If the millions go in graft in the harbour of Quebec and in the constituencies along the shores of the counties in various parts of that province the hon. gentlemen will not kick, but so long Mr. HUGHES.
as they go to keep the old flag flying in Quebec there is a kick.
In close relation to the imperial navy.
Our policy is that our fleet should be part of the imperial navy. There is no measurable distance in connection with it.
Along the lines suggested by the admiralty.
These gentlemen in no sense have followed the lines suggested by the admiralty. Yet, they have the hardihood to ask us to support such a resolution.
Another clause of the resolution is:
In full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
But, the government in reserving to themselves the right to say whether or not that navy shall take part in a war in which Britain is engaged are departing from an essential part of the resolution of last year. The resolution concludes:
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.
The policy of the government departs from that. How can they have the nerve to stand up and ask us to join them in such a measure as they propose to-day. We are told there is no danger for the British empire. Well, Sir, what does the history of the world show. Thousands of years before the birth of Christ there was as great a nation as Britain is to-day, a nation relatively even greater. The Phoenician nation had all the liberties that Britain has to-day in many respects. Her ships traded in every sea, Carthage was a colony, Sardinia and Corsica were colonies, the Balearic islands, the southern part of Spain and parts of the British islands were colonies. The ships of the Phoenicians traded all along the northern coast of Africa, down the west coast, around the Cape of Good Hope, and to the distant Indies; their_cara-vans crossed every desert. It was that nation that furnished the Christian world with the religion of one God; it was that nation that furnished the world with the alphabet, the principles of mathematics, and the learning which has graced and benefited humanity. They had everything the heart could desire, and yet that nation fell. The Grecian states in succession rose and fell, other nations in the east rose and fell. In the year 256 B. C., the first Punic war came, Rome knew that Carthage had succeeded Phoenicia as mistress of the seas,
and Rome prepared a fleet in order to meet Carthage. Their fleets met off the coast of Sicily and 300,000 men were engaged in that sea fight, the greatest naval battle In the history of the world. The Carthaginian fleet was wiped out of existence by the fleet of Rome, although Rome was comparatively a new nation. Taking advantage of the system of boarding the enemy's fleet, which was not thought of by the Carthaginians, the latter were driven from the sea and disaster followed to Carthage. Nation after nation has risen in power and might and has gone down. And why? They all had liberty; they all had their parliaments. The statesmen of ancient Greece would put to blush the eloquence of this parliament here to-day. Gifted as is the First Minister, with his nickel-plated eloquence, he could not hold a candle to the orators of ancient Greece. In the Roman Senate addresses were delivered which are still the wonder of the world. These men had liberty as we have liberty, they had education as we have education, they had religions and creeds galore, they had,temples and churches and colonies, they had sister nations, but they have all vanished. And why? They began to live on their past records, they became self-important, they became wealthy-and gentlemen on the other side of the House tell us that the chief ambition of a nation is to become wealthy and opulent. As they became wealthy they became impotent, they neglected the principles of liberty, they centralized, they became sister nations instead of being part and parcel of the one great nation; they did not understand the principle of decentralization in non-essentials, while retaining control in a central government over matters of great national character. They forgot that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; they did not realize that while it takes a thousand years to form a state, an hour may lay an empire in the dust. Shall we, in these days, forget our duty to the empire and to humanity; shall we embrace the spirit of militarism which has been the bane of many nations, instead of upholding the principle of democratic military training under which every citizen will do hig, duty to the state, by which every boy of ten years and upwards shall be trained to shoot and every boy of fourteen and upwards be trained to command his company. Shall we not place ourselves in the position as we can easily do, of being able to put a million men in the field, each one of whom would be a good rifleman. Shall we not place ourselves in an inpregnable position in Canada, and thus become a tremendous strength to the motherland in time of war. Our duty is to unite in one great imperial federation. Oceans no longer divide, the genius of man has overcome distance, and
ships can traverse the ocean as rapidly as trains can cross the land. If you want to blockade the Canadian Pacific railway between here and Winnipeg all you have to do is to blow up a bridge on the north shore of Lake Superior, but you cannot block the pathless ocean against the traffic of ships of commerce, or ships of war.
I maintain, Sir, that for the benefit of humanity, and the building up of the empire, our duty is to stand shoulder to shoulder in a union of the whole empire. It is said that in the course of time the 3un must go down on the British empire.
I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I make this prophecy; that if the sun ever does set on the British empire, it will rise next morning on the empire of Greater Britain.
(Translation.) Now. a few words to the Prime Minister and to my fellow citizens in the province of Quebec. The population of that province is the offspring of a race whose name and practice are always in favour of liberty, e La belle France is but another name for freedom and loyalty.
As in England the Normans and Huguenots were the best citizens amongst the British nation, so the Frenchmen in Canada, at every period were characterized_ by all the virtues of good citizens; that is, they are characterized by integrity, honour, energy and enterprise; they are also thrifty, witty and courageous.
The political chieftains in the province of Quebec, in our two parties, do not show them the Confidence they deserve.
I ask the Prime Minister to stump Quebec in order to teach the good citizens in that province that the empire of our greater Britain is to continue to give them the right they have enjoyed so far. But they must remain steady and loyal in order to maintain under all difficult circumstances and against any danger, the integrity of the British empire and the majesty of the Union Jack.
Mr. Speaker, this question, which is one of the greatest questions that has ever been brought before this parliament, has been so thoroughly discussed that it is difficult for one now speaking to bring forward any new matter. I did hope that this great question would be discussed without party feeling. I did hope that the two great parties in parliament, having passed the resolution of last session, would have united in carrying it into effect. As a new member, I must say that I do not like the reflections that have been made by the hon. members of the opposition on the right hon. leader of the government and on members of the government. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen do not think
that the right hon. leader of the government is disloyal. I do not believe that members of the government party are disloyal. Since I have been here I have not heard one sentiment of disloyalty pronounced by any hon. gentleman or seen any such sentiment given effect to. I know that the members of the government party are loyal, and I know that every member of the opposition is loyal. I believe that we have in the right hon. leader of the government as loyal a man as we ever had in Canada, and a great statesman. I believe that we have in the hon. leader of the opposition a gentleman of the highest integrity and character, and a loyal man. Therefore, I say that it is beneath the dignity of any member of this House to give utterance to sentiments impugning the loyalty of any gentleman here present. I am loyal; I am a grandson of a loyalist. I may say further that I am an imperialist. I say that, because I have heard a number of members declare that they were not imperialists. It has also been asserted here-what I never thought would be said in parliament -that the right honourable leggier of the government was against sending men to South Africa. Unless the government at that time had responded to public sentiment, and sent men to South Africa, so far as I am concerned, and so far, I believe, as every man in the maritime provinces is concerned, they would not have had one supporter. But I cannot find that there was any holding back on the part of the right hon. leader of the government in that matter. 1 find that the right hon. gentleman left on the 7th of October for Chicago and returned on the 12th. I find that the Boer ultimatum was issued on the 9th of October, that it was rejected on the 10th, and that war was declared on the Uth. I find that Sir Wilfrid on the 12th of October declared that he would send a contingent to South Africa even if his government were defeated in consequence thereof. Then I find that on the 13th of October, an order in council was passed to send a contingent; and it reflects great credit on the Militia Department that within such a very short time the contingent was recruited, equipped and sent. At that time no regular regiment, supposed to be ready for service, was able to get ready and sail any more quickly than the contingent we raised, equipped, armed and put on ship-board. But our hon. friends of the opposition, who have given expression to such ultra-loyal feelings, cannot have forgotten what was stated by Mr. Bour-assa, in a debate in this House in 1906. Mr. Bourassa, who is now, one might say, the Moses of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, stated this on page 98 of 'Hansard' of that year:
My attitude regarding the South African war was that observed by Sir John A. Macdonald m 1885, when he refused to the British authorities the right to enroll men in Canada for the British army in the Soudan.
Let hon. gentlemen of the opposition take that to their hearts and what do they think of it? What a howl they would nave made if that action had been taken by any man on the Liberal side! While they sat under it quietly and without a protest at that time, I am satisfied that the gentlemen who compose the opposition in this House to-day would not support a policy of that kind. Any member of the opposition who would declare such a policy to-day would be almost driven out of the party. I am sure that any man on the government side would be. But I will go on and read further what Mr. Bourassa said:
My attitude on that question was the same that Sir Charles Tapper took in 1893 when he said in Winnipeg that the idea of basing a closer union between Great Britain and her colonies upon the principle of unity in defence of the empire, was a false one, that Canada had done all she could do, all that she ought to be forced to do for imperial defence, when she fortified her own territory and developed hnr own resources by building railways in the North-west and giving communication to British troops between England and Asia.
There is no doubt that the statements made there are correct. If they were not correct, why did not some of the gentlemen on the opposition side at that time get up and deny them? The statements were made on the floor of the House and were put in ' Hansard,' and have never been denied. I have made inquiries, and I find that these statements are absolutely correct. I defy any hon, gentleman of the opposition to say that the statement made by Mr. Bourassa as regards the action of Sir John Macdonald in 1885 was not correct.
He was not loyal enough for us, so we gave him to you. He was not loyal enough for us, because he was against our sending troops to South Africa, and so we handed him over to your party. But I do ask, why refer to irrelevant matters of that kind? Every one knows that Sir John Macdonald was a loyal man, that Sir Charles Tupper is a loyal man, an ultra-loyal man. Can there be any doubt that the right hon. the leader
of the government is a loyal man, and that the members of the government and those supporting the government, are just as loyal as any one in opposition? Can there be any doubt that, in case of emergency, in case England wanted our assistance, there would be any man on the government side who would hesitate to give it?
MeLEAN. It is not. My great grandfather fought with the loyalists, and when my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) condemned the action of the loyalists in making the sacrifices they did, in fighting for their king at that time, and then coming to this new country, rather than remain under a foreign flag, I say this is a matter which has nothing to do with the subject under debate, but which I would like to discuss with him at some other time. The Union Jack is good enough, Mr. Speaker, for me, as it was good enough for my forefathers, and I hope to live and die under the old flag.
Now, will you allow me to refer to the resolution of the 29th of March, and in that connection, I want to say this. I want to say that I, as a young member, am proud of the stand which was then taken by the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the leader of the opposition when they joined hands for the empire and agreed to a resolution whereby Canada showed her readiness to offer naval assistance to Great Britain. I listened with great pride to the speech made by the hon. the leader of the opposition in London, the 1st of July last. When he said he was true to that resolution, passed on the 29th of March, and that he hoped Canada would soon have a navy of her own, that declaration aroused tremendous applause from the vftrv large number present. The fact that Canada was going to organize a Canadian navy was the one thing which every man you met in Great Britain seemed to approve of. I listened, with approval, to the splendid speech made by the hon. the leader of the opposition on January 12. He then said:
We have no Dreadnought ready; we have no fleet unit at hand. But w'e have the resources and I trust the patriotism to provide a fleet unit or at least a Dreadnought without one moment's unnecessary delay.
I agree with the leader of the opposition with regard to the fleet unit. I say that while the providing of these cruisers is a splendid action on the part of the government. we ought to go still further, and I would like to see one or two cruisers of the 'Indomitable' Dreadnought type provided.
MeLEAN. But referring to that proposition, my hon. friends Svho say, 'hear, hear,' will not be pleased with what I am going to say now. I am in favour of the greatest assistance being given Great Britain. The reason a fleet unit should be nrovided is that, two cruisers and one ' Indomitable ' would be better than five cruisers without an ' Indomitable.' However, I am perfectly prepared to take the advice of the admiralty in this matter; and I hope that it will not be very long before we will have an ' Indomitable ' and cruisers of the highest type. But,'let us appreciate what is being done. First, we are providing four Bris-tols of the highest type of cruisers afloat. It is true that none of them have been put in commission yet. The Bristol is supposed to be put in commission this year. She is. to have a speed as high as 27 knots per hour, is to be armed with 10 4-inch guns and 2 - 6-inch guns, in addition there will be three torpedo tubes, and as regards the cruiser type, she is to he absolutely ahead of any vessel of that class. The destroyers are to be of the very latest pattern. So that as regards cruisers, with the exception of the armoured cruisers of the ' Indomitable ' type, a Bristol can handle any other vessel she may be brought up against. In case of war, we know that Germany would undoubtedly send out privateers. That great authority, Lord Charles Beresford, has said that in the hold of every tramp vessel belonging to Germany are guns which they can mount in case of need. So that having that class of the fastest cruiser, we can more than hold our own against any vessel except those of the ' Indomitable ' type.
Again, as regards the furnishing of an ' Indomitable,' the proposition of the hon. the leader of the opposition to simply give money to the British admiralty to be spent as they may see fit, does not appeal to me. Here are his words:
Giving the admiralty full discretion to expend the said sum at such time and for such purpose of naval defence as in their judgment may best serve to increase the strength of the empire and thus assure its peace and security.
Surely, the hon. gentlemen belonging to the opposition should not approve of that policy. It seems to me a cowardly thing to simply hand over our money and not our men, and not to have any vessel of our own to take part in the fight. Not having any vessels of our own manned by Canadians, but simply sending over our money to the admiralty to invest in ships, would take from us that immediate, intimate interest in our contribution to the navy which we otherwise would have. It is quite clear that the British admiralty cannot furnish the armament and the guns for
They wanted suggestions, and when the matter was discussed, they say: Give us the fast cruisers, the scout type, give us destroyers; place so many on the Pacific and so many on the Atlantic because we .recognize that with your double sea-board that will be better than to have the unit type. I have said, and I say it again, that personally- though I may be extravagant in this matter-I would be in favour of having a full unit on the Atlantic and, when we can af-
The nearest British port of anv naval value to the west coast of Canada is 5,'000, 6,000 miles away. This distance" is only traversible by the largest war vessels (cruiser or battleship) at low speed. . . . The connection of the Canadian fleet with the rest of our naval forces, would he entirely dependent in war on the good-will of the only powers that, who for very many- years at least, can possibly threaten her Pacific coast. In a war with the United States, a Canadian fleet, placed as you suggest, would be at once isolated. Ia a war with an east-Asian power, the naval defence of the west coast of North America can best be carried out by a fleet operating from Singapore and Hong Kong.
If the opinions of this gentleman, for the reasons given, commend themselves to the judgment of hon. members present, they can take them; certainly, they commend themselves to me.
, Now, I wish to refer to one of the leading admiralty authorities of England as regards this question of cruisers. His article was published in the 'Fortnightly Review' for May, 1908. He says:
I advocate India and the colonies owning their own scouts, destroyers and submarines, as it would be out of the question for these types of small craft to be sent out when once war had been declared, no matter how pressing might be the need for them.
Other advantages might be enumerated as follows:-
1. Great usefulness at comparatively small expense. . , , , . . .
2 As the professional knowledge required is much the same in all the types of vessels here advocated, the officers and men would undergo a uniform standard of training, and would he able to take service in any type of colonial ship or boat. .
3. The officers would become highly trained specialists in practically one particular branch of naval warfare, and would possess an intimate knowledge of the pilotage of their own territorial waters.
1. If the scouts and destroyers were fitted with turbine machinery and oil fuel, this method of propulsion, being very simple and easily worked, would mean comparatively small complements, both below and on deck, thus enabling higher wages to be paid, and thereby ensuring a good class of men entering the service.
There is the opinion of one of the highest naval authorities in England declaring that this is the correct policy. There can be no doubt that it is the correct policy. As regards the guarding of our coasts, scouts, cruisers and that class of vessels are the kind we want for the purpose. As I have said before, they could beat any vessels below the armoured cruiser class or the protected cruiser. That being the case, I say that if we have, in addition to that, a cruiser of the Indomitable type we get practically clear of any danger through Germany sending to our coasts vessels below the Indomitable type in case of war. Take, for example, the Atlantic coast; that coast is very easily guarded. The entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence is Belle1 Isle Straits, which are narrow and 40 miles long. One or two destroyers could guard that entrance. The other entrance is Cabot Strait, between Cape Ray and Cape North, that is between Cape Breiton and Newfoundland;. With two destroyers or a scout cruiser it would be difficult for any privateer or any vessel, except one of tjie very largest class, to get through that entrance. Then practically you have, after leaving Quebec, about 600 miles of protected water before the vessel would get out on the high seas. When it was out on the high seas, as is pointed out by Mr. Hamilton in some very clever articles he has been writing in the 'University Monthly,' she would be comparatively free from attack, as to find her would be like hunting for a needle in a hav stack.
Then take the Bay of Fundy. The entrance there is only twenty miles broad. Vessels have to keep clear of Muir Ledgese, they have to pass between Gannet Rock on one side, Brier island on the other, so that the entrance there is so narrow that it can be easily guarded and protected. Therefore, I say that with a very little expense, because Halifax with
the guns she has is well protected, our eastern coast could be defended. We found at Santiago at the time of the war between Spain and the United States that a few guns on land were more effective than four or five times their number at _ sea. The obsolete guns which the Spanish had at Santiago were able to keep at bay the whole American fleet. Therefore, I say that we will be able to do what the admiralty want us to do, that is to effectually protect our own coast line and effectually guard our commerce until the ships get on the high seas. _
A great deal has been said about the 'German Scare.' I may say that I do not agree with many _ of my
friends on the government side that this is a scare. As far as I can find by looking into this question the action taken by Germany is a very serious one. Unless England now carries out the policy she has adopted, Germany would in a few years become strong enough to force the issue with England, and perhaps might make it very doubtful. But the result is that England is aroused now, last year four vessels were laid down and this year eight will be built. I want to
call attention to the class of vessels England is now building. We have heard about the Dreadnought class, that is a vessel of
17,000 tons, with 21,000 horse-power, armed with ten 12-inch guns. Now they have the super-Dreadnought type, a vessel of 22,000. odd tons with greater horse-power, and some of them are proposed to be armed with 13-5-inch guns. They are laying down this year four of the largest class of superDreadnoughts. Let me call your attention to one vessel that England is laying down this year, that is what is called the Capital cruiser type. This vessel has over 80,000 horse-power. Think of that! She will have a speed of over thirty knots, and as you all know, a knot is one and one;eighth miles. She is to be armed with twelve 13-5 guns, the largest now being made. She is to be armed also with a number of 10.6-inch guns and a number of 4-inch guns. A vessel of that class with 80,000 horse-power, armed as she is and with,her great speed would be practically invincible.
Another type that England is now laying down is called the Destroyer type. It i3 called a destroyer of destroyers. Vessels of this type have a speed of over thirty-eight knots. The ' Tarter ' lately made a record of over forty knots. She is armed with four 4-inch guns, and has a torpedo tube. Here is a vessel capable of doing tremendous execution in case of trouble. These are the newer types. We remember that since the time of the ' Admiral ' class every type of battleship has been made larger until we came to the Dreadnought type. Since then, we are go-
thrift, intelligence and the prosperity of her people, illustrates to mankind the advantages of training her citizens, in their youth and manhood, to the use of arms. The habits of -discipline and the order and cleanliness of person. It is recognized today as a national characteristic, that the womanhood of that nation look with reproach upon men ignorant of military training. Germany is well to the fore in all that belongs to the twentieth century civilization. The greatest lesson of all we learn from China. There is a nation of 3,000,000,000 to 4,000,000,000 of people. Honest traders, inoffensive, and unaggre-ssive. A nation which, from its physical character, the industrious habits of its people, and its natural resources, should have been the last to arouse hostility. It neglected its defence on water, and we now see the result. The nations in possession of navies are trying to tear it to pieces and divide the spoil. Do we hear of any of these nations being worried by honest scruples? No. The whole dispute is over the division of the spoils.
Reference was made by the Minister of Railways to the splendid internal canal system of Germany, and all that has been done within the last ten years. But, now that England is aroused we need not fear any danger. We know very well that with England's resources she is now building at the rate of eight ships per year, and that she will never again allow -Germany to approach near the, danger point.. The statement of some hon. gentlemen that , there will be a war in a year or two seems to be absurd. It has never been stated bv any naval authority in England that Germany could hope to enter into successful war with England even in the year 1912. Up to that date Germany would certainly be far outclassed. We must further remember that although Germany may be building these new ships she has to take men from the farms to man them. Germany has no large coast line to support a maritime people, and the men for these ships are taken by a system of what -we would call force. They are forced to serve in the German navy, as they are forced to serve in the German army for a number of years, and while there is no doubt that after a time they do make good seamen, yet it is fair to say that even after these new ships are built it will take some years before the men are trained and before she is able to go to war with England. Now, let me point out to the House that in the year 1912, which it is prophesied by some may be the year of danger, Britain will have 22 Dreadnoughts, super-Dreadnoughts and Dreadnought cruisers; her naval programme for 1909 provides for the building of eight of the super-Dreadnought Mr. H. H. McLEAN.
type. The Navv League annual shows that in 1912 England will have 22 Dreadnoughts, super-Dreadnoughts and cruisers, as I have already mentioned. But look at the improvement in these ships. The first Dreadnought was 17,900 tons and the last four ships of the super-Dreadnought class are to be of 25,000 tons. The first Dreadnought had 23.000 horse power, but the super-Dreadnoughts are to have 45,000 horse power and a speed of 23 knots instead of the Dreadnought speed of 22 -4. They are to be armed with ten 13.5 inch guns and fourteen 6 inch guns. I might give a short description of these guns as follows:
The 16 -25-inch gun.
The principal details of the 110-ton gun are as follows: It has a bore of 16J inches in diameter, and is 43J feet long. Its projectile is 1,800 pounds in weight, and is propelled by a charge of slow-burning cocoa powder weighing 900 pounds. This gun can only be fired at the rate of one round every seven minutes, and the life of it is not estimated to exceed 100 rounds. Now obselete.
The 13 -5-inch gun.
The 13 -5-inch gun throws a projectile weighing 1,250 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 2,016 feet per second, and with a firing charge of 630 pounds of powder has an energy of penetrating 25 inches of wrought iron at 3,000 yards.
The 12-inch gun.
Next in order we come to the 12-inc-h gun, which, with various modifications of design, remains the standard heavy British naval gun of the present time. The total length of this magnificent gun is 617 -7 inches. The initial velocity of its projectile is 3,010 foot-seconds, which gives a muzzle energy of 53,400 foot-tons; the effective range against an average modern armoured warship is computed roughly at about four miles, and the extreme range is 25,000 yards, at which limit the remaining velocity of the shell would be so relatively small as to render it comparatively harmless save by virtue of its own weight.
When we remember that the latest British Dreadnought type of battleship are armed with ten of these mighty pieces of ordnance apiece, the tremendous concentration of their powers of aggression makes contemplation of the future naval battle simply appalling.
The 10-inch gun.
The 10-inc.h gun is a weapon that has been fitted to a few of our battleships, although it has never found particular favour amongst tine gunnery experts of the British navy. The Vickers' pattern of this weapon, which is largely used in the Russian, Italian, Japanese, and United States navies, is 34 -5 tons in weight, has a length of 45 calibres (464 -9 inches, including breech-chamber), and throws a projectile of 500 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 3,000 foot-seconds, and a muzzle energy of 30,990 foot-tons.
The 9 -2-inch gun.
Continuing to follow the category of primary weapons in the order of their size, we come now to the 9-2-inch gun, which is the most popular and in its way the most useful piece of artillery in the British fleet. It is
to be found alike in our battleships and big cruisers, and, whilst it lacks the shattering power of the heavier weapons against modern armour, yet its remarkable penetrative qualities, coupled with its rapid fire delivery-three rounds per minute-renders it a deadly effective gun. The Woolwich pattern, Mark X, of this type, weighs 28 tons unmounted, is of 46-6 calibres in length (extreme total 442-.35 inches), and has a muzzle velocity of 2,800 foot-seconds with a muzzle energy" of 20,685 foot-tons. The projectile weighs 380 pounds, and has a striking power at a range of 3,000 yards equal to carrying it through 25 inches of wrought iron.
The 7 -5-inch gun.
The 7-5-inch gun, of Vickers' wire-wound pattern, weighs 16 tons without mountings, is 50 calibres long (extreme length 386-7 inches), and has a muzzle of 3,007 foot-seconds, giving the projectile a muzzle energy of 12,540 foot-tons.
The 6-incli gun.
The 6-inch gun has been said, not inappropriately, to mark the strict limit to the quick fire series, although not officially so regarded. But its projectile of 100 pounds in weight is the heaviest that can be man-handled, and the result is that the weapon can be fired at the rate of twelve rounds per minute. Indeed, nothing but the necessity of waiting for the recoil to spend itself restricts the rapidity of fire delivery with the 6-inch piece. The latest (1908) Elswick pattern weight 8f tons, is 50 calibres in length (total over all 315 inches), and has the remarkably high muzzle velocity of 3,050 foot-seconds, with a muzzle energy of 6,492 foot-tons.
The 4-7 inch, the 4 inch and Small Q. F. Guns.
The biggest and most familiar type of naval ' mosquito ' armament is the 4 -7-inch, gun, immortalized by the memorable part it played in the salvation of Ladysmith. This weapon in its latest type weights 3 -27 tons, is 45 calibres in length, and throws a shell 45 pounds in weight, with a muzzle velocity of 2,925 foot-seconds, and an energy sufficient to penetrate 8 -6 inches of wrought iron at a range of 2,000 yards. But excellent as this gun has proved itself, it has been quite supplanted as a light quick-firer by the 4-inch, wire-wound pattern. This is a piece of ordnance of extroardinary range and penetrative powers for its size. Its wpight unmounted is 2,018 tons, and its length 50 calibres (giving an extreme measurement of 208-45 inches). It discharges a projectile 31 pounds in weight at a muzzle velocity of 3,030 foot-seconds, and with a degree of energy equal to penetrating 16 inches of wrought iron at the muzzle. The fire delivery of this gun is estimated at 15 rounds per minute. The 3-inch, naval gun is, strictly speaking, the smallest weapon which can legitimately be classed as big warship ordnance. Below this we come to mere popguns, throwing 6 pound and 3 pound projectiles, and machine guns, which rattle forth a hailstorm of 1-457 inch, bullets at a rate of 300 rounds per minute. These weapons are really designed to repel boat attacks, and within the limits of their effective range would prove very deadly. The 3-inch, gun referred to above, in its latest pattern (1908), has a
length of 50 calibres (156-9 inches over all), weighs 19 cwts. unmounted, and throws a projectile of 12-5 pounds in weight, at the rate of 25 rounds per minute, with a muzzle velocity of 2,700 foot-seconds, and a penetrative energy equal to passing through 9 -65 inches of wrought iron at the muzzle.
The four supeT-Dreadnoughts and capital cruiser ships are to be laid down in April, 1910, and they are to be put in commission in March, 1912. I wish also to -refer to another authority, and it may fairly be said that this authority is not prejudiced. The authority to which I refer is Pulsifer, who, in the United States navy book for 1909, gives the following as the comparative strength of the navies of Great Britain and Germany at the present time.
When we come to the total number of ships and the total tonnage we find that England has of firsfrdass battleships, armoured cruisers, torpedo boat destroyers, all effective 494 with a tonnage 2,005,873, and Germany has a total of 233 ships with a tonnage of 820,692.
From this it will be seen that at the present time the British navy is superior to the German navy by more than the two to one standard. It is therefore, fair to say, that at the present there is no danger from Germany as regards her navy, either now or in 1912, when these vessels aTe built, and that in 1917, England will be better prepared than ever to cope with Germany if the need should be. But, the point I want to emphasize is this: That
in 1917, Canada, instead of adopting the policy propounded by the opposition of giving money and doing nothing else, Canada in 1917 will have at least 800 first-class, thoroughly trained men for these cruisers of ours. In addition to that we will have
I want to call attention also to our mercantile marine. At present, Great Britain stands first in the world with 12,000,000 tons odd, Germany comes second, and the United States third, and Canada at present stands ninth. But, with 70,000 more tons, Canada would pass Italy and stand sixth.
Criticism has been made regarding the building of these ships in Canada. Well, it does seem to me that that is the very best thing the government of this country could do. It excites one's ire to hear men talking about our not being able to go into this line of business. Why, we have had to bring skilled operators from other countries to start our manufactories, and Canada, in the old days of wooden ships, was able to build the best ships in the world. Scotland could not compete with her. We know that the fastest skipper ship ever built, came out of a St. John shipyard- the ' Mareo Polo.' And now when steel plate has taken the place of wood, we know that we have all the raw material necessary for steel ship building and all that we require is the plant and trained mechanics. Of course, it is not possible for any private individual at present to establish a plant large enough, but on looking over the register, I find that over 600 steam vessels now on our register were built outside of Canada and that practically very few have been built here. Take the one firm in St. John, Wm. Thompson & Company; they had fourteen steel steamships-ocean steamers-built on the other side. But as against these croakers who decry our capabilities, let me point to the example of Germany, and let me point out that Japan 18 years ago did not have a steel vessel. But Japan started to build up her navy, she got one of these big contractors from Scotland and started a plant, and she is to-day not only building her own ships of war, but also her mercantile vessels, and she is doing this to such an extent that she is now eighth in the list of countries owning ships. Germany's example, however, is still more marked. The first liner built in a German yard was built in 1887. To-day, in the German yards, are built not only her own ships, but also ships for foreign powers. They have built 757 steel ships besides four warships for foreign nations, and yet only fifty years ago, her whole navy was sold at auction.
When you think that, in 1887, her first vessel was built, when you think that it was not till 1898. that she commenced really to put down the keels and build her own steel vessels, and when you find these results, this great development of steel shipbuilding, and when you remember also that German plants were started by Scotchmen-of course the Germans rapidly learned the business, and they are able to carry it on now-why should any man say that Mr. H. H. McliEAN.
what Japan has done, what Germany has done, what other nations have done, in establishing these building plants, we cannot do in Canada? And it is a frivolous, childish objection, it seems to me, to say that it is going to cost you more to build your ships here than in England, and it is going to take you a year longer. But is it not a great thing to know that the establishment of a steel building plant in Canada, and the building of these war vessels, eleven in all, will start the steel building industry and shipyards, providing new employment for thousands of skilled men at 'big wages-for these men do get big wages? We shall be starting in Canada the biggest industry we ever had. For we are a maritime nation. Men who live by the sea, as do a number of the gentlemen present, know the enormous amount of money that is made by carrying freights. They know that for us to pay out the best part of our money to foreign ships to carry our produce is not Canadian, it is not business. Surely it would be better for us, with the enormous amount of our export business, that we should carry it in Canadian ships? A further fact is that which I have already mentioned- that over 600 steam vessels on the registry were built outside of Canada. Then, there is the point that made a great impression upon me, that nine-tenths of the cost of a steel vessel goes out in wages. Of course, you understand, there is the ore to be taken from the mines. Then it has to be smelted-and we can do that at Sydney. Then there is the work to be done on the hull, and all the rest, so that nine-tenths of the cost goes in wages to those employed in connection with it. That is a marvellous fact. It shows, when this industry is started, what a great thing it will be for Canada. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the day will come when we shall be united in one great power, forming a federation of great nations, a confederation for the purpose of consolidating power against foreign countries, and a moral influence on all international questions. Nations can only enjoy their freedom by being able to defend it. The true policy for us is to be closely united, to be thoroughly organized and equipped, and to be able to use our whole strength to the greatest advantage for the common safety of Great Britain. Canadians desire to be free and safe. It must be in an empire to which we are attached by every tie, to which we must render effective service, if necessary give our all, for the common defence, if we are to expect the forces of that mighty empire to be at our back when our lives as free people arie threatened, we should show a square front to any enemy that may attack us. We must be ready to play our part towards the security of our country, and if occasion offers, be ready to defend. For de-
fence, because every great thinker, and every man who has studied the subject, knows that we may have war upon us at any moment. Take the last words of that great statesman, Lord Dufferin, when he says:
Nothing, neither a sense of justice, nor the precepts of religion, nor the interests of humanity, would prevent any nation from attacking us at the first favourable opportunity.
And Joseph Howe, forty years ago, wrote in his essay on ' The organization of the empire
Security for peace is only to be sought in such an organization and armament of the whole empire as will make a certainty of defeat a foregone conclusion to any foreign power that may attempt to break it.
Something has been said about the Monroe doctrine. Let me say one word about it. It seems to me that the plea of the Monroe doctrine has been effectually answered and the doctrine shattered. We must not forget that for us to depend on the protection of the United States would be a cowardly position for us to take- that we should wait and ask the United States to keep away any bad people that want to come against us. It would be very doubtful whether the United States would be able to do it. But what would be her price? It would mean that we should give up our independence. We should go into the United States to bear a part of the enormous expenses they are under. Our provinces would not receive the subsidies they are receiving; our industries and manufactures would no longer flourish, and perhaps she -would take away from us all our raw products to manufacture them over there. That would probably be the price she would ask.
We have not received from the United States very much consideration in the past. In 1785 we had trouble with them- an invasion. In 1812 there was another invasion from the United States. Then, there was the Fenian raid in 1860, and of the enormous sum of money that we had to pay for the defence of Canada, not one dollar did we get back from the United States. There was the Trent affair; there was the New Brunswick matter, the Aris-took war, when our friends in Nova Scotia volunteered to send us 10,000 men to help us. That, of course, is not a matter mentioned now, but it was very acute at that time. That trouble was over a little bit of territory they wanted to get away from us. There was also the Venezuela affair. About the 1st of January, 1896, President Cleveland issued his message in reference to a dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. It was couched in the most hostile terms, most insulting in its character. Among European nations it would have 1214
been accepted as a declaration of war. This was approved of by the United States as a whole. From 42 out of 45 States messages of approval came to President Cleveland, with offers of the services of their militia to be used in the invasion of Canada. It shows you what we could expect from the United States in case we got into a tight corner. But we hope, of course, that we shall be able to get along in peace and quietness with the United States. We shall be able to get along with the United States while we respect ourselves and while we show that we are able to defend ourselves. I am not one of those who believe that, in case the United States attempted to invade us, she would have an easy time. With a smaller number of people we have been able to hold our own in every invasion and to beat the United States in every fight that has come up. I am not saying this as a rag to the United States, or a chip on the shoulder or anything like that, but it is fair to say that since 1785 every invasion of Canada was 'brought on us not by out fault, but by the aggression of the United States and without excuse. The Venezuela affair, of course, was the worst and latest. But we ought to dwell in peace with the United States, that is our desire, we have never in the past given any occasion for offence, we do not in the future intend giving any occasion for offence. We hope to live with them as friendly neighbours should live. But I repeat that I believe if it did come to an invasion by the United States they would find that we could hold our own as our fathers did before us and would be able successfully to defend ourselves.
And now in conclusion let me ask you to support the establishment of a Canadian navy, so that we can -quote with truth the words of Kipling:
Carry the word to my sisters,
To the Queens of the East and the South,
I have proved faith in the heritage By more than the word of the mouth. They that are wise may follow 'Ere the world's war trumpet blows,
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the House at this hour of the night, but I do not care to give a silent vote on this question, which I consider of such importance to the country. I must say in reference to the hon. gentleman, who has just taken his seat, that I do not intend to criticise his speech very much, because it has been a speech most of which could very readily be credited to this side of the House. I must say that those who have spoken of what may be considered a crisis, in the light and jocular manner that some gen-
tlemen opposite have spoken of it have received their answer from the hon. gentleman. I must attribute to my hon. friend a good deal of courage. I can see by his speech and by his training that he is a fighting man and he has had a good deal of courage to charge the fighting man of the government, the Minister of Militia, with cowardice. I think that the Minister of Militia has said that the Munroe doctrine was of great interest to us, that it was a great protection to us and the hon. gentleman (Mr. H. H. McLean) says it is cowardice to say that. He has a fighting quality about him. He criticised the statement made that it will cost more to build a navy in Canada. To whom can we attribute that statement? His leader was the first man who mentioned that in the House, and he said it would cost 30 per cent or one-third more to build a navy in Canada than in England. I think he is a good honest critic of the other side of the House.
I do not think long speeches will build a navy, I am rather inclined to think they will delay it, but some things have been said in this House with which I do not agree. A good deal has been said about launching the country into militarism. A navy is just the opposite of militarism, and if you wish to go back in history, you will see that the battle of Trafalgar hindered the greatest military organization that this world has ever seen. What did Pitt say? That England had saved herself by her exertions and she intended to save Europe by her example.
They say that we want to build this navy in Canada. That is a laudable object, but perhaps it is the lowest possible ground on which you could put this question today. If there is a crisis then the most effective way of meeting that crisis is our duty, wherever it may be. I shall not endeavour to prove whether there is a crisis or not, but the prominent public men of England, of both political parties, men not apt to lose their heads in a crisis, have indicated to the world that there is a crisis. Then the duty of Canada is to assist in thwarting the purpose of whoever intends to bring to England that crisis. Does any one pretend to say that the proposal of the government will in any sense meet that crisis? Does any one pretend that a navy or dock-yard started this year in Canada for the purpose of building war vessels in the next five or ten years will meet that crisis? Does any one pretend to say that if we had our navy ready to-morrow and fully equipped it would in any sense assist to meet the crisis? If there was trouble between Germany and England-and God forbid there ever shall be any such trouble-a great naval battle would take place and that battle would not Mr. BRODER.
last more than fifteen or twenty days at the most, then where is your Canadian navy to assist England? The result would be that England's ports would be blockaded. If Germany became victorious, England's ports would be blockaded, and the Canadian navy would be as helpless as an infant in the cradle to help England in the crisis. The bounden duty of Canada is to rise in her loyalty to the empire and to British connection and to do her the most effective service if there is a crisis as we are told there is.
We have heard a good deal from the opposition side of the House from the right hon. leader down to the smallest singer of the song, and what has it been? The 20th century for Canada! Look at our great resources', look at our great revenue. The 20th century is Canada's. They would thus lead England to great expectations and hopes in reference to Canada's assistance to the empire and when they come to offer their gift, what is it? In the first instance it is a flat refusal. Who makes that refusal? The right hon. gentleman who leads the government of this country. He said in this House a few days ago, as an answer to the proposition from the leader of the opposition, that the matter should be submitted to the people, he said it had been before the country. How has it been before the country? In 1907 the right hon. gentleman in the conference absolutely refused to do what he is proposing to do to-day. I am not asking him to take my statement, I shall read what the right hon. gentleman did say in the conference in answer to a resolution moved by a gentleman from South Africa. I shall read the resolution and shall show that the Premier of Canada flatly refused to vote for it, and out of respect to his refusal that resolution was withdrawn. Then he went to the country in 1908, making this refusal and the country endorsed him; hence, they must have endorsed his refusal. Then, it is necessary that we should go to the country with his present proposition. Let us see what he says: Dr. Smart!, a colleague of Dr. Jameson, moving the following resolution:
That this conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make such contribution towards the up-keep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-the contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the admiralty and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.
That embodied the proposition that is before the House to-day in a sense. What did the First Minister say in answer to that only two and a half years ago?
I am sorry to say, so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in that respect in our country before committing ourselves to a general claim. The government of Canada has done a great deal in that respect. Our action was not understood, but I was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. Ic is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter.
The disproportion is too great between the mother country and the colonies. We have too much to do otherwise^ in the mother country, you must remember, they have no expenses to incur with regard to public works; whereas, in most of the colonies, certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources in the development of our country, and we could not contribute, or undertake to do more than we are doing in that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed ro a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.
What was before the country was his flat refusal to do anything in any respect. Then he says that this matter, having been before the country, there is now no neces-[DOT] sity of submitting it to the people. We hear a great deal with reference to the right hon. gentleman's attitude by hon. members of this House, who endeavour to square it with his past record; we hear him eulogized by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who say that his name will go down through the annals of history when hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are not heard of. Well, it is to be hoped as he lived in history and ceases to act, his record will appear more consistent. Why, is it necessary that we should have some interest in the navy? They say: You are going to
givj $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 to England, and you will never see your money again. Is it not right that Canada should do something in recognition of the service which England has rendered this country in protecting her shores with her navy? Oh, well, they say, we want everything done in Canada. A few years ago hon. gentlemen opposite were not very anxious to have everything done in Canada. Now, they have changed their minds. We remember that a British shilling was not worth as much as an American dollar to hon. gentlemen opposite. British connection has been our protection and a contribution of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 will have a wonderful moral effect upon the world. We will have for our protection more of a navy than we can build in Canada in the next twenty years. It will be a notification to the world
that the mother will be protected by the children that surround her in recognition of her past service. We talk about Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, &c., but there are no people in this country who are more interested and I believe more sincere in their wishes to maintain British connection than the French people of Quebec. Why? They realize that British connection means the continuance of the solid liberty which they possess. They do not wish to run the risk of having any change in that respect. Is there any necessity of our recognizing our obligation to British connection if you wish to speak of it in that way? I believe that it is the great bond that holds us together and gives us our security, liberty and permanence. What does it mean? The British navy means the great police force of the world. It does not mean militarism. It means that it has made it impossible for piracy to continue on the high seas. It means that it has been made impossible for the slave trade to continue, and it means that no citizen is so well protected and guarded in his rights as the man who is able to call himself a British subject. For these reasons, if for no other, and there are no higher or more consistent reasons, Canada ought to recognize the obligations which she owes to British connection and show that she is prepared to stand to the utmost against the world and do her duty to the empire to which she belongs. Is there a man in whose breast it does not awaken pride and respect to realize that he belongs to the British empire? Lord Rosebery said that it was the greatest secular force that the world had ever seen in the interest of peace, harmony and good. Are we not to lend our assistance and aid, our moiety and our arms, if need be, to continue that great moral force which secures to Canada and to all the people of the British empire that peace and prosperity which every one now enjoys under the Union Jack? The navy of England is regarded as one of the greatest factors contributing to the public peace. Are we to have no share in it? That is the simple question before the House to-day. We are going to have a navy which is going to be built in Canada. When are you going to construct the guns in Canada with which to equip these great vessels? Has the Minister of War any idea when we will be able to build these guns in Canada? When will you be able to make the plate to put upon these vessels in Canada? You talk about putting Canadians on these vessels, and rightly so, but the quickest way of putting Canadians on these vessels is to put them on British training ships on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, drill them there and have them ready for your navy -when your navy is ready to float. The Minister of Militia and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken have talked a great deal about
manning these vessels with Canadians. How many of our permanent militia are native born Canadians, can you tell me? Why, the Minister of Militia stated today that only twenty per cent were Canadian born and yet we hear a great deal about putting Canadians upon these vessels. What did the right hon. gentleman say when he went on to talk of the navy and our fighting qualities? He turned round to his friends and he said: You need not fight if you don't like, you have to volunteer first. I suppose he intends that for the province of Quebec. The probability is that the right hon. gentleman does not intend to fight and his friends don't intend to fight. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind about that, because, I believe he made that statement with the express intention that it should go abroad that some one else should do the fighting, while the government built the navy. Well, I think that is about what we will get. There is a great deal said about Germany and I am not going to pitch into Germany. I think Germany is able to take care of herself. There is no doubt a great deal of activity in Germany in shipbuilding, but a great deal of that shipbuilding has been for her inland waters, and she carries to-day four-fifths of her inland commerce by water instead of by rail. She has trained her men in the inland waters and she has given to her people cheap freight, and in that way a great impetus to her industries. That is a legitimate purpose for Germany to pursue. Her object is to get colonies, in which she can place her people under the German flag, and that is commendable. ' England stands prominently in the world as a great colonizing nation, and the only successful colonizer, and other nations are no doubt jealous of that. That jealous feeling must permeate the German people to some extent and the example of England in that respect is no doubt a legitimate example for Germany to aim at. There is no doubt that Germany desires to secure possession of the Rhine to its mouth, including Holland, but there is no room for German settlement in Holland, and the great object of Germany is to get room for her people under her own flag. There is another question that has not been much talked about- and you would think after the talk we have had in this House for the last three or four weeks there could not be a subject in theology or history that has not been touched upon-but, we have not talked much about the position of the American people in regard to their maritime affairs. When we hear the government and their supporters talking about war vessels, and what they are going to do and all that, it reminds me of some people who were getting ready for war and who declared: We will hang our colours on the outer wall Mr. BRODER.
and if the enemy comes we will run away, but if the enemy does not come we will bleed and die for our country. The Americans are a great people, 80,000,000 of them; aggressive, energetic, wealthy, ingenious, but what about their shipping?- When you take away the lake shipping of the United States they have very little left. It is possible to have a navy, it is possible to have all that accompanies a navy, and yet not have that shipping and commerce which a nation should have. The Americans have no continuity in their naval policy, and in that they are different from England or Germany, or the other European countries. They will bring in a large estimate and reduce it, and they will bring in a small estimate and increase it, and the strange thing about shipping in the United States .is that while 50,000,000 bushels of wheat are shipped from Baltimore yearly, only 10,000 bushels of that is shipped under the flag that sheltered the grain while it was growing. They have 1,200 ships leaving New York every year, laden with American commerce for the ports of the world, but only seven of these ships carry the American flag. No wonder that one of the American senators said: Just think of it, ten cruisers, eight
Dreadnoughts, and nineteen battleships, guarding eight merchant ships in the Pacific. That is a beautiful picture is it not? Is that the kind of thing we want in this country? You talk about war and of sending your navy over to help England, why, England would have to send an escort over to help your navy to cross the ocean to get' ready to fight. If we were a small country surrounded by water, and having a population of 7,000,000 we might build a navy, but we are a sparsely settled country with an enormous area of land and we are proposing to do what there is no necessity for doing in the interest of this country and which is not in the interests of British connection and the empire either. It means that you will spend $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, or $5,000,000 this year and two, three, or four millions next year, and you have got to continue doing that or your navy will become obsolete. That is a serious question before this country to-day. If we had 20,000,000 people it would be a different question altogether. Now, from all I can learn, far and near, the verdict of the Canadian people is: We don't want a navy built in this country to-day, if there is necessity to do something to help the motherland in the crisis, and let the matter end there for the present. That is the opinion of the Canadian people. We have heard a great deal about this country, and that country, and the other country, and before I sit down I want to say that the strongest card we can play for the assistance of the empire and for the maintenance of British connection is to show to the world that we
will be ready to act and act promptly, and if we do that, hostile nations will stay their hand before they think of attacking the motherland.
On motion of Mr. Warburton the debate was adjourned.