Thompson(Haldimand), | House.
Thomson, (Welland),
Tremblay,

ideas into the House when the Ministers
themselves dare not attempt to repress what
they all acknowledged was an evil. It was
left to hon. gentlemen who went about this
country as paid lecturers, probably making
their living by agitating this question
it was left to them to come forward here
and try to thrust their absurd ideas on
this House; and the Government and
their followers meekly swallowed all they
had to say.
He would be quite prepared
to support a Prohibitory Liquor Law if
he thought it would be carried into effect,
but every one knew such a thing was
impossible. It was well known, in the
first place, that it would be ruinous to
the revenue, and the smuggling that would
be carried on across the frontier would
make such an Act null and void. It had
been a failure in the States, and
therefore he regarded this as an attempt
to perpetrate a fraud upon the community.
It was nothing but an attempt to bring
certain men prominently before their con-
stituents and enable them to carry the
temperance vote. •He considered this
measure a fraud, a mockery, a delusion
and a snare.

the same opinion as himself, would not have had such disparaging remarks addressed to them as the hon. gentleman had indulged in this evening. Was it not the business of a politician to elevate the moral status of society, and make it better than he found it if he had the opportunity. If that was not his business what was it? If this House was not now prepared to consider this question, it would some day be prepared to take it up. He did not usually venture any remarks of a prophetic character, but he would say that he believed the moral convictions of the people of this country were fast approaching that stage when, if the hon. gentleman valued his position in this House, he would not dare to speak of temperance men and the temperance cause in the way he had done to-day. He agreed with the amend ment of the hon. member for North Hastings, but he did not consider that it would add to the value of the motion before the House. Temperance advocates desired to advance step by step. His object this session was to get the opinion of this House, as the opinion of the Senate had been obtained. The Government could then consider the expediency of introducing a measure to prohibit the sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors in the Domingen-ion. If they would not do so, it would be his (Mr. Ross') duty to introduce such a measure himself.

Mr. BOWELL said he had moved an amendment and he wished to know if the hon. member for Cariboo referred to him. If so he would inform that hon. tleman that he was not a temperance lecturer.

Mr. THOMPSON said he did not allude to the hon. member for North Hastings.

Mr. YOUNG said no one ought to attribute motives to any hon. member in this House in respect to any measure he might bring under its notice. There was no doubt the hon. member for West Middlesex was perfectly candid and sincere in every move he had made in this matter. Every one acquainted with him knew how earnestly he had advocated the temperance cause.

Mr. ROSS (West Middlesex) said it was true he had lectured on temperance, and was prepared to do so again, and he was only sorry that in his missionary tours through the country he had not visited British Columbia. Possibly if he had chanced to be in that hon. gentleman's constituency when an election was proceeding, and his (Mr. THOMPSON'S) success had depended on the temperance vote, he (Mr. Ross) and those who were of Mr. Thompson.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Montreal) said the only data or statistics before this House were contained in the report the Commissioners who went to the United States to report on the working of the Prohibition Law in that country. He regarded that report as a mass of crude and undigested remarks on a very important subject. The editor of one of the leading papers in Montreal had well said that there was nothing in that report which would justify Parliament in passing a Prohibitory Liquor Law. It would be absurd for the House of Commons of Canada at this late period of the session to pass a law of that kind. The hon. member for West Middlesex evidently supposed that, weary as many members were of the length of the session, the House would pass the motion just to get rid of a vexatious and not, as now presented, an over-interesting subject. But he (Mr. MACKENZIE) trusted the House would show sufficient sense on that occasion as not to be led by the hon.

member, and that hon. members would | (Mr. MACKENZIE) knew that the time of
pause before they committed themselves
to the principle of prohibition, which would
bind this country for all time to come. It
was not fitting that representatives sent
to Parliament should hastily pass a reso-
lution which committed them in the man-
ner the motion would commit them. There
was no information before the House
which would justify such action as some
hon. members wished the House to take.
It was a remarkable fact, one to which
he desired to call attention, that Prohibi-
tionists very frequently used political exi-
gencies to make converts. The hon. mem-
ber for West Middlesex admitted that,
if he had been in British Columbia and
the hon. member for Cariboo had been, as
the Americans
66
in
say,
a tight
place " in political matters, he
might have made a a convert of that
hon. gentlman by force. Prohibitionists
were like MAHOMET who went with the
Koran in one hand and a sword in the
other, and converted the people whether
they wished it or not to the doctrines of
his faith. The Prohibitionists were anxious
and willing and always endeavoring to
force people to vote as they wished whether
the person's conscience or convictions were
opposed thereto or not. Another great
apostle of temperance was the hon. mem-
ber for South Ontario, who carried out
the principles of MAHOMET in other re-
spects. That hon. member accused him
the other night with being a Mohammedan
from misunderstanding his remarks, and
based his conception of him (Mr. MACK-
ENZIE) on that misunderstanding. The
hon. member accused him of wishing for
a Mohammedan heaven. He (Mr. MACK-
ENZIE) said nothing of the kind. In a
little bit of banter he said that if that
ridiculous law and similar sumptuary laws
were to be passed in this country, all they
could hope for was that they might get to
another planet where there was no pro-
hibitory liquor law. He said nothing
about a future state, for be would not
joke on such a subject, and every one
would do him the justice to believe that
statement. But an old politician like the
hon. member for South Ontario, who dared
to call him a Mohammedan should have
reflected, as he was himself a Mohammed-
an, and while abstaining like Mohammed-
ans from liquor, indulged in pleasures
which they were only too fond of. He
Mr. Mackenzie.

the House was valuable, but it was more
important that such a law of the character
proposed should not disgrace our legisla-
tion, than that a short time should be oc-
cupied in discussing that serious question.
He asked hon. members in considering the
subject to reflect on the fact that there
was not sufficient information before them
on which to legislate. Why, therefore,
should they be led to pass a motion which
committed them to the principle of prohi-
bition. If they once committed themselves
to the principle we would see politics
dragged through the mire for the sake of
a good cause, temperance, as had
occurred in the United States. It was well
known that in the States candidates of the
very worst kind in other respects had been
elected to prominent positions merely
because they were whole-souled, total
prohibitionists, and the advocates of that
cause were introducing the same system
into Canada. It was absurd that such a
system should be sought to be introduced
into a new country like this. We want
honest, able men pledged to go to Parlia-
ment to do what is right according to their
consciences; we do not want men pledged
beforehand, for the sake of gaining a few
votes, to go for prohibition, which had not
been successful anywhere, and yet the
measure proposed for this country was one
to prohibit entirely the use of even the
mildest descriptions of wines or liquors.
Hon. members should pause before they
allowed the Prohibitionists to enact such a
law as they now sought to pass.
hon. member of the other branch of the
Legislature very properly said the other
day, that in Ontario where the people
knew perfectly well that the Legislature
of the Province could not pass a Pro-
hibitory Law, they had the hypocrisy to
petition the Dominion Parliament that it
would enact such a law. The supporters
of prohibition often signed petitions to
Parliament ten or a dozen times, and
induced their wives and children to sign.
They even went so far as to sign for chil-
dren yet unborn, and petitions so signed
were presented to Parliament as an ex-
pression of the public opinion of the coun-
try. There never was a movement got up
with so much noise and with so little in it.
The proposition presented to the House
was premature, to say the least of it.
Whether hon. members agreed with his

An

views or not, they would believe it was premature for Parliament to pass such a sweeping measure as that proposed, and commit themselves to the principle that such a law should be placed on the Statute Book. He trusted the House would show that it would not be led away by the clamor and noise of fanatics and bigots. He referred to the extreme wing of the Prohibitionists, for there were Prohibitionists for whom, as he did for total abstainers, he entertained great respect. There were, however, some few Prohibitionists who were such bigots and fanatics that it was useless to discuss with them, they could not be convinced, for, as MOORE said in a beautiful simile, "the mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye, the more light that is thrown upon it, the more it is contracted." Those men who were temperance men at heart, as well as all thoughtful people throughout the country would consider that the House had acted wisely if to-day they refused peremptorily to pass an Act which was based on insufficient data, which would be utterly ineffectual and bring law into contempt, and make good and honest men in other matters commit perjury, because they needed a stimulant, however harmless.

on

and the affirmation of the principle of prohibition by the House would effect that end at least. He never expected that a representative of the great wealthy metropolis of this Dominion would be the first to lead on the opposition to this measure. Temperance men would now know that they had to contend against. The adoption of the resolution before the House would show the country that this Legislature was in earnest, and would cause all those interested in the liquor traffic to take their stand publicly in its favor, and temperance men would then know the strength of their opponents. They now knew they had to fight against West Montreal, if that constituency was fairly represented in this House, and they also knew by the sentiments expressed by two hon. members from British Columbia that they would have opposed to them a large section of that Province; and he had no doubt there was also a pretty strong opposition in Ontario. The result of adopting the motion now before the House would be to develop all the opposition to prohibition that there was in the country, and the temperance men would then know just what they had to contend against. He might say with his hon. friend from Waterloo, that, having heard Mr. Ross lecture on temperance-though he was not a paid lecturer as insinuated--and from his personal knowledge of him, he knew he was perfectly sincere in this movement, and at all events, there was no hypocrisy about him. He trusted that the resolution now before the House would be carried almost unanimously.

It being six o'clock, the committee rose, and the SPEAKER left the chair.

AFTER RECESS.

Mr. OLIVER repudiated the statement of the hon. member for Montreal West that the temperance movement was carried on in Ontario with hypocrisy. He knew the people of Ontario perhaps better than that hon. member, and he could tell him that they were sincere in this movement and the House and the country would know they were sincere in a short time. The Legislature of the Province behalf of the people, and the various religious denominations had petitioned this House for a Prohibitory Liquor Law; and he could tell the hon. gentleman that the petitions presented to this House represented the feeling of Mr. MACDOUGALL (East Elgin) said nine-tenths of the people of Ontario. It there were few that would deny that intemwas no disgrace for the ladies of Ontario perance is a vice, and that it should be to petition for this law. They perhaps suppressed. The member for Cariboo more than any other class suffered in declared that there were some who were consequence of the liquor traffic. He advocating the suppression of intemperbelieved that the affirmation by this House ance who were not strictly temperance of the principle of prohibition would be men themselves. That might be the of great advantage to temperance men in case; it might be that there were some their struggle to put down the liquor who so long as the liquor traffic was legaltraffic. It was important that the opposi-ized indulged in the use of liquor, and yet tion to this movement should be developed, who were desirous for the suppression of Mr. Mackenzie.

The House again went into committee (Mr. GOUDGE in the chair.)

It

intemperance. The charge had been made | prohibition in the United States. Now that those who advocated prohibition were he had a personal knowledge of the effects insincere. He believed that accusation to of the prohibitory law in the State of New be without foundation, and no hon. gen- York. About 20 years ago that State tleman should accuse another of insincerity was carried upon the temperance question in the promotion of any measure simply by a majority of from 20,000 to 30,000. because he did not approve of it himself. That Legislature passed a most stringent He was satisfied that those who advocated prohibitory law which was to go into prohibition were sincerely desirous in the effect on the 3rd July. The provisions of public interest to see it carried into effect. the Act were so stringent and severe that The question now before the House was it was a dead letter from the first. the resolution of the hon. member for never was acted upon, no prosecutions West Middlesex and the amendment of were commenced under it that he was the hon. member for North Hastings. aware of, and the succeeding Legislature Now, the amendment did not controvert repealed it. At the next election the the principle embodied in the resolution; temperance movement was utterly defeated it did not deny that intemperance was a in the State by a majority of about 30,000. vice and that it should be suppressed. It He thought that law stood to-day as the in fact admitted the whole principle of the warning to this Parliament. He would say resolution and merely added that the Gov- nothing against the arguments advanced to ernment should assume the responsibility show the evils of intemperance. He only of initiating legislation upon this subject. wished to say that from the effects which If, then, the principle of the resolution had followed such laws where they had was admitted, then it was for those who been in force he could not vote for the did not approve of the plan suggested to passage of such passage of such a measure in Canada. propose some better mode of attaining the He did not think a proper investigation desired object. An insinuation had been had been made into the working of the made that those who advocated prohibition liquor law in such States as Maine and were paid lecturers. It might be that Massachusetts. From what he had heard paid lecturers did advocate prohibition, of the working of the law in these States but that was a matter of indifference. The it had failed utterly to prohibit intemperimportant fact for this House to consider ance, and drinking was carried on more was that the subject had been very fully extensively under cover of prohibition than discussed throughout the country, and the ever it was openly. people were well informed upon it in all its bearings. There could be nothing more unfair than to insinuate that the men who were advocating prohibition were narrowminded bigots, incapable of judging intelligently as to what would promote the best interest of the country. It had been his happiness to be acquainted with the hon. member for West Middlesex for a long time. That hon. gentleman had long taken a deep interest in this question and had been the means of doing a great deal of good by his advocacy of temperance, and to whomsover the charge of insincerity might apply it certainly did not apply to him. He hoped that the hon. member for North Hastings would withdraw his amendment and allow the resolution, feeling assured that by taking that course he would be best promoting the object he as well as the hon. member for West Middlesex had in view.

Mr. PLUMB said this resolution contained a reference to the salutory effects of Mr. Macdougall.

JJJ

Mr. BOWELL, in reply to the suggestions of the hon. member for East Elgin, said he would more willingly withdraw his resolution if he thought it would endanger the movement. When the hon. member for West Middlesex placed his resolution on the paper, he (Mr. BowELL) stated his opinion of them. They affirmed an abstract opinion of which every one approved, and were inconsequential in their character, but could accomplish no good. Something more must be done and the principle laid down by the hon. member for Wentworth was the correct one. prohibition was ever to be carried out in this country the people were as ready for it now as ever they would be. Ever since he (Mr. BowELL) had the honor of occupying a seat in Parliament the table had every year been groaning with petitions in favor of prohibition, and Parliament had been in the habit of placing resolutions on the journals affirming the principle and burking them in some

If