That does not prevent any one speaking.

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. D. MONET (Laprairie and Napier-ville).

Mr. Speaker, I wish for a few moments to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). That hon. gentleman admitted the unquestionable right of this parliament to express its opinion on every important issue with which the motion now before us deals, but he claimed that the resolution was untimely. And in that contention he followed the right hon. the leader of the House, and his own lieutenant-leader, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). This contention being the very contention- of the hon. leader of this House and his own lieutenant-leader, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk),

I hope the hon. member for East Grey will not charge me with any lack of courtesy if, Instead of replying to every item of his speech, 1 merely refer him to the criticism which I intend to make on the speech of the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier opened his remarks by saying that he regretted very much the absence of his leader from the House to-day, because owing to that absence it became his duty to voice the feeling of the opposition on the subject that was being discussed in this House. I believe the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was right when he regretted the absence of his leader. I believe it would have been far better for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier if his leader had been here, and had himself taken the responsibility of the attitude that has been taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. What is the conclusion to be drawn from the speech of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier ? It is this : that the lieutenant leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the Conserva-

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

tive party of the province of Quebec, refuses to send to the British parliament a humble prayer in favour of the poor victims of this imprudent war in South Africa, asking for mercy in their favour, when this very prayer was called for by an English-speaking member, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I do not believe that this attitude of the lieutenant-leader of the Conservative party will ever be highly appreciated by the Conservative party in that province.

Then the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, while not explicitly finding fault with the hon. member for Labelle for joining hands with the hon. member for North Norfolk, referred to the fact with a certain ironical smile covering his lips ; and it was very easy to see that he was amused at such a spectacle being given in this House. But if the hon. member for North Norfolk has been converted to the ideas that have been expressed by the hon. member for Labelle on the question of the South African war, he is'not the only member of tnis House who has been.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier himself, in his capacity of lieutenant-leader of the Conservative party, is a convert to the views of the hon. member for Labelle. In the by-election that took place since the last session of this parliament in the county of Laval-and I see the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) sitting close to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and I challenge him to deny the assertion I am going to make- is it not a fact that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in his capacity of leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, said that he blamed this government for allowing England to recruit soldiers in this country to go to the front in South Africa ? This is the very attitude that was taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in the by-election in Laval, and I ask him and I ask the hon. member for Laval to tell me if the hon. member for Labelle has ever gone further in that direction ? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier took the very same attitude in the byelection that took place in St. James Division. Montreal, where Mr. Bergeron, an exleader of the Conservative party, was candidate. He said there that he would have supported the motion brought before this House by the hon. member for Labelle if that motion had not been an academic motion, because, so far as the ideas were concerned, he sympathized entirely with the views expressed by the hon. member for Labelle. So, if the hon. member for Jacques Cartier saw fit to sneer a little about the hon. member for Labelle joining hands with the hon. member for North Norfolk, I think every member of this House can accord the same sneering to himself, because he has done the same thing as the hon. member for North Norfolk ; and why did he do so ? I am very far from blaming the hon. mem-

ber for Jacques Cartier for having done what he has done. I believe he has done so knowing that he voiced the feeling of the province of Quebec when he turned in the opposite direction from that which he had always followed on the South African question since he first occupied a seat in this House. Now, it is true that the hon. member for North Norfolk has changed a little his opinions about the South African war. or rather about the quality of the Boers peopling the Transvaal and the Orange Republic. I remember very well, when this question of the South African war was first brought up before the House, the hon. member for North Norfolk gave us one of the best reasons that could be adduced in favour of England waging that war, that England had the undoubted right to force British Institutions on these very same ignorant and half-barbarian people of the Transvaal. To-day I am glad to see that the hon. member for North Norfolk-and I congratulate him on the fact-considers that this ''brave race of the Transvaal deserves better treatment than he himself formerly thought should be accorded to them.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in discussing the resolution which we are now debating, admitted that this parliament had the right to express its opinion on the question at issue ; but he said that the resolution was extremely untimely. Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, or did even the hon. leader of the government, give a single reason why this resolution is untimely ? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution is very timely. In what circumstances is it brought before this House ? We know perfectly well that just now the question in England is, what treatment are we going to give to the Boers ? We know perfectly well that the decision is not arrived at yet. We do not know very well on what basis the peace will be made. Then, I say, if this parliament has a right ever to give its opinion on the terms of the peace which is going to be made, now is the time for giving that opinion. Those who claim that this resolution is untimely would do well to state when it will be timely for us to offer it. When will it be timely for us to ask the British parliament to give such treatment to the Boers of the Transvaal and the Republic of Orange ?

Never.

Mr. MONET.

An hon. member says, never. Then he does not share the opinion of his leader, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who said very plainly that he agreed with the very terms of the resolution. When will it be timely for us to express our opinion in the matter ? Will it be after the peace is concluded ? I say it will then be untimely for us to say anything about it, because the decision then will have been arrived at and there will be no use In our saying anything about it. The attitude of

the right hon. leader of the government and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Monk) reminds me of that taken by a lawyer who, though he appeared to plead a case before the judge, would not speak. And when the judge said to him : Well, give me your opinion before I decide the case, the iawyer would reply : No, it is not time

now for me to plead the case, but when the judgment is rendered I will give my opinion. It seems to me that if we accept the view of those who claim that this is not the proper time for us to express our opinion, that time will never come. If we are to express an opinion at all, there can be no doubt that to-day is the proper time to do so. No valid reasons have been given why this resolution should be declared untimely, but on the contrary very good reasons can be given why it is now very opportune indeed.

Let us look back to what took place before the war broke out. A few months before war was declared, at a time when there were only rumours of war, the right hon. the leader of the government rose in his place in this House on the 31st July, and taking advantage of the silent consent of the whole House, proposed a resolution without having previously given notice. The first part of his resolution read as follows :

Resolved, that this House has viewed with regret the complications which have arisen in the Transvaal Republic, of which Her Majesty is suzerain, from the refusal to accord to Her Majesty's subjects now settled in that region any adequate participation in its government.

Then the resolution concluded :

That this House, representing a people which

has largely succeeded

.

Mind you, Sir, the very circumstance mentioned in support of the resolution I am quoting presents itself again to our consideration.

-which has largely succeeded, by the adoption of the principle of conceding equal political rights to every portion of the population, in harmonizing estrangements and in producing general content with the existing system of government, desires to express its sympathy with the efforts of Her Majesty's Imperial authority to obtain for the subjects of Her Majesty who have taken up their abode in Ihe Transvaal such measures of justice and political recognition as may be found necessary to secure them in the full possession of equal rights and liberties.

On the 31st July, 1S99, we considered it advisable for this House to pass a resolution assuring the British parliament that we sympathized with them in their efforts to secure to the Uitlauders of the Transvaal, who were still termed British subjects

Hear, hear.

Mr. MONET-the rights to which they were entitled. My hon. friend behind me says ' hear, hear,' and no doubt we may be told that in this resolution we were simply

expressing our sympathy with the British parliament in their endeavour to give equal rights to British subjects, whereas to-day we are asking that same parliament to grant a certain measure of magnanimity to the Boers. But I would remind hon. gentlemen that since the proclamation of Lord Roberts, the Boers have become British subjects at an English point of view, and when we are asking the British parliament to give the Boers the best terms possible, we only asking in their favour the equal rights which in our former resolution we asked for the Uitlanders. If, therefore, a few months before war was declared, it was right to take the step we did, why have we not the right to-day, before peace is concluded, to say on what basis we would like to see peace effected between England and the Transvaal ?

I do not suppose that much more can be said on this question. It seems to me that it has always been recognized in this House that the Canadian parliament has the right to make any representations to the British parliament concerning any matter in which we are but indirectly interested. We have done this several times in favour of home rule, and to those who object to this resolution because it is untimely and because we may rely on the magnanimity of the English people, I would say : Could not the same objection have been urged against those who asked this House to pass resolutions in favour of home rule ? Could we not then have been told that we might rely on the magnanimity of the British people and the British parliament in their dealings with the Irish people ?

The right we have to express our opinion is one that no hon. member in this House can dispute, especially in such a case as this, owing to the contribution which Canada has been called on to make in favour of England-a contribution which has been pretty heavy for Canada. That certainly gives us an undoubted right, apart from every other consideration, to send across to the home government the prayer embodied in the resolution before the House. Of course, owing to the fact that the mover of the resolution has withdrawn it, no practical result can ensue from this debate, but I believe it my duty to record my opinions on the matter, and if the hon. gentleman would press his resolution to a division, I would vote in its favour.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).

It has been my misfortune, Mr. Speaker, not to have been present to hear the excellent addresses made by the mover of the motion (Mr. Charlton) and by my good friend the right hon. leader of the government as well as the other speeches made on this occasion. However, the motion is here and it speaks for itself. The introductory paragraph speaks of ' maintaining and firmly establishing '-I should imagine that our worthy friend (Mr. Charlton) would have trans-Mr. MONET

posed these terms and have first spoken of establishing and then of maintaining British supremacy in South Africa. The resolution reads :

This House is of opinion that British supremacy should be maintained and firmly established. in South Africa.

At present British supremacy is not firmly established there, and it has to be firmly established first, and then maintained irrespective of what the consequences may be.

The second part of the resolution I entirely dissent from :

And that in the interest of peace and of future tranquillity, harmony and homogeneity, it is expedient to offer universal amnesty as a condition of peace and submission to British, control, to all persons in arms against British authority in Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange River Colony, the Transvaal, and all other portions of the British dominions in South Africa.

From that view I entirely dissent. There is a statement-I have forgotten exactly where it is to be found-to the effect that the road to the nether regions is paved with good intentions. I am not impugning the motives of my good friend, the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Norfolk, but there can be no doubt that it has been maudlin sentiment such as this that has prevented this war being closed long before now. We have had the pro-Boer in Britain sympathizing with the Boers. On any and every occasion, when disaster befell the British arms, no word of sympathy was heard from these gentlemen. But let the slightest victory be obtained by the Boers and they were jubilant ; let any treatment be meted out to these people in the way of forcing them to move from their farms and go into concentration camps and this maudlin sentiment-I use the word advisedly-has been shown by the pro-Boers, and not only the pro-Boers hut by a large class of sentimental people. This it is that has given encouragement to the Boers that some European complication might arise, that some nation might intervene before the close of the war to engage Britain's attention elsewhere, and then they would be guaranteed their independence. To my mind there has been but one course open to Great Britain from the outset. As was said by the right hon. leader of the House, In language that,

I believe, no tongue in this Dominion could match for beauty, the Boers themselves chose the arbitrament of war and they must be content to abide the consequences. There can be no conclusion to this war except that Britain shall force it to a finish, and that would mean the entire subjugation of that people. When they are subjugated, that is the time to extend the right hand of fellowship, that is the time for Great Britain to treat them as she has done the people in all her other colonies and give them

every opportunity to become true British citizens. Our good friend tile member for North Norfolk must have had some object in bringing forward this motion. I cannot say what it has been however. If his object was to bring about peace, I can assure him that if his tone could have beeu heard in the Boer camps it would have given those people great encouragement and would have tended to the prolongation of the war. His object certainly could not have been to promote the well-being of the Boers, because that would imply that Great Britain in the past has not accorded good treatment to the people she has conquered. But I think the pages of history will be searched in vain for evidence in support of any such contention. Britain has never treated any people whom she has conquered otherwise than in the most merciful and magnanimous spirit. But there is danger in being magnanimous and great with a people you have not conquered. Even after you have conquered them there is danger of their misunderstanding your magnanimity and greatness and mistaking it for weakness. Again and again have the kindness and generosity of heart of Lord Roberts and other British commanders in the field been laughed at by the Boers, their magnanimity sneered at as weakness and they themselves held in scorn. There is only one way to manage a man if he is your opponent-conquer him and then treat him kindly. So, with the Boers, there is only one way-conquer them first, and then let magnanimity and greatness and mercy follow. Some are inclined to say that there is a desire on the part of our good friend to advertise himself. I would not endorse that for an instant, because our good friend has been well known in the history of this House and the country as undertaking to lead in all this class of sentimental subjects, which really amount to nothing so far as benefiting the people is concerned. And the trouble is, when it is all over, from his own professions we are never really sure where to find him. There are people who are unkind enough to say that this is a put up job between the hon. member for North Norfolk and the right lion, leader of the government. I do not believe that for an instant. I am satisfied that that is not so. It may have been that the right hon. leader of the government may have been consulted before this motion was brought to the attention of the House. He should have been consulted. But, if he gave our worthy friend the answer then that lie gave him to-day, that he could not endorse his motion, that it was inopportune, or had told him that he wished him to withdraw it, would not a loyal follower, sucli as the member for North Norfolk has been of the lenders of his party through ail their devious turnings and twistings for twenty years or so- would not he have been only too willing to withdraw it instead of taking up the time of the House and placing it before the country ? I am satisfied he would. I do not object to the motion because it is ill-timed or inopportune, or anything of that kind. I oppose it on principle and I will give my reason.-

I deal first with the Free Staters, and Transvaalers. I do not find that the hon. gentleman mentions these but speaks of ' persons in arms.' But, so far as concerned those who were Free Staters and Transvaalers before the war, I will join hands with him. More than that, I stand here to say [DOT] that if these people had been properly used they would have laid down their arms nearly two years ago. It is a well known fact that General DeWet offered to lay down his arms and those of 18,000 followers. When the Free State was annexed by that beautifully-worded proclamation, got out by some of these artistic young ink-slingers-I was not in the party, I want the House to understand-annexing the Free State the condition was promulgated that those who would lay down their arms would be allowed to return to their farms and enjoy their civil rights. That was all right, but it was^ in another, a negative clause that the difficulty lay-that those who did not lay down their arms would be treated, when captured, not as prisoners of war, but as rebels. That clause could not have reached half the Free Staters in the field, but I maintain that every self-respecting Britisher must have found it objectionable. DeWet withdrew his army to the mountains away on the eastern side of the Free State and gave General Roberts an almost uninterrupted march to Pretoria. It is well known that a bitter feeling existed between the Free Staters and the Transvaalers. The Transvaalers deserted their capital, refusing to defend it. As soon as that news reached DeWet, he sent word to the British General-General Bundle. I think it was-that he was ready to lay down his arms, and gave as his reason that, inasmuch as the Transvaalers had failed to_ defend their capital he felt, as a Free Stater, that, in the interest of the two races and in the interests of the great future of South Africa the war should come to a close. He asked as a condition, a condition which I believe they will grant to-day, a condition which should have been granted then by any magnanimous general, that in place of being treated as a rebel, he and his kin of Free State birth and nationality should be treated as prisoners of war. It was denied him by the highest military authorities, I believe, in South Africa; and as if to drive him to surrender, his property was destroyed and his vineyards and his home were wasted. General DeWet is reported to have registered an oath that he would make the British pay in blood and treasure for that piece of work, and I kind of reckon he has carried out his threat. To-day I believe the same terms that General DeWet 1 demanded then are being accorded to these

men, the Free Staters and Transvaalers, and I say, rightly so, for they are Free Staters and Transvaalers. I never questioned their right to fight against us and bowl us over on any and every occasion, but 1 questioned their right to deprive us of the rights of British subjects in their republics.

But there is another question that my hon. friend from North Norfolk laid stress upon, that is the colonial rebels. Now, my worthy friend has read history, as every intelligent member of; this House has. Many revolutions have been justifiable. No man to-day, and no man at that time, ever questioned the right to rebel of Hampden and Cromwell. No lover of responsible government has ever questioned the righteousness of the rebellion of 1688 ; no man I ever met in modern times questions the righteousness of the American war of independence from the colonial view point. It has established throughout the world the principle that taxation carries with it the right of representation. When tyrants and oligarchs undertake to govern and tax people without giving them the, right of representation, then they expose' themselves to rebellion. In the American civil war the people of the south had, as they thought, a justification for rebellion in the defence of their old established principle of slavery. But it was a principle not consonant with the great principles of British and American liberty, and therefore it was deemed in the eyes of the world as an unrighteous cause, though others undoubtedly deemed it a righteous one. But I ask the hon. member for North Simcoe can he

North Norfolk.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

The two hon. members, Mr. Speaker, for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) are so intimately associated with each other in little affairs in this House, that I find myself referring to the member for North Simcoe instead of to the member for North Norfolk-I ask the member for North Norfolk to lay his finger upon one .solitary cause for rebellion that any Boer in the British colonies of South Africa ever had. He has not done it, and the man does not stand in this House who can do it. Who can give any more reason why any Boer in South Africa, any British Boer in South Africa, should rebel than why any man in the city of Ottawa should step out and rob a bank or murder his neighbour 7 He can't do it. The mere fact that they are cf the same race and lineage is no reason. Thousands of loyal Boers have fought for Britain against their own kinsfolk. The records of history show that great movements have never necessarily brought men of the same race together. Let us go back to the days when the ancestors of these men were fighting for the liberties of Europe, when the old Batavians, or as we know them in later times, the Dutchmen of Eur-Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

ope, who were fighting for liberty against the tyranny of Spain and Austria. Were they lighting as men of one race ? Not at all. It was people of one race fighting against the tyrants of the same race, only they were allied with the free men of all nationalities. In France, the country of those gallant fellows, the Huguenots, whose descendants we find distinguishing themselves in South Africa to-day, when these men were struggling for liberty in the days of Coligny and Colbert, and that grand hero whose statue stands prominently in the old citadel at Quebec, Samuel De Champlain- when those men were struggling for liberty in Europe, who was it that fought side by side with them 7 Why, Sir, the free men of Britain, and in every struggle that Huguenots and Dutchmen engaged in all through history they have fought shoulder to shoulder with the free men of Britain. And, Sir, had they been fighting in a just cause in Africa to-day, mark my words, they would have had the free men of Britain standing shoulder to shoulder with them again. There were also in that cause thousands of loyal Boers fighting for Britain.

Now what are the conditions ? The Boer people had been repeatedly saved by Britain from the attacks of the natives, they had been placed on their farms by Britain, they had been given their liberty by Britain, they had been protected. There was not a solitary farm that was not regularly visited by the Cape mounted policemen, and law and order were everywhere dominant. They were free from taxation, they were free from excise duties in South Africa. Neither directly nor indirectly have I ever heard any man pretend to say that the British Boers in South Africa had any cause of complaint, and I never met one of them that pretended to have any. Their only excuse was the race cry. Now, Sir, there has been a little too much of this race cry, not only in South Africa, but in Canada. We don't want these appeals to race and religion in this country. We want men to stand out in South Africa, and in Canada, on the basis of principle, and to leave race and religious cries out of the question entirely. Their only excuse in South Afx-ica was the race cry. When you come to analyse their plea, they say they were promised by the Kruger and Steyn oligarchy exemption from debt, they were promised the farms of the British loyalists, and the Boer loyalists too ; they were promised shares in the Rand and in the other great mining corporations in South Africa. These were the excuses they offered, and the excuses that are offered to-day by the Boer rebels, by the British colonials who rebelled in South Africa. These are the only excuses they make; and yet my hon. friend from North Simcoe-North Norfolk-coolly stands up in the House and asks for aii amnesty for this type of men. Now, I want to point out to him that these Boer rebels

in South Africa have lost little or nothing.

I could name scores of them who took the poor whites, labouring men and their families on their large estates, and forced them to go on much against their will and fight against Britain. But whenever things got dangerous they-the leaders-withdrew to their own farms, and as soon as the British came along they would then hob-nob with the British and become advisers, or interpreters, or counsellors, in order to escape the penalty due them for their disloyalty.

I will give you one instance, a very wealthy man named Puplessis. who comes from the bank of the Vaal river, at Middle Drift, near Kimberley. He brought a number of those poor Boers to work for him on a Sat-urdav. and his excuse was that he wanted them to build kraals for the cattle and sheep and goats. These poor whites came over with their utensils and implements in order to build these kraals. On Monday morning Duplessis, who was a field cornet of the Boers, commandeered every man of them and made them go to the front to fight. A number of these fellows were killed, and others were taken prisoners. There was one of them, whose name was Van Vuren, and the incident in connection with whom I know very well. He was taken prisoner, tried for being a rebel and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in South Africa for the offence of taking up arms against the British government, while the man who brought him over under false pretenses, commandeered him and compelled him to fight, because he is rich and stands in with the British officers, was let off with five year's disfranchisement. The prime mover of the whole district is disfranchised for five years, while the poor beggars who were commandeered are either buried under the sod, or breaking stones for a period of years in South Africa. This is one of the gentlemen that our hon. friend wishes to let off. The leading rebels have lost nothing. Their stock was unmolested by the Boer forces. It was always the loyalists' stock that was raided, and I say it would have paid the British loyalist in South Africa hands down ten times over, from a dollars and cents point of view, to have joined the Boer forces in South Africa at the beginning of this war. The Boer rebels in South Africa are treated better than the colonial loyalists in South Africa. The loyalists-both British and Boer-were driven from their homes. They ,had to escape as best they could, they had to leave their property at the mercy of these people, their women and children were left on the farms at the mercy of these Boers. X am very glad to say ' that in the great majority of cases the treatment accorded them was fair, but it was imprisonment all the same. They dared not communicate with their friends, they dared not touch one of their own animals, and they were practically prisoners on their farms. Their property was taken, yet the claims of the loyalists have been actually denied while their Boer neighbours who were disloyal have been paid pound for pound for all that was taken from them by the Boers in the course of the war. There is one case which I think is the most scandalous on record. Before one of these compensation courts a gentleman and his wife were proving their claim, but the British officer refused to allow their claim on the ground that the wife should have stayed on the farm-the wife, a young English lady, about 23 or 24 years of age, with an infant baby- and should have protected the farm against the Boers, and cared for the animals upon it. She inquired where was the strong right arm of Britain upon which British rights had depended. She depended upon the British soldier to protect her, and when he failed her, she was expected to have guarded the stock against the Boers. Her husband and all her relatives were fighting for Britain, and she was forced to leave the farm as a refugee. That is the treatment which was accorded British loyalists in South Africa. When I speak of British loyalists, I mean loyalists of British stock as well as of Boer stock, because I am proud to say that there are tens of thousands of Boers out there who from the start to the finish have been thoroughly loyal to Britain in this affair.

There is another class besides the colonial rebel, that, I maintain, should be excluded from any such resolution as this, and it is the hired mercenary, the soldier of fortune, the adventurer who joined the Boer ranks to fight against Britain. He certainly should be excluded from any such resolution as the one proposed by the hon. member for North Norfolk. If this resolution were to carry, or if this principle were to be adopted, it would put a premium on revolution, and that sort of thing will not do. If men have a just cause for rebelling, why, then, by all means, let us be civil to them when the war is over, but until the hon. gentleman can point out one solitary case of complaint on the part of the colonial rebel against the British government, then, I maintain, he has no excuse whatever for bringing any' such resolution before the House. It must be made a risky job for these gentlemen to turn out and murder a neighbour, destroy his property and rob him of his stock. The hon. gentleman who has preceded me spoke of the settlement when this war is over. There can only be one settlement for the British government, and I trust it will be a settlement along British lines. We will give them the rights and liberties of Britain, the rights and liberties that have made Britain great, we will give them her language, her literature and her history. If those institutions which have made Britain great, which have made her the envy of the nations, are not sufficient for the people of South Africa, then let the war continue to a finish, or until we bring these people to their senses. I would treat them fairly. The Free Staters and Trans-vaalers who lay down their arms should be

treated in a fair spirit, and I never would ask them to surrender as rebels, but with the colonial rebels I have no sympathy whatever, nor has any man who is at all cognizant of the facts of the case. I maintain that this is a mere piece of maudlin sentiment, and at all times in the world's history it has done more harm than good to bring any such opinions as these before any country on an occasion of this kind. It is time enough to be magnanimous and great when the people you are dealing with prove themselves Magnanimous and great, prove that they regret the course they have pursued, and that they are ready to give an absolute guarantee that on the first occasion which presents itself in the near future they will not rise and seek to destroy that flag that I saw floating from the top of this tower to-day. As I came in on the train to-day I saw that grand old flag torn almost to tatters, and I wondered what was going on in the House. When I reached here and found that the hon. member for North Norfolk had been holding forth upon the notion of granting amnesty to the rebels of South Africa, who had arisen ana murdered their neighbours, destroyed their property and robbed them of their goods, and who had turned the women and children into camps up and down the country-not the concentration camps that hon. gentlemen talk so much about-I could not but feel that the breeze blowing at the top of the tower had found possibly a fitting semblauce iu the wind that was blowing in the House of Commons.

Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).

Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the magnitude of the task of dealing with an imperial question in this Canadian parliament, but I do not object to the motion moved by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) on that account. If plain every day Canadians are good enough to give their lives to the empire, I suppose plain every day members of parliament are good enough to give their views in support of the prestige of the empire, or to pull down that prestige if it so pleases them. I consider it is perfectly legitimate for this parliament to discuss the question of the war in South Africa, but not altogether because of Canada's contribution in men and money. Canada has reason to be proud of her contributions in men, but I am not so sure about her reason to be proud of her contribution in money.

Hear, hear.