The First Minister and the Postmaster General may expatiate on the justice of the rebellions of 1837 and 1838, and may talk about the rebels as heroes; but I am willing to let their speeches speak for themselves. I again repeat, they will search the pages of history in vain to find one solitary disability under which the people laboured at that time that would justify them in engaging in a rebellion.
Now, Sir, what are the principles at stake in this naval business? One is the question of immediate heln. Does this Bill provide it? Not in the slightest. At the earliest, it will be four or five years before this little fleet will be ready, and when it is ready it will be of no use. Secondly, does this Bill uphold the unity of the empire? I maintain that from first to last the unity of the empire is threatened by this Bill. We all deplore war as much as the hon. member for the Yukon does; but, as the Scotchman said, ' Nae man can live at peace wi' his neebur unless his neebur lets him'; and before I am through I will endeavour to show that the German nation is determined that her neighbours will not live at peace if she can nrevent it. Under the policy outlined by the First Minister, the wars of the future are to be easy. For instance, if the Yankees fight us, we will fight them, because they are our near neighbours; but he did not think we would be justified in engaging in a war between Great Britain and Russia, which would possibly involve the integrity of the whole empire. One plan of the First Minister is to get up a fleet here and give our boys a chance to get some good jobs in connection with it, and then not go to war at all. Another plan of his, as stated on page 3050 of ' Hansard,' is this: ' If Great Britain got into trouble, a wave of enthusiasm to assist her would sweep over this country and all other British countries.' That wave of enthusiasm would strike terror to the hearts of the Germans. That is one form of strategy proposed by the First Minister. Then, at page 3040, another plan proposed' by him was ' all joining in the case of a common danger and from all points of the earth, rushing upon a common enemy.' Another beautiful plan, in time of war, when we have no fleet ready. His third proposition, which is found on page 3047 of 'Hansard,' is this: 'We would strike the enemy before the enemy would strike us.' This is an old rule in warfare, but I do not see what he would have to strike with under this Navy Bill. We require to have something to strike with or something to rush or something to be carried along by this wave of enthusiasm which the right hon. gentleman talks about. The policy of the opposition is to put something now at the disposal of Great Britain to strike with, and to make these gentlemen sit up in case of trouble.
' Mr. LEMIEUX.
When the hon. member for the Yukon was speaking, I thought of the old prophet Buddha, that apostle of love and peace, who on one occasion was accosted by a tremendous giant, who said to him:
' Lo! son of peace,' the giant cried, ' thy -fate
Is sealed at last, and Love shall yield to Hate.'
The unarmed Buddha, looking with no trace
Of fear pr anger, in the monster's faec,
In pity said, ' poor fiend, even thee I love.'
Then the giant, becoming transformed into the form and fashion of a dove, circling around the head of Buddha, sang:
' Hate hath no harm for Love,' so ran the song,
And peace, unweaponed, conquers every wrong.
I do not see how this escaped my good friend in his comments. The philosopher from the Yukon reminds me of a professor of teaching who heard this story of Buddha, and lectured his students on the proper mode of discipline. He said: 'Of course, punishment must be meted out when a wrong is committed; but when you enter your class, you should always leave your rawhide on your desk and watch the first opportunity. When a boy misbehaves, you should hand over the rawhide to the young delinquent, fold your arms and wait the result. The delinquent will burst into tears, apologize to the teacher, and there will be harmony and peace all round. A number of teachers tried the plan. One morning a pupil committed some depredation and his teacher said to him: 'My little man you have been misbehaving, and punishment must be inflicted, but inasmuch as I prefer to receive it rather than administer it, you take the rod and I will take the punishment; and to his surprise the young lad, unlike the one in his story, picked up the rawhide and belaboured the teacher and chased him out of the schoolroom'. So the fine theory of the hon. member for the Yukon about the people of England staying at home and giving out love stories to the Germans will not work out in actual practice with poor old humanity. Cicero told us long ago that 'war should be waged in order that we may live in peace without suffering wrong'. I am satisfied that Great Britain has had within twelve months provocation to go to war with Germany; but owing to that long suffering spirit which is characteristic of the English nation, she has refrained. William Pitt long ago told the people of England that war with all its evils is better than a peace in which there is nothing but usurpation and wrong; and in case Germany should carry out her intention of going to war with the British empire, no nation would ever have indulged in a more
righteous war than Great Britain would to repel the invader. Douglas Jerrold says:
We love peace as we abhor pusillanimity, but not peace at any price. There is a peace more destructive of the manhood of living man, than war is destructive of his material body. Chains are worse than bayonets.
In regard to some of the arguments that have been advanced as to our duty to build up our material welfare, Shakespeare is my authority for saying that 'plenty and peace breed cowards'.
Now, Sir, I may be asked, why is this naval question in issue at the present time? The German ambassador to the peace conference at the Hague has published recently a curious book, in which he declares that 'the growth of the peace movement involves a national peril'. According to Baron Von Stengel, human progress has more often been the result of war than of peace. 'Athens and Rome', he writes, in his striking chapter on 'the significance of war for the development of humanity'.
Not only in spite of, but just because of tlieir many wars, rose to the zenith of civilization. Great states like Germany and Italy are welded into nationalities only through blood and iron. Storm purifies the air and destroys the frail trees, leaving the sturdy oaks standing. War is the test of a nation's political, physical and intellectual worth. The state in which there is much that is rotten may vegetate for a while in peace, but in war its weakness is revealed. Germany's preparations for war have not resulted in economic disaster, but in unexampled economic expansion-unquestionably because of our demonstrated superiority over France. It is better to spend money on battleships and armaments than luxury, motormania and other sensual living.
Germany to-day has upwards of 4,000,000 men that she can turn into the field at an hour's notice. She has undoubtedly the command of the land, and she aspires to the control of the sea. It is a well known fact that for ages she has aspired, and that recently, she has still more aspired, to the control of Holland and Belgium. She wishes, as she showed by her attitude at the time of the South African war, to disrupt the British empire and obtain control of the British colonies. In this connection I do not know that I can do better than quote from an address made by the hon. member for the Yukon last year, to convince this House that that is the object of Germany. In a speech in this House, reported in 'Hansard' of last session, at page 3526, that hon. gentleman said:
I believe the object in the creation of the German navy is to obtain an outlet of that kind, but I am satisfied that that aim could be best obtained by negotiations with other nations
Where can Germany get the outlet? Can my hon. friend from the Yukon point to any area under the broad canopy of heaven where Germany can get colonies that are not already occupied. Taking him at his word, Germany's aim is to obtain colonies for her trade] and she can obtain these onlv in one way. They cannot be obtained by peace negotiations. The way Germany negotiates is at the point of the bayonet and the end of the rifle. As Britain holds 25 per cent of the land of the globe and 90 per cent of the colonial territory of the globe, the only way in which Germany can obtain colonies is by taking them from Great Britain. And, we have the spectacle of this great empire, the champion of liberty in every part of the globe, threatened by a nation created by herself the century before the last.
Now, I want to touch upon a point about which this House has heard from me before. At the time of the American colonies Benjamin Franklin and other American statesmen proposed the confederation of the British empire. That, proposition was not taken up. In the old days French Canadian gentlemen from the province of Quebec proposed that the colonies should be given representation in the British parliament. Gentlemen from upper Canada many years ago proposed the same thing, and the redoubtable Joseph Howe, in letters and speeches, proposed a federation of the British empire, under which the colonies would have a voice and a vote in the government of the empire and be prepared to take their fair share in its defence. These men were right in assuming that in return for the privileges conferred upon us, we should take our share of the risks and clangers to which the empire may be exposed. I am satisfied that the solution of the problem is easy. A man with the genius of Cromwell or William Pitt or William III. could federate the empire in a year. I believe that if Chamberlain or Milner, or Balfour, or either of the Greys, or Mr. Amery, one of the greatest students of imperial questions, were given the opportunity, any of these men could federate the British empire in six months; and, although I have not the honour of the acquaintance of Mr. Asquith or Mr. Eloyd-George, I believe that either of these gentlemen if he had a heart and soul as broad as his ability, could do the same. The history of colonial and imperial wars proves that colonial assistance which was declared by some of the great men of Canada as monstrous, as contrary to responsible government, as impossible, was supplied "in two weeks' time when the emergency arose. So let the statesmen of today 'not hesitate about the confederation of the empire, which would solve every question that might arise in connection
with armies or navies for the defence of the empire.
In connection with this Bill, it might be well for us to consider for a moment what is the condition of the dominions beyond the seas. The First Minister has said that Canada is going to become independent as fruit falls from the tree, and he told us in his Toronto speech that Canada is a suzerainty-in other words that the King is a feudal lord instead of our soverign lord. We are told, not only by the Prime Minister, but by his followers, that we must maintain our autonomy. I wonder how many of them could define the meaning of the word ' autonomy ' which is constantly in their mouths. We are told also that we are 'sister nations,' with an emphasis on the word 'nations/ and the other day the right hon. the Prime Minister described us as a * daughter nation.' Then hon. gentlemen on this side are charged with attacking the principles of responsible government and imperilling the liberty of the subject, and our friends opposite praise rebellion and use up as much nickel and silver as would furnish a mine in Cobalt or Gowganda in polishing off their expressions which, to my mind, are merely the forerunners of a movement for the independence of Canada. But what means allegiance? What is our duty to the empire? To what do we owe allegiance? In days gone by I had the privilege of running foul of a very distinguished English officer in this country, General Hutton.
There are just and unjust rebellions. The rebellion of the American colonies was justifiable. The Quebec Act of 1774 drove that people into rebellion by taking from them what are today the states of Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan, and in 1785 the Americans rebelled. Had I been living at that! time, holding my present views, I would have been among them.
My hon. friend knows more about that than any one on this side, in my regard for the upholding of the empire, I am not actuated by any red tape proclivities, but by what is required to accomplish the object I have in view. On this occasion I -had taken the liberty of offering to the imperial authorities the services of a Canadian regiment and I had
23,000 men ready to enlist under me for the South African war. I did observe the proper military or disciplinary course, I did send an application to the general officer commanding, but I also took the course of offering my services to the Minister of Militia. From the latter gentleman
I received a courteous answer, but from General Hutton I received a reprimand. Haying my doubts as to whether my application through the military channel would go forward-I knew that to General Hutton would not be forwarded-I exercised the right, which I consider belongs to every British citizen in any part of the empire and communicated direct with the home government. I was reprimanded for this direct application. In reply to General Hutton, I used the following language:
II application to the right honourable the Secretary of State was made in order that should the plan be favourably considered in Great Britain steps might be taken by the home authorities-of course with the consent and approval, but outside of the Canadian government-to enroll such a corps here. In the event of failure of action in Canada, through the failure of the general officer commanding to bring the official military application before the Minister of Militia, or through the Canadian government not deeming it advisable to act in the premises, the imperial authorities would be aware that whether or not the general officer commanding or the Canadian government had faith in such plans, yet the imperial authorities would be made aware of the fact that there are tens, of thousands of Canadians ready to assist in the up-building of the empire by enrolling for active service abroad.
While a Canadian, I am also a British subject, and should Canada try to cut adrift from Britain, I, as either soldier or citizen-
This was written away back in 1899.
-would not be disloyal in recognizing the home authority rather than the general officer commanding in Canada, or the Minister of Militia
I am quoting from 'Hansard' of 1901, Vol. 1, page 394. My view on the question of allegiance is this: I regard the empire as a pyramid of which the people constitute the great foundation. Then we have minor divisions. We have townships, towns, school sections and so on. We have the. superior divisions of counties, the still larger divisions of provinces, and the larger still of dominions. And over and above all there is the empire. My allegiance in minor matters goes to my own municipality as against the adjoining ones. In county matters, it goes to my own county over its neighbours. In provincial matters it goes to the province of Ontario over all others. In Dominion matters it goes to Canada oveT Australia or any other part of the empire; but in national matters it goes to the empire of Britain and not to Canada. There is the allegiance that I owe; and when the right hon. gentleman talks of suzerainty, let me inform him that he does not understand the question of this country as I believe the fathers of confederation understood it. We want no more prating about autonomy, no more talk about 'ripe fruit dropping off the tree', or about 'sister nations'. Each is supreme in its own sphere and should have a voice in the_ affairs of the empire. But the pyramid is incomplete in three ways. First, the oversea dominions, have as yet no voice or vote in the affairs of the empire. Second, the parliament of Britain is not adapted for administering, under its present constitution, an empire of this kind, and therefore should be remodelled. In Britain thev have their minor subdivisions or counties and shires, but they have no provincial subdivisions and I can see no reason why thev should not, according to my reading of the British North America Act as applied to Canada. Nevertheless has South Africa deemed it advisable to have any provincial
divisions? But in case such should be found to be necessary, I will take the liberty of suggesting that the judicial districts into which England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are divided might be taken as the basis of provincial division in Britain. In England and Wales there are nine judicial divisions, in Scotland three, and in Ireland there are the old provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. And, if they wish to confer upon these any extra privileges, and any extra provincial power, let us see what could be given them under the British North America Act.
The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding in this Act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of lieutenant governor.
Nothing wrong about that.
Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
Nothing wrong with that.
The borrowing of money on the sole credit of a province.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
The establishment and tenure of provincial offices, and the appointment and payment of provincial officers.
That is necessary.
The management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and the timber and wood thereon.
They have none, so that will not be necessary.
The establishment, maintenance and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province.
I do not see anything wrong with that.
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, chanties and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
I do not see anything wrong with that.
Municipal institutions in the province.
They have these institutions already, and these could be placed under provincial jurisdiction.
Shop, saloon, tavern, and auctioneer and other licenses, in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial, local or municipal purposes.
No reason why they should not have that.
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes,
Then follows a list that are excluded. Incorporation of companies with provincial objects.
That seems all right.
The solemnization of marriage in the province.
I do not see why that should be a' provincial matter.
Property and civil rights in the province.
That might be all right.
The administration of justice in the province.
The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty and imprisonment for enforcing any law of the province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section.
Generally, all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
-and under our constitution-education.
I do not know whether, in Great Britain, they woud take in education or not. But, if they want provincial government, I do not see where they could get a better basis than by taking the old judicial divisions.
Now, to come to the British parliament -and I wish to make a distinction between the British parliament and the parliament of Greater Britain-this parliament should be erected into the parliament of Greater Britain, and there could be a separate, minor parliament, to manage the affairs of Great Britain. If that were done, the jurisdiction of the parliament of Greater Britain could include every dominion beyond the sea, and that parliament could deal with inter-imperial matters, international affairs, defence questions, trade and commerce, a tariff for imperial purposes, and an imperial court of appeal. Each dominion should have its own tariff. The sovereign would be the King of England. The upper House would be composed of members elected for life, and the lower House of members elected for a term of years. The capital should be London, and, during the first two years of each parliament members should visit the dominions of the empire. If we elevate the British parliament into a parliament, of Greater Britain, the door would be opened for representation of the colonies. When our good friend the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was speaking on this question early in the session, he recited a very beautiful incident in connection with the agitation in Rome following the execution of the Spanish patriot, Ferrer. When a number of the clergy from Canada, resident in Rome for educational purposes, found themselves in danger from a mob,_ they sought protection under the old Union Jack, that 'herald of mercy, as well as of might.' And I can easily understand how they would realize the sentiment expressed in the beautiful lines of Eliza Cook:
Then, then did out hearts learn how precious can he
The fair streamer of England-the flag of the free!
When he was speaking of this incident, I noticed a blush mantle the cheek of the Prime Minister. It was enough to make any Britisher, any Canadian wherever he may be, blush to think that here we are sheltering ourselves under the folds of a flag to whose upkeep we do not contribute a man or a dollar. The Prime Minister in his remarks grew eloquent, as usual, over the contrast between Great Britain and imperial Rome. He spoke of the surprise that a Roman citizen of the time of Augustus would have felt had it been foretold to him that that far-off dependency of Rome, Britannia, should attain the prominence in the world of affairs that it holds to-day. And he said the answer would be:
That is Utopia; force and force alone can build and maintain an empire.
Let me remind the Prime Minister that every empire in the history of the world has been acquired by force and by force- I was about to say, by force alone-but it is certainly true to say that every empire was acquired by force. In this connection,
I am reminded of a remark of my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) who quoted the Latin maxim, Si vis pacem, para bellum, ' If you wish peace, prepare for war.' This was enlarged by Washington, who said, that the most certain way to defend a nation was in neace to be prepared for war. My good friend (Mr. Congdon) quoted from Sir Spencer Walpole, who, in this regard, said, that the world had changed and that victory now depended not so much upon the long sword as upon the long purse. Lei; me remind him of the case of the Franco-German war. France was worth two dollars for every dollar of Germany's, yet this rich nation was brought to her knees in a few days. Within two months of the beginning of the war, France was not only conquered, but humiliated in the dust before Germany -France, next to England, at that time undoubtedly the richest nation in the world. In that connection, let me call the attention of the hon. gentleman to a maxim of Machiavelli, that all the armed prophets have conquered and all the unarmed prophets have perished. Let me remind him also of the famous expression of one whom the hon. gentleman belittled, that the Lord is found on the side of the best disciplined, best drilled and heaviest battalions. These are standard maxims and require no further explanation. Let us get back now to the First Minister's reference to Utopia. This is not the first time the right hon. sren-tleman has used the word. When I ^ap-proached him on the subject of sending
men from Canada to assist in the South African war, he said that my ideas were Utopian-as did others. Yet, he found his Utopia had vanished in two short weeks. Within that time colonial assistance in imperial wars became an actual fact-to remain a fact, 1 believe, for all time. One week carried the Prime Minister in favour of the federation of the empire in 1899, and, I believe, that in relation to the question of the navy, one week would change him as it did then.
Now, why is this Bill introduced, and why is the amendment introduced? Again, I ask, has the Bill carried out the mandate of the resolution of last session? Had it done so, so far as I am concerned-and I believe I speak the views of every member on this side of the House-there would have been no amendment. But the Bill did not carry out the mandate of that resolution. Owing to the impulse created by the old spirit of the colonies as exemplified in the war of 1812, and when rebellions were put down in 1837, in 1870 and in 1885, by the loyalty which stands true to the empire and is characteristic of Canada on all occasions, the question came up of assisting Britain in her troubles across the sea. This spirit culminated in the union of the empire's forces in the South African war of 1899-1902.
And then Great Britain learned two things; she learned the inestimable value of the colonies, and she learned that the hand of Germany was behind the scenes seeking to disrupt the empire in the South African war. Germany is after Britain's colonies. It is known that in 1896, three years before the war, she officially notified the British government that German interest demanded the independence of the Transvaal. If Germany had had a fleet then, what would have been the result of Britain's refusal to recognize that demand? War-and as Germany is always dabbling and mixing up in the foreign policy of other nations, upsetting long-established policies, when she has a fleet, the first time she is rebuffed there is going to be war. I have not one word to say againjst the German people. They are a credit to humanity, to the world. They are a shrewd, law-abiding, true, devoted, patriotic people. They are a peace-loving people, and when the war with France was about breaking out in 1870, not thousands but millions of the residents of the German empire petitioned the sovereign not to go on with the war against France. But the policy was laid down, the plan was to carry on war against France, because they fofind France in an awkward position, and the prayers of the people were unheeded. So, although the German people to-day do not want war, thev are a peace-loving nation, nevertheless the policy of the German nation undoubtedly tends towards war with
Great Britain. Britain found these people scattered, disjointed into a lot of principalities, where the hireling soldiers of Europe were obtained prior to the wars of Frederick the Great. Britain backed Frederick the Great and established the Prussian Kingdom, and later at Waterloo they broke the power of Napoleon for ever. Britain continued t-o uphold Prussia, and the great. North German Confederation was established. About- 1870 Britain practically coaxed Germany into becoming a colonial empire. German Southwest Africa was practically the first important colony that Germany ever possessed. She got it through a little incident that occurred near Walfish bay, when Gladstone called on Germany to police these areas and bear her fair share of the.white man's burden. In other words, Germany is a creation of Britain, created as a barrier against tyranny, created for the preservation of peace, and today her own creation threatens the dissolution of her own empire.
Following on this period of German expansion, like others who become opulent, she became arrogant and still further grasping. Going back to an old quarrel of hundreds of years previous, she seized from little Denmark, Schleswick-Holstein in 1864. In 1866 she humbled Austria in the battle of Sadowa. Then came a period of intrigue between Bismarck, representing Germany, and Napoleon the Third, repre-seting France. The plan was this: Germany was to have the southern German states: Bavaria, Wurtemburg and Baden, and Holland. In return for that divvy-up, France was to have the left bank of the Rhine, including Belgium, down to the sea. When the Franco-Prussian war broke out and these plans became European property, in answer to Britain's demand for an explanation of this, Bismarck said that he did not want to unsettle the state of Europe by telling what the Emperor was always up to, that he paid no attention to his suggestions. Certainly he paid no attention, he played him, he led him on, he knew that France was being disrupted, that the Republican party was growing stronger in France, and that the power of Napoleon was not great. He listened to Napolean, he encouraged and fomented discord in France, and when the time was ripe, he struck and struck right home. In this regard, let me point out what the aims of Germany then were, and are now known to be. They practically had South Germany. They wanted Alsace-Lorraine, which was settled by Germans, they wanted the left bank of the Rhine, and they wanted French Flanders and Havre, as well as Holland and Belgium, and had it not been for the intervention of European nations in 1870, Germany would have carried out her
plan. These facts are known in diplomatic circles the world over, and yet gentlemen will tell us that this truly pacific nation has no designs on her neighbours. I see in the press this despatch from the Hague: The Hague, Feb. 10.
: In the first chamber of the states general yesterday, Baron von Heckeren asked the minister of foreign affairs if he intended to take steps to guarantee the integrity of the Netherlands in regard to Germany- and Great Britain, explaining when questioned that he did so because 'a neighbouring sovereign had intimated a few years ago he would be obliged to have Dutch territory occupied if Holland had not placed herself in a state of defence against Great Britain.
The minister pressed for further details, but the Baron declined to reply and the debate thereupon closed. It is understood the Baron referred to the Emperor j>f Germany.
So that to-day what do we find? Germany with her iron hand on Holland, Krupp the great gun maker, by arrangement with the German government is placing his guns, made in his own factory, in every fortress in Holland and it is Krupp who lays out the plans of the forts, not the Dutch administration, so that practically to-day Holland is a German province, and if Germany should get control of Austria's and Italy's fleets should assume control of what is under her influence to-day, the navy of Holland, and should seize Belgium, where would England be, with all her double fleet against such a combination? Of course France would undoubtedly ally herself with Britain because France was the first country Germany wished to humiliate. They would humiliate France and then Britain would be an easy mark. That is the policy of the German empire, and yet we are told we must sit with our hands folded and develop our home resources and do nothing for the development of this great empire. More than that, Sir, Germany ran foul of Great Britain the moment she established her fleet. In 1879 in Samoa, the United States and Great Britain having had previous occupation were intruded upon by Germany and they had t-o put her in her place. Then Germany was stepping in to plant her colonies in South America, seeking to obtain control of established governments there. The United States quietly again reminded her that there were others on the continent besides Germany, and that these countries possibly could look after themselves as well as Germany. Then we know that she meddled in Persia, in Turkey, in the near east, in the far east, in China.
When the United States were at war with Spain the German fleet ranged itself on the side of Spain as much as to say: We shall protect Spain in possession of these islands, and the Yankees will keep to their own Mr. HUGHES.
side of the water. Thereupon the old Britisher lined his fleet up alongside the Yankee fleet, and but for that Germany .would have taken part in the war against the United States, and would have endeavoured to obtain possession of the Philippine Islands for herself. We all remember the Kaiser Wilhelm telegram to Kruger in 1896, and the official note of the German government to the British government that the interests of the German government demanded that the Transvaal should remain an independent republic. Then, Sir, even after the humiliation caused him by the sending of the Kruger telegram, the Kaiser stated that in the near future the trident, that is the oontrol of the sea, must be in German hands. In spite of this and a thousand other instances that I could give, we find hon. gentlemen standing up in this House, belittling the best statesmen and soldiers of Great Britain, siding with Germany, saying that there is no cause for alarm, and that if there is any cause for alarm Britain herself is responsible for it. Take the South African war; we know to-day what the plan was. Germany and Russia, together with France, which was not too friendly then over the Fashoda affair, were to join hand in hand in establishing South African republics and in driving the British flag into the sea off the Cape of Good Hope, and from the British dominions as far as her colonies were concerned. The plan was afterwards given away by one of the Russian diplomats. But, these powers hesitated -when they saw that the colonies, including Canada, in spite of the First Minister, rallied to the defence of the flag in South Africa. Only last year Germany almost precipitated a war in Europe. She sought to humiliate France in connection with the Morocco incident, although she had no more to do with it than a child, and she sought to humble her upon another occasion, but Great Britain stood behind France, France stood her ground, and for the time being Germany withdrew. Then, only last spring again we know that Austria, with Germany behind her, took Bosnia' and Herzegovina and wiped them off the map of Europe, and if Russia had been prepared, war would have resulted. This was all owing to the fact that the German Emperor and his army are so all-powerful. Now we find ourselves face to face with the construction of one of the most tremendous fleets that has ever been raised up in any country. Germany wants colonies. The hon. member for Yukon suggests that she may obtain these by peaceful negotiation, but- that is not Germany's mode of getting these things. She gets them with the iron hand of war. She is determined to get them and there is no nation she can get them from except from Great Britain. She wants coaling stations, she wants markets, and she wants shipping, and if she gets them she
must get them from Great Britain. By her action in connection with her reference to this surtax business, by removing her objections, she is showing that she is ready to try and cajole and dicker with the colonies. How is the British nation meeting this? What are the British people doing? They are telling us what a great people they are, they are talking of their prestige, they are recalling the days of Agincourt, but ancient history never maintained a nation. It may inspire it, but it does not maintain it. She is blowing and blustering of her own greatness. They tried the Hague conference with Germany. You have heard the story of the German ambassador at that conference. Then they tried to coax Germany. They said: We will not build any more warships if you will not, but while the British ambassadors were at the conference the Germans laid down the keels of another couple of Dreadnoughts. Then Keir Hardie, John Bums, and other British statesmen, said: ' We think we will try slobbering. Germany listened to them, and although Great Britain had stopped laying down keels, Germany laid another keel or two. Then she formed an alliance with France and Russia, the only sensible thing that she has done, although this had the tendency to make Germany go on and build warships. Then, a number of radical members of parliament went over, these members of parliament are splendid people to get people out at elections, but they tried their cajolery in vain on the Germans. They drank their wine, ate their bologna sausages, and toasted each other, but the Germans laid down two more keels while they were there. Then, they said we are going to strike the fatal spot; we will make arrangements with the socialists and the labouring men in England, and the socialists and labouring men in Germany, and get them to agree that they will not dig any more coal in war time. In Britain the labouring men were a unit in favour of playing the game, but in Germany the socialists mined enough coal to last, five or six extra years, and that scheme fell through. Then, they tried another plan. They said: We are relatives. We have heard the First Minister at this same game. I guess he had heard of it across the water. We are relatives, we are allies, we are friends, and we are Christians with a capital ' C '. They shouted ' Hurrah for King William ' and stopped building Dreadnoughts. Germany reciprocated, admits that they are relatives, allies and Christians, and they cry ' Hoch der Koenig, Edward VII. But, in the meantime they get control of the British market, get the British naval plans and lay down the keel3 of four or five Dreadnoughts. So that Germany has shown that she does not go duck hunting with a brass band. The Germans continue to look after their own interests and they are looking after their own interests in no uncertain way. Thi3 reminds me of an old axiom which I have already repeated to the House, but a good thing can stand repetition. It is contained in the work of one of England's finest poets, a woman in whose breast there glowed the proper spirit. I wish she had the management of affairs in Britain with the spirit which she displays in this poem. I refer to Eliza Cook:
Never trust the soft breathing that preaches of peace,
Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I drew attention to the fact that last year it was rumoured that the German Emperor had interfered with Holland in regard to her defences. And in connection with that I shall read the following despatch which appears in the newspapers dated from the Hague on the 15th of this month:
The Hague, Feb. 15.-Baron van Heeckeren sent his promised statement to the Senate today in regard to his charge that Emperor William of Germany had told Holland that if she did not fortify certain points against Great Britain, he, the Kaiser, would be compelled to do so.
It will be recalled that when Baron van Heeckeren made the statement abour ' a neighbouring sovereign ' threatening Holland in regard to her military preparedness against Great Britain, the foreign minister demanded specific proofs. Later Dr. van Swinderen, the foreign secretary, denied absolutely that Queen Wilhelmina had ever received a threatening communication from the Kaiser.
In his letter to the Senate to-day Baron van Heeckeren says he received informatien from Dr. Kuyper, the former prime minister. He adds that the matter was frequently discussed between them.
It would thus appear that this peaceful nation of Germany has already Holland practically under her control. As I pointed out a short time ago, the German Krupp firm is not only making guns for Holland, but has charge of placing them in strategic positions, and you may be sure they will not be placed to the disadvantage of Germany. I understood the hon. member for Pictou to say that when the national policy was introduced, and when it was pointed out that it might be bad for Britain, Sir Charles Tupper said: So much the worse
for British connections. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) cannot find any authority for attributing that statement to Sir Charles Tupper. The hon. gentleman made another reference to Sir Charles Tupper, and that was that Sir Charles had written a letter to the leader of the opposition asking him to support the naval policy of the First Minister. But what Sir Charles Tupper said in that letter was:
I read with pleasure the resolution passed unanimously by the House of Commons, which pledged parliament to proceed vigorously with the construction of a Canadian navy and to support England in every emergency.
That was the recommendation made by Sir Charles Tupper, and instead of this government following that recommendar tion they have departed from it in its first essential ' in every emergency.' Gentlemen on the other side have complained that in connection with this question the charge of graft has been levelled against them, but I will read the statement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) who, if not a minister, is an embryo minister. and we will see from it the plane on which he puts the establishment of a Canadian navy. The hon. member for Pictou said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the object of this government in proposing this policy is that this navy is to be constructed in Canada, by Canadian workmen, in Canadian workshops, and that it is to be a Canadian navy, primarily for the defence of Canadian interests.
And this afternoon the member for the Yukon told us that the only redeeming feature of the navy was that it would lead to the construction of these ships in Canada. There is no spirit of patriotism in such remarks, none whatever. Every sentence of every speech delivered from the government benches so far enunciates the maxim of la Bruyere: that under a corrupt government there is no such thing as patriotism, its place being supplied by private interest, public fame, and devotion to a chief. That is what we see on the other side of the House. No nation would engage in war unless fairly certain she is going to win, and if the British empire wants to preserve her position unsullied before the world she is in duty bound to prepare for war. We have been told by gentlemen on the other side of the House that the plans of Germany are directed towards obtaining colonies; the member for the Yukon told us that Germany wants to obtain them by peace, but the real fact is that Germany wants to obtain them in her own way: by blood and iron. Canada has a duty in this crisis, and Canada's duty is to be ready by sea and land to defend the mother country. In this con-Mr. HUGHES.
nection, I may refer to an incident which occurred in the Franco-Prussian war. The French rifle in 1870 was superior to the German rifle, and although the French rifle far out-ranged the German rifle, a prominent German officer who led his corps at the battle of Weissembourg, declared that while his men came under the French fire at 1,700 yards, yet between 1,700 and 600 yards not one man was struck by a French bullet, which went to show that at the beginning of the war the French were bad shots. Later on they became better trained, and in the succeeding battles they gave a better account of themselves. In the American civil war the southern soldiers, who were excellent shots, although armed with muzzle-loading rifles, made it absolutely impossible for the northern army to advance on their position. In Canada, and the other colonies of the empire, are to be found expert shots, who, when they come to the assistance of Britain, I am satisfied will more than give a good account of themselves in any struggle in which they may take part. The hon. member for the Yukon, in his address, compared the militia law of this country with the naval law, but he forgot that there was an essential difference between the mobilization of the militia and the mobilization of the navy. It is good old English law that parliament should be called when war is declared, and that is a good sound principle in Canadian law so far as the militia is concerned. In the Franco-Prussian war it took weeks before the German army could Be mobilized, although it was supposed to be the best organized army in the world, and there was plenty of time to call parliament, and as a matter of fact the German parliament was called. In the case of our militia it, of course, would take some time to mobilize them, and it is quite right that parliament should be summoned when the militia is called out, and there would be plenty of time to do that. But in the case of a naval war the clash comes like a lightning flash. A war may break out to-day and a German ship may he in some harbour, or lying outside the three mile limit, and the music begins at once. So that a navy must of necessity always be ready to take the sea for active service, whereas an army and a militia are not necessarily in the same position.
Let me draw a contrast between the two policies. The government claim that they are adhering to the resolution passed last year, whereas we take the position that they are not carrying that resolution out in any essential point. The policy of the leader of the opposition provides immediate help. In furnishing two Dreadnoughts, it gives the necessary security, whereas the policy of the government is
simply one of promise. Their fleet will not ! be completed, and they do not profess that it can be completed short of five years unless they buy their ships from England. The policy of the opposition is an imperial navy under the one flag, united and strong, under which Canada will have ample protection. The place where the farmers of Canada require to be protected is the North sea, because there is the danger point, although in some future day the centre may be changed and the danger point may be in the Mediteranean. Canada is not in any danger on the Pacific slope or the Atlantic sea-board, but in the North sea. Germany at the furthest is but two days sail from the British shores, and if she succeeds in taking Holland, she will be within only a few hours sail of the British coast, so that Britain has to be ever on the alert, not knowing when the German fleet may advance on her coasts and attack her navy. - The policy of the opposition is one imperial navy, ready to be concentrated at a moment's notice at any given point. But the policy of the government is to have a Canadian navy acting independently and restricted to our own coasts, and which consequently could not give any effective assistance in an emergency. The policy of the opposition is to provide an effective navy and at the same time do so as economically as possible. Not that we object to proper expenditure, but we desire that every dollar should be expended where it can have the most effect; and when the time comes for a reference to the people, and the people will draw a contrast between the government policy of a Canadian navy, not acting automatically in concert with the imperial navy, and which will only go out to service when the Prime Minister of Canada gives the order, and the policy of the opposition which will provide a navy ready to take service at all times, I have no doubt as to what the verdict will be. Under our policy, while we would provide at once an effective navy, the cost to the country would be only $800,000 a year, whereas, under the government policy, which would only provide a navy in some five years, the cost will be infinitely greater -upwards of four and a half million dollars per year. Then the navy outlined by the government cannot guarantee protection to our trade and commerce on the sea because it would not be concentrated with but would act separately from the British navy. On the other hand the policy proposed by the leader of the opposition *does guarantee protection to our trade and commerce; and all that we would spend on this line would be well spent, even though we had to pay the same every year for all time to come. In fact, as an insurance on our trade and commerce, it would be a very small contribution indeed. The policy of the opposition would tend to 120
promote peace by letting Germany see that, not only the motherland, but the colonies of the empire are prepared to do their duty. On the other hand, the policy of the government has the tendency to create uncertainty and to disunite and disintegrate the nation.
The policy of the leader of the opposition is automatic-when Britain is at war Canada is at war, and our ships, trained in the imperial navy, are ready for action. Let me point out as an answer to those who criticise this aspect of the case that long before the Franco-Prussian war, an arrangement was come to by the independent kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemburg and the Grand Duchy of Baden with Prussia, that the moment the commander in chief of the German army issued the order, the troops of these three nations would automatically, be at the unrestricted disposal of Prussia. If then, for the purpose of the German empire, Prussia could make such an arrangement with Bavaria, Wurtemburg and Baden-three absolutely independent nations-so t-hat their troops would Ire at the order of the King of Prussia, and automatically take the field under his command, the moment war broke out, why should not such an arrangement be arrived at between Britain and her colonies. Much greater is the necessity that the troops and the navies of the colonies should, when the emergency arose, be at the command af the parent government. When the parent government felt the emergency coming, no doubt we would all be consulted, but when the emergency arose our navy would automatically fall under the command of the imperial authorities, and we would have combined training as well as united strength. The position of the government reminds me of the captain of a company of Fenians down near Huntingdon border at the time of the Fenian raid of 1870. He lined his men up against the border and he said: Now boys, before you is Canada and behind you is the United States, I want to ask you one question: Will you fight or run? The answer came nromptlv. we will. Again, he said, I repeat the question, will you fight or will you run? Again came the answer, we will. And the captain said: I knew you would. And just the some farmers along the border who had heard the fellows were coming over, let into them and they soon knew which they would do. In like manner this policy of a Canadian navy, hedged up and kept at the disposal of the government of Canada until the Prime Minister gives his sanction to its going to the support of the motherland, possibly untrained and unequipped, with a lot of officers better posted in balls and dances, which take up most of their time while dallying around our harbours, will hp about as effective as this Fenian corps who
were routed by the Huntingdon farmers. Besides our ships would be such small ones that they dare not go within range of the enemy. A small ship carrying light runs is to-day absolutely useless, because their guns will reach only five or six miles, while the 12 or 16 inch guns on the larger vessels, can be effective for a distance of 15 miles.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, has proposed a policy which will give automatic assistance to the mother country. More than that, our vessels, officered and manned under our policy, will be trained in the British navy, whereas under the policy of the government they would not. Our policy would make them ready to fight at a moment's notice, which would not be the case under the government's policy. The right hon. the Prime Minister himself has said that the United States is the only enemy with whom we might possibly fight. But there is no chance of the United States and this country ever coming to a quarrel. Reference has been made to the fact that the Americans have training ships along the inland lake. Well, so far as I am concerned, I would be delighted to see an American training^ ship at every large American port on our inland lakes and a Canadian training ship at every port on the Canadian side. What difference would it make? If war came it would make no difference, but war is absolutely impossible between these two nations. When Britain and her colonies are incorporated together, I look to an offensive and defensive alliance being reached between Britain and the United States and possibly France, Japan, which will guarantee the peace of the world for years to come; and I think that the right hon. the Prime Minister was very impolitic in his suggestion that the United States is the only nation he could think of against which he would allow his ships to go and fight. 1 ]
Now, I come to the great"material difference between the two policies. Under the policy of the leader of the opposition, the Union Jack would fly from these ships; under the policy of the government the Union Jack would not fly from these ships.
a number of us intend that ft shall long fly there. And it would be sufficient to have the old Union Jack flying from the Canadian fleet.in case one should be constructed. I should be glad if the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had been here, or some member of the government who knew something about this question, to tell us what is meant by that paragraph in this report that * the question of the flag was also discussed.' Perhaps the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) could tell us?