of a Judge declaring the seat vacant. In the case of O'DONOVAN ROSSA, a motion was made for the issue of a new writ, although that took place after the passage of the Controverted Elections Act.

Hon. Mr. FOURNIER said that in the absence of any enactment depriving the House entirely of control over the issue of writs, the House retained that control, except in the cases specially excepted, and this case was not one of them.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD agreed with that view, and said he would vote for the motion. He wished, however, it to be understood and his declaration would appear in Hansard—that he did not agree with that portion of the resolution which stated that RIEL had been adjudged an outlaw, because he did not believe there was any evidence before the House establishing that he was an outlaw. Still he would vote for the motion because the seat ought to be filled.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he had voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Cardwell because he was under the impression that the proceed ings submitted to the House did not satisfactorily establish the fact that LOUIS RIEL was legally adjudged an outlaw. The House, however, had declared that LOUIS RIEL was an outlaw, and therefore he was bound, having voted for his expulsion, to vote for the issue of a new writ. Hon. Mr. BLAKE said the House had not declared LOUIS RIEL an outlaw; the House had declared that Louis RIEL had been adjudged an outlaw. The right hon. member for Kingston had stated he would vote for the issue of a new writ, and yet he held that RIEL had not been adjudged an outlaw. Now if RIEL was not adjudged an outlaw the seat was not vacant, because RIEL had not been expelled. He (Mr. BLAKE) would leave it to the hon. gentleman to reconcile the two positions either in Hansard or elsewhere.

Hon. J. H. CAMERON observed that having placed upon the records of the House their opinion that RIEL was not an outlaw and that he should be expelled, and the House having declared that he was an outlaw, there could now be no inconsistency in his hon. friend from Kingston, and those who voted with him in voting that a new writ be issued; they would vote for a new writ because they had Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

voted that RIEL should be expelled, and the seat should not remain vacant.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE wished to point out the illogical position of the hon. gentleman opposite. He had taken the strongest ground against anything being done that might appear illegal, but now he declared that a new writ should be issued though RIEL had not been expelled.

Hon. J. H. CAMERON-I declare he is expelled.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The hon. gentleman had voted that RIEL had not been adjudged an outlaw; certainly he was not expelled; and yet the hon. gentleman holding that he was not an outlaw was ready to vote for the issue of a new writ before RIEL was expelled, and therefore aocording to his view before the seat was vacant.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said he and others had stated at the outset that although the record before the House was insufficient to establish the fact of outlawry it was quite sufficient to establish the fact of LOUIS RIEL being a fugitive from justice, and therefore he voted now as he voted last year consistently; but the hon. gentleman opposite did not vote consistently.

sir, to strike the name off the roll. I have since examined similar cases occurring in England, and I did not find that the name was struck off; but in one case, -I will furnish the reference to hon. gentlemen opposite the voting without having taken the oath was held to operate as vacating the seat, and a new writ was moved for immediately.

Mr. McCALLUM-The seat is vacant

now.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The hon. member for Monck says the seat is vacant now; but I think the hon. gentleman is quite capable of filling both seats. I was about to say, Mr. SPEAKER, that in that particular case, and it is the only case I have been able to find, a motion was made for the issue of a new writ, and immediately following it was a motion to introduce a Bill of Indemnity. The hon. gentleman has undoubtedly subjected himself to the penalties imposed by law upon such members as sit and vote without having taken the oath prescribed by law, and my impression is at present (and I state it subject to the opinion of the House which I invite) that we cannot strike the name off the division list. We must consider that the division might have been one carried by a majority of one, or it might have been carried by the casting vote of the SPEAKER; it might have, therefore, been an important division, and we have to consider what the effect would be if the vote were struck off such a division as that. As the name does not appear to have been struck off in the English House of Commons, I propose, subject as I say to the opinion of old members of the House who have thought over this question, simply to have a Bill of indemnity introduced that will be held to cover any wrong the hon. gentleman has committed in the premises.

Right Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD hoped the Hon. First Minister would be kind enough to hand over the case which was a startling one, and he would take the earliest opportunity of looking into it. It would be an unfortunate circumstance, and one which the House would deplore, if an inadvertance of that kind should compel any hon. member to vacate' his seat. He thought the correct course to pursue was to introduce a Bill of indemnity, so as to protect the hon. member from the possibility of an action. The case ought to be examined by members of the

Hon. Mr. HOLTON remarked that this Bill covered a different ground. At all events it should pass the first reading.

Hon. Mr. TUPPER suggested that the two Bills should be referred to the same committee to be amalgamated. This would obviate the difficulty of having two laws on the same subject in the statute book of

one year.

Hon. J. H. CAMERON said these Bills hsould be carefully considered because they might conflict with the rights of the Local Legislatures. He had not examined this Bill, but he knew there were provisions in the measure introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton which most certainly came within the jurisdiction of the Local Legislature. If, in such cases, the Government did not themselves determine upon a certain course to be pursued, they ought to see in smce way that a special committee, or a sub-committee of the Railways and the Banking and Commerce Committees, should examine such Bills carefully with a view to recommending some system to be followed in reference to these measures.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE entirely agreed with the suggestion made by the

hon. members for Cumberland and Cardwell. It was understood when the hon. member for Hamilton introduced his Bill that it should be referred to a sub-committee of the Railway Committee, composed of gentlemen learned in the law and experienced in business. It would be advisable to refer this Bill to the same committee and have the two amalgamated. The Government would take their own course, but would invite the assistance of hon. members opposite in dealing with this matter.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL would have very much preferred to see this question taken up by the Government, as it affected the travel, trade and commerce of the country, which ought not to be dealt with according to the views of a private member of this House. It was taken up by the late administration, and it seemed to him the same course should be pursued by the present Government after these bills were reported from the committee.

Mr. MILLS suggested the propriety of the House appointing a Judicial Commitbee, of which the Minister of Justice would always be one, to whom any Bill

Hon. Mr. Holton.

respecting which there was any doubt as to the jurisdiction of this Parliament might be referred. In the two Bills. adverted to in the present instance, not. only the question of jurisdiction, but questions relating to trade and commerce were raised, and which the Committee on Banking and Commerce might be a very proper committee to deal with the latter questions, they might not be the best committee that could be found for considering the former. Under a limited constitution. like ours the question of jurisdiction might be raised upon many measures, and it would be well to have a committee whose special functions would be to consider such measures with reference to the question of jurisdiction, and that point being disposed of, they could be dealt with by the appropriate committees. Bill read a first time.

RETURN OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER-I have the honor to

inform the House that the clerk has just received the certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, informing him that JAMES H. FRASER is returned as duly elected to represent the city of London.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I called the attention of the House, yesterday, to the case of the hon. member for Centre Wellington who sat and voted in this House before he became qualified to do so by taking the oath prescribed by law. I stated, also, that in a similar case in England the member who had voted in this manner voided his seat by the act of voting, and that the course pursued was to move at once for the issue of a new writ. I have examined the reports since then, and I find that no discussion in the House of Commons upon the case is reported, but I find that under the act of 1702 it is provided that where parties voted without having taken and subscribed the oath, the seat was thereby voided, and this act was renewed in 1866. It was under the act of 1702, that the proceedings took place in 1831. Although the law was renewed as late as 1866, in England, it has never been the law in this country, and to what extent the English law may govern the procedure of this House, I think it is a matter for the Committee on Privileges

and Elections, who should consider also what the consequences are of a personal nature to the hon. gentlemen who sat and voted as stated. I propose, therefore, the following resolution :

"That the attention of the House having been called to the fact that Mr. Orton, member elect for the Electoral District of Centre Wellington, sat and voted in the House during the present session without having qualified himself to sit and vote by taking and subscribing the oath prescribed in the 128th section of the British North America Act of 1867, the matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, with instructions to consider and report to the House on the proper course to be pursued in relation thereto."

This will place on record in our Journals that the matter occupied the immediate attention of the House, and the report of the committee will no doubt pre

sent some recommendation to the House as to the course to be pursued in order at once to vindicate the dignity and honor of the House, and at the same time not be personally unjust to any person who might by inadvertance have committed a wrong in this respect.

Hon. J. H. CAMERON said that after the hon. Premier mentioned yesterday, the case which had occurred in England, he took the earliest opportunity of looking into it, in order to ascertain precisely how the matter was, and found it was exactly as the hon. Premier had stated, viz., that it was under the effect of a law existing in England which for a time was allowed to lie dormant, but which was again revived. So far as he was able to judge that law was not in force in this country, but there were one or two very peculiar passages in our own statutes which certainly required that the course which the hon. Premier had proposed should be favourably considered, and the question referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. It would probably be found that there was not the personal liability to the penalty which was mentioned with relation to certain acts which were done by parties who sat and voted in the House under the circumstances stated. But there was even a doubt on that point; therefore there was no clearer course to pursue than to refer the question to the committee indicated. It was a matter of very great importance, and as this was the first occasion on which the attention of the House had been called to it, they ought to have a record on the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

Journals to which they would be able to refer should a similar case again arise.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON thought the disqualification of the hon. member for Centre Wellington was wrought by the provisions of the British North American Act, and not by the provisions of our Independence of Parliament Act. It was under our Independence of Parliament Act that penalties accrue. It might be doubted, therefore, whether similar or perhaps any penalties arose under the other Act; but that was precisely the point which should be inquired into by the committee.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said that

the Independence of Parliament Act tion in the first three sections, and by the mentioned certain causes for disqualificasub-section of the fourth section the penalty was imposed. That sub-section says: declared incapable of sitting or voting, by "And if any person disqualified or the first, second or third sections, The doubt arose as to the application of the word "disqualified," but the researches of the committee might throw more light on it than was obtained by a cursory examination.

The motion was carried.

THE MILITIA AMENDMENT ACT.

Hon. Mr. VAIL moved the House into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolutions :-"1. That it is expedient to provide that the officer to be appointed to command the Militia of the Dominion of Canada under Bill No. 4 'to amend the Dominion Militia and Defence Acts' shall be paid at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum in full of all pay and allowances. 2. That is is expedient to provide that the Adjutant General of Militia at Headquarters, to be appointed under the said Bill, shall be paid at the rate of twenty-six hundred dollars per annum." The hon. gentleman repeated the explanations offered by him on introducing the Act to amend the Dominion Militia and Defence Acts, in compliance with a request made by the hon. member for Northumberland.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said that the explanations of the Hon. Minister of Militia had fully satisfied him as to the propriety of the Bill, at all events so far as the changes proposed in regard to the officer in command and the change of title