“ read the aon roule stitution of this

ae countr re mr rs AG, ne the Ma o6i Act, I say that a Within the provisions of the Dnhes « Re given to the minority in Mani- ur wherever they feel Oppressed by local Re in the matter of education.” r. Latrit: takes the gronnd appeul 14 given within À ee ur Constitution. The next authority is n gentleman M”. Davies will give come re un to. It 'athstofa gentieman by the ame of Mr. L. H. Davies, (cheers, He said JT'have not heard any lawyer who valued his réputation, any lawyer of standing or any Constitutionai authorit ever express the doubt that there is a power constitu- En vested in the Government of Can- : a to hear an sppeal, Sd that afier they have heard and allowed the appeal there 18 power On the part of this Parliament to

intervene and & : e : nr enaci à remedial order, if it

I will now

uote vou t à : Hon. David f you the opinion of the

Mills. He says : Sn also a well settled rule that where there is a right by law in the suppliant to seek {07 rehefthere is a correspoudin duty to hear his eomplaint, ard if a Se etantial right or privilege Le ivjuriously affected or destroyed, to re iress the griev-— .snce and restore the privilege taken away This legal sud constitutiona) obligation 'rests Upon every state functinary from _ em down to the humblest officer ones” portion of state authority is Task you doës not the statemen the Hon. Wilfred Laurier and those € Mr. * L. Davies and the Hon. David Milk

prove that the ground taken b s : AMINER is rigbO? en by Tue Ex

PROTESTANT SCHOOLS RETAINED.

nn

My friend, Mr. Davies: speaking the other day saui that the Arch bishop and the Catholic minority had alleged in their Memorials that schools had been taken from them and Protestant schools retain- ed and the Catholies were obliged to send their children to Protestant schools. Mr. Davies says that statement has been con- tradicted. Mr. Laurier says it was never contradicted. He said that in 1893 he had Carefully jJuéked over the docnments in Parliament and he never saw it contra- dicted. Tne schools establisheJ for Prot- estants remat: there to this day. Hon. Joseph Martin. the author of the Manitoba School Act, declared that if he had bis Own way he wouid sweep eve:y vestige of religion from the schools, —and every person w30 knows Mr. Martin believes him. (Laughter.)

NOT A QUESTION OF SEPARATE SCHIOLS,

I am aware that a great effort is being made in eome parts of the Dominion to wake the people believe that the election is being fought out on the ground as to whether we shall have separate schools or no. You are asked to Choo-e between those two. I] deny thai statement altogether. There is no truth in $ I will refer you again 10 the Hon. Dagd Mills. This 18 what he says :

“The poliey of the country in respect to separaie schools is already deciüed. That decision is incorporated in the Constitu- tion as much so as the principle of repre- seutation between the provinces in the House of Commons. It is only because of this that the question can come before Parliament at aii. Tle law grants to the minority, whose rights and privileges can be effectel, an appeal to the Governor- General in Council, not to decide whether it is good or bad policy to have Separate Schools, the constitution settles that, but for the pur- pose of ascertaiaing whether a right or run in à Protestant or Roman Catho- ic minority of the Queen’s subjects in relation to education has been affected by aoy Provincial law or any Proviucial authority.g Parliament is not called upon 40 decide whether, as a matter of policy, sezarate schcols çought or ought sot to exist. If they have not been created in the province, no matier how favorable the opinion of the House might be to them, it cannct create them ; and if they do exist, uo matter how hostile its opinions anay be, icannot abolish them. These two facts stand like walls of adamant on æitber side of the narrow way which is open to us of that narrow field of jurisdic- tioa1 under our control.”

This is the opinion of a man who enjoye the respect of every member of the House of imons. So you see that this ery of Separate Schools is not the policy the Government are going to the country on. My own views on this question may not be worth a great deal, but as my views and the position taken by me twenty years ago when there was considerable discussion and controversy on the matter, may be drawa into this discussion before the con- troverey is over, Ithink Iam right in calling attention to some expressions of opinion which I gave on this question at that time—opinions that I bave not materi- ally changed to this day. In 1876, I was a candidate fur the Fort Augustus district in what was called the “school election.” Many of the young generation, and some of the older ones, have been industriously taught to believe tbat I and my friends at that time endeavored 10 foist a separate echool system on the‘ people of Prince Edward Island. 1 will read my address to the electors on that occasion, in o-der that my position may be correctly uuder- stood

& Gentlemen,—I1 beg leave to inform you that I am a candidate for the repre- seutation of this, my vative dietrict, in the House of Assembly. Believing that separate schools are wholly unsuited to this colony, ! will, if elected, assist in passing an education law based on the free school system already in existence. In Charlottetown the pubiic school system has never been efficient, making no provi- sioÿrfor the division of the city into dis- tricts for school purposes. and giying the inhabitants no power to assess themselves for the erection of schoolhouses. As might bave been expected, the public schools—ill supported and ineflicient— have been largely superseded by schools

rovided at great expense by religious bodies. (Particularly by the Roman Cath- olice, Methodi t and Church of en people. W hile these schools are waintaine independent of the state, 1t would be un- just, in my opinion, to tax deucminations who have thus provided ample echool ac- commodation for themselves to builä and maintain schools for the venefit of others. Adsitting the principle that public money should ouly be paid for secular instruction, the dificulty mav be met 1n the ‘iowns ” the Island as it has been in the cities ! Scotland, where denominational schools reccive Government +uppori on coudition of their b. ing so far placed under CS ment coniro! as to ensure tbe imparting Q a go xd, sound secular education.

Tha was my card, and in 1894, pes: entered the Senate, it was my lot 10 take some part in the discussion of this ques- uov, which bad assumed its present cr for the first time in many Year. ” been called upon to pur my er record, and I did sc; and before DT into a general discussion 0? the _ Es School question, I made use of thes ser vaLiCDS :

“Ina mixed community, such 2 = have in almost every part of age er Eu have to fight the batties of life side b} sidgwhether we are as we have 10 do cr :

ink it is desirable bal learn to know each other and : trust each other and to appreciate 2 cther in the classroom and on the ee ground, as well as when they nt c PR their employments and assume t L nr responsible duties of life. I myse _ bad my children educated in the r jl schools. Of course we look cart Le after our schools, look after _ ET morelity in them, and I have stil w + that the fundamental principles of common Chnistianity have been elimiuæ à from those schools. They do "7 ve details. My creed is not taug 7 br

damertai doc- Les he fan eliminated

on my own part I bat our childreu

dietivet from the creed of any ©

nomination, V trines of Christianity are not

Roman Catholies,acd |

mm

from the instruction, While I ho

View and hold it warmly, un! sl here as I have on mapy previous occa- Sions asserted it elsewhere, that a publie schools system is best for a mixed com- muaity, I have taken this further grouni : [ recognize the fact that there is a

4 very large Proportion of my fellow sul'jects in this couotry who believe differently froin me,

with whom itis a matter of conecien that their children sheuld receive a ue inational education; and, therefore, more than twenty yeare ago [I took the stand that when the assertion of that right, or when the granting of that privilege to them ionches upon no right or privilege which I or my fellow Protestan: citizens Value or eteem, i am willing to let them adopt the System of education which they Conscientiously believe to be the best. ”

. This question of schools in Manitoba is a different one altogether from that with which we have to deal here in the Lower Provinces. It cocforme more nearly to the state of affairs in Quebec than in the other provinces. The Catholics ani Pro- testants of Manitoba are not msrely sep- arated by religion, but by race and lav- guage. There is à wide gulf between them; and it is next to impossib'e, at the present time, at all events, without doing grievous ir justice (o the minority, to et- tempt to force them to adopt the ‘common school system in Manitoba. And whether Wwise Or not, the highest court in the

realm, and the Coustitution have decided that this

MINORITY HAD A GRIEVANCE,

which the Government bad a right to re- dress, The Hon, Mr. Mills said that,

With this fact established, ‘the duty devolves upon the Gov- eroment 10 whom that appeal

is addressed to give the necessary relief.” And if that faith should be broken iu Manitoba, and if the men who have broken ‘hat faith are to-be upheld in that course by others in the Province of Mauitoba, we shall bave troublesome questions in the Province of Quebec. If the majority in Quebec would establish separate schools ‘© suit themselyes and their own couscien- tious convictions, and if we forced ibe schools of that majority upon the Pro- testant minority, speaking another lan- suage, there would have to be a reckon- 1Dg with every man speaking the English language and having the blood of an Eng- lishman in his veine. The British and Scotch of Canada and elsewhere would come to the relief @f that minority and help them. Why ehould we ns Britiel, subjects Le less w:1ling to stand up for the rights of one thousaod French Half breel and Roman Catholic people in Manitoba than for the Protestants of Que- vec if their rights were infringed upon. [t is not a question of whether separate or public schools are the better. Is is a question whether the constitution ot Manitoba shall be maintained in its integ - ruty. Ifthe constitution is not, confeder- ation Can never be maintained. I coul: take all the time you could possibly giv: me this evening in qnoting most eminent authorities ‘0 show that Confederation was only brought about by compromise on this question of education. The Protestants of Quebec would never have entered conf:d- eration and thrown themselves into the power of the French majority in Que!ec until their rights had been solematy guaranteed by Act of Parliament. History, sir, tells us that, and no one will deny it. Sir Alexander Galt, the leader of the English minority in Quebec, resigned his seat in the Government of Sir John Mc- Donald because guaraatees in this con

nection were not carried out as promised. Neither were Mr. Holton, Sir John Rose and other leaders, both Liberals and Con- servatives, satisti. d until guarantees were formally placed in the British North American Act and confirmed by the Legis- lature of the province of Quebec. I would hke to deal with some other phases of the school question. But, sir, I cannot take up too thuch of your time.

THE TRADE QUESTION.

I therefore, must address myself to a question wh ch is a most important one, complicated as it is, to every man, woman and child ah over this “Canada of Ours.” That is the trade question. My friend Mr. Davies made a very important announce- ment on this platform the other night “with regard to this question. I had the pleasure of seeing a report‘ of his epeech as it apoeared in the Patriot newspaper, aud ! will venture to read a few words from it to show the position which he has taken upon the trade question in that speech. He says:

“If we were starting out afresh in the Dom'n'cn,the L beral party weuld go for practical free trada. They woulii not have, believe, more than a 12 or 15 per cent tariff, but the Liberal party know that to- dav, with an expenditure of $38,000,000 a year, it is impossible to have free ‘rade. You must raise sufficient revenue to meet necessary expenditures, and do what you will you must recognize the fact that for 15 years certain manufacturing industries have been fostered and protected in this country, and there is mota man inthe Liberal party who would desire, at one fell swooy, esuddenls to adopt a polie; which wouli destroy these manufacturing indus- tries. We will wage war to the knife against all trusts and trade moropolies, against a | exces::ve taxation, against that portion of the tariff which exacts undue protection in favor of one class of the community ana takes itout of the mass.

I have read a pretty lengthy extract in order to show, as announced by Mr. Davie:, in opening his speech on this plat- form the other night, what his present views on the Trade Question are. Nowl will ju:t turn for a moment to a speech delivered by Mr. Davies at Middieton, N. S., in 1893,to «how that he beld very different views then from what he now en- tertains, to show the wobbliag policy the Liberal Party are pursuing on this great question. Speaking at M iddleton, then, in September of 1893, Mr. Davies said :

“But there come times when both party issues disappear, and the great historical parties of the country divide upou some vital issue, which affects not only the present but the future interests of the people. To-day the people of Canada <tand face to face with an issue, and the ext contest is to be one between free trade aud protection.”

Mr. Davies, speaking of this very Con: test in which we are now engaged, said the issue wasto be distinctly between Free Trade and Protection, and he went further :—

« Tre poliey of the Liberal Party on the contrary, is the reform of the tarif by the elimination from it of every vestige of protection. In our convention platform we denounced the protective system as unfair, unjust and burdensome.

He now declares that they will take çare that there will not be undue protec- ‘os. À 120r 15 per cent tariff, remember, will not be suflicient. Certain industries bave grown up during the past fift-en

vears of Protection. and they would not to wipe

dre, at one fell 8+o00p,

tiem *awav. But he will take care that there will not be undue prot-ction.” A very safe policy,

e vou stick toit for any length of ou very d:ftereut from that of the Liberal-Conservative Party. (Applause). But Mr. Davies wenton in that speech and he amplified on this question of pro- tection. He found some dreadful things and be used

VERY STRONG LANGUAGE

in condemning them. He found there was an “enormous iniquity,” as 9€ called it, existiog in the tariff of Canada, of a pe of 14 cents à pound on cleaned rice, an oniy 3-10 of a cent on uncleaned rice 1m-

rted, and this + one - 2 re

red the e, would”

ner of Doiade if the Liberal Party were to come into power. (Laughter). That duty of 14 cents on rice realized the enormous sum Of $73,000 in 1895 ([ am quoting his own figures), and it aimounted

to the large sum of 13 cents per head : every Man, WOIMAN and child in Canada.

That is one of the great changes he will ef- fect in the tariff (laughter). Mr. Davies then tock up the question of cordage and kero- ser.e Oil, which he described as in qui‘ous, and which h: suid is were terrible to con- teu.piate. The duty on kerosene oil is less than 14 cents per head of the population. He ne xt came to a subject of very great im- portance, namely,

THE IRON DUTiES,

This, he said, wrested from the people a large amount of money amounting to mil- lions, and they were iniquitous in a very strong sense of the term, in the way that be uses terms, Without going into a description of these iron duties, we wust bear in mind that the press tele- grams of the last four and twenty hours bave brought news which appears to glad- aen the hearts of the Liberals all over the Dominion, axd it is to the effect that Sir Oliver Mowat is going to belp Mr. Laurier (if Mr. Laurier is strong enough to he p himself) after the election. (Laughter and applause). Sir Oiiver Mowut will take a seat in the Senate al- though there is co vacancy and although Mr. Laurier is notin a post oa to put him in, and is not very likely to be for many a long year. (Laughier) The charming Sir Oliver Mowai has said 60 many nice good things for Laurier that the Liberal Party feel in their hearts they have a right to fai] down and worship him and do: everything to please him. But if ne is actuallv going to enter the Administration, what do you this:k will be the load he will carry when he goes over? Iron bounties. (Hear, hear). Not merely the duties that Mr. Davies condemns so strongly as being 80 burdensome on the people, not merely the duties the Federal Governimnert exact, not merely the Domivion bountiex, but the the Province of Ontario has added addi- tional hounties over and above those of the Federal Government. (Applause). This is the Liberal Party who go the people of Canada and s:k them to support them ae free traders, and in another breath say thev will not give “undue protectior” (Laughter). Why, their great biz little staiesman, Mowat, for whom they say so many good things, would carry to their party the weight of these great iron duties enhanced and increased beyond what Sir John Macdonald, Sir John Thompson aud Sir Charles Tupper ever said they would be. (Applause). Had I time I would go back a little and tell you what I dare say many of you have not entirely forgotten, that the Liberal party have had in their platform in 1891 the big plank of

UNRESTRICTED RECIPROCITY.

We heard à great deal about Unrestrict- ed Reciprocity on that occasion. Mr. Davies said that was the policy that would make the people of P. E Island rich. Sir Richard Cartwright said it would increase the value of all the farm lands in Canada by $10 or $11 per head, and it would in- crease the value of every horse in Canada $20. Ir was intended to adopt this policy of Unrestricted Reciprocity. Ithink you will bear me out when [ say that in tha campaign of 1891 my friend, Mr. Blake, and myself, 17 contesting the County, took no middle ground on that question. We told the people that this poliev of Unrestricted Recipro- city was a bad one. We showed up all the evils that would follow in its train, and I think we satisfied the people of Queen’s County that it was a bad policy that reduced their majority from 1,000 to

300. (Applause, hear, hear.) During that campaign it began to leak out that the Hon. Kdward Blake, the Leader of their party in the

Province of Ontario, did not believe in that palicy, and he refused to become a candidate in that election, because he wouid not support the policy of Unre- stricted Reciprocity with the United States. Î made that statement at a meeting at Eldon during that campaign. Mes-rs. Blake aud Davies were there,and Mr. Dav « : spoke after me, and said it was entirely without foundation. “Ferguson is entirely wrong,* be said; ‘Mr. Blake would take no position likethat. Mr. Blake declined to run his election because he was in bad health; he did not differ at all with our policy.” {

I repeated that it was true and Mr. Davies said ke would produce the proof. He brought the proof atthe next meeting, submitting a telegram addressed to him by Sir Oliver Mowat in which he assured Mr Davies that Mr. Blake ir his address to the electors of West Durham on retiring from the representation declined their nomination in that election aud stated that he had not discu*sed any political question whatever in that contest. Of course Mr. Davies bad the better of me. Here was the telegram signed by Mowat. I was from 1,000 to 1,500 miles away, and I was not in a position to do auythiog but accept the explanation. What did we find? Scarcely was the election over and the ballots counted when out came the address of the Hon. Edward Blake to the electors of West Durham in which he pointed out, step by step, their policy and wound up by saying he wouid prefer going down ain his little boat in silence rather than support Ununrestricted Reciprocity, a policy in which be did not believe. (Great applause). That was kept back during the elections and it came out after theelecticns were over. (Applause)

The facts became known and the pecple of Canada found that we had made the diacovery. lhe Libera]l Party abandoned their policy vf Unrestricted Reciprocity with the United states. They cannot al- together deny the advocecy of it; but on every occasion they will deny, most indignautly deny, thet they ever advocated Comrrercial Union. Mr. Davies spoke at that Midile- ton meeting to which I have already made reference, and he said that,—

“Commercial Union may be a good thing or a bad thing, É will not now discuss it; but that

licy has never been advocated by the siberal Party or by any authorized mem- ber of the Liberal Party.”

Now, with regard to that, I will jast confront Mr. Davies statemant with an extract from a speech made by himse'f at the Cape Travarse meeting on August Z2{th 1887 oi: which he male use of the followiug worde :

“ The idea that we would be disloyal to the British flag under Commercial Union was humbug. He wanted to live under the flag as well a: anyone, but he wanted a flag under which he could live. (Ap- plause). The key-note should be struck in the banner Province. Commercial Union means a uwniform tariff from the North Pole to the Gulf of Mexico. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 he was pre- pared to accept, but he was afraïd the Aniericans were unwilling to concede it. As Commercial Union seemed more easily attaived, he was prepared to support. it because he believed it would secure to us wealth, peace and happiness.”

These are the words of Mr. Louis H. Davies himself, and when we come to coun- pare this statement with that of his Midd'e ton statement, that commercial union was never supported or advocated by tue L'ber- al party, or by auy authorized member 0° the Liberal party, we must couclude that his memory is very bad or that he rules himself out of being an authorized member of the Liberal party. (Applause) While the Opposition party have been wandering and wabbling on the trade question in ail these different ways, the Liberal-Conserva- tive party have sto2d, during twenty years, firmly aod strongly on the

PLATFORM OF THE NATIONAL POLICY.

It became painfull apparentto everyone in Canada and the United States before the institution of the National! Policv, that the protective policy was ruiniug this country. The state cf the country was deplorab'e in 1878. I could read from the words of Sir Richari Cartwright himself, in his budget speech, delivered in the House 0° Commons in 1878, in which be de- plored the state of the country. We were, he said, poor and not ab'e to buy mucb, and the reductions 18 the rev enue and in the volume of our trade were extraordinary. The Liberal Conservative

Party nailed the flag of moderate protec-

tion to Îts mast in 1878. They went to the country on that policy, and the people of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific appreciated the new policy adopted under unusual cireurmstances, ani they supported it. In 1882, the Liberal Con- servative Par:ÿ again went to the prople of Canada with the sarne old flag and the same old National Policy; and the people ofthe Domirion agaia sustained them. Again, in 1887, the l:iberal-Conservative Party went to the country, and so strong was the National Policy in the affsctions of the peop'e of the country that it en abled the Party to obtain power in the face of the racial and other questions that had been raised by the Liberal Party in Quebec over the execution of Riel. Again, ia 1891, the same banner was unfuried, and once more the Liberal-Conservative Party was victorions. And agaïn in 18%6 we come to the people of Canada with the same old flag aud the same .old policy, modified, it is true, from time to time, ac- cording to the ever-changing circumstan- ces of ile country;—whenever any duty bas seemed to have outlived its use- fulness or has ceased to foster any great industry, we have cut offthe mouldering braches. But wherever neces-ary we have g ven moderate protection, not to en- rich combines, but to develop the indus- tries ot our country, and to cause Canada, as you say in one €f the inreriptions on the wall to-night, to be *Canala for the Canadians.” (Loud applause). REDUCTION OF TAXATION.

But before I leave this question I want to put before youza few simple facts on the trade quertious. It is stated that we ure a a very l.eavily taxed people, The result of the Government’s policy is to bear ne down with taxes. If you wili take the trouble to !vok over the figures yon will find we are taxed about three dollars per head. 1 am speaking of the general taxation and customs taxation —less than the people of free trade England. But this is not all. We maïntain a rea- sonable duty on articles we manufactire our-elves, and we have thus protected home industries. This has enabled us to provide ample ineans for revenue pur posse and the carryiog on of needful pub- lie works.

The Liberal - Conservative Government have, during four years, taken forty mil-

lion dollars of the people by taking taxes oi the neces- saries of life. I will

point out in a few -words wh:t these articles are. In 18+2 the duty was taken offtea. The removal of the duty on tea has from that time down to the present saved the people of Canada in taxes $11,- 034 089. Up to that time, duringthe Mc- Kenzie administration and during the first few years of the National Policy and Conservative Administration, we had a duty ontea. But in 1882 this duty, paid by the poor and rich alike, andoften more by the poor than the rich, was removed and the saving has been over eleven mil- lions of dollars. In the same ysar the duty was takeu off coftee and the amount saved to the peopleof the Douinion by that is $8832,5 8. In 1887 the duty was taken of authracite coal and the amount saved in taxes was $6,044,355. In 1882 the duty was taken offtin. This is a most import- ant itemto us, who are so lJargely engaged in the lobster ivdustry, and sonn I hope we are going 10 have other im- portant canning industries. The amount saved by this was $1,465,103.

In short, we have taken off duties amounting in the last five years to $19,- 891,995. The duty on bill stamwps was taken off in 1882. They still have that duty in free trade England. The saving thus accomplished was #3,267,388. The tax on newspapers was taken off in 1834, and $613,864 in taxes saved there. In 1830 the duty was taken cff molasses, or reduced, and this amounted to $335,715. lbe duty was taken ff window glass, amountiog to $185,980. Altogether, the grand total of duties taken otf the neces- saries cf life, and articles Auch a+ #ew3- papers and bill stamps,is $43,631,027.;Alto- gether about twenty-seven of te essentials of life have been taken off the dutiable list during these years vnder the National Policy.

THE ORISIS.

My friend, Mr. Davies, sai.i a vood deal with regard to the crisis in January, and he said a number of things which EL will not characterize as being actually incor- rect or untrue, but to be explainei by that extraordinary faculty he ‘as for paraphrasing the sayings of other people, aud at the same time thinking he is doing justice. (Laughter) He said some seven of Sir Mackenzie Boweli’s colleagues bai separated from him and explained that they did it becanse he was an old foo! aud an imbecile, and that in consequence of their action a great deal of delay occurred, and in cous-quence of that delay the Remedial bill was not passed. I do not think there is any considerable number of people in this city who will believe er accept very much of that. The unfortun- ate crisis that occurred in January, and which was moitly due to misunderstand- ing, consumed one week of time. Wien the House met on the 7th of January, after an adjournment, this question had presented itself, and on the 14th of Janu- arv the Government was again reconstruct- ed and there had been lost just seven days, only four of which were working days fur the House of Commons. So there were only four working days lost. (Applause.)

HIS OWN POSITION.

It is due, I think, speaking to you for the first time after my return, that I should exp'&in my own position at that time. The Leader, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, is a man fur whom I'entertsin a great dealof re- epect—I might say affection, but [ felt in my heart that there was one man in Canada and one only more fit to lead the party to victory and that was Sir Charles Tupper. ButlI did not want to bring the change about by any disruption among our friends. I said 10 them, I wanted to bring this about by means of conciliation. I felt for Sir Mackenzie Bowell. He was an honest man and a statesman, and [ sat by his aide in the Senate for two years and observed his actiens and feli he was à good and able man.But I felt atthe same time that Sir Charles was as good a man and a still abler man. (Cheer:;)

I lent myse!f to the work of conciliation and bringing about a r-union of these gentleman whom I believe should be working for the good of the country in the Cabinet. I succeeded along with some other gentlemen in bringing about concil- ietion. There never was, however, any breach between Sir Charles Tuvper and McKenzie Bowell. There was not such good feeling between Sir McKenz'e and some other gentlemen of that Cabinet as there shou'd have been. When he was re-constructing the Cabinet he offered me a portfolio if I would help him aud leave our forme: co!leagues: out. I advised him not to doit. In the inte-- ests of Canada and the Party I said I would not be a party to disruption With the aid and influence and advice of Sir Charles Tupper, who was now more fullv in touch with us, having lately come int) the country, I felt they could be brought back into the Government, tl'erefore I re- fused to accept a portfolio until an offer had been extended to these gentle- men. Jsaid, if they refuse I will stand by jou and dotli:e very best [ can for the good government of tke country. The gentiemeu returned. Harmony was restored in every respect, and the Govern- ment weat on with its work.

CPPOSITIOX OBSTUCTION.

Mr. Davies says we did not introduce the Remedial Bill until the end of Febru- ary, and it was not real a 3econd time until the 17h of March. It was intro- duced on the 1l1th of February—that is what he called the end of February—and most valuable work had been put inSbefore then. The debate on the address had taken place. This is ucual!y a long debate, and an important one, more 80 this year than ordinarily. This debate

was completed, the Budget Speech given, ani the debate on that concluded, and this

LA

was s long and important debate. I do not eay =there was time lost on it, be- cause before an election it is necessary to have very full discussion of the trade questions in the Budget debate. The Remedial B:1l was jiutroduced où the llth of February, although its final consideration was wot reached until later, A great d:al of time was lost be-

cause the Liberals said that we had met

for the purpose of passing that Remedial Bili aud not for any other business, and they refused to allow business to be ad- vanced stage by stage as 18 always done when the time is econotnized.®One matter after another was brought up, but they refused to allow business to proceed. When we moved 10 go into supply they met us with a motion to adjourn, and day aïter Gay and night after night time was lost on the question of supply, and we were beaten later on in getting the Re- med'al Bill through. Wben it was intro- duced aud reached its “ecoud reading it gave rise 10 luufi discussion. 1 do not complain of discussioa with the Speaxer in the chair. Jt wa: a necessary and 1m- portant debate and I do not charge a/ain«t any man that he did wrong when he tovk reasonable cime to place his views ‘on re- cord on this important subject, but [ say when the bill was read a secoud time there still remained five week+, and one week was enough if the House had done its best in pertecting the details of that bill. When a majority of the House— a consid- erab'e majority — had declared in favor of that bill, LI gay 1t was the duty of every man who loved his country to address himself earnestly and carefully to the verfection of the details cf that bill and do wuat he could to make it better, and if it was defective he should try to remedy the defects. I will not +ay that the Lill had no defects. Day after day and night after night intermerminable speeches were made. No sooner did the Ioue go into Committee than a member would move that the Committee rise ana then the obstructionists could speak on that and then there would be a motion to adjouru and again the obstructionists would go in and speak again, and time was waste l: not in relevant discussion but in ie obstruction, uvtil finally the time had so passed andtke 15th diy of April had come, and it was then apparent that no time was left to complete the remain ing clauses of the bill. The e were 80 or 90 clauses etill to be considered, and no supplies had been voted. The conse- quence would Le very serious to the country were Parliament ciosed on the 24th of April without money being voted to carry on the various services. So the Government was forced to abandon the bill, and try 10 pass such necessary supplies as would keep the public service ruuning until the lat of July, and as a result of theextraordinary conduct of these gentlemen the Remedial Bill was not passed, and other important mea-ures could not be advauced. ‘THE LIBERAL PARTY BLAMEABLE,

It was the conduet, in the first place, of the Liberal party in Manitoba that iaunched this troublesome question on of Dominion politics. They

arena had brought up a troublesome question for the people of Canada and ever since there has been

fighting over it. Elements as widely differ- ent as possible combined in condemning the Government for having sent the ques- tion to the court. Mr, Tarte would rise and move a resolntion, and Mr. Dalton

MeCarthy would #spea' and vote in favor of it Men who pro- fessed 10" hold vews exactly oppo-

-ite to each other, were one in their policy ofstriring up opposition on the question. They had saddled a dif:ulty on the Guv- ernwent, and demanded why not manfully take that difficulty up and settle it. When the bill came befare the House what did we find? We found that in tbe Gpposition there was every shade of opinion. Mc- Carthy objected, not because it was pre- mature. He said everybody who had eyes to see and ears t0 hear knew the fact:, He opposed it because he wanted to extirpat: the French language, and force a certain kind of schools on the people of every creel and race. That was the view he took, and Mr. Geoffrein and Mr. Tarte opposed it because it did uot go far enough. They wauted the Parlia- ment Lo pay over a part of the revenue of Maaitobafor th: support of separateschor 1: They complainel because Catbolic would have a voice as to whether their euildren should go to the public or separate schools. They said that was interfering with the rights of the Catholics, that they had vo right to have any voice in the matter. And then we have Mr. Laurier declarinz in Chicoutimi that when he came into power be would see that his compuatriots iu the province of Manitoba should have their rights restored to them, and he raid he could do it because, said he, ‘“‘ihank God, we have no Orangemen among u:, the Liberals” Thus we have the Liberal party using those shameful tactica, one section inciting the people of Quebec to demand more than the law aud constitution would allow them; another wing trying to raise sectional and racial feelings by painting oatto tdem that the Government were giving away to the hierarchy i1 Quebec Thus by iaciting prejudices as widely sep- araated as these to fight together to pre- vent a settlement they are trying.t0 drive the Conservative party from power. That is their whole okject. So intent and so anxious are they fur power that they bave resorted 0 all kinds of schemes, They have resorted to this obstruction, to all these different methods and mesns of ob- struction in the hope -of gaining the sup- port of the Protestants on the on: side,

and the French Catholics on ihe other. In one place they cry out Le- cause we have gone £60 far, and

iu another, because we have not gone far enough. This shows what kin 1 of ren they are and what kind of meu their leaders are. You remember some months ago—some time in last year—that a younz Irisbman named Shortis shot some people

in the town of Valleyfield, in the county Of Beauharnoïis. He was tried, found guilty anl sentenced

trbe hanged, anlthe Governor-General acting within the lines of the Constitution, commuted the sentence to imprisonment for life. Two of the men shot were French-Canadiane, and a verv consider- able feeling existed between the Irish there and the Freuch-Canadians with re- gard to this matter. The French people became excited, and held imeetinge, reviv- ing the memory of the Riel execution. Not- withstanding the p'ea of insanity, demagogues aroused them to a white heat. What do you think the Hon. Wilfred Laurier d:d? This man, of whom so many grand things are said, this beautiful wnite man of the Liberal Party, the Leader of that Party! (Laughter). He takes I-rael Tarte and goes to Beauharois and plants him as a candidate, and tries to get him elected on the grouud of the commutation of the sentence of Shortis. The law they said favored au Irishinan, and his se-teuce was commuted, and there not being many Irish in he county of Beau- harnois, Mr. Tarte went down and tried to make political out of t. Ar. Tarte had been driven out of every respectable con stituency, and never showed himself # second tnne after being once el:cted, Ke is now the candidate trying to defea: the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Bergeron, on the question of whether it was proper 10 com- mute this sentence of death on this man Shortis,