Hon. MACKENZIE KING.
At the request of my hon. colleague the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) I would ask permission of the House to make an explanation on his behalf. as he is unfortunately unable through illness to be in the House this afternoon. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) in his speech on March 2, said:
Our minister of war (Sir Frederick Borden) delivered a speech here on February 10, and if hon. gentlemen will look it up, they will see that the hon. minister declared that the resolution that was presented by the Prime Minister last March was the one that was finally adopted by this House, and he puts in on ' Hansard ' just as it appeared when first read by the Prime Minister. Let me read it to you:
The hon. member then read the first part of the resolution as introduced by the Prime Minister, and continued:
You will remember that that is the paragraph as it appeared in the resolution brought in by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Militia has referred to that as the one finally adopted. But it was not so.
With reference to this passage I have received from Sir Frederick Borden the following- communication:
My dear Mackenzie King,-Thanks for your kind letter directing my attention to Mr. Crother's reference to my speech. I had hoped to be able to bring the matter up in the House to-day and notified Mr. Crothers accordingly. Unfortunately after making the attempt, I have had a return of lumbago and must keep quiet. I am anxious to_ have the correction made in my speech, and it has occurred to me that you might bring the matter up for me to-day, so that the necessary instructions may be given to ' Hansard to substitute the resolution which I read for the one published erroneously.
The speech itself carries with it the proof that I read the resolution finally adopted by the House. .
As a matter of fact I had the resolution adopted March 29, 1909, and Mr. Borden's amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Navy Bill (February 3, 1910) respectively pasted on separate sheets of letter paper just like the duplicate I am sending herewith. At six o'clock recess I handed them to the ' Hansard ' boy telling him he need not return them. They were not used by ' Hansard ' in extending reporters' notes, but the resolution of 1909 was erroneously clipped from * Hansard * of March 29, 1909, at the end of the premier's speech instead of at the end of the debate of that day.
I have a most distinct recollection of reading the resolution in which I had marked the words ' speedy ' for special emphasis and remark.
The proof-reading was done by me but was limited to my own words. I did not think of proof-reading the extracts. When I took the proofs to the ' Hansard' room, I mentioned the fact that I had not read the extracts, &c., &c., and was told that it was not necessary as special care was taken to read and compare them.
Tours very truly,