The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the third reading of Bill (No, 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.

The counties and territorial districts referred to are those constituted by or under chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, intituled: 'An Act respecting the Territorial Division of Ontario for Municipal and Judicial Purposes/ The right hon. Prime Minister moved : That the said Bill be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Sutherland (Oxford), Hyman, Davis, Borden (Halifax), Haggart and Monk, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House. Now, that is all we have in writing in reference to the Bill, or in reference to any of the principles which were to prevail or guide in carrying into effect the redistribution or in filling up the schedule over its construction. For any further information we have to refer to the remarks of the leader of the government in introducing the Bill, and I propose to quote the substantial part of -what he said, because I wish to have it on record in the ' Hansard ' for the information of the country, and in connection with some remarks which I propose to make later on. He said : What we have in view and what we desire is to introduce a fair measure that will give all parties an equal measure of justice, freedom and responsibility. The Liberal party has always contended that the redistribution that must follow each decennial census should take place under certain rules, well understood, well defined, and which everybody could appreciate. These should be the unwritten law of tthe country, and apply wherever and whenever a redistribution takes place; and should be applied, whichever party is in power. We have always maintained that the guiding principle in this redistribution should he that county boundaries should be preserved The positioi we take is that we should take the map of the municipal organizations of the Dominion and make it the basis of the parlimentary representation. There are counties for which one man is sufficient. The unit of population-which, of course, cannot be followed wiith absolute exactness would not warrant any more. There are other counties in which there may be two or three members to be elected. There are certain cities in which there must be more than three or four members, whereas there are other municipalities whose population is so small relative to the unit of population that they should not be allowed to send even one member here. This, therefore, involves the work of selecting, of dividing, of uniting. And the question arises now-and, perhaps, it is the most delicate of all the questions with which we have to deal- by whom is this work to be effected ? Who is to make this division of counties-if counties are to he divided ; who, is to direct this union of counties if counties are to be united ? This is a question of great moment ; and, after having given it the best consideration wo are able to give it, we think that, in this, as in mostly all matters, the best policy to follow, the best and safest rule, is to follow the policy and the rule, which, under similar circumstances prevails in that country which has been the mother of all free institutions-Great Britain. We propose, therefore, on this occasion, as we did on a former occasion when the last Redistribution Bill was before us, to propose to the House to follow the British precedent. The last redistribution which took place in England took place in 1884, under the government of Mr. Gladstone. On that occasion, Mr. Gladstone, before making his Bill, adopted the policy which we intend to follow on this occasion. The Bill was prepared, at the invitation of Mr. Gladstone, by a conference of the two parties in the House of Commons, by a conference of the government and the opposition. Mr. Gladstone invited Lord Salisbury, who was then the leader of the opposition to meet with him and discuss with him the details of the Redistribution Bill which he had to introduce, following consequent upon the new Franchise Act When the last Bill was introduced in this House in 1892, we were sitting in opposition, and we proposed to our opponents to adopt the same methods. When the Bill came up for iits second reading I, sitting where my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) now sits, moved the following :- That Bill No. 76, an Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons be referred to a conference or committee to be composed of both political parties to agree upon the lines or principles upon which the Redistribution Bill should be drawn. Unfortunately, this proposition was not accepted. Bit, though our proposition was not accepted, still, we do not intend to depart from the principle we then laid down. What we claimed for ourselves when we were in the minority, we are now ready to grant to our opponents when they are in the minority. We intend, therefore, to have the details of this measure submitted to our opponents, if they will agree to our proposal. Further on he stated : Now, this is the Bill which I intend to move. There is a schedule attached to it. If this Bill is accepted by our friends on the other side, we intend, after it has been debated and read the second time, to refer it to a special committee composed of seven members, on which the opposition will be represented by three, to

be selected by themselves. The object of the committee will be to create the constituencies which will be allowed to elect the members of this House. In other words, we do not present to the House to-day a scheme cut and drieid which has to be swallowed holus-bolus by our friends and by the opposition, whether they like it or not ; so we propose to invite our friends now sitting on the opposition benches to meet us in the committee room and there discuss with us the division of the constituencies, and in fact the creation of all constituencies which shall be empowered to elect the members of this House. We propose to do what has been done in England by the government of Mr. Gladstone. We believe .that if our friends opposite will meet us in this way, we can prepare a measure which will be at all events fair to all parties. We believe that we shall be able to bring into this House a measure which will be free from those blemishes which are to be found in the Redistribution Acts of 1882 and 1892. We believe that if they will agree to meet us in committee, to discuss this Bill fairly, without trying to take an undue advantage over each other, we shall be able to present to the House a measure of which every .Canadian will have reason to feel proud, a measure which will be free from those contentious elements which characterized former Redistribution Acts which have been passed in the history of the Dominion of Canada. We intend to do this as a basis to be followed not only upon this occasion, but upon all occasions. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are very brave words, very high sounding phrases, very fair promises. The ' British precedent,' and 'the mother of ail free institutions ' are again to the fore. It strikes me I have heard these same expressions three times already since I have the honour of being a member of this House-in 1892, in 1899 and in 1900, when the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues were in such haste to lay down the principles which should as then stated by them govern redistribution Bills for all time and for all parliaments. As I said the other 'evening, I go back to a very old authority for an illustration, Shaks-pere. He is like old wine, the older he grows the better he becomes. That is my experience with Shakspere. I wish that another great poet would arise equal to him. He warned us in one of his plays to beware of people who protest too much, because we have a right to suspect them. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) compared the right hon. gentleman to a lady in one of Shakspere's plays of whom it is said, ' Methinks she doth protest too much.' I regret to say that I was a little suspicious when my right hon. friend made so many protestations. I wish now to inquire whether my suspicions were well founled. There are two or three other matters in that speech to which I wish to refer, and I will read extracts again : The redistribution that must follow that decennial census should take place under certain rules, well understood, well defined, and which everybody could understand. These should be the unwritten law of the country, Hon. Mr. TISDALE. . and apply wherever and whenever a redistribution takes place, and should be applied to whichever party is in power. I am sure I have heard those words before, three times, in 1892, 1899 and in 1900. But what strikes me is the absence of any fulfilment of the promise. Certainly I do not find it written in this Bill, nor in the blank schedule. It is not found in any one ,of the directions to the partisan committee that was appointed. In fact there is a total abnegation of the principles laid down in the speech, we find no semblance of them in any way in this Bill. Well it makes me reflect on the solemn way in which my right hon. friend laid down and eloquently dwelt upon many things he was going to do in 1899 and 1900. He then laid down excellent rules for the judges but he forgot all about them In giving directions to this committee that was to make such a fair redistribution. Contrasting that with his speech he forgot all about it when giving his directions to the committee, or I should have said, to the majority of the committee. I beg pardon of the hon. gentlemen who formed the minority. I am reminded of a western saying that ' talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy land.' The application is obvious to what followed the lofty expressions of the right hon. gentleman. Let us go a little farther. Where do you discover anything in the shape of the ' British precedent ' the ' policy of the mother of all free institutions ' referred to in such eloquent language by the right hon. gentlemen in introducing this Bill or in the subsequent action of the committee ? The right hon. gentleman in his speech in introducing this Bill said : The last redistribution which took place in England took place in 1884. On that occasion, Mr. Gladstone, before making his Bill, adopted the policy which we intend to follow on this occasion. The Bill was prepared, at the invitation of Mr. Gladstone, hy a conference of two parties in the House of Commons, hy a conference <of the government 'and the opposition. Mr. Gladstone invited Lord Salisbury, who was then the leader of the opposition to meet with him and discuss with him the details of the Redistribution Bill which he had to introduce, following the new Franchise Act. This conference took place, and, as a result a measure was Introduced which proved satisfactory to both parties. . Where is the semblance of a conference In this Bill ? I am sure the first Intimation my bon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) had of the Bill was when it was brought in. He had not been asked to take part in any conference. There was no pretense of any such thing. My right hon. friend also forgot in describing what the English plan was to describe a large part of it, and in one sense, the better part. He also forgot to say that in England the Bill was agreed upon by the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, brought into the English Honse of Commons and passed by consent. The arrangement contained provisions for sending the Bill to a non-political committee, and there were rules laid down for the guidance of the committee, notably in relation to population, the treatment of urban and rural population, and to the principle of geographical compactness. Where is there any such thing in this case 1 There is no possible semblance. I am constrained in all honesty to say that a more misleading statement was never made in the House of Commons than the one that was made by the right hon. Prime Minister under the pretense that he was following the British precedent. Equally misleading was the reference which the right hon. gentleman made to his motion of 1892. That was for a conference to settle the lines or principles upon which the Bill was to be framed. The whole matter had been better omitted unless there was some object in view, because it looked more like trying to cover up the real reason for the course which the right hon. gentleman had pursued in regard to this Bill than any desire on his part to follow those principles that were so eloquently laid down. That brings me to the action which was taken upon the Bill by the committee. The committee met. What did the minority do ? There were no rules. They were conspicuous by their absence. The minority proposed and submitted a set of general rules which would apply under all circumstances, to the delimitation whether it affected Grit or Tory. X am not going to expatiate upon this point. The hon. leader of the opposition did it much more eloquently and fully the other day than I could if I tried. These proposals were promptly voted down. I congratulate the majority of the committee upon the fact that they were bold enough to decline to commit themselves to any principle whatever. They boldly and openly avowed that they would not commit themselves to anything unless they saw its effect. In other words, each riding and each individual case as it came up was dealt with. How ? They dealt with it, in my opinion, with reference to its political effect, because they had a cut and dried resolution in every instance where there was any chance to be a difference. It is true that where there were single ridings and where they applied the principle of county boundaries there could be no chance of difference. In every instance where a proposition was made by the majority and where the minority made a counter motion, there was always the same result. On the 11th instant, speaking in this House, I filed some schedules and figures. I do not propose to refile them, but I propose simply to refer to the fact and to state some of the results. If any hon. gentleman doubts my statement he can refer to these tables, which will carry out the statements which I propose to detain the House for a few moments in making. In the first place, I gave them a statement of 46 ridings, with a population of 966,178, or less than one-half of the population of Ontario by 123,295. Therefore, if either party elected all the 46 members a minority of 125,000 less than one-half of the population of Ontario would elect a majority of six members. I added to these 46 ridings four more of the next smallest constituencies, with a population of 104,134, thus making up the total population to 1,070,312, or less than one-half of the population of Ontario by 21,161. These fifty ridings electing members would elect 14 majority out of the 86 members. The average population to elect 50 members would be 21,406, while the average to elect the other 36 members would be 30,906, or almost 50 per cent greater than the population necessary to elect the 50 members. Take again another illustration. I took eighteen of the smallest ridings, having a population of 329,243, and eighteen of the largest ridings, leaving out Toronto (because I want to make a comparison fair) having a population of 560,233. There is a difference in the populations of these two groups of ridings of 231,990. The average of the smaller ridings is 18,290, and the average of the larger 31,124, or an average difference of 75 per cent. I have made an interesting mote mentally in connection with these 18 largest and smallest ridings as to their political complexion. I find that the 18 smallest ridings under the present redistribution would elect nine Conservatives and nine Liberals, while under the Bill they will elect five Conservatives and 13 Liberals, provided some good Reformers do not change their political views. Now, taking the four smallest ridings, 1 find that they have a population of 64,049, while I find that the four largest ridings, not including Toronto, have a population of 135,767. The average of the four smallest is 16,039, while the average of the four largest is 33,941, or the four largest constituencies are, upon the average, more than twice the size, as far as population is concerned, of the four smallest. Let me continue. I will give the name of the largest rural constituency in Ontario-Victoria and Haliburton-which has a population of 38,511. The smallest is Northumberland West, with a population of 13,055. There are twenty-seven ridings in Ontario, outside of Toronto, with over twice the population of the smallest. There are thirteen ridings with less than half the population of the largest rural riding. The largest riding is, of course, Tory ; the smallest is Reform. The four smallest are all Reform. There are five counties having populations smaller than the largest outside of Toronto that have two members each. I submitted a table made by the Peterborough ' Review,' a very strong Conservative organ, and the table made by the Toronto * News,' the great independent new daily in Toronto. The Peterborough ' Review ' based its table on the principle of majorities, and it showed that under this Bill there would be a difference of twenty-five seats. It had collected

the votes, as delivered in these ridings at the general election in 1900. The ' News ' went upon another plan. It took the total vote at the same election, and the result showed a difference of thirty seats. These tables, if any one has a desire to look into them carefully, will be found in ' Hansard ' of September 11. Now, I do not purpose dwelling upon the results. These figures are so much more eloquent than any words I could utter, that I will leave them to speak for themselves. If they are correct, I am satisfied that the monstrous nature of the distribution of the population of Ontario will not be stood. Before I sit down, I think I shall be able to satisfy the country that it is a scheme to gain a political advantage ; but we will see how it will turn out in the future. Now, Sir, I have shown briefly, and I think fairly, the attitude of both parties down to the introduction of this Bill. I have shown the nature of the Bill, and have illustrated the results likely to flow from it. I have done this with a desire to illustrate a principle, and to ascertain whether there was not a way of improving the relations of parties in this country and their feelings towards each other, in connection with this very difficult matter of redistribution. I want to say, in justice to both parties, that in times past, as I have shown, they have both to a certain extent changed their views. If the history of the question is looked into honestly and carefully, it will be found that, in the three redistributions which have taken place, both parties have concurred in the view that equalization of population and observance of county boundaries were both vital principles. They differed as to the application of those principles. Since the discussion on this matter commenced, I have been very much exercised in my own mind to see what the result of a redistribution by the Reform party would be, knowing the troubles that we had aDd the accusations that were made against ns, even in connection with the redistribution of 1892, which I believe was as fair in the province of Ontario as it could possibly be made, being based on the principle of the least disturbance. When my right lion, fi'iend proposed a departure in 1899 and 1890, I believe the two parties were getting nearer to a possible solution of the question, though I do not intend to shirk my duty of condemning it where I think it is deserving of condemnation. I think it would be a good thing, if we could in some way remove this whole question from politics. I am honest and sincere in that assertion, as I was in my action hi 1900. My right lion, friend proposed to adopt the principle of adherence to county boundaries, with a reference of the divisions necessary to be made to a judicial tribunal with fixed rules. We declined to adopt the principle of adherence to county boundaries, but we proposed that we should go a step further and Hon. Mr. TISDALE. leave the whole question to a judicial tribunal with fixed rules. It is true, we suggested that chief justices of superior courts should be chosen in the different provinces, instead of judges named by the government. The only reason for that-and I believe it was the spirit which moved Sir Charles Tupper-was to remove the judges from the suspicion of being favourites of whatever government might be in power. I was sincere in my support of that proposition, and I would have been prepared to vote for it, even against my party, if the right hon. gentleman had adopted it. I say there is but one true solution of this question, if we are going to get rid of the bickerings and troubles and accusations which we have had in connection with those three redistributions, and now with this fourth, and that must be on these lines. When both parties claimed to be anxious to remove the question from politics, and when we got so near together as to the method of doing so, who is responsible for a different action being now taken ? The right hon. gentleman, though not willingly in one sense, because the constitution compelled him, after the census of 1901, to take action. This is not a voluntary action, like his attempts of 1899 and 1900 ; and would it be unfair, not alone in a political sense, but in an argumentative sense, to suggest that he had some reason for going entirely back on all the principles he propounded in 1899 and 1900, except that of adherence to county boundaries ? He has even disregarded the old Reform principle of representation by population. I remember the old party differences of my younger days with a fresher memory than I do those of later times in which I have taken part. That was one of the principles which liberalized me to a certain extent, coming, as I did, from an old Tory family, and one that had a good cause for being Tory. When I was a lad at school in the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, then united, the question of representation was first agitated by the Reform party, and it came to me a new issue. Reformers as a body have never abandoned that principle. Yet they have here and now made it subservient to what in this case ? To county boundaries-county boundaries no matter how they work .out and no matter how it interferes with their boasted principle of representation by population. It was they who brought us manhood suffrage in the province of Ontario. It was they who did away with multiple voting and established the principle that property has nothing to do with the suffrage. Yet in spite of that record, they say that county boundaries are to be the main consideration and all question of population made subservient to it. Not only have they abondoned the principle of referring the redistribution of the counties to a judicial tribunal, but they have not even laid down any rules to guide their own majority in the committee. Rules may be necessary for the judges of the land, rules would be required for a judicial tribunal, but when it comes to having the question decided by a political majority, then the sweet will of that majority must be the sole rule to govern its decisions. Their first idea was to relegate this matter, as we have the right to do under the British North America Act, to a judicial tribunal, and we on this side would have been willing to have it decided by such a tribunal ; but to have it decided by a partisan committee, controlled by the government, and uot subject to any rules, is a traversty of justice. To send a question such as this to a partisan majority, even if that majority were disposed to act honestly, puts it in a false position. We found this to be the case when contested elections were tried by the committee of the House. If there was an honest man on the committee who dared to stand up for the right against his party, he was ostracised, and the election trials became a farce. The consequence was we had to relegate these trials to the judges. But in this matter of redistribution, they are trusting in a partisan majority as they would not trust the judges of the land, That majority was bound by no guiding principle, no rule-by none of the restrictions which they found necessary in the case of the judges. They would not trust the judges of the land with this high function without rules and regulations, and yet they entrusted it to a partisan majority, absolutely free from any restraint. If my right hon. friend was sincere in claiming that he was anxious to follow British precedent, why did he not follow it ? Was there ever so opportune a time for solving, according to British precedent, a most important and very disagreeable question ? Did we hear of any invitation from the right hon. gentleman to the leader of the opposition to co-operate with him in this matter ? And yet the right hon. gentleman, we are told, is walking in the path of the great Gladstone. Why, Gladstone was great enough to do what he said he would do, when the time came and the responsibility was upon him. But owing to some unseen influence or power in bis party, the right hon. gentleman had not the courage to follow the precedent set by Mr. Gladstone. He did not invite my honoured leader to a conference to lay down the lines upon which redistribution should proceed. In my opinion he had a great opportunity and missed it, and I tell him that he has disappointed the Canadian people. They expected better things of the right hon. gentleman. Had he the courage to stand by his convictions, he would have added very largely to the esteem in which he is held. The people are tired of this continual bickering and dis-388 cussion. We all know the results of the three redistributions which have been made; and now that the Reform party have acted, the people will be in a position to draw a comparison and that comparison will not be to the advantage of this government. Hon. gentlemen opposite may claim that they did their best. But the country will have to judge of that. They may claim that we did the same thing on previous occasions. But they themselves have complained of this evil and have declared they would put a stop to it, and now have they carried out that promise ? How are we to avoid in the future this evil of partisan redistribution. There is no way but one that is at all feasible. And the gate at the entrance to that way had already been partly opened. Both parties had agreed upon a method of nonpartisan redistribution, and had agreed to it at the initiative of the right hon. leader of this government. I gave him all credit for it. I have done it here as I have done it elsewhere. I had hoped, and even somewhat believed, that matters would so thoroughly develop that he would follow the lines that he himself had marked out. My own belief is that, by following those lines he would have won political advantage, for he would have made a great impression upon the country, and would have won supporters that he could not gain otherwise. It would have meant a wholesome influence in our politics-and, God knows, if all the stories that we hear are true, and some of them I know to be true, our politics need improvement badly enough. Such action as be proposed would have appealed to-the sense of fairness among our people, Had the result been to give the right horn gentleman another lease of power, and even another lease after that, I would not have complained, because this is one of the things in which the people of the country fee! most keenly that the ways of their representatives up to this time have not been satisfactory. But the right hon. gentleman cannot make me believe that the fair thing must be done if the principle of county bound-J aries is observed. I put the right hon. gem tleman in this dilemma-either the principle of county boundaries compels unfairness or you majority on the committee has been unfair ? We are not going to submit to this disproportionate division of population, this distortion of constituencies, and accept because they pretend to justify it under the varying and accommodating principles which they apply. Well, the right hon. gentleman made his choice' and he must be responsible for that choice ; and I intend, so far as I am concerned, to hold him responsible here and elsewhere. The right hon. gentleman has always been kind and straightforward with me, and I have endeavoured to not be unfair to him. But, there are times when plain speaking is a plain duty. Now, I have a few words to say on this

county boundary question. I do not believe in making representation by population subservient to it. There is a great deal of misunderstanding, there is even a great deal of misrepresentation and misstatement, in regard to this matter. I believe that we can obtain all the advantages obtainable under a strict observance of county boundaries, without following its application in the delimitation of constituencies. The formation of small polling divisions, the abolition of property qualification and multiple voting has settled this. Compactness of riding and convenience of voting can, in many -cases, be better secured by disregarding county boundary lines to a certain extent. "The old counties of Ontario were not surveyed with the slightest reference to representation, but largely to combine settlements or expected settlements. If you look at the map of any of these counties you will see that whatever else was taken into account the question of representation was not considered. Take for instance, the county of Brant, one of the oldest counties. Look at the map and you see what an unlovely shape the whole county has from a geographical point of view. But the idea has grown up that there is something almost sacred in these county boundaries. I am surprised that such an idea should have a place in the minds of Reformers, especially so far as representation is concerned, as they objected, the basis of the old Tory notion, long since discredited, that property, as property, is entitled to representation or should have anything to do with representation. It was a transplanting to Canada of the old borough system of England. It is not surprising that boundaries the making *of which involved a recognition of. such ideas may be disregarded in working out !i system of representation on modern lines. .Another strong objection to our recognition of these county boundaries is that county boundaries in Ontario can at any time be changed by the legislature of the province of Ontario. This means relegating our representation to divisions that may be cut up by a foreign-I will not say foreign, but outside-authority without our own consent'. The statement that the observance of county bounds will lessen the chances of gerrymander hardly calls for a denial, for the Bill that hon. gentlemen opposite have introduced puts them in this dilemma, either of saying that a fair distribution of population is impossible under country boundaries, cr else that they have manipulated the constituencies regardless of the principle that they themselves have laid down. The principle of observing county boundaries is inconsistent with the principle of manhood suffrage, and absurd where that principle is carried out. This Bill itself shows that it is impossible, with county boundaries, to make a fair distribution of population. The reference of the creation of boundaries and divisions of constituencies to a partisan com-Hon. .Mr. TISDALE. mittee controlled by a majority of one party is simply absurd. This is- so conclusively proven by the result that I decline to argue the question. The mere statement of facts and figures that I have given is sufficient to convince any sensible man. Now, I had intended to move an amendment, but, in view of the time that has been occupied and of the late period of the session, I shall content myself with the enunciation of my own principles as in opposition to this Bill. I am not after partisan advantage in this matter. I believe the time has come when we should try to remove such questions as this from the field of party politics, and I believe it would have been to the political advantage of hon. gentlemen opposite if they had evolved a satisfactory plan to that end. For my part I stand exactly on the lines of the resolution to which the Conservative party committed themselves. I hold, as declared by that resolution, that this matter should be referred to the chief justices of the several provinces under rules that I have mentioned-First, distribution of the population according to the census ; secondly, the public interest and convenience; thirdly, having special reference to representation by population ahd with as little interference, as is consistent with a fair carrying into effect of these principles, with county, municipal and city boundaries. That was my position, and still is. And, as I said before, I become more confirmed in it when I see such an attempt as this made by the Reform party, departing entirely from the principles they declared in 1899 and 1900. except upon the one question of county boundaries. Again I say I regret that the right hon. gentleman did not send this question to the judges, or rather to the -chief justices, or at all events, lay down principles for the guidance of whoever should take hold of it. Tt is to be regretted that he did not lay down principles in the light of day, so that we might be able to judge whether those principles had been followed. I would not consent to send this question to any tribunal without proper rules being framed to regulate their action, rules such as were suggested at first by my right hon. friend in 1899 and 1900. There should be some rules prescribed for every tribunal. The reason why the right hon. gentleman and his followers are so vulnerable upon this point is that you cannot find out what principles have guided them. Now, I believe in representation by population, especially under manhood suffrage. There is no other logical principle. My right hon. friend is an. old Liberal, and a consistent Liberal. An hon. gentleman near me suggests that he is an old Tory. Well, sometimes he lias stood up for things that make us rather proud of him, sometimes he has refused to go as far as his Liberal friends wanted him to go. But'when I say that I believe in manhood suffrage, it is with the qualification that we must consider its application to the special circumstances of the country. Now let us consider the broad application of representation by population. That is the foundation of our constitution, and when Mr. Mackenzie laid down his principles in the resolution in 1872, he said that the foundation principle of our confederation was representation by population as between the provinces. Why then should it not be applied within a province ? But remember that we had then a strong property qualification. Now we are bound by that principle in Ontario, and by it we have had six members taken away from us because we have not got enough population to maintain our former representation. What is the use of talking about principle when partisanship runs mad whenever these questions come to the front ? I am not blaming the Reform party exclusively. I say the right lion, gentleman deserves credit for the attitude he took in 1900, and I am more sorry than I can express that he did not stand by it. He must take the responsibility for having abnegated those principles through the partisan pressure of the members behind him, or the organizers of the machine of the Reform party in Ontario, that we dread so much. It is not that we fear to face an open enemy, but because we tremble at their hidden schemes. I say that we dread them in Ontario. I am using my influence to prevent the young men on my side of politics commencing to imitate them. God only knows what the future of this country will be if these machine practices are permitted to go on. The most deplorable consequence is their influence upon our young men. I am getting perhaps to be a somewhat thick-skinned partisan, I have voted sometimes for things about as strong as I could swallow, but such is party government. I have always condemned and tried to fight the use of fraudulent, improper and corrupt methods which are going up so fast in Ontario. Most deplorable are its effects on our young men. When urged not to copy them, can they be blamed for saying ' Old man. it is hopeless ; you see what these other fellows are doing.' It is hard to go to defeat for standing for the right. Sometimes we find a man who praises God at one moment and the next moment will put his hand into his pocket and pull out money for bribes-. I tell you these things are true, and I feel strongly about them. These are my sentiments, and I am not ashamed to express them. I had hoped that the right hon. gentleman would go further, in a political sense, in following the principles he so bravely laid down at first. However, it seems no use to appeal to him now, but it is not too late to denounce and to express our sentiments. Now, there has been much talk about relegating political questions to the judges, and it is only proper that I should express 388J my sentiments about these judicial tribunals. In days past, I admit that the Conservative party have relegated political matters to the judges. But in those days we had great confidence in the judges, perhaps because our political partisanship was less virulent. But the time has come when all thinking men believe that we must stop sending these questions to the judges, or else exercise more care in doing so, otherwise a still greater catastrophe will overtake us. We have had great judges, good judges, able judges in Ontario, and we still have them, and I think it is only due to them and to the country that we should avoid as far as possible calling upon them to decide political questions. For certain things there is no tribunal, in my opinion, so good -as a tribunal of judges. The judges, as a rule in Ontario, have been a good tribunal for conducting election trials. There has been dissatisfaction and suspicion on occasions, but with some knowledge of the whole subject, and from considerable political experience, I can say that in my opinion election trials in Ontario have been fairly conducted by the judges. They have acted according to their light, according to their honest legal convictions in pronouncing judgment. Nobody now would dream of referring these trials back to the partisan tribunal of this House. That being so there must be some tribunal to which to refer these subjects, but l would qualify this by the statement that these subjects should only be relegated to the judges in a general way, applying a general principle and that judges should receive no emolument for their services in this capacity. They should be appointed by the judges themselves just as they fix their rota, or arrange for the taking of election trials, so that the judges would in reality be performing their duty without being specially appointed by parliament or the governement in a particular ease. As I have said they should have no pay or emolument for this service. I think we do not pay our judges enough, but still, if they are willing to accept this work, they should have no emolument for it. I believe that when a question of this importance and magnitude of this one presents itself only once in ten years that would be the best system we could adopt. It would relieve our politics of the bickerings and accusations, sometimes just and sometimes unjust, from both sides, relieve the tension and tone up public opinion in political questions, I Would be 'willing even to allow the government to suggest the judges, as a move in the right directions, but if hon. gentlemen opposite agree that a reference to the judges should be made I think it would be safer to relegate the question to the chief justices. They are generally, and should always be the most eminent men on the bench. If this plan were adopted we would secure a tribunal to deal with this

subject of which no man with any fair knowledge of the judges of our land and of the great advance that has been made in legal matters and in the administration of justice would be ashamed. I am in favour of such a tribunal and of the application of the principles which I have spoken of to its work. If such a proposition had been made I would have supported it and if it should be made in future I will support it. Now, I should like some reasons from the hon. gentlemen opposite for their departure from this principle. We accepted that principle in 1899 and in. 1900. AVe could not agree upon the county boundaries but we said : Let us leave the whole question to this tribunal. If we take the chief justices, for instance in the province of Ontario, we find that they are men of eminence and that they preside over important tribunals. The same statement applies to the other provinces. I have read some of the decisions given by our judges in different parts ol' Canada. The world itself as a whole could not produce a more impartial, a more careful or a more capable set of men to perform important judicial functions, or a set of men more fitted to undertake this work in connection with the redistribution of the constituencies, thus taking it out of politics, than is to be found through the length and breadth of this great Dominion. Having departed from the proposal to relegate the division to such a tribunal as this we should hear some reasons for such a departure. The right hon. leader of the government instead of keeping British precedent before him, and instead of inviting my honoured leader to a conference, brings down this Bill without having anything in it except a bald statement of matters contained in the British North America Act and refers the whole thing to a partisan committee composed of members appointed and controlled by himself. I want to ask him why he did not relegate the work of making this division to the judges after the solemn statements which he made, and not only the solemn statements, but the actual passing into law' of this proposition, not only once but twice and elucidating as he did in his admirable speech at that time the principles that should apply to the conditions which might arise. I want to know why the right hon. gentleman abandoned that plan without even giving us one word of explanation. Why did he not apply the rules, if they were good rules for the judges, to the committee so as to give fair-play ? There have been no reasons evolved from the other side of the House I have been looking for some myself and I propose to enunciate them. I believe there is but one inference that any reasonable man could draw from the departure which the right hon. gentleman has made from the principles which were laid down and that is the reason of selfishness and the desire to gain a political advantage. I take the responsibility of denouncing the