Mr. 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.

Mr. SPEAKER.

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.

Mr. 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.

Order, order. Chair. Take it back.

Mr. WALLACE.

I would not for a moment break any of the rules of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER.

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

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.

Mr. 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.

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.

Mr. SPEAKER.

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.

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