It would be interesting to know just what the hon. member for Dundas did say. He certainly said something; the House and the country know that. We all have the greatest respect for him, and we all know that he will not deny that he said he had no confidence in Allison when he was employed as the agent of this Government in the purchase of war supplies. Why is it that papers that are strong supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite discuss in the frankest way the seriousness of the situation? Here is one which says: .
Manufacturers who have been Conservatives all their lives are so stricken by the reign of
terror established under the auspices of Sir Robert Borden that they dare not come out in the open and proclaim the truth that ought to be proclaimed in the interests of Canadian industry and Britain's safety. The Shell Committee is the work of Sir Robert Borden's hands. Nobody's head seems to have had any share in the origination of the small piffling Shell Committee, whose waste of money may have been inevitable, and was far less ruinous to the British taxpayer than its waste of time was to the Canadian manufacturer.
It goes on to say that my right hon. friend should grant the fullest and most complete investigation. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that that is the situation in which they stand before this country and before their friends. Therefore, Sir, when they say, in the apologetic and halting manner of the Minister of Finance this afternoon, first, that there is nothing to investigate, and, second, that they have no power to investigate, and then when they endeavour to justify the appointment of a body which, as every hon. member knows, will have no power whatever to reach those men who are across the border in the United States, I say that the Government are not proposing a solution with which this country will be satisfied. It is therefore the duty of this House to support the motion of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Let us, as the representatives of a free people in this Parliament, decide to have a committee appointed- to make the widest kind of investigation in .accordance with the resolution proposed by my right hon. friend. Let us asik the assistance of the Minister of Justice to 'bring here the men that can be brought here. Let this Parliament sit until this wrong is uprooted and until all this scandal is laid bare before the Canadian people; and in that way we shall show to the whole Empire that we Canadians will not accept responsibility for such doings by John Wesley Allison and others, as have been exposed, and that we want those high standards of public life, for which our boys are fighting in the old land, which will not permit the continuance of such doings as have been exposed before the Canadian people.
Topic: SHELL CONTRACTS.
Subtopic: PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
With the permission of the House, I would like to speak for a few moments. I do not wish to intervene before the right hon. leader of the Opposition addresses the House, but, as my name has been made a subject of controversy, I think I should say a few words now. I do not seek any great publicity, and I desire to say that I never gave any authority for an interview which has recently appeared in the newspapers, nor did I make any statement to anybody to be made public. While I am on my feet, I wish to state how I intend to vote, for I do not wish to give a silent vote on this occasion. A good deal has been said of the wisdom or unwisdom of investigating the Shell Committee's business. The argument largely used is that the money spent was British money. Now, Sir, I look upon this war as a partnership between Great Britain and her colonies, and I think we are just as much interested in the outlay of British money as in the outlay of our own money. I do not think the people of this country will be satisfied unless they feel assurance that there is to be pretty thorough investigation. I am glad to see the right hon. leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) go as far as he has gone; but I wish he would go further. I do not think that anything short of the fullest investigation will satisfy the public feeling of this country to-day. I do not think that grafters should be allowed to hide in the shadow of this great war, to plot against the interest of the country, and to feed on her revenues. I think the people of Canada are alive to the situation; and, while we believe it is not wise to say too much or criticise too much during the war, we have but to look across the water to see that public opinion, which is always acute and sensitive in Great Britain, was so aroused by the public pres- that it became irresistible, and the Premier of England was obliged to. cross the floor of the House and change the personnel of his Government. These are things that the people notice. While I have no fault to find with the fact that judges are to be appointed to make investigation, and while I am satisfied that they are as competent and as thorough, and better judges of evidence than any committee that this House could appoint, yet the people cannot distinguish between these fine technicalities. I have no fault to find with the fact that judges are appointed, and those who have been appointed have such a standing in the country that the people will be satisfied with their work. But I wish to say further, while I am on my feet, that the people of this country, who are working night and day, who are subscribing money to help the army-the willing sacrifice of an earnest people-feel, as I am sure this House feels, that the money for this war should be properly spent. I intend to vote for the motion of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.
Topic: SHELL CONTRACTS.
Subtopic: PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
Mr. Speaker, after the very powerful address which was delivered this afternoon by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mt. Macdonald), I should have been quite willing to allow the vote to be immediately taken but for the fact that the partial investigation which has been promised by the Government introduced new features that require some observations from me as the mover of the resolution before the House.
In view of the resistance that has been offered by the Government to this motion, in view especially of the arguments that have been adduced in support of that resistance, it may not be amiss that we should refer to the duties and responsibilities both of the Government and of the Opposition in these war times. I took an early opportunity-the earliest at my command, in the special session of 1914'-to define our conception of the duties and responsibilities of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in this House. To what I then said I have nothing to add, nor from it have I anything to detract. As on the previous occasion ao on this, I have to, protest against the interpretation given by the other side of the House to our attitude, an attitude which, if accepted by us, would have reduced constitutional government simply to a mockery; which would have made of this free Parliament a Chinese pagoda where the representatives of the people would have had to sit like statues of Buddha, mute and motionless, never to utter a word, never to lift a
finger, unless it were to approve the action and the words of the Government. Sir, here is a motion made in the exercise of the rights of a British Parliament, asking for an investigation into matters of the greatest possible concern-matters which, above all others, we hold sacred [DOT]at this moment. Yet, as soon as I had sat down, we were met by taunts that we were departing from our pledges, that we were animated by party motives, that we were simply seeking for political advantage. If this demand for inquiry had come exclusively from those within the ranks of the Liberal party, whether in this House or outside of it, there might have been some semblance of reason for such an imputation; because, in a country like this, where party feeling runs high, party motives are too often attributed to opponents in party conflicts. But-must I remind the House-the demand for inquiry never was confined exclusively to the Liberal party; but this demand for a committee came with as much insistence from the ranks of the Conservative party as from the ranks of the Liberal party-and we have just had in the attitude of the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) the latest and most significant example of it. We cannot claim the hon. member for Dundas as a member of the Opposition. No man in this House at any time has commanded greater respect from both sides of this House. The Toronto World, the Montreal Star, and the Toronto Telegram are not supporting the cause of the Liberal party. They have been and are still deeply associated with the Conservative cause, but they have been even more insistent than any one in the Liberal party upon an investigation into these matters. I commend this consideration especially to the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. B. B. Bennett) whom I do not see in the House. If he were here I would tell him, without offence, that he was the most virulent of those who denounced our action. He knows well that for a man, who honestly and honourably belongs to a party to take issue with that party, even for a day only and upon one question only, requires a great deal of courage, and that no man who belongs to a party honourably and [DOT]honestly will take such a course unless he js moved and impelled to do so by the highest possible sense of public duty. The hon. member for Calgary had that courage; he gave an example of it on the floor of this House. He was impelled to it, I have
no doubt-nay, everybody knows it-by a high sense of public duty. What he did then, others in this country are doing at the present time and in the most sacred of all causes. In view of the fact that men of different parties, men whose views differ widely, agree that this investigation should be had, these taunts and insinuations as to political motives fail to reach their intended mark and only return to confound those who uttered them. If political motives underlie the action of any persons in this country to-day, they are not to be found with those who have asked that the light of day be thrown upon the operations of the Shell Committee. If motives of that kind exist, they are to be found in those who resolutely refused an investigation until public opinion compelled them to take a different course, and even then what they gave they gave grudgingly and scantily. There are men in this country, like the hon. member for Dundas, to whom the one consideration at this time is the success of the war. These men have cheerfully made all the .sacrifices which were demanded of them, and they have the right,
I contend-and this is the basis of the motion which I present to the House-to have an account for every dollar taken out of the treasury and for every drop o'f blood shed on the battlefield. This is the motive of the motion which has been placed, Sir, in your hands, and for this motive there was ample justification. Facts percolated from the sanctum of the Shell Committee which, although they did not give positive evidence, carried with them the irresistible conclusion, that extra prices were paid, that fatal delays were occurring, and tha't sinister adventurers were levying toll upon the blood of our soldiers and upon the money of our treasury. This is the reason why I have become in this House the medium of expressing what I believe to he the general wish of the community. And how are
Government had no control. We were told that it was impossible to have an investigation, because, in the public interest and according to the principles of British constitutional government, no investigation of war matters should take place while the war lasted. The Prime Minister, the member for Calgary, the Solicitor General, the member for South Simcoe, and, last but not least, the Minister of Finance, rose in their places one after another to heap up these sophisms in opposition to an investigation.
But, Sir, an incident occurred in the course of the debate-that was the speech of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), in consequence of which the whole sophistical structure came down, and it was possible to have an investigation. The hon. member for Richmond, in the powerful speech which he delivered some days ago, was able to give facts which went deep into the operations of the Shell Committee and deep into the conscience of the people. He was able to show that on two contracts given to those American adventurers who had been hovering around the Shell Cbmmittee for 5,000,000 fuses at a price of $4.50 each, an advance of an amount something like $3,750,000, was given to those men out of the money of the country. Whether it was Imperial money or Canadian money is of no material consideration, as the hon. member for Dundas has said. These adventurers were given out of the treasury something like $3,750,000 under the pretence of having fuses manufactured in the United States. That would have been bad enough, but we know also that, at the very moment when the Shell Committee were giving these orders for fuses to be manufactured in the United States, an offer was in hand from a reputable Canadian firm to manufacture fuses at $2.40 each. But, Sir, there was something more. At the time the contract was given there had been in existence for two weeks another contract, whereby the adventurers who were the contractors had already divided among themselves the spoils of war. When the hon. member for Richmond brought these facts to the attention of the House he asked hon. gentlemen on the other side if they were impressed by them, and from them there came a unanimous "No"-well, not unanimous, but there came from the majority of the supporters of the Government the cry .that they were not at all impressed. But on the following day, after the wires had been spread the news to the four quarters of the country and the wires became hot in protest from all sides, the Prime Minister rose in his seat as soon as he could to announce that the Government would have an investigation into certain matters connected with the Shell Committee. That is to say, the Government would allow a commission of judges to investigate, not the whole operations of the Shell Committee, but only four American contracts.
Sir, this is the position to-day, -and naturally, being the mover of the resolution now before the House, I am asked what should be our attitude-should we accept or should we not accept the offer of the Government? There are two observations to be made in that respect. There is, first, the character of the tribunal, and then there is the scope of the commission.
As to the character of the tribunal, I have ar word to say to the Minister of Finance. What authority had he to insinuate this afternoon that I had said anything as to the reputation or the character of the members of the commission? Did I say a word which in any way could be taken as impugning the character of Sir Ralph Meredith or of Mr. Justice Duff? Did I refer to them by name or otherwise? What I said was that I would not be satisfied with a Royal Commission as against a Parliamentary Committee. This I said and I said no more, and I resent that my hon. friend or anybody else should insinuate that I had said a word as to the character of the commissioners chosen by the Government. Sir, it would be foolish on my part, I hope I know my station too well, to be guilty of anything of the kind. The standing of Sir Ralph Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff in their profession are of the highest. Nobody will dispute that, and if a Royal Commission were to me as satisfactory as a Parliamentary committee, I would have not a word to say as to the members of ithat commission. But if I take the position I do, it is not on account of the personnel of the commission; it is on account of the commission itself, as against a Parliamentary Committee. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance to-day referred to me especially; he said that in 1900 I had substituted a judicial commission for a parliamentary inquiry, and he quoted my words. Why did he not quote my right hon. friend the leader of the Government? Why did he not quote Sir Charles Thpper?
Why did he not quote my friend the present Minister of Trade and Commerce? Why did he not quote all the leaders of his party at that time who opposed my motion for a judicial commission and insisted upon a Parliamentary Committee? I will go further; I will be more candid than my hon. friend: I will say that there was very much to be said for the view taken at that time by my friend the Prime Minister of to-day, and by my friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce of to-day, in favour of a Parliamentary Committee instead of a judicial commission, because we have had many judicial commissions during the last 20 years, and will any one say that they have been as effective as parliamentary inquiries? Sir, I should be glad, upon some future occasion, to take the views of some of the men whom I see before me on the other side of the House, and ask them to tell me candidly which they prefer, a parliamentary inquiry or a judical commission. But for to-day it is sufficient to say that if I have been in favour of inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee, I knew very well what would be the character of that committee. I knew very well that it would have a majority composed of members of the Conservative party. I was well aware that the Liberals would be in a minority on that committee. I knew very well that the majority would be partisan, as I would be partisan. I make no claim to be better than my fellowman. I am a partisan, although I believe that my partisanship would not go to the extent of wronging my conscience. Still I am a partisan. Gentlemen opposite are also partisans. And yet I would prefer such a committee to the commission which my right hon. friend has proposed. And why? Because, Sir, experience has taught us that if you want to probe offences, if you want to go to the bottom of things, a parliamentary committee is always preferable to a judicial inquiry. I know very well that on that committee members on the other side of the House would be in a majority; but I know also that anove us all there is a tribunal superior to all, and that is public opinion; and we would take the finding of that committee to the bar of public opinion, which is the last tribunal to decide upon all these questions. This is the reason I have preferred a parliamentary inquiry to a judicial inquiry. But, Sir, let me say this: I am not wedded to that form of in-
quiry, I prefer a parliamentary inquiry; yet I am ready to give way if need be.
But the one thing upon which I am irreducible in my opposition is the limited character of the inquiry. Why is it, Sir, that we have this limited inquiry which is proposed by the Government? Why is it? It is because the Shell Committee, headed and presided over by the Minister of Militia, have been found delinquent in two contracts; because in two contracts the Shell Committee, headed and presided over by the Minister of Militia, have misappropriated-I use the word advisedly-have misappropriated the funds entrusted to them. This is the reason we have this limited inquiry. Now, Sir, I see before me on the other side of the House men of large business experience, men of eminent respectability. I see one, two,- three, four, and even more men of eminent respectability and of large business experience.
Topic: SHELL CONTRACTS.
Subtopic: PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
I was sparing the modesty of the others. Four is a greater number of righteous men than there were in Sodom and Gomorrah. I repeat I see opposite to me men of eminent respectability and large business experience. If, in the course of their business, any one of them had a clerk whom he found misappropriating the funds entrusted to him, what would he do? The first thing he would do would be to hire an accountant to investigate- what? Would it be only the transaction in which the delinquency was found? No, it would be to investigate the whole of the operations of that clerk; and I say this now to these respectable men who are before me -four, and more than four-that if there had been such a transaction and such delinquency on the part of one of their employees as we now find on the part of the Shell Committee, they would act just as we now propose; they would order an investigation into the whole of the operations of the delinquent officer. We are told that we must accept this restricted inquiry as satisfactory to the Canadian public. Need I say that the verdict and the answer has been given a moment ago by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder), when he said: "We must have a complete investigation." That is what I ask, and I ask for no more. Sir, there is a great voice of public opinion to be heard upon this matter. Here is the Toronto World-I see its editor here
before me. In capital letters the World says: " Sweeping Inquiry into Shell Contracts is Now Assured." Everybody, he says, both Grits and Tories, is satisfied on account of that assurance. Sir, the conscience of my friend the editor of the World has been relieved by the assurance which has not yet been received. Have we the assurance that we are to have a complete investigation? Do I understand the editor of the World properly to convey the assurance and the decision of the Government, that we are to have a complete investigation?
I need not emphasize the point further. I put that to my hon. friend the editor of the World: all the assurance that he has of a complete investigation is the hope that we should have it.
The Minister of Finance told us the other day that General Bertram, the Chairman of the Shell Committee, was an honest man. Heaven is my witness that I do not desire to believe otherwise. I want to believe that General Bertram is an honest man. I want to believe that he has acted honestly in all these transactions. I am told that he is a good business man; but, Sir, if General Bertram is the honest man he is represented to be, if he is the capable man he is represented to be, I cannot conceive how he signed those contracts which were denounced by my hon. friend from Richmond, unless he did it under the spell of a superior influence. It is impossible to conceive that anybody in possession of his senses would have given such a contract to men whom he did not know, without making inquiry, and without ascertaining whether or not they were able to fulfil their engagements. I say nothing about advancing this huge sum of money to strangers, but I repeat that, under such circumstances, there is no possibility of explaining these contracts unless the explanation is that the Chairman of the Shell Committee was under the spell of a superior influence. I need not dwell any further upon this point.
The Minister of Finance repeated this afternoon all the arguments which were adduced the oth^r day against the granting of an inquiry. First of all, we were told that there should not be an inquiry for the peremptory reason that the Shell Committee had ceased to exist. It is true that the Shell Committee no longer exists. It ceased to exist under circumstances to which I need not refer; suffice it to say that it is to-day no more. But is that a reason why there should be no inquiry? Since when has it been decided that the responsibility of a minister, of a functionary, of a public body, entrusted with the administration of public affairs, ceased to exist after they vacated office? Does not the responsibility of a minister or oj: a functionary or of an agent, whoever he may be, who has been entrusted with the administration of public affairs or even of private affairs, follow him until he has given an account of his operations? Is it not a fact that any man, whether he be in public or in private life, must give an account of his administration? I am more than surprised that such an argument should have come from the mouth of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. When he came into office my right hon. friend found that the commission for the construe-tion of the Transcontinental railway, which had been in existence, was no longer in existence. The chairman had resigned, and the other members of the commission had, I think, been dismissed. It was functus . officio, in the learned phrase which we heard the other day. But my right hon. friend appointed a commission to investigate that defunct commission. According to his argument, he had no right to do so; it was functus officio, and there was nothing more to say. That action of my right hon. friend shows the fallacy of his present argument, that we should not investigate the Shell Committee because it no longer holds office. It is no more in office, it is true, but it is responsible for its acts for the time it was in office. A cause must be desperate indeed when it has to be defended by such an argument as that.
Then it is said that we have no power to investigate the Shell Committee because it was an Imperial committee, over which the Canadian Government had no control whatever. This argument was used largely by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. Here ,is a contract which was signed by the Shell Committee, and upon which is the sign manual of the Minister of Militia:
I, Major General the Honourable S. Hughes, Minister of Militia and Defence of the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with authority duly conferred upon me by His Britannic Majesty's Government, hereby ratify and confirm on its behalf the foregoing agreement between the American Ammunition Company, incorporated, and the Shell Committee.
Dated at Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of June A.D., 3 915.
Minister of Militia and Defence.
I put ithis question to my hon. friend: where did the Minister of Militia get his
authority from His Britannic Majesty's Government? Was it because he was Sir Sam Hughes, or Major General Sam Hughes, or was it (because he was a member of the Canadian Government? If Major General Sir Sam Hughes was a party to this agreement, if he had the authority of the British Government, it was because he was a member of the Canadian Government, Major General though he was, Sir Sam Hughes though he was, he would not have been selected by the British Government to act for them but for the fact that at the same time he was Minister of Militia. That is the answer to my hon. friend.
But that is not all. In contradiction to the statement which the Minister of Finance made repeatedly this afternoon that the Shell Committee was no branch of the Canadian Government, I say, and I will prove it by and by from the words of the Prime Minister himself, that the Shell Committee was a branch of the Canadian Government, just as much as if the Shell Committee 'had, been composed of officials of the Minister of Militia. The Minister of Finance has forgotten what was said by his leader the Prime Minister on the 15th of April last. On that date the Prime Minister gave us a review of what had been done during the war by the Department of Militia. He first spoke of the manufacture of shells in Great Britain, and then he continued in these words:
In respect of such matters, the course taken by the Government of the Mother Country has been to call to the aid of the Government the best business ability of the country. The business men of that Country have responded and splendid results have been thus obtained. The Minister of Militia himself, it is only just to say, at least two or three months ago brought this question before Council and urged upon Council the advisability-
Mark the words- ,
-of having his department assisted in this regard by a committee of three business men. In respect of some other matters the Minister of Militia has taken a course along that line which has brought about most excellent results. If the House will pardon me-my remarks have been extended beyond what I had at first contemplated-I wish to place before Parliament the record of what has been accomplished by the committee appointed in this country to fill orders which the British Government desired to place here, if they could be placed in Canada, for the supply of munitions.
Sir, you have there the statement of the Prime Minister that the Department of Militia, at the instance of the Minister of Militia, was reinforced, by three business men who were to assist him in carrying
out the orders of the British Government for the manufacture of shells. Is it not- what shall I say?-is it not plain to the common sense of this intelligent assembly that when he was thus authorized the Minister of Militia was acting for the Canadian Government But there is more than that. The Minister of Militia himself took hold of the matter. He told us that the Shell Committee was his baby, that it was his own work, that he was proud of it. We know to what extent he has reason to be proud of it to-day. Had the Shell Committee proved to be what had been expected of it my hon. friends on the other side would all have been proud of it to-day, but now that it has proved to be what it was nobody will take responsibility for it. Good or bad, the Shell Committee was a creature of the Government; and, as was said by my hon. friend from Dundas a few moments ago, the Canadian Government is responsible for it to the Canadian people.
Now for the third reason which was given by the Government for refusing this inquiry. They took the ground that they were not responsible for the doings of the Shell Committee. It was stated by the Prime Minister, repeated by the Solicitor General, by the hon. member for Simcoe, and again to-day by the Minister of Finance, that it would not be in the public interest to investigate these matters in war-time. They went further and stated that it was not in accordance with the view of the British authorities to investigate war matters in war-time-that it was against the principles of the British constitution. As regards the public interest, I have no observation to make, except that it is impossible to conceive upon what ground immunity from investigation can be claimed for the Shell Committee. As far as the theory of constitutional government is concerned. I affirm, on the contrary, that at all times the British Parliament has insisted upon the investigation of war matters. Secrecy and concealment in the administration of public affairs are repugnant to the very . spirit of British constitutional government;' repugnant at all times, in war times as well as peace times. Full and searching light has always been deemed, under the British constitution, to be the very essence of good government. Experience has shown, not only in Britain but outside, that secrecy and concealment lead to fraud, to abuses, to peculation and to corruption. I repeat that at all times the British Parliament has insisted upon having full and most search-
ing light upon all operations with which the Government was connected.
To this rule there is but one exception, and it is this: that no investigation should take place if it would lead to the divulging ' of military secrets which would be of use to the' enemy. My hon. friend the Solicitor General insisted very much the other day on that feature as a reason for not granting this inquiry. He pleaded the possibility oi military secrets being divulged. With all respect to the Solicitor General, I say there is something ludicrous in his telling us that an investigation of the operations of the Shell Committee might lead to the divulging of some great military secret which would imperil the fate of the Allied armies. If there is an investigation of the Shell Committee, these things will be investigated: whether there was diligence or no diligence, whether there was favouritism or no favouritism; whether there were delays or no delays; whether there were peculations or no peculations; and in all these inquiries would there be nothing to endanger the fate of the armies in the field; 'England herself did not hesitate to proclaim to the world as loudly as she could that her system of manufacturing munitions of war was deficient and ineffective, and must be re-cast; and re-cast it was. In Russia they have been doing more. For months there has
been a commission there entrusted with the work of searching out the Russian John Wesley Allisons, who have been speculating at the expense of the Russian armies, depriving them of munitions, and exposing them to disaster. The Russian Government gives to my right hon. friend and his friends an example which ought to be followed on this occasion. It was ruthless in its searching out and punishing of offenders. It is on record that man after man was dismissed from the Service; the whole Service was purged1; and as a consequence the reorganized Russian armies have already taken the offensive, have planted themselves on the road between Berlin and Bagdad which the German 'General staff had calculated would be open to them during the coming summer. That was the result of their investigations.
The Prime Minister upon this point made a very strong argument upon a British precedent. British precedents always carry weight in a British assembly. Great Britain is the mother of parliaments, and parliamentary institutions are better understood there than anywhere else. A British
precedent, in support of a cause, carries weight wherever it is cited. My right hon. friend stated that during the Boer War, in 1900 I think it was, a motion, had been made ' in the British House of Commons for an inquiry, but had been withdrawn at the request of the leaders of both sides of the House, the assertion being made that it was against the public interest to have an investigation during the war. My right hon. friend quoted some authorities upon that occasion. He quoted from the language of Mr. Balfour and that of Mr. Asquith, and he was no more happy in his quotations than my hon. friend the Solicitor General, for he quoted from the wrong paragraph. His theory was that it was agreed by all parties that an inquiry should be held, but that it should be held *only when the war was over. My contention is that the theory then agreed to by the leaders on both sides,' was that whilst an investigation on the whole conduct of the war must be had after the conclusion of peace, there might be an investigation during the war, if public interest demanded it, according to circumstances. In order not to do him any injustice, I will quote his very words, and then quote my justification. He said (Hansard, page 1589):
There is another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the attention of my right hon. friend. It was * not during the Boer war, nor has it been during this war, the practice of the British Government to favour or to grant inquiries into such matters during the progress of the war. The subject came up during the Boer war. An inquiry was moved for in the British House of Commons. The question which arose and which had to be determined by the leaders on that occasion was not as to whether an inquiry should he held, because all agreed that an inquiry must be held, but as to whether or not that inquiry should be interjected into the middle of the war, or whether it should form part of a general inquiry into the conduct of the war to take place at its conclusion. This is what Mr. Balfour said on that subject:
" Then comes the question of the date of the Inquiry. It had better begin as soon as the war, to use the phrase of my right honourable friend, is substantially over, and as soon as the necessary witnesses are obtainable. I hope that statement Is sufficiently extensive and explicit."
Mr. Asquith, speaking in the same debate, said:
" The Government promise that they will form part of the general inquiry which is to take place at the close of the war, and that the facts so far as they are ascertained, will thus be brought to the light of day. On that distinct assurance I think my honourable friend may be well content with the result he has achieved in initiating the debate and that he should not in acordance with the general feelings of the House proceed to a division. "
So the motion for an inquiry was withdrawn not only at the request of Mr. Balfour, the leader of 'the Government, but at the request of Mr. Asquith, the leader of the Opposition.
Here are the facts as I understand them. In 1901 an amendment was moved to the Address in reply to the King'-s Speech. It was not for a committee of investigation, but was as follows:
At- the end of the question, to add these words: " But we humbly suggest to Your Majesty that. there should be published as early as practicable the proceedings of full inquiries into the circumstances that have occasioned the surrender of considerable bodies of Your Majesty's troops in South Africa."
Every one remembers that during the South African war there were some occasions on which reports were received by cable of the surrender of troops in the field. Such occurrences were so contrary to all the traditions of the British army that a great commotion was caused in England, and rightly so; because if there is one thing which the British soldier and the British officer knows how to do, it is to die rather than surrender. That has proved to be the case in this war; it was also the case in the South African war; but some surrenders took place which had to be explained. A debate took place, not a motion for an investigation, but on the request for certain information, and, after some gentlemen had participated in the debate, it was taken up by [DOT] Mr. Balfour, the then leader of the House. And I will quote the greater part of his speech, which is to be found in the English Hansard of 1901, at page 1096:
Mr. A. J. Balfour: I do not mean to speak at any length; but I think from one or two observations which have fallen from the right hon. gentleman he would like me, I will not say to answer, but to touch upon the one or two points to which he referred and clear up any doubts there may he.
Mr. Balfour was referring to iSir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
My opinion is that courts-martial have not been much used in the past in regard to surrenders in the Held and he desires to approximate the War Office practice to the naval practice of dealing by courts-martial with disasters of that character. . But in the nature of the case every court-martial will be held and so far the desire of the hon. member will he met; but there may be cases of inquiries which are ' not courts-martial, and all that my right hon. friend has laid down is this-that he does not think it desirable to make it an invariable practice or even the ordinary practice to make public the results of the military inquiries. Those military inquiries may not have to do with eases of surrender, but these in the main are to he handed over to courts-martial. My right hon. friend and the Government, who agree with
him, do not hold that we ought for a moment to lay down the proposition that inquiries are in the nature of the case to be brought before this House and the country. Sometimes they may be and sometimes they may not be. It depends upon the circumstances of the case, and whatever it is desirable in the public interest. I hope that this is a clear statement of the matter.
Sir William Harcourt: But inquiries into all cases of surrender will he made public?
Mr. A. J. Balfour: I-do not think that t!he view of the War Office is that they should voluntarily, apart from the general inquiry which is promised, make all those inquiries public.
Sir Charles Dilke (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean) : But they were promised?
Mr. A. J. Balfour: When?
Sir Charles Dilke: In February of last year.
Mr. Brodrick: No. I beg your pardon; I
did not say so.
Sir Charles Dilke: No; the present Chief
Secretary for Ireland last year said so. I understood it to he a promise. I asked the question whether they would he made public, and he said, " of course they will." I took that to be a promise.
Mr. A. J. Balfour: Of course, that was not within my knowledge, or my right hon. friend's knowledge, hut any statement publicly made shall he carried out.
Therefore there was a promise that the inquiries by courts-martial would be made (public, and that after the war there would be a general inquiry. Thereupon the debate was resumed and was concluded by Mir. Asquith, who advised that the motion be withdrawn for these reasons: '
But what I desire to make perfectly clear is this. We all understand the Government to have made two promises. In the first place, that wherever it is still practicable to do so they will bring the cases of persons who are prima facie responsible for any of these surrenders before a court-martial, which is an open court, where the evidence is taken on oath, and where you have all the responsibility attaching to persons who are acting in the light of day, subject to public criticism. Secondly, that as regards those cases-I hope they are1 very few-where, from the lack of a prima facie case against any specific individual it is impossible in accordance with the practice of military law to hold a court-martial, the Government promise they will form part of the general inquiry which is to take place at the close of the war, and that the facts, so far as they are ascertainable, will thus he brought to the light of day. On that distinct assurance I think my hon. friend may he well content with the result he has achieved in initiating the debate, and that he should not, in accordance with the general feelings of the House proceed to a division.
The British Government made two promises. one that there would be a public inquiry by court-martial during the war if it was found to be in the public interest, and the other that at the end of the war there would be a general inquiry. I ask no more than that. The theory I maintain is, not
as stated by my right hon. friend, that there should not be an inquiry during the war, but that there may or may not be an inquiry during the war just as public interest and the circumstances demand. I say further that the British Government has at all times insisted upon investigation into matters concerning the war while the war is in progress, and that against such investigations nothing prevails, not even the most illustrious or glorious name nor the most brilliant achievements in the field.
At the commencement of the eighteenth century England was at war with France on the question of the succession to the Spanish Throne. The British army was in Flanders, very near if not exactly upon the spot which it now occupies, not as the enemy but as the ally of France. Under the command of that great general, the Duke of Marlborough, the British army achieved in that war some of the greatest victories recorded in history. Marlborough, however, as is well known, was a great general, but his character was not on a par with his intellect. He was accessible to corrupt considerations, and in the year 1712, on the 1st of January, he was relieved of the command of the army, and on the 24th of that month a motion was made upon a report of the Commissioners of Public Accounts, charging him with having received commissions from contractors furnishing war supplies. The motion was in these terms:
That the taking- of several sums of money annually by the Duke of Marlborough from the contractors for furnishing the bread and bread-wagons for the army in the Low Countries was [DOT]unwarrantable and illegal.
This happened during the war. The armies were still in the field, still facing the French armies. The motion was a direct vote of censure upon him for having accepted commissions from contractors for army supplies. An amendment was immediately proposed :
That after the words " Low Countries " the following words should be inserted: " being a usual and customary payment, made by the contractors for bread and bread-wagons to the Commander-in-Chief in the Low Countries.'*
There was evidence before the House at that time that this practice of receiving commissions from army contractors had not been confined to Marlborough, but had been carried on by the generals commanding the army before him and by many
9 p.m. high officers. The British House ,of Commons, however, would not admit that the guilt of one should be an
excuse for the guilt of the other. It brushed aside the amendment, and the main motion was carried by the overwhelming majority of 265 to 155.
Now, all historians agree-or, if not all, a great majority-that the fault of Marlborough was more the fault of the age in which he lived, an age noted for its low morals, and it was known that among the majority of the House he had a great many personal enemies. But, while this may be true, it undoubtedly is true, and is greatly to the credit of the strong nation of that day, that even a victorious general like the Duke of Marlborough was brought before the Bar of the House of Commons and made to answer for his delinquincies. In British public life at that time corruption was rampant, and if it has since been purged of that curse it is because the British Parliament always, when the occasion arose for action, dealt mercilessly with such offences. And that is an example that I .commend to the Canadian House of Commons.
The next war was the Seven Years' War. And in 1756, as the French were besieging Port Mahon in the Island of Minorca, Admiral Byng was sent with the fleet to relieve the city. He engaged the French fleet, 'but the engagement was unsuccessful; he could not pierce the French lines, and, instead of renewing the attack, he withdrew to his base. There was great indignation all through England. Admiral Byng, although a leading officer, and though he belonged to a great family, and . was the son of a good soldier, was tried by court-martial and found guilty-of what? Of not having done all that he should have done. And, in accordance with the letter, the strict stern letter, of the British code, he suffered the supreme penalty. There are many who believe that the judgment against him was harsh and the sentence unjust, by reason of its gravity. If I recall this tragedy, it is only to show, in contradistinction to what was said by my right hon. friend, that the British Parliament, if it has erred, has erred on the side of severity and not on the side of leniency.
The next war was the American War, but I found nothing in it that could be of interest in this debate. The next following war was the war of the Revolution and the wars of Napoleon. In 1805, Lord Melville was First Lord of the Navy in William Pitt's second administration. In that year he was charged, upon the report
of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, with having misappropriated money when he was Secretary of the Navy. The matter came before Parliament, and a motion was made inculpating him. There was a very strong debate, and at the end of it, the House was equally divided, and the motion was carried by the casting vote of the Speaker. But the matter was carried to the House of Lords, and he was impeached in that House. The result of the trial was his acquittal. If I bring this case to the attention of the House, it is to show that the British Parliament always insisted in requiring strict justice to be done to those who were accused before it. In this case the verdict was the acquittal of Lord Melville. But he was charged, and because he was charged he was tried. In this matter, I do not charge anything; I simply ask for an investigation.
Now I come to the Crimean War, an example which my right hon. friend also quoted. A motion was made by Mr. Roebuck, which after another discussion was granted. My right hon. friend stated that the motion ended in a fiasco, and this was repeated by the Minister of Finance. But, Sir, the very motion made by Mr. Roebuck, which was carried in the House of Commons, caused a change in the War Office and a reconstruction of the Aberdeen Government of that day. Those who, like myself, were children at the time of the Crimean War, can recollect what was said at that time. If ever there was a fatal page in the military history of Great Britain, it was the Crimean War. The soldiers before Sebastopol, in the severe winter weather, were suffering from want-not of munitions as they have suffered in this war-but of food and clothing, and of all the comforts to which civilized men are accustomed. The commissariat had broken down; there was a complete breakdown in the land transport. The Duke of Newcastle was Secretary for War, but there were complaints against him and he was called to task. The complaints went so far that Lord John Russell, leader of the House of Commons, wrote to Lord Aberdeen, the Prime Minister, suggesting to him, and urging upon him, the withdrawal of the Duke of Newcastle from the War Office, Lord Palmerston to be put in his place. Here I can d.o nothing better than to quote the historian on this subject. I shall read a few words from Justin McCarthy's History of Our Own Times:
Lord John Russell became impressed with the conviction that the Duke of Newcastle was not strong enough for the post of w ar Minister, and he wrote to Lord Aberdeen urging that the War Department should be given to Lord Palmerston. Lord Aberdeen replied that although another person might have been a better choice when the appointments were made in the first instance, yet in the absence of any proved defect or alleged incapacity there was no sufficient ground for making a kind of speculative change.
I am sorry that my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) is not in his place at this time.
Topic: SHELL CONTRACTS.
Subtopic: PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
I beg bis pardon. I hope that some day his correspondence with -the Prime Minister will be given to the public, and then we shall know how far history repeats itself. This motion was made, but Lord Aberdeen was adamant against all change. He kept the Duke of Newcastle in the War Office. The motion was carried. We were told that the motion ended in a fiasco. But, Sir, there was a change in the War Office immediately afterwards. Lord Panmure replaced the Duke of Newcastle and a change was made at the front, where reforms were introduced to the great benefit of the British troops. In the face of this, I ask my right hon. friend what he meant, when he said the investigation had been a fiasco? The point be made was that the committee's report was not important, but there was good reason for it in the fact that the change had been made, the Duke of Newcastle being withdrawn and replaced by Lord Panmure, while Lord Aberdeen resigned and Lord Palmerston took office as Prime Minister. The result was that there was vigour in the prosecution of the war. All we want is that there should be vigour -and honesty in the carrying out of our part in this war.
In the face of these examples, taken from British history, how is it possible to contend that the doctrine of the British Parliament and Government is that there should be no investigation during the war? The truth is, as indicated by Mr. Balfour, that there may be or may not be an investigation, according as circumstances demand.
In view of all these facts; in view of the declarations which were made the other day by the hon. member for Richmond; in view of the indefensible acts of the Shell Committee, is there any reason why we should
have only a partial investigation, or why we should not have a thorough, complete and immediate investigation? What circumstances are there to justify the Government in giving us light upon one part of the operations of the Shell Committee and leaving the rest in darkness? What circumstances justify more concealment and more secrecy? If it is true, as we know, that extra and excessive prices have been paid, that injurious delays have occurred, that sinister adventurers have been levying infamous tolls upon the treasury of the land and upon the blood of our soldiers, who will suffer but those who should suffer-the guilty parties? Will there be humiliation for the Government? Sir, if wrong-doing is to be prevented, every matter of wrong-doing should be exposed without fear, without favour, without affection, wherever found. Is there any one in this country greater than the great Duke of Marlborough? Even all the services which he gave to England did not prevent his condemnation by the House of Commons when he had been found guilty. Sir, why should there be any consideration of persons? There must not be any consideration of persons; there is only one consideration, and that is the war, the success of the war in which w'e are engaged.
The nation is giving ungrudgingly everything that we ask of her. Men, women and children, all have given generously out of their means, whether they be abundant or scanty. Our soldiers have given, generously and cheerfully, life, limb and health. And, Sir, if in the midst of that universal sacrifice, there be one or there be several who, in the discharge of the duties entrusted to them, have not done all that they should have done, have done what they should not have done, have given a thought to themselves and not to the cause, have laid their hands upon the unholy profits of war- Sir, these are criminals. They are guilty of crimes, and to shield them, to accept the proposal of my right hon. friend not to have a thorough investigation, would be adding our crime to their crimes.
Topic: SHELL CONTRACTS.
Subtopic: PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
The right hon. gentleman referred to me in. his speech; he directed attention to certain comments, or, rather, certain items in the Toronto World. Had he chosen to look further into the editorial opinion of that paper he would have found views nearer to those I hold, but in the House and on my responsibility as a member, I desire him to judge of me by my vote in this House on the question now raised.
Topic: SHELL CONTRACTS.
Subtopic: PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a rumour about the acquiring by the Government of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, or a guarantee of bonds of that railway by the Government. My right hon. friend answered a question the other day by saying that the Government would make known in due time their position. But it seems to me that in a
matter of that importance the right hon. gentleman might perhaps tell the House whether or not it is the intention of the Government to acquire that railway as part of the National Transcontinental railway or to guarantee the bonds.
gentleman is referring to, the road which is almost completed along the banks of the St. Lawrence-the Quebec and Saguenay railway. Representations have been made to the Government from time to time with regard to the desirability of completing the road, because a very large part of the expenditure which would make it serviceable has already been made. There is no announcement, however, to be made at the present time, and no decision has been reached with regard to it.