The officers will make a note of the question, and I will give the information to-morrow.

IVIr. RRNNETT ^ s to the postmaster at Midland, I wish to state that it is not at all adequate for the accommodation afforded. My recollection is that the rent is only $70 a year, and it is only fair that that rent should be increased. The post office is in a building erected by the postmaster and has an equipment for the service equal to that of many of the public buildings that are owned by the government and which have cost the country a very large sum. I think there is a space for the general public who come to transact post office business about 40 feet by 20 feet. These facts should be taken into'consideration in the rental paid.

This report shows that it is $160.

Mr. BENNETT.

I am pleased to see that that is the amount. I understood that it was much less than that. However, even at $160, when we consider the cost of maintaining other places where there are caretakers, and having regard to the expense for fuel, lighting and rental, I am pleased to see that the Postmaster General is prepared to advance it still further.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

There is a matter which I want the Postmaster General to he prepared to deal with at some time before his estimates are disposed of. It is a matter that was brought to the attention of the House, I think, two years ago. That is, the refusal of the government to grant petitions of right to a number of persons who claim that their contracts were cancelled without authority in law by the Postmaster General. They have been applying for petitions of right for two years or more, and I understood from the Postmaster General two years ago that there was to be a report made in writing by him to the Minister of Justice, and that was to be laid on the Table of the House, or the House was to be informed in regard to it. Up to the present time the House has not been informed in regard to it, and I understand that these people have not been able to get the slightest satisfaction except such as may be derived from a letter from the Department of Justice stating that as the matter had been discussed by the late Minister of Justice with the Postmaster General, the present Minister of Justice was not prepared to open it up again. I am prepared to say that there is a perfectly fair and arguable case for submission to the courts on the facts in my possession, and it seems to me a most unfair and tyrannical thing that this matter should be postponed from time to time, and that these people should not be allowed to assert their rights, if they have any, in the courts. The refusal to grant a petition of right simply amounts to this, that the Postmaster General constitutes himself the judge as to whether these people have any arguable case or not. These people have been advised by counsel of high standing that they have a proper-case against the government for argument and decision in the courts; and under these circumstances what possible reason can there be for refusing them a petition of right ? I was very much surprised indeed at the action of my hon. friend the Postmaster General in regard to the matter. If he has made a mistake in cancelling these contracts, when he had not the legal right to do so, surely, if he is a fair-minded man. he would be the. very first person who would be anxious that they should have redress in the courts. I do not think that is a proposition which my hon. friend would controvert. If he has not made a mistake, if

he is right in the position he has assumed, what possible risk can there be to the government or detriment to the public interest In allowing the men to go into court and obtain the satisfaction of finding out that they are wrong 1 In doing so they would subject themselves to the costs which every man has to pay who takes into court a claim that is unfounded. I hope the Postmaster General will be prepared to deal with this matter, which I will discuss at greater length, going into the merits, if necessary, when the supplementary estimates come before us. At present, I cannot possibly see why claims, having a prima facie standing at least, should be kept so long out of court, and why these men should be so long debarred from having their rights adjudicated upon by an independent tribunal.

Mr. GERMAN.

I do not often agree with the leader of the opposition, but in this proposition I certainly do agree with him absolutely. The theory that the King can do no wrong is in this democratic country absolutely exploded. The Crown, as represented by the government of the country, can do wrong just as any private individual can do wrong, and there should be no petition of right at all. An individual having a claim against the government should have a right to bring an action in court against the government just the same as he would against a private individual. If he fails in his action, he is mulcted in his costs; if the government succeed, they get their costs; and there is no reason on earth that I can see why an individual should not have the same right against the government that he has against anybody else. I would like to hear some reasonable argument against that proposition. I am prepared to support the proposition laid down by the leader of the opposition now or at any other time. There should not be, and will not be within a very few years, the problem of a petition of right in this country.

Mr. McCREARY.

Do the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) endorse the statements made by the hon. member for Welland ?

Mr. CLARKE.

Certainly. Surely every hon. member of this House will endorse the position he takes, that if a man has a just claim he ought to be heard.

Some resolutions reported.