I promised my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that I would take into consideration Rill (No. 47) from the Senate, further to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act. I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with my hon. friend that it would be advisable to take this Bill into consideration this session. I express no opinion at this moment on the merits of the Bill. I move therefore that the order be discharged.

BORDEN (Halifax). I regret that the right hon. gentleman has seen fit to adopt this course with regal'd to a Bill passed unanimously in the Senate, and which was acquiesced in there by the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State. If the right hon. gentleman had considered the present condition of legislation in the Northwest Territories, I think he would have seen that this is really necessary. In the first place, as has been pointed out in the House, very serious irregularities have occurred in the North-west Territories by reason of the condition of legislation as it exists at present. That legislation is in such a condition that a candidate running in the interests of the government may obtain cer tain advantages by the assistance of enumerators who are not very strict in the performance of their duties. Irregularities of that kjnd are alleged to have taken place during the late election. The legislation which is proposed is not only designed to make the present legislation symmetrical, but to prevent irregularities of that kind occurring in future. The position of the matter is that 'in 1894, chap. 7 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, sec. 31, was amended by striking out the word ' and ' in the second line, and putting in the words ' two days.' The effect was that instead of enumerators being able to revise the list up to polling day, they could only do so up to two days before polling day. An attempt was made to remedy that in 1896; it was partly remedied.' but some defects were overlooked. At that time, as I understand, it was thought by the Solicitor General that it was not necessary to make any further amendment, but it has since transpired that a further amendment to the Act is necessary. Now, as this legislation is for the purpose of redressing an admitted grievance, as it has passed the Senate with the concurrence of two of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues, as no possible objection can be urged against it, and as the object is to give fair-play and promote fair dealing with respect to elections in the North-west Territories, to prevent irregularities being carried on by the enumerators who might not happen to be too strict in the performance of their duties, it does not seem to me that there ought to be any possible objection to passing the legislation in the form in which it has been

agreed to in the Senate. If any possible evil, any possible danger, could be suggested by any member of the government, that would be another thing. But I understand that the Solicitor General in the House this session admitted that the amendments proposed by this Bill were proper amendments, but that they should not be appended to the Elections Act, but should be made part of an Act to amend the North-west Territories Act. My right hon. friend, with his usual sense of fairness, ought, I think, to pause for a moment before discharging this order, because the legislation has been fully considered by the Senate, and it has been considered in this House on the occasion I refer to. I would therefore ask the right hon. gentleman to reconsider his proposed motion.

I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to enter into a controversy with my hon. friend. 1 must tell him frankly that I have had no opportunity of giving but a' very slight attention to this Bill. When I looked into it and consulted friends upon it, I found that there were two sides to this question. I do not mean to say that the side taken by my hon. friend is not the right one, but it is controverted and disputed. I think no evil can result if this matter is postponed until next session.

Mr. W. S. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. I have no apologies to make for offering a few remarks at the close of this session, for I have taken up very little ot the time of the House during the session which is now about to terminate. I am one of the new members of this House, this being the first session that I have had the honour of a seat in it. There are about eighty new members in this House. We have all come here with preconceived notions as to how the business of this House should be conducted. I came here, as I believe other new members did, with the determination to do my duty as a representative of the people. I came here with the determination to be found as much as possible iu my seat, to be found as much as possible in attendance at the committees and to take a fair, although modest, share for a new member in the debates which should take place in this House. I think that I have at least faithfully performed the first two of these duties ; although I have been somewhat derelict in the performance of the last one. Now, I want to explain to the House why it is that a great many new members, including myself, have not taken a more prominent part in the debates of the House. In the first place, as hon. gentlemen know, a member of parliament is quite

an important man in his own county. He usually presides at all public gatherings. If he is in attendance at any assembly of people, whether he is invited or not to address the meeting beforehand, he is usually called upon to make some remarks. When he gets up the people listen to him, but when he finds that they will not listen to him any more he sits down. We generally think we have something to say and when we say it we stop. Well, I came to this House with the same idea.

Some hou. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

I came to this House, in my innocence, with the idea that the object of the debates of this House was to convince somebody of some particular thing, that when a question had been discussed in the committee, that when it had been passed through the committee stage and submitted to the House, or that when some question was raised in the House, hou. members would get up, either on the government side, or the opposition side, and speak for the purpose of trying to convince those who listened to them and the country, that they were right, and that the other were wrong. Well, I have sat in this House time and again and I venture to say that probably no man has been found, in his seat more regularly during this session than I have.

I have listened very carefully to what has been going on ; and I have watched the proceedings of the House closely. 1 have sat in this House when important debates were going on, and while 150 or 160 members would come in for the division, I have found from twenty-five to thirty members present during the debate and of these twenty-five, I venture to say, half of them were writing letters, reading papers, or carrying on conversations. I have heard an bon. member of this House speak for an hour, or an hour and a half, and I venture to say that with the exception of the ' Hansard ' reporters there was not a soul listening to him.

Name, name.

Mr. HENDERSON.

I would ask the hon gentleman (Mr. Maclaren, Huntingdon) to speak for his own side.

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

I am stating the facts as I find them. Of course, I can understand that any hon. member who has sat in this House for three or four years may get accustomed to that. I may come to that yet and be quite satisfied if the ' Hansard ' reporter hears me and it is going down on record to be used-I do not know when-or if it is to go down to posterity as history, or to be used in the election campaign, but why an hon. member should speak for an hour or two hours or three hours with nobody listening to him -well, that is what beats me. That is one of the reasons why the new members of

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

this House have not felt like taking very much interest in the debates of this House. As I said before, the new members are likely to be more modest than the old ones. I think parliament has a hardening process upon people, and 1 have no doubt that when we are in this House as long as some other hon. members we will get to the point that we will be satisfied to talk to ' Hansard.

I have some -time at my disposal, and being very much in my seat, and having a faculty for compiling statistics, I have collected a few figures.

Mr. GOTJRLEY.

Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclaren, Huntingdon) be kind enough to inform me what he is talkng about ?

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

Well, as I understand the rules of the House, when a member moves the adjournment of the House he is entitled to speak upon any subject so long as he does not become abusive to anybody. It can hardly be said by the members of the House that during this session I have been guilty of such an infraction of the rule. I think it is very unfair to interrupt a new member of this House and to disturb him so that he may not be able to go on with his speech. However, when the hon. gentleman interrupted me I was saying that I have some figures which I have compiled, and as some other hon gentlemen have shown themselves to be very anxious to get their words on * Hansard,' I too am anxious that this should go on ' Hansard.' I have always had ,a taste iu the direction of compiling statistics In connection with any organization or work in which I am engaged. At the commencement of the session I took down the names of the members and arranged them alphabetically so that I could easily find them. I noted the number of times that members spoke, although I did not happen to be here all the time. I was only five days absent from my place in the House, and for those days I took the names of members and the times that they had spoken from ' Hansard.' This is the result of the compilation that I have made : I

find that during the session fifty-five hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House have spoken and that fifty-nine of the government supporters have spoken. In this calculation I am leaving out the members of the Cabinet. I find that those who are entered upon the books as Independents have all spoken, and some of them at very great length. But, when we come to inquire as to the number of times that hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken, we find that they have made 525 speeches, or an average of about ten to each of these fifty-five members. On the government side hon. members have made 826 speeches, or an average of four to each of them. We are not complaining especially about the length of the session, because I think the session

has been moderately short, but It seems to me If there is anything to be said in regard to the lengthening of the session it is due to hon. gentlemen opposite rather than to those on this side of the House. Then, I had the curiosity to classify the members and to find out how often some of them had spoken. I am not putting down the number of times that a man was on his feet, because I want to show the actual number of times that he has spoken and that would not be a true representation of the facts. Having, with a friend sitting beside me, some curiosity as to the number of times that an hon. gentleman had spoken in regard to a subject which was before the House-the estimates -we referred to * Hansard,' and found, that during one day of ithe session, from three to six, with the exception of half an hour devoted to routine business, and from eight to twelve, with about an hour devoted to routine business, one hon. gentleman felt called upon to stand up and address the House ninety-nine times.

Name, name.

which we do not get in the case of the older ones. I mean freshness in its best sense.

Mr. HENDERSON.

Is the hon. gentleman giving us an illustration of freshness at present.

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

If I am. I am sure my hon. friend would appreciate it. I have seen new members rise in their seats half a dozen times in a vain attempt to catch the Speaker's or the Chairman's eye, but being men of modest and retiring dispositions, they are not quite so self-assertive as some of the older members who manage to get precedence of them. And if the new members have not taken their fair share in debate, it is due in the large number to the anxiety of older members to so monopolize the time that they leave no chance for anybody else.

Mr. BELCOURT.

Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question ? He has given us a classification of the quantity, has he also made a classification of the quality of the speeches made ?

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

One of the other gentlemen is a fairly second best He thought that the salvation of this country required that he should be on his feet fifty-seven times in the one sitting. So that taking all the speeches, except those under five minutes, I find the following result : Among seven gentlemen opposite, the one who heads the list made 45 speeches, each of which was over five minutes, and some a good deal over that. The second on the list made 42 ; the third, 40 ; the fourth, 39 ; the fifth, 31 ; the sixth, 30 ; and the seventh, 28.

Those are the speeches made during one sitting of the House. Then, taking the government supporters, I find that the man who spoke most frequently on the Liberal side, spoke twelve times in one sitting. I would like to give his name but will refrain from so doing. After him came one who spoke twelve times, and the two next spoke eleven and ten times respectively.

Mr. HENDERSON.

Would the hon. gentleman inform us how many on the Liberal side did not speak at all ?

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

I have given the figures, and the hon. gentleman can work out the calculation for himself. I have shown that 55 Conservatives spoke, 59 Liberals and several Independents. Of course a larger proportion of Conservatives spoke than Liberals, but one can easily understand why that should be the case. 1 wish just to make one further remark. I believe that the new members of the House would have taken a greater part in our debates if they had been given the opportunity. We admire the zeal of old parliamentarians, saturated with parliamentary lore and experience, but I think it will be admitted that there is in the new members a freshness