Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

But the parliament of Canada will not be surprised if I say that this is a matter with which we have experienced a great deal of difficulty. The United States government is of all governments the one the most difficult with which to carry on international negotiations, owing to their peculiar constitution, which makes the Senate the treaty-ratifying power. Therefore the Senate has all along to be kept more or less advised- if not the whole Senate, leading members of it. For this reason we have not been able, even after years of persevering and continuous effort, to bring the matter to such a point as to enable me-what otherwise I should be only too happy to do-to gratify the legitimate curiosity of hon. gentlemen opposite to have the full particulars laid before them.

My hon. friend has referred to certain statements which have been made by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) outside the House. I might suggest to my hon. friend that it would have been perhaps more appropriate, when he lectured my hon. friend a few days ago on a question much akin to this one, to have brought up the references which he has made to-day. But at all events I _ never understood my hon. friend from Labelle to make any statement except by way of argument, that we had not pressed sufficiently the claims of Canada upon the British government in connection with the modification of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. He was only acting upon his own inferences. He had no data to go by. As to the fact that he was connected with the Joint Commission, I do not know that that is relevant at all. As to the other fact, that he alluded to certain statements which have not been made, but which Sir Louis Davies is reported to have made, I have in my hand a letter from Sir Louis Davies denying that he made any such statements. I do not intend, to read the letter to-day, because the hon. member for Labelle is not in his seat, but I intend to do so at the earliest moment.

Mr. MONK.

If the right hon. gentleman refers to the letter of denial, we are entitled to have that letter laid on the Table now.

I am afraid that the letter of Sir Louis Davies, a member of the Supreme Court, cannot be treated as a public document to be laid on the Table of the House.

Mr. MONK.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that no minister of the Crown can refer to a document in a statement made by him without depositing that document on the Table of the House.

The letter is not addressed to me as a minister of the Crown. It is addressed to me as a member of the House, asking me to give to the House his denial of a statement which has

been made in the House by a member. I propose to do so, but not to-day, simply on account of the absence of the non. member for Labelle, whose statement it is intended to contradict.

SIR CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Will the right hon. Prime Minister allow me to make a suggestion in all friendliness-and I think I speak with the sympathy of both sides of the House. The most important incident in the matter to which the right hon. gentlemen refers was the innuendo in the speech of the hon. member for Labelle in regard to the position of Lord Herscliell; and if the right hon. gentleman could find it proper to give that an emphatic denial, as he could if the facts warranted, and to say that Lord Herschell was not inimical to the claims of Canada, the mind of Canada would be much more easy than in regard to any explanation touching the visit of Sir Louis Davies to Mr. Chamberlain. I think that was really the most serious statement or insinuation that was made.

This is apart altogether from the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). It is a matter which I also intended to speak about; but in the absence of my hon. friend from Labelle, I prefer not to speak of it to-day, and I am sure that the House will appreciate the position I take.

Mr. MONK.

If we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that he will lay that letter on the Table, and merely express a desire to see the hon. member for Labelle, I will not insist. But what I draw particularly to the attention of the right hon. gentleman is that the hon. member for Labelle has stated repeatedly that a certain utterance had been made in England by Sir Louis Davies, and that Sir Louis Davies never denied having made that utterance.

Order.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier rising to the point of order ?

Mr. MONK.

Yes, and I was interrupted by the right hon. gentleman. The point I raise is this, that no minister of the Crown can refer to any document unless he is prepared to lay it on the Table of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER.

I understood the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to have said a moment ago that he waived his point of order.

Mr. MONK.

I would like to have a decision.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The point raised was that tlie Prime Minister had no right to refer to a document unless he were prepared to lay it on the Table. The hon. gentleman afterwards withdrew his point of order, and gave his reason for withdrawing it that he understood and appreciated the motives

which actuated the Prime Minister in delaying the production of that document.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

If the rule laid down a moment ago is to be carried out in its strictness, it would be very difficult for my right hon. friend to lay at a future date the document on the Table or make any reference to it, because he woxdd then be referring- to a past debate.

Mr. SPEAKER.

I understood the hon. gentleman to have referred also to a debate outside the House.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

This is admittedly not a matter which took place outside the House but in the House.

My hon. friend is quite in error. It is always allowable to give a personal explanation. Sir Louis Davies simply desires to be allowed to give a personal explanation regarding certain words which have been attributed to him. As regards my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, I am surprised that lie should be still unconvinced. I would be only too glad to read the letter at tiiis moment, but I do not think it would be in accord witli the fitness of things to read it in the absence of the hon. member for Labelle, whose statement it was caused this letter to be written. I propose, on the first occasion when the hon. member for Labelle is in his seat, to bring this letter to his attention and that cf the House on a question of privilege.

Mr. MONK.

1 ask the ruling of Mr. Speaker upon the point I raised, and if the right hon. gentleman wishes to keep the letter until he sees the hon. member for Labelle, I have no objection. But I am entitled to a ruling.

The point taken by the hon. gentleman does not apply. The Prime Minister has not read any extract from that letter and has not referred to it for the purpose of debate. All he has done is to inform the House that he has the letter and intends to read it at a future day. That cannot be called a reference which brings it within the rule that any document quoted here must be laid on the Table.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The rule no doubt is when a minister of the Crown refers to a public document, he should be prepared to lay it on the Table. But all the First Minister has done on this occasion was to state that he has a letter in his possession and will produce it later on. And the reason he does not lay it on the Table now is because the hon. member, who was the cause of that letter being written, is not here. I do not think that, under the circumstances, the right hon. the First Minister should be forced to produce now the document, more especially as the hon. gentleman who raised the point of order said he fully appreciated the reason why the First Minister did not lay the letter on the Table to-day.