Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston) moved:

That the report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the question of conferring honours, etc., upon subjects of His Majesty resident in Canada be concurred in.

He said: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on April 14, as an amendment to a motion proposed by me, the acting leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) concurred in a special committee being appointed which should, without partisanship, consider the questions involved in the motion and certain other questions raised by him on his amendment. At the time concurrence was reached with reference to that committee the hon. the leader of the Government impressed on me that his wishes would be best met if at the earliest possible moment the committee's report was presented to this House for consideration and decision.

As a result of his injunction and of the desire of the Committee, consideration was first given on the 24th of April, to the subjects that were to be taken under review and the committee's report was, as

you will remember, presented to the House on the 14th of this month. In justice to the committee I should say that during its deliberations full consideration was given to the questions passed in review, and that while the debates were at times vigorous they were never characterized by anything that could be otherwise considered than in the very best of friendly spirit. I can assure you, Sir, .and the House that careful consideration was given to the subject matter viewed from every possible angle. The report of the committee in tire main reflects what I might call its unanimous opinion, although some findings did not secure unanimity.

Those who took an interest in this matter last year will remember that among the recommendations adopted by this House was one to the effect, that hereafter no hereditary titles of honour should be conferred on a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada. The Acting Prime Minister in his address to this House directed the attention of hon. members to the fact that the reply of the British Government was couched in the following language:

His Majesty will not hereafter (be advised to confer any hereditary honour upon a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada save on the formal recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada.

The British Government in its reply seems to have overlooked the fundamental principle enunciated by this House, that this House, expressing the collective wish of this country, desired that no hereditary title be hereafter conferred on any Canadian, and the British Government went no further than to say that no such title should be granted except on a formal recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. SHEARD :

Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that that was carried by this House?

Mr. NICKLE:

The hon. member for South Toronto quite correctly understood me. The recommendations of the Prime Minister last year, embodied in the Order in Council passed prior to the debate taking place, were summarized by the Prime Minister, and the third recommendation was:

No hereditary title of honour shall hereafter be conferred upon a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada.

The amendment of the Prime Minister was passed by this House on a vote that

I do not think can have escaped the memory of the hon. member for South Toronto.

Now, I wish to direct the attention of the House for a moment to the principle which I was discussing. This House laid down the principle that we, as Canadians, did not want hereditary titles to be hereafter conferred. The British Government did not appear to be willing to recognize that principle in its full operation, and simply went the length of saying that they would not grant hereditary titles provided the Prime Minister o>f the country from time to time did not want such titles granted. The result was that in its report this year the committee enunciated the principle- in so far as that principle is now being passed under review by me-that the Canadian Parliament did not want any further hereditary titles granted in Canada.

The fourth recommendation contained in the amendment adopted last session by the House, was as follows:

That appropriate action shall be tanei. whether by legislation or otherwise, to provide that after a prescribed period-

I direct the attention of the House to this language.

-to provide that after a prescribed period no title or honour held by a subject of His Majesty now or hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada shall be recognized as having hereditary effect.

The resolution adopted by the House last year did not define what was meant by the phrase " after a prescribed period." This year the committee goes further than the resolution of last year by deciding beyond the possibility of doubt that the expression "after a prescribed period" should be taken to mean "at the death of the present incumbent of the honour" or "at the death of the person at the present time enjoying the honour." In other words, it is recommended that when a person enjoying an hereditary title should pass away,, the hereditary character of the title should cease with him, and that those who follow him should not be enabled to have the recognition or to enjoy the title.

The reply of the British Government to the resolution of last session, which I have just read, and which asked that after a prescribed period no title or honour held by a subject of His Majesty now or hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada should be recognized as having hereditary effect, is in this language:

This presents many difficulties that would require very careful consideration. Action for the present remains in abeyance.

Translated into the language of the street, this reply means that the British Government say: " We see very great difficulties in the way, and, appreciating those difficulties, we are not at the present moment prepared to meet them." Speaking with all deference from my place as a member of this House, I think that I would not be going beyond the limits of propriety if I said-in reference to the suggestion in the reply that I have just read, that many difficulties would require careful consideration-that careful consideration ought to be given in the spirit that prompts action and that assures results by finding a way or making it. We do think that the deliberate expression of the opinion of this House in respect of a matter that is particularly within its jurisdiction and that affects in a peculiar way the people of this country is entitled to be very carefully considered, and considered in such a way that we may obtain results. It cannot be that the British Constitution, concerning the flexibility of which we hear so much, is rigid on this particular point; that when something that Canada particularly wants is concerned, the flexibility becomes rigidity and it is impossible to secure the realization of that desire because constitutional difficulties stand in the way.

The resolution adopted by this House last year confines itself to a very great extent to what I might call ministerial responsibility and to the question of hereditary titles and titular distinction. The committee of this year, which passed in review the questions now under discussion, goes further in the report than the resolution last year went, and, in paragraph (a) of their report, recommend that an address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty might be graciously pleased to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of his subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character, or which appertain to an office. The effect of that recommendation, if adopted by the House, would be to do away with what are commonly-known as titular distinctions, and also-if they are not included in that expression, which I think they are -with what are known as the lesser classes of the various orders.

I shall not re-argue this question. It was debated fully in 1918; it has been debated fully in the House this year, and certainly it was debated fully before the committee. Anything that I might say would simply be a re-statement of what

has already been better stated, perhaps, than I could state it now. It would, if I may speak figuratively, be threshing straw that has already been threshed, and I therefore would no't be justified in taking up the time of the House. I shall say nothing further than this: The effect of the recommendation to which I have just directed attention, if acceded to by those who have authority in England, would be to take away entirely titular distinctions in this country.

A further finding of the committee was in reference to foreign titles. The question was mooted before the Committee that if the committee were to go the length-as it did go-of reaching the conclusion that titular distinctions should be not granted by the British Crown, it was only consistent and proper that titular distinctions and honours should not hereafter be received by Canadian from foreign rulers or governments. A recommendation to that effect was carried, which reads as follows:

Your committee further recommends that appropriate action he taken by legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.

Having made that recommendation, the committee were confronted by the suggestion that hereafter the titles of "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" should be not further recognized in this country. The committee reached a conclusion, which reads as follows:

A suggestion was made that the titles of " Right Honourable " and " Honourable " be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet with the approval of the committee.

The questiofi of such decorations as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Long Service Medal, and so on, was also considered, but there was unanimity of opinion that nothing should be said in the committee's report that would lead the House to the conclusion that the committee disapproved of the granting of these decorations. The language of the committee's report in this regard is as follows:

Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.

Generally speaking, so far as I have been able to appreciate public sentiment as gathered from the press and from communiea-

tions that have reached me, the mass of the Canadian people seem to approve the findings of the committee. Possibly, however, I would not be doing my entire duty if I did not say that there are a few who do not seem to go quite as far as the committee's recommendations go. There are those who say that the principle of titular distinction is not wrong, is not objectionable; that what is objectionable is the method that has been followed in this country and elsewhere for some time past in awarding these distinctions and dignities.

There are those who say that it is not desirable to abolish titles of distinction entirely, and that the matter should be left to His Majesty the King and to his constitutional advisers, but that greater discretion should be displayed in the selection of recipients, and the number to be decorated. Needless to say I am not one of those. In my judgment, the granting of these titular distinctions, these titles of honour, is out of tune entirely with the spirit that should, and that, I believe, does prevail in this country. The attitude to which I have just directed the attention of the House and Which they seem to lay down as a principle to be followed in Canada, namely, that these recognitions are right in principle, but that greater discretion should be shown in the selection of recipients, and that a lesser number should be decorated, carries with it the conclusion, as the night follows the day, that those gentlemen would advocate the establishment, if I may use the expression, of a super-selected class; that to this class only the few should be admitted, and that in place of a generous recognition, if I may use that word, as we have had heretofore, there should be a very restricted recognition, in fact, the engendering of an aristocracy, in the true sense of the word, in this country of ours. There is a fine irony in that idea that greater discretion should be displayed in the selection of recipients. We have heard much that these honours come from His Majesty the King, and yet those who advocate that greater discretion should be displayed in the selection of recipients, have the audacity to suggest that His Majesty's attention should be directed to the fact that he lias not been exercising his constitutional prerogative with the care, judgment, and discernment that certain people think he should. The whole thing is stamped with inconsistency, and the inconsistency lies in this; that those who are advocating the continuance of these dignities and honours, seem afraid that the thing should be seen

in its true light. They are afraid to strip the veil of mystery from what might be called the Imperialistic prerogative.

There is not in this House a man who has listened to these debates during the past few years but knows that these titular distinctions and honours do not emanate from His Majesty, but are granted on the recommendation, of ministers from time to time. And last year, in reply to my resolution urging ministerial responsibility, the leader of the House, Sir Robert Borden, by the Order in Council that had been passed prior to the debate being precipitated in this House, recognized the principle of ministerial responsibility, and stripped forever, if I may use the expression, the camouflage from the idea that these honours, titles, and dignities originated from His Majesty. Because the House, by the adoption of the resolu tion and the principle enunciated in the Order in Council made it abundantly clear that, in so far as Canada was concerned, once and for all we recognized that honours, titles, and distinctions did not come from His Majesty of his own motion, but should come from His Majesty on the recommendation of the man who, from time to time, happened to be the leader of the Government in this country.

Mr. EDWARDS:

Did the committee give any consideration to titles of honour conferred on judges. For instance, a judge is referred to as " His Lordship."

Mr. NICKLE:

I think the title of " His Lordship " was not, so far as my memory goes, discussed by the committee. Certainly no formal resolution was passed regarding the matter. I doubt very much if the title of " His Lordship," as used in the courts, comes from His Majesty at all. My opinion would be-and I am giving only the opinion of the moment-that that is simply a title of courtesy, just the same as a man is called " Mr.". I have no knowledge of such a title emanating in any way from His Majesty or being conferred by any formal document.

Let me just for a moment direct the attention of the House to the position of those who advocate that the granting of these titular distinctions is not wrong in principle, but that it is the method of distribution only that is wrong. Might I say that it seems to me that those gentlemen fail to appreciate the significance of what has prevailed and is prevailing in the old country to-day? So far as we are concerned, Britain is the parent State, and if

it has been found impossible there to devise a method that will permit these honours and distinctions being granted without corruption becoming rampant, how -can we hope to do better in this country? Last year, I read to this' House at great length from the debates that took place in the House of Lords in 1914, and again in 1917, and if I ever proved anything by documentary evidence, I proved that in the granting of these titular distinctions in Great Britain corruption prevails. I was criticised severely in certain parts of this country for daring to. rise in my place in this House and direct attention to what was taking place in Great Britain; II was told that it was none of my business, was not the business df the House to consider how Britain administered her domestic affairs. Again to-day, as last year, I want to take issue with those who take that position, and so long as we occupy the position that we now do, and so long as we are a part of the British Empire-and may we long continue to be a part of that Empire- so long do I say that we are concerned with the methods .that are evolved, with the principles that are allowed to prevail, that have anything to do with the selection or election of those who compose the British House of (Commons or the British House of Lords, and it is not beyond the purview of this House to direct attention to irregularities in the selection of those who may, from time to time, obtain a seat in the House of Lords.

And I think that those who argue that titular distinctions, honours, and decorations should be granted at the present time fail to appreciate the magnitude of the national effort as measured in this war. How are you going to determine to whom recognition shall be given? How are you going to say what man shall receive and what man shall not receive, or what woman shall get and what woman shall not get? How are you going to determine sacrifice and service? How are you going to determine or measure the proportion of the sacrifice of the individual? Are these recognitions to be given only to him or to her who does great things in relation to the national effort? Are we to leave out of account entirely the great individual service of the person who occupies a humble position in life? Is the man who gives $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, or $100,000 to a great cause to receive recognition, while the widow who gives her all, who gives her years of labour, is to be overlooked? Have those who advocate the principle to which I have just directed

attention forgotten the parable of the widow's mite? If that parable was good in the time of Christ it Is equally good in the year 1919, when Canadians were rallied to the flag to fight for liberty, for freedom, and for the rights of the humble people. The philosophy of those who so advocate is bad in this, .that it endeavours to establish the principle that the hope of recognition is the incentive to service.

Hear, hear.

Mr. NICKLE:

Recognition should not be the incentive to service to a man who has a true appreciation of duty. The consciousness of duty well done should ibe reward enough for any man, and I say that the true philosophy that underlies the granting of these titles should not be that recognition is that which prompts to action, but should be a keen appreciation ithat what rankles in a man is neglect and oversight; that recognitions are soon forgotten, and that men who have done their utmost and women who have given their all will smart and chafe under the neglect that leaves them without anything white others who apparently have done much more from the national point of view' but infinitely less as viewed from the personal standpoint, receive recognition.

As I have said, Sir, this trouble is not altogether confined to 'Canada; it is not purely a local issue. The subject matter of the discussion I have brought before this House this afternoon is shaking social England. I do not ask you, Mr. Speaker, nor do I ask the House, to take my words alone. Being a lawyer, I realize that if you want to sustain an argument it is an excellent thing to have a precedent, and if you want to win a point it is well to cite a statute; and when I say that the principles I am enunciating this afternoon are stirring social England, I do not state it on my own authority alone. I can support it by a letter I am now about to read from the London Times of the 29th of August, 1918. The letter reads:

Sir,-Even in the midst of the anxiety arising from the war we think it necessary to (point out in public the serious danger which may arise from a continued bestowal of honours without any real safeguard against abuse. Habits contracted in time of trouble and pressure, if unchecked now; will be difficult to counteract hereafter. This subject has been debated in the House of Lords. Before those debates some of us endeavoured in vain to procure from the Government such .public assurances as might avert the necessity of a Parliamentary discussion. When the discussion came on, the scandal was neither denied nor defended, but the securities embodied in resolu-tdonis have proved inadequate. There has been

some improvement in the form of the Gazette notices, hut the root of the evil remains. Nominally the Prime Minister is responsible for the advice given to the Grown. In reality, it has become obvious that a minister overwhelmed b public duties of the most arduous kind cannot possibly supervise the distribution of honours or prevent the monetary corruption and debasement of standards which will assuredly ensue. He would be obliged to neglect other vital duties.

The same mischief shows itself in another direction. A new Order, that of the British Empire, has been instituted, and in a recent Gazette the names cover no less than 60 quarto paiges. We make no suggestion of corruption in connection with this Order, but (the wholesale scale upon which it is granted makes it obvious that no responisibl-e minister can control the selection of recipients, much less that it is ;a real mark of His Majesty's favour.

Our feeling is that, unless the bestowal of honours and titles is protected from this sort of cheapening and iis unmistakably cleared from the danger of a peculiarly mean kind of pecuniary corruption and reserved for real merit, honours may come to be regarded as dishonours, leaving no way out except their entire abolition.

It is an additional and very grave evil that the money obtained by the disgraceful traffic in honours has gone to swell and, if rumour Sis true, has mainly constituted1, the large party funds which are at the service of party leaders and are used for party purpose;-;.

We have no sort of desire to embarrass the Government. It is quite impossible for Mr. Lloyd George to spare the time necessary for supervising these lists, and yet it is due to the Grown that the constitutional advice to which it is entitled shall not emanate, almost without being filtered in its passage, from underlings accessible to all kinds of influence. Signed by:

Balfour of Burleigh. P. G. Banbuiry. Beresford of Metemmeh. Carnock.

R. Cavendish. Chaplin.

Dartmouth.

Desart.

Durham.

Halsbury.

George Hamilton. Laurence Hardy.

Henry Hobhouse. Fred Huth Jackson. Loreburn.

Herbert Maxwell. Fred Milner.

Francis Mowatt. Parmoor.

Phillimore.

Salisbury.

Selborne.

Edward Seymour. Sumner.

Sydenham.

I therefore think I may take it as proven that the -conditions which I allege may prevail in -Canada are undoubtedly prevailing in Britain to-day. Then-, I desire to read to the House a few words from the London Globe of Friday evening, May 2, commenting on the discussion that took place in this House on May 14, 1918.

So it has come to this: Honours and titles have heen distributed in such a haphazard and undiscriminating manner that Canada, at any rate, wishes to have no more of them. South Africa, too, has already shown that it is more or less of the same opinion, almost the whole press of the Union having criticised and ridiculed the honours conferred last year on South Africans. One Cape newspaper in referring to the question remarked that when South Africa had ceased laughing over the honours it would

assuredly resent having been made a laughing stock in front of the rest of the Empire.

In view of recent Honours lists, and especially in view of the one issued this week, we are inclined to share the opinions of our colonial brethren; indeed, conservative though we be, and always will be, it seems to us that a motion regarding the conferring of honours on residents in the United Kingdom, similar to that introduced by Mr. Nickle regarding Canadians, might with advantage be put forward at Westminster.

To the attention of lion, gentlemen who say it is not wrong in principle to grant titular distinction- if the methods adopted are proper, I would direct the last words of the article I am reading:

If we saw any hope of titles being given in a thoroughly equitable manner or of honours being conferred on those to whom honours are due, whether the latter be soldiers or sailors or civilians, we should think otherwise. But we see no such hope.

And if the editor of a British paper sees no -such hope, then I think it is not beside the mark to -suggest that we in Canada are at least purblind where they are blind. I may now read an extract from the London Daily News of May 5, 1919. It reads:

It has always been the hope of those who realize the pernicious influence of titles that the evil would be. kept out of the overseas dominions. Canada yielded in some measure to it, and there have been symptoms of late that Australia -and New Zealand were in danger of succumbing; but the hostility which has taken such vigorous shape in Canada may he expected to fall like a killing frost on the very objectionable weed everywhere.

The self-denying ordinance of Canada extends to the O.B.E., the latest distribution of which is now imminent. In that connection it is useful to recall the Olympian defence of the Order which the Earl of Crawford, Lord Privy Seal, made in the House of Lords on Nov. 13 last:-

I suppose, without being in a position to speak with great positiveness., that that defence was -matte in answer to the article I have just reaxl from the Times. This is what Lord iCraw-ford said:

The people who have heen receiving the Order of the British Empire are humble people who have heen, and are, doing great work for the country. It has been my duty on more than one occasion to make recommendations to that Order, and I cannot say how bitterly I resent the comments of persons of high standing and full of honours about the humble people who-are receiving well-earned recognition for work of incalculable value.

Those who are doing great work for the country, those people who are doing services of incalculable value, can only receive the Order of the British Empire, while those who are full of honours ai*d high distinctions are to be awarded with peer-

ages and hereditary titles. Let us ponder on what the editorial writer says:

It is possible that the " humble people " in question will find the frankly hostile comments of " the persons of high standing " rather less insufferable than the high-born patronage of their defender. But one never knows. Perhaps " humility is the badge of all their tribe." Perhaps it is as members of the Order of the Humble that they accept these crumbs from the high table where Earl Crawford sits. In any case, it is gratifying to know that the new list is to be the last and that henceforth people may serve their country without any suggestion of being engaged in a vulgar scramble for meaningless distinctions.

That is all I am going to offer from the popular press of England, but I want to quote a short extract from the London Spectator of May 3, 1919:-

The Honours List was Issued on Monday evening, during an outburst on the part of our wonderful climate, which did its best to make us forget that the list had been postponed from the New Year. The list contains four new Barons, twenty-three Baronets, and forty-nine Knights. Lord Burnham and Lord Rothermere both go up a step in the Peerage and become Viscounts. The new Barons are Sir J. H. Roberts, Sir R. T. Hermon-Hodge, Sir T. R. Dewar, and Mr. T. H. A. E. Cochrane. Among the Knights we notice with interest the name of' Mr. Harry Lauder.

Hear, hear.

But the feature of the list is the steady stream of honours which flows through Fleet Street.

Fleet street, as hon. gentlemen know, is the newspaper centre of Great Britain.

The Navy and Army are still unhonoured. *****

Lord Burnham, of the Daily Telegraph, and Lord Rothermere, of the Daily Mirror, as we have already said, both go up a step. Lord Burnham has been a most faithful liaison officer between the daily newspaper press and the Government, and Lord Rothermere worked hard at the Royal Army Clothing Department and figured less successfully at the Air Ministry. A baronetcy goes to Mr. Sutton, who is connected with the Daily Mail and its kindred papers; another baronetcy to Mr. Davison Dal-ziel, formerly proprietor of the Evening Standard, another to Mr. Edward Hulton, who is proprietor of the Daily Sketch, the Daily Dispatch, the Sunday Chronicle, and other newspapers, and who is the only colourable rival to Lord Northcliffe; and yet another to Mr. W. T. Madge, managing director of the'People, and formerly manager of the Globe.

What is the insinuation contained in that article? The insinuation is that these men gained their dignities, titles and promotions, not by virtue of any great national service that they had rendered, but by virtue of the fact thflt they had been instrumental in maintaining a certain Government in power.

[Mr. Niekle.j

Let me read a word or two further from the Saturday Review (London) of May 3, 1919:-

Lord Rothermere's promotion to a viscounty will be gall and wormwood to the irate Polypapist on the Riviera, as the brothers are not on very good terms and there has always been a certain amount of jealousy between them.

That is Lord Northcliffe.

Unless Lord Northcliffe is quickly made an earl, the war of Carmelite House on the Premier will grow hotter. We fail to see why the miracle of turning water into whisky, and selling it at exorbitant prices, should he rewarded with a coronet. If political services go for anything, the peerage of Sir Robert Hermon-Hodge, a hero of many campaigns without an enemy, has been well earned. It would be interesting to learn a little more specifically what are the services to Parliament and the public which entitle the company promoter, Mr. Davison Dal-ziel to a baronetcy. As for the knights, with the exception of a couple of music-hall mimes (Sir Harry Lauder is a genius), they may be dismissed, as the Morning Post dismisses1 minor arrivists, toy the words "and many others." We are astonished, and grateful, that no Canadian financiers have been ennobled.

We at least have this satisfaction, that the debates that have taken place in this House have apparently had the effect of holding up the list of honours in Canada. I have spoken longer than I intended when I rose to address the House. I have endeavoured to put before the House the argument and principles as enunciated in the resolution of last year; I have endeavoured to place before the honourable members the principles that moved the Special Committee which was appointed to consider this matter this year, and I have endeavoured to show you that the position that I take to-day is exactly the same position that I took over a year ago.

I tell you, Sir, and I tell this House, that when I introduced this matter over a year ago I was moved by a sincere desire that there should be a reform. I thought that the grappling with this problem had been too long delayed. I do not stand for any halfway measures with regard to it. Some men on your right or on your left may call me an extremist, but my experience in public life has led me to the conclusion that if you want to get anywhere, or if you want to advance toward the achievement of that which is right according to your conviction and judgment you have to be prepared to sacrifice something for the attainment of that principle.

I believe that the spirit of the Canadian people is against the continuance of the practice of granting honours, dignities and titular distinctions to Canadians. The press, the conversations that you have with people, and the platforms enunciated by various

political and social organizations all show that the people are against it.

This is not a quarrel with merit; it is a quarrel with the principle that seeks to give recognition to some, not because they are more successful or more entitled to it than others, but simply because thfey are more successful in obtaining recognition. If I might express my sentiments in a word, in language more apt than I could use, I would say: " Let us be done with the bush ness. Let us build up a public opinion, which repudiates these things as an insult to democracy, which holds honest and disinterested service to the Commonwealth as its own reward, which regards the offer of a title as an indignity and its acceptance as a personal degradation."

I have much pleasure in moving the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the very eloquent speech of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I suppose we have a right to assume that the attention of this honourable body of legislators would not have been got so promptly or kept for so long a time on various occasions by the hon. gentleman unless he felt he had a subject of paramount importance to present to the Hpuse. I cannot work myself into a fury over this question, because I do not think it is worthy of the great attention that has been bestowed upon it. I do not think it is such a crisis in this country as to warrant it taking up the time of the House to the very great extent that it has taken up our time for the last two years. I would submit to my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle), who has talent and ability to burn, that there are a great many things in this country which require his attention much more than titles. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he would have won the plaudits of the people if he had dilated to-day to the same extent on the situation of some poor boy who could not go to school because he had no shoes, or some little girl who did not have a proper dress, or of some poor children who had to go to bed hungry. ' [DOT]

This subject will have to be disposed of, and I do not wish to belittle the ideas put forward by rny hon. friend. I would like to tell him that the discussion should not be prolonged too much, for fear that he may change his mind and vote against his own resolution.

Some hon. MEMBERS; Oh, oh.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I hope, to recall the old saying, that we may strike the iron when it is hot and catch his vote on this occasion. The hon. gentleman seemed to be very much disturbed about the way in which the British people govern themselves. He seemed to think that there was a serious danger to the world if the British people should be permitted to deal with their own affairs, and that we must step in and tell them how to apply democratic principles in that country.

I do not share in that fear; I, believe that the British people are quite capable Of looking after their own affairs. I submit, Sir, that the granting of titles is entirely a matter for the people; and if we can educate our own people to say that titles are unnecessary, that they should not be recommended and that Canadians should not receive them, then they will not be granted. If the granting of titles' is coming to be a matter of disgrace, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nickle) said, and a matter of corruption in the Old Land, the British people will deal with that, and they will see to it that a Government will be put in power who will not make those^ recommendations which should not be made. That I think is the way in which this question must be effectively dealt with.

It has been acknowledged by the hon. gentleman, and I think quite truly and properly, that His Majesty the King is not responsible for the creating or making of these titles; that he is simply carrying out, or allowing his name to be used in connection with recommendations made by the Government of the day in every country in which those titles are being conferred. It is one of the basic principles of our constitution, under responsible government, that the King can do no wrong. We have to stand by that principle, and to realize that the King''acts upon the recommendation of his advisers, and that his advisers are responsible to the people; and if there is any abuse of His Majesty's prerogatives or power, the abuse must be visited upon the Government and rectified by the people and not make any direct representations to the King himself. I am in favour, Sir, if I have anything to say about it, of the language of this resolution. I am not in favour of bringing this matter directly to the notice of His Majesty, but I do believe in this House declaring itself, as a principle of democracy, against titles. When that happens we are declaring, as far as this House can declare,

Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (Toronto South):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the adoption of the report, for the reason that I consider it unwise in its expression, unconstitutional in its tendency and unreasonable in its application. If I may quote from the report of the committee, I find that we approach His Majesty with what is practically a rebuke. We, the -people of Canada, as represented in this assembly, ask His Majesty in paragraph (a) "to refrain." As one of His Majesty's Commoners in this Parliament, I entertain too high a respect for His Majesty to approach and address him in that particular form. I venture to say that if we had set forth the facts; if this committee is prepared to vouch for the facts and to submit evidence to His Majesty in a proper form to illustrate and to substantiate the view that the people of this country are greatly perturbed about the granting of titles, it is right and proper that that evidence should accompany so peremptory a demand as the report of this committee appears, to my mind, at least, to make. -

The hon. member for Kingston has said that the heather is on fire in the Dominion regarding the distribution and application of these titles; that there is a tremendous stir, not only throughout Canada, but throughout the British Isles, and that in England some newspaper writers, notably

Mr. BURNHAM:

The hon. gentleman is surely aware of the fact that Lister ascribed all his achievements to Pasteur, and that Pasteur had ho honour or distinction of any kind. i : , '

Mr. SHEARD:

I am well aware of Sir Joseph/Lister's achievements; I know what they were long before he was raised to the peerage. I am also aware of how much he owed to the distinguished Frenchman, Pasteur, the very apostle and centre of all germ theory and germ progress. But I fear that the hon. member has failed to grasp my point, which is this: the distinction which Sir Joseph Lister secured did not affect him so much as it affected students, workers, and votaries in the same class, at a time when men were defaming him and decrying his efforts and his claims because, it was contended, they had no value.

I will give another illustration. Sir James Y. Simpson, the discoverer of chloroform, struggled alone in his back office for twenty years trying to demonstrate the feasibility of anaesthetics as a benefit to patients who were undergoing surgical operations. He was actually expelled from the surgical society of the city of Edinburgh because of his theories and experiments in this regard. His critics said: "He has gone crazy upon an impossible condition." It was not until Queen Victoria permitted him to administer to her an anaesthetic, and afterwards knighted him, that it was clearly demonstrated to every one that anaesthetics were of value, that their application was feasible, and that their use enabled the surgeon to gain access to parts of the human frame

172}

which previously he had been unable to-reach. *

I go further and give to my hon. friend' [DOT]another illustration-one nearer home. I was fortunate enough to toe intimately associated with and a personal friend of one of the most distinguished physicians Canada ever produced. That gentleman worked in the same scientific field with me, occupying a professional chair in the University and Medical Faculty of McGill College, Montreal. He devoted his energies to what? Not to the making of money, but to increasing and improving the status and condition of the medical profession throughout the length and breadth of this country. He put in hours and hours, aye, often day after day, week in. week out, and year in, year out-he devoted as many as four, five, and six days' service in the week amongst the paupers and poor in the public hospital of the city of Montreal. His efficiency 'being recognized, he was invited to become the assistant of Pepper, of Philadelphia, and I well remember his being with me when he was about to remove to that great centre, and -while driving him over to the General Hospital in Toronto, I asked him: "What are the emoluments in connection with your new appointment?" " Oh," he said, " the emoluments are nothing; they are not enough to live on, -but the field is large, and the possibilities for scientific achievement on behalf of medicine in this country are very great, and it is that which attracts me and makes me anxious to get into the work that I want to serve." Then when he was transferred from there to Johns Hopkins University, one of the most famous institutions upon the North American continent, he revolutionized the clinic in the medical department, establishing a clinic that was world famous. And when from there he was invited by the University Authorities to take the Chair of Medicine in Oxford University and created a baronet, there was not in the Dominion of Canada a man but was proud to see him so honoured, and there was not in the rank and file of -the medical profession a man but who felt stimulated to greater service and endeavour, because one so worthy had been so greatly honoured. I need hardly -say that I refer to our great and distinguished Canadian citizen, Sir William Osier.

I do not want .to say that all the advantages are to the doctors. I might quote almost every branch of science and art to show where titular distinctions have been

of advantage. Indeed, no man who knows the history of or anything about art will deny how much the National Art Gallery of Great Britain has owed to the work and teachings of Sir Joshua Reynolds. Yet, Sir Joshua Reynolds did not receive much attention until he accepted the distinction of knighthood, because, even in "the early part of hist career, artists in England were classed with sign painters and interior decorators of buildings and houses. There was no real admiration for art for art's sake. There was, amongst the rank .-and file, a general impression that such [DOT]effort was only wasting time and trifling and frittering away greater and more glorious [DOT]opportunities, but by the conferring of titular distinctions amongst its votaries and leaders who, because of their work, genius and calling, received a separate and official distinction, the whole art of painting was benefited and blessed.

Air. BURNHAM:

Is the hon. gentleman aware that Zeuxis, Praxiteles, and Leonardo da Vinci bore no titles?

Mr. SHEARD:

I am not saying that for a second. The hon. gentleman entirely misunderstood me. I am not saying that titles and distinctions are'the only things in life. But titles have their use, and the abuse of them is no argument to put up that they are an injury to a progressive and democratic people. I was about 'to refer when interrupted, to that great astronomer who under the greatest difficulties and objections from the populace, developed under the patronage of George III, and discovered the planet Uranus, and history records of him that as regards all the facts in connection with the demonstrations of astronomy, no man has done so much for astronomical science as Sir William Herschell. Some one may say: Did the title make him do that? Certainly not, but it altogether separated him from the common remark-" star-gazer and trifler and fool that wants to find out something where there is nothing.'' It showed that there was an expression of national spirit, a national feeling, a national judgment, that that science in its greatest votary was a thing to be recognized, restored, and esteemed amongst the people.

When I come to the arts, painting, literature and the like, hon. members will remember what was said of Englishmen during the last of the Georges and on the accession of Queen Victoria. It was said on "the continent of Europe that the English were nothing but a nation of shopkeepers, and why? Beeauser nothing had been said or done to distinguish the man of art, of

fSIr, Sheard.]

science, of letters, in the nation. I say that these very distinctions counteract that tendency amongst the people of a new country and a new land, and they have value.

II take the resolution and I see a weakness in it at the start. This resolution proposes to leave untouched distinctions and honours acquired by military men. That was very wise on the part of the committee at this present time. Those distinctions may be trifling in intrinsic value, but they are the dearest possessions of many a soldier whose breast they adorn. Will any man in this House dare to say that above all the treasures a true British soldier possesses, the Bronze Cross that adorns his breast, the Victoria Cross for valour, is not amongst the highest of his achievements? It is but a recognition in military life what knighthood, forsooth, may be in civil life. It has stimulated to greater effort and sacrifice; it has developed and produced throughout all the officers and all the rank and file a determination that they will sustain the men who have been so decorated by His Majesty the King. If such be true of men who have borne so much sacrifice, sacrifices so great in the military ranks of this Empire, does it not illustrate the fact that decorations, although different in kind-acknowledgments conferred with honour and formality-have also the same and equally useful purpose in the great work of civil life? These are the decorations which keep life, hope, and courage in the hearts of desperate men, and without them there would be, in my humble judgment, a lack of effort and a lack of energy. Go to the great republic to the south, the great home- of democracy. The exemplars of democracy live in that nation, and what do we see? We see that there the great measure of success is not a peerage, it is not a titular distinction, it is the bank account of the individual and the size of the cheque he can subscribe. I do not for a moment wish to say anything derogatory of that great, energetic, progressive people. I do not for a moment wish to say that there have not been noble patriotic men there who have come forward with liberal donations to every scientific enterprise and every philanthropic work. But I 'Contend, and I say it cannot be denied, that underlying it all is a keen and earnest desire for some distinction or other which may designate them as separate and apart from the money value of the man. And to so great an extent has this been carried that it has become a matter of common remark throughout the length and breadth of this country, that

the efforts of Americans, backed up by their gold, to ally themselves with the peers oi the realm of Britain and the aristocracy of England, have amounted almost to a disgrace. So that for all your democracy, there is still what I describe as an innate physiological trait in the human species, a longing for something still more distinctive. And, I could cite instances in justification of that assertion. This is a time of unrest after the war. This is a time when, in my judgment, we have to consider carefully every motion and every movement which tends to set class agains class. History repeats itself. Some one in this House, I have forgotten who, just now cited an illustration of the Louis's of France and what happened to them in the French revolution. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that no man will adduce that period in support of this resolution and recommendation, unless he carefully analyzes the period and its history. What happened there? They dethroned Louis of France, but what did that carry with it? Every art, every culture, every moral surrounding. Yes, more Than that. They obliterated all advice and opinion, and those who held contrary ideas hesitated to speak until it was too late. Men of genius and culture came-forward. The whole family of genius gave forth their treasures and nobly did ' they yield them upon the altar of their country's exigency, but too late. The rabble blasphemer would have none of it then, and they called their polluted deities from the brothel and the fall of the idol extinguished the very flame of the altar. We need not, however, go so far back. We can go back to the Franco-Prussian War of 11870. Any man who visited Paris after that war and siaw the devastation wrought and the injury done to works of art and decorations historic in their character, and saw the rabble incensed against all government, crowd the streets with cannon and grapeshot, must realize .what comes to those who inspire revolutionary conditions, heedless of results, heedless of the lesson of history, but willing to go any lengths to abolish class and to bring about an equality which does not exist. I well remember, too, after that time the great French painter, Gustave Dore had to flee from Paris with his precious treasures and instal them in Regent street in his gallery. And many a quiet hour have I spent watching him at work with his brush and palette, doing his pictures so dear to his heart, when he had not even the wherewithal to buy his meals and to pay his rent. But at that time he could have no home in Paris because the Communists

had got control, and had no regard for science, nor art, nor culture, nor for men. I of such pursuits. And I remember on one* occasion, if I may tell it, while I sat in his gallery, a rich and proud American came to see his pictures and implored him to sell one. He offered Gustave Dore $20,000 for the painting, but Dore, with the true ideal of the Frenchman, refused to consider the offer. The American came back and importuned him, and finally offered him, for what was probably his greatest work of art-Christ leaving the Pretorium-$100,000. I well remember when he was pressing that offer; it was in Dore's open gallery in Regent street. I was then a student and I was watching this ideal of the great painter. Dore dropped his brush, gazed upon the painting, and saw there what he had produced upon that canvas, the great central figure of the Christ, with its lights and shades surrounding. And as he looked upon it he turned upon his would-be seducer and said: " No; money can never buy that painting, for itrepresents the life and work of Gustave Dore." I will not say positively, but I believe that France afterwards adopted these works as national treasures, and bestowed upon Gustave Dore the cherished distinction of the Legion of Honour.

I have another point to which I wish to draw attention. The report of the committee says:-

Tour committee further recommends that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.

Well, if I were fortunate enough to be distinguished by the Government of France and had had conferred on me the Legion of Honour I should wear it, and if I had the button and had the right to wear it in the lapel of my coat I should wear it. I do not care what resolutions were passed by this Parliament I should wear it, because I presume I would have some idea of what it meant. And then what would you do? Either you would fall down in your resolution and your law, or you would have to pass an amendment to the Criminal Code to cause my arrest and imprisonment because a foreign nation had deservedly decorated me and I was proud of the distinction and desired to acknowledge it publicly on all occasions. And you want to argue upon the floor of Parliament that after two years' careful deliberation of the question, and after debate and a most earnest consideration of what is wisest and best to do, the

maturity of your deliberations and the expression of the opinion of the people of Canada is such a recommendation!

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if Canada ever hopes to attain a place, or maintain a position, amongst the civilized nations of the world. I do not know if this Parliament of Canada is ever hopeful to realize and recognize the proud stand of our soldiers who fought for liberty, and for their King. But if Canada is to be relieved from the stigma of a transaction of this kind which can only be characterized as a farce, she must eradicate from her records that ridiculous resolution and recommendation of the report which I feel convinced will only be regarded as a laughing stock by the country.

I said that I did not wish to speak very long upon the subject and I have probably exhausted my allotted time. I hope this House will no.t be hasty. I hope it will delay the acceptance of this report. I do not know that I can be altogether carried away with admiration of the ability, the statesmanship, or the mind which at this particular time would introduce here debates and resolutions which, I think, every man must realise, have for their object and effect the setting up of class against class. We are the common people; we are a united people, we are a peace loving body of citizens in Canada, and I hope that amity, unity, and admiration for all that is good and great and noble will yet be the characteristic of the true Canadian without distinction or difference.

Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) in whatever blame or praise is due to him for bringing this matter before the House. There has been a reproach urged against him to the effeot that this is not a matter of first rate importance and that it has taken up too much of the time of this House. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Is that the fault of the hon. member for Kingston? I should say it is not. One evening last spring the House of Commons was prepared, in my humble opinion, by an overwhelming majority, to adopt and carry the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson), along the same lines as the resolution before the House to-day. It was not the fault of the hon. member for Kingston, and not the fault of the hon. member for Brome, who had seconded the resolution, that it was not carried on that occasion. It was the fault, if fault there be, of the Government

of the day which made the matter a nonconfidence motion and whipped their followers into line. If the House of Commons had been allowed on that evening to express freely and frankly its opinion, the amendment of the hon. member for Springfield would have passed by an overwhelming majority and, in so far as this House is concerned, the matter would have been disposed of. .

This session, when the hon. member for Kingston brought this matter up, urging again the same position as was assumed by the hon. member for Springfield last year, the motion would have been carried by a substantial majority had not the Government of the day thought it wise to refer the question to a committee. I believe firmly that the hon. member for Kingston has been absolutely sincere and courageous in this matter and I am proud to associate myself with him. I would say to him not to mind the sneers and jeers of those who state that he would employ his talents to greater advantage if he used them to forward some other reform. Every reformer has had to meet that. If people do not like a reform they say to the reformer: Why do you urge this reform; why do you not urge the other reform? You remember what was said to the woman with the alabaster box: Why was this ointment not sold for much and the money given to the poor?

The speech of the hon. member for one of the Torontos (Mr. Sheard) started off by saying that this resolution was a rebuke to His Majesty. His Majesty has no more to do with this than he has to do with a writ issued by a court in Canada which reads: George the Fifth, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, and King of the Dominions Beyond the Seas, [DOT]to so and so, a bailiff of the superior court. It is merely a matter of form and every one knows it. His Majesty has nothing to do with the granting of titles and everybody knows that. The people in England who have to do with the granting of titles are the whips of the political parties and the people in Canada who have to do with the granting of titles are the Government of the day. If the title factory is continued in operation in Canada and the practice grows, -the member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and if we on this side of the House get into power and this pernicious system still exists, my hon. friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) will say who is to be called a knight or a squire.

The members from Toronto are so numerous that I cannot remember all their geographical descriptions, but the distinguished medical gentleman who sits for one of the Torontos need not go very far to find evidence of popular disapproval of knighthoods. He has merely to turn to the distinguished gentleman who sits beside him and whom I congratulate on his support of democracy in voting against knighthoods last session.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Mr. Speaker-

Oh, oh.