Hayes, the nineteenth president-1877-1881-said :

To education more than to any other agency we are to look as the resource for the advancement of the people in the requisite knowledge and appreciation of their rights and responsibilities as citizens, and I desire to repeat the suggestion contained in my former message in. behalf of the enactment of appropriate measures by congress for the purpose of supplementing, with national aid the local systems of education in the several states.

The sanctity of marriage and the family relation are the corner-stone of our American society and civilization. Religious liberty and the separation of church and state are among the elementary ideas of free institutions.

They develop the individuality of the citizen, and we find in the history of the United States a struggle between tbe individual man on one hand and a control by corporations on the other. Benjamin Harrison says:

The masses of our people are better fed, clothed and housed than their fathers were. The facilities for popular education have been vastly enlarged and more generally diffused.

Another testimony to the upbuilding of a g'reat people by the free public school, where Roman Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Gentile children sit side by side in tbe schools, never asking the question to what creed each belongs or what relationship exists between each one's conscience and his God, but all working together as Americans, or as Canadians, shoulder to shoulder iu achieving the great destiny that is ahead of us. Wm. McKinley said:

A grave peril to the republic would be a citizenship too ignorant to understand, or too vicious to appreciate, the great value and beneficence of our institutions and laws, and against all who come here' and make war upon them, our gates must be promptly and tightly closed. Nor must we be unmindful of the need of improvement among our citizens, but with the zeal of our forefathers encourage the spread of knowledge and free education.

Our hope is the public schools and in the university.

I may say that at the time these words were uttered a movement was going on ' hostile to the public schools, such as the movement we find now going on in the Dominion of Canada, and it was against this movement that Pres|ident McKinley raised a warning voice, saying to people who came from foreign lands that they,

must observe tbe institutions of the United States of America. President Roosevelt *the other day-and lie cannot be charged with being an enemy of any church-one of the most tolerant and broad-minded gentlemen who have ever been honoured with the position of chief magistrate of the United States says :

We have no room for any people who do not act and vote simply as Americans, and as nothing else. Moreover, we have as little use for people who carry religious prejudices into their politics as for those who carry prejudices of caste or nationality. We stand unalterably in favour of the public school system in its entirety. We believe that English, and no other language, is that in which all the school exercise should be conducted. We are against any [DOT]division of the school fund and against any appropriation of public money for sectarian purposes. We are against any recognition whatever by the state in any shape or form of state-aided parochial schools. But we are equally opposed to any discrimination against or for a man because of his creed.

We all say 'amen' to that.

We demand that all citizens, Protestant and Catholics, Jew and Gentile, shall have fair treatment in every way ; that all alike shall have their rights guaranteed them. The very reasons that make us unqualified in our opposition to state-aided sectarian schools make us equally bent that in the management of our public schools, the adherents of each creed shall be given exact and equal justice, wholly without regard to their religious affiliations ; that trustees, superintendents, teachers, scholars, all alike, shall he treated without any reference whatsoever to the creed they profess. The immigrant must learn that we exact full religious toleration and the complete separation of church and state. He must revere only our flag ; not only must it come first, but no other flag should even come second. He must learn to celebrate the fourth of July instead of St. Patrick's day. Those (foreigners) who become Americanized have furnished to our history a multitude of honourable names ; those who did not become Americanized form to the present day an unimportant body of no significance in American existence. Thus it has ever been with all people who have come hither, of whatever stock or blood. The same thing is true of all churches. A church which remains foreign, in language or spirit, is doomed.

These are the words of President Roosevelt, and I commend them to tbe First Minister. I believe that in bis heart of hearts these are tbe sentiments of tbe First Minister, and at one time I believe they actuated him, and that even now, if he allowed his better judgment to rule him, he would rise up and give utterance to those sentiments. Now, Sir, having given these quotations from some Protestant authorities. I will come to an Irishman-tile Minister of Justice will prick up his ears a little-'for the gentleman I am going to quote is editor of the organ of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, a paper published in the city of Chicago. He is a distinguished Roman Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Catholic citizen of Chicago, by the name of Hon. John F. Finerty, a member of Congress, I believe, or a senator, and I commend his utterances to the Minister of Justice, because he speaks in the interest of the country rather than in favour of a church; I commend his sentiments to the Minister of Justice who has been junlc-etting around at the expense of Canada, going to Rome and elsewhere in the interest of a section of the people of Canada, and I am satisfied that the tolerant and broadminded sentiments of Mr. Finerty will appeal to that bon. gentleman. And I may say in passing that I see our good friend has sold his stock in the 'Soleii,' which has been telling the people of Canada that there will be no compromise on this school question. So we may expect that he will not take the extreme interest in that subject henceforward that lie lias in the past. Mr. Finerty says:

In brief, then, we say to all whom it may concern : Let American institutions severely alone, and do not kindle the flames of a bigot hell in this grand country by seeking after the unattainable.

These are the words of Mr. Finerty, speaking in the city of Chicago to the people of the United States. I will read them again:

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Does the hon. gentleman know that Mr. Finerty belongs to the Clau-na-Gael?

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I am merely saying that even an extreme man like Mr. Finerty, and a member of the Clan-na-Gael- I do not know whether he is, I am not a member of the order, so I do not know; the hon. gentleman possibly knows-and I accept him as authority upon that point-I am merely saying that though he may be a member of the Clan-na-Gael, he holds these views on this great question, and I quote them as the views of a broad and tolerant citizen of the Roman Catholic faith in the United States :

In brief, then, we say to all whom it may concern : Let American institutions severely

alone, and do not kindle the flames of a bigot hell in this grand country by seeking after the unattainable. Always bear in mind, that the vast majority of the American people, of all creeds, will stand by their country, her constitution, her laws and her institutions. Any evasion of either by any outside force whatever will mean war. What man, what set of men would be fatuous enough to bring such a curse upon this land ?

Continuing Mr. Finerty says:

We believe in the American non-sectarian public school.

These are the words of an Irishman and -I take the word of the Minister of Justice -no, the prospective Minister of Justice, the present Solicitor General-that Mr. Finerty is a member of the Clan-na-Gael:

We believe in the American non-sectarian public school, and we believe in educating the youth of all races side by side, so that they may grow up as friends, trusting each other, not as enemies suspicious of one another. We believe it would be a fatal mistake to have the American public schools run, or controlled, by ecclesiastics of any creed. As it stands, the Catholic, the Protestant, the Dissenter, the Jew, and the Confucian drink at the same deep fountain of knowledge. All have their separate religious instruction where it properly belongs -in the church, the temple and the Sunday school. If the latter is not provided by any particular church, the fault lies with the church, not with the state, the parents or the children.

These are tlie views of a prominent Irish Roman Catholic of the city of Chicago, the editor of the organ of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and, as the Minister of Justice says, a member of the Clan Na Gael Society. When General Grant felt that he was at death's door, when the fatal disease that was wearing his life away had made itself manifest, and when he knew that his hours were numbered, he issued a mandate to the people of the United States. I shall give it to the right hon. First Minister :

I suggest for your earnest consideration, and most earnestly recommend It, that a constitutional amendment be submitted to the legislatures of the several states for ratification, making it the duty of each of the several state's to establish and for ever maintain free public schools adequate to the education of all the children in the rudimentary branches within their respective limits, irrespective of sex, colour, birth-place or religions ; forbidding the teaching in said schools of religious, atheistic, or pagan tenets ; and prohibiting the granting of any school funds or school taxes, or any part thereof, either by legislative, municipal or other authority, for the benefit or aid, directly or indirectly, of any religious sect or denomination, or in aid or for the benefit of any other object of any nature or kind whatever.

As this will be the last annual message which I shall have the honour of transmitting to congress before my successor is chosen, I will repeat or recapitulate the questions which I deem of vital importance which may he legislated upon or settled at this session. First, that the states shall be required to afford the opportunity of a good common education to every child within their limits ; second, no sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the state, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon any community ; third, declare church and state for ever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres.

Were those sentiments to be uttered in the Dominion of Canada, we would find some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House raising the cry of intolerance against those who gave voice to such sentiments. These are the sentiments which have made the United States a nation that it is to-day. The perversion of these sentiments, as it has been carried out in practice in European countries, has kept the people hewers of wood and drawers of water to the aristocracies of those lands.

Speaking of perversion and the cry of intolerance, I do not charge the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) with any intentional perversion, but in quoting my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) last evening, I think he put a wrong construction upon his words. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle had said :

I intend to claim the privilege of briefly putting on record the views which I hold with regard to this question. After nearly twenty-two years residence in the Northwest Territories, I believe firmly that the public school system as at present administered is the one best suited to the needs of the country.

Then the hon. member for Cape Breton went on to say :

He says that he has had twenty-two years experience in the Northwest, that he has seen many changes and that this law which is now on the statute-book has given satisfaction to that country.

I do not know whether the hon. member had read the speech of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, but what my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle referred to distinctly and clearly was the public school system and not the separate school system. I believe from what I know of the hon. gentleman that he would uot wilfully misrepresent my hon. friend.

Mr. SCOTT.

Has my hon. friend (Mr. Sam, Hughes) ever heard from any quarter of the Northwest Territories a protest against the existing school system there '!

HUGHE'S. The people took the school system as it was provided for them iu the Northwest Territories. They never had an opportunity of expressing any opinion in regard to it. The separate school system of the Northwest Territories has been provided for them by the people of the eastern provinces, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that I have heard, and he has heard, and will hear, protests against the authority and tyranny of this parliament in attempting to dictate to the Northwest Territories.

Mr. SCOTT.

If my hon. friend will permit me, I will say that he cannot get tlie hon. member for Qu'Appelle to say that there is any protest against, or any dissatisfaction in the Territories with the school system.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle gave utterance the other night to his views on this question, which I may say are very much more satisfactory to the people of this country than the utterances of the hon. member for West Assini-boia. The right hon. leader of the government went on to speak of crime in the Dominion of Canada. I am not going to take that up. Unfortunately, there is too much crime both in Canada and in the United States, but by a strange coincidence the very day on which my right hon. friend made that statement I saw on the bulletin

board a notice of two murders in the Dominion of Canada. You can scarcely take up a paper without seeing that in some part of this Dominion some poor unfortunate wretch has, in a fit of passion, committed murder. Considering that there is such a lack of respect for institutions, such a lack of respect for professions and such a lack of respect for public honour, the mystery to me is that there is not more crime than that which is committed in the Dominion of Canada. Speaking of divorces, I was a little surprised" that the right hon. First Minister should touch ou that question. He knows very well that the cost in the Dominion of Canada is a barrier to divorces. He knows that the facility in this country is not as great as it is in many states of the union for divorces. He knows that in Canada mediation very often comes in. Friends of the persons concerned and church dignitaries step in and prevent a consummation of divorces ; and he knows that if there is one thing that characterizes Canada, it is the goodness of the women of Canada in forgiving- the derelictions of duty on the part of the men. I am sorry to say that there is some cause for divorce in Canada, and that, if the good women of this country wished it, they might have an opportunity of securing just as many divorces as they have in the United States. Then the right hon. First Minister read us a lecture on unity and harmony in his own gentlemanly wa5r. He is always gentlemanly. He always throws down the gauntlet and leaves his radical friends behind him to create an agitation while he stands and looks on with calm and placid demeanour, regretting, of course, the excesses of his followers, and cries intolerance against those who oppose him. But we remember the conduct of the right hon. gentleman and his friends in 1885, which has been referred to by other hon. gentlemen in this House, when the right hon. First Minister himself threatened that if he had been on the banks of the Saskatchewan he would have shouldered his musket, because of the supposed wrongs of the half-breeds of that country. A lot of land grabbers and land sharks, knowing that the half-breeds had obtained their scrip in Manitoba after the first rebellion, knowing that these halfbreeds had gone out and settled in certain other spots in the remote west and were claiming scrip again, and desiring to get control of that scrip, they kept urging them to raise a row and make a demand for the issue of the scrip. The government of that time, after consultation with the bishops and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, they being the best educated men of that country in that time, and after consultation with the officers of ,the mounted police, determined, on the advice of and by the request of these officials and clergy," to issue no more scrip. They said : No ; we will not issue scrip again. You will sell your scrip for a bottle of whisky, you will sell Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

it for a dollar or two, and at the end of the week you will be as poor as you were before ; but we will give you your scrip on condition that you settle on the land. Thi& was done at the request of the authorities of the church and the police. The only excuse they had for rebellion was that when they did settle on the land they wanted the old river survey instead of the mile-square survey proposed by the Dominion government ; and from that hour to this these gentlemen have been unable to find one cause for rebellion other than as to the _ particular form the survey should take. But the right hon. the Prime Minister said on that occasion that if he had been on the banks of the Saskatchewan he would have shouldered his musket and fought for the liberties of the people.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

He would not have written letters home about it.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

The Prime Minister was reported as having said that. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) in his speech referred some fifteen or twenty times to the question of rebellion. Let me inform the Solicitor General that some of us who have done a little talk of rebellion have not been afraid and are not afraid to back up our opinions by facing the music ; we do not simply stand away off in the province of Quebec at a safe distance from danger and do the talking and writing.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam Hughes) must have known my brother who served Canada and the empire in South Africa, came back with his medals, but he did not write any self-glorifying letters from the battle fields.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I am glad there are some loyal men In the family of the honourable gentleman in Quebec.

MeKENZIE. Can the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam Hughes) point out a single man in the province of Quebec who is not loyal ? The hon. gentleman has taken the responsibility of saying that he was glad to know there were some loyal men in Quebec ; does he know any disloyal men in Quebec ?

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Does my hon. friend come from Quebec? I think he comes from Cape Breton.

MeKENZIE. I come from Cape Breton, and I am a Canadian, Sir, and I hope I am broad enough to treat my fellow Canadians everywhere with respect.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

My hon. friend wants to know if you can tell us what Is the law on the subject. The hon. gentleman (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) did not give us all his brief last night, and perhaps he wants to deal with that aspect of the case now.

MeKENZIE. I will be very pleased at any time to deal very briefly with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes).

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

We find the First Minister, not satisfied with these inflammatory cries in the province of Quebec, coming to the province of Ontario and seeking to inflame the public of that province along other lines when he cried: 'Hands off Manitoba; down with Tupper and his Tory friends,' and all that sort of thing. And yet he stands up here to-day preaching unity and harmony while at the same time he throws into the arena of Dominion politics the greatest fire brand that has ever for the last thirty years been thrown before the people of Canada. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has been charged with being intolerant. Why, Sir, I have been surprised at the tolerance displayed by that hon. gentleman in his speeches in this House and in his speeches out of the House. He has displayed a spirit of Christian fortitude-if I nmy use the term, although I am not much of a judge in this line-he has displayed a spirit of tolerance which I commend to my friends on the other side of the House. [DOT]

It is not my intention, Sir, to discuss the constitutional aspect of the question. The leader of the opposition dealt with that phase, and no gentleman of any standing-in law on the other side of the House or in the country has dared to lay a finger upon his argument. Minister after minister arose and they practically had to admit that the contention of the leader of the opposition in his interpretation of the law was absolutely correct. Our good friend the Prime Minister claimed that he stood on the rock of the constitution, but after the leader of the opposition got through.with him it turned out that the right hon. gentleman had landed on a mud bank. It is the leader of the opposition who stands on the rock of the constitution and who in doing so proclaims his adhesion to the principles of equity an d justice and fair play for all. The leader of the opposition gives to every free man settling in the Northwest Territories a fee simple deed to liberty; the leader of the government would blanket mortgage the charter of every settler. The leader of the opposition reposes confidence in the people and shows his faith in his fellow man; the leader of the government mistrusts the west; mistrusts the people of Canada and he places a handicap on these new provinces for the placing of which he has no mandate from the electorate. The leader of the opposition regards his commission from the freemen of Canada as a sacred trust and grants to each of his followers full liberty to vote as he chooses on this question; the leader of the government refused to place this issue before the electors at the last election, for he ignores the people of Canada. The leader of the government also ignores the territorial government led toy Premier Haul-tain, who not long since had his policy on this question endorsed by the people of the west. The leader of the government ignored the ex-Minister of the Interior, the responsible minister from the district, for he consulted only the Minister of Justice and the Postmaster General. The leader of the government ignored the Minister of Finance in relation to the great financial issues involved, and he hastened the Bill into this House so as to get the party committed to it while the minister was on his way from a foreign land. The leader of the government ignored even his party caucus, because he knew he dare not consult it; he ignored his colleagues in the cabinet, consulting only the gentleman who had the manipulation of the affairs from the beginning; he trampled -the commission of the people of Canada under his feet and cast to the winds his boasted love of the English constitution, believing that his followers would meekly vote as he commanded.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-hurton).

Sir. Speaker, I am delighted to see that there is one good representative of the cabinet present (Hon. Sir. Prgfontaine) to take charge, I presume, of the business before the House. Before recess I was pointing out that the leader of the opposition stood on the principle of equal rights and equal laws for all, and special privileges for none, whereas the leader of the government took the position that it was the duty of this parliament to coerce the new provinces in the matter of education-in other words, to establish in those provinces a union of church and state. The maxim of the leader of the opposition was: Is it right, is it just, is it fair to those splendid people in the west, for this parliament, representing as it does all Canada, to seek to enforce upon them the will of people who have nothing whatever to do with the schools in that country, who should have nothing to do with them, and who are not justified under the laws or the constitution in interfering with them ? The leader of the government takes for granted, as is stated in the press and hinted at in the addresses of hon. gentlemen opposite, that the excitement over this question will soon pais away, and that in a few weeks all this discussion will be forgotten. Let me tell the First Minister that down deep in the hearts of his countrymen, those who support him as well as those who oppose him, is the conviction that he has made the mistake of his lifetime-that he has destroyed the high opinion in which he was held by a great many of the people of this country, who had absolute faith in his struggles for liberty in 1896 and on other occasions in the history of this country.

The Minister of Justice in replying to the leader of the opposition, abandoned the ground of the constitution and the ground of vested rights, and stood simply on the

37S8

foundation rock that forty-one per cent of the people of this country demanded these schools and were going to get them. Let me tell the Minister of Justice, in the first place, that not forty-one per cent, and I believe not ten per cent, of the people of this country demand this class of schools. Similar assertions are sometimes made in the United States by gentlemen who hope by that means to advance their own political ends, to the effect that a large percentage of the Roman Catholic people of the United States are in favour of parochial or separate schools instead of public schools. I shall take the liberty of quoting to the House, not my own authority, but the authority of one of the cleanest and best Roman Catholic priests that has ever graced a pulpit. I refer to the Reverend Jeremiah Crowley, of the city of Chicago, who says :

Catholic public school opponents declare that at least one-third of the American people favour their position. I deny it. I am morally certain that not five per cent of the Catholic men of America endorse at heart the parochial school. They may send their children to the parochial school to keep peace in the family and to avoid an open rupture with the parish rector ; they may he induced to pass resolutions of approval of the parochial school in their lodges and conventions ; but if it ever becomes a matter of blood not one per cent, of them will be found outside of the ranks of the defenders of the American public school. If a perfectly free ballot could be cast the Catholic men of America for the perpetuity or suppression of the parochial school, it would be suppressed by an astounding majority. The plain Catholic layman knows that the public school is vastly superior to the parochial school in its methods, equipment and pedagogic talent. They know', too, that the public is the poor man's school. They know that the public school prepares, as no other can, their children for the keen struggle of American life and the stern duties of American citizenship.

Bishop Spaulding, a high dignitary of the Roman Catholic church in the United States says :

Fifty years ago there wTas a great difference of opinion amongst Catholics in this country about the religious (parochial) school. Unfortunately the clean prelates and priests of * fifty years ago ' were whipped into line, and the unpatriotic amj, ruinous course of attacking the public schools prevailed.

I have some expressions of opinion also from gentlemen occupying very good positions in the Dominion of Canada as to whether forty per cent of the people of Canada are in favour of separate schools. I quote from an article in the Woodstock ' Daily Express ' of Wednesday, March 8, 1905, written, I am informed, by a Roman Catholic, the editor of the newspaper being himself of that faith. I may say that a contributor to this paper had criticised the action of the government in relation to these Autonomy Bills and that the ' Catholic Record ' of London, Out., had attacked him, and this is the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

reply of the Roman Catholic editor of the * Express

What the freely expressed opinion of Roman Catholics would he with reference to separate schools is a matter of speculation^ and our contributor has as muqji right to his opinion as the editor of the 'Catholic Record' has to his. The very fact that Roman Catholic ratepayers are not invited to express an opinion preparatory to the establishment of a separate school may be interpreted as meaning either that their opinion is not considered of^ any great value, or that the bishops are afraid to trust an appeal to it. If our contributor was so very far wrong in his opinion, why is it that Roman Catholic ratepayers are not consulted about- the establishment of separate schools ? Why is it that in so many cases they are permitted no more say in the management of separate schools than is necessary to give an appearance of compliance with the law ? Why is it that the bishop deems it necessary to invoke the spiritual powers of a church to compel support and attendance ? Why are Roman Catholic ratepayers not allowed the use of the ballot in the election of trustees ? Why are the trustees, in some cases at least, not allowed to act after they are elected ? Is it bigotry to draw attention to these facts ? It seems to us that the ' Catholic Record ' would he showing more respect for intelligent Roman Catholic sentiment by dealing squarely w'ith the facts than by imputing motives. [DOT]

Further on the ' Express ' says :

The state has assumed the responsibility of providing for the education of the people up to a certain point. To discharge its obligations properly the state should guarantee that the schools should be free and open to all, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile.^ The state does not interfere with any religious denomination ; it leaves all free to teach what doctrines they will and how they will ; the denominations, on their part, should leave the state free in the matter of secular .education. The duty of a state is to encourage the children of all creeds and races to grow up together, as Canadian citizens. Surely it is not bigotry for a public journal to work for the removal of differences, dissensions and prejudices in a country whose destiny depends on the^ ability and willingnes of all her people to live and work together in harmony.

These views of Roman Catholic writers in the province ci Ontario refute the utterance of the Minister of Justice made before this House in tones of defiance, that forty-one per cent of the people of this country demand these schools and are going to get them. Let me tell the Minister of Justice that a percentage of the people of the United States of America, away back in 1861, decided that they would have certain rights, and they sought to enforce their will by arms ; they sought to disrupt the union ; but the union to-day is stronger than it ever was. And let me tell the Minister of Justice that he cannot get forty-one per cent, or even a corporal's guard of the people of this country to follow him in any racial and religious cry, or in any racial or religious struggle in order to plant separate schools in the Northwest of Canada.

Should he undertake it, the result will he that Canada will be bound together more closely just as the United States has been, since the great civil war, than it ever was before. The Minister of Justice will find that he has not caused the slightest tremour in the hearts or minds of the people by threatening rebellion and the destruction of the constitution, as he did when he said 41 per cent of our people would have their way in this matter or there would be trouble. The hon. the Minister of Finance slid oil the rock of the constitution and took to the water, as my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has pointed out.

Mr. BENNETT.

He got thrown in.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Yes, he was thrown in but clung to' the cabinet, and when he stood up in this House and made the plea he did, he presented the most abject, pitiable spectacle it has ever been my privilege to witness in this parliament, and this is the sixteenth session I have had the honour of occupying a seat in it. Just fancy the man who made the welkin ring from one end of the Dominion to the other in 1896 against any interference with the province of Manitoba, who has been quoted often in this House as against any coercion of any province-just fancy this man, when brought face to face with the issue of his own creation, renouncing every shred of principle he then stood for. Shall I quote his language V I really do not think it necessary, and I do not like to see it any oftener than I can help in the pages of ' Hansard.' But what was the pitiable plea he made ? Oh, he said, if we don't accept this clause the First Minister will have to resign and we will be all out in the cold. That was the sum and substance of his remarks. Why, the whale and Jonah were not in it compared with the hon. gentleman and his principles. The whale merely swallowed Jonah, but the Finance Minister swallowed both himself and whatever principles he ever had. He pointed out that in Nova Scotia the Roman Catholics were handsomely used by the Protestant majority, but in the next breath he turned around and said we cannot trust the people of the Northwest to do the Roman Catholic minority in those new provinces what is being done to that same minority in the province of Nova Scotia. That was the result of the hon. gentleman's logic. I might remind him of an old expression taken from the same authority as he quoted from :

The man who sells his freedom in exchange for broth shall make eternal servitude his fate.

Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance practically threatened civil war when they stated that because 41 per cent of the people of this country wanted to control the schools in a certain way, forsooth we must yield to them. Where would government begin and end if such a principle were to be recognized ? It would have

been a thousand times better for the Minister of Finance if he had quietly remained on the ocean until this matter was finally settled, and still kept to the water, rather than have made the exhibition he did in this House. How a minister who has sworn to give advice to His Majesty's representatives according to the dictates of his conscience can remain in the cabinet after publicly enunciating the principles he expressed here, passes my comprehension. Had that hon. gentleman done his duty, the First Minister would very quickly have found a way out of the difficulty. Had he stood to his guns with the solid province of Nova Scotia at his back and supported by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) with the solid Northwest behind him, the First Minister would never have dared to resign and go to the country, but would at once have removed the difficulty and left the people of the Northwest free to deal with their own schools. Had he adopted the motto taken from his own favourite author, he would have been by long odds the most popular man in this country. If he had taken the motto .

Freedom sternly said :

I shun no pang,

No strife beneath the sun,

Where human rights are staked and won.

He would have been master of the administration to-day in place of meriting the contempt of every member of the House of Commons. Personally I have always been opposed to the introduction of religion into politics and have always endeavoured to keep the two apart. But at times religious contentions have been forced on us, as I shall point out later in answer to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). In the province of Ontario we have had, on the question of separate schools, an agitation, prompted by differences, to have the improper amendments made to our school law removed. I stood up in that fight and we won and prevented these improper amendments being perpetuated and put into practice in our province. I remember well pointing out that if every adviser of Sir Oliver Mowat were a member of the Roman Catholic church, it did not matter so long as he was chosen on the ground of fitness and ability, but that no one should be chosen for a cabinet position simply because he happened to be an Irishman or a Scotchman or a Frenchman or an Englishman and a member of a certain church. Let ability be the test, I contended, and there would be no trouble. But on all these matters, there are demagogues who take advantage of national and religious prejudices, men who have no qualifications or fitness for public office other than that they handle the Irish vote in this locality, or the French vote in another locality, or some other, votes somewhere else ; and these are the men who have gained ascendency in the Liberal party

from tlie days as far back as 1837. It is this class of politicians who create these religious and racial agitations throughout the country, hoping thereby to gain a prominence which they cannot achieve in any other way. But it is not necessary for the men of any race or religion iu Canada to resort to that kind of thing. There are plenty of Irishmen, Scotchmen and Frenchmen and men of every nationality who can command the respect of their fellow' countrymen without resorting to such pernicious methods. We had another exhibition of these methods in the person of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). On one occasion, when speaking in the city of Brantford, that magnificent voice of his was raised to such a pitch that just as the audience left the building, the roof fell in. Well, the only resemblance between the Minister of Customs of to-day and the Minister of Customs of years gone by is that sonorous voice of his. It was heard in Ontario in 1896, when he exclaimed in stentorian tones: Hands off Manitoba ; down with Tupper and the Church of Rome ; v'e will never be ruled by the Bishops of Rome ; let the free men of the west show their independence. The newspaper speeches and posters of hon. gentlemen opposite reeked with this sort of thing. j.

And he stood up here saying in effect: Pity the sorrows of a poor old man who wants to hold on to office ; who has been for thirty-two years in the saddle-I think that was what he said-with the First Minister, and has learned to love him. Well, these are great constitutional reasons why two provinces of this Dominion should be tied hand and foot for all time to come. In some of his speeches, the hon. gentleman was wont to quote those grand old words from Junius, which the Toronto ' Globe ' years ago adopted for its motto : ' The

subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.' But there was not a word of independence from him the other night. It was only : Let me hold down my job in the custom-house ; keep the ship together and keep her off the rocks ; I have been thirty-two years in the saddle with the Prime Minister, and I love the dear old man; and I am not fit for much else. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the rule of life is that men go down and give place to others. In politics, as in every walk of life in which there is struggle, men disappear. But the sun rises and sets and the men are soon forgotten. Had these hon. gentlemen stood to the constitution there would have been no danger of the Prime Minister going out of office on this question, no danger of the government being broken up. On the contrary, it would have been much stronger than it is to-day. Had they done this, the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) would not have been afraid to face his electors ; Centre Toronto would not Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

have gone by default; the government would not have been obliged to dangle jobs before the eyes of their partisans from the Northwest Territories; and, as I am reminded, the tomato man of the party, the member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) could have been made Minister of Agriculture and need not have been afraid, on this account, to face his electors. Not a constituency in the country but would have supported the government on this subject. Men come and go ; members of this House appear and pass. Aud when every man who has occupied a place in this House shall have passed and been forgotten, the principles that are being discussed to-day will live ; the principles-or lack of principles-that are being fastened upon the people of the new provinces will remain to remind the future generation of those

Patriots self-bound to the stake of office.

Martyrs for their country's sake,

Who fill, themselves, the hungry jaws of fate

And by their loss of manhood save the state.

Now, Sir, we all admire the open fearless dare-devil rather than the sneak ; we admire the man who holds up a train or, flying the black flag, orders the merchantman to heave to, but we despise the man who slinks around by the back door to commit some petty theft. Therefore, it was a refreshing thing to see the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) stand up and to hear him boldly and brazenly admit that the whole policy of the government was wrong, that there was no question of the constitution in it, no question of vested rights or control by this parliament, nor could there be any question of policy, for it was a wrong policy. He said in effect: I do not believe in separate schools, but I want to keep the old aggregation together, and I will see them through. I have not before me the oath of office taken by that hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) as a member of parliament-he had the decency to resign his position in the cabinet before he made the speech to which I have referred-but I would recommend him to walk into the clerk's room and read it. And if, in the light of that oath, he can reconcile his speech and his vote, he will prove himself able to turn a shorter corner than I think he can.

The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa), who is now conveniently out of the House, is credited with having written certain articles for ' La Nationaliste,' warning the ex-Minister of the Interior of his duty to support the party, and warning him that if he persisted in wrecking this government some very unpleasant things would be brought before the public. It is the duty of this House to know what it is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) referred to. We want him to stand up in this House, to show himself brave for once in his life, and let the public know what was meant by this threat that brought the ex-Minister of the Interior so quickly back into line. I

3794