June 24, 1904 (9th Parliament, 4th Session)


Mr. SAM@

as they did, if they ever did so. Supposing Lord Dundonald did commit a breach of etiquette by making the speech he did at Montreal, he had two or three courses open to him. He could have appealed to the Prime Minister and no doubt his appeal v/ould have been pigeon-holed ; or if he sent it to the Minister of Militia, that minister would likely have refused to forward it. He could have resigned and washed his hands of the whole business and gone out of the country with a great name, or he could have taken the course he did; and I maintain that in taking that course he has shown that he was actuated by the highest regard for the interests of this country. In any event, the worst charge brought against him is that he committed a breach of etiquette. But what were the offences of the Minister of Agriculture 1 That minister was guilty of a breach of etiquette just the same as Lord Dundonald was. When Lord Dundonald telephoned him to arrange a meeting, the minister said : I will go and see you. But he never did. Lord Dundonald telephoned again, and the minister again said : I will call around at your office and see you. And he never kept his promise. That was a breach of etiquette.

Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Full View