The Edmonton Bulletin: (Sept. 16, 1926). The country has declared for relief from groupism, dead-locking, and political trucking and trading. It has demanded the restoration of the King Government, and it looks to the newly-created Parliament to give that Government a steady support in the interests of stability and the ordered conduct of public business. The Calgary Daily Herald: (Sept. 15, 1926). The wiping out of the Conservatives in Manitoba can be explained. Manitoba is exceedingly anxious to have the Hudson Bay railroad completed. For what the people of that province consider a material gain they preferred to trust to the Liberal party. That factor probably influenced more votes than any other in Manitoba. The Crow's Nest agreement was also a factor of importance on the Prairies, the idea that Premier Meighen would raise freight rates above those of the Crow agreement having been assiduously cultivated by Liberals in spite of Mr. Meighen's declaration to the contrary. The Robb Budget determined many votes, proving the people's desire for reduced taxation. The Daily Colonist, Victoria: (Sept. 15, 1926). British Columbia deserves hearty congratulations for its emphatic verdict. It wanted to see the Conservative Government confirmed in power, and did its utmost towards that end. The issues of protection and the Customs scandal were regarded in this Province as the outstanding ones of the campaign, whereas the constitutional issue might as well never have been raised by the Liberals here, as it proved wholly negligible. Willison's Monthly, Toronto: (Oct. 1926). No new precedent was set nor is the position of the Governor-General in Canada affected by the result. The Canadian people have not decided that a Governor-General under the British system has no responsibilities save to a Prime Minister. He has responsibilities to Parliament and to the people as clear and definite as before Lord Byng refused to dissolve Parliament at Mr. King's request. It has not been settled that a Prime Minister facing a vote of censure in Parliament may demand dissolution and the right to appeal to the country. It is true that he (Lord Byng) was attacked by the Liberal leader and the candidates and organs of the Liberal party. He would have been as strongly attacked by the leaders and organs of the Conservative party if he had dismissed the jury and granted Mr. King a dissolution. There was no way by which he could escape criticism, and he would have been a moral coward if he had not exercised his legitimate discretion as a Governor-General and refused dissolution until the Stevens motion was decided one way or the other. If a Governor-General is responsible under all circumstances only to the Prime Minister, the office ceases to have any value and there is no reason why it should not be abolished. The Sentinel, Toronto: (Sept. 21, 1926). Canada has not had a political leader who showed such anxiety to placate the Province of Quebec as Mr. Meighen. The French have rejected his advances and shown themselves to be implacable, so far as he is concerned. Nothing he has done, or could do, was effective to win their support in sufficient numbers to elect a French-Canadian follower in that Province. And his striving for their friendship undoubtedly cooled the ardour of many thousands of his party's followers in Ontario, and made them indifferent to his cause. It never was possible for Mr. Meighen to add to the special privileges enjoyed by the FrenchCanadians, nor had he any inclination to do so. None the less his gestures in that direction were repugnant to the mass of his supporters in this Province. How much that accounted for the defeat it would be hard to say. That it had considerable effect cannot be gainsaid. HON. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX, K.C., B.C.L., LL.D. Re-elected Speaker of the House of Commons, Dec. 9, 1926 HON. HUGH GUTHRIE, K.C. Chosen Leader of the Conservative Opposition FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICS The Session of 1926-27 and Before As a consequence of the results of the Election, the Session took on quite a different tone from that which preceded it. There was some uncertainty as to the course that would be followed by the Liberal-Progressives, and some of them did occasionally vote against the Government. But for the most part, they gave steady support, and that insured a majority over all, which enabled the Government to carry on with confidence. Besides, the fact that it was the first Session after an election made for cessation of party warfare and the quiet transaction of business. Taking these two influences together, while there were some big issues up, the Session as a whole was brief and businesslike, though there was, perhaps, more than the usual rush at the end. Some large legislative accomplishments emerged, the chief being, of course, the passage of five Acts growing out of the Report of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims. Mr. Meighen resigned the premiership on Saturday, Sept. 25, 1926, and Mr. Mackenzie King took office the same day. At the time of his resignation, Mr. Meighen also announced his intention to retire from the leadership of the Conservative party. Mr. King announced his new Cabinet as follows: Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council, and Secretary of State for External Affairs. Minister of State..... Minister of Justice. Minister of Finance. Minister of the Interior. Minister of Agriculture. Minister of Health and Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.. Minister of Railways and Canals. Postmaster-General. Minister of Public Works. Solicitor-General.. Minister of Customs and Excise. Secretary of State. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Minister of Immigration and Colonization. Minister of Labour. Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King Hon. Ernest Lapointe Hon. W. R. Motherwell Hon. James H. King, M.D. . Hon. P. J. A. Cardin Hon. J. C. Elliott Hon. W. D. Euler Hon. Fernand Rinfret Hon. James Malcolm Hon. Robert Forke The portfolio of National Defence was not filled on that date but on Oct. 7 it was accepted by Hon. J. L. Ralston, who took the seat of Shelburne-Yarmouth, N.S., which was vacated by the appointment of P. L. Hatfield to the Senate. All the ministers who sought seats in the Commons were returned at the By-elections without opposition. Fifteen were returned at the nominations on Nov. 2, and the two others, Hon. James Malcolm and Hon. J. H. King, M.D., at the nominations one week later. Upon being offered the Ministry of Immigration, Mr. Forke returned to Winnipeg and consulted his fellow Liberal-Progressives from Manitoba as to his acceptance of the post. After the con ference it was stated by D. G. McKenzie, Secretary of the United Farmers of Manitoba, that the approval given to Mr. Forke's acceptance was subject to certain conditions as follows, "(1) No further tariff increase and further reductions, to which favourable consideration already has been given. (2) Reciprocity with the United States in natural products. (3) Completion of the Hudson Bay Railway forthwith. (4) Maintenance of the existing application of the Crow's Nest rates. (5) Recapitalization of Canadian National Railway System. (6) Revaluation of Soldier Settler Lands. (7) Inauguration of long term rural credits on basis of legislation that passed Commons at the last Session but expired owing to premature prorogation. (8) Complete investigation by judicial commission of all Customs irregularities." (Canadian Press Report, Montreal Daily Star, Sept. 24, 1926). Mr. Forke made no statement upon the conference. In the House of Commons on Dec. 13, J. L. Brown (Lib.-Prog., Lisgar) stated that the following resolution had been passed at the Conference between Mr. Forke and the Liberal-Progressive members in Winnipeg on Sept. 22: It was recognized that the country had demanded a stable government and the group are anxious to comply with that demand. That the policies upon which the Progressives and Liberals were elected are based upon common principles. That for the enactment of legislation embodying those policies the group are in favour of the acceptance of a portfolio by Mr. Forke in the Liberal Cabinet. That such acceptance shall be upon condition that the Progressive party shall give united support to the Government upon those principles, and that the Progressive group shall retain its identity as hitherto. Mr. Brown added that he made his statement on behalf of the members for Lisgar, Selkirk, Provencher, Souris, Neepawa, Marquette, Dauphin, Qu'Appelle, Macdonald and North Huron. Newspaper comment upon the new King Cabinet varied considerably. The Globe, Toronto, Sept. 27, said that the changes made "appear to give strength to the Cabinet" and that Mr. King "will be expected to make the best of these favourable conditions. The Ottawa Journal, Sept. 28, was decidedly critical and described the Cabinet as 'a mixture of good and dubious." It gave chief prominence to Mr. Dunning and Mr. Euler as "two distinctive acquisitions." The Manitoba Free Press, Sept. 27, said "the Cabinet appears to have more balance and vitality than any Government presented to the country since Union Government." The Vancouver Daily Province, Sept. 27, regarded the composition of the Ministry as "a fairly good guarantee of stability of policy", and cited the inclusion of the "low-tariff Mr. Forke" and of the "high-tariff Mr. Euler" as evidence that there would be compromise on the Tariff. There was some comment upon the fact that the membership was larger than that in Mr. Meighen's Cabinet. The Manitoba Free Press thought it probable that "a Cabinet of twelve men could handle the country's business just as well as a Cabinet of eighteen," but agreed that this was difficult owing to |