Mr. McCRANEY:

Mr.* Speaker, on Thursday last I gave notice that when motions were called I would move that Bill 118, letter E of the Senate, for the relief of Charles Isaac Alexander, he referred back to the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. My reason for asking that the Bill be referred back to the committee is this: The Bill went through the Senate Committee unanimously and came down to this House, and went before the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills of this House. That committee required a quorum of ten members. There were 13 who took part in the vote, 7 against the preamble and 6 in favour of it. In view of the small number present, and in view of the history of the Bill up to the present time, I would ask that it he referred back to the committee for further consideration.

Mr. BURNHAM:

Surely it would be

most objectionable to adopt this proceeding. I was a member of that committee. That Bill was considered and considered carefully; there was a great deal of discussion. There is absolutely no use of putting members on committees if their findings are not going to be adopted, and it Bills are going to be thrown back on them. I protest against this procedure.

Mr. OLIVER:

On the other hand, I have not yet heard that this House exists for the purpose of handing over its authority to any of the committees. The committee is a convenient means of 'bringing out evidence, but it is the House that renders its decision. As a member of the House, not a member of the committee, I do not wish to be held responsible for the decision of the committee.

Mr. W. A. CLARKE:

As a member of that committee and one who listened carefully to the discussion by counsel representing the parties, and who voted against the Bill, I feel that this proposition is a reflection upon the members of the committee. Some hon. members who have voted against the Bill have gone home and intend to remain. Consequently, if the Bill is referred back, we have no chance to get another expression of opinion by the committee. I think the motion should stand over.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

My attention was directed to this case by Mr. Lougheed, the Chairman of the Divorce Committee in the Senate, and by my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. MeCraney). 1 read over the evidence, and, if it is to be believed, there is absolutely no question that a divorce'ought to toe granted. The question of [DOT] the credibility of witnesses is usually left to those who have had the opportunity of observing their demeanour and judging by that as to whether or not they are telling the truth. The Senate committee which heard the witnesses in this case seem to have 'believed those who were called on behalf of the petitioner. The circumstances put forth by respondent, who was the only witness called in her own behalf, are corroborative to some extent of what was alleged by witnesses for the petitioner. I think the result of this case indicates the absolute necessity of some reform in the methods by which Bills for divorce are considered, because it is manifestly incongruous that a case which depends upon the credibility of witnesses should be decided in favour of the credibility of those witnesses by a committee which heard them and should be decided against the credibility of those witnesses by a committee which did not hear them. There is much in the result to indicate the necessity of some effective reform in the methods by which these Bills are heard. When the case was brought to my attention I took the opportunity of reading the evidence very carefully. It is no reflection whatever upon the members of the Private Bills Committee that any one in this House might entertain an opinion of the result of that evidence different from that which they entertained. The evidence seemed to me to indicate circumstances as strong as any I have ever seen brought forward in this Parliament in favour of a divorce, unless we are absolutely to disbelieve the two witnesses who were called for the petitioner. The evidence was most direot and circumstantial. In so far as I am personally concerned, and with every possible respect for and deference to the opinions of those who entertain a 'different view,

1 would be disposed to think ithat the case might very well be referred again to the Committee on Private Bills.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I beg to lay on the table of the House a communication

under date of the 25th March, 1915, from the Consul-General for Belgium, setting forth the protest of the Government of Belgium against the contention on the part of the German Chancellary that as far back as 1906 Belgium had broken her neutrality by the conclusion of an agreement with Great Britain.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Which of the provinces is concerned?

Mr. DOHERTY:

Manitoba is one, and it is possible that one or two of the other two western provinces has similar legislation.

Motion-agreed to and Bill read- the first time.

Sir JAMES AIKINS (Brandon):

I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to an anachronism or perhaps a blunder that has occurred in the attestation papers required to be signed by recruits previous to enlistment in the overseas expeditionary force, and also in the permanent force of Canada. This error has caused some discussion and perhaps a little irritation on the part of a large body of our citizens. In the particulars which are required to he given in these papers, the recruit has to state the religious denomination to which he belongs, and the religious denominations set out are: Church of England, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Baptist, Congregationalist, other Protestants, Roman Catholic, Jewish. There is no mention in this list of the Methodists.

That may be accounted for, perhaps, by the fact that the theological section of the Department of Militia has been, like Rip Van Winkle, asleep for about forty years. There was in Canada, over forty years ago, a religious denomination called Wesleyans, but it has ceased to be, and I am quite sure that the Methodists, who are as large a body in Canada as those of the other Protestant denominations specified, are quite as loyal and quite as deserving of being mentioned. I call the attention of the Minister of Militia to this in order that [DOT] the error and its consequences may hereafter be obviated.

It is quite evident that my good friend (Sir James Aikins) has been asleep himself. It is true that the attestation paper does not contain the word " Methodists," but every one knows that the Methodists are always to the front in every loyal and patriotic cause. No one would suspect that either my good friend or myself, both of whom occupy front seats among the orthodox Methodists at least once a year, would-intentionally cast any reflection on the Methodist body. The mistake has been made through our following the English attestation sheet. When I asked for an explanation of it some weeks ago, I was told that our men here simply copied the English sheet, and I, being the head [DOT] of the theological branch of the Militia Department, was not consulted, or I would have noticed it. The other officers in the department, being only military men, did not observe the effect of the mistake. I may, however, inform my Hon. friend that the Wesleyans are not dead, because there are in England hundreds of thousands of the very best citizens who still hear the name of Wesleyans. As I say, we followed the English form, but I can promise my hon. friend that the word " Methodist " will be found in the papers in future. 1 may say also that there is nothing in the world to prevent a man writing in the word " Methodist," as many of them do, if he wishes to.

Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):

1 'draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to the following despatch, which appears in the newspapers of this morning-:

Toronto, April 4.-The first aviation school in Canada will be opened at Lawrence Park

on Tuesday. It will be under the direction of Captain E. L. Janney, squadron commander of the Royal Flying Corps. Lieutenant Harley Smith, of Toronto, will look after the military end of the training and some other instructors will soon arrive from England and the United States. Lieutenant Bernard F. Hale, of the Royal Flying Corps, who accompanied Captain Janney to the front, is now on his way to Canada, and will act as adjutant of the school. When completed, the staff of instructors will number six.

The school will open with twelve' or fifteen picked pupils, and more will be added as facilities improve. Two hangars are to be started at once, and will be completed in ten days .

The course will extend over four months, and in order to familiarize the pupils with the parts of the machine a complete new machine will be built on the premises. It will embody the latest improvements, and will be a very-powerful machine.

In addition to Lawrence Park, the Edgecombe estate of over 200 acres has been placed at the disposal of the school.

I wish to ask if this school is or will be under the direction of the Minister of Militia.