man himself and his administration are in course of execution, and necessarily swells the interest on the public debt; and there will be a constant inerease of taxation to meet that debt. But in all other matters I shall I shall endeavor to see that no public interest shall suffer, although we are bound in a season like the present to avoid any expenditures that can be avoided and to curtail any expenditure where the revenue really fails, rather than impose taxation on the people in order to meet it. The hon. gentleman has referred to my remarks last Session regarding the latest Territorial Act, and he has expressed hope to-day that having made a saving for this one year I need not put that Act into operation, or appoint a Governor to undertake the government of these Territories in the way provided y that Act.. The right hon. gentleman Fould unfairly interfere; and implies hat the Territory might remain in uch a condition permanently, as it need require no supervision but that of the Government of Manitoba. But ny impression of our duty is that we ought to have that country settled as fast as possible, with the great hope of making a transcontinental railway pass through there to throw in a large population into these Territories. We have been at a very great expense in maintaining British supremacy in these Territories, and we believe that it is absolutely necessary to have an authority within that section for the guidance of its affairs. Last season very nearly two thousand people settled outside the boundaries of the Province, and it is time we should consider how the Government of Manitoba can be relieved of the supervision of such a vast country. The seat of Government is too far distant, and in order to reach remote districts, it is necessary to have some supervision in the Territories. I may mention, for instance, in regard to these Territories, that we found a great deal of difficulty in preventing intoxicating liquors being introduced from the United States. We have succeeded, I believe, in that, and for the last six or nine months, we have reason to think that no liquor has been introduced by the Southern boundary.

The Mounted Police have effectually checked that illicit trade, but, singular as it may seem, we have actually found that United States traders have reached the district of the Peace River with large quantities of intoxicating liquors from Alaska, and have succeeded in that way in turning our flank, and producing the usual demoralising effects among the Indian tribes. I think it is of the very greatest importance that the British authority should be formally recognised and established among all the tribes of that country, and that they should be assured of our thorough and efficient protection of them, and the justice and liberality of the Canadian or British authorities. Therefore, we have considered this act so desirable. The reason for not placing it in operation I shall give on a future occasion, when I have, to address the House on matters connected with that subject. My right hon. friend was somewhat jocular in his remarks upon the Manitoba terms. He thinks that he was right on former occasions, and that we are wrong because we propose to make some alterations in the terms of union of that Province. Well, Sir, the circumstances are not the same. I never took the ground that it was not desirable to consider the circumstances of any Province in such cases. What I wanted to urge at that time was upon entirely different ground, which I need not enter upon now. Suffice it to say that the Government feel it necessary to bring before Parliament the representations of the ministry of that Province. I am happy to say that they have shown the utmost desire to meet the views of the administration here in curtailing the expenditures. Canada has made very large outlays in that Province and neighboring territories year after year, and it is impossible to consider the position of a small Province struggling under financial difficulties, and having little local revenue of own, without also considering what is necessary for us to do in order to enable them to conduct the government. Great abuses undoubtedly prevailed in that Province some years ago, but these abuses, we have reason to believe, are not carried on at the present time-I mean as to

expenditure; and if the Province will endeavor, as it seems inclined to do, to limit its disbursements to the smallest possible amount ; amount; and Parliament should be satisfied with their exertions, and that the representations they make are correct, then it is fair to consider what should be done under such circumstances. I don't know that I have anything further to add to-day. Upon all the measures of the Government I shall endeavor to be as explicit as possible in giving explanations; and while it may be quite true, as the right hon. gentleman remarked, that we are not lying upon a bed of roses, his statement, which of course he makes with the greatest possible regret, that troublesome thorns are causing us some uneasiness, will not hold. At any rate, I hope the right hon. gentleman's prediction will not seriously affect our peace, or seriously disturb the bed of roses which it seems, although his remarks would make it appear other wise, he was very loth to leave when in power. I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman for the terms of his speech, and hope we shall endeavor to conduct the business of the session with that moderation which the right hon. gentleman has initiated to-day.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of my honorable friend, the First Minister, to a matter of very grave importance which has stirred the public mind, in the Province from which I come, to its very depths during the last two weeks; and before the first step in the business of legislation is taken in response to the speech, I think it but fair to him and to those who support him on the floor of this House, that he should be given an opportunity of making the explanation, which I am satisfied in my own mind he will be able to give, and which will be received by the country, or, at all events, by his friends, with the utmost satisfaction. I allude to the speech, which I cannot but characterize as an unfortunate one, made by the Postmaster-General in a neighbouring county not many weeks ago. The Postmaster-General was undoubtedly. and it was quite proper, detailed by my

hon. friend, the First Minister, to explain the policy of the Government and to promote the interests of the Government in an important election then pending in the County of Argenteuil. Nothing can be more proper, Sir, than that a prominent public man should go into a county on an occasion of that kind to explain the policy of the Administration. It is perfectly consistent with the whole course of politics in this country and in other countries enjoying constitutional government. Well, if the Hon. PostmasterGeneral had defined or explained the general policy of the country (I had not the good fortune to hear him), we have never been made aware of it. But a passage of his speech was carefully reported and sent to the press of the country, by telegraph, in which he is represented to have made a very offensive attack upon the dignitaries of the Church of the great majority of the people of the Province of Quebec, and constituting a very large proportion of the people of this whole Dominion. He is reported to have made an appeal to the Protestants of Lower Canada, not as politicians or on political grounds, or the approved policy of the Government of which he is a member, but as Protestants, to effect objects I need not further describe. And he wound up that speech, Sir, by a declaration that these were his opinions, and that he was satisfied that they were the opinions of his party; and if he were

not sustained in

the expression of those opinions he Now, Sir, Would resign his position. the whole importance of that speech arises from the circumstance that the hon. gentleman is a member of the Administration. If it had been made member of either by a private

political party, certainly I, for one, would never have challenged the attention of the House to it. The whole importance of the hon. gentleman's utterance arises out of the fact that he is a member of the Administration. Two questions arise, and I desire to put them to my hon. friend with the utmost directness, being persuaded that he will answer them with the utmost directness. First, whether when the Postmaster-General left Ottawa, he had any inclination or had

given to the Postmaster-General any instructions to take the line of remark to which I have now called the attention of the House; and, secondly, whether, not having given it, as I am satisfied is the fact, not even having any such inclination, he now approves of the substance of those remarks, or of the good taste, good judgment, and statesmanship of the Hon. Postmaster General in making this utterance. These are the questions to which I desire to call the attention of the First Minister and of the House.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-My hon. friend from Chateauguay only mentioned a minute or two ago that he intended to put some questions to me, and I was not aware of their precise nature. He has put it specificallywhether the Postmaster-General had any conversation with me before leaving to take part in the election at Argenteuil regarding that particular passage of his speech? Well, Sir, if we had any conversation upon any subject affecting the Administration's policy in any way, I should say at once I would not under any circumstances mention anything about that conversation. It so happens, however, that we had no conversation about that or any other subject affecting the policy of the Administration, and that I was not aware of what subjects my hon. friend intended to speak upon. In fact, I did not know that he would go to Argenteuil at all. He went to Montreal on other business, and proceeded there as a political friend of the hon. gentleman who is now Member for the county. As to the second question whether I approve of the speech, I have simply to say that I do not approve of anything that has a tendency to bring religion into public discussion in the politics of this country. I have a very strong opinion myself as an old Liberal, that as far as it is possible to do so, questions relating to Churches should be entirely separated from any discussion that may arise in Parliament. I am a believer, Sir, in the entire independence of each church, no matter by what name it may be called, and I am a believer in having Parliament in this country relieved from the discussion of any subject which may provoke reference to any religious

questions. I think that is the right course to pursue, and, as I remarked in a published letter, the constitution of the country is eminently favorable to that procedure being carried out. I can only, therefore, express my regret at the remarks of my hon. friend, and the tone and interpretation given to them by many. So far as that interpretation and tone are concerned I have no sympathy with it, nor have I taken any part in public affairs which would at all involve my entering into a discussion on these subjects. I hope I have sufficiently expressed my own views as a member of the Administration. I believe that every Member of this House has a perfect right to discuss politically in his own Province local questions which may come up, that he may consider it a duty to do so, and that for their share in any such discussions members of this House are not to be held responsible here. With regard to the views enunciated by my hon. friend, the Postmaster-General, in his published letter, addressed to Mr. Power, of Halifax, in which he explained that he did not design any attack upon the Catholic Church in his speech, I have no doubt that this was the case, because I have too much faith in his own generous disposition, and correct appreciation of the public affairs of this country to believe that he could be a party to a desire to assail any religious denomination in the country. I hope Sir, that my hon. friend from Chateauguay is entirely satisfied with the explanation I have given.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON.- In reply to my hon. friend, the First Minister, I will say that I am entirely satisfied as to the good faith of his exposition of his own views, as they are my own views, but I venture to remind my hon. friend, that there is a solidarity of responsibility among Ministers, and

that the declarations or utterances of

private members of the House, or of private citizens, come within a very different category from the utterances upon public questions of Ministers of the Crown, especially when these utterances are clinched with the strong declaration that these opinions are shared by his Party, and "that if they were not, that he could have no further

connection with that Party. That was the point and the only point. I did not require, and I am sure that the House or the country did not require any explanations from my honorable friend of his own personal views on a matter of this kind. His career-his distinguished career, of many years standing, and the ground he has uniformly taken in public life, would have forbidden me supposing for one moment, that he could personally have been in sympathy with the attempt the unfortunate attempt made by one of his colleagues to stir up religious strife in the Province of Quebec; and all that I felt at all interested to know was not whether my hon. friend shared these opinions, but whether he approved of the hon. gentleman's statement, that if his utterances were not endorsed by his Party, then his connection with that party must cease, and to say whether these utterances were really approved of by the head of the Administration. I infer however, and everybody will infer, from what my hon. friend has stated, that he does not approve of that speech of the doctrine of that speech, and of the line of tactics which were, perhaps, to be inaugurated by that speech; but my hon. friend has stopped just a little short, and I should not have said so if he had not called me to my feet. He stopped just a little short of saying what I think he should say whether he approved or disapproved of the substance of that speech, or of the time and occasion, and circumstances under which it was delivered.

Mr. MASSON (Terrebonne) - Mr. Speaker, I need not say, that I am exceedingly happy to find that my hon. friend, the member for Chateauguay, is not satisfied with the explanation given by the Hon. the Postmaster General in a letter which he lately published in the papers, and which letter was endorsed by a part of the French Canadian Liberal press of the Province of Quebec. And I am also happy to see that he, belonging to a creed different from ours,

thinks that the action of the Postmaster

General should be repudiated by every well-thinking Protestant in this community. I am sorry to see, Mr. Speaker, that in an explanation of this matter, the Prime Minister, after one

of his colleagues had taken upon him self to state at a public meeting, that though not authorized to speak in the name of his colleagues, nevertheless, he was so sure of their opinion in favor of his views as to say, that he would leave the Government if his speech was not endorsed. I am sorry to see, that the Hon. Minister of Public Works, the Leader of this Government, the gentleman to whom we are obliged to look up, should have stood up in his place to discuss such a question, instead of avoiding the difficulty of coming before Parliament and discussing this question by dealing characteristically and immediately with the offence, or else his place should not be at the head of affairs in this country. It is necessary in a country so situated as ours, and a matter of the highest importance, that men of the greatest moderation should manage our affairs. Mr. Speaker, it might not have been the proper time on the debate on the Address, as my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, said, and with our strong sympathies, to to discuss this important question, but it has made a great noise in the Province of Quebec, and has stirred up the whole people; and we, the French Canadian Conservatives of the Province of Quebec, have been accused of being a priest-ridden population. Well, Sir, there are in every party, there are in every creed, there are in every nationality, fanatics; and there are also men who, though they are not fanatics, are sometimes carried away by their pas sions, or by the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed, and say things which they would not say under other circumstances; but certainly we Minister of the Crown would have could never have suspected that a made use of such expressions as the hon. gentleman has employed in the Province of Quebec. That hon. gentleman next sent forth a letter, with the aid of what we would call a compère in French, stating that his attack on Conservatives and on the Ultramontanes of Lower Canada-of the

Province of Quebec-was not a religious attack, but that it was a political attack.

Well, Sir, did Mr. Huntington say that the time had come