Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I beg leave to lay on the table of the House a memorandum submitted by the Southern Slav Committee to the representatives of the British Dominions. No particular mode of communication is .suggested in the memorandum, and I therefore thought it best to lay it on the table of the House.

Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege concerning a matter to which I referred when the Military Service Bill was in committee. On the 6th day of June of this year, as reported on page 2149 on Hansard, at a time when I did not happen to be in the House, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in connection with an Order in Council which had been passed providing for the appointment of two judges to inquire into the report of Mr. Justice Galt in a matter which concerned my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, made use of these words: -

My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) challenges the action we have taicen and challenges the reflections which have been made

upon Mr. Justice Galt in the letter written to me from the Minister of Public Works. I should like to remind him that on a certain occasion one of his colleagues who sits beside him used infinitely stronger language, if my memory is correct, with regard to Mr. Justice Landry of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and he did so without any reproof from my right hon. friend. I am perfectly willing to contrast the action which we have taken in this matter with that which my right hon. friend took on that occasion. Findings had been made by a commission of which Mr. Justice Landry was a member. Those findings reflected seriously upon a member of my right hon.. friend's Government. The matter was brought to the attention of Parliament, and it was urged by a motion in this House that such a finding should he disregarded.

I think the word "not" has been left out there.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Yes.

Mr. PUGSLEY>

It goes on:

My right hon. friend ignored the whole matter and voted down the motion, the precise words of which I have not before me; no consideration to the finding was given by him, and the then Minister of Public Works retained his position in the Government and continued to administer the affairs of his department. It seemed to me, when the matter was brought to my attention by the present Minister of Public Works, that such a course as was on that occasion pursued by my right hon. friend could not be followed or sanctioned with advantage to the public interest.

The statement of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is contrary to the facts in two most important particulars. I would not bring this matter up were it not for the fact that the statement of my right hon. friend deeply concerns my honour as a member of this House, apart altogether from the reflection upon the attitude of my leader. I think that members of this House ought to be very careful in making aspersions on the character of other hon. members of this House. We ought not to attack each other as if we were wolves anxious to destroy each other's reputation.

I think my right hon. friend ought to have been more careful, and to have looked into what took place when the matter to which he referred as affecting myself was before the House. He should have satisfied himself as to what took place on that occasion before so reflecting on me.

Just for a moment I will call attention to the statement which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works made with regard to Mr. Justice Galt in his letter to the Prime Minister, which will be found on page 2147 of this year's Hansard. These are his words:

It was manifest from Mr. Galt's demeanour_

fMr. Pugsley.]

Mr.' SPEAKER: I do not desire to restrict unduly the hon. member, but I hope he will confine his statement directly to the matter of privilege as affecting himself.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I will do so. The reason I propose reading this is that the Prime Minister says I reflected upon Mr. Justice Landry in infinitely stronger language than was used by the Minister of Public Works in respect to Mr. Justice Galt. I therefore think I am in order in quoting the language used by the Minister of Public Works. He said:

It was manifest to me then from Mr. Galt's demeanour and remarks that he purposed sparing no effort and rejecting no means, however unfair, of doing me all the injury in his power. I therefore, from that point forward, took little or no interest in the proceedings of his Commission, being absolutely certain not only that my own conduct in the premises had been straightforward and in the public interest, but that, though it would be a waste of time to make any attempt to influence the purpose of Mr. Commissioner Galt, there would be no difficulty later in exposing and establishing before any fair and competent tribunal both the true facts of the case and the malice of this commissioner.

A little further on he said:

It is quite true that no explanation or defence, however complete or however substantiated, would have affected in the least Mr. Galt's determination, but this fact cannot be offered as an excuse on his part for abandoning and indeed prostituting the most elementary principle of British justice-that it is a fact, however, does, I think, fully establish the predetermination and malice of the Commissioner.

I will deal first with the second charge that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister makes. He says that there was a motion in 1909 for an inquiry in respect to myself and the Central railway. He must have absolutely forgotten what took place upon that occasion, for there was no motion for an inquiry. The motion was that I had been found by the report of these commissioners to be guilty of misconduct-of conduct not worthy a public man-and a demand was made that I should be retired from the Government; that was the motion.

It is important to see how the matter got before the House. There are four gentlemen, members of this Parliament, who took an active part in the attempt so to drive me from the Government at that time. One was my hon. friend Colonel Fowler who is now a member of the Senate.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the hon. member is going rather far afield now. On a question of privilege it is competent for him to deny statements reflecting on himself, but

I hope he will not bring into his explanation other hon. members of this House, and other matters.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I shall have to do that to a certain extent in order to show how the matter came before this House, and to prove that the statement made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister the other day: that the leaders of the party at that time asked for an inquiry, is incorrect. What was demanded was that I should be forced from the Government.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

What were the

exact.terms of the resolution?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I will come to that in a moment. My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was then leading member of the Opposition, and he requested the then Premier of New Brunswick, now the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), to send the report of this commission here ' for the purpose of being acted upon. He referred to the fact that I might seek to rely upon the evidence to show the report was fal-se, but he said that they proposed to get after me before I would have a chance to get the evidence. Now let me read the letter. This has been brought down in the Legislature of New Brunswick. The letter reads as follows:

House of Commons, Ottawa, April, 14, 1909.

Dear Mr. Hazen :-

I telegraphed you this morning re the Comm. Reports and trust you have sent me a number. As to copy of evidence I put that in in case you have it printed which probably you have not. It is, I suppose, voluminous. Why I did so was for this reason. Pugsley so far as now appears will try to bluff the matter out of the House here as not pertaining to Federal affairs.

Hear, hear.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

The letter continues:

He will say that' the report is not based on evidence and that he will, after getting a copy of the evidence issue a statement showing this to be so. That will be his defence. We propose to get after him here before he gets a copy of the evidence.

Hear, hear.