grievance and were required to make some declaration which was opposed to their conscience and their judgment or both. But they are not required to do so.
Since the British people have not seen tit to change this declaration in all those years, we must assume that they hold as strongly to their beliefs in this regard as they did before. But we are living in this country side by side with men of all religious beliefs. We live together in amity, each one practicing his own religion any way he chooses, and each one being a good citizen. We are of different political party. Our neighbours on the one side are Grits and on the other Tories, and we do not refuse to live with our neighbours because of difference in politics, nor do we refuse to live with our neighbours who are Roman Catholics. In the county I represent, where we have a large Roman Catholic population, I never knew a place where Roman Catholics and Protestants live together in greater amity, but when we bring up those question with which we have nothing to do, we are likely to disturb that harmony.
The right hon. the First Minister said the justification for the course proposed was two-fold. First, we had interfered in the past when we offered our opinion, on two or three different occasions, on home rule. Well, Mr. Speaker, we did, and from Mr. Gladstone, the head of the government of that day, as the right hon. the Prime Minister has told us, we got a polite intimation to mind our own business and the British parliament would attend to theirs. And home rule has not been advanced, it has not become an accomplished fact, though Canada, on two or three occasions, appealed to the British parliament to pass a measure of home rule. They are better acquainted with the circumstances and conditions than we are. Those home rule petitions were intended for political effect, and I cannot get rid of the impression that the present Mr. WALLACE.
movement is intended to give a little assistance to our good friend the First Minister, as well as to lift the non. member for Victoria, N.B., (Mr. Costigan) from that obscurity into which he has deservedly fallen. The right hon. the First Minister told us that last year we interfered in Imperial matters by passing a resolution proffering assistance to Great Britain in the case of difficulties in South Africa. He said we had passed a resolution of sympathy with the Uitlanders, and more than sympathy, because it could only be interpreted to mean active assistance. But the right hon. gentleman knows full well that in the middle of the summer we had passed that resolution, and when hostilities began, when the whole empire, Australia, New Zealand, and other portions of the empire had a call to arms and recognized their duty to show the hostile nations of Europe that if they should attack Great Britain they would have to deal with the whelps of the lion as well, where was the right hon. the First Minister of this great and loyal Dominion ? He was issuing a proclamation, on the 3rd or 4th of October, saying that we could not or would not render any substantial assistance to the empire in South Africa. I think his refernce to these things was unfortunate. However, these are the two reasons that the hon. minister gives us for the interference proposed to-day. I do not think they justify that interference ; I do not think we should be called upon to interfere. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has suggested changes ; and the chief beneficiary-expectant sitting opposite to me accepts the motion in amendment to going into Supply as a friendly motion which he believes, as I understand him, should pass, and he will give it his assistance, though he says that the wording of it does not suit him. If the hon. member for Victoria were as desirous as he says he is of having this resolution freely discussed and fairly disposed of, he would bring it up in the proper way and not as an amendment on going into Supply. For, the leader of the opposition has pointed out that amendments would make it much more acceptable to the people of this country, but he has no power to move these amendments thanks to the arrangement made between the hon. member for Victoria and the right hon. First Minister. In that regard an unfairness has been done to the House. This is one of those great questions upon which we should be permitted to express our views by word, or by vote, or by amendment. But that has not been permitted. And we have the spectacle to-day of the hon. member for Victoria by bringing in a motion in amendment to Supply-which is considered, in almost every case except in some cases of urgency, a motion of want of confidence- and that being accepted and helped along by the First Minister, thus preventing the presentation of those amendments which

hon. members should be at liberty to bring forward upon questions so important as this.
I have no more to say, except this-1 think that in dealing with this matter as is proposed we open up a vista of difficulties for the future. As I have already pointed out you may abolish every line of that declaration, and yet the same words stand before the public, declared by the King of England, whoever he may be, as the head of the two great Protestant churches in Britain. The proposal of the hon. member for Victoria will not cure the difficulty. Great Britain has the matter in hand ; and Great Britain is not going to belie her record, to belie her past ; she will not be less liberal and generous to every citizen than she has been in years gone by. On the contrary, recent events, such as our men going out to fight side by side with British regular soldiers, the battles of the empire, will make the parliament and people of Great Britain, if they see any injustice or unfairness to any portion of His Majesty's citizens, more ready thau ever before to remedy it, more ready than ever before to mete out justice to every citizen of the great British Empire.


Mr. HENRY R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: Mr, Speaker, I come from a constituency where there live side by side the French and the English, the Protestant and the Catholic, with a degree of harmony and with an amity that should be emulated throughout this country and in every country. For that reason I regret that the very first occasion when I raise my voice in this parliament should be one when the subject before us is one of a controversial character with respect to religion and race. I would have had it otherwise. But I cannot allow the occasion, now that it has arisen, to pass without making some references to the matter under discussion. At the very outset I wish to refer to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I followed his remarks with care, with watchfulness, for I was anxious, owing to his place in his profession and his position in the House, to learn the opinions he held with respect to this matter. And I have to congratulate my hon. friend upon his utterance. I certainly can subscribe in every particular to the sentiments he expressed. But I had a certain amount of sympathy for him In the utterance of his sentiments. He seemed; to stand alone, so far as any applause from those behind him was concerned. As he uttered sentiment after sentiment that was to be admired, as he announced principle after principle that could not be gainsaid, there was not a word of approval from those who surrounded him. Indeed, I thought that my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) who has just resumed his seat was in a more fortunate position in that respect. I noticed that my hon. friend
from Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper), who sits directly behind the leader, occasionally interrupted with a ' hear, hear' the remarks of the hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace). The hon. leader of the opposition states that he takes exception to the resolution in its phraseology and that he would be willing, if the hon. member from Victoria (Mr. Costigan) would consent to an amendment, to support the resolution with his whole heart. He felt that if these amendments suggested by him were made there would be left no matter of controversy in the resolution. I have read the declaration carefully, and I am of the opinion that if what has been suggested by the leader of the opposition were done, if, as I understood him to desire, all offensive portions of that declaration were eliminated, then does he think there would be anything left substantial and necessary in the interest of the constitution, or to the coronation oath ? I would ask my hon. friend if he thinks there would be anything left in the declaration if there were eliminated from it all the words which are alleged to be offensive ? Sir, 1 would invite hon. members carefully to read over that declaration. It has been suggested that the first portion of it contains words which are offensive, that portion ending with the words ' superstitious and idolatrous ' ; and I understood my hon. friend from Halifax to say that after all that portion were eliminated the remainder would be quite satisfactory.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not venture to state which portion of the declaration was offensive, and which was not offensive. My suggestion was made merely for the purpose of logically following out in the resolution what had been stated in the preamble, merely that. I did not attempt to deal with details in making the suggestion that I did.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I accept my hon. friend's statement, but if his suggestion were carried out, there would be nothing left in the declaration, and there would be no necessity for any declaration at all in connection with the coronation oath. It has been said that this motion has been introduced in such a way as to prevent any amendment being moved, but it will be seen that there is no necessity, there cannot be any necessity, for any amendment, because the question is simply one as to whether this declaration should not stand as it is with respect to those features in it which are complained of, or whether we should say to His Majesty that it is quite proper that the declaration should remain as it has stood for upwards of 200 years.
At six o'clock. House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 13) respecting the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.- Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 19) an Act respecting the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company (Limited).-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
Bill (No. 20) an Act respecting the Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company.-Mr. Prior.
Bill (No. 21) an Act respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.- Mr. Prior.
Bill (No. 22) an Act respecting the Columbia and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 23) an Act respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 24) an Act respecting the South Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 25) an Act to incorporate the Ottawa and Hull Power and Manufacturing Company (Limited).-Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 26) an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Fortin.

Mr. MONK.: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to call your attention to the fact that Bill No. 14, to incorporate the Century Life Insurance Company, is now printed and distributed.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We have established the rule, and I will call the attention of hon. members to the fact that all the Bills which are not mentioned on the Order paper as being printed will not be called in future in order to avoid any misunderstandings. The reason for this is that there may be opposition to some Bills, and as they are not mentioned on the Order paper as having been printed, perhaps, an hon. member would be under the impression that it would not be necessary for him to be present, and to avoid any misunderstanding, after consultation with a certain number of persons,
I have come to the conclusion that in future we will simply call Bills which are mentioned on the Order paper as having been printed.



ATLANTIC AND LAKE SUPERIOR RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TALBOT moved second reading of Bill (No. 27), respecting the Atlantic and Bake Superior Railway Company.
Mr. FORTIN.: I would ask that the second reading of this Bill be deferred as there may be some objection to the Bill.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to obstruct this Bill in any way, but I think it would be well to explain to


Henry Robert Emmerson: the House that this Bill, No. 27, is printed while Bill No. 14, to incorporate the Century Life Insurance Company, is not printed. 1 think these Bills should be printed consecutively.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I coum not give any explanation to the hon. member (Mr. Henderson), but I suppose it is due to the fact that, perhaps, one Bill is longer than the other. They are all sent at the same time, and I do not see any reason why they should not be printed.


David Henderson: A Bill of this kind might be kept standing for an indefinite period simply for the purpose of keeping it back in the Bureau. I do not think the reason that a Bill is a long one is a good reason.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is always necessary, at all events, that a Bill shall be printed. I understand this one is printed. The rule I laid down a few minutes ago is for the purpose of avoiding any misunderstanding, because in the past I am informed that there have been misunderstandings about these Bills. A Bill will not be called unless it is marked printed on the Order paper.


David Henderson: I am not finding any fault with your rule, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot understand why Bill No. 14 should not be printed, when Bill No. 27 has been printed.


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

['I must answer my hon. friend that there is correspondence still going on upon this subject. I am not in a position to state anything further now.']
Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for recess, I was endeavouring to show what the object of this motion was, and that its amendment, if amendment were permissible, could in no sense change its terms, providing it is admitted as I understand it to be admitted, by at least the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden), that all the objectionable and offensive features of the declaration which attends the coronation of the sovereign of the empire should be eliminated. It is not necessary to discuss the question of the amendment if it is merely a technical feature which does not in any way affect the merits involved in the resolution. And, Mr. Speaker, the very first thing we have to inquire is :	What is the object of the
resolution ? As read, it proposes to ask His Majesty to amend the Test Act by eliminating the declaration which is attendant upon the ceremony of the coronation of the sovereign of the empire, and for the reason: that that declaration takes exception to the dogma of a particular church, and it becomes a question for us to con sider as to what a dogma is.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh !


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman may say ' Oh,' but that consideration is

relevant in a discussion of this kind, because, as I understand it, a dogma is an opinion or theory derived from the gospels, and formulated as a doctrine by the church ; or, it is an opinion or theoiy of men founded on the words of Christ. Without going into a discussion of dogma, or without considering at all the religious opinions that may be held, it must be apparent that we, as citizens of the empire, interested in the sovereign, interested in all that appertains to his kingly office, should be anxious to see that there is nothing- surrounding his high estate which could in any way transgress that liberty of conscience which is enjoyed by all those living in the British Empire. I for one am willing to subscribe to the proposition, that we as citizens of the empire should respectfully suggest and pray that there shall be eliminated from the coronation ceremony anything that could be considered as offensive to the religious convictions of any subject of His Majesty.
The hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace) referred to the fact that His Majesty, as King of England, was obliged to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and also to the Thirty-nine Articles. While that may be so, it would seem to me that His Majesty does not do so as an individual, or as a King, but that he does it under the law as head of the church. If His Majesty subscribes to the Thirty-nine Articles, I hold that he does not in any sense subscribe to the Westminster Confession, for it stands to reason that he cannot subscribe to both, because for many reasons they are diametrically opposed to each other. Therefore, while the law recognizes him as head of the Established Church in Scotland, and also as head of the Established Church in England, yet the law does not require of him that he shall personally subscribe to any of the doctrines or dogmas contained either in the Thirty-nine Articles or in the Westminster Confession of Faith.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: At all events a discussion as to whether His Majesty does or does not do so is not relevant to the proposition involved in the resolution before the House. After listening to the utterances of the hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace), one is at a loss to know whether or not that gentleman is conversant with the occurrences which have transpired within the last twelve months. If there is one idea more than another which has grown and developed in Canada during this past year, it is the idea of empire. On every occasion, from every platform, among all classes and creeds we hear utterances in this Dominion as to the growth of the idea of empire. It is not germane to the subject that we should view
the inception of this idea of empire from an historical standpoint. It is not even necessary for us to attempt to discover how the idea got lodgment in the minds of British subjects everywhere in all lands. We have only to recognize the fact that in Canada this idea has grown, and we have evidences of it on every hand. In all the public speeches of leading statesmen, in all the opinions ventilated by publicists and men of affairs, the idea is promulgated that we are beyond and above what we were a few years ago ; that we have developed from the mere citizenship of Canada, grand as that is, into the broader and grander citizenship of the British Empire. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into detail of the origin of those British institutions of which we are all so proud. That, I will leave to the historian, hut I may recall the fact that in the early history of the United Kingdom originated those grand British institutions at a time when England was Catholic, at a time when there was no test oaths ; at a time when the religious convictions of Englishmen were far different from what they are to-day. Take the glorious Magna Charta ; take the right of trial by jury ; take the idea in our municipal affairs of magistrates and sheriffs and such officers, and you will find that their inception was at a time when England was wholly and solely and exclusively Catholic. Therefore, Sir, if we take pride to-day in the idea of empire, we must not forget what we are and whence we sprung ; we must not shut our eyes to the past. Bearing this in mind, I am sure that we will all be prepared to view this question dispassionately and calmly, recognizing the changed conditions, and recognizing too, that we in Canada are a different people to-day from what we were even a few years ago. I am sure that our neighbours to the south of us take pride in the idea and in the history of the Pilgrim Fathers. They take pride in the fact that they came from that ancestry- and there are many in Canada who had the same origin, and who came here by way of New England. If they take pride in that fact, it is because there was implanted upon the shores of New England, when their little bark arrived, the principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, and the right to worship God at whatever shrine their consciences dictated. This idea has been beautifully described by Mrs. Hemans in her poem on the Pilgrim Fathers :
What sought they thus afar ?
Bright jewels of the mine ?[DOT]
The wealth of seas, the spoils of war ?-
They sought a faith's pure shrine !
Ay, call it holy ground,
The soil where first they trod !
They have left unstain'd what there they found-[DOT] Freedom to worship God !

And while our neighbours to the south rejoice in that freedom and claim it as a proud heritage, I am sure there is no portion of this American continent where the people can take greater pride in the same freedom than we in Canada. If our neighbours have that freedom, I am sure that we have it in its very essence, and enjoy it to the fullest extent. That being the case, we surely must recognize that under the la w this privilege belongs to every man living in Canada and having the rights of Canadian citizenship. If, then, it is acknowledged as a right which the citizens of the empire may enjoy to the fullest extent, it must surely be acknowledged as a right that should be enjoyed without offence, and without anything that would in any way reflect upon or mar the enjoyment of that right. If that is the case, surely there can be no objection on the part of Canadians to approach the Throne and ask that there shall be eliminated from that test oath the objectionable features that have been referred to, as embodied in the declaration which has been under discussion this afternoon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not refer to myself with any idea of wishing to invite personal attention ; but I do think that it is permissible to me to refer to the position which I hold with respect to these matters. I am not in any sense in sympathy with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. My origin and my ancestry were such that I came from one of the Protestant denominations, and I owe allegiance and give adherence to one of the Protestant denominations of this Dominion. I recognize that at one time in the history of this empire that denomination suffered under legal and civil disabilities. I recognize that there was a time, even in Canada, at least in the province from which I come, when those who enjoyed the same ideas of religion that I do were under the ban-under disabilities with respect to public offices-when they were not in the enjoyment of the fullest civil and religious freedom which they enjoy to-day.
If this were a question iuvoiving the adoption of some particular dogma or creed, if it wore a question which in a way involved the acceptance of doctrines which I as a Protestant do not hold. I could not in any sense approve of or support the motion of my hon. friend from Victoria. But I do not understand the question to be that at all. I understand the motion in no sense diminishes or restricts the religious freedom which every man in Canada enjoys to the fullest extent. It in no sense modifies the religious opinions of any one supporting it. It simply says that there shall be no reflections cast upon the religious convictions which any citizen of the British Empire may hold. With these ideas dominant in my mind, and with the idea that I would wish to enjoy my own religious convictions to the fullest extent without any reflection being cast upon them, I grant to those


Henry Robert Emmerson: whose religious views differ from my own the same right ; and I would not ask that there should be anything, either on the statute-books of this country or in any ceremonial connected with parliamentary proceedings, that woufd in any way reflect upon the conscience, the judgment or the religious conviction of any citizen of the empire, whoever he may be. I go farther, perhaps, than some hon. members of the Protestant faith ; I believe in the entire severance of church and state ; and I belong to a denomination which has that idea for its guiding principle, and which, through good report and ill report, has always stood up for that principle. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) has stated that there are a number of Protestant denominations clustering around the Church of England. I want to say to him that I belong to a denomination that is in no sense clustering around the feet of the Church of England, or around it in any way. I belong to a church holding the faith which, in my judgment, had its origin long before the Church of England was ever thought of.


An hon. MEMBER.: That is right.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend says that is right. It is right, because sacred history will prove it to be right. And, that being so, I would be untrue to the tenets of that faith if I were in any way to subscribe to a doctrine at variance with them. I have the deepest sympathy with those who are in any way brought under the ban from a religious standpoint. If my reading of history teaches me aright, there have been offences of a serious character committed by Protestants and Catholics alike in the history of the past. And if there is one blot upon the history of our young Canada, It is the expulsion of the French Acadians from the soil of Nova Scotia, in 1755. Was it because they were disloyal ? If my memory be correct, from 1735, down to 1755, the French Canadians of the province of Nova Scotia suffered untold hardships, were deprived of privileges, and in every way placed in an unenviable position. This state of things finally culminated in their expulsion. I ask. were they expelled because they were not loyal or not willing to be loyal subjects of His Majesty ? No, Mr. Speaker, they were willing to take the oath of allegiance, but refused to subscribe to the declaration involved in that test oath: and because they were not willing to become apostates to their faith, because they were true to the religious convictions which they learned at their mother's knee, they were [DOT]sent out wanderers and outcasts over the continent of America. And their story, as you all know, has been beautifully told by Longfellow. If, 150 years ago those people were unwilling to subscribe to that declaration and suffered by reason of their refusal, surely hon. members must admit

that since then we have made advances in the direction of civil and religious liberty, which we should not ignore by voting against this resolution,
I cannot believe that our Christianity has been so ineffective, so futile during that period, that there have not been advances in mutual toleration and self-respect, and I cannot believe that the people of this country would be unwilling to subscribe, every one of them if it were brought to their notice, to the principle in the resolution before us.
My hon. friend who resumed his seat last belongs to an order which has given him great prominence, and I desire to say to my hon. friend, that I am an humble member of that order also. But when I profess allegiance to that order, I do so upon the well-recognized fact that the principles of that institution are based on equal rights for all, and while that order upholds the maintenance of the Protestant religion, at the same time it requires its members to give liberty of conscience to those who do not see eye to eye with them. And if it be true that the cardinal principle of that order, to which my hon. friend owes very much, be equal rights to all, then I ask those who are of the Protestant faith how would they like it, if some cherished tenet of their faith were denounced in any declaration by the sovereign of this empire, under the form of law. I think I need only appeal to the fair Canauian citizenship of this country for an answer to that question. Equal rights to all and the full freedom and enjoyment of all our religious convictions, but a condemnation under the law of none should be our guiding principle. [DOT]
I shall, therefore, have much pleasure in voting, because of the faith to which I subscribe, and the allegiance I owe to that faith, in favour of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Victoria.


John Graham Haggart: Before giving my vote on this question, I would like to offer a few remarks to the House. I listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., (Mr. Costigan) in introducing his resolution. He introduced it in a modest manner, and a style which was not in the slightest degree objectionable. I also listened with pleasure to the speech of the right hon. leader of the government, and to the sentiments he expressed, I could scarcely find any objection. I listened also with a good deal of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace), and was particularly pleased to hear him read from the Confession of Faith. Perhaps it is a long time since I have read it, and it reminded me of my early days when, between my meals of oatmeal porridge, X was brought up principally on the shorter catechism and the confession of faith. I am not like my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who states that that 24
faith is under the process of revision at present, and consequently is uncertain in his views. I stick to it in its entirety. And I must remind my hon. friend from West York, that there are no dignitaries in the Presbyterian Church, and when he asserts that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is a dignitary in that church, I must take objection to his statement. It is a church which sticks to its faith, and 1 hold to the confession of faith and the short catechism on which I was bred and educated. With reference to the question before the House and the sentiments expressed toy the hon. gentleman who introduced it, although perfectly agreeing with him, I must draw his attention to the resolution, which is entirely a different thing. I must remind him that in all the debates in the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons, I never heard of any fault found with the declaration of the King.
The debate turned simply upon a criticism of tlie coronation oath, as to how it affected the legislative and executive action of the King himself ; because the declaration does not affect it in any way. There are two things required by the Settlement Act. The first of these is the coronation oath. If it were confined to that, any man, even a Roman Catholic could take that oath and be the sovereign of Great Britain. There is a prerequisite declaration besides the oath. I agree with the right hon. the premier, that the declaration consists of two parts, one in reference to transubstantiation, the other in reference to the worship of the Virgin Mary, and the saints-two parts that are contrary to the belief, and objectionable to the feelings of every Roman Catholic. But he must remember that, in the clause of the petition he proposes to send to the old country, in seeking to eliminate these two objectionable parts, he does not substitute any declaration at all. And I venture to say that there is not any other person who does not believe and maintain that the sovereign of the British Empire should make a declaration that he belongs to the Protestant religion. That is a pre-requisite along with the coronation oath. You do away witli that declaration.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Is that declaration made in the abjuration oath ?


John Graham Haggart: The declaration belongs to the test oath, which was required by the Act of Mary. That Act was repealed by the Act of William and Mary, the only part that was retained being the declaration. The declaration was included in the test oatli which was required, as the Prime Minister said, of every member of parliament, of every member of the House of Lords, and of every subject of the sovereign when he accepted office. But that test oath was abolished in regard to all the subjects of the sovereign and retained solely



in the case of the sovereign himself. That declaration is a pre-requisite under the Settlement Act, when the sovereign must declare that he is a believer in the Protestant religion


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would like to follow the hon. gentleman, but I am not sure that I understand him. Does he say that there are other declarations than the two to which he referred, about disbelief in the worship of the Virgin and of transubstan-tiation ? Does he say that there is a third declaration required ?


John Graham Haggart: Not at all. The Settlement Act requires a declaration that the sovereign belongs to the Protestant religion. That declaration is embodied in the only declaration which the sovereign takes


Mr. BO UR ASS  A.@: That is in the Bill of Rights.


John Graham Haggart: It is required under Act of parliament that the sovereign should be a Protestant, and that he should take the coronation oath. You do away with that declaration about his being a Protestant under this petition of yours, about his declaration.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


John Graham Haggart: That is my opinion upon the subject, because it says in the resolution :
In the opinion of this House, the above-mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration.
You abolish the declaration altogether. There is no requirement in the coronation oath itself that the sovereign should declare himself a Protestant. Here is the coronation oath :
Archbishop.-Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging according to the statutes in parliament agreed on and the respective laws and customs of the same?
King.-I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop.-Will you, to the extent of your power, cause law and justice and mercy to be executed in all your judgments?
King.-I will.
Archbishop.-Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed religion established by law-
It does not say that he shall be a believer in the Protestant religion-there is no requirement of that kind.
And will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, discipline and government thereof

And so on. There is nothing in the coronation oath making it necessary for the sovereign to declare he is a Protestant.


John Graham Haggart: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Does he pretend that the test oath which is referred to in the declaration makes the King swear that he is a Protestant ? That oath which is impugned to-day-does it make the King swear that he is a Protestant ?


John Graham Haggart: To the extent of the oath-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not at all. That oath could be taken by an infidel.


John Graham Haggart: It could be taken by a Buddhist or a Mohammedan, or any other.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to point out where, in the declaration, the sovereign declares he is a Protestant ?


John Graham Haggart: The declaration, of course, to a certain extent, declares that he is a Protestant. But what I say is that the Settlement Act requires that the sovereign of Great Britain shall be a Protestant, and that besides the test oath it is a pre-requisite that there should be a declaration that he is a Protestant. According to this petition you would abolish all declaration whatever.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


John Graham Haggart: You petition the Grown to abolish the declaration, unless I mistake the meaning of the words in this resolution.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I wish to be clear in my understanding of the hon. gentleman's argument. Is not the test oath, which is objected to by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., (Hon. Mr. Gostigan) set out at length verbatim in the petition which it is proposed to send ?


John Graham Haggart: Not a word of it is set out in the petition.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is set out in the motion given by the hon. member for Victoria.


John Graham Haggart: Then, he has made a mistake in the notice which he gave. He supposed that this declaration was the test oath.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In the oath of abjuration, or whatever you wish to call it


John Graham Haggart: It is not an oath at all.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Is not the objectionable declaration that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Costigan) is attacking not set out in the motion of the hon. gentleman ?


John Costigan: Yes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: And is it necessary that the person that is taking that shall declare that he is a Protestant ? As I understand it, it only makes two declarations, one with reference to the doctrine of transubstantia-tion, and the other with reference to the worship of the Virgin.


John Graham Haggart: It shows one thing, which must be clear to the hon. gentleman-that the person taking the declaration is not a Roman Catholic.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is, it shows that he does not believe in these two doctrines.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not read the amendment proposed here. He has taken the notice as given, covering the idea that this declaration was part of the oath. It does not belong to the oath at all.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 
John Graham Haggart: Where is the hon. gentleman reading from ?
Bill of Rights are conformed with in every particular, for in them the sovereign has to abjure the Catholic religion. Now, I do not think there is any person in this House, be he Catholic or Protestant, who does not know the absurdity of proposing to the people of the British Empire that the sovereign of that mighty empire should be relieved of the necessity of declaring that he is a Protestant before he can ascend the Throne. 1 am perfectly in accord with my hon. friend in the objection he takes to those objectionable parts of the declaration which he has pointed out. But the declaration has been made and we cannot alter it at present. We cannot introduce an Act of parliament to relieve him from his declaration. The only power I know of which can do that, is. the power which is vested in the Church of Rome. I do not know whether I am right or wrong in thinking tha$ the Pope might relieve him from that necessity. But I know of no Protestant power that can relieve him from it. It is, after all, a question of sentiment that is before the House. It is a sentiment 'which the hon. gentleman, professing the religion that he does, and the right hon. gentleman also, have a perfect right to hold ; and we as Protestants in every portion of this empire are willing to agree to that change in the declaration which is required of the sovereign and which the hon. gentleman asks us to propose. But in his proposition he asks more.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What does he ask for ?


John Graham Haggart: He asks us to abolish a declaration altogether.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The declaration referred to in the resolution, nothing more.
The MINISTER OF MARINE ANI 1< ISHERIES. Page 432 of the ' Hansard. That declaration makes no statement tha he is a Protestant, it has no reference t< that whatever. It simply says that he does not believe in the doctrine of transubstan tiation and does not believe in the doctrine of the invocation or adoration of the Vir gin Mary. Those are the only two declara tions which are attacked and asked to be withdrawn.


John Graham Haggart: There is no other declaration than that. The minister must remember that a prerequisite to the sovereign taking the Throne is an abjuration of the Catholic religion, if you do away with that declaration, there is none required of the sovereign. There is only the test oath which any Catholic can take, in which he does not abjure his religion, he does not say anything contrary to it. What I say is that the hon. gentleman in proposing his amendment ought to have been careful to see that the Settlement Act. and that the 244


John Graham Haggart: There is no other declaration, if you abolish that declaration, there is none left for the sovereign to take.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What, then, is your objection to abolishing that declaration ?


John Graham Haggart: Change the wording of it so that the declaration required from the sovereign should not have any such sentiments as those expressed in the resolution. That would cover my view of the question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is there anything more in it ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER . OF RAILWAYS AND  CANALS@: Point it out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to read anything in the declaration which he would like to retain 1 It is time to draw a distinction.


John Graham Haggart: No, I did not say anything of the kind ; that is not the question at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I thought it was.


John Graham Haggart: After all, there are but two propositions in the declaration, one of them in reference to transubstantiatton, the other in reference to the worship of the Virgin Mary, or some of the saints.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Which of these do you want to keep ?


John Graham Haggart: I stated that these two statements are obnoxious to all Catholics. The declaration as a whole is objectionable to them. The proposition of the hon.- gentleman who introduced the resolution is perfectly logical. He says that the declaration as a jshole is wrong, but he does not substitute an^hing which the Test Act requires. What we require is a declaration of the sovereign that he or she belongs to the Protestant religion, besides the test oath that is required of them. That is a simxjle doctrine.
Then, as to the expediency of introducing this resolution at the present time. There is no doubt that every subject and every parliament have a right to petition, there is only the question of expediency and opportuneness. Lord Salisbury has made a statement which, read between the lines, means that he thinks that the declaration required of the sovereign upon ascending the Throne is an objectionable one. Several members of the Imperial parliament, it appears, have followed in the same direction. That great organ of public opinion in England, the London Times, states further that it is the intention to change the declaration. In view of this fact, in view of the statement of Lord Salisbury, in view of the treatment which we received on a former occasion when we suggested legislation to the empire, is it advisable at the present moment to pass this resolution ? Had we not better wait a while and see whether Lord Salisbury's suggestion, as promised in the Times, is carried out ? The question of principle which comes up in the discussion of this motion of the hon. member for Victoria, is the real one after all. Perhaps we do not need to discuss the opportuneness of it. Certainly we have a right to petition if we like, and whether we do so now or at another time will be determined by a vote upon this question. But I would suggest to the mover, if he desires entire unanimity, to consider the several parts of his motion. The first clause is not objectionable ; the second clause is not objectionable ; the third clause, the one which I object to, could be modified in such a form that the declaration as now made by the King or Queen, as the case may be, would no longer be objectionable. Those objectionable parts should be omitted and a declaration should be fram-Mr. HAGGART.
ed in which those objectionable parts would not appear. The latter clause of it, I think, perhaps the hon. member who moved the resolution might agree to, as was suggested by the leader.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he were sitting down and proposing now to eliminate lrom this declaration what he considers the objectionable parts, what part would he eliminate and what part would he permit to remain ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not propose at the present to recast the declaration, but I say that any declaration required of the sovereign should not contain these objectionable parts.
The MINISTiR OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Then if you take those out you leave nothing.


John Graham Haggart: You would have to substitute another. The Minister of Railways and Canals is not so quick and apt as he usually is. He does not seem to follow the requirements of the British constitution which requires of the sovereign an abjuration of the Roman Catholic religion as a prerequisite to his ascending the Throne. You do not make any proposition to attack that. I do not believe that Canada intends to do anything of the kind. They are perfectly willing that a declaration of some kind or other which would not be so offensive in its terms as the present one should be made, because it is a prerequisite, before the soveregin shall ascend the Throne, that not only shall a test oath be taken, but that this declaration shall be required. This resolution would be stronger without the last portion of it. We should simply state the facts and give the opinion of the House in reference to the matter leaving to the parliament of Great Britain to determine in what manner the Act should be amended. I have, perhaps, a few compliments to pay to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) who last adressed the House. His remarks were refreshing because we had not had for a long time, that florid style of oratory in this House. It is the child's first night, and we must deal gently with him. The first speech is always received graciously by the House, but I will remind the hon. gentleman that perhaps it is pardonable to get off a lecture upon one occasion in the House, or perhaps one stump speech, but do not repeat it again. In regard to the remark of the hon. gentleman that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) received no applause when he sat down. I would state to the hon. gentleman that the hon. leader of the opposition voiced the sentiments of this side of the House, and when we consider the amount of applause that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson), coming with a reputation from his

province, received from his followers in tliis House, I would tell him that he must not be so bold in his criticisms as to our opinions in reference to our leader. Perhaps, I have spoken longer than I intended to on the subject, I would like to support the motion of the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mi'. Costigan), but 1 would like to see it amended in the direction I have suggested. If it is amended in that direction, I think it will receive nearly unanimous support in this House.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to offer any lengthened remarks upon this subject; but the speech, well intentioned, I am sure, that we have listened to from the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) proves that this subject has not received from himself and from the members of this House, the attention as to the facts that it should have received after the notice that has been given of it by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan). In fact, I may safely say that up to the last few days, when it was known through the press that this subject was to be taken up by the parliament of Canada, most of the people who knew anything at all about the subject thought that the cor-onatiou oath and the declaration that we have objection to were one and the same thing. The hon. member for Lanark has based his argument on a point which, I think, from his point of view, from the point of view of the majority of the British people and from the point of view of a large majority of the citizens of the empire, is a right one. It is that the sovereign of England should be a Protestant. As far as that is concerned, there is no Roman Catholic sitting in this House who is urging any difference of opinion on the matter. Had the hon. gentleman had time to study the subject, he would see that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights and that there is less in the present declaration to force the British King to be a Protestant. No Roman Catholic or Greek schismatic could take that declaration; but outside of these, any man belonging to any faith or creed which does not believe in transubstantiation or in prayers to the saints and the Holy Virgin could take it ; and, therefore, the object that the hon. gentleman has in view, that of guaranteeing to the people of England that their King shall be a Protestant, is not at all covered by this declaration. A Pagan or a Buddhist could take it; in fact, any man but a Roman Catholic or a Greek schismatic could take it. It is not a declaration of Protestantism; it is simply an anti-Catliolic declaration ; and if to-day we are asking the parliament of Canada to urge the British parliament to repeal that declaration, it is not because it is a Protestant declaration. No, Sir, we are not asking for anything to be taken from the rights or privileges that belong to our Protestant fellow-citizens; we
are asking that a useless, obsolete, anti-Catliolic declaration should not be imposed upon the British King at a moment when his accession to the Throne should be syno-nomous with peace, liberty, freedom and equal rights to all of his loyal subjects, who are ready to uphold him in keeping this empire up to the glorious state that it has attained. The hon. gentleman 1ms spoken about the coronation oath which is not at all affected by this motion, and to which we have no objection at all. He has stated that a Roman Catholic could take the coronation oath. No, Sir, he could not; because the King of England, by that oath, is obliged to declare that he will uphold the Protestant faith. No Roman Catholic would make such a declaration. Therefore,
I think the guarantee which every fair-minded Protestant wants to be given to him is completely covered by the coronation oath enacted by the Bill of Rights of 1088. The declaration to which we object was not added by the Act of Settlement of 1G89, for the purpose, as every one who has studied English history knows, to give a guarantee to the Protestant people at large ; but simply as a result of dynastic feuds which had been agitating England at that time. The only object of this declaration was to prevent the Pretender, who was a Catholic, from conquering the Throne of England; or, if he had succeeded in conquering the Throne, from ascending it. If lie had succeeded in conquering the Throne, lie would have been prevented by tliiS declaration from accepting the Crown and acceding to power.
From the very point of view taken by the hon. gentleman which, as a matter of principle, may be the right view for him to take, the objection he is making to tliis motion is completely unfounded. It is unfounded legally and constitutionally. If the hon. gentleman looks upon this question in the broad way that should be taken by this House, he will see that liis opposition is still more futile. As long as the parliament of England is there, the people of Great Britain and the people of the empire cannot have imposed on them a king they would not like to have. We all respect the sovereign of the empire; but we know that the King is there only as the crowning of that magnificent edifice that we call the British constitution ; and that the safeguard of the British constitution is the free parliament of Great Britain where the people is represented by men who can look after its interests, and prevent the accession of a successor to the King who might not be in accordance witli the views of the majority of the people of Great Britain. The intention of the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., as I understand it. and the intention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) who seconded the motion, the intention of the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and the intention of the

hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), are all the same after all; and we should all he united upon the matter. We come here as the representatives of a free British community, proud to be living under British institutions. We have fought even against British authority to acquire rights we thought we were entitled to. We are proud to live under these institutions, and we should be willing that the parliament of England should now sanction that magnificent work of freedom of thought, freedom of law, freedom of constitution which has been carried on in Great Britain from the beginning of this century. The first step in that direction was the abolition of the test oath for the free elected representatives of the people; then, it went on abolishing that same test oath for the civil servants of the Grown; and to-day, we ask that this test oath which is but an obsolete relic of days long past, should not be imposed upon the sovereign of that free people which is proud to call itself British.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has made an argument which I cannot accept. He said that my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B., (Mr. Costigan) was lacking in logic inasmuch as that the conclusion of the resolution was not relevant to the preamble. I believe the contrary. It is only a detail, of course, and I am glad to say that I can agree on the whole with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). But, after all, this detail has its importance. The preamble of the resolution says :
That as a token of the civil and religious liberties and of the equality of rights guaranteed to all British subjects in the Canadian confederation as well as under the British constitution, the British sovereign should not be called to make any declaration offensive to the religious belief of any subject of the British Crown.
Sir, the purpose of this resolution is not to ask for a special favour for Roman Catholics ; the principle of this resolution declares in favour of the very basis of our British institutions, namely, that there shall be perfect equality before the law for all nationalities and for all religions. Therefore, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Costigan) followed the advice of the leader of the opposition, he would simply ask that that part of the declaration which is offensive to Roman Catholics should be repealed. As a matter of fact, I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) who says that if you take out that which is offensive you take out nearly the whole of it. But this is not fhe main point. Should we follow the advice of the hon. leader of the opposition and ask to amend that declaration by merely taking out what is offensive to Catholics, we would not fulfil the principle of this preamble ; because this preamble asks on broad lines that the British King should be acknowledged by Catholics and Protestants, by non-believers and believers, as their King.' The King of Mr. BOURASSA.
Great Britain should not be forced, in this new century, to make any declaration of the kind he is now obliged to make. I do not say that the King of England should not make any profession of his faith. The coronation oath is there for him to promise to uphold the faith of the majority of his subjects ; but he should not be bound to further take this declaration at the opening of the first parliament; a declaration which I will not say is insulting only to his Roman Catholic subjects ; but offensive also to all the true Protestant British subjects who believe in the same equality and in the same acknowledgment of equal rights and freedom for all His Majesty's subjects.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall not devote any time to the speech of the hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace). I shall reply to that speech and to that gentleman in the words that Mr. Gladstone used toward a certain noisy member of the House who opposed him when he moved the second reading of the Disabilities Removal Bill in 1891. Mr. Gladstone, pointing at the man, said :	I am not surprised, because I have always recognized that gentleman ' as the prop and pillar of everything that deserved to be overthrown and removed.' So I may designate the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). He has thought proper to give us a course on comparative religions, contradicting the very words of his opening remarks when he said that this is not the place to discuss religious matters. With these words, and with these words only uttered by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) do I agree. If this were only a question of religion ; if this were not a question affecting the rights of all British subjects ; if this were not a question based upon the very spirit of British institutions, we would have no business to bring it here.
I fully agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister and with the other hon. gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the resolution -when they said that as British subjects we have a right to concern ourselves with everything that is in the interest of the empire at large. On a previous occasion, when I found myself obliged to differ from the almost unanimous opinion of this House on matters of Imperial concern. I clearly stated that every time when I believe that a large portion, or any portion of our fellow-citizens of the empire were affected in their rights,
I was in favour of voting in this parliament for an expression of sentiment that might be favourable to that class of our fellow-citizens. But, I go further : I say that as Canadians, as representatives of the Canadian people, as members of the Canadian parliament, this is a matter of direct interest to us. What is the constitution of our country ? The constitution of our country is an Act of the British parliament. We cannot touch the slightest portion of the British North America Act without proceeding along the same lines as the mover of

this resolution has resorted to. Suppose we wanted to amend the constitution of our Senate, or the power of our executive, or the relations between the provinces and the federal government, the only procedure which we could follow would be to vote an address to the King of England asking the parliament of Great Britain to amend our constitution. Article 9 of the British North America Act says :
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to be continued and vested in the Queen.
Sir, the King of England is for us not only the King of England, not only the head of the British Empire, but he is the sovereign of Canada. He forms part of our executive system ; he forms as much a part of our constitutional system as does this very House of Commons and the Senate. Therefore, in voting for this resolution I do not vote only on sentimental grounds, I do not vote only as a Roman Catholic ; but 1 vote as one of the representatives of the Canadian people in the Canadian parliament. And 1 am following the very procedure which the British North America Act obliges me to follow, if in that same capacity, I wished the Imperial parliament to amend our constitution in any other respect. Therefore, finding that the head of our government, that the chief of our Canadian executive is bound by a law which I am sure he detests himself ; by a law over which he has no power and over which we have no power-to make on the day of his coronation a declaration offensive to the dearest feelings of 40 per cent of the Canadian people, I say that it is our duty to ask, and to ask now, that the British parliament, which is the proper authority to do so, should amend the Act of Settlement and abolish that declaration. At the opening of this new century, in the first year of the reign of Edward VII., in this year when we have mourned together, Catholics as well as Protestants, French Canadians as well as English Canadians, the deplorable loss of that noble and kind-hearted woman who for sixty-four years reigned so gloriously over Canada as well as the empire at large ; I say that we are simply doing our duty to the people of Canada and to the King of England in asking that the parliament of Great Britain, which has the sole legislative control in the matter, should free for ever our future kings from making this declaration, and thus enable the sovereign to be considered not only as the king of a certain portion of his subjects, but as the king of all his subjects in this vast empire.
As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, if that declaration is not to be abolished. certainly the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty will not be more disloyal to him. But I ask all fair-minded men of this House : Do you think the loyalty
of the Roman Catholic Canadians as well as the Roman Catholic British, that loyalty which has proved itself not only on the battlefield, but in every way in which a man can give to his nation and his sovereign the best of his efforts and abilities-do you think that loyalty which has been so staunch and so fully acknowledged by everybody, which cannot now be under the suspicion which dynastic feuds and rivalries of former times might cast upon it-do you think that loyalty should be rewarded by a declaration so offensive that, if it attacked any of the Protestant creeds of this Dominion, I myself would be proud to stand with those who would demand its repeal, and ask that the Protestant section of the people should be put upon the same footing as the rest. Sir, let us all be equal in Canada, let us all be equal in Great Britain ; and let us vote unanimously, if possible, for a resolution asking, not that the King of England should lose any of his privileges, not that the Protestant section of this country should lose any of its rights, but that the King of England should be more and more respected and loved by all his faithful subjects ; and it will be a great work which we shall have performed-a work which will be well received on the other side of the Atlantic by all the men who wish for tha real welfare of the empire at large.
Hon. Wm. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Hon. gentlemen need not be alarmed, as I am not going to make a speech-I never do. I rise merely to throw out a suggestion. The First Minister remarked in a very gentle manner that he did not approve of the wording of the resolution, and the same idea has been conveyed to the House by the leader of the opposition-and I must do that hon. gentleman the justice of saying that his speech has been very acceptable to the supporters of the government. He has approached the subject with calmness, and with a judicial mind, and he has only suggested that the wording of the resolution should be changed. In that respect he and the leader of the government agree. Now, would it not be well for the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan) to take both of these gentlemen into his confidence, and amend the wording of his resolution in such a manner as to make it acceptable to the House ? That is a suggestion which I throw out in a spirit of fairness, which I hope will commend it to the House.
I was going to say to the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that I sympathize with him in having learned the Shorter Catechism in his younger days ; but I have the advantage of him in that respect-I had to learn it in two languages. Though my memory is not now as good ns it was then, I cau repeat considerable of it in those languages to-day. And let me say to the House, that no man will ever be

the worse for having read and studied the Shorter Catechism. The teaching of the Shorter Catechism and the Confession of Faith has made Scotland and Scotchmen what they are.


Mr. EDWARDS.: And some oatmeal.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: Yes, and the oatmeal has now become so general that even Englishmen and Frenchmen use it. Now, a word about the Confession of Faith. Do not be alarmed, because I am not going to discuss religious subjects. But there is a general impression that the Confession of Faith was prepared by Scotchmen. It took seven years of the best minds and the most eminent religious men in England and Ireland and Scotland to prepare the Confession of Faith. They sat in Jerusalem Chambers for seven years, and they sat there by Act of parliament, and parliament paid them.


William Findlay Maclean: That is why they sat so long.
Hon. Mi-. ROSS. Of the 115 men who formed that body, only eight were from Scotland. But Scotland had the sense to adopt the Act of Uniformity, which was passed at that time, and to adhere to it, and it has adhered to it till this day.
Now, I think that the minds of both Protestants and Catholics have undergone quite a change, and that the feelings and sentiments we entertain towards each other have improved and are improving all the time. I used to read of the time when the idea amongst Catholics was that there was no salvation for Protestants ; but I hope there is not a Catholic in this House who is so narrow-minded, and I am sure there is not a Protestant in this House but believes that a large number of devout Catholics will find their way to heaven, though perhaps not in such an expeditious manner as the Presbyterians do. I do not think I have heard a story in this House since I came here. There was a certain Presbyterian in the county of Pietou to whom a priest of the district was expressing his sympathy on the occasion of the death of his sister. The good Presbyterian said, ' I have no doubt but she went to heaven, because she was a good woman.' Said the priest, * When did she die ? ' The answer was, ' On the 20th of May.' ' Well,' said the priest, ' if she gets there by Christmas, she will do very well.' As I said when I began, I am not going to make a speech ; I have never attempted to do so, because I do not know how. But I throw out the suggestion which I have made, because possibly a great deal of this debate might be dispensed with if the leader of the government, the leader of the opposition, and the mover of the resolution would meet together, and make a few gentle changes in the resolution. It is for the hon. member for Victoria to say whether this suggestion is accepted.


William Ross: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have listened, Sir, with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat, and I really believe that the suggestion he has made is one that might lead to any easy solution of the question which is now before the House. I do not wish to enter into any lengthy discussion of this question.
I was one of those who doubted the propriety of bringing such a delicate matter before this House, because, of course, this is essentially a political assembly, and although, since I have had a seat in this House, I have found evinced on all sides a most tolerant disposition, we know that questions of this kind, almost in spite of ourselves, drift into political acrimony, from which it is sometimes difficult to rescue them. I feel the less disposed to take up any of the time of the House, because the remarks made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition were of such a nature that, to me, whom this question interests in a particular manner, it seems impossible either to take one word from the remarks he has made or add anything to them. It is extremely satisfactory to me- and I think it must be to every member of this House-that a question of this kind should have been treated by the right hon. leader of the government, not as a Catholic, not as a Protestant, but as a man who understands and appreciates the liberties we enjoy, and it is doubly satisfactory to me that that question should nave been so ably treated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
Addressing myself, therefore, just to one point or two, I wish to call the attention of the House to the question of the form of this petition, because I have heard doubts expressed as to whether we could touch this question even in the manner in which it has been raised by the hon. member for Victoria. Upon that point let me remind this House that this resolution is in the form of a petition, and that it is one of the most inalienable rights of British subjects all over the world to petition the King upon all manner of subjects, without any restriction whatever. When we come to pass resolutions, when we come to advise the Crown and express our opinions on matters which are beyond the purview of this legislature, we may be infringing upon ground which is not ours. But the right to petition is absolutely unrestricted. Dong before we obtained the great charter of our rights iu 1215, it existed under the Saxon kings, it was reaffirmed, not only in Magna Cliarta, but in the thirty odd affirmations of that charter, it had been insisted upon since strenuously during the centuries of struggle of British subjects for the revendication of those rights they enjoy to-day, and it is today incontrovertible. We can petition the King of England upon any and every subject. That right is not restricted, except in

this respect that it is restricted to British subjects. So jealous are we of that right that no alien has the right to petition the King of England, except when he happens to be on British soil. Therefore, the objection that we are by this resolution touching a subject upon which we have no jurisdiction is, to my mind, well founded.
As to the question whether the subject is one which interests us or not, that has been answered by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. But let me remind the House, as a student of constitutional law, that there is a contract. We are petitioning in reality with regard to a contract, and that contract was formed by the oath of allegiance which every British subject is supposed to take. That oath is responded to by the oath of the sovereign, and from the oath of the sovereign, corresponding with the oath of allegiance which every British subject is supposed to take and may be obliged to take, arises the contract, which is one of service on the part of the subject and of protection on the part of the sovereign. Is it not just, under those circumstances, that tliq subject, who has become a party to that contract, should be allowed to make representations to the King upou the nature of the obligation which the King takes at the time of his coronation. It seems to me that this is essentially a subject upon which any subject may make a petition to the Crown. And that right is not only extended to British subjects, but belongs to every organization throughout the British Empire. Great legislative bodies, municipal corporations, in fact every corporation. as well as every British subject throughout the empire, has the inalienable right of petitioning the sovereign.
I shall not go at any length into the question of fact, as at present the only inhabitant of the British Empire who remains bound by the provisions of the test oath, passed in the reign of Charles II. is the sovereign himself. The great progress of liberty, the progress of enlightenment, of religious tolerance, has brought us to this stage fortunately-and it is by no means the last stage-at the opening of this great century, that all creeds are tolerated. We have had the Act of 1829 and the Act of 1858, and to-day, as a matter of fact, the only person bound by the provisions of the test oath of Charles II., enacted at a time when religious passions were excited to an inordinate degree, when the fury of religious strife was so great-the only person bound by that statute is the sovereign himself ; and it seems to me only right and proper that he should be freed from the hard and harfeh exactions of that statute.
In the remarks of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden), there was a suggestion to which I would invite the attention of all the members of this House who belong to the legal profession. The concluding part of the resolution of my hon. friend
from Victoria, N.B., (Hon. Mr. Costigan), my hon. friend from Halifax suggested should be modified, and I think his suggestion is an important one for those who have at heart-as I think many members of this House, irrespective of creed, have-the success of the step which this House is now taking. That suggestion was that we should modify the concluding portion of the motion in this sense-that we should suggest to the Crown, to whom this petition is to be addressed, that the declaration should be modified.
Now, I speak in the hearing of the Solicitor General and of other members of this House who have given some attention to the study of constitutional law, and every one who has studied our constitution knows that there are two things absolutely required of a British sovereign before he can rule his people-he must take an oath, and -he must make a declaration. The coronation ceremony as a matter of fact is an unnecesary ceremony ; the sovereign can exercise kingly power without a coronation. A number of British sovereigns who have ascended the Throne during times of civil war, and even at other times, have exercised their kingly power without any coronation. The coronation is a mere relic of the old system, which obtained in England in Saxon times, and has been handed down through centuries, of presenting the King to the people and crowning him, so that there should be no doubt as to his title. But it is a different thing when you come to the power of ruling the subject. The King must take the oath provided by law, and he must make the declaration to the effect that he is in communion with the Established Church of England-


William Findlay Maclean: And that he is not a Catholic.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, it is not necesasry, according to the constitutional writers-and, if I mistake not, they are all unanimous on that point-that he should repudiate any particular doctrine. But I am speaking of the commentators ; and it is necessary that he should not only take the oath, but declare himself in communion with the Established Church of England. And the reason for that is not far to seek ; because the Bill of Rights of 1089, and the Act of Settlement of 1701, both, not only from specific portions of the Act, but from the whole text, require that the sovereign of England should belong to the Established Church of England.
Now. what my hon. friend from Victoria. N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) has sought to obtain by his motion-and what I for one. as professing the Catholic faith desire-is that from that declaration should be eliminated these words which, to quote the language of the Prime Minister of England are ' so deplorable.' And I hope and believe it is

75&
the desire of the great majority of the House. But we must not go too far, and that is why I think there is wisdom in the suggestion of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden). We must not go to the length of suggesting in our petition, which in other respects is so well founded, that the declaration should be suppressed altogether. We may not be met with that favour which, I need not say, we have a right to expect from the successor of a sovereign who, during such a long, and such a glorious reign manifested so continuously her disposition of good-will toward all those who professed the Roman Catholic faith. Therefore, I say, lest it should be noted on the other side when our petition reaches there that it has the defect of going beyond what is really required, we should adopt the suggestion that has been made. It is a suggestion which does not require, it seems to me, much negotiation among us to enable us to come to some agreement upon it. We should simply limit our petition to the object we desire to attain, that is to the elimination from the declaration of these expressions, for, Sir, we cannot reasonably ask, at the present moment, that the declaration should be suppressed altogether. Therefore, I suggest to my hon. friend from Victoria, that he should take the suggestion into consideration, because I think it is a very important one. It is possible

is it not?-that when this petition, in its present form, is received in England, the people may ask : Why is it that these petitioners do not ask for the elimination of the objectionable parts ; do not they know that, under the circumstances, it is necessary that the sovereign make a declaration of some kind ? I very earnestly suggest to the right hon. leader of the government to take the suggestion into consideration. It has been said by some that this is not the proper time to make this petition. I differ entirely from that view. Speaking as a member from the province of Quebec, and as one conversant with public opinion of that province, I know that during the long reign of the late Queen, and particularly during the last thirty years of that reign, nobody would have thought it proper or delicate to have moved in this direction. We in our province all knew what sentiments of friendliness and tolerance the late Queen entertained towards all those who professed the Catholic religion. And she was a woman ; and 1 venture to say, with absolute certainty that, among French Canadians there would have been a great reluctance to move in this question while that great and good woman lived. But it is different now ; and I think the time is opportune. We have now reigning a man whom we have learned to know as one of most tolerant disposition. He has just ascended the Throne, and has made the declaration. It is a declaration which,
under the law, must be made either at the first sitting of parliament before the House of Lords or at the coronation. He made that declaration, as I think he was bound to do, at the opening of the first session of parliament in the presence of the Lords. It seems to me that now is the best time, for the question to be mooted at the moment when everybody hopes that the life of His Gracious Majesty may long be spared. It seems to me that the King having just made that declaration, and the question being agitated in England, and there having been, on the part of men known as most loyal subjects of the empire, a protest in regard to that declaration, it is a matter which we can treat as being ripe for consideration. It has been said by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), that some parties have endeavoured to make political capital out of this question. I am glad to say that so far as I have assisted in the debates in this House on this question, I do not find this disposition-unless indeed the hon. member for Westmoreland alluded to the remarks which may have fallen, from my hon. friend from West York' (Mr. Wallace), which I had not the advantage of hearing. But, Sir, the physical resemblance between my hon. friend from Westmoreland and my hon. friend from West York is so great that my hon. friend from York may have deemed it necessary to accentuate the difference between them. In the same way I would say to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), that he seems to have spoken with great heat on this subject, anticipating, no doubt, that it would give rise to very serious divergences of political opinion. I am glad beyond expression that his anticipations, if any such existed, have not been realized. I trust that in the few remarks that I have made, I have not expressed myself with too much heat. I cannot claim to be an extremely religious man.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, no.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps I am as good as the right lion, gentleman.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Far better, I hope.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, Sir, I believe there is a good place where members will go who have been obliged to hear some of the speeches made in this House, and I believe there is a bad place where members will go who speak too long. But I am, to this extent at any rate, religious, that I have preserved the principles of charity which were instilled into me in my youth ; and whatever may be the vote which members of this House may think it necessary to give upon this question, I can assure them that the feelings I entertain for them will continue to be in the future as they have always existed in the past. .


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: Mr. I Speaker, I feel it incumbent upon me as a member coming from the central part of the province of Ontario to make a few remarks upon this important question. When I entered this House, among the first expressions I heard was a statement coming from the hon. member (Mr. Marcil, Bonaventure), who seconded the address in this House, that he hoped this parliament would be a parliament of peacemakers. But when, the other day, I heard the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) state that he proposed to introduce into parliament a question which, in my opinion, ought never to have been'introduced here,
I could not but contrast his action with the words to which I have just referred. That hon. gentleman has had a long parliamentary experience, the people of Canada have been very kind to him in the past, he has had the honour of representing a constituency for a great many years in this House, and I should have expected better things from him tnan to introduce on the floor of this House a question of a class which will inevitably create discord among the people of Canada. 1 have listened with great interest to the remarks that have fallen from every hon. gentleman who has addressed the House, aud especially those which were expressed by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Just now I am reminded that it is not so long-ago when that lion, gentleman rose in this House and resigned his seat because Canada was helping Great Britain to fight her battles. I was amazed that that gentleman should be selected to address the House upon this occasion, asking that an oath that does not interest the people of Canada should be complained of by the people of Canada.
I thought such a proposition ought to have come from some hon. member who had proved himself in the past a defender of British interests.


Mr. BRITTON.: What does the hon. gentleman mean by saying that the hon. member for Labelle has been selected ?


Richard Blain: I say I listened with a great deal of interest to all the addresses that have been made upon this question today, 1 have listened with especial interest to the remarks so carefully prepared and well expressed by the hon. premier. I was anxious that, since it had been decided to introduce this question into parliament, there should come from the First Minister some expression of justification, that he should point out wherein some humble subject of His Majesty in Canada was suffering because the King of England had taken that oath. I am one of those who believe in British institutions. I am one of those who do not think it necessary, as some hon. gentlemen do, to tell just what religion and what church they belong to. I believe it is the duty of Canadian representatives to deal
with questions that interest the Canadian people, and not go across the Atlantic to discover and discuss questions that do not interest us. When I was nominated for this parliament I made a promise that when questions came up here that had no right to be dealt with by the Canadian parliament,
I should stand up in my place and speak against them and vote against them, and I shall do so on this occasion. If any representative of the Canadian people on coming to this parliament had been required to take an oath to which he felt he could not subscribe in his capacity as representative, then I would say that it was the duty of parliament to look into that question and come to his relief. But I find that there is nothing in the oath that any member of this parliament has not been willing to take when he took his seat in this House.
Then, I say, that so far as this parliament is concerned, we have no complaint to make. We ought not to cross the Atlantic to find trouble to bring into this country at the present stage in our history. Though I am not a very old man I have taken some interest in public questions, and the only questions that have caused trouble in our county of Peel, the only questions that have rent homes and set the people one against another have been questions introduced into this parliament with which we had nothing to do, and which ought never to have been introduced here. In speaking as I do, I represent more than the Liberal-Conservative party in the county of Peel,
I am expressing the sentiments and feelings of a very large majority of the people who voted against me at the last election on November 7. The Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have said that this is not a political question and ought not to be treated as such. If that is the case, then I think the Conservative party in this House should have been consulted upon this question before it was introduced. I have listened to the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) pointing out what was objectionable in the declaration. He said that political feeling would be aroused in this question and would extend until it was settled. In my opinion, it is a question that will take some time to die out, a question that ought not to have been introduced here, particularly in the commencement of the twentieth century. The hon. member for Westmoreland spoke about empire building. Have the people of Canada, have the people of the British Empire, suffered because Queen Victoria took the declaration which has been referred to ; no, they 'have not. The Liberal-Conservative party and the Reform party in Canada have been engaged during the past few months pointing to the growth and advancement of this Canada of ours and of the great British Empire ; but I have never heard it suggested before that any Canadian had been injured in either person or estate because

Queen Victoria, when she ascended the Throne, took the declaration that is now under discussion.
I have listened to the discussion of other troublesome questions, and in the history of parliament 1 have never heard of this question before. I was glad to hear the hon. member from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) say that the people of Canada did not know that there was any difference between the oath and the declaration. The declaration has not interfered with the people of Quebec, and that it has not interfered with the people of Canada, either in their homes, or the state, or the church, at any time in the history of the country. I have already said, and I repeat, that if there is anything that could be introduced into the parliament of this country that would interfere with empire building, it is just such a question as we are now discussing this evening. I say it is a time, in my humble opinion, commencing this new parliament, and commencing- a new century when a question of this kind should not be introduced, and I am hoping that the young members of this House of parliament, whether they are deform or Conservative, whether they support the government or the opposition, will be Canadian enough to say to the people of Canada that they will vote against this motion, and against every other question that ought not to be discussed in parliament. In respect to the introduction of the motion, I said a word, and I want to say something further upon the question. When it was allowed to be introduced into this parliament it was announced that it was not a political question, if so, there should have been some other form of introducing it rather than that it should have taken the form which by the rules of this House precludes any amendment being made by which the hon. members on this or the other side of the House are compelled to vote for or against it. I was amazed when the right hon. Prime Minister (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) rose in his place, and when the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) rose in his place, and suggested that some changes should be made, when the Prime Minister said further that had he been preparing the motion he would have used some other words. Why did not the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., rise to his feet and say that he was willing to take the House into his confidence and make certain changes. I am sorry that I have spoken so long, but I want to put myself on record on this question as a Canadian representative, and I am here to say that I will vote against the motion. I am not going even to investigate the wording of the motion very closely. It is not my business as a representative of the people. It is my duty as a representative of the people to deal with questions that will help the Canadian people, and if the hon. gentlemen from 'the province of Quebec, who, I suppose, will Mr. BLAIN.
be most anxious that this resolution should pass, will come down with any Canadian resolution, if they can point out that the Roman Catholic people of the province of Quebec, or any class of the people, Presbyterians, members of the Church of England, or of any other class or sect in this country suffer by such oaths and declarations, that they interfere with their progress, whether they be Protestant or Roman Catholic, I will give that question my careful consideration, and if I find that Roman Catholics are being interfered with by any law that has been placed on the statute-book by the Canadian parliament, I will stand up in my place and vote that that should be taken away in order that every class should have their rights, and in order that we may develop the great country in which we live. These are my opinions upon the question. I am amazed, I repeat, that the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion would not stand up in fiis place and say:	I am willing to consider
a change if others differ from me. But. he says : ' No,' and he is defended on the other side of the House by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). They will accept no suggestion, but will maintain the resolution as it is. I feel it incumbent upon me as a man interested in all classes of the people, to stand up on the floor of this House and say that I will vote against this motion, because it should never have been introduced into the parliament of this country.


Mr. ROBERT A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, I desire on this occasion just to say a very few words. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the remarks that fell from the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), from the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this question. I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. I think it would have been better if the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan) had framed his resolution in a little different language. I may say that I am in sympathy with the terms of the resolution, but I think the latter part of it is not couched in the language which will accomplish what is desired by the parties who are interested in the resolution. My reason for that is this ; in looking at the Act, 2 William and Mary, which requires the declaration to be taken, and in looking at the Act for establishing the coronation oath, I observe that they are two separate and distinct Acts. The Act for establishing the coronation oath is one thing, while the Act in regard to the Bill of Rights is another thing. It is an Act declaring the rights and liberties of the subjects and the succession of the Crown. In that Act it is imperative that our sovereign should take the declaration. My view

of that resolution is that the latter part of it should have been put in such a manner, I might say, as suggested by one of the leading English journalists, that it should he amended, but that there should still he a declaration taken hy the sovereign as to the Protestant faith. In making that reference I quote from the paper which the hon. member for Victoria quoted from, the Guardian, which I believe is one of the leading Protestant papers in England. If I might be permitted, I will just read a short extract from this paper :
We are thankful indeed to know that this declaration does not, and never has, formed any part of the solemn and historic coronation service of our English sovereigns. It is a careless blunder, into which several of our contemporaries of the secular press have recently fallen, to assert the contrary. The facts are these. The declaration formed part of the Act of 1677, which the necessities of the times seemed then to justify, for ' the more effectual preserving the King's person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of parliament.' It had to be subscribed and audibly repeated by every member of each House before he could take his seat. The experience the country went through under James II. provoked further aggressive action, and in 1689 (1 Will, and Mary, sess. ii., c. 2) it was enacted in order to debar Papists from the Crown, that

Then follows a citation from the statute, and the editorial continues :
However unreasonable and objectionable in its terms the declaration may be, it is satisfactory to know that it cannot, under any circumstances, with the long-established custom of deferring the coronation, be uttered in Westminster Abbey. But it will be highly unfortunate if the necessary legal steps cannot at once be taken to relieve Edward VII. from the necessity of uttering, even in Westminster Palace, words which cannot but be singularly offensive to millions of his subjects, not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout his great dominions across the sea. Christian charity has made great strides in two and a half centuries, and if this declaration of the time of Charles II. has long ago become too offensive to be used by any of His Majesty's subjects, why is the studied insult of calling all his Roman Catholic subjects idolaters to be maintained as a part of the King's accession duties? A quiet and dignified declaration of personal loyalty to the Church of England is all that is necessary. If unhappily the law officers of the Crown see no way out of the difficulty in the short interval before the King meets his first parliament, the deliberate use of such a string of offensive terms cannot fail to produce mischevious heartburnings and dangerous misunderstandings. International notice is nowadays far more keenly awake to a royal declaration than it was in the earlier times of the Hanoverian dynasty. We shall be heartily sorry if Edward VII. is obliged to use words which will brand the King of Portugal, the King of the Belgians and many others of the royal mourners by the good Queen's grave as superstitious idolaters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better if the latter part of this resolution were in different form. I read in the resolution that the Act is to be amended. In
what way ? By wiping out in its entirety this declaration ? It does seem to me. Sir, that the hon. the leader of the opposition, together with some hon. gentlemen on that side of the House, ought to be able to get together and so frame that resolution that it would accomplish the purpose which the mover (Hon. Mr. Costigan) has in view, and at the same time be more effective than in its present form.
I do not look upon this question, Mr. Speaker, as either a national question or as a religious question. It seems to me that it is a simple request for simple justice. Now that we are on the threshold of the twentieth century and looking back at the immense progress which has been made in the past century in religious liberty, I believe that we should do all in our power to obtain for that large population of Roman Catholics who are loyal subjects of His Majesty the King, relief from that declaration which certainly is offensive to them. I read in a recent article by Mr. Goldwin Smith, that very able and very distinguished gentleman, the following words :-
The coronation declaration and oath of the King of England, settled in 1688, is a curious historical fossil of the revolutionary period. The King is made solemnly to repudiate the doctrine of transubstantiation, and to declare that the invocation and adoration of the Virgin and saints are idolatrous and superstitious. There can be no doubt that this formulary is not only obsolete but extremely offensive and insulting to all the millions of Roman Catholics who are numbered among His Majesty's subjects. There can hardly be any doubt that it will be abolished by parliament with the hearty concurrence of all right-minded and sensible men. Its counterpart has already been abolished in the admission of officers of state.
We have only to look back to the legislation of the past to find a precedent for future legislation, which will remove the last vestige of offensive references to the religions of any class of His Majesty's subjects. Look at the Emancipation Act of 1829. Previous to that year every member of the British House of Commons had to subscribe to identically the same declaration as the sovereign now has to take, and by the Act of 1829, known as the Roman Catholic Relief Act, relief was given to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. That Act provided a single form of oath acceptable to Roman Catholics and available to them only ; and it abolished the declaration against transubstantiation. That legislation has been followed up by other relieving Acts. For instance, an Act was passed to relieve the Jews who were opposed to the form of oath required of them. I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to take up any further time in the discussion of this subject, as it has been so ably and so thoroughly dealt with by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. I feel satisfied of this : that even although I do not approve exactly of

the nature of the language of the motion, and while I should desire that the latter part of that motion should be amended yet as the resolution does not in any way effect the coronation oath, and does rot in any way ask for the abolition of the oath by the sovereign to maintain the Protestant religion by law established, and as there is no attempt to interfere with the provision of the Bill of Rights which indicated that the sovereign must be a Protestant ; it is evident to my mind that the repeal or the amendment of that declaration against transubstantiation can in no way prejudicially affect either the Protestant religion or the succession to the British Crown. When we look back in the history of our country to the many bitter fights which arose in settling principles which are now firmly established in this Dominion, every true Canadian must feel a degree of sorrow when he sees any question come before the people of Canada which is of such a controversial nature that it causes bitter discussion. I think we should approach a question of this sort in a calm, judicial manner, and discuss it apart from any religious feeling or bigotry. There is no room in Canada for a bigot. These matters should be discussed entirely on their merits, and it seems to me that the Roman Catholic population of Canada, who I understand constitute nearly 40 per cent of the total population, are perfectly justified in sending this petition to the mother land, and asking that any objectionable clauses in this declaration should be amended.
There has been a great deal said here on the question of church. Like the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), I may never have been accused of being over-religious. What I believe is that there is one church only, the church of God, and no body of men, be they called a church or a denomination, have an absolute possession or control of the narrow way, and no race has a monopoly of all the virtues, leaving to the others all the vices. We should take a broad view of questions of this sort ; and feeling-in that way, I intend to support this motion, although I would have much preferred that the latter part of it had been couched in different language. I picked up to-day one of our leading Canadian papers, a Tory Paper, and I may be pardoned if I refer to an article in that paper dealing with this matter. After reciting the declaration, it says :
The phraseology is the best evidence, perhaps, ot the fears that caused the thing to be thought necessary, fears that now, happily, have little existence and less cause. There have been many changes since the Stuarts' time. Catholic countries are now not a menace to those of Protestant faith. The oath is one of the two remnants of much legislation, the most of which time and events have outworn. As the danger from Roman Catholic power outside declined, the restrictions against Roman Catholics in Eng-Mr. PRINGLE.
land were removed, till there is only one office, and that a semi-ecclesiastical one, in the service of the state, which a Roman Catholic has not the right to fill, or has not filled. The oath might well be subjected to the revision that has improved the laws in other respects. The Roman Catholic peers, and there are no more loyal men in the empire, have put on record their views in a dignified protest. Accepting the declaration of the Lord Chancellor, that the oath cannot be changed but by Act of parliament, they said :-
' We desire to impress upon your lordship that the expressions used in this declaration made it difficult and painful for Catholic peers to attend to-day in the House of Lords, in order to discharge their official or public duties, and that these expressions cannot but cause the deepest pain to millions of subjects of His Majesty in all parts of the empire, who are as loyal and devoted to the Crown and person as any other in his dominions.'
It is a reasonable requirement of the law that the sovereign of Great Britain shall be a Protestant, like the great majority of his Christian subjects. It is equally reasonable, though, that in the obligations the sovereign is required to take on assuming his duties, there shall be nothing needlessly offensive to his other Christian, or non-Christian, people. There is reason to think that this is so fairly recognized that the common sense of parliament will bring about the change that the simple statement of the case suggests.
I believe the parliament of England will bring about that change, and I see no reason why the Dominion of Canada, the premier colony of Great Britain, has not the right to send forward this petition, although, as I have already stated, I would have preferred that the latter part of the motion had been couched in different language.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like in the first place to appeal to the right hon. First Minister to adjourn this debate now. There ought certainly be a conference; it is in the interest of the country that there should be one ; and it will prevent a great deal of discord if the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member from Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross) is accepted. Even if we have to adjourn this debate now and do not go into Supply, it will be worth the time we may lose to arrive at a right conclusion. There are serious constitutional objections to the line on which we are proceeding ; and, while my sympathy is altogether with the object the hon. member for Victoria, X.B. (Mr. Costigan) has in view, I think it is in the interest of the country that this little conference should take place before we come to a conclusion, and I ask the First Minister if he cannot concede that point and adjourn the debate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are several hon. members who wish and are ready to speak on this question, and I think we should give them the privilege of speaking.


William Findlay Maclean: Will you allow the debate to go over to-night ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We shall see what time it takes.


William Findlay Maclean: While, as I sail a few moments ago, I am in sympathy with the object of the hon. gentleman who proposed this resolution has in view, I substantially agree with what was said by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart). If I read history aright, the meaning of that declaration is that the people of England In those days required the sovereign to abjure the Roman Catholic faith. That was the first requisite. Subsequently, they required of him an oath that he would maintain the Protestant religion. Now, if we ask the people of England to abandon that first declaration, namely, that the sovereign must abjure the Catholic religion, our petition will not be received, because it will ask the people of England to destroy something which they consider one of the bulwarks of the constitution. We must not disguise from ourselves that fact, that the people required the sovereign to abjure the Catholic faith by having him deny the two essential doctrines of that faith. If we wish to advocate what is laid down in the resolution, that a Catholic may be the sovereign of England, we can vote for the resolution as it stands ; but the constitutional objection is before us, and our petition will be dismissed unless we put it on right lines.
As I have said, I am in sympathy with the motion. Being one who has always favoured equal rights in this country, I think nothing should be said which would be unnecessarily offensive to the religious views of Catholics ; and I am ready to support some measure which will lead to the end we have in view. But if we think we can go to the King and parliament of England and ask them to change something which is an essential of the constitution, we shall make a mistake, and, in the common phrase of the day, we shall be turned down. Hon. gentlemen may argue that a Catholic ought to be qualified to be the sovereign of England. That may be maintained, and I am not going to deny it ; but the people of England will not be prepared to accept that proposition, and what we ought to ask is that the sovereign should be able to declare that he is not a believer in the Catholic faith, and declare it in a way that will not be offensive to Catholics. He ought to be able to swear that he will maintain the Protestant religion. But, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). you are striking out the essential thing that the people of those days intended to maintain, and which. I believe, the great bulk of Englishmen wish to maintain to-day. There is no use disguising the fact that what they had in view was that the sovereign himself should abjure the Catholic religion, and what we ought to ask to-day is that he should abjure it in some way not offensive
to Roman Catholics. If that can be done, I am perfectly in sympathy with the object of the hon. gentleman, and I appeal to him to find some way of doing it. I appeal to him to confer with the right hon. the leader of the government and the leader on our side, and try' and find out a way, a constitutional way, of accomplishing his object. That is all I have to say, but I think I am touching hn essential question. There are lawyers on the other side who are members of the government, and I can see clearly, from the trend of the discussion, that they are disturbed as regards the constitutional aspect of the resolution we are asked to adopt. I would then suggest that we should adjourn the debate and see if we cannot devise a resolution that will commend itself to the House, and be likely to receive favourable consideration on the other side. By the present motion we are asking the British parliament or the King to change something that the English people, even at their present advanced stage, will not be willing to consent to.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: It is certainly a tribute to the judgment of my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B., (Mr. Oostigan) that the resolution he has introduced has met with only two objections, and neither of these strikes at the base of the position taken by him. These objections are, first, that the time is inopportune, and, second, that the resolution is not happily worded, and might be improved in such a way as to be made acceptable to the authorities on the other side.
As to the wording of the resolution, I do not agree with my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Maclean), or the hon. member for South Lanark (lion. Mr. Haggart). The point taken by the hon. member for Lanark was, that it was absolutely necessary to carry7 out the settled idea and intention of the British people, both Catholic and Protestant, namely, that there should lie always on the Throne of the empire, a Protestant or non-Catholic sovereign, and that, therefore, if the declaration at present in force were struck out, some other declaration should be substituted. I think that that opinion is erroneous. In the first place, it is a law of the land that the sovereign must be non-Catholic, and take certain oaths binding him to support the Protestant religion, and must be in communion with the Church of England, and the abolition of this declaration would not affect that law in the slightest degree. Supposing his declaration were absolutely struck out, we are left with these three fundamental planks in the constitution which are undisturbed. First, that the sovereign must take the oath to support the Protestant religion ; second, that he must be in communion with the Church of England ; and. third, that all these other laws requiring the sovereign to be a non-

papist remain in full force. The Act of Settlement provides all these constitutional requisites in the case of the sovereign, and it adds that, in addition to these constitutional requisites, which are sufficient for the purposes that Protestants cherish, he should make a certain declaration. Consequently, if this declaration were entirely abolished, the constitutional safeguards would still remain, and the feelings of our Roman Catholic compatriots would not be offended.
The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), whom everybody expected to take the strongest ground possible against this resolution, completely failed to make any serious argument against it. Instead of that, he brought the whole discussion down from the high level whicn*it had attained to one of personal attack on the gentleman who supported the resolution. He had nothing but words of condemnation for my hon. friend the member for Victoria, and attacked the right hon. the First Minister on matters connected with South Africa, which had nothing at all to do with the subject before the House, and wound up by a fusilade on the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). But the point made by the hon. gentleman was, that inasmuch as the sovereign is ex-officio the head of the Church in England and Scotland, he is in that capacity obliged to make substantially the same declaration. But, as head of the empire at large, he should not be asked to make a declaration which is offensive to any section of his subjects ; and the King, as a matter of fact, is not expected to subscribe to the Westminster Confession. He is not bound to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who is acknowledged to be a very high constitutional authority, has made the statement that the sovereign is required to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I am not prepared to enter into an argument on that point; but I simply say that in my constitutional studies, which have not been more extensive than those of other hon. gentlemen, I have not seen the statement made before my hon. friend made it to-night. But let us suppose that the hon. gentleman's contention is right. The King is, ex-officio, the head of the army and the head of the navy; and it does not follow that he has to abide by all the rules of the army and navy which others follow in order to attain to various positions in those services. Where this devolves upon the sovereign ex-officio, the fact that he neglected to subscribe these articles would not destroy his sovereign power or position.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: But here is the distinction-the two matters that were mentioned are before he can become a King or Mr. FLINT.
exercise any of the powers of King, whereas, in becoming King, he has become the head of the army and the navy. The others are conditions precedent.


Thomas Barnard Flint: There is no statute to that effect. Now, this resolution, if adopted, becomes a petition from parliament to the Crown. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), of course, we all agree that parliament has the right to petition. The only question we have before us is as to the terms in which the petition should be couched. We should approach the question in the same attitude of mind and with the same sense of responsibility as if the vote on this resolution enacted a law, because it is an expression of the opinion of parliament on an important question. The point raised by my hon. friend from Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle), and which was alluded to in one or two remarks of other hon. gentlemen, is a good one-that, apart from the relief to the feelings of an immense body of the loyal subjects of the Crown, it is proposed as a relief to the King himself, a measure of relief to the sovereigns of the future, that this amelioration should be attempted by the parliament of Canada. Why should we who admire and revere the person of our future sovereigns, as we trust we shall always be able to admire and revere them, inheriting, as they will, the character of their ancestors and the high traditions of the office they fill-why should not we endeavour to relieve them from - what must be, to any high-minded and sensitive Briton, an invidious position ? Why should future sovereigns of the British Empire be called upon to utter in solemn form before the estates of the realm a series of statements of an entirely abstract character, a personal belief which does not, in the slightest de. gree, affect any practical interest of the state ? We boast, both here and in the mother country, and in the colonies of Great Britain, that we are, above all, a practical people, that we never legislate except for practical ends, and that sentimental grievances and difficulties must always give way to something practical-that we put up with grievances for a long time for the sake of performing other duties of practical utility. If it can be shown by any gentleman that calling on the sovereign to make a declaration of purely abstract sentiment upon a religious subject is of any practical utility in the government of the empire, then, although some person's feelings may be affected and injured, the majority, I think, would willingly see it stand, and even those who suffer from it, would allow it to stand for the other practical advantage's derived from it. In this case, we have simply a declaration superadded to the law, an excrescence upon the law; and something superadded when it was appropriate to the feelings of

the people, when controversies on abstract questions of religion were carried on with a zeal and bitterness of which we can form no conception, when political life, literary life, philosophical life, were filled with controversies over questions of doctrine on ecclesiastical matters. We have passed into a new era, when we cheerfully allow differences of opinion on these subjects not at all affecting our conduct toward each other in business or political life. So, I say that if we adopt this resolution, we simply remove the bone of contention, an excrescence which is painful to many Protestants, and which must be painful to all adherents of the Roman Catholic Church, and which is of no practical utility whatever-a relic of a past age, bringing up subjects uncalled for at the present time, and certain to be a source of controversy-as long as this useless declaration remains as part of the statute law of Great Britain. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that I join heartily in support of this resolution, and I think, in the interest of harmony and peace, in the interest of the good-fellowship which happily exists between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants of this country, and all over the empire, this controversy should be removed as soon as possible. Unless this useless declaration is removed, the controversy must continue. We are at the beginning of a new parliament, of a new century, of a new reign. We are almost unanimously agreed that the phraseology of this declaration is unfortunate, to say the least of it, that it is painful, that it is of no practical utility, and that it should be swept away as soon as possible, and the controversy closed. Suppose that parliament having accepted the prayer of this suggestion, it is forwarded to the mother country, and, in the course of time it is acted upon, and that declaration is cancelled. Can we not see the prospect that is opened up of peace and harmony between all the various religions of the empire ? Cannot we see that our Catholic fellow-citizens, comprising, as they do, such an enormous number of the ablest sons of the empire, are placed upon a footing of absolute equality, in every regard, with other subjects in all portions of the empire 1 If the King is compelled in this year of Grace 1901, or in some future year, to declare that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are idolatrous and abominable, why should he not declare that other religions with which Protestants disagree are also absurd and idolatrous ? Simply because in regard to Mohammedanism, and Brahmanism. and other religions with which the majority of Protestants disagree, there has been no historical struggle upon the soil of England, and no question regarding them which has affected political life in the mother country ; while the controversies over the Catholic religion did indirectly affect political life in England during the 25
*	REVISED
past several hundred years. Therefore, I join in the hope that this resolution will be accepted by this House, and that it may aid in inducing the parliament of the mother country to remove entirely this question from the arena of political agitation. Therefore, I cannot agree, either that this resolution is unfortunate in its terms, or that it has been introduced at an inopportune season. I think the hon. member for Victoria should receive the approval and thanks of parliament for giving us an opportunity to pronounce on so important a question at this time.


Mr. WM. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: As this debate has proceeded the conviction has been more and more strongly borne in upon my mind that among the members of this House there is a great divergence of opinion as to the facts under which this obnoxious declaration came into existence, as to the existing law, and as to the competency of this House in dealing with it. I was astounded when the hon. gentleman who brought in this resolution gave his reason for bringing it before the House. He said :
I feel impelled to act on behalf of those whom I represent.
I was astounded that so old a parliamentarian as the hon. member for Victoria should stand up in the House and say that he was impelled to act on behalf of those whom he represents. Why, Sir, whom do we represent in this House ? If there is anything more clear than another under our constitutional system it is that every member in this House is elected, not to represent the particular body of the electors who exercised their franchise in sending him here, but he is elected by the people in that constituency to represent all the people of Canada ; and every man sitting on the floor of this House represents every elector in the Dominion of Canada just as truly, and should represent him to the best of his ability, just as effectually, as the particular representative who is sent to this House by the franchise of that elector. Yet we find an old parliamentarian beginning this important debate by stating that he was impelled to act on behalf of those whom he represents. That is the first point on which I would part with the hon. member for Victoria. I am impelled to speak here, not particularly for those who elected me, those whom I represent are the people of Canada. I was sent here to act to the best of my ability in the interest of the people of Canada. When the summons was received in the Gazette calling the representatives of the people of Canada to meet here, it was for the despatch of business connected with this Dominion of Canada, and when we are here for the despatch of business, when there is business to be done, I submit it is an imposition on the people of Canada whom I represent, that a whole day should be taken up in the discussion of a measure for relief



[Stage Direction]
which the hon. gentleman, if he really wished to obtain some redress for his co-religionists, could have obtained hours and hours ago by accepting the suggestion which has been made again and again by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
Now, Sir, I would like to say at the outset, that I thoroughly sympathize with every word that has fallen from several hon. gentlemen here regarding the language which is on the face of the declaration. I quite agree with the premier of Great Britain when he spoke of that language as deplorable, and I would be only too glad if I were standing on the floor of the Imperial parliament and a question came before that House on a motion that it should be considered and decided-(I would be only too glad to raise my voice and give my vote in favour of expunging from this declaration every obnoxious term, every term that could even by a stretch of imagination be considered offensive to any one of His Majesty's subjects. If the day ever comes when we are engaged in recasting the political bonds that bind us to the mother land, and in devising any new political arrangement between that land and this, if at that time this declaration has not been modified or removed, and if I am then a member of this House, I will vote heartily for the passage of a resolution to remove any offensive expressions therefrom. But neither of those occasions is the one before us at the present time. We are here as representatives of the people of Canada and we are asked to consider a certain resolution. While I would not like to describe this resolution in terms that would be unparliamentary, if I were outside this House, if in my office a similar document to this were presented to me, I would not have the slightest hesitation in saying that it was as illogical as it was impudent. Why, since the debate commenced we have had many hon. gentlemen in discussing this question either wholly overlooking the terms of this resolution- and I hope that is the case-or misrepresenting the actual facts before the House. We have one hon. gentleman stating boldly that the coronation oath required the King to be a member of the Church of England, and on reference to the coronation oath it is found there is not a word to that effect. The last gentleman who spoke (Mr. Flint) said that the sovereign was compelled by law to be in communion with the Church of England. He nods Ms head in assent. Now, every lion, gentleman must be aware of the occasion when this declaration was put in force. A short time before that there was a sovereign of Great Britain who was in [DOT]communion with the Church of England and continued in such communion until the day came for his reign to end, and then he took the last rites of that church to which he had always been attached and in which he had always believed. And it was at that time that the people of England, knowing that the mere declaration that a sovereign must ;be in communion with the Church of Eng-Mr. NORTHRUP.
land, had not ensured a sovereign being a sincere member of the Church of England, knowing from actual experience that what the hon. gentleman asserted, had not been the fact, they at once put this declaration on the statute-book to attain the end that they had ;n view. It is all very well to refer to the coronation oath, but there is no conflict between the coronation oath and the declaration, and neither can take the place of the other.	[DOT]
Now, we are asked by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., to adopt this resolution.
I have read the preamble and the resolution. and I venture to say that a more illogical document was never jflaced in the hands of a Speaker of this parliament. It is astonishing to me that an hon. gentleman of the legal acumen and the ability of the right hon. gentleman should for a moment have endorsed it, if he has glanced over this document, and seen how thoroughly illogical are the statements in it. Another who failed to perceive the character of this declaration is the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). When the lender of the opposition suggested that perhaps the objectionable phrases could be dropped from the declaration, this hon. gentleman from Westmoreland, a gentleman who has come to this House with a great flourish of trumpets, whose advent we looked for with anxiety, with apprehension on this side of the House, for we had heard that he was shortly to occupy one of the important benches behind the premier-when that gentleman arose he said that if you eliminated from this declaration all of the phrases that are objectionable and offensive to any people in this country you have nothing left. Now, that is a statement which is either correct or it is not. Let us see if we can find anything here that can be eliminated without destroying the declaration. If those who support the resolution really desired to obtain relief for a certain class of people, they would have presented it to the right hon. leader of the government and to the leader of the opposition, and an attempt would have been made to secure that support from both sides of the House that should be secured for such a resolution. But no such thing was done. The government alone has been taken into the hon. gentleman's counsels, and by a friendly member this resolution is brought before the House in such a way that 215 gentlemen are taken by the throat and are told : You must either swallow this, accept what I, the member for Victoria, say, or you must throw the whole thing overboard. I think that fact alone is sufficient to justify the description I gave of the resolution already. Let us see how the document proceeds. There is the usual preamble, it speaks about the Act of Settlement, gives the coronation oath, and then says :
Such declaration is most offensive to the dearest convictions of all Roman Catholics.
I am in thorough accord with the hon. gen-﻿773

tleman on that point. Tlie declaration is of necessity offensive to the feelings of all Roman Catholics. X am sorry it is so, and would be only too glad to do anything in my power to remove that offensive character. Then he goes on to speak of the staunch loyalty of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Canada to whom it is very offensive to be branded as idolaters by their sovereign. I am thoroughly in accord with that too. I am sure there is not one gentleman on this side of the House but would raise his voice in endorsing that sentiment. These two premises being admitted, first that part of the declaration is offensive, second that the loyalty of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects should not be rewarded by being so treated, let us see what is the conclusion. The conclusion from the premises is :
That in the opinion of this House the above-mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration.
If there is nothing in the declaration that is not offensive, as the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) has said, then it is open to the objection that is raised, but let us see whether, if we do eliminate the offensive phrase, there is anything left. Bearing in mind the fact that the Crown had just been settled on William and Mary, who had no more right to the Throne of England by blood than any hon. gentleman in this House, that their title to it was wholly statutory, that, on the other side of the water, was the old sovereign King James who was encouraged and supported by Louis XIV. of France, who subsequently landed troops upon the shores of England; bearing in mind these facts, and the fact that his brother, Charles II., had taken the communion of the Church of England all his life, and had died in the rites of another church, we find that the House of Lords and House of Commons decided that this declaration must be taken by every sovereign who ascended the Throne. What was that declaration ?
I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.
Every Protestant in the world believes that, and there is nothing offensive in saying that any Protestant becoming King shall be called upon to declare that he does not believe in that particular doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. There is nothing offensive in its use here. There may be a statement of a theological belief to which a Roman Catholic as a theologian might object, but there is nothing offensive in that statement. The declaration goes on :
And that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacri-25i
flee of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous, etc.
All the rest of this declaration is open to the objection of the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., but, if we eliminated every other offensive phrase we would still have left in it the statement that the sovereign does not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. For 200 years, whether wisely or not, this has been part of the oath, and for 200 years it has been taken by every sovereign who has ascended the Throne. A new sovereign has just ascended the Throne, and it is our wish that he may long occupy that position. Throughout the mother land, objection has been taken to that oath by lawyers, by the press, by parliamentarians and by the people who regret this phrase and declare the necessity of removing it. Why, then, in the name of all that is sacred, should the time of parliament and the money of the people of this country be wasted here in discussing a question which we believe will be settled in the mother land in just the way we think it should be settled. I could not help suspecting, when the suggestion was first made by the leader of the opposition, that a conference should be held between the leader of the government, the leader of the opposition and the mover of the resolution to see if it would not be possible to agree upon terms, and when the leader of the opposition went so far as to intimate that he was willing to eliminate all the expressions that are offensive to the religious belief of a portion of the subjects of the British Crown, when I found the right hon. leader of the government and the mover of the resolution refused, although appealed to again and again to save the time of the House, to save the risk of having religious excitement stirred up in this country, when I found that the right hon. Prime Minister refused only a few moments ago to allow the debate to be adjourned, insisting that we should proceed to a decision to-night, and when I found that the leader of the opposition was willing that the resolution should take the ground of asking for the elimination from the declaration of the offensive expressions, it occurred to my mind that the elimination of the offensive expressions would not meet the desire of the mover of the resolution. What he desired was, although he has not told the House, but one or two members on the other side did blurt out what he really desired, was not the elimination of the offensive expressions, but to strike out the whole of the declaration so as to get rid of this particular declaration, which, rightly or wrongly, the people of Great Britain, for 200 years have considered one of the bulwarks of their religion. I would be glad to see the people of Great Britain do anything they can to bring about the removal of these expressions which cast a reflection upon a religious body, but I am not a member of the
[Stage Direction]
parliament of Great Britain. I am liere to represent the people of Canada, I am proud to be a Canadian, but I would be ashamed of my position if I were to do anything that would belittle Canada and make Canada seem small, mean, contemptible and foolish In the eyes of the nations. Look for a moment at our position: at the moment when the people of the mother land have told us that they desire to make a change we rush in with our petition asking them to do that which they in all probability are unwilling to do. Are we doing anything to increase the respect entertained by the mother land for us ? The right hon. gentleman told us this afternoon that a number of years ago we did send an humble address to the Throne, that it had not been received in a courteous manner, but that, perhaps, an address as this would be received. The Prime Minister said that a few years ago the Dominion of Canada was snubbed by the premier of Great Britain because we sent a resolution over, but that last year we sent a resolution to England which was gratefully accepted. I do not wish to say anything disparaging of the hon. gentleman's logical powers, but surely that was hardly worthy of the ability that we all credit him with. Last year, when the resolution was sent over to the mother land, what was the state of affairs ? We had the mother land engaged in a war in South Africa, we had the press of all the other civilized nations outside of the empire decrying the mother land and upholding the Boers as being in the right. We were told that Great Britain, standing in her splendid isolation, would soon be a thing of the past, and we sent in this resolution expressing perfect confidence in the purity and justice of Her Majesty's cause. It was unavoidable that a resolution sent in under such circumstances should be received with acceptance. Surely there is a distinction between that resolution of confidence and a resolution telling the people of the mother land that they have not known their own business for the last 200 years. It may be that the House of Commons will pass such a resolution. I would be glad to do anything in my humble power to remove these offensive expressions from the statute-book, but my first duty is to the people of this country, and I will be sorry to do anything which would reflect seriously upon the intelligence of this House by supporting such a resolution.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I wish, for a very short time, to ask the attention of the House to this resolution. and give some reason for the vote that I propose to record upon it. I have always viewed with disfavour any inclination or disposition to import into this House questions of tliis troublesome kind, questions relating to religion or to race. I have always regarded it as one of the things that parliamentarians should avoid as far as pos-Mr. SPROULE.
sible. I think that we may all trust implicitly to the trend of public opinion of the nineteenth century, and to the tolerance of the age to make us a more homogeneous people, to make us forget the distinctions of the past and to bring us closer together as members of the human family. We might trust to the disposition of the age to accomplish this, rather than to resort to resolutions of this kind. The toleration of the nineteenth centry is already historical. It is in the direction of broader charity of man towards man, of a more enduring phil-antrophy in the human race, and of a stronger inclination to live in unison with our fellowmen. The teaching of the social habits of the age all lie in that direction, and the inclinations of the people are to forget the controversies of the past and to make for harmony in the future. That happy result is, however, impeded in its course by the introduction of just such questions as these from time to time, which cause us to reflect on the history of the past, to remember the animosities of by-gone days, and to bring them before the world's notice so that they may do duty again in resurrecting what the best disposed people wouhb gladly allow to remain dead and forgotten. The coronation oath, or declaration as it is called, was the crystallized wisdom of the time to provide against something that it was desirable to provide against. What was the object ? It was to do away with the possibility of a Roman Catholic king or queen being on the Throne of England. And, why was it necessary to provide this oatli or declaration ? It was because of the troubles which had been engendered for generations previously, and the wars even which had been brought about by the intolerance displayed by the Roman Catholic sovereigns who had occupied the British Throne. It was to prevent these dangers to the state that the coronation oath and declaration was formulated. And what is the coronation declaration ? It is at best but a declaration or confession of faith. The oath is taken by the sovereign on his accession that he will support the Protestant faith. Then follows the confession of faith or declaration that the sovereign does not believe in the Roman Catholic religion, which had been found so troublesome up to that time: it is an acknowledgment that the sovereign adjures that faith if the sovereign ever believed in it. That is practically what the coronation declaration means, and why it should be offensive to Roman Catholics is the great mystery of my life. I do not believe in the faith that the Roman Catholic believes nor does the Roman Catholic believe in my faith. Is it offensive to me that he does not believe in my faith ? Not at all. Should it be offensive to him that I do not believe in his faitli ? Not at all. These are matters which appertain individually to us and should not

be offensive to either. And when the law of the country demands that the Protestant religion shall be maintained and that the head of the state should be a Protestant, why should it be offensive to a Roman Catholic if the sovereign makes a confession of faith before the peopie of the world in taking his position at the head of the state. With equal propriety might you say that it is offensive to the Buddhist, offensive to the Jew, offensive to every other religious denomination. For my part, I can see no just ground why it should be offensive to the Roman Catholics of the country. Previous to tlie passing of this law it was found detrimental to the state that the king or queen should be a Catholic, and so the law was made that the sovereign, in ascending the Throne, should declare that he or she did not believe in that faith. Now, if this declaration did any injustice to the Roman Catholic ; if the Roman Catholic had the right to ascend the Throne of England, then I would regard it as an injustice. If it compelled any Roman Catholic in the land to take that oath, I would regard it as unjust. But it does not, because a Roman Catholic is not allowed to sit on the Throne of England so long as he is a Roman Catholic. In no position under the Crown, except that of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Lord Chancellor of England, is a Catholic debarred from occupying a position of emolument or honour by reason of the necessity of taking such an oath. Therefore, there is no injustice to the Roman Catholic. It debars him from no position he has a right to occupy under the law of the land. Were we charged with the duty to-day of providing a safeguard for the supremacy of the Protestant religion, I am bound to believe that we would be happier in our selection of words to accomplish that end. I believe that the spirit of the nineteenth century and the toleration of the nineteenth century would enable us to do so, but we are not charged with that duty, and, therefore, we cannot in any sense pretend to alter this declaration. Are we in this parliament within our rights in passing a resolution inviting the Imperial parliament to alter this declaration ? Some say we are and some say we are not. In my judgment we are within our rights, but the question that interests me is : Is it advisable or is it the part of wisdom to do so, and on that point I believe that it is not wise nor advisable to attempt it at the present time. The resolution which we passed last year in reference to the Ultlanders is not a parallel case, and on that point I beg to differ from the right hon. the Prime Minister. When we passed that resolution the mother country was engaged in a struggle to settle a most important question, and we wished to give her our moral support by declaring that we were in favour of the claims of the TJitlanders. In order to strengthen the hands of England we declared by a resolution in favour of the policy of England in regard to her subjects in South Africa. But, Sir, is England lighting to-day ? Is England now dealing with the question ol' the coronation oath, and is she asking to have it repealed ? Not at all. When the question was presented to the British nation what did Lord Salisbury say ? When the question was asked, how can this be amended ? he said : ' Only by an Act of the Imperial parliament ; but I am not disposed to introduce that Act, because I think 1 would be doing a very dangerous and unwise thing.' If that is the spirit of the Imperial government to-day, and the spirit of the British Empire, why should we attempt to disturb it, and do something that will invite or provoke a great deal of trouble, not only in the mother country, but in the various colonies of the empire V Therefore, whether we have or have not the right to do it, I think it would be the part of wisdom to avoid provoking any unpleasant feelings by a controversy over this question.
If it was desired to pass this resolution, why was it brought in as an amendment to going into Committee of Supply ? We are always told that an amendment to Supply has but one meaning, that is, that it is a vote of want of confidence in the government. My opinion is that the object in bringing forward the motion at this time is in order that it cannot be amended in any way, but must be accepted in its entirety or rejected in its entirety ; for there is no amendment allowable to a motion made in amendment to the motion to go into Com-mitee of Supply. Therefore, it does suggest to my mind that the mover of this resolution desired to introduce it in such a way that it might be made a political machine in the hands of some parties rather than do justice to his co-religionists, who he thinks are suffering under something which he feels called upon to rectify.
These agitations do no good, but they often do a great deal of harm. We have had experience of them in the past in the Canadian parliament, we are having a similar experience to-day, and we may have it again in the future. What does this resolution ask ? It asks the abolition of the declaration altogether. If you abolish the declaration, you do more than Lord Salisbury himself says he has the power to do, except by an Act of parliament. If the resolution had been to eliminate the objectionable words in the declaration, and substitute something else in their place which might contain a sufficient safeguard for what was intended, that is, the perpetuation of the Protestant religion, as represented on the Throne of England, I could understand the wisdom of it. But this resolution aims at no such end. It aims at another end entirely, that is, the elimination of the declaration altogether.
Why is this resolution introduced at the present time ? As a general thing, we in-

troduce resolutions or Bills into this parliament because there is a demand for them from the people of the country. Have we had any petitions presented to this parliament asking for this resolution ? Have we had any great agitation in favour of it ? Not at all, so far as I know, and I have been constantly watching the press of the country. It is true, we have in the country a small sect, or society, that has been promoting this agitation from time to time, and, so far as I know, it is the originator of this question. But we have had no petitions nor demands for such a resolution from any part of the country, and therefore, in my judgment, there is no necessity for introducing it at the present time.
It is said that we declare that we are in favour of equal rights to all. So we are-equal rights to all under the Crown. We do not deny that; we stand up for that; but this resolution is going further than asking for equal rights to all. It is asking the elimination of that essential promise to the British Empire, that only a Protestant king or queen shall be seated on the Throne. It is going that much further, and therefore I am opposed to it. Is there any injustice done to any one by this declaration ? It is said that it is obnoxious to the feelings of Roman Catholics. I do not know why it should be any more obnoxious to their feelings than the declaration of the Roman Catholic faith is to my feelings when it says that I am a heretic and an outcast. Is it obnoxious to me that any Roman Catholic reads that to me ? Not at all. That is his own faith, and I have no quarrel with him because it is not mine.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question ? Does he acknowledge allegiance to any Pope or bishop of the Catholic Church ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking about allegiance to them at all. Every British subject is bound to pay allegiance to the head of the state.


Alexander Johnston: My hon. friend was saying


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If my hon. friend wishes to interrupt me every little while with a question, I would like him to make his own argument. I am not talking about that at all.
In 1688, when the settlement was made between the state, the church and the people, this was part and parcel of the agreement ; and every member of the state from that time to the present, acknowledges allegiance to the Queen or King, with the understanding that he is obeying that part of the compact, and therefore, it cannot be insulting to his faith. The late Queen took that declaration sixty-four years ago. Has any Catholic suffered in consequence during the last sixty-four years ? Has the late Queen been any the less tolerant of the religious convictions, the religious rights, or


Thomas Simpson Sproule: even the prejudices of Catholics ? I do not think any one will successfully contend that she has been. Yet she took it, and they have lived under it all that time. The present King has taken it, and are they likely to enjoy any less freedom or any fewer advantages under him than they have done under the late Queen ? I do not think any one will contend that they are. That being the case, what ground is there for complaint ? In my judgment there is none.
I see great objections to the periodical introduction into this House of these disturbing questions, which have a tendency to divide the people and destroy that spirit of charity and tolerance which is the spirit of the nineteenth century, and rake up ancient history and the quarrels of the past, which many of us would gladly leave to be hidden in oblivion. It is because of these opinions and feelings that I am disposed to vote against this resolution. I never view with complacency the disposition to introduce these controversial questions. They are very troublesome questions, and those who introduce them must be held responsible. There are some who live and thrive on that class of work. I do not grudge them any little popularity they may obtain from It, but I think they are doing a great injustice, not only to the people of the country, but to the very class of people whose interests they profess to serve.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to relieve at once the mind of my hon. friend who has just spoken as to the feelings of Roman Catholics on this very important question. Speaking as one of the descendants of those Frenchmen who were ceded by a French and Catholic King to an English and Protestant sovereign. I have no hesitation in saying, as my leader very eloquently said this afternoon, that, Catholic and Frenchman as I am, I am prouder to have lived under a wise and constitutional sovereign like Queen Victoria, than under an arbitrary ruler like Louis XV.
I rise to give my humble but earnest support to the resolution presented by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan).
The question now submitted to you, Sir, is not raised with the object of creating any religious agitation. If it were, I would not speak in favour of the resolution. The Roman Catholics of Canada, united with their co-religionists of the British Empire, are anxious that a grievance should be removed, that an evil should be remedied and that a wrong should be righted. Without going any further, I wish to answer at once a preliminary objection which has been raised. It is stated that this is not the proper place to discuss the declaration of the King against transubstantiation-it being a subject-matter, coming within the purview of the Imperial parliament. This

opinion is presumably based upon the following reply sent to tbe Marquis of Lome by tbe Earl of Kimberley, at the time tbe resolutions, adopted by this House in favour of home rule, were sent to tbe Imperial government :
Her Majesty will always gladly receive the advice of the parliament of Canada on all matters relating to the Dominion and the administration of its affairs; but with respect to the question referred to in the address, Her Majesty will, in accordance with the constitution of this country, have regard to the advice of the Imperial parliament and ministers, to which all matters relating to the affairs of the United Kingdom exclusively appertain.
This same view is shared by a portion of the Canadian press. It is contended that the parliament which prescribed the declaration against transubstantiation, is the only parliament that can abolish or amend it.
Sir, I quite agree that this parliament cannot substitute itself for the Imperial parliament, but surely we have the right to express an opinion upon a question deeply affecting twelve millions of His Majesty's loyal subjects, and at the least 42 per cent of the total population of Canada. Granted, that we can not legislate for the British parliament, but who can deny to our parliament, but any of our legislatures

that expressive power or expressive function, without which, parliament would be nothing but a mere name ? True, we cannot interfere with the functions of the Imperial parliament, but, Sir, we would be unworthy of our British citizenship if we could not, in this House, ventilate a grievance, and even humbly petition the King himself.
After all, the declaration against transubstantiation, which is made the subject of this debate, is a relic of past ages. At the time it was framed, the English people thought it was absolutely necessary that such a declaration should be made by the King. It was, perhaps, considered more as a political move than as a sectarian one. But, Sir, the fear of the Stuarts exists no more, and the Protestant House of Hanover is now deeply rooted in the British Isles, nay in the whole British Empire. The Pope of Rome is, and has been, for years and years a firm advocate of peace ; the disabilities against Britisli subjects belonging to the Catholic faith have also disappeared in the course of time, and today they form an important and numerous body of His Majesty's most loyal subjects. Why then, should the British sovereign be forced to make a declaration giving needless, -wanton and studied offence to his Catholic subjects ? Why then should their dearest belief be officially declared idolatrous and superstitious ?
As Catholics, we hold as tenets of our faith: (1) the real presence of Our Saviour in the Blessed Eucharist; (2) the invocation
of the Blessed Virgin ; (3) the invocation of the saints ; (4) the sacrifice of mass.
Yet, Sir, these fundamental and essential articles of the Catholic creed are pilloried by Act of parliament. What are we asking ? We are asking that Catholic doctrines held sacred by twelve million British subjects should not be made the object of royal condemnation.
This vast British Empire is composed not only of Protestants, but of Catholics, Brahmins, Mahommedaus, Budhists, Pagans as well. Strange to say, Catholics alone-twelve million of Catholics-are obliged to listen to a severe condemnation, to a rebuke, from the lips of their sovereign. This declaration, Sir, is, as I have already said, a relic of past ages. Let it disappear. Other relics have been done away with in conservative England. Not a century ago, according to public documents, the King was not only King of England, but also King of Prance. This title disappeared in the course of time, proud as the English were of this relic of past ages.
We also, in Lower Canada, were, after the cession, subject to the disabilities affecting the Catholics of England. An oath -a test oath-was required from our ancestors which practically debarred them from holding any public office. They protested, and Sir, Great Britain wiped out that vestige of past ages, and granted them civil and religious liberty.
We hope-we earnestly hope-that this resolution will be received in England, as the expression of the sincere and loyal wishes of the united Canadian people, and that the Imperial parliament will soon remove from the statute-book a declaration most offensive to Roman Catholics. This is not a national question ; this is not a religious question. It is a matter of public policy, a request for equal rights, for the exercise of that fair-play and broad toleration which characterize British institutions. In conclusion, I will say that I, as a Catho-lie, would not object to a Protestant declaration from the British sovereign, but I object to a purely anti-Catholic out-of-date declaration.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: If I may be permitted to speak again in this debate, I desire to say, in view of the appeals that have been made to me from some quarters of the House to ascertain whether it would not be possible to amend the resolution, the principle of which seems to be generally acceptable, but the language of which seems to be the subject of some exception, after conference with my hon. friend the mover of this resolution, and with some other members on both sides of the House I have to propose, that my hon. friend would accept and agree to a change in the motion. The change I would suggest is in the last

paragraph of the motion, which is in these words :
That in the opinion of this House, the above mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration.
And substitute the following words :
That in the opinion of this House the declaration referred to in the above mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by eliminating therefrom all those expressions which are especially offensive to the religious belief of any subjects of the British Empire.
Of course, it is a well known rule of the House that such an amendment could not be accepted except by consent of the House; but I imagine that, in a matter of this kind, no one would object and that these words could be substituted in the motion of my hon. friend.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With the unanimous consent of the House, there will be no difficulty in the hon. gentleman withdrawing liis motion and substituting the other.


John Costigan: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if, in ottering a few words with regard to the suggestion just thrown out by the leader of the House, X should preclude myself from speaking should the debate continue ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If it is a personal explanation the hon. gentleman has, no doubt, the right to give it. I suppose also that, with the unanimous consent of the House that the hon. member could have an opportunity of giving the explanation he wishes to give.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This is a most unusual and extraordinary state of affairs. They first violate the rules by amending the resolution originally proposed, and, in the second place I suppose, as it is a new resolution, every one will be allowed to speak again.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will waive my right, and I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) will do the same.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is proposed to withdraw the resolution now before the House, and substitute a similar motion except with the alteration proposed. Is is the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Costigan) shall have leave to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.


John Costigan: That all the words after ' That ' be left out, and the following added instead thereof :
That a humble address be presented to His Most Gracious Majesty the King, as follows : - Most Gracious Majesty:
. Your Majesty's most faithful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, beg leave most humbly to represent : That as a token of the civil and religious liberties and of the equality of rights guaran-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
teed to all British subjects In the Canadian confederation, as well as under the British constitution, the British sovereign should not be called to make any declaration offensive to the religious belief of any subject of the British Crown.
That by virtue of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, the British sovereign, on the first day of the meeting of the first parliament, or at the coronation, is called upon to make the following declaration :-
' I. A. B., by the grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever ; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do make this declaration, and each and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me Tor this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am nr can he acquitted before God or men, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.'
That such declaration is offensive to the convictions of all Roman Catholics.
That the staunch loyalty of Your Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Canada and throughout British possessions should exempt them from any offensive reference to their religion by their sovereign.
That in the opinion of this House, the declaration referred to in the above mentioned Act should be amended by eliminating therefrom all these expressions which are especially offensive to the religious belief of any subjects of the British Crown.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Simcoe).: I am not familiar with the rules of the House, but I understand that every hon. member is at liberty to discuss this question before the motion is carried. With all sincerity I crave the indulgence of the House in rising to speak on this very important question, more particularly perhaps, as it is not the feeling of tile House that I should speak. On an ordinary question, one affecting only the financial interests of the country I would not feel that I needed the consideration of hon. members to the same extent. But, rising to speak at this late hour, and at a time when it may seem to many hon. members that debate is less necessary than it was at an earlier stage,
I am obliged to ask the hon. members for every reasonable latitude. I feel, like the last hon. gentleman who addressed the

House (Mr. Lemieux) that it is such au important question that it almost justifies a written address, which is contrary I understand to the rules of the House, rather than those unstudied remarks which may fall from the lips of one who attempts to speak without that assistance. I assure lion, members on both sides, that I approach this subject with diffidence, and also with an honest desire not to say one word which can he offensive to any hon. member of the House or that can be construed as often- j sive to any of the people that go to make up the Dominion. I realize that it is important too, in this country that the law should be such, as not to unduly or unfairly cause offense to any class of His Majesty's subjects. I realize also that it may well be said that the language in which the declaration which has been so frequently referred to is couched, may be reasonably offensive to some of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. I recollect, too, that the loyalty and devotion of British subjects of the Roman Catholic faith have been tested on many occasions. Therefore, I should be sorry indeed if there should be perpetuated in any of the statutes of the British Empire anything that is likely to cause offence to His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. But, I ask leave to say also that I have not varied very much in my opinion of this matter during the progress of the debate. One subject has become reasonably clear in my mind in a way, that I did not quite anticipate at the beginning of the debate. I had a great deal of doubt as to whether it is competent for this parliament to deal with this question. But, the remarks which fell from the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) were so plain and so convincing in that regard that I am perfectly convinced that it is competent for this House to pronounce upon this question, if properly presented to it.
I venture to say that there is a wide difference between the competency of this House to present a petition to His Majesty and the propriety, or the wisdom, of the policy of pursuing the course we are asked to take here to-night. I still hold the view I entertained at the beginning of the debate, that this question is fraught with the greatest danger to the peace and harmony of this great Dominion, and the constant introduction of questions of this kind is calculated to arouse religious strife among the people. I desire to protest as vigorously as I can against the introduction of these questions on the floor of the Dominion parliament. Whilst we have the right and the privilege to present petitions to the sovereign of the empire, the introduction of this subject at present is unnecessary, and worse, because it is calculated to injure this country. We have already had sufficient racial and religious difficulties in this country without going across the Atlantic and importing
others. The great curse of this country is that from time to time some gentleman whose motive I do not wish to asperse, seeks to drag questions of race and religion into parliament. While these questions will do injury to the country, they will not ruin it, because nothing can withstand the progress of this great Dominion. I am astonished that so old a parliamentarian as the hon. member for Victoria should be so wanting in astuteness as to have committed this great error of introducing a measure which can have no other effect than to arouse strife. Notwithstanding that the resolution has been modified, I am prepared to vote against it. I do so for many reasons, and one is that I believe the parliament of Great Britain is prepared to treat this matter on the broad and enlightened principles of the century on which we have just entered. One of those principles is that the Roman Catholics of the empire should receive every consideration at the hands of the British parliament. I am content to leave this matter where it belongs. Almost every gentlemen who has spoken in the House to-night has spoken in favour of the resolution, and claimed liberties which they would never have enjoyed in any other land. I am confident that while the present dynasty reigns over the British Empire the liberty of no one will be in danger, and no Act will remain on the statute-book which is necessarily offensive to the Roman Catholic people of the empire.
Several hon. gentlemen have maintained that the present is an opportune time for bringing forward this question. I do not share in that opinion. It is not an opportune time when the Crown is passing from one head to another to raise such a question as this. If I had any doubts as to the expediency of passing this resolution in its first form, those doubts have been much increased by some of the speeches that I have heard this evening. We find hon. members differing very widely, both as to the existing laws and as to the effect of the resolution if it is passed. For instance, we have the hon. member for West York referring to the Thirty-nine Articles and the Westminster Confession. That fact alone suggests to my mind that there are too many questions surrounding the proposition before this House to justify us in dealing with it, there are a great many questions connected with it that the parliament of Great Britain is more competent to deal with than we are. We should understand exactly the position we are in before making any move in this matter. Then we have the opinion that has been so ably put forth by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). I followed him as closely as I could, and I am inclined to think there is a good deal in what he said, showing again that we are in doubt as to the exact position of the question we are dealing with. Then, we have the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. COMMONS
Bourassa), who put his construction upon this resolution. He argues that under the sovereignty of Britain men of all religions and all creeds have equal rights. Surely we all assent to that proposition. He goes further and says that all creeds ought to be on the same footing. If that is what is aimed at by the resolution, that is not the understanding of many hon. members who have spoken here to-night. There is no distinction at present between the civil status of Romaic Catholics and Protestants in the British Empire.
Speaking for myself, I am not prepared to subscribe to that proposition. An hon. gentleman says that we have a right to deal with this question. He puts that right very emphatically, but although he puts that right so emphatically, declaring that we have a right to take part in this matter as regards the British parliament, the hon. gentleman does not look at both sides of the shield. When it comes to the Canadian people supporting Great Britain in the field, the hon. gentleman takes an opposite view. He proclaims, in a resolution which is to come before the House, an opposite doctrine to that which he has just propounded to the members of this parliament. For these reasons, in addition co others which I have given, and desiring as honestly as any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House that there shall be no differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants before the Crown, that there shall be no differences of creed or nationality in this country, or the old land, I wish it to be distinctly understood that this is not the place nor the time to introduce a question of this kind. I submit this with all deference. I feel that I have been speaking at a great disadvantage. I feel that, coming before the House at this time and under these circumstances, I am handicapped, but I want to see the great people of this country, of one origin or the other, whether they are Roman Catholic or Protestant, grow up in peace and harmony together. I do feel, that at the beginning of this new year, the first of the century, it is time to realize the importance of keeping such questions out of the debates of this parliament. I rejoice that our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens have joined with us to fight the battles of the empire. I remember that when Great Britain was in her hour of need Roman Catholics and Procestants went out together as Britons to fight her battles, that whilst, perhaps, they knelt before different altars, they worshipped the same God and waved the same old British flag, and that while worshipping the same God and owing allegiance to -the same sovereign, they marched on together to victory, which has always perched upon the banners of Great Britain. My Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. gentlemen of French origin as well as of English origin, unite in wishing prosperity to the great British Empire and the Mr. LENNOX.
great Dominion of Canada. I am, perhaps, in my earnest desire to see carried out my idea that all shall live in peace and harmony together as His Majesty's subjects, speaking more excitedly than is consistent with a calm declaration of the ideas I have, but coming belore this new parliament, at the beginning of a new year and at the beginning of a century which I believe will be the greatest in the annals of Great Britain and the Dominion, I feel it is time for us to unite in this one grand sentiment :
This is our country, strong and broad and grand, God guard thee Canada, our native land.


Mr. FLETCHER B. WADE (Annapolis).: Mr. Speaker, I presume that it will be pleasant to lion, members to know that I do not propose making a speech at this late hour of the night. The only reason that 1 rise here now is because I desire to correct a misapprehension of a number of hon. gentlemen in the House. It seems to be taken for granted that the only church to which this declaration is offensive is the Roman Catholic Church. That is quite a mistake. I wish to draw the attention of the Plouse to the fact that there is a large portion of the Protestant Church to whom the first clause of this declaration is quite as offensive as it Is to the Roman Catholics. I refer to the Lutheran Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church. This body of Christians is composed of followers of Luther, and their creed is to be found in the Augsberg Confession of Faith. Luther contended for the doctrine of transubstantia-tion, and upon that question the Calvinists split and seceded from the church. This is an important body throughout Canada, and more especially in the county of Lunenburg, where I happen to reside for many years. I make this correction in the interest of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) who represents that fine county. I do not purpose engaging the attention of the House beyond this point. I am going to support the resolution, but I do not wish to do so without expressing myself openly, and I express myself openly for the purpose of showing the House and the country that the constituency which I have the honour to represent is far above and beyond all bigotry and uncharitableness.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPFER (Pietou).: tlie member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmer-son) suggested that I did not go heart and hand with my leader, I almost laughed in his face. I never was prouder of a leader in my life than I was of the hon. leader of the opposition to-day, in the high position he took. Without a caucus, without conference with his party, without any reference to the gentlemen who sat behind him, and newly come to his responsible position, he said to his followers : I leave you all free, but as for myself, I stand out on this broad plane, that I want to see equal justice done to every race and creed in Canada and the empire ; X take my stand for justice, equal civil and religious rights, and I do not wish to see included in this coronation ceremony, or in any of the great functions of state, an epithet that is considered offensive to my Itoman Catholic fellow-subjects, or to any of my fellow-subjects of the ICing. I repeat that I was never prouder of the position taken by any leader of a party than I was of the manly, sturdy, and truly Canadian position taken by the leader of the opposition to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: 1 would not have risen, except to add my poor voice, by way of appeal, to all those gentlemen with whom I generally act, that they should do a generous thing, forget the manner in which the resolution was introduced, and the opportunity taken for its introduction, on going into Supply, when no suggestion could be made to amend it, as could be done if the ordinary course were adopted. That course might have been pursued here, which the hon. seconder of the resolution (Mr. Kendall) pointed out, was adopted in the province of Nova Scotia many years ago, when a unanimous vote was obtained, because there was no attempt to force on any one a particular phrase or a particular sentence, and a committee being appointed to draw up an address, there was a strong resolution framed that was acceptable to every man in that chamber. I believe the same thing could have been done on this occasion, and the responsibility of any difference of opinion rests upon the shoulders of the member for Victoria (Mr. Costigan). He has been ill-advised, in my humble judgment ; but notwithstanding all that, I would make as ardent and earnest an appeal for unanimity on this question as I can possibly make to hon. gentlemen on one side of the House or the other. We can strengthen the hands of our fellow-subjects in the United Kingdom to-day in a cause that is good, a cause that has nothing in it which in the slightest degree imperils an interest in the empire, and we can promote that cordial feeling which seems to be growing, and happily growing, in our own country, and particularly in this Chamber.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 


Mr. GEO  W.@: EOWLER (King's, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, although the hour is late, I propose to inflict a few remarks on the House, for the reason that I do not wish to give a silent vote on this question. I may say at the outset that I am in favour of the resolution before the House, because I believe that the declaration which the sovereign of this empire makes should be made without giving offence to any class or race, or creed, throughout his vast dominions ; and I do not agree with the statement which has been made by some hon. members that this is not the place nor this the time to bring up a matter of this kind. I think this is the very place. It would be a hard reflection upon this honourable House, which is supposed to represent the" intelligence of this Dominion, if we 213 men could not discuss a question of tins character without arousing race or creed prejudices ; and I am glad to be able to bear the same testimony as the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper), who congratulated the House on the manner in which this debate has been conducted up to the present time. I must take this opportunity to congratulate the government upon the course which they have taken with regard to this resolution. X wish to congratulate them upon the fact that they have had the good sense to appreciate the suggestion which was made to them by the hon. leader of the opposition. I am glad to be able to congratulate them upon the fact that they saw the peculiar position in which they were placing the House by adhering to the resolution of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Costigan), ns it was first introduced, because the resolution which they had evidently determined to support in its entirety was a resolution which wont vastly further than the statements which the hon. members made as to the object they had in view. I therefore, congratulate them, that, as in the case of the binder twine discussion the other night, they have adopted the suggestion thrown out on this side of the House.
There is one thing I regret exceedingly, that is, that two of the hon. members from the maritime provinces who have spoken, have shown lamentable ignorance-the one on a question of religion and the other on a question of history. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), who made a very eloquent speech, made a statement with reference to the expulsion of the Acadlans a great many years ago. The hon. gentleman said that the reason the Aeadians were expelled from Nova Scotia was that they refused to take the declaration which is embodied in this resolution.
I am very sorry that the hon. gentleman should have displayed such vast ignorance of that subject, because he comes from the maritime provinces. As a matter of fact, the Aeadians were expelled from Nova

Scotia because they refused to take the simple oath of allegiance to King George, and not the test oath at all.
The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Y\ ade) brought up the grievance of the Lutheran Church, a church which lias a great many adherents, he says, in the province of Nova Scotia ; and he said this declaration affected them and their prejudices. The hon. gentleman has not that knowledge of dogmas or of the creed of the Lutheran Church which he ought to have, in order to speak with authority, or he would know that the Lutheran Church does not subscribe to the doctrine of tran-substantiation at all. It subscribes to an entirely different doctrine, the doctrine of consubstantiation. and the hon. member does not seem to distinguish between the two. For the information of the hon. member, and in order to correct the wrong impression which hon. members who are not well versed in religious matters may have gathered from his remarks, let me read from the Encyclopedia Britannica, as to the difference between these two dogmas :
To commence with the Roman Church. With regard to the doctrine known as transubstantia * tion, it must here suffice to say that the Church of Rome teaches that the whole substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is converted by consecration into the body and blood of Christ, in such a manner that Christ in His entirety, including His human soul and His divine nature, are contained in the elements.
Now, with regard to the Lutheran Church :
While the continental Reformers were of one mind in repudiating the Roman doctrine of tran-substantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass, very wide difference existed between them in their estimate of the grace imparted by the Eucharist and the mode of the presence of Christ in that sacrament. The symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, following the teaching of Luther himself, declare the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's body and the blood in the Eucharist, together with the bread and wine (eonsubstan-tiaticn), as well as the ubiquity of His body, as the orthodox doctrine of the church.
A wide distinction ; and when my hon. friend has further studied the dectrines


Some hon. MEMBERS: Ob, oh.


Mr. FOWLER.: I can quite understand how the Minister of Railways might be amused at this, because he has very little knowledge on these matters.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There appear to be a couple of us in that dilemma.


George William Fowler: Yes, you and the member for Annapolis. The hon. gentleman has already exhibited his lack of knowledge, when he did not see any distinction between the resolution as brought in by the hon. member for Victoria and the amendment as suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition, But I am very glad that this resolution has been amended in the manner in
which it has been, and I shall take very great pleasure in voting for it, and I would be very sorry to see a division of the House on the question. I think we should approach it, as we have almost without exception, without any party feeling. This is another point on which I am sorry the hon. member for Westmoreland should have made the statement he did. He endeavoured to bring politics into this matter, although there are no politics and should not be any in It. Now that the hon. member for Victoria has accepted this amendment, and the government, who are, I have no doubt, behind him in the matter, have also accepted it, I think we should all vote for it without division, and have it unanimously carried.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to vote against this resolution, and to speak against it as strongly as I could. Not because I do not thoroughly and entirely agree that all those offensive words should be left out of the declaration ; but I do not think this is the proper place to introduce such a motion. My feeling is that to bring this and kindred subjects before the House must revive religious strife which has almost ceased, at all events in western Canada. But, as I do not wish that there should be any division in the House on this subject, and after the amendment has been accepted by the mover and endorsed by tbe leader of tbe opposition, not taking that as an endorsement of the principle that such a resolution should be introduced into this House at all, I will frankly support and vote for the amendment.


Mr FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I am sorry not to be able to join my voice to the chorus of approval with which the amendment to this resolution has been received. I am sorry that the resolution was brought into the House. There are people to be considered out of this House as well as those in it, and this is a question which touches the hearts and consciences of people of many different classes in all sections of this country. We are placed in this position that we must either vote-so the extremists will tell us-to Insult one section of our population, or we must betray the other. If it were within the province of this legislature to decide the question, it might still he right and proper to bring it up in this House, but when it is one outside our jurisdiction, I think we should leave it severely alone. We know that in this country we have suffered in the past from agitations over questions of religion, which were exploited by political brigands and parasites, and we are liable to suffer from similar agitations in the future, if such questions are again introduced. It looks to me as if it were the intention of some people to introduce them. I am not one of those who object to this resolution because it deals with

a subject which is within the sole jurisdiction of the Imperial parliament. I do not object to approaching the Imperial parliament. We have the right to do so, but there are many things which are right, which are not expedient. Having been a member for a number of years of the territorial assembly, I am well aware that however much an irresponsible House may know concerning any certain measure not within its jurisdiction, it is apt to deal with it in a different spirit from the legislature charged with the responsibility of settling the question. I notice there is a degree of carelessness and levity in our treatment of this question that I am sure we would not display if the responsibility of deciding it rested with us. I do not imagine that if we had such a responsibility, a resolution would be approved, hour after hour, in one form, and then, after hours of debate, a radical amendment, changing its nature, would be just as readily accepted. It seems to me that this readiness to accept a radical change argues a sense of irresponsibility, which is not creditable to this House.
With regard to the change that has been made, it is certainly an important one, and makes a radical difference in the resolution. Those hon. members who spoke in favour of the resolution as it stood, by doing so laid themselves open to the charge of being willing to forego the Protestant succession to the Crown of England. But the resolution lias been amended in that particular, and now we are only dealing with it as regards the assertion of an insult to our Catholic fellow-citizens. I am not prepared to accept the statement that there is any insult intended. I take it that insult exists by reason of intent rather than by what is said, and there is no intent, and never was any, to insult any one's religious belief by requiring the King to take that solemn declaration.
The seconder of the resolution said whatever rights he claimed for himself he is willing to concede to others. I resemble him in that particular, but I say that the rights which I concede to others I claim for myself and those who think with me. If we admit the principle of Protestant succession to the Crown of England, then we admit the principle of establishing the Protestantism of the King by such form of words as may be necessary, and in so doing we do not insult any man's religious belief. It is the privilege of the members of every church to declare their religious belief by such form of words as they may think necessary. I do not think that our Roman Catholic friends will say that the form of words in which they profess their religious belief could not be construed as offensive to Protestants. No doubt the same view will hold with regard to the profession of faith of the Protestant church. These are subjects on which each one lias the right to express his own opinion in his own way.


Mr. OLIVER.: 


Mr. MCLENNAN.: Would you call Roman Catholics idolaters ?


Frank Oliver: Nobody calls them idolaters.


Angus McLennan: Read the declaration.


Frank Oliver: The declaration reads :
And that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitous and idolatrous.
I humbly submit that it does not follow necessarily from that declaration that Catholics are idolaters. I am sorry that other hon. members do not look at this matter as I do. But I decline to be put in the position of stating that our constitution has systematically for 200 years insulted any class of the loyal citizens of this country. I deny that contention. I say that this matter of the declaration of the faith of the King of England is a necessity arising from the fact of the Protestant succession. The intolerance, if intolerance there be, is in that principle of Protestant succession. If a wrong is done, it is because the constitution demands that a Protestant and not a Catholic shall sit upon the Throne. That is where the difference lies between the case of a king and others. No Catholic is debarred from any office or position throughout the King's dominions, but still a Catholic is debarred from a seat on the Throne. That is intolerance if you like. I will admit that it is intolerance, but I will not admit that the form of words by which it is established that the King is, as required by the law to be, a Protestant, is an insult to anybody. With regard to the change that has been made in the resolution, I say that, when the principle of the Protestant succession is admitted, the contention contained in the resolution falls to the ground. The contention that any insult is contained in the constitution is as incorrect as to say that any insult is intended. I ! cannot, by supporting even this amended resolution, admit, as I say, that the constitution of England has insulted a part of the people of England for two hundred years, nor will I be a party to, saying that the King of England, when he took the coronation oath and made this declaration a few days ago, did, as a matter of fact any more than as a matter of intention, insult the Roman Catholic people of this country. I shall, therefore, vote against the resolution.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: As an independent member of this House, I feel that I would not do myself or the people of this country justice unless I expressed my opinion upon this question. I always had the idea that this parliament was instituted for the purpose of discussing politics and introducing legislation for the benefit of this country. I had no idea that it could at any time have the power to turn itself into a convocation of bishops to

discuss religion. It seems to me that that is what it has been doing since three o'clock to-day, and I think it is time this discussion was ended.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Jabel Robinson: And it will end the sooner if hon. gentlemen opposite will keep quiet. I am built of the kind of stuff that will stand here till to-morrow morning if necessary. Now, I say, in all earnestness, that I hope and trust that this will be the last time that ever a resolution of this kind will be introduced into parliament. It is an insult to the people of this country for this House to sit here for twelve hours and discuss a thing that is not our business. I am satisiied that the people of England, whom we propose to advise in this matter, understand their business far better than we do, and that we should let them settle this question. I understand, from what the Prime Minister said, that we had been snubbed once for the advice we gave. I hope that that will not happen in this case. I have very little objection to the resolution, but I do object to forcing our opinion upon the British people. What would we think if the British parliament wasted their time in telling us what we should do here ? We would think they had better mind their own business. 1 have not much more to say


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin)-but I could talk for a long time if I wished to. I only wish to protest now, and for all time against this question being brought up in this House. If I had to prescribe the oath for His Majesty, it would rend something like this :	' I, King Edward YII., a
Protestant firm in the faith, solemnly swear that I will give to all my subjects of every race, colour or creed, the right to worship God according to the dictates of their con-ciences; and no person shall interfere 'with the people of any religious faith, against the law, or make them afraid for anything they may do in religious matters.' No man, whatever his religion, could find fault with such a declaration as that. I hope that that is the last oath that will be given in this House, and I hope hon. members will all subscribe to it, and will live like upright, good, honest, Christian men.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) has been good enough to state that I did not know the difference between transubstantiation and consubstan-tiation.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that the hon. member (Mr. Wade) wishes to make a personal'explanation.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I fancy that it does not make much difference to this House whether
I know the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but I wish to assert that the statement that I made here that the first paragraph of said declaration is offensive to the Lutherans as well as to Roman Catholics is perfectly correct; and, as authority, I would refer, if I may be permitted


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would remind the hon. member that at this stage of the debate he is only permitted to make a personal explanation, because he has already spoken once.


Mr. JAMES M. DOUGLAS (East Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker


William Findlay Maclean: Another bishop.


James Moffat Douglas: And this bishop claims the right, as a Presbyterian bishop, to be heard upon this subject, and, perhaps, so far as learning is concerned, he would be able to say as much, and to as good purpose as many of the politicians who have spoken.
I rise simply to state that I deeply regretted and felt deeply anxious over the whole question, from the time notice was given of this motion by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., (Hon. Mr. Costigan). I regret the discussion of to-day for various reasons, and especially on account of the precedent which this House has set to-day for discussions of this kind. I certainly desire to follow my hon. friend from the west who has just spoken, and to say that I hope it will not be repeated. I think the politicians are bad theologians, and if I wished to study theology I would never come to the House of Commons to do so. Now, as a Presbyterian, I regret that the creeds of the church which I represent, and of the Church of England, which I so much respect, should be hauled before this House in the unceremonious way that we have to-day witnessed. I can respect the opinions of those who proposed the standards of the church, simply because I appreciate their historical benefit in the church to-day. I know that these men were men of God, were men of knowledge, were men of culture, were men who had the best interest of church and state at heart, and if they gave expression to strong views it was becaiise they were surrounded by strong circumstances, because they were surrounded by oppression and wrongs inflicted upon them. These were the circumstances that brought into life these strong declarations in reference to matters of faith and practice. That is why these creeds have come down to us with such a history, and when we, in the beginning of the twentieth century, speak in the freedom and liberty which we enjoy, we are apt to look upon them as being extremely odious and, perhaps, objectionable. But we need to put them back into their historical setting, and then we will see the wisdom, the tact, the ability, the piety and the prudence of such statements and such declarations.

Now, though I am a member of the Presbyterian Church, and for forty-five years a minister and a religious teacher in that church, and hold to-day my full standing, I claim that I am no bigot, that I sympathize with religious toleration, and that I am quite willing to accord to my fellow-citizens of the Roman Catholic religion in this country every benefit, and every privilege and liberty which I claim as an individual, and would be willing to sustain any movement in that direction. Yet, after all, I deprecate that this matter was brought up for discussion, not only because it will give rise to endless discussions throughout the country, but because it will give to bigots an opportunity to make speeches, semi-political, it may be, and semi-religious, and men who are not reasonable will seek to make capital from this text that we have given them. It would have been better for this government, it would have been a great deal better for this parliament, a great deal better for this country, both religiously and politically, if this discussion had never taken place. I want to say further, that I had the honour in India not many years ago of being present when religious toleration was pro claimed by the Empress of India to the people of India, and the resolution which we now propose is in keeping with the spirit of that declaration. I was opposed to the resolution as it was first introduced, and had made up my mind that I would vote against it. But now that the mover has accepted an amendment which largely changes the nature of the resolution and its bearings, my mind is largely relieved on that score, and I can support the amendment. In questions of this kind it does not do to be too specific, my objection was that the resolution was too specific, and that the whole thing could be better summed up in a single sentence or two, which should contain a general principle without bringing in either the Roman Catholic or any other sect. But I hold that this declaration should be purged of anything that is offensive, in the broadest sense, to any British subject in the empire, and with that in view I am prepared to support the amendment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I rise to make an explanation. I am sure my hon. friend from Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) must have misapprehended what I stated this evening with reference to himself. I did make a reference to the fact that the member for Halifax had shown him a lack of sympathy with reference to the very excellent points which he had made. There was a lack of sympathy from those around him, but I referred to the member for Pictou as_ apparently being the only one who had given any applause to the remarks uttered by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace).	,


Robert Laird Borden: May I be permitted a word of personal explanation ? I do not feel the need at all of any sympathy from the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmersonj in respect to the matter referred to.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I have not taken up any time so far in the discussion of this matter, and I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. I confess to some embarrassment in view of the amendment which has been suggested to meet the objections which were raised to the resolution presented by the member for Victoria, N.B., (Hon. Mr. Cos-tigan). For my part, I have no fault whatever to find with the remarks with which the hon. gentleman presented his resolution to the House. But, in common with many other hon. members, I think I have good ground to find fault with the manner in which this resolution has been presented. The hon. gentleman desires us to believe that he is actuated solely with a view to secure for those for whom he says lie speaks, those whom he represents, an amelioration of the declaration which is now made by the sovereign of this empire. I think that a matter affecting the rights and liberties of any class or section of His Majesty's subjects is a matter in itself of sufficient importance to justify even sucli a representative member as the hon. gentleman claims to be in asking the co-operation and support of every member of this House. I think if he desired to secure the greatest possible benefit for those whom he represents, before he introduced this resolution it was his duty to see if there was any divergence of opinion, and what that divergence was, between himself and! others as to the terms of his resolution. ' But, instead of pursuing that course, as a man actuated wholly by the desire to benefit his co-religionists might be expected to do, he took the opportunity of moving under the forms of the House when a motion was made to go into Committee of Supply, so that his resolution could not be amended in any way. He made the resolution as stiff and as strong as it was possible for him to make it; and it is only after the resolution has been debated for some nine or ten hours that a slight amendment has been suggested, and I believe has been accepted by the hon. gentleman and hon. members on both sides of the House. I stand here to-night as one who believes from the very bottom of my soul in the principle of civil and religions liberty. I believe also in absolute equality before the law. and I desire that any disability under which Roman Catholics exist, either in this or any other part of the British Empire, shall be removed at once and for ever. That is my confession of faith, and I am not ashamed to make it here. I have made it many times


James Moffat Douglas: before, and as long as I am spared I shall continue to make that my confession of faith and of doctrine which I most firmly believe. But, the hon. gentleman, as I have already said, did not ask the co-operation or support of those who differ from him in these matters as to the framing of his resolution, or as to the time and manner of its introduction. If he consulted any person in connection with this matter, he consulted the right hon. Prime Minister, and when, at an earlier stage in this debate, the suggestion was made to the right hon. gentleman by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) that the debate be adjourned so that an opportunity might be given to the hon. gentlemen who, believing in equality, desired to frame a resolution that could be passed unanimously by this House, that reasonable request on the part of the hon. member for East York was absolutely refused. We are kept here until one o'clock in the morning trying to reach a conclusion that will do honour to the Commons of Canada and reflect the voice and opinions of those whom we represent. I say it is a most unreasonable proposition that an amendment to a motion of this kind should be presented to us at this stage of the debate, and that we should be asked to decide at once upon it. As I understand the amendment, it reads as follows. I have only been able to get it into my hands within the past few minutes :
That all the words on the second page of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Victoria be struck out, and the following substituted :	That in the opinion of this House
the declaration referred to in the above-mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by eliminating therefrom all those expressions which are especially offensive to the religious belief of any subjects of the British empire.
The amendment goes a considerable distance to mitigate the objections I have to the resolution, but it does not go far enough; and desirous as I am of seeing the resolution carried out, unless an addition is made to the amendment I shall have to vote against it. Being a layman I do not profess to know what the exact meaning of the amendment is. but the suggestion I would make is that there should be added the following words :	' so long as the distinctively Protestant character of the declaration is maintained.' It seems to me that this is not an unreasonable proposition. It has been conceded by hon. gentlemen who have spoken on both sides of the House, that it is an absolute prerequisite that he or she who is the- sovereign of the British empire shall be a Protestant. That condition being admitted and agreed to, if the parliament of Canada memorializes the Imperial parliament, or the Crown, to have an amendment made to the declaration. I think it is not an unreasonable proposition to suggest that when we are ask-26 .
ing for changes in the declaration, when we ask that the words which have been objected to, and which are offensive to our Homan Catholic fellow-subjects, should be-eliminated, we should still preserve the feature of the declaration which has been taken by the sovereigns of Great Britain for the past 200 years-that they shall continue to make a declaration in which the Protestant features in the present declaration shall be maintained and continued. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the view which I desire to present, and I have tried to do it as briefly as I could. Let me say two or three words more. I dispute the contention with all respect and humility which has been presented here again and again, that it is the duty of this parliament to pass a resolution of this kind or a memorial of this kind at any stage of its proceedings. The Prime Minister stated this afternoon in the course of the debate that the resolution which was passed unanimously by this House last year, endorsing the position and action which the Imperial authorities took respecting the - Transvaal, had been graciously received and acknowledged by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is quite true ; but if my memory serves me right, the resolution which was passed by this House unanimously endorsed the position which the government of Great Britain took respecting the Transvaal, because that government was acting with the desire and with the object to secure for British subjects who resided in that part of the empire the same religious and civil liberty that we enjoy, and which British subjects enjoy in every portion of the empire ; and the reply which was received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies was a reply to an address which expressed satisfaction with the action of the Imperial authorities in their efforts to secure equal rights and liberties to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. If there was any class of Her Majesty's subjects which did not enjoy equal civil and religious liberty, I would be one of the first to advocate that any disability under which they laboured should be removed. For the past 200 years the declaration has been subscribed to by those who have occupied the position of sovereign of Great Britain, and the British Empire. The declaration was imposed upon them, but why ? Because the framers of that declaration were smarting under a series of the most intolerable wrongs and Injustice which alone could justify the use of such language.	The hon.
member for Victoria speaks as one representing	a certain class of this community. He has a right to speak as the representative of that class if he pleases, but I would ask him and the people whom he represents if the church to whieh they owe allegiance has changed any of its canon law which obtained 200 years ago,



or if its authorities liave acknowledged any abbreviation of the rights and privileges and powers which that church claimed belonged to it 200 years ago ? Two hundred years ago the head of the Roman Catholic Church-I do not desire to speak with anything but the greatest respect of that august ecclesiastic-claimed the power to depose and absolve. Has he relinquished that power ? Does he claim the right to exercise that power and jurisdiction to-day ? If he does, not one jot or tittle of the declaration which Her Majesty subscribed to, and which His Majesty subscribed to, should be removed. The foundation which was laid 200 years ago by those who framed this declaration was laid broad and deep and strong. A stately and superb edifice has been erected on this foundation in 200 years. Every man who is a British subject has now the fullest measure of civil and religious liberty accorded to him under the constitution which was then firmly established, and which has been growing steadily in power, up to the present time, and Roman Catholics experience only disabilities that are common to their Protestant fellow-subjects. I think, therefore, that we should be very chary of inviting the Imperial parliament to amend the declaration which was found to be so essential when it was passed. The Prime Minister of England, Lord Salisbury, has made a statement respecting this matter. His attention has been drawn to it by some eminent Roman Catholic peers whose loyalty is above suspicion. Lord Salisbury has pointed to the condition of things which existed when the declaration was placed on the statute-books, and he has referred to the fact that that condition is happily passing away. Sir, the liberties of the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom and of every other part of the British Empire are perfectly safe in the keeping of the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. That parliament will, I have no doubt, and I hope very speedily, amend the wording of the declaration that is complained of, and wipe out any portion of it which is especially offensive to any section or creed in this empire. The parliament of Great Britain is charged with that jurisdiction, and in view of the responses which were received from the Imperial authorities when resolutions were passed by this House and by other legislatures in Canada, respecting matters over which we had no jurisdiction, I think we are justified in asking that great care and deliberation should be exercised now before we place ourselves in a position to receive another rebuff. It has been said by the hon. gentleman from Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan) and others, that no special sentence or paragraph in the declaration is offensive to any other class or creed of His Majesty's subjects. That may be quite true, but surely we do not overlook the


James Moffat Douglas: fact that when the declaration was framed it was framed because of the condition of things that then existed. It was framed because of the machinations of foreign potentates against the liberties of the people of England, and it was framed in the only language that could be found at that time which would give that security, freedom and liberty to the English people which they desired. I wish to express my regret that this resolution has been introduced at all into the parliament of Canada. It deals with a question belonging to the parliament of England, that mother of parliaments, that parliament which has always been in the van in promoting the interests of all races and creeds of British subjects. That parliament is seized with the power of amending the declaration, and I repeat that the liberty of all classes and creeds of His Majesty's subjects is perfectly safe in the keeping of that parliament. I do not desire personally to see a division in the House on this question, but if the amendment which has been suggested-and which I believe has been accepted by hon. gentlemen on both sides-is further amended by the addition of the words which 1 have jotted down, I shall deem it my duty, so far as I am concerned, to support it, and will not take up the time by a division of the House. One word before I sit down. The hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution (Mr. Costigan) and the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) have quoted from the Guardian newspaper which is published in London, Eng. They quoted from the edition of February 13. I would not like to do either of the hon. gentlemen an injustice, but I think they left the impression on the House that the views they were quoting were the views of the journal itself. I draw the attention of those hon. gentlemen to the fact, if I am correct in my premises, that the opinions they quoted were merely the opinions of a correspondent, and the editor is very careful to say in the journal :
Opinions expressed in signed articles, or in articles marked communicated, or from correspondents, are not necessarily those of the Guardian. The appearance of those articles only implies that the editor thinks they are of such interest as to justify their publication.
The appearance of such a communication in a journal of this kind is in itself an evidence that the people of Great Britain and Ireland are becoming alive to the inequalities which may exist in the declaration; that they are discussing the question of its amendment, and >I repeat with all humility and with the greatest possible respect, that the parliament of Canada ought to leave this matter to the authority to which it properly belongs. We have no jurisdiction over it in this parliament, but if we pass a resolution by a divided vote, _ the force of that resolution will be materially weakened. I

should hope that even at this late hour it might be possible to so further amend this proposition of the hon. gentleman from Victoria (Mr. Costigan) as to have it meet with the unanimous approval of the House so that it might be sent across the ocean as the undivided opinion of the parliament of Canada. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for taking up so much of the time of the House, but I felt it incumbent upon me to say at least these few words before the debate closed and the division was taken.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Costi-g-an).
YEAS : Messieurs
Holmes,	Tucker,
Horsey,	Tupper (Sir	Charles
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Hibbert),
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Turcot,
Johnston (Lambton),	Turgeon, and
Kaulbach,	Wade.-125.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Blain,
Carscallen,
Clarke,
Johnston (Cardwell), Kidd,
Ca veil,
Lennox,
Oliver,
Reid (Grenville),
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Marquette), Sherritt,
Sproule,
Taylor,
Tolton,
Wallace,
Wilmot, and Wilson.-19.
Angers.
Barker,
Bazinet,
Belcourt,
Bell (Pictou),
Bernier,
Bickerdike,
Blair,
Borden (Halifax), Borden (King's, N.S.), Bourassa, Bourbonnais,
Britton,
Broder,
Brown,
Bruce,
Bruneau,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Calvin,
Cargill,
Carroll,
Champagne,
Clancy,
Copp,
Costigan.
Davies (Sir Louis), Davis,
Delisle.
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Dobell,
Douglas,
Dugas,
Edwards,
Emmerson,
Krb,
Etliier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Flint,
Fortier,
Fortin,
Fowler,
Fraser,
Gallery,
Ganong,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gibson,
Gilmour,
Gourley,
Hackett,
Haggart,
Hale,
Harwood,
26i
Kemp,
Kendall,
Kendry,
Lancaster,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Lefurgey,
Lemieux.
Lewis,
Logan,
Loy,
MacLaren (Huntingdon), Maclean,
McCool,
McCreary,
McEwcn,
McGowan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Martineau,
Matheson,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Monk,
Mulock,
Murray,
Northrup,
Osier,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Pope,
Frefontaine,
Pringle,
Prior,
Proulx,
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche), Richardson (Lisgar), Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Rousseau,
Russell,
Schell,
Scott,
Sifton,
Smith (Vancouver), Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tisdale,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
PAIRS :
For.
Against.
Messieurs
Girard,
McColl,
LaRivibre,
Tarte,
Smith (Wentworth),
Hughes (Victoria), Ward,
Cochrane,
McCarthy,
Henderson.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and motion amended agreed to.
John Costigan: as
That an humble address be voted to His Excellency the Governor General praying him to transmit the address of this House to His Majesty in such manner as to His Excellency may seem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the Throne.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Costigan: That the said address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the hon. the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do
not suppose the House desires to proceed with Supply at this hour. I beg to move :
That the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply at the next sitting of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I desire to have called the resolution with regard to the Pacific cable, which requires some urgency. My hon. friend the Postmaster General wants to lay some papers on the Table.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: I ask leave to lay on the Table a copy of an agreement between the colony of New South Wales and the Eastern Telegraph Company. I do so now in order that the papers may be looked at by any hon. gentlemen who take an interest in the



matter, so that we may be prepared to proceed with the resolution on Tuesday next.


VISIT OP THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he can inform the House whether he has had any answer from the Imperial government in regard to the proposed change of programme of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York. I am anxious to know, as the British Columbia legislature has unanimously passed a resolution asking Their Highnesses to visit British Columbia, as I learn from a telegram received from Premier Dunsmuir, to-night.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I must answer my hon. friend that there is correspondence still going on upon this subject. I am not in a position to state anything further now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.50 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 4, 1901.