of French origin with lacking more or less in loyalty. One might think that they are, forsooth, the vestals of that sacred fire, loyalty, devotion to the mother country. But when have the French Canadians ever shown disloyalty? Is it when my fellow-countrymen willingly and through pure zea] for the British cause went over to fight on the battlefields of Africa? I say pure zeal, and I have reason to say so, because in their French Canadian hearts, these soldiers had sympathy, to say the least, for that people of heroes, the Boers, who, like themselves in 1837-38, sacrificed the purest of their blood to vindicate their rights, their liberty and defend their homes and their families. _ History, in her finest pages, will have to judge these men, and I am satisfied that future generations will recall with enthusiasm and pride their dignity, their greatness and their heroic virtues. Inquire from the courageous Deputy Minister of Militia, that young French Canadian who has done honour not only to the French name, but to English citizenship, inquire from him how his fellow-countrymen behaved in the bloody battles of the Boer war.
Loyalty, which you extol so forcefully, is indeed a fine and noble disposition of the soul and of the heart, but whoever grasps the meaning and purport of The word is capable of being moved by it; that is not y °ur exclusive privilege. On the contrary, you associate and confuse to such a degree! and on so many occasions, that noble sentiment with the low machinations of a mean political purpose, that you deprive it of its lustre and its beauty! We should, to begin with, be loyal to Canada by showing fairness and respect for the man whom the sovereign people of this country have placed at the head of the government, and who represents supreme authority in this parliament. You convert loyalty into a vile election machine, and when'the elections come on you will be heard proclaiming loudly your love and your devotedness to your mother country in certain provinces, while in others you will make fun of your exaggerations. Without any definite policy or principles, you will then give the country an exhibition which you seem to have a taste for, that of a divided party preaching to-day some kind of policy which to-morrow will be discarded and replaced by one exactly of opposite aims, as you have done on that question of the navy. Continue to do as you have been doing. We are the calm anu amused witnesses of your vain outpours of verbosity, we are greatly amused on this side of the House at your unsuccessful endeavours, at your differences and sudden changes' of opinion. And above all, we admire your, blind submission to' the real leader of the opposition for the time being, the hon. Mr. Mr. TURCOTTE.
I Roblin, who under cover pulls the wires which command every move.
Alas, what would Macdonald and Cartier say if they could only be witnesses of what is going on to-day in the ranks of their erstwhile party? They had clear and clean cut principles of policy, and with a firm hand lead the ship confided to their rare. The people of this country, with their characteristic keen and thorough insight into matters, will soon have sized up your policy and detected its narrow and shifting tendencies, in contrast to that of cur party, which is broad, resolute, openly favourable to national autonomy, and at the same time safeguarding the rights and interests of the people.
I shall now bring my speech to a close, Mr. Speaker, but before doing so, I wish to thank my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clarke) for his flattering words of reference to the French Canadians in the course of the remarkable speech he delivered last week on this question. The sarcastic deputy leader of the opposition called him, in ironical and unfair fashion, a little Englander. The hon. member from Red Deer possesses a sound judgment, absolutely free from unwmrthy' prejudices, and a soul noble enough and great enough to be fair towards his fellow countrymen of different origin, and it is with the help of men such as he that a country like ours may hope to succeed in attaining the high destifiv of nations. Mean and uncompromising fanaticism is no longer tolerated.
The stand 1 am taking on this question,
1 realize it fully obliges me to sacrifice ideas which I have vindicated in all sincerity for almost forty years past, and that sacrifice I make for the sake of my country and not for the sake of my party, I say so with absolute frankness. I have perfect and implicit trust in the new stand taken by my party, and since circumstances and political exigencies have induced our leaders to adopt the present policy in regard 1o the establishment of a war navy, I bow willingly to their greater experience and wisdom and will vote for the measure. In public life, as in private life, if necessary at times to sacrifice personal opinions of long standing towards forwarding the general good.
(Rien tdest plus dur que le devoir en concurrence avec ce que Fon affectionne.) (Lacordaire.)
(Faites votre devoir, et laissez faire aux dieux.) (Corneille.)
I heard our great leader a few days ago. in a speech vibrating with eloquence and rich in great and noble thoughts, assert that, our autonomy would be safeguarded, and indeed it is safeguarded by this Bill' as far as possible under the circumstances!
I have implicit confidence in the utter-
ances of my chief. And why not? Have not hon. gentlemen opposite the same trust in the utterances of their leader? The Militia Bill can be compared to this, and in spite of ill feeling, I might even say the terror it inspired to the French Canadian people, it became law. Its promoter, Sir G. E. Cartier, appealed at the time to his fellow-citizens of the province of Quebec, Crowed the absolute Necessity of having an armed force and explained the tenor of that Bill, thus restoring confidence in regard to that policy of militarism. Yes, I repeat it,
I have confidence in the policy of my leader.
One word more, besides a few quotations which I would like to make with a view to throwing some cold water on the sacred fire of overdone loyalism which is consuming ihe heart of my hon. friends opposite. I take the liberty of quoting some distinctly British views on Canada and its value from the British viewpoint.
The following is an extract from ' Canadian Emancipation,1 vol. 2, page 39:
WOULD GREAT BRITAIN ATTEMPT TO DEFEND CANADA?
We are told that, being a dependency of Great Britain, in case of war, we would be supported by the army and navy of the British enpire. No sane man will entertain that proposition. Some time previous to confederation, Colonel Jarvis, an imperial officer, made a report on the defence of Canada. He recommended the construction of important military works in the province of Quebec, and said: unless these works are constructed it is more than useless to continue any British force in Canada.' The works recommended have not been constructed, and England has withdrawn her forces.
What are the sentiments of leading British statesmen on the question? ' Britain's annual expenditure in defence of Canada, 'said Mr. Gladstone,' is a very heavy charge, and^ it is our duty in every way to get rid of it.' Sir Chas. Adderley said: 'I believe tbe Canadians are much more likely to involve us in a war than we are to inflict one upon them, and that Great Britain cannot undertake to defend the colonies for the sake of the Canadians.' The Duke of Newcastle said: 'The
cost of all war should be borne by those for whose benefit it is carried on.'
John Bright asserted, in his place in parliament, that ' there is no statesman in England who will venture to bring about the shedding of one drop of blood in defence of British North America.'
Mr. Aytoun said: ' He never had met with any man, not a member of the government, who considered that it was possible to defend Canada against an attack in force by the United States.'