They are directed by this parliament when we pass this estimate. We directed them when the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition agreed upon the matter, and this being the case I cannot understand why hon. members in this House will permit votes to go through for such matters as the Newmarket canal, and then rise and protest against an expenditure of $18,000 to send a delegation from this parliament to appear at the coronation of our gracious Lord, the King. To say that this is a private invitation is not meeting the situation fairly. His Majesty is not issuing invitations personally. The authority is vested in certain members of the Imperial parliament. It may be as informal as you wish, but when that invitation arrives here, and when our representatives are selected with the best judgment of the leader of the opposition and the leader of the government, I cannot understand why the country should not assume the obligation of paying their expenses just as they pay the expenses of hon. members for serving here throughout the session. No one on this side of the House deplores more than I do the discussion that has taken place here to-night. In my judgment it would have been perhaps a proper subject for a caucus to have discussed, and I am quite certain that hon. members upon reflection will realize that this is not a matter to be dealt with in the manner in which it has been handled to-night. Some of us might like to have gone ourselves. There is nothing to debar any of us from going. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth)
deplores that he will be obliged to pay his own expenses.
Another hon. member wonders, if an invitation were offered, and if $1,000 were contributed to pay their expenses, how many of them would go? The same could be said of members of the bar on the opposite side of the House. If the question were put, how many of them would take a seat on the Supreme Court bench at a salary of $7,000 a year, I do not think there would be one member of the bar sitting on the other side of the House who would not hold up his hand for it. 1 think that if the House were asked how many members would go if the country offered them $1,000 to pay their expenses, probably every member who could afford the time would go. But that is not the course that has been pursued. When the leaders of both parties have exercised their best judgment in the selection of representatives of this parliament I think it is only fitting that the country should bear their expenses.
^Seeing that hon. members on both sides are taking a fling at myself, I think it due that I should say a word with regard to the matter. When I was approached and asked whether I would go to England it was emphasized very strongly that I would have to pay my own expenses. I said: Yes, I will go and when I was asked: Are you sure to go?-I said: Yes, I will go. I was under no misapprehension at all, I knew that I would have to pay my own expenses, and I was willing to pay my own expenses. I do not see why any one else should have his expenses paid when I was ready and willing to pay my own.
Salaries and expenses of the Paris agency- Further amount required, $5,500.
We have appointed a new agent at Paris. My hon. friend knows that Mr. Fabre, the late agent, was paid by this parliament $6,500 and $2,000 additional which was contributed by the Quebec government. We have not thought it advisable to accept any contribution from the Quebec government, and we have made the salary of Mr. Roy, the new agent, $8,000. Mr. Fabre received no allowance whatever for contingencies; every-
thing came from the sum of $6,500. It is now proposed to provide $5,000 for office rent, and such contingencies as are necessary to carry on the work.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.41 a.m. Wednesday.