never should have been, or should be the colleagues of the hon. the First Minister of the Crown either in this Government or in any other. I do not intend to go over the subjects dealt with so ably by hon. gentlemen -at all events on this side of the House-in the discussion which has taken place, but I wish to make a suggestion to the hon. the First Minister as to an altercation in the first paragraph of the Speech. It is : "In again summoning you for the despatch of business, I am glad to be able to say that nothing beyond the ordinary business of the country requires your attendance." I think whoever supplied that para graph to the Speech failed in his duty to the House, and to the country; and I think it should have been: "It is my duty to announce that the unmistakable evidences of the withdrawal of public confidence from my Government are such as require me to ask you to vote the supplies preparatory to an immediate appeal to the people." That is the only alteration which I propose, and in doing that I am quite serious. I say that the hon. gentleman is bound by Parliamentary precedent, by constitutional precedent, to take the course which I have stated. I say that the hon. gentleman will find in constitutional practice in England an eminent example for the course to which I invite his attention. Mr. Glad stone when he had a majority at his back felt bound to dissolve Parliament and go to the country because he had evidence from defeats in local elections of a loss of public confidence. What evidence has the hon. gentleman had? By seizing the opportune moment he was able to snatch a hasty and ill-considered verdict from large majority of the people. had a majority after the last general election of from eighty to one hundred I think it was about ninety. a He MR. MACKENZIE: Say two hunMR. MACKENZIE: Say two hun dred. MR. TUPPER: The Globe said 102, but I think I am not exaggerating when I say ninety. I think the hon. gentleman himself said eighty-seven. MR. MACKENZIE: When? MR. TUPPER: Well, I know that at first we were called a corporal's I am guard, and were treated with all the contempt with which the hon. gentleman could possibly treat us. happy to say that has passed away, that the action of the people has relieved us from that statement; and during the last two Sessions, at all events, we have not been taunted with our inability to discharge the duties of an efficient Opposition. I will call the attention of the hon. gentleman to a few changes that have taken place in the majorities which he previously obtained in different constituencies. In East Toronto, in 1874, he had a majority of 137, it was changed in the last election into a majority against him of 414; in West Toronto, a majority in his favour of 211 was changed to one of 351 against him. It the city of London, a majority in favour of the Government of 61 was changed to 128 against them; in North Ontario a majority of 92 in favour of the Government was changed to a majority of 87 against them; in South Ontario a majority of 151 in their favour was changed to one of 38 for their opponents. In North Renfrew they had a majority of 48 in their favour. MR. MACKENZIE: Does the hon. gentleman remember who was elected in North Renfrew in 1874? MR. TUPPER: I do remember; but I remember that since that he had a gentleman sent here to support him, Mr. Murray, by a majority of 48; and a subsequent election has given a majority of 210 to a member on this side of the House. MR. MACKENZIE : Who was elected in 1874? MR. TUPPER: I really forget. MR. WHITE (North Renfrew): I can tell the hon. the Premier that I had the honour of obtaining the return for North Renfrew in 1873, but by a minority of the whole vote of something over 200. There were three candidates running at that election. MR. MACKENZIE: That is a specimen of the hon. gentleman's statements, and yet he was claiming that the hon. member who has just spoken was a supporter of the Government. MR. TUPPER: I say that the gentleman who sat in the House support ing the Ministry defeated my hon. friend the present member by 48. That is now changed, by the contest which neither the First Minister nor myself will soon forget, to a majority of 200 in favour of my hon. friend. That was the time when the First Minister went into the constituency and told them it was for them to decide between the two great parties, and he got his answer. MR. MACKENZIE: I want this distinctly understood: the hon. gentleman is contrasting the general election of 1874 with what has taken place since. He is proclaiming a triumph when he had failed there in 1874. MR. TUPPER: The hon. member for North Renfrew has explained that. MR. WHITE (North Renfrew): Both the gentleman who ran against me in 1874 claimed to give a support to the Government. One of them claimed to give an out-and-out support to the Administration, and the other said that he was prepared to give the Government a fair trial. The aggregate vote of those two gentlemen, though I defeated them both, was something like 225 greater than that which I obtained. So that the subsequent election of 1875, instead of indicating a change of opinion in favour of the Administration, decreased the majority which they had in 1874. MR. TUPPER: I hope that will satisfy the hon. the First Minister as to the change of sentiment in North Renfrew. In South Norfolk the vote was changed from 123 in their favour to 72 | against them. I am afraid the hon. gentleman has not given the attention to those figures that they deserve, or probably he would have adopted the views which I suggested to him a few minutes since. MR. MACKENZIE: This is the twentieth time I have had this state ment. MR. TUPPER: Then the memory of the hon. gentleman is not very retentive. North Victoria gavo four votes in favour of a supporter of the Government, and that has been changed to a majority of one against them. MR. MACKENZIE: Was there an election in North Victoria ? MR. TUPPER: Yes. Mr. Maclennan sat in this House. MR. MACKENZIE: He was unseated on petition, and there was no change not even of a single vote. MR. TUPPER: As I only claimed a change of two votes the difference is not very great. MR. MACKENZIE: The hon. member who sits now for Victoria was member at first. MR. BOWELL: There were two elections. MR. TUPPER: My hon. friend and the leader of the Opposition concur in the idea that there was only one election but I believe there were two elections, if my memory serves me. elected by four; he was unseated and re-elected by three. Mr. Cameron was then seated on the scrutineer vote. MR. BOWELL: Mr. Maclennan was MR. MACKENZIE: By one. MR. BOWELL: Of course as soon as he got a majority, he started. MR. TUPPER: In Berthier, a supporter of the Government was elected by acclamation, and the county has since returned a member to oppose them by 272 majority. In Bellechasse also we were unable to put a candidate in the field, but a subsequent election returned a member of the Opposition. by 225 majority. MR. FRECHETTE: A minority. MR. MACKENZIE: Yes, taking the North Renfrew view of it. MR. TUPPER: A gentleman who has been elected by a majority of 255, should not have slurs thrown out against him in this House. In Chambly, 106 majority for the Government, has been changed to 150 against them; in Two Mountains, where a supporter of the Government was elected in 1874, by 155 majority, at a subsequent election the Government could not find a candidate to put in the field at all, and my hon. friend the present member was elected by acclamation. In Charlevoix, a majority of 273 in their favour had been changed to one of 211 against them. MR. MACKENZIE: Give the result of the next election. MR. TUPPER: Kamouraska elected a supporter of the Government by acclamation, but is now held by a sup porter of my right hon. friend (Sir John A. Macdonald), who was elected by a majority of 54. Victoria, Nova Scotia, at the general election, returned Mr. Ross by acclamation, while my hon. 'friend who now represents that county in this House (Mr. Campbell), was elected as a most pronounced opponent of this Government by a majority of 98. In Queen's, Prince Edward Island, Mr. Laird was elected by acclamation, and subsequently, my hon. friend the present member (Mr. Pope), was elected by a majority of 88. In Montreal West, as has already been stated, a majority in support of the Government of 600 at the general election was changed to a majority of 50 in favour of the sitting member. after he had pledged himself to vote against the Government on every important point-the Canadian Pacific Railway policy, the fiscal policy, and the treatment of the banks by the Finance Minister. MR. HOLTON: That is the reason his majority was so small. MR. TUPPER: I am afraid he felt that that was the only means by which he could get a majority at all. That was the state of things when the House rose, and I think the House will agree with me that it was a rather serious matter for the First Minister to consider whether he would call this Parliament together again. The House heard the statement last night of my hon. friend on my right (Mr. Masson) that, out of 19 elections in the Province of Quebec, since 1874, all had been carried against the Government but two scats, and of those Mr. Abbott had only previously carried Argenteuil by a majority of one, and in Montreal Centre the popular and eloquent gentleman who now sits for that constituency (Mr. Devlin), was able to turn à small majority on one side into one for the other. We have had five new members this Session who, if not introduced, have at all events taken their seats in the House, and yet not one of the five offered himself to the electors as a supporter of the Government. I presume the hon. gentlemen will act as they said they would, though I am not in a position to say. I presume those who were elected as Independent members will redeem their pledges and act according to their conscience, irrespective of party. MR. MACKENZIE: They have so far. MR. TUPPER: If they do support is the the Government, my case stronger. The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Haddow), was claimed as a Government supporter. If he was so, it would be a strange victory, seeing that he was returned only by assuring the electors that he was an Independent candidate. ings of these hon. gentlemen are in favour of the Government, so much the more clear then is the proof of the feelings of the country; because they If the lean knew that it would be the death knell of their hopes if they avowed their preferences for this Government. But out of five new members who have taken their seats in this House, three came as pronounced supporters of the great Liberal Conservative party in antagonism to the Government, and the other two are returned as Independent. There is not a man out of five who has been able to take his seat as an avowed supporter of the Government. Then take into consideration the overwhelming defeat of Mr. Vail in Digby, and the defeat of the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue, one of the most popular men inside this House, or out of it, in his own constituency. When you find a man of his great talents, and great power of advocating his cause, defeated by the overwhelming change in the constituency which he represented, where all his social ties existed, where his personal claims were known as well as his great abilities, then the hon. the First Minister has an evidence, which no man can shut his eyes to, to inform him as to the public sentiment of the country. Then the Minister of Militia goes down to his county. I have been taunted with having only one follower in this House from the Province of Nova Scotia, but when the public sentiment has swollen my one follower into something like onefourth of the members from that Province, when the Minister of Militia is beaten in his own county of Digby, and when, in the great metropolitan constituency of Halifax, a majority of over 2,000 is brought down to one of 228, which would not have existed at all but for the means that were used, and which could not have been used under other circumstances, if the hon. First Minister does not see the handwriting on the wall then the hon. gentle man is blind to the evidences which are apparent throughout the country, and to which no other man can shut his eyes. He will fail in his duty if he does not see here in this declaration of the people of Canada that his day is past, and that the sooner he places his trust in the hands of the sovereign people from whom ho received it, the sooner he will be acting in accordance with constitutional precedent. Mr. Gladstone adopted the same course, under circumstances not a tithe as strong as that. He resigned his trust and called upon the people of England to say whether he was to continue in office or not-not because he had not a majority, but said, "I cannot be blind to the fact that day after day the people in these individual elections"--and every one knows the power that the Government of the day can exercise in individual elections, which they cannot exercise in the general elections,and we know the unscrupulous manner in which that power has been used by this Government-"have evinced the withdrawal of public confidence from me in a number of constituencies. I will not be false to my country or to the duty I owe to the will of the country, and will not hesitate a moment in placing the power in the hands of the people themselves to say whom they wish to reign. them." There is another great Liberal authority, one who is regarded as one of the strongest Liberal authorities, perhaps, to be found in the ranks of the Liberal party in England, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Robert Lowe. He says, That the Prime Minister owes it to himself and to the country,the moment he sees these significant indications of his failure to carry these local elections, to resign over his trust to the people." Mr. Lowe further says:-"A Government regulates itself by the public pulse. When it has a good working majority in the House, that is evidence of the prima facie kind that it enjoys the public confidence. But it often happens, that, while this majority obtained at a general election or otherwise, still give the Government its best support, the popular confidence in the Government is shaken or lost. It often happens, in short, that although the Government has a majority, and perhags a large one, the people, the source of power, are so hostile to it that a general election would result in its complete overthrow and the complete disappearance of that majority. Now, no Government, worthy the name, would consent to hold office when it found itself in the position just outlined. Mere bureaucrats might, but statesmen in a free country have more respect for its institutions, and I may add, more selfrespect than to attempt or dream of anything of the kind. A Government is informed of the state of public feeling, among other things, by the result of what I may call intermediate elections, isolated elections held after a general election. If those elections go against the Government, one after another, if seats long accounted theirs, suddenly return members of the party opposite, why then they know for are they not told in a manner at once brusque and strikingthat their majority in the House is no longer proof that they enjoy popular confidence. Knowing that, what are they to do? Hold on to office? Continue to conduct the affairs of a free country when the majority of the people are palpably hostile to to them? Why, that would be usurpation ! We have been called disturbers, but usurpers, never! Does the hon. gentleman wish to be considered a usurper! The hon. the First Minister, has referred to my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, as anxious about struggling candidates. I have not seen any struggling candidates. All we have to do is to place a candidate before the people, and say he is an opponent of the present Government, to prevent him from being a struggling candidate. MR. MACKENZIE: I never used that phrase. I said struggling politicians. MR. TUPPER: Very good, strug. gling politicians. Are we struggling politicians, or are they? Are the men struggling politicians who go where they are invited, and present a fair, open, manly exposition of their policy on the public questions of the day before the country, and contrast it with the conduct of the gentlemen on the Ministerial benches. Are we struggling politicians, adopting a course like that? Or, are those struggling politicians who, clinging to the Treasury benches, despite the public sentiment, as expressed through all those channels in a most unmistake able manner, still say to the country that their duty to themselves, if not to the country, requires them to cling to office and disregard the strongest manifestation the people can give that the confidence of the public has been withdrawn from them. I am glad to know that the time is near at hand when, struggle as they may, their hold will be loosened. I am thankful that the time is at hand when the have the assistance and attendance of able men from any part of the Dominion, and and we welcomed the arrival of all those distinguished individuals who came down to pay partividuals who came down to pay particular attention to the county of Halifax on that occasion. I said to my friends, we have always won in this county, there is no necessity to make a great effort; all we have to do is to beat them sufficiently, because we will not be favoured in future with the attendance of all those distinguished gentlemen who are now encouraged by a small minority in the hope of converting it into a majority for themselves. I pointed to the action of the successful oarsman, George Brown, who always kept his antagonist a little of his oars. I told them all that was behind him so as to give him the wash necessary was a sufficient majority to show that the great metropolitan county of Nova Scotia was fully in accord with the public sentiment of this country. When the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Tupper) presented himself before the electors of Halifax there were issues laid before them, there were slanders and imputations made with respect to myself and the Government of which I am a member, which up to that time none had ventured to place before the people of Nova Scotia. Three gentlemen came to Halifax. In the first place there was the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Tupper). (Mr. Tupper). He, no doubt, thought himself able on usual occasions to instruct the people of Nova Scotia; MR. JONES (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, but on an occasion as important as the I have listened with great amusement, one to which I refer, he had to be I cannot say with much interest, to accompanied by a gentleman from the hon. gentleman who has just re- Montreal, Monsieur Thibault. What sumed his seat. I say not with much the record of that gentleman is, is interest, because that Address is not best known to the House, and new to me, and, I presume, the main hon. members can judge respectportion of it is not very new to the hon.ing it as well as myself. It is certain members of this House. Perhaps allowance may be made to-night for the hon. gentleman for the tone in which he has indulged, because he has just returned from a contest in Nova Scotia, in which the electors of that Province have shown how they regard that hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman did me the honour of attending the election that was held in the county of Halifax recently. We are always happy to mighty public sentiment of Canada must be let loose, and will have an opportunity of dealing with those hon. gentlemen as they deserve, when they too, must share the fate of so many of their unfortunate candidates who have undertaken to be their standard-bearers in the unpopular the unpopular cause they have advocated. that wherever he went in the county |