had gained the laurels of passing a law which made Trades Unions legal, which was a great benefit to workingmen, and in order to prevent any possibility of opposition being made to that law on the ground that it went further than the English Act, he agreed to accept the other Act which had been introduced, and the two were accepted by the House. They all remembered the occasion of that law, namely the harsh treatment of a certain prominent gentleman towards his employees. With regard to the Liberal Government being entitled to any credit for this measure, he thought the whole credit was due to his hon. friend from Hamilton, who, in anticipation of having to go back to his constituents after the prorogation of the House, felt called upon to press this measure upon the Government. It was true that the Government did not go so far as his hon. friend had proposed; but they had, no doubt, with his hon. friend accepted the Bill on the principle that a half-loaf was better than no bread. He hoped that the hon. gentleman would tell his constituents that when he came back to this House next session, as he no doubt would, that he would seek to obtain the repeal even of this Act.

Mr. IRVING thanked the right hon. gentleman for his remarks, and said he was willing to acknowledge that since the utter failure of the present law had become apparent that hon. gentleman had heartily co-operated in getting it amended.

The Bill was read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole forthwith (Mr. Moss in the chair.)

The committee rose and reported the Bill, which was read the third time and passed.

THE FISHERIES ACT.

Hon. Mr. SMITH moved the second reading of the Bill to amend the Fisheries Act. He explained that the object of the measure was to abolish the old Fishery laws of Nova Scotia and make the general Fisheries Act applicable to that Province. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL expressed his approval of the Bill.

The Bill was read the second time and referred to the Committe of the Whole, Mr. MILLS in the chair.

The Bill was reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald.

Order No 11 being called-House in Committee on Bill to amend an Act to amend and continue the Act 32 and 33 Victoria, Chapter 3, and to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Manitoba.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said some doubts having been expressed as to the power of this Parliament to pass the first section of this Act, and the Government having the power to do by Order in Council what was contemplated by the second section, he would move that the Order be discharged. With regard to the first section the Government were in this position-the late Administration had passed an exactly similar law in 1873. That Act was now on the statute book. course it was there without due consideration and was void, he presumed, as being in contravention of the Imperial Act. He thought it better, therefore, to discharge the Bill.

Of

Sir JOHN MACDONALD said he was very glad the hon. gentleman had taken this course for the reasons given. He acknowledged the fact that the Act of 1873 ment had passed, last session, a Bill prewas ultra vires, but the present Governcisely similar to that Act.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I forgot that.

The order was discharged.

ORDERS DISCHARGED.

The following Bills were discharged from the Orders of the Day :—

To amend the Acts 36 Vic. Cap., 9, and 37 Vic. Cap. 34, respecting the appointment of Harbor Masters.

appoint the place where the treaty-money would be paid.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said there was a great deal of force in the objection raised by the hon. member for Marquette, for it was well known that so soon as an Indian received money, he went to the nearest store and got rid of it.

Rt. Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said his experience was, generally, that the Indians knew where to buy to advantage.

Mr. D. A. SMITH said the plans suggested by the hon. member for Marquette would remove all cause of jealousy, and it was desirable that the money should not be paid in any trading store, when it could be otherwise arranged.

Hon. Mr. LAIRD said the agents in Manitoba had no instructions to the effect that the money should be paid in stores, and if such was the practice, it was of their own choice.

Mr. SCHULTZ said the principle involved was one to which he had previously called attention. The Government for some reason had seen fit to do all the business in the North-West Territory either directly or indirectly through the Hudson Bay Company's officers. At Portage du Fort there was a court-house and other public buildings where payments could be made, but for some extraordinary reason they were made at the Hudson Bay Company's post. The consequence was that these posts being removed from localities where supplies could be purchased, the Indians on receiving their treaty money purchased goods in those remote parts at an extravagant rate of charges: and it was desirrble that the department should direct their agents in Manitoba to make the payments if necessary in an Indian tent rather than in the stores of the Hudson's Bay Company, or of other

merchants,

The item was concurred in.

On item 219, $4,000 to pay to R, S. M. BOUCHETTE for himself and the other heirs of the late JOSEPH BOUCHETTE, Esq., in recognition of the value and importance to the country of the Geographical Works of the latter, and in furtherance of a recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons held on the 14th May, 1873.

Mr. SCATCHERD said that by reference to the journals of the House it would Hon. Mr. Laird.

than 60 years old, and had been rejected by every Parliament from that time down to the present. The House was now asked to concur in the item because it was recommended by a Committee of the House on the 14th March 1873. Hon. members would be aware of the opinion which the country entertained of the House of Commons of that date. It was stated that their recommendation ought not to be considered as of sufficient importance to warrant Parliament in paying that claim. If there were any justice in the claim it would surely have been settled before now. The debt was incurred, and ought to have been paid, if paid at all, by the Legislature of Lower Canada. Instead of that its settlement had been successively postponed and rejected by that Legislature. Singularly enough, although a majority of the committee of this House, who instigated the claim in 1873, were Government supporters and reported in favor of its payment, the claim was not entertained by the House. He considered that this was not the time to make this claim and that this was not the place in which it should be preferred.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said this item was not proposed simply because the committee of 1873 recommended it, but because that recommendation was founded upon facts establishing the justice of Mr. BOUCHETTE'S claim. He only failed to receive his dues in consequence of the political difficulties culminating in the rebellion of 1837-8. The claim had been laid over from time to time, but never given up by the heirs of Mr. BOUCHETTE. As a matter of simple contract, if not of gratitude, he was entitled to this money. The late Province of Canada inherited the liabilities of the Provinces. of Upper and Lower Canada, and the Dominion inherited the liabilities of the Province of Canada, He (Mr. HOLTON) believed the money was honestly due, and should be paid by the Dominion of Canada. He never had a clearer conviction of the justice of any claim submitted to Parliament than this.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said this was the first item of the liabilities of Old Canada which had come up in this way since confederation, that he as a representative of the Maritime Provinces, was willing to assume the responsibility of voting to have paid. He looked upon the services ren

dered by Mr. BoUCHETTE as an inheritence which accrued to the whole country and not to the Province of Old Canada alone. Mr. YOUNG felt very strong objections to allowing this item to pass. The fact that for nearly sixty years this claim had not been recognized by any Government of the late Province of Canada or Lower Canada before the union or the Dominion since Confederation, was prima facie evidence that the case was not sufficiently strong to induce the representatives of the people to settle the claim. Political difficulties might have been the cause of this between 1834 and 1838, but the union did not take place until some time after that. The claim was constantly pressed during that period, but no Government was willing to recognize and pay it. If the claim was a valid one, Quebec should settle it.

Mr. RYMAL said Government after Government, Conservative and Reform, had failed to pay this claim, and it remained for this Liberal Government to take up refused accounts and settle them. He for one would vote against the item, Mr. DAVIES said it seemed to him if this was a valid claim it would not have been allowed to stand over for sixty years unpaid.

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said it was not quite correct to say that the justice of the claim had never been recognized by any Government. Had there been any means of taking legal steps against the Government, the case would have been tested in a court of law.

the question was whether the sum should be paid by any party at all representing the old Province of Quebec. The Dominion was in one sense the legitimate successor of the Province that originally contracted the debt; no doubt Quebec was still more legitimately the successor; but on the other hand, there could be no doubt that the maps of Mr. BOUCHETTE were the foundation of all the maps we had of British North America. The Government felt bound, on the retirement of Mr. BOUCHETTE, to place this sum in the estimates for the judgment of Parliament.

Mr. JONES (Leeds) did not admit the similarity of the claim of WILLIAM LYON MACKENZIE and this. This appropriation was for services which Mr. BOUCHETTE had rendered to science, the other was a payment to a man who had taken up arms against his QUEEN and country.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE said some years ago the question was raised with regard to claims of this kind against the old Province of Canada, and the policy adopted under the financial administration of Sir JOHN ROSE was this-inasmuch as by the Confederation Act Canada had assumed the debts and liabilities of the various Provinces, Canada would proceed to pay those things which were clearly debts, obtaining, of course, when possible the assent of the Province to obviate the difficulty, but not binding itself to obtain that consent preliminarily. With reference to such matters as might be considered claims, and which could not

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said it was. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the mere fact that the claim was long unpaid would not invalidate its justice, if it was just otherwise. The late WILLIAM LYON MACKENZIE had a claim against the old Province of Upper Canada from 1835, and that claim was ultimately paid by the Province of Ontario in 1868, nearly forty years after it was contracted. The question with regard to this demand was whether the services rendered by Mr. BOUCHETTE were of such value and of such a general character that the Legislature should recognize it at the present time. He had looked into the claim, and could not discover whether it had not been paid. He quite admitted there was no legal obligation on this Parliament to pay it; but

Hon. Mr. Mitchell.

III

sense of the term, no arrangement should be made by the Government of Canada, except with the assent of the Provinces that were to be charged. Under that policy several claims were postponed, and never disposed of. There was one claim which came before a committee of this House, and which was reported upon unfavorably by that committee. He referred to the claim of Mr. DENNISON, jr., in connection with the seizure of the steamer Georgian. That was a claim, if it existed at all, against the late Province of Canada. At that time he (Mr. BLAKE) occupied a position in the Government of Ontario, and had communication with the hon. member for Kingston, who was then First Minister of Canada, on the subject. The rule was then then laid down by him (Sir JOHN) that as this was not clearly