I think it very likely, and that makes it all the worse that my hon. friend from Halton will treat them so badly. But we had another deputation from a farmers' organization.

I do not know how large it was, but it professed to be a provincial organization.

Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).

Four men.

I have known a deputation of four men to represent a very large body. My hon. friend is only one man, and yet he represents a great many people. We had one deputation of farmers which pleaded with us not to increase the protection of the manufacturers. Then, there is the labourer-how anxious hon. gentlemen opposite are on behalf of the labourer. Yet there never was a time in the history of Canada when labour was so busily employed and so well paid as today. Can our hon. friends expect to humbug the labouring classes of Canada at a moment when they are more prosperous than they have been at any previous period in their history ? We also had a deputation from a labour organization. I was not present, but I am informed that that deputation, speaking on behalf of the working classes, appealed to this government not to increase the tariff, because they were satisfied that an increase would not be for the benefit of the labouring classes. The farmers !-why, Sir, they have been paying off their mortgages. I was talking to-night to a respected member of this House belonging to the province of Ontario, and he told me that it was within his knowledge that farmers who not many years ago were obliged to borrow money, were not only paying off their mortgages, but were bringing in money and asking for investments for it. There never was a time in the history of this country when the farmers were so prosperous, so well-to-do, and so comfortable as they are at this moment. Bet me add that Avhile great changes have been made by the Liberal party in the tariff, Avhile hundreds of items have been reduced, and large and important items, it so happens that in this particular class of items, except in three or four cases, the duties on agricultural products are the same to-day as they were under the national policy. The only difference is that under the national policy the farmers were not so prosperous as they are to-day under a Liberal government. That is the happy condition with respect to the farmers. With respect to capital, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition speaks of the uncertainty which

prevents an investment of capital. My hon. friend cannot be serious. Does be not know that during the seven years of the Liberal administration, the 'Canada Gazette' and the provincial gazettes, have absolutely groaned with notices of new companies and new promotion schemes for the investment of capital in Canada ? I venture to say that during the seven years of the Liberal administration, there has been more capital invested in manufacturing industries in Canada than in any fourteen years in the previous history of the country. I am not speaking of things which are not of common knowledge. Any gentleman who looks at the newspapers, knows that in every part of this country there has been an enormous development of industry. Whether you go to the labourer, the manufacturer, the farmer, or the business man, there is the universal story of widespread industry and prosperity. It cannot be universal as respects every individual, because in any time of prosperity, you will find certain sections or individuals who are not as prosperous as we would like them to be ; but speaking in the large, as respects the country generally, it is not too much to say that during the whole previous history of the Dominion of Canada the country never prospered as it lies prospered in the seven years under the administration of the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).

Mr. Speaker, I admit that it is quite daring on my part to attempt to address the House at this late hour, and it is making a demand on the patience of my colleagues. But the few remarks I wish to make I am forced to make partly because of one part of the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and partly by one remark that has been made to-night by the hon. Minister of Finance.

Perhaps the speech which appealed to me the most, through this protracted debate, was that made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). I am not referring to the one quoted by the hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) but the one he made to-night. In that speech he said that at present the situation of Canada was such that we might take as admitted the fact that the principle of protection was the basis of our fiscal policy. But admitting that fact, it renders entirely useless the amendment of the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the whole discussion we have had to-day. If protection be the basis of our fiscal policy, what is the sense of raising an academical discussion on the respective merits of free trade and protection and asking this government to adopt that latter policy ? In the first speech I made in this House, in 189S, I excited a good deal of hilarity on the other side because I said that, in view of the

tariff of 1897, there would probably be no more discussion in the future on free trade vs. protection, and that the respective merits of each would no longer be a bone of contention between the two parties. I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should. I regret that the hon. member for St. Mary's, who has done so much during the past five years to fix a settled policy for the country, should to-night have contributed to destroy the good work he has done.

I was one of those who admired the hon. gentleman for the fight he made in order to convince public opinion that a moderate protective policy was necessary, and for the stand he took in the last election that the one thing this country needed was stability of tariff. It was, therefore, with the greatest of regret that I saw him bring in this amendment without giving any serious reason for his change of policy. There is no doubt that it was necessary to destroy the idea, that with every change of government, there would be a radical change in our fiscal policy, and that consequently the investment of capital in industrial enterprises was no longer safe. But by our tariff of 1897 we dissipated that idea, and it seems to me that the motion of the hon. member is calculated to create disturbance in the minds of capitalists. We must take facts as they are and no body can imagine that we are going to adopt a policy of free trade.

In the first part of his speech, my hon. friend made a comparison between the policy of England and that of the United States. He gave so much time to that subject that I began to think that, instead of preparing a programme for the oppostion, he was in reality announcing a platfrom on which he was to run an election to the British House of Commons. I am afraid that he is running for too many positions just now. Not satisfied with framing a policy for the Conservative party of Canada, he seems to be framing a policy for the new Conservative party of England. In so doing lie is not only taking a task which is too strong for him or any other man, but he is loosing a good deal of the confidence that many of the independent members of this House and many of the people of this country had in him.

The hon.. gentleman made a comparison between the workingmen of England and of the United States, and drew the inference that because the free trade workingmen of England are receiving low salaries and the protective workingmen of America are being paid larger salaries, therefore, the poliey of the United States is entitled to all the credit. But why not go to Germany and France, which are highly protected countries, and there you will find that the workingmen are paid less than the same class in England. I am not giving this argument as a free trader, because I am not one, but to show that all these

statistics, when we come to the root, do not prove what hon. gentlemen think they do. The other day an hon. member of this House wanted to make an argument in favour of higher duties on iron and steel, and in support of his plea he gave us the argument that there was depression in the iron and steel industry in the United States under a high protective tariff. The hon. member for St. Mary's gave the House a statement of the prosperity of the farmer in the United States, but there again he was deceived by general statistics. He gave us the prices of wool and grain and cattle in the United States, but did not tell us how much profit each farmer made after he paid his taxes and expenses, or how much money was left to the farmer to put in the bank after he bought all that was necessary. If you want to prove a contention by statistics you must go seriously into them. The hon. member for Pictou was very much struck by the statistics gathered by the hon. member for St. Mary's, to prove how much money was accumulated per head of every man,-woman and child of the United States. But that is not sufficient. He should take into account the public debt and the private as well as the municipal debt, which has to be borne by every man, woman and child. Let me give an example taken from our own country. We have been told that in the province of Quebec we are much more indebted than the people in the province of Ontario. If one considers only the provincial debt, it is true. But if you go to the root of the thing, if you go to the municipal indebtedness of Ontario, if you take the indebtedness of the farmers, and divide the total by the sum of the population, you will find that the farmers of the province of Quebe owe less, though apparently the public debt is much higher. All those statistics are deceiving and especially so in the case of workingmen and wages. The question is not only how much a workingman earns, but how much he can buy with the money he earns, and how much he has to put in the bank at the end of the week, month or year.

I do not see any use in my going into a long discussion. I am a moderate protectionist. I believe that a policy of moderate protection is required for Canada. But I cannot see my way to support this amendment. The hon. member for St. Mai'y's vitiated his own motion at the root when, being still a member of the government, he declared that the tariff was sufficient. But while the tariff was sufficient at that time, he suggests that recent events prove that it is not sufficient now. Surely, if the hon. member for St. Mary's wants to keep his reputation as a serious person- and I hope he does, because he can render service to Canada as a public man-he won't try now to make us believe that because some people have gone, according to the Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

highest financial authorities of this country, to the extremest point of speculation in stock gambling, there is a necessity for a change in the tariff. This is the reason which brought me to my feet. We were challenged by three or four members of the opposition and by the hon. member for St. Mary's to exhibit our freedom. I have risen to tell them that as a free man, as a moderate protectionist, and one who believes that moderate protection is required for this country now, I am not prepared to ask the government to change the fiscal policy because there is a slump in stock gambling or because the opposition may gain some advantage by again raising this cry. The position is not what it was in 1878. The hon. member for St. Mary's in bis campaign last year said that history would repeat itself. But, in order that he may convince us that history will repeat itself in the particular way the hon. gentleman indicates, he must convince the people of Canada that the situation is what it was in 1878. The hon. member for St. Mary's himself has said for seven years that the fiscal policy of the country has been readjusted, that it has been readjusted on the principle of moderate protection, that it has reassured capital and industry. What we want now', according to the very words of the hon. gentleman the last time he went to the polls to be elected to this House- what we want now is stability. I am still satisfied that the present tariff gives sufficient protection for what we need. Of course, there will be deputations to the government asking for changes of duty. That is' the whole argument of the leader of the opposition. But the hon. gentleman has refuted his own argument when he spoke of the great evils of monopolies in the United States. What we moderate protectionists, who do not want to make protection the tool of a political party or to use protection as a means of giving strength to people who might turn their influence against the government-what we want is that, while we should have enough protection to safeguard the industries of Canada against the slaughtering of our markets, we should not have the high protection that will bring about in this country the very evil which the hon. leader of the opposition has denounced as existing in the United States.

Now, Sir, the one remark of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to which I wish to take exception, is his statement that Mr. Chamberlain was carrying on a policy in accordance with that of the government of Canada. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has reflected very carefully on that point, or whether he expresses the views of his government. But I wish to say that if this should be the policy of the government of Canada, the government would no longer enjoy my confidence, and it should no longer enjoy the confidence of

any man who is proud of the liberties of Canada. If I understood the position taken by our representatives in the colonial conference last year, it was that we had given the preference to Great Britain-a preference which the hon. member for St. Mary's seems to have approved of as minister of the Crown, but which his newspaper in Montreal was denouncing last week-and we were prepared to go further in that direction, with the understanding, of course, that some changes were to be made in our tariff if we did so. But what I understood to be also tbe position of the government, and what I hope is their position now, was that, although we were ready to enter into an agreement with the motherland for the mutual benefit of that country and of Canada, we should always keep our liberty to break the agreement when wo saw fit to do so. That is the position that the Minister of Finance took in his budget speech this year. But what is Mr. Chamberlain's scheme ? We have heard the hon. member for St. Mary's eulogizing the policy of Mr. Chamberlain. That policy is that free trade should exist between England and tbe colonies. What would be the first result of that ? The first result would be the ruin of half our manufacturing industries.

Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) allow me to correct him on that point ?

Mr. BOURASSA.

Certainly..

Several years ago Mr. Chamberlain took the position that a mutual preference such as was sought by us could only be obtained by the colonies adopting a policy of free trade within the empire. We told him frankly that so far as Canada was concerned we could not agree to that.

Mr. HENDERSON.

Why not.

Because the industries of Canada had been established under a tariff, and, even if they had not vested rights, they had rights that we are willing to respect.

Mr. HENDERSON.

The hon. gentleman said that free trade might mean 15 to 17} per cent tariff.

I have repeatedly stated the views of the government on this subject. Whereas, several years ago, Mr. Chamberlain took that view, he fully understands that Canada, and not Canada only, but the other colonies, are not prepared to make such an arrangement; and what he proposes is a mutual preference in which there shall be moderate duties on our side and moderate duties in England on those things upon which she cares to have them. But there is no engagement- he well understands that-on the part of Canada to accept the condition he talked

of some years ago of free trade between England and Canada.

Mr. BOURASSA.

I do not deny that the position taken by Mr. Chamberlain now is somewhat different from the position he took some years ago. But, at the same time, ns the Minister of Finance and all the organs of the government have frequently stated since the conference, what did he say ? He said that the present preference which we grant on English goods, and which is admitted by all independent men to be too great for some of our industries to bear, should be greatly increased before any such agreement can be entered into. If iie has receded from the position of absolute free trade between the mother country and the colonies, he still contends that the preference given is not sufficient. I say, as a moderate protectionist, I am satisfied with the general tariff of 1897. But when the preference of 1900 was adopted, I thought we had gone a little too far in that direction. Surely the government are not prepared to say to-day that they are ready, at Mr. Chmaberlain's request, to go still further in that direction and increase the preference we have given on British goods.

But that is not the most important point that I wish to make about Mr. Chamberlain's scheme. His policy-whatever our opinion as to its merits-is undoubtedly different from the avowed policy of this government, as it affects the relation between England and the colonies. His scheme is that Great Britain and her colonies shall enter into a mutual compact on trade matters. What would be the first result ? The first result would be that politically and practically speaking, if not legally we should to a large extent, lose control of our tariff. In the second place we should be obliged to stand the effect of all the foreign treaties that the Zollverein might make with other countries. The delegates from Australia, New Zealnad and South Africa might force the Zollverein to make treaty with some nation, which treaty would be favourable to the interests of these southern colonies, but detrimental to the interests of Canada. The majority of the delegates in the imperial council, or whatever body would have the supervision of this policy, would decide matters of this kind. What would be our position ? We would be forced with either to go out of the Zollverein or accept a treaty disadvantageous to us. On the other hand we should be deprived of the power to make our own treaties. What I have always contended and hoped for and, in spite of the declaration of the Minister of Finance, l do not despair of seeing it-is the establishment of Canada's right to make commercial treaties with any nation she sees fit. And the speech made at Lille, in France, by the Prime Minister was an indication of that policy, and I hope it is still the policy of the government.

The Prime Minister stated there, after the conference, that Canada had adopted, in 1897, the principle of preferential trade in favour of all countries that would grant us similar favours. It is time that afterwards we shut off the application of that law to other countries, and we only kept it in favour of British goods. But I had hoped after the declaration made in London hy our delegates, and after the speech made by the Finance Minister and by the Prime Minister in Paris and Lille, that we would revert to the policy of 1897, which would have a double effect; first, of reducing the preference we grant to British goods, and therefore removing some of the anxiety that permits the opposition to make political capital ; and secondly, it would bring us back to our freedom of making treaties with all nations in the world. I sum up my argument in these few words : Our present general fiscal policy is a good one for Canada, it is high enough to grant what the opposition calls adequate protection, while at the same time it does not allow manufacturers to form combines such as those that are the curse of the United States, and which the leader of the opposition has denounced. In the next place, our country should have as much freedom as possible to develop our foreign trade and to make the best reciprocity treaties we could with all nations of the world. For that purpose we must stick to the principle of protection, without going to the excess that the hon. member for St. Mary's and the leader of the opposition have advocated to-night.

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).

At this early hour of the morning I can promise the House I will not detain it at any length. I did not intend to speak on this subject, but it is so rarely that I can agree with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) on any points which he raises before this House, that it seems to me I should not allow the opportunity to pass without agreeing with something he has said to-night. The hon. gentleman speaks of being a moderate protectionist. I would go a little further than he goes, I might be accused of being an extreme protectionist, at all events we are both protectionists. But he went on to point out that he considered one of the essential points of a protective policy was stability. There again I am in accord with the hon. member for Labelle, and there I fancy is the greatest weakness in the case of the government that can be pointed out. I venture to say that no tariff can be called properly protective unless it has the two factors : One, the factor of giving the measure of protection, and the other, giving the stability of protection. It is all very well to offer manufacturers or capitalists any percentage you like, ten, fifteen, twenty, fifty or one hundred per cent, as a measure of protection, but unless you also give them such confidence in the government that they be-Mr. BOURASSA.

lieve the protection will be stable, then your protection is inadequate, and will never bring about the results that protectionists have in view. To-day one of the great reasons why capital is chary of investment in Canada is the fact that the stability which the member for Labelle points out as an essential to a protective tariff, is wholly wanting in any tariff that hon. gentlemen opposite have brought down. On this important question before the House now, one of the most important questions that can occupy our attention, the member for Labelle says he believes the present tariff does give adequate protection to all our industries. Does he consider the full practical meaning of that ? As a member of this House he has again and again voted against resolutions introduced by the leader of the opposition in favour of adequate protection. He says he believes the present tariff does give adequate protection. If he so believes, what is to prevent him voting for this resolution moved to-day, even if, in days gone by, he lost the opportunity of voting for the very thing he de-siredl adequate protection.

When I listened to the Finance Minister and heard him saying that the very fact that machinery was lying idle in Toronto because labour could not be got, was a triumphant vindication of his policy, I could not help wondering what kind of policy the hon. gentleman thought this country should have iu order to induce outsiders to come here. Surely if machinery is standing idle in Toronto because wrokmen cannot be found to operate it, there must be something wrong in this country. Why, Sir, we know that a great many idle men in other countries are seeking for employment, and none of them can be induced to come to Canada to accept situations waiting for them to enable the Canadian manufacturers to work even the machinery they have on hand. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite can hardly pride themselves on the success of their fiscal policy when it presents so slight an attraction to the nations of the world that it cannot draw even enough men to work the machinery standing idle for want of operators. The Finance Minister also pointed with triumph to the fact of his large surplus, and said this would be an opportune time 'to raise the tariff. Would he pause for a moment to consider whence his surplus comes ? He claims he has not raised the tariff then if he has not raised the tariff, he has obtained this enormous surplus because of the larger quantity of goods that are coming into this country than came in formerly. Therefore he stands before this House and takes credit to himself, and is greeted by the triumphant cheers of his followers, because we are not able to manufacture the goods we should, and therefore he is allowing millions and millions more of manufactured goods to come into this country than came in a few years ago. If this be a fact, aud it certainly is the fact, what better reason can be given, if we wish

to build up our native industries, than that we find under the tariff as it is, whether it be the old tariff, or whether it be a better or worse one, but taken as it is, if you find the effect of it is that so many million dollars more of manufactured goods have been imported into this country that our surplus has run up to $13,000,000, surely that is ample reason for the representatives of the people to consider whether a higher tariff which would exclude millions worth of manufactured goods, would not be a wiser policy than that which lion, gentlemen opposite have advocated.

The hon. gentleman too took great credit because it had been admitted that farmers were paying off their mortgages. I am sure nobody on this side of the House wishes to gainsay that fact, nobody on this side of the House but rejoices at that fact. But surely it is proper to ask the Finance Minister what kind of a tariff it is that will account for this new and unexpected ability of the farmers to pay off their mortgages. Is it not a fact that the farmers remain precisely as they were under the old tariff, except that in some instances their protection has been decreased ? No farmer is better able to pay off the mortgage because he has less protection. Therefore I think we can with peculiar gratitude admit that it is owing to the abundant harvests that this country has been blessed with during the last seven years, to the wave of prosperity of the last seven years, that our farmers are able to pay off their mortgages, and not on account of the tariff.

Now, Sir, the real question before the House, I venture to say, is whether the government is prepared to accept a resolution in favour of protection or not. The hon. the Finance Minister has spoken, as he always does, eloquently and well, but as usual he succeeded in speaking to the delight of his followers without conveying the slightest information so far as his own views on the subject of protection really went. He was good enough to say that he thought there were no free traders ou the other side of the House. Surely he has forgotten that a few years ago his leader was a free trader, and if I were allowed to refer to past debates of this session it would not take me long to prove from the lips of his leader that he is still a free trader. But perhaps the hon. gentleman really means that 15 per cent or 17 per cent might be free trade. I venture to say that cannot be free trade, and it is an abuse of language for any 'person to speak of a tariff of even 15 per cent or 17 per cent as being free trade. A tariff which averages 17 per cent may to a certain extent be a protectionist tariff, but a tariff of 15 per cent, or 17 per cent, or 70 per cent will not be protection.unless the government which has to maintain that tariff is pledged to the principle of protection, so that capitalists may invest their money on the

strength of the security afforded by the known policy of the government. Is it not a fact that at the present time capitalists are chary in coming to Canada ?

No.

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Is it not a fact that if you had higher protection more capital would come to this country ?

No.

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that if a highly protective duty were put on iron, steel and lead no further capital would come to this country to develop the iron mines or lead mines ? Surely there is no hon. gentleman in this House who will not admit, that, as has been told to us by hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia, the success, such as it is, which has been achieved by the iron industry of that province has been owing to the assistance given by this government, and that but for that assistance it would have been unable to achieve any success at all. In the face of that I think no hon. gentleman will deny that if adequate protection had been given to the iron and steel industry there would not have .been the depression which there is in that industry to-day and there would not have been the slump in the market that has recently occurred. I rose mainly to call attention to the fact that although at last the hon. Minister of Finance did speak after the debate had lasted for hours, after supporters of the government had allowed member after member on this side of the House to discuss the question without rising, that although the hon. Minister of Finance did rise and make an eloquent and telling speech he still failed to say a word to show the manufacturers and capitalists of this country and other countries that the government are prepared to give the industries of Canada an adequate measure of protection. As a protectionist I believe that the future of this country depends on our industries being properly protected as the industries of every other civilized country in the world, not even excepting the motherland, have been. I feel confident that the Canadian is the equal of any man in the world, but I am not so conceited as to leave the Canadian without any armour, without any munitions of war to stand up and fight against the troops of other countries provided with modern equipment and unlimited capital. I shall support this motion, because I believe that only by a system of adequate protection can this country be made to prosper. I would be glad if the hon. leader of the opposition would come down with a resolution, not only going as far as this resolution does, but going farther than that and declaring that, situated as we are alongside of a nation of seventy millions of people, as a matter of self defence, if they will not trade with us we will not trade with them, and that unless they will reduce their tariff

to a reasonable level we will raise our tariff as liigh as theirs. If we raise our tariff as high as theirs, if we secure the development of the industries of this country through a process of judicious protection, when we come to meet the motherland in the proposed scheme for moulding the colonies and the motherland together into a partnership, then we would be in a position to offer something to the motherland that would induce her to give us a preference, that in all probability she never will give unless we are prepared to offer her that which we can only offer when secured by a system of proper protection.

House divided on amendment (Hon. Mr. Tarte).

YEAS :

Messieurs

Alcorn, Lancaster,

Avery, LaRividre,

Barker, Lefurgey,

Bell, Lennox.

Bennett, Leonard.

Birkett, MacLaren (Perth),

Blain, McCormick,

Borden (Halifax), McGowan,

Boyd, Monk,

Brock, Morin.

Broder, Northrup,

Bruce, Osier.

Carscallen. Reid (Grenville),

Olancy, Roche (Marquette),

Clarke. Rosamond.

Cochrane, Sherritt.

Earle. Smith (Wentworth),

Gilmour. Sr. route.

Gourley. Tarte.

Hackett. Taylor.

Haggart, Thomson (Grey),

Henderson. Tolton.

Hughes (Victoria), Vrooman,

Johnston (Cardwell), Wilmot.

Kidd. Wilson-50.

NAYS :

Messieurs

Angers, Law.

Archambault, LeBlanc.

Bazinet, Lemieux,

Beith, Logan.

Beland, Loy.

Belcourt, Macdonald.

Bernier, Mackie.

Bickerdike, MacKinnon.

Borden (Sir Frederick), MacLaren (Huntingdon)

Bourassa, Macpherson,

Bourbonnais, McCarthy,

Brown, McCool.

Bruneau, McCreary,

Bureau, McEwen.

Calvert, McGugan,

Campbell, Mclsaac.

Carbonneau, McLennan.

Champagne, Madore.

Christie. Malouin.

Copp, Marcil (Bonaventure),

Cowan. Martineau.

Delisle. Matheson,

Berners (Ldvis), Mayrand.

Demers (St. John). Meigs,

Desjardins. Mignault,

Douglas, Monet.

Dugas. Morrison.

Dyment, Muloek (Sir William),

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Erb, Oliver,

Ethier. Paterson,

Fielding, Prefontaine.

Fisher, Proulx.

Fitzpatrick, Puttee.

Fortier. Reid (Restigouche),

Fraser, Ross (Ontario),

Gauvreau, Ross (Rimouski),

Geoffrion, Ross (Victoria, N.S.

German. Rousseau.

Gibson, Russell,

Girard, Schell.

Gould, Scott,

Harwood Stephens,

Herd, Stewart,

Holmes. Sutherland (Essex),

Hughes (King's, P.E.I.) Sutherland (Oxford)

Hyman, Talbot.

Johnston (Cape Breton), Tobin.

Kendall, Tucker.

Lang, Turcot.

Laurier (L'Assomption), Turgeon,

Lavergne, Wade-102.

PAIRS :

Ministerial. Opposition.

Thompson (Haldimand Ingram,

and Monek),

Johnston (Lambton), Simmons,

IMcColl, Ward.

Guthrie. Porter.

Parmelee, Pope.

Roche (Halifax), Cargill,

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Bali,

Sifton. Maclean.

Ross (Yukon), Kemp, .

Blair, Roddick.

Power, Robinson (Northum-

berland).

Smith (Vancouver), Ganong.

Wallace. Halliday,

Grant. Cultoert.

Cartwright (Sir Rich'd.), Tupper (Sir Charles

Hibbert),

Emmerson, Fowler. .

Charlton, Tisdale,

Wright, La veil.

Riley, Richardson.

Harty, McIntosh.

Davis. ' Pringle,

Costigan, Casgrain,

Farquharson, Kaulbach,

Tolmie. Kendrey,

Galliher, Hale.

Marcil (Bagot), Seagram.

Lewis, Clare,

Lovell. Calvin,

Amendment negatived; motion (Hon. Mr. Fielding) agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

As it is too late to proceed now, I propose that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.