the parties concerned ceased to have that open and above-board character and it became apparent that to serve party political ends certain individuals were lending themselves to intrigue," he had advised His Excellency to grant a dissolution. Mr. King presented the Robb Budget, the treaty with the West Indies, the Old Age Pensions bill, the Rural Credits bill, the Grain Act amendments, and the appointment of a Maritime Rights Commission as prominent parts of the record of his Government upon which he appealed to the people.

The Liberal leader denied that he had sought a dissolution in order to avoid a vote of censure against his Administration. He maintained that the amendment to the Customs Committee Report moved by Hon. H. H. Stevens had not constituted a vote of censure and that, further, he had obtained assurances of sufficient support to insure the defeat of that motion if His Excellency had granted him a dissolution and he had remained in office. The latter part of Mr. King's speech was devoted to a discussion of the constitutional issue and is summarized under the sub-heading which follows.

Hon. Robert Forke, the leader of the Progressive group, was nominated by the Progressives as a candidate at Brandon, Man., on July 27. Subsequently his nomination was approved by a Liberal convention. In a speech following his nomination by the Progressives, Mr. Forke declared that "Mr. Meighen never would have been Premier if all the circumstances had been known." He denied that he had promised his support to the Conservative party and then withdrawn it. He said that he had had an audience with the Governor-General, but that Lord Byng had not asked his advice nor had Mr. Meighen asked for his support. Dealing with the Tariff, the Progressive leader said that it was impossible to be "prosperous by building a tariff wall." He stated that early in the Session of 1926 the Progressives had taken a "straw vote" as to whether they should support the Conservatives or the Liberals. Twelve votes had favoured Conservatives and ten the Liberals at that time. Later all except five members of the Party were in favour of getting behind the legislative programme of the Liberals. "We could not make any agreement with the Conservatives on a legislative programme," said Mr. Forke, “and that is why we gave the Liberals our support," (Manitoba Free Press, July 28, 1926.)

In the speech just quoted, Mr. Forke had reference to a charge made in the Conservative press early in July. This charge was based on a resolution, passed by the Progressive caucus and given to Mr. Forke for use in his conversation with the Governor-General which read as follows:

That we assist the new Administration in completing the business of the Session. That we are in agreement on the necessity of continuing the investigation into the Customs and Excise Department by a Judicial Commission. We believe it advisable that no dissolution should take place until the Judicial Commission has finished its investigation into the Customs and Excise Depart

ment, and that Parliament be summoned to deal with the Report. (This resolution was reproduced in both The Globe and The Mail and Empire, Toronto, July 5, 1926.)

At the time, Mr. Forke said that the memorandum was given to him for his own guidance and was not sent to His Excellency. "The undertaking was arrived at by us," he added, "on the distinct understanding that the new Government was able to function. If it had been sustained in the House, we would not have attempted to prevent the passage of the Supply Bill." (The Globe, Toronto, July 5, 1926.) On July 4, E. J. Garland (U.F.A., Bow River) issued a statement on the subject on behalf of the Progressives.

It was clearly understood (said this statement) by all of our members, first, that the memorandum was simply a guide for Mr. Forke; secondly, a general indication that we were prepared to act fairly with the new Administration to facilitate the completion of the Session's business; and, thirdly, was purely voluntary and in no sense could be regarded as a contract.

In support of this position the statement recited that the Progressives requested an interview with Mr. Meighen at the time Mr. Forke was in consultation with His Excellency and that in this interview no mention whatever was made of co-operation or assistance, but it was solely for the purpose of ascertaining the procedure Mr. Meighen would adopt. (Canadian Press Report. Manitoba Free Press, July 5, 1926.)

Much attention was attracted in Ontario by what a good many of his followers regarded as an undue effort on Mr. Meighen's part to get support in Quebec. One of the instances cited in this connection was Mr. Meighen's Hamilton speech of Nov. 16, 1925, in which he advocated consulting the people in case of war before troops were again sent outside Canada, a policy which he again advocated during the By-election in Bagot, Quebec, in December immediately following. The Conservative leader was frequently asked to explain this speech during the campaign of 1926, and at Toronto on Sept. 7 a heckler challenged him on it. "Let no one be alarmed," replied Mr. Meighen. "There's nothing I'm afraid to answer; but this is an effort to turn attention from the record of the Government. When the time comes to face circumstances described in that Hamilton speech, I will be prepared to discuss that speech. I want to discuss the record of the King Government, and I'm not surprised its friends would prefer I should discuss something else." The time did not come, however, for him to discuss the matter during the Election, and undoubtedly his silence cost him many votes that were normally Conservative.

During the campaign a good deal was heard of an article published in The Magazine of Wall Street, on July 31, 1926. This article, which was reproduced in The Evening Telegram, Toronto, on Aug. 17, and in other Conservative papers, contained this passage:

If, at the forthcoming elections, the Conservatives gain a majority in the House of Parliament, then the Dominion may find herself represented in London

(at the Imperial Conference) by a Conservative Prime Minister and this would mean that Canada had set her feet in the direction of closer relations to the United Kingdom. If, on the other hand, the Liberals win, then the British government may as well give up their idea of a solid British Empire.

The same issue of the Magazine contained what purported to be an interview with Mr. Mackenzie King on "Canada's Political Battle." In Toronto on Sept. 7, Premier Ferguson of Ontario read from the article in The Magazine of Wall Street. Speaking at Midland shortly after, Mr. Mackenzie King stated that the article was "inspired by the Tories of this Province and sent to New York to be printed" and that "Wall Street had evidently been co-operating with Mr. Ferguson and others for reasons best known to themselves." These statements were vigorously denied by Mr. Ferguson in a telegram sent to The Globe, Toronto, on Sept. 9 and published in that paper the following day. He added that the point he had made in his speech was "that the outside world, and particularly the American press and people who view the Canadian political conflict from outside, are able calmly to get an accurate view of the situation and express correct conclusions," and further that the view expressed in The Magazine of Wall Street was held unanimously by the American press and people. On Sept. 10 The Evening Telegram contained a statement from E. D. King, managing editor of The Magazine of Wall Street in which he took full responsibility for the article as his own. He stated that he

did not have an interview with Mr. Mackenzie King but that what purported to be an interview with him was extracted from his speech delivered in Ottawa on July 23, a copy of which was supplied to him by Mr. Mackenzie King's secretary.

Besides the tours made by the two Party leaders from coast to coast, a prominent feature of the Election was the joint tour of Hon. Charles A. Dunning, Minister of Railways and Hon. James A. Robb, Minister of Finance, in Ontario and the Eastern Provinces. On the Conservative side, Hon. J. B. M. Baxter, Premier of New Brunswick, and Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, Premier of Ontario, took an active part in speaking in their own Provinces. Hon. Peter J. Veniot, former Premier of New Brunswick and later Postmaster-General in the King Government, appeared on the platform in the Liberal interest in New Brunswick. In the West, Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Premier of Saskatchewan, addressed a number of meetings in the Liberal interest, while in Alberta, Hon. J. E. Brownlee, Premier of that Province, spoke for the United Farmers of Alberta. In Manitoba, Hon. T. A. Crerar, at one time leader of the Progressive party in the Dominion House of Commons, made a number of speeches in the Liberal-Progressive campaign.

A tragic event during the Election was the death of Hon. George H. Boivin, who had been Minister of Customs and Excise from September, 1925, until the resignation of the King Government. Mr. Boivin, who was Supreme Director of the Canadian branch of the Knights of Columbus, died of appendicitis while

attending a convention of the Order in Philadelphia, Pa., on Aug. 7, 1926.

The Constitutional Issue. The constitutional issue arose out of Mr. Mackenzie King's statement in the House of Commons on June 28, 1926, that he believed that he had a right to dissolution "under British constitutional practice;" but it was extended by him to include the method by which Mr. Meighen attempted to carry on in the House through the intermediary of acting ministers. Mr. King stated his attitude upon the constitutional issue fully in his keynote speech at Ottawa on July 23. He then protested strongly against the allegation that he had attacked the conduct of His Excellency, the Governor-General. He declared that it was not the conduct of the Governor-General that was in question, but the conduct of Mr. Meighen. "I think I do full justice to His Excellency," said Mr. King, "when I say that he conceived it to be his duty in the circumstances of the late Parliament to act as a sort of umpire between the political parties in Canada." On the other hand, continued Mr. King, "in my humble opinion it was not for the Crown or its representatives to be concerned with the differences of political parties and .... the prerogative of dissolution, like other prerogatives of the Crown, had come, under British practice, to be exercised by the Sovereign on the advice of his Prime Minister."

As to the position of Mr. Meighen in the circumstances, Mr. King asserted that "the present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has fully accepted responsibility for the action of the GovernorGeneral in refusing to accept my advice. The issue as respects the constitutionality of the Governor-General's course of procedure is not between His Excellency and myself but between the political parties represented by Mr. Meighen and myself."

Not for over a hundred years in Great Britain and never since Confederation in Canada, asserted Mr. King, had a dissolution been denied a Prime Minister who requested it. Though he was unable to admit that the refusal of a dissolution to himself or the granting of a dissolution immediately thereafter to Mr. Meighen was a constitutional course of procedure, he was prepared to say that there might be circumstances in which a Governor-General might find subsequent justification for a refusal to grant a dissolution of Parliament. Such might be the case where Parliament was in Session and, one Prime Minister having been refused a dissolution, the leader of another party, having accepted responsibility for that refusal, demonstrated his ability to carry on the business of Parliament by securing a majority in the existing House of Commons.

Regarding the procedure employed by Mr. Meighen in attempting to carry on in the existing House of Commons, Mr. King declared that Mr. Meighen had attempted "to carry on the Government of Canada by a ministry that in no sense of the word was a responsible ministry;" and that Mr. Meighen had "by his advice.

knowingly made the Crown through its representative a party to this unconstitutional course of procedure." "Having ignored Parliament," said Mr. King, "by assuming office without being in the least entitled to its confidence, having defied Parliament by seeking to impose upon its members the subterfuge of a phantom ministry and continuing to govern with a ministry declared by the Commons to be infringing the privileges of its members, having insulted Parliament by summarily closing its doors in the face of honourable members of both Houses, having made the representative of the Crown in Canada a party to all these illegal, invalid and unconstitutional acts, the self-appointed Prime Minister then proceeds to enlarge the Cabinet which Parliament had put out of existence before its untimely birth. I know of nothing in British history comparable to this since the days of Charles the First. It may be all very dramatic, very daring, but there is not a vestige of constitutional right or power which it does not undermine.' Mr. King concluded his discussion of the constitutional issue by an assertion of his faith in the principles of the British constitution. He declared:

It is the principles of liberty and freedom embedded in the British constitution, and secured to those who live within its guarantees that have made men of many races and many climes a great brotherhood in name and in heart. In the community of British nations which comprise the Dominions beyond the Seas, it is the anchor which holds all true to the little Isles in the northern sea. In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in Newfoundland, in Ireland, it is the sustaining and enduring element of loyalty alike to the Crown and to the flag. It is the counter magnet to all tendencies to separation from Britain, or to annexation to other lands. This is the constitution by which the Liberal party in Canada stands; and for which it is prepared to fight today. It is in the name of all of freedom, liberty and loyalty which the British constitution serves to inspire that I now ask my fellow Canadians in the name alike of King and Country to vindicate its might and majesty at the polls. (The Citizen, Ottawa, July 24.)

Mr. Meighen's first discussion of the constitutional issue was delivered before Mr. King made his opening speech and was devoted to a discussion of Mr. King's utterances in the House and his action during the Session. The main position assumed by Mr. Meighen was that there was in reality no constitutional issue. He said:

As a matter of truth, there is no constitutional issue. Are there any people in Canada really of opinion that the late Government or any Government at any time was entitled to dissolve Parliament while a vote of censure was under review. Someone says that advice to dissolve Parliament has not been refused in England by His Majesty, the King, in the space of one hundred years. . . . It can be definitely stated that never within a century, never in the history of parliamentary government as we have it today, has any Prime Minister ever demeaned himself to ask for dissolution while a vote of censure on his own Government was under debate. . . . To demand such a right is not to plead for responsible government; it is to plead for irresponsible government. To demand such a right is not to uphold our parliamentary institutions; it is really to stifle those institutions. To demand such a right is not to plead the cause of Parliament; it is, in effect, to choke and strangle Parliament and prevent Parliament from expressing its will. (The Gazette, Montreal, July 21.)