Mr. PUTNAM:

I think if the hon. gentleman would give reasons rather than conclusions he would be employing his time better.

Mr. PUTNAM:

As a general supporter of this government I hope he is right. He boldly asserts that the prohibition of the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" tends to disrespect for the Royal family. It is odd that public opinion in England, where they are measurably loyal to the Royal family, has taken the opposite view, and the use of the word is forbidden except in very rare and very conservative instances. In addition to what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, it does seem to me that part of the policy of this prohibition is to prevent an unfair advantage as between advertisers, because the use of the word "royal" connotes a possible degree of governmental favour towards the advertiser employing the term. Right in my own town, as solicitor, I was engaged in the incorporation of a garage company that had theretofore called itself The Royal Garage Company, but the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia pointed out that

it was against the policy of the governments both there and at Ottawa to grant incorporation of any joint stock company under this distinctive word. For my part, I can see a dual reason for this stand, and I am surprised at what I must characterize, with all respect, as the tangent at which the hon. member for Mackenzie has allowed his mind to travel.

Mr. PUTNAM:

Who shall be the judge

of what is logical? Shall we leave the standard to the hon. member for Mackenzie?

Mr. PUTNAM:

The hon. member gave

very fatherly advice to the minister when he said he would be well advised, if such an arrangement were entered into, to let the House adjourn. Does he understand the import of that particular remark? It was a little too fatherly altogether.

Progress reported.

On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Monday, June 15, 1925

Mr. PUTNAM:

Did the hon. gentleman

say "if an arrangement was entered into"?