Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
That does not settle the matter very well, either way. I was always under the impression that when an amendment is offered, notice is required, which is outside of the broadness of the preamble. However, whichever way that may be, I was going to say that as far as I am concerned, I desire to give the hon. gentleman all the latitude necessary, but I think it is hardly fair, when we take the position as the hon. member for Lanark did, that we should confine ourselves to the merits of the matter before the committee, to be immediately accused of being railway men or of having some particular feeling about the Bill. That is no argument. The reason I rose to speak, was that the hon. member for East York said that the only way to remedy the grievances was for hon. members to band themselves together and to air their grievances. In the first place, that presumes that there is a grievance. I do not see any possible grievance. I think it is a grievance ' upon the members of the House that there should be this unnecessary delay when the matter, as has been explained by a previous speaker, has been absolutely delegated to the largest committee of the House, fully discussed, and voted upon. When that is done that should settle it, at
all events, for one year. The grievance is that after the legislature and that large committee have dealt with the subject that we should be kept here a whole afternoon discussing this matter. Hon. gentlemen
talk about grievances. We are asked now to deal with a matter that has nothing to do with the Bill under consideration. We are asked to change the Act of parliament that has actually gone through after full discussion this session. Hon. gentlemen
stand up in this House and propose that hon. gentlemen should band themselves together. Why should not hon. gentlemen have the courage to get up and express their opinions about what is a grievance and what is not ? I feel that when a large committee and this House have come to a conclusion, when a matter becomes law between individuals, or between individuals and corporations, it should be maintained. It would be ridiculous and humiliating in legislation, if after we make a solemn contract we should be asked to repeal it before that contract is cold. That really is what these hon. gentlemen want to do. A few days ago we passed that charter and we had the parties before Us and we heard the facts. It appeared that some people who had for a long time made no progress under that charter lost the land grant. Some hon. gentlemen here talk as if it were easy to raise money to build roads, especially in new districts, but let them try. Some of these gentlemen from the North-west tell us that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is so unpopular, that to advocate even their rights