MY LORD
I hâve the honour to enclose for Your Lordship's information copy of an extract from the Debates of the House of Commons (unrevised Edition) containing the report of the debate upon a resolution moved by Mr. Foster in regard to Canada's assumption of a proper share of responsibility for her naval defences and the amendaient to that resolution offered by the Government, which was accepted, the resolution as amended being carriëd nemine contradicente.
I hâve, etc.,
(sd.) GREY.
The Rt Hon.
The Earl of Crewc, K.G.
Loi Navale — Déclarations des chefs de parti (3)
Le 15 novembre 1909, au cours du débat sur l'Adresse, le premier ministre interpelle M. Monk, député de Jacques-Cartier, au sujet de son discours à Lachine, avant la session: —
S:r Wilfrid LAURIER: My hon. friend also said Huit if we were to build
a navy we would be drawn tlu-reby into European wars. Need I say to my hon. friend that whether we hâve such a navy or not, we do not Iose our right to self-government; that if we do bave a navy, that navy will go to no war unlcss the parliament of
Canada, including the hon. gentleman, choose to send it And if now we hâve
to organise a naval force it is becausc we arc growing as a nation ; it is the penalty of being a nation that we hâve to bear (49)
(1) Votes and Proceedings, 1909, March 29th, page 494.
(2) Sessional Paper, No. 170, 1909 (not printed).
(3) Extraits des Debates of the House of Commons. Le chiffre de la colonne est indiqué après chaque citation.
Le 12 janvier 1910, en présentant le projet de Loi Navale:—
Sir Wilfrid LAURIER: In case af einergency the Govornor in Council may
exercise the power of calling out Uie naval force to be placed at the disposai of His Majesty, the only restriction being that parliament is to be immediately summoned.
Mr. SPROULE. Is the " war" referred to, war in any part of the empire or in Canada only? (1734).
Sir Wilfrid LAURIER: WAR EVERYWHERE. When Britain is at war, Canada is at war; there is no distinction. If Great Britain, to which we are subject, is at war
with any nation, Canada becomes liable to invasion, and so Canada is at war
Mr. MONK: What is proposed to-day hère is to invite us to assume responsi-
bilities which I will claim we are not bound to assume. What is proposed to-day is to invite us to become responsible for the policy, for the diplomacy, for the treaties, for the alliances of which we know nothing, over which we hâve no control, made by men, excedlent men nx> doubt, but men who are not responsible to us. And, the proposai is to ask us to assume ail thèse responsibilities without our enjoying the privilèges of représentation. I do not speak for the province of Québec ; I say you will never find Anglo-Saxons, who will willingly accept that responsibility, who will willingly bend their heads to what I consider to be an infraction of the anciont rights of British subjects established centuries ago in England (1775)
Le 3 février, au cours du débat sur la deuxième lecture du projet de loi:—
Mr. MONK : — Lord Twee<lmouth, Mr. Chamberlain, and other English public
men, imbued with the broad principle that responsibilities of this kind carried représentation, had stated, as Lord Tweedmouth did at the conférence of 1907: We don't ask you to do this without inviting you to share in the représentation. That proposai was in harmony vith British ideas. But on our side nothing was asked, nothing was claimed. I do not mean to say that if thèse thinjrs were in that shape before as, I would adhère to them. I think that 'sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. But I am impressed with the idea that nothing seems to hâve been asked, and that we entered into this unlimited scheme of responsibility in such a manner as to distinguish us completely from the British subject who lives in the British Islcs, and who himself controls the foreign policy of the Empire (3021)
Le 24 février, durant le même débat: —
Mr. DOHERTY : — The overshadowing feature of this measurc by which we
intend to create a naval force is that it of necessity leads us into the situation that we cannot avoid participation in the wars which may resuit from the foreign policy of the mother country, and, by that foreign policy we are absolutely bound because the mother country exclusively — and under our existing conditions absolutely rightly — has control of the foreign relations which pertain not only to herself, but to ail her colonies
The control of a navy force is a function of the power which contrôla the foreign policy — the policy that governs the conduct of the nation towards other nations — that a navy is called upon to enforce. From that it would seem to me fairly to follow that the condition précèdent to our undertaking to participate in the naval defence of the empire is that we should be given an effective voice in the governing and détermination of the foreign relations of the empire (4137)
What I désire to do is simply to make clear that the finding of a way by which we may hâve a voice, and a real voice, in the control of the foreign policy of the empire, is an essential condition précèdent to our embarking npon any permanent policy of participatingr in the maintenance of naval forces, that that is an essential condition précèdent, if onr autonomy, to which the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) attaches such great importance, and to which I may say he does not attach one whit gréa ter importance than I do, is to be mainiained (4138)
I am hère to say that, when this duty is preeented to us of our taking a sliare in the maintenance of the naval forces of this empire, there is necessarily presented to us at the same time another duty, the duty of our taking our share in the heavy burden of the control of the forcign affalrs of this empire. And I say that we are not at ILberty to choose to do the one duty and refuse to do the other, because thèse two duties are inscparably bound up together (4142)
So I say that we should not enter upon a course which means participation in the naval wars of the empire without first seeing to it that the means are provided for the performance of our part of this other duty from which, to my mind, it is absolutely inséparable (4144)
It seems clear to me that the ineasure, if put into exécution under existing circumstances and without proper provision for the performance of the duty it carries with it, is destructive of wha4 is most sacred and holy in the autonomy of this country, and, moreover, it seems to me that the measure is clearly useless as a measure for the defence of the empire. From any point of view I fail to see how any Canadian subject of the King can realize that It is his duty to do otherwise than vote against that measure (4149-50)
Le 2 mars, au cours du même débat, M. NANTEL, député de Terrebonne et futur ministre dans le cabinet Borden, se déclare également opposé au projet de loi et à la motion du leader conservateur : —
M. NANTEL: — Pour moi la défense nationale, c'est la défense du Canada. Je
suis sujet britannique et j'en suis fier. Je suis Canadien et j'en suis doublement fier. Le Canada fait partie de l'Empire, mais dans l'Empire, chaque partie a son rôle spécialement assigné, et ce rôle, pour le Canada, c'est la défense du foyer, la défense de la • atrio, pour la patrie et pour l'Empire; et la patrie, pour moi, c'est le Canada.
Je voterai contre le projet de loi, parce qu'il comporte l'admission de l'impérialisme militaire, parce qu'il tend à en faire inscrire le principe dans nos statuts. Je voterai contre la proposition en amendement, parce qu'elle comporte le même principe, et que je n'admets pas que la circonstance présente soit un cas d'urgence (1)
La deuxième lecture du projet de loi fut votée le 9 mars 1910. M. BORDEN avait proposé "en amendement" : —
"That the proposais of the Government do not follow the suggestions and recommendations of the Admiralty and in so far as they empower the Government to withaold the naval forces of Canada from those of the Empire in time of war are 111advised and dangerous.
"That no such proposais can safely be accepted unless they thoroughly eniurt unity «f organisation and of action without which there can be no effective co-operation in any commun scheme of Empire defence.
"That the said proposais while necessitating heavy outlay for construction and maintenance will give no immédiate or effective aid to the Empire, and no adéquate or •atisfactory results to Canada.
"That no permanent policy should be entered upon involving large future expenditure of this character until it has been submitted to the people and has received their approval.
"That in the meantime the immédiate duty of Canada and the impending neceasities of the Empire can beat be discharged and met by placing without delay at the disposai of the Impérial authoritiee as a free and loyal contribution from the people of Canada such an amount as may be sufficient to purchase or construct two battleshlps or armoured cruisers of the latest Dreadnought type, giving to the Admiralty full discrétion to expend the said sum at such time and for such purposes of naval defence aa in their judgment may best serve to increaae the united strength of the Empire and thus assura its peace and security " (2).
(1) Débats de la Chambre des Commune* (Version française), 1909-10, col. 4797.
(2) Vote* and Proceedings, 1910, March 9th, pages 618-19.
M. MONK avait proposé, en "sous-amendement" :
"That this House, while declaring its unalterable dévotion to the Britiah Crown, la •f opinion that the Bill now submitted for its considération, changes the relations ef Canada with the Empire, and ought, in conséquence, to be submitted to the Canadian people, in order to obtain at once the Nation's opinion by means of a plébiscite" (1).
Ont voté pour la motion Monk: —
♦Blondin, Broder, Chisholm (Huron). Cnrrie (Simcoe), Doherty, *Forget, Herron. Jameson, Lewis, *Lortie, *Monk, *NanteI, *Pâquet, Sharpe (Ontario), «Verville, White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Worthington.
Les députés dont le nom est précédé d'une astérique ont voté contre la motion Borden et contre la deuxième lecture du Bill. Les autres ont voté pour la motion Borden et contre la deuxième lecture.
Le 19 avril, en comité général: —
Mr. FIELDING I say that whenever the British nation shall becomc
lnvolved in a war with a great power, I do not stop to consider whether it is a just or an injust war — so long as we are part of the British empire, I care not what government is in power in Canada, it will be its duty instantly to join and help the mother country; (7469).
Le 20 avril, avant la troisième lecture: —
Mr. FIELDING Under the measure we are proposing wa shall hâve • naval
service which is Canadian in tinte of peace, but which by the very machinery we hava provided will unmistakably become impérial whenever the help of Canada is needed for the defence of the Empire. I accept the view that when the Empire is at war Canada is nt war; Canada will never need defence except when the Empire needa defence; and so I say the Canadian navy, while supplied primarily for the defence of our shores, is after ail but a branch to the Royal Navy in time of peace, and will
become an intégral part of the Royal Navy whenever the war alarm is aonnded
A la session suivante, au cours du débat sur l'Adresse, M. MONK proposa cette motion: —
"The House regrets that the Speech from the Throne gives no indication whatev» of the intention of the Government to consult the people on its Naval Policy and the gênerai question of the contribution of Canada to Impérial Armement» " (2).
M. BORDEN proposa "en sous-amendement" : —
"We beg to assure Your Excellency of the unalterable attachment and dévotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown, and of their désire and intention to fulfll ail just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nationa of tha Empire. We désire, however, to express our regret that Your Excellency's gracions Speech gives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Your Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada" (2).
A l'appui de cette motion, le leader de l'opposition prononça un long discours dont je détache ces paragraphes: —
Mr. R. L. BORDEN : I cannot see that it is possible to maintain the naval su-
premacy of this Empire by a séries of disunited navies, not under one central con-
(1) Votes and Proceedings, 1910, March 9th, page 619.
(2) Votes and Proceedings, 1910 December lst, page 88.
trol I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in Impérial défonce involves very large and wide considérations. If Canada and the other Dominion* of the Empire are to take their part as nations of this Empire in the défonce of the Empire as a whole, shall it be that we, contributinz to that defence of the whole Empire, shall hâve absolutely, as citiiens of this country, no voice whaterer in the conncils of the Empire touching the issues of peace or war throughout the Empire ? I do not think that such wonld be a tolerable condition. I do not believe the people of Canada wonld for one moment submit to such a condition.
Shall members of this House, représentative men, representing two hundred and twenty-one constituencies of this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, shall no one of them hâve the same voice with regard to those vast Impérial issues that the humblcst taxpayer in the British Isles lias at this moment?
It does not seem to me that such a condition would make for the integrity of the Empire, for the closer co-operation of the Empire regard must be had to thèse far reaching considérations, a permanent policy would hâve to be worked out, and when that permanent policy had been worked out and explained to the people of Canada, to every citizen in this country, then it would be the duty of any government to go to the people of Canada to reoeive their mandate, and accept and act upon their approval of or disapproval of that policy (227-228)
Ont voté pour la motion Monk et contre la motion Borden : MM- BLONDIN, LOBTIE, MONK, NANTEL, PAQUET et VEBVILLE. Après le rejet de la motion Borden, toute la députation conservatrice, M. Borden en tête, appuya la motion Monk.
Contribution " d'urgence" à la Flotte Impériale
BILL No 21, "AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE MEASURES FOR INCREASING THE EFFECTIVE NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE".
Le 13 février 1913, M. BOBDEN propose, en deuxième lecture, la "résolution" suivante : —
That it is expédient in connection with the Bill now before thia House intituled "An Act to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire", to provide:—
(a) THAT FROM AND OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND OF CA- NADA THERE MAY BE PAID AND APPLIED A SUM NOT EXCEEDING THIRTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMMEDIATELY INCREASING THE EF- FECTIVE NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE:—
(b) That the said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Gov- «nor in Council in the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers of the most modem and powerful type;
(c) That the said ships when constructed and equipped shall be placed by the Governor in Council at the disposai of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire; and
(d) That the said sum shall be paid, used and applied, and the said ships shall be constructed and placed at the disposai of His Majesty subject to such terms, conditions and arrangements as may be agreed upon between the Governor in Council and His Msjesty's Government (1).
Sir Wilfrid LAUBIEB propose "en amendement": —
"This House déclines to concur in the said resolution and orders that the same b* referred back to the Committee with instructions to amend the same in the following particulars, namely, to strike out ail the words after clause (a) and substitute therefor the following:
(1) Vote* and Procecdings, 1913, February 13th, page 536.
"The mémorandum prepared by the Board of Admiralty on the gênerai naval situation of the Empire and communicated to this House by the Right Honorable the Prime Miniater on December 5th shows that several of the most important of the foreign powers hâve adopted a definite policy of rapidly increasing their naval strength.
"That this condition has compelled the United Kingdom to concentrate iU naval forces in home waters involving the withdrawal of ships from the outlying portions of the Empire.
"That su«h withdrawal renders it necessary that Canada without further delay •hould enter actively upon a permanent policy of naval defence.
"That any measnre of Canadian aid to Impérial naval defence which does not stnbody a permanent policy of participation by ships owntd, manned and maintained by Canada and contemplating construction as soon as possible in Canada, is not an adéquate or satisfactory expression of the aspirations of the Canadian people in regard to naval defence, and is not an assumption by Canada of her fair share in the maintenance of the naval strength of the Empire.
"This House regrets to learn the intention of the Government to indefinitely postpone the carrying out by Canada of a permanent naval policy.
"It is the opinion of this House that measures should be taken at the présent session to give effect actively and speedily to the permanent naval policy embodied in the Naval Service Act of 1910 passed pursuant to the resolution unanimously approved by this House in March, 1909.
"This House is further of the opinion that to increase the power and mobility of the Impérial Navy by the addition by Canada under the above Act of two fleet units, to be stationed on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada, respectively, rather than by s contribution of money or ships, is the policy best calculated to afford relief to the United Kingdom in respect to the burthen of Impérial naval defence and, in the words •f the Admiralty mémorandum, to ' restore greater freedom to the movements of the British squadrons in every sea and directly promote the security of the Dominion ' : and that the Government of Canada should take such steps as shall lead to the accomplishment of this purpose as speedily as possible " (1).
M. VERVILLE propose comme "sous-amendement" : —
"That the following words be added at the end thereof: —
"and the consent of Parliament should not be given to this Resolution untU it has been aubmitted to and received the approval of the electors " (1).
La deuxième lecture du Bill est votée à la Chambre le 27 février 1913, après rejet de "l'amendement" ci-dessous, proposé par M. TUR- RIFF:—
"That It is the constitutional duty of the government, under the terms of the British North America Act, immediately to intreduce a measure for the readjustment •f the représentation of the provinces in the House of Commons, according to the population of the said provinces as established by the Census of 1911, and that this House do not proceed further with this Bill until such readjustment has taken place, and the people hâve been duly consulted on the said Bill" (2).
A ce texte, M. GUILBAULT avait proposé, en " sous-amendement', d'ajouter les mots: —
"by way of a plébiscite".
Ont voté pour la motion Guilbault: MM.Achim, Barrette, Bellemare, Boulay, Cruise, Guilbault, Lamarche, Lapointe (Saint- Jacques), Mondou, Thomson et Turriff. Ont voté contre: MM. Blondin, Coderre, Forget,
(1) Votes and Proceedlngs, 1913 February 13th, page 536.
(2) Vote* and Proceedings, 1913. February 27, page 636.
Gauthier (Gaspé), Lavallée, Lespérance, Nantel, Paquet, Pelletier, Rainville, Sévigny, Verville et 175 députés libéraux et conservateurs.
Ont voté pour la deuxième lecture du Bill: MM. Blondin, Coderre, Forget, Gauthier, Lavallée, Lespérance, Nantel, Pelletier, Rainville, Sévigny et 104 députés conservateurs. M. Paquet, de L'Islet, s'est absenté.
Le 27 mai 1913, sir George ROSS propose, appuyé par M. BOSTOCK, en opposition à la deuxième lecture du Bill: —
" That ail the words after the first word "that" be struck ont and the f ollowinf " aubst.tuted :
" This House ia not justif ied in g-iving- its aaaent to thia bill until it ia submitted te "the jndft-ment of the country " (1).
Cette motion fut adoptée, le 29 mai 1913, par 51 voix contre 27.
Le 5 décembre 1912, en présentant le projet de loi, M. BORDES avait fait les déclarât ons suivantes (2) :
Rigrht Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) :-r- It is not necessary to dwell
upon the increasing power and influence of Canada within the Empire, due to lts remarkable growth and expansion, and to the wonderful and rapid development of its res>urces during the past quarter of a century. With this increasing power and influence there has necessarily corne by sure and graduai steps a certain development in our relations with the United Kingdom and the othcr dominions. The évolution of the constitutional relation» within the Empire during- the paat half century haa not been leaa marked than ita material progress. In thia constitutional development, we are necessarily confronted with the problem of combining co-operation with autonomy. It seems most essential that there should be such co-operation in defence and in trade ai will give to the whole Empire an effective organization in thèse matters of vital concern. On the other hand, each dominion must préserve in ail important respects tha autonomous government wliich it now possesses. Reaponaibility for the Empire'a defence npon the high seas, in which is to be fourni the only effective guarantee of lts existence, and which has hitherto been assumed by the United Kingdom, haa neceeaarily carried with it reaponaibility for and control of foreign policy
When Great Britain no longer assumes sole responsibility for defence upon the higb seas, ahe can no longer nndertake to assume sole reaponaibility for and aole control of foreign policy which is closely, vltally, and constantly associated with that defence in which the dominions participate. It has been declared in the past, and even during récent years, that reaponaibility for foreign policy conld not be ahared by Great Britaia with the dominiona. In my humble opinion, adhérence to aneh a position could hâve bat one and that a most disastrous resuit. During my récent visit to the British Islands, I ventured on many public occasions to propmnd the principle that the great dominions, sharing in the defence of the Empire upon the high seas, must neceaaarily be entitled to ahare also in the reaponaibility for and in the control of foreigrn policy. No déclaration that I made was greeted more heartily and enthusiastically than this. It is satisfactory to know that to-day not only Mis Majesty'a minister» but alao the leaders •f the opposite political party in Great Britain hâve explicitly aecepted thia principle and hâve affirmed their conviction that the means by which it can be constitutionally aocomplished must be sought, discovercd and utilized without delay.
(1) "Debatea of the Senate". 1912-13, page 758.
(2) Debatea, House of Commons, 1912-13, col. 676-7.
Rebuffades des Ministres Britanniques
A la Conférence impériale de 1911, sir Joseph WARD, premier-ministre de la Nouvelle-Zélande, propose: —
"That the Empire has now reached a stage of Impérial development which rende» it expédient that there should be an Impérial Conncil of State, with Représentatives from ail the constituent parts of the Empire whether self-governing or not, in theory and in fact advisory to the Impérial Government on ail questions affecting; the interests •f His Majesty's Dominions oversea " (1).
Le premier ministre britannique, M. ASQUITH, président de la Conférence, combat nettement la proposition et la fait rejeter, avec l'appui de sir Wilfrid LAURIER, de M. FISHER, premier ministre d'Australie, de M. BOTHA, premier ministre de l'Union Sud-Africaine, et de sir Edward MORRIS, premier ministre de Terreneuve. Des brèves remarques de M. ASQUITH, je détache le paragraphe suivant:
....What does Sir Joseph Ward's proposai corne to? I might describe the cffect of it, without going into détails, in a couple of sentences. Il would impair if not altocether destroy the authority of the Government of the United Kiugrdom in such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion of treaties, the déclaration and maintenance of peace, or the déclaration of war and, indeed, ail those relations with Foreign Powers, necessarily of the most délicate character, which are now in the hands of the Impérial Government, subject to its responsibility to the Impérial Parliament THAT AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SHARED, and the co-existence side by side with the Cabinet of the United Kingd>m of this proposed body — it does not matter by what naine you call it for the moment — clothed with the functions and the jurisdiction which Sir John Ward proposed to invest it with, would, in our judgment, be absolutely fatal to our présent system of responsible government (2).
A la suite du discours de M. Borden, du 5 décembre 1912, cité à la pièce précédente, M. HARCOURT, ministre des Colonies, envoie les dépêches suivantes aux gouverneurs des colonies autonomes (3) : —
No 1.
The Secretary of State to the Governor-General of Australia, the Governor-General of the Union of South Africa, and the Governors of New Zealand and Newfoundland.
My Lord,
Sir Downing Street, lOth December, 1912.
I am forwarding by post, for the confidential information of your Ministers, ■ record of the proceedings at the Committee of Impérial Defence on May 30th, 1911 (during the Impérial Conférence) and on August lst, 1912 (during the visit of tht Canadian Ministers to London).
This record deals solely with the question of the représentation of the Dominions on the Committee of Impérial Defence.
[Omitted to New Zealand. Your Ministers, who were présent on the first occasion, will remember that] the matter arose out of a Resolution by Sir Joseph Ward on the Agenda of the Impérial Conférence, asking that the High Commissioners of the Dom-
(1) Minutes of Proceedings of the Impérial Conférence, 1911, (Cd. 5745), page 36.
(2) do do page 71.
(3) Cd. 6560 — 1913. Cette dépêche a été déposée dans les archives du parlement canadien: Sessional Paper, No 85, 1913 (not printed). Elle n'a pas été imprimée ni distribuée : M. Borden, évidemment, ne se souciait pas de trop faire connaître son humiliation.
inions should bc summoned to thc Committec of Impérial Dcfence when naval uikI military matters affecting the Ovcrsea Dominions were under considération. The unanimous view of ail those présent on May 30th, 1911, was that the représentation af the Dominions should he not by thc Hip,h Commissioner but by Ministers who would be responsible to their own colleagues and Parliament, and at the saine time it was decided that a Defence Committee should bc cstablished in cach Dominion which would be kept in close touch with the Committee of Impérial Defence at home. The Resolutions ultimately put forward by His Majesty's Government and accepted unanimously by . the members of the Impérial Conférence at the Committec of Impérial Defence were as follows: — (1) That one or more représentatives, appointed by the respective Governments of the Dominions, should be invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Impérial Defence when questions of naval and military defence affecting the Oversea Dominions are under considération. (2) Thc proposai that a Defence Committee should be established in cach Dominion is accepted in principle. The constitution of thèse Defence Committees is a matter for each Dominion to décide.
The Canadian Government having changed in the autumn of 1911 it was necessary, when Mr. Borden and his colleagues visited England this summer, to put thèse proposais before tiiem, as they were of course unaware of the previous proceedings. Subject to consultation with his colleagues in Canada, Mr. Borden provisionally accepted the resolutions as passed and stated that he saw no difficulty in one of his Ministers, either with or without portfolio, spending some months of every year in London in order to carry out this intention. Mr. Asquith and I .had, subséquent!}', several private conversations with him, at which he expressed thc désire that thc Canadian and other Dominions Ministers who mdght be in London as members of the Committee of Impérial Defence should receive, in confidence, knowledge of the policy and proceedings of the Impérial Government in foreign and other affairs. We pointed ont to him that th* Committee of Impérial Defence is a purely adviaory body and is not, and cannot under any circumslances become, a body decidinjr on policy, which is and must remain the ••le prérogative of the [British] Cabinet, subject to the support of the House of Gommons [of the United KinjrdomJ. But at the samc time wc assured him that any Dominions Minister résident here would at ail times hâve free and full access to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and thc Colonial Secretary for information on ail questions of Impérial policy. In a public speech which I made a short time ago I used the following words: —
"Therc is, on the part of Canadian Ministers and peoplc, a natural and laudable désire for a greater measure of consultation and co-operation with us in thc future than they hâve had in the past. This is not intended to, and it need not, open up those difficult problcms of Impérial Fédération which, seeming to entail questions of taxation and représentation, hâve made that policy for many years a dead issue. But, speaking for myself, I see no obstacle, and ccrtainly no objection, to the Governments of ail the Dominions being given at once a larger share in the executive direction in matters of defence and in Personal consultation and co-operation with individual British Ministers whose duty it is to frame policy here. I should welcome a more continuous représentation of Dominions Ministers, if they wish it, upon the Committee of Impérial Defence; we should ail be glad if a member or members of those Cabinets could be annually in London. The door of fellowship and friendship is always open to them and we require no formalities of an Impérial Conférence for the continuity of Impérial confidence."
The foregoing accnrately représenta the views and intentions of His Majeaty'» Government.
From M. Borden's public speech in introducing the Canadian Naval Bill, it appeare that hc accepts thc proposais which we hâve made. The same offer is, of course, open to ail the other sell%governing Dominions if and when they wish to adopt it, but the proposai is not one of necessary or strict uniformity and can be varied in the case of each or any Dominion to suit their wishes or the spécial circumstances of their casr.
I should be glad to know, at their convenience, whether your Ministers désire to adopl some such method of more continuous connexion in naval and military affairs with the Committee of Impérial Defence in the United Kingdom.
I hâve, &c,
