194 THE STORY OF THE U.F.O. 



Commons. We beg leave to intimate that this unrest is not related 

 merely to the special matter which was discussed with the Premier 

 and members of his Cabinet to-day. 



"We cannot disguise from the House an apprehension that the 

 liberties, of which the popularly elected branch of the Legislature 

 is the bulwark, may be dangerously curtailed during the period that 

 the House is not sitting. In proof that this dread is not illusory, we 

 would venture to inform the House that, in common with our fellow- 

 citizens, here and throughout the country, we have observed certain 

 innovations, the continuation of which, we believe, would be 

 fraught with serious results to the confidence which the subjects of 

 His Majesty have hitherto reposed in the working of that responsible 

 government for whose unimpaired preservation forty thousand 

 Canadian soldiers have laid down their lives. 



"Will the House permit us to speak more plainly what is in 

 our minds? We have never believed that the conditions produced 

 by the war demanded flagrant departures from the honoured pro- 

 cesses of the law enjoined by the Constitution, while Parliament is in 

 session or is near assembling. We believe that reliance upon Parlia- 

 ment, instead of upon arbitrary authority, most effectively honours 

 the guarantees of freedom which are embedded in the Constitution. 

 One considerable departure from sound practice may be accepted, 

 but repetitions of it may be exceedingly dangerous, especially under 

 such circumstances as now beset the State. 



"We, therefore, beg leave to remind the House of several instances 

 in which, it seems to us, the liberties of the people, and of their 

 representatives, have not been given sufficient consideration. 



"Twelve days before the meeting of Parliament in January, 

 1916, the authorized Canadian Army was doubled from 250,000 

 to 500,000 men. No British Army had ever been doubled without 

 recourse to Parliament. That it was done in Canada caused students 

 of British history to enquire whether anything had occurred to 

 warrant such a disregard of Parliament. 



"Though this House of Commons has inherited some of the 

 consequences of such an innovation, we desire to confine our 

 respectful remonstrances to more recent events. 



"During this session there were riots in the City of Quebec. 

 The House desired to discuss the serious situation thus created, 

 and was entitled to declare what measures might be taken to pre- 

 vent a renewal of such unhappy occurrences. It did not escape the 

 notice of the country that, immediately before the House proceeded 

 to discharge its duty, there was put upon the table a completed 

 law, in the form of an Order-in-Council, which arbitrarily took out 

 of its control the very question which the House of Commons was 

 about to discuss. 



"Later, there were other departures from the traditional practice 

 of British law, by equally astonishing proceedings. An Order-in- 

 Council was given to the House, as a matter of information, providing 

 for the registration of the human power of the country, and setting 

 up an entirely new criminal code in connection therewith, by creating 



