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 ?

Mr. 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.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).

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.

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.

Mr. MACLEAN.

Will you allow the debate to go over to-night ?

We shall see what time it takes.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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

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 ?