ment as a defeat, because if they did he had no hesitation in saying that he would vote with the Government, as he would be unwilling to bring about their defeat. However, he hoped the First Minister would not treat the matter so seriously, but would, good-naturedly, defer to the wishes of the House.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I am exceedingly obliged to my hon. friend for his promised support.

Mr. MILLS observed that the argument in favor of the abolition of newspaper postage on the ground that it would promote public education, would equally apply to the abolition of postage on books, pamphlets and other forms of literature. As he had before stated the Government in carrying the mails were performing functions that were no necessary part of governmental duty. They had nothing to do with the protection of life and property. The Government, as a matter of public convenience, had assumed the work of common carriers, and they imposed a charge for the work they performed. That charge was not sufficient to cover the expense incurred, and he thought the Government were going a long way towards encouraging newspaper literature when they carried newspapers for a less charge than it cost them. The expense of doing this work must be met in some way, and he knew of no fairer way than by charging it to those who were interested in having the newspapers carried. It must be paid for by those who did not take the papers if it was not paid by those who did. He was satisfied that the effect of abolishing newspaper postage would be to close up a number of small offices and prevent the opening of new ones in sparsely populated districts, because the revenue would be so reduced that the Government could not afford to keep up those offices. He was also satisfied that the people would rather pay the small postage on newspapers and have their post offices near at hand than be compelled to go five or six miles to find a post office.

Mr. BOWELL asked what was the present income from newspaper postage.

Hon. D. A. MACDONALD-About $85,000.

Mr. YOUNG said he had a return two years ago which stated the total amount to be $60,000, one-half of which was from Hon. Mr. Tupper.

postage on transient papers, and the other half from papers sent from the office of publication. In the Public Accounts of last year the revenue was put down at $72,000, one-half of which would be $36,000.

Hon. D. A. MACDONALD said he was satisfied that under the new Bill they would receive $40,000 from newspaper postage, the amount now received was nearly $90,000. The system of collecting the postage at the office of delivery was a demoralizing one, and it was impossible to get all the money that should properly be received. He was satisfied that in proportion to the rate a much larger revenue would be received under the proposed system than was now received. Under the proposed system the postmasters would be relieved of a great deal of trouble and annoyance, and the revenue could be much more easily collected.

Mr. PALMER wished to understand clearly what was the effect of the declaration of the First Minister. He was in favor of the amendment, but he was also in favor of the Bill, and he would not vote for the amendment if it was going to defeat the Bill.

of

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said there would be no difficulty in understanding the purport of the observation of the First Minister. He regarded the portion the Bill which was proposed to be amended as an essential part of the Bill, and if the House decided to abolish newspaper postage, it would be for the Government to consider whether they would go on with the Bill.

Mr. PALMER said he wished to know whether if the amendment was carried the Bill would be dropped.

Mr. BOWELL observed that there could be no misunderstanding the declaration of the First Minister. The only inference that could be drawn from it was that if the amendment was càrried the Bill would be dropped, although it was understood at the outset that the measure was not to be treated as a party measure, but that the Government would be prepared to accept the suggestions of the House. He wished to call the attention of the Postmaster General to this fact. The hon. gentleman estimated that he would lose $40,000 by the reduction on newspaper postage, and that the present revenue from that source was $90,000.. He also stated that he

reduced the postage 75 per cent., which would reduce the $90,000 to $22,500. He (Mr. BOWELL), therefore, supposed that the Postmaster General expected to increase the $22,500 to $40,000 by the additional newspaper matter which would be sent through the post office on account of the reduction- an expectation which was not at all likely to be realized. With reference to the arguments of the member for Bothwell, if they meant anything they meant that the Post Office Department should be made self-sustaining, and that the postage on letters should be increased so as to cover the actual expense. The hon. member also argued that the effect of the removal of newspaper postage would be to close up a number of country post offices. Under the present system the postmasters were allowed a commission for collecting the postage on newspapers, and he (Mr. BOWELL) would like to be informed if the Government intended to pay postmasters for the loss of this commission. So far as the Bill for the House went, there was nothing to show that they would receive anything, and yet the hon. member for Bothwell would have us believe that the removal of the postage would close up a number of offices.

Mr. MILLS-My statement was that the Government could not afford to establish new offices.

Mr. BOWELL said they had yet to learn that the Government intended to pay the postmasters anything in lieu of the commission they were now receiving. If they did then the increased revenue that the Postmaster General anticipated would never be realized, because according to the member for Bothwell it would require the whole amount received from newspaper postage to compensate postmasters for the loss of their commission.

Hon. D. A. MACDONALD said the question of compensating the postmasters had not been lost sight of by the department, but that could not be settled until the new Act was in operation for some little time.

Mr. BOWELL in reference to a remark of the First Minister, proceeded to say that he had never attacked the system of free delivery in cities. On the contrary he approved of it, and did not see why it should not be extended to the large towns because the increase in the amount of postal matter which it would cause would Mr. Bowell.

be as great in proportion to the expense in the large towns as in the cities. In fact, he hoped the day was not far distant when we would have free delivery in the country parts also as in England. But what he had stated was that the principle of delivering newspapers free was based upon the same ground as the principle of delivering letters free. It was stated that the postage could be added to the subscription price, but that would be impracticable, and the result would be that the publishers. would under the system of compulsory prepayment be obliged to pay the postage and get no return for it. While he would vote for the abolition of newspaper postage, he did not so much object to it as he did to the mode in which it was proposed to be imposed.

The Committee rose and reported progress, and it being six o'clock the SPEAKER left the chair.

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the resolutions in respect to the Postage Bill; Mr. MCLENNAN in the chair.

Mr. YOUNG said every hon. member understood that in moving his amendment he had no desire whatever to interfere with the passage of the measure which the Hon. Postmaster General had brought down. He had stated on a previous occasion that the Bill, as a whole, was a good one, that there were many excellent features in it, and he gave the hon. the Postmaster General considerable credit for having carried out a convention with the United States. with respect to postal affairs. At the same time he regarded the feature of the Bill relating to newspaper postage as a defect, but a minor one, and a question upon which hon. members might reasonably differ in opinion. He thought that on a minor point the Government would. be prepared to accede to the general opinion of the House, and he was not, therefore, prepared to find the hon. Premier take the position he had with respect to that minor feature of the Bill, one which would not affect its principle in any essential particular. He (Mr YOUNG) scarcely thought the ground ought to be taken that the Bill would be materially affected by a change made in that particular point. The whole matter

in dispute was an exceedingly small one, and if the Government had seen their way to accede to the demand made upon them, and left it an open question to the House, they would have taken a step which would have given not only satisfaction to the country, but to the majority of the members of the House. The Government being determined to oppose the amendment, it was quite evident, after the statement made by the hon. the First Minister, that the amendment would necessarily fall to the ground. At the same time he held strongly the opinion that the Bill was defective in that regard, and that a hardship would be imposed on an important section of the community, of which they would have good reason to complain. In justice to himself he felt bound to notice some of the remarks which had been made by hon. members during the debate. The hon. Postmaster General had stated that the postage on newspapers was a nuisance that the public looked upon it as a miserable arrangement. He (Mr. YOUNG) concurred in that view, and admitted that the public regarded the newspaper postage as an arrangement giving them much trouble; but if the public had been asked to express an opinion, it would not have been that the nuisance should be taken from their shoulders and placed on the newspaper publishers in the country. With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Bothwell, he ventured to remind that gentleman that three or four years ago he voted for the total abolition of newspaper postage, and yet when the Government had removed three-fourths of the postage, he could not see his way to vote for its entire removal. With respect to the amount of revenue which would probably be lost to the Post Office if the newspaper postage were entirely removed, he (Mr. YOUNG) disagreed with the statement of the Postmaster General who now spoke of it as $40,000, whereas he understood him at first to say it would be only $25,000.

Hon. D. A. MACDONALD explained that he anticipated receiving $15,000 over the amount which would be received under the present system, viz., $25,000. Mr. YOUNG (continuing) said that even at his own calculation, it could not be so much as that. The present total revenue the Postmaster General stated to Mr. Young.

be $90,000. Taking one half as representing the papers sent direct from office of publication, we had $45,000 and if the hon. gentleman's bill reduced the postage three fourths, as he claimed, the total amount would not exceed $12,000. Adding any increase from papers now sent by express he (Mr. Y.) believed the revenue would not be greater than he had previously stated, that the loss to the revenue would not exceed $12,000. The real question, however, was whether the postage should be thrown upon this particular class. the whole he thought it would have been a just and graceful act if the Government had entirely abolished this impost upon newspapers. The whole amount was a mere bagatelle. What was $20,000 to a department that expended so much. If they had taken this course it would have been an additional reason for giving thanks to the Postmaster General for a Bill which, on the whole, was a most excellent measure.

On

Hon. J. H. CAMERON said that instead of finding fault with the Postmaster General the House ought to recognize the fact that the changes made by the Government on the suggestions offered them, were most acceptable to the country considering the large amount of revenue they were dispensing with. He (Mr. CAMERON) would have been exceedingingly glad if the Government had felt it was in their power to remove from the newspaper press the burden which so many gentlemen said would rest upon it under this arrangement. When the Government had made such large improvements by this Act, the House ought to be perfectly satisfied with what had been done and they should not expect more. If the Postmaster General had gone as far as possible he should not be embarrassed.

He (Mr. CAMERON) was thankful, as a member of this House for the changes the Government had made in this Act, and was perfectly prepared to do everything he possibly could to support the Government in carrying this measure through.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said if the Government had not made this such a decided part of their policy he would have voted for the amendment. The complaint against the tax was not so much because of its amount as the inconvenience it entailed.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE felt exceedingly obliged to the hon. member for Card

Hon. D. A. MACDONALD stated in reference to the suggestion of the hon. member for Centre Toronto, that that was a matter of departmental regulation, and he would take care that unpaid letters which contained the address of the sender on the envelope would be returned direct to the sender.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL pointed out the disadvantages that business men would be under if letters which through the inadvertence or carelessness of a clerk were unstamped were to be sent to Ottawa and not forwarded to its destination. Such letter might contain an acceptance, and the result of its being delayed might cause very serious financial injury to the sender. He thought the Department would be sufficiently protected in the case of unpaid letters by charging double postage, and if that was not enongh he would prefer to see the fine doubled or trebled rather than that such letters should not be forwarded. He objected to the position taken by the Premier in reference to the amendment proposed, and with reference to a remark of the hon. member for Chateauguay, he said it was absurd to suppose that the amendment affected a vital and essential part of the Bill.

The fifth and remaining resolutions were then adopted and the committee rose and reported them. Concurrence to-morrow.

BANKS AND BANKING.

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT moved the second reading of a Bill to amend the "Act respecting Banks and Banking."

The Bill was read a second time.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. BROUSE in the chair.

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said the Bill which it was now poposed was a formal one merely intended to remedy certain manifest defects in one or two clauses of the Act relating to Banks and Banking; but it had been suggested-and the suggestion appeared to be a sound and reasonable one-that while Parliament was amending that Act it could with advantage remedy certain faults in other clauses of the Act. Under the present law banks were prevented from making loans on allowing discount on security of their own stocks, but he had been informed very recently that certain banks bought their own stock, and whatever objection might be urged to banks having money on their stock applied in a

Hon. D. A. Macdonald.

greater degree to purchasing their own stock. He, therefore, proposed to amend clause No. 6 of the Act to meet the case. He (Mr. CARTWRIGHT) moved that the House rise and report progress.

Mr. DOMVILLE objected to the form of the bank statements which were published, remarking that the two headings, "Liabilities not included under the foregoing head" and "Assets not included before " were of such a character as to practically cover up any deficiency and prevent stockholders from being able to ascertain, from the published statements, the precise position of the banks.

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said he would take the matter into consideration; but the present Bill was simply to amend the Act in mere formal particulars, while the objection raised by the hon. member was of a more serious character, and would require careful consideration.

Mr. YOUNG called attention to the circumstance that some of the banks in the Dominion did not regularly publish their statements. He inquired if some steps could not be taken to compel all the banks in each Province to publish their monthly statements with regularity.

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said some of the banks acted under charters not granted by the Dominion Parliament, and until those charters lapsed the Government had not absolute power over them. the banks which were entirely under the control of the Government published their statements regularly.

All

The committee then rose and reported.

INSPECTION OF GAS.

Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION moved the second reading of the Bill to amend the Act 36 Vic., Cap. 48, relating to the inspection of gas.

Bill read a second time.

The House then went into committee, Mr. PELLETIER in the chair, and reported the Bill without amendment.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Hon. Mr. FOURNIER, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill to amend the Act respecting controverted elections, stated that he intended to propose amendments in Committee in accordance with the suggestions made by several hon. members,