clearly established that there was great discontent before the Union, and that discontent was wholly on account of the local mismanagement of the affairs in connection with the reservation of land to the Indians. The Local Government might depend upon it that until the grievances of the Indians were removed and they were allowed to obtain a fair share of the land they could not expect to have peace and quietness. No white people would submit to the usage that the Indians had received, and they could not expect the Indians to submit to it. He had no doubt that the Indians would be satisfied with what had been done by the Dominion Government in the direction of securing them their rights. Mr. DE COSMOS said that all that the Dominion Government was bound by the Act of Union to do, was to treat the Indians of the Province as liberally as the Government of British Columbia was accustomed to do before the Union, and in case any dispute should arise with respect to the Indian lands it was to be referred to the Colonial Secretary. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It has been referred. leading Commissioner was a medical man and was very popular among the Indians, and had been the means of conciliating them when their discontent might have taken a serious form. The principal objection to the other Commissioner was that he did not belong to British Columbia, but that objection was not made by the Indians, who were, he believed, well satisfied with him. The hon. member for Victoria was mistaken in saying that the Commissioners had done nothing, as he (Mr. LAIRD) was aware of the contrary. It was the intention intention of the Commissioners to go through the Province and organize the Department, establishing agencies and schools, and aiding the Indians in agricultural pursuits, but it was impossible to do anything in that direction until the Indians knew where their reservations were to be. The hon. member for Victoria had stated that the British Columbia Government gave the Indians all the land they could utilize. That might have been the case years ago, when ten acres to a family was enough for agricultural purposes, because game was plentiful and the Indians had plenty of hunting grounds. But that state of things had, to a great extent, changed, and the Indians now required a much larger reserve. However, the British Columbia Government had not, so far, given the Indians more than ten acres to a family. He (Mr. LAIRD) contended that eighty acres for each family was not too much, and he thought the Local Government had not acted fairly with the Indians in restricting their reserve to ten acres to a family. With respect to the Indian Boards he must admit that they had not been entirely successful either in Manitoba cr British Columbia. In both Provinces the Lieutenant Mr. BUNSTER contended that the Governors did not care to act upon the Commissioners sent up to British Columbia Boards, and the Government had not were not fitted to perform their duties. pressed them. In the meantime they They did not understand the Indian were endeavouring to make other arrange language, and when the Indians would go ments to carry out the organization of the to them, they could get no satisfaction. Department in British Columbia, and it There were plenty of men in British was probable they would have to estabColumbia familiar with the Indian lish the system adopted in Ontario; that language who would have been well fitted was, to divide the Province into superinto fulfil the duties of Commissioners. tendencies and appoint a superintendent Hon. Mr. LAIRD said that the dis-over each district. The present system of. satisfaction of the Indians arose entirely out of the land question, and until that was settled the Commissioners could do very little. He understood that the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. DE COSMOS proceeded to say that the quantity of land given to the Indians previous to the Union, did not exceed ten acres for each family, and yet the Dominion Government now wanted the Local Government to give them eighty acres. If the Dominion Governmeut wanted any more land for the Indians they could purchase it. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE--We do not intend to purchase land for that purpose, but we will probably require that the Columbia Government shall extinguish the Indian title. an Indian Board was the suggestion of the• late Mr. Howe, and it was thought the best system that could be adopted, on account of the difficulty of communicating ́ However, | Edward Island and Nova Scotia the grant given was too large in proportion to the numberofthe Indians, as compared to the grants given in New Brunswick. He would, also, ask the hon. gentleman to say whether the sum derived from timber lands in New Brunswick was expended on behalf of the Indians of that Province. The item was carried. with that distant Province. as we were likely soon to have telegraphic communication with British Columbia, through our own territory, the necessity for an Indian Board had, in a great measure, ceased, and as it had not been very successful, the Government had under consideration the expediency of abolishing it and appointing superintendents instead. Mr. BUNSTER expressed astonishment at the remarks of the hon., the Minister, and insisted that the Government of the Dominion had been altogether to blame for the injustice done to the Indians, inasmuch at they had never taken possession of the land which the Government of Columbia was keeping in trust for them. The Commsssioners, he repeated, did not understand the Indians, who were the best class of the aborigines in this country. He did not appear as the advocate of the Local Government, for he had been an opponent of theirs, but he would not see any injustice done them, and he thought it most unjust to blame them for not giving away lands which were not theirs to give. He hoped the Dominion Government would take possession of these lands, and distribute them, and he also hoped that they would otherwise fulfil the terms of Union which gave them the right to the possession of the land. The hon. gentleman, he thought, was in error in accusing the Local Government in breaking faith with the Indians. Mr. DECOSMOS said he could not coincide with the hon. gentleman, who had just spoken in the sweeping charge of incompetency made against the Agent. So far as Dr. BoWELL was concerned he (Mr. DECOSMOS) had no fault to find. The princple objection he had to the others was, that there were men in the Province who were just as well fitted for the duties as they, but under the proposed new arrangement he thought they might probably do their work more satisfactorily. The item was then carried. On item 160, $2,000, probable expenses with Indians in Prince Edward Island, Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he would expect the hon. gentleman to furnish the House with some details as to the relative number of Indians in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. His own impression was that in Prince Hon. Mr. Laird. Item 161 was passed without discussion. On item 162, to provide for surveys of boundary between British Columbia and the United States, $100,000, Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said this was a new vote, the object of which was to provide for the survey of the boundary between Alaska and Canada. The government hoped it would not be necessary to expend the whole of it, but it was well to have sufficient on hand if it should be required. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD asked if any negotiations were going on with respect to this boundary. Hon Mr. CARTWRIGHT replied that communications were now going on through Sir EDWARD THORNTON with the United States government, and it was hoped that some settlement would be arrived at which would enable this government to dispense with the expenditure of the large amount asked for. The Alaska coast was very intricate, and there was no doubt the running of a line on the ridges of the mountains would be very expensive. with a view to effect a saving in this respect that these negotiations were now going on.-The item passed. It was Items 163 to 166, inclusive, were passed without discusison. On item $12,000 commutation liens of remission of duties on articles imported for the use of the army and navy. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD asked why there was an increase of $2,000. Hon. Mr. BURPEE said the amount hitherto allowed was $50, which was not sufficient. Representations were made by the officers at Halifax to that effect, and this increase was allowed, Hon. Mr. TUPPER-In point of fact this $2,000 increase is in consequence of the recent increase in the duties. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-Partly that and partly in consequence of the increased cost of living in the last few years. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said the govern- | absolutely required in the interests of sound ment should have made enquiries in order legislation upon bills which were hurried in to ascertain whether this increase was under a suspension of the rules durnecessary before making it. The sum was ing the last days of the session. not large, but the principle of making an He would therefore urge his honourable increase on the representation of these friend to resist any application which gentlemen was a bad one. The item might be made hereafter for the suspension passed. of the rules, thus doing away with those conditions with which the House had surrounded Private Bill legislation. One item, 168, miscellaneous expenses in the North-West, not otherwise provided for, $33,800. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD asked why there was an increase of $23,800, Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said as a bill was soon to be brought down giving this information in detail, it would be better to let the item stand. The Committee rose and reported the resolutions. The House adjourned at ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, 23rd February, 1875. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD hoped the Premier would think twice before he accepted the suggestion of the hon. member for Chateauguay. Private Bill legislation was not a matter of political importance, it was not a matter of party politics, and it was not necessary that the whole power of the Government need be invoked to prevent the extension of time under any circumstances. He had no doubt that the Premier would take care that the interests of every one affected by any Private Bill should be protected. He (Sir JOHN) would be very sorry to see a cast-iron rule adopted which would present the introduction of a Private Bill after the usual time The SPEAKER took the chair at three P.M. had expired, no matter how urgent it Mr. RYMAL moved that the time for receiving petitions for Private Bills be extended two weeks and the time for receiving Private Bills and Reports thereon for a like period. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said it was usual to give some extension of time in the early stages of the session, but he would invite his hon. friend the leader of the House, to state explicitly that this was the only extension to which he as leader of the House would give his consent. The practice of bringing forward private bills at a very late period of the session when it was quite impossible to give them the consideration which their importance frequently demanded, was one which he thought should be put an end to. The notices given according to the rules of the House meant something or they meant nothing. If they meant anything there was no reason in the world why applications for private bills should not be before the House within the prescribed delay. His own experience in one of the leading Private Bill Committees of the House had led him to the conclusion that it was utterly impossible to bestow the care and deliberation Hon. Mr. Cartwright. might be. The question of the extension of the time might be safely left to the Premier and to the majority of the House. The Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said there · was a good deal of conversation upon this subject during the last three sessions, consequent upon the repeated introduction of motions to suspend the rules. extension of time, if reasonable, was not in itself objectionable; but still it was not desirable to have Private Bills introduced suddenly, at a late period of the session, when it was impossible to give them due consideration. It would not be well to prohibit by absolute rule under any circumstances the introduction of a private bill after the delay fixed by the rules, because cases of urgency might arise in which the House would be unanimous in desiring to extend the time; but he thought the extension of time once asked for by the committee should not be exceeded. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said this continual prolongation of the time during which private bills might be received was equivalent to an abrogation of the rule of the House. If it was the sense of the House that the rule should be abrogated, he had not a word to say, but if it was important that the rule should be enforced, it should be enforced, or it would lose its value. Last session, as chairman of one of the principal Private Bills Committees, he found it impossible to give due consideration to very important bills introduced at a late period of the session, under a suspension of the rules, and on examination of the statute book he found clauses in private bills which had not, and could not have had, under the circumstances, the consideration they deserved. It is therefore in the interest of sound private bill legislation for which the leader of the Government was equally as responsible as he was for public legislation, that he made the suggestion he had offered to the Premier. Under our system we must hold the Government responsible for the whole legislation of the country. In private bills it not unfrequently happened that clauses were introduced affecting quoad particular interests the public law of the country, and in respect to these Bills the Government must be held responsible. Right Hon. SirJOHN MACDONALD said his hon. friend carried this responsibility further than it was carried in England, where the Government was not held responsible for private legislation. The hon. gentleman spoke, also, of this extension of time as an abrogation of the rules of the House, but it would be admitted that the rules might sometimes be abrogated with great advantage. The hon. gentleman, for instance, had spoken twice on this subject, which was an abrogation of the rule, but still a very great advantage to the House. Mr. RYMAL said it was perfectly regular for the Committee to recommend it suspension of the rule, and. considering the fact that this session had commenced some six weeks earlier than usual, the recommendation should be adopted, Hon. Mr. BLAKE said the early meeting of the House furnished an ample justification for the suspension of the rules, and it would be very improper to refuse it, but he thought the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston ought to make the House all the more alert in maintaing the rules since the Government were not responsible for private legislation. Numbers of private bills were in effect largely public bills. Take for example two cases Hon. Mr. Holton. of the previous session. Numerous bills relating to banks were settled by a public bill, and in the same manner bills relating to building societies were brought under a general act. In both these cases the government were responsible for the legislation. He suggested that the House should determine upon a certain time within which petitions could be received, and adhere rigidly to that, only extending the time in special cases where the committee were satisfied that such extension should be granted. No general extension should in future take place. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the remarks made by the hon. member for South Bruce were particularly in point with reference to the legislation of last session. Two bills relating to building societies came in late in the session and it was utterly impossible from the lateness of the season and the anxiety of members to leave, for the government to give them the consideration they should receive. He felt that for these, at least, the Government had a direct responsibility that they could not shake off. The motion was carried. BILLS INTRODUCED. The following bills were introduced and read a first time: Mr. IRVING—Act respecting the International Bridge Company. Mr. JETTE-Bill to amend the several acts incorporating and relating to the Richelieu Company and to change its name. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-Act to amend the act respecting banks and banking. He explained that the object of this bill was to amend the schedule in which one particular bank, which had become insolvent, appeared regularly every month. Mr. JETTE—A Bill for the incorporation of the Royal Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada. THE SUPREME COURT. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER moved for leave to introduce a bill which had been announced in the Speech from the Throne ―an Act respecting the establishment of a Supreme Court. He said that a Bill on this subject had been announced on four occasions. The hon. leader of the Opposition had, in another debate, alluded to the numerous difficulties that had pre ་ in the pre-creation of a Court of Exchequer. Some sented themselves Hon. Mr. Fournier. The The Some alterations had been made in regard to cases of extradition, and some additions relating thereto, so far as the Province of Quebec was concerned. following was the clause of the Bill referring to the subject:-It was very important to have these cases adjudicated upon by the highest tribunal of the country, because it involved correspondence with foreign countries on treaty matters. "Any person convicted of treason, felony, or Terminer or Gaol Delivery, or before the Court misdemeanour, before any Court of Oyer and of Queen's Bench in the Province of Quebec on its Crown side, whose conviction has been affirmed by any Court of last resort, or in the Province of Quebec by the Court of Queen's Bench on its appeal side, or any person in custody within the Dominion of Canada, whose extradition is claimed in pursuance of any |