it imposed penalties for certain offences. | Railway line from Rat Portage to narrows: of Lake Manitoba ? Hon. Mr. LAIRD-The matter is under consideration. No arrangements have yet been arrived at in that direction. The House adjourned at ten o'clock. ·THE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW :-The following portion of the debate on the Pro-. hibitory Law on the 16th inst., was acci Hon. Mr. LAIRD-It is not the inten-dentally omitted. tion of the Government to bring in such an Act this session. During the recess we will duly consider the circumstances which may arise and decide whether it would be advisable to do so next session or not. Mr. RYAN asked whether it is the intention of the Government to confine the system of leasing wood lots in Manitoba to the settlement belt. Hon. Mr. LAIRD-It is not the intention of the Government to extend it beyond the settlement belt at present. Mr. RYAN asked whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the law so as to extend to persons settled upon homesteads in Manitoba at the time of the passing of the 37th Vict., Chap. 19, the right to pre-empt a quarter of a section of Dominion Lands, given by that Act to persons settling after its passage. Hon. Mr. LAIRD-As I have already stated, it is not the intention of the Government to amend the Dominion Lands Act this session. During last summer by Order in Council we provided for persons, who had come in up to that time, preempting quarter sections adjacent to them. Mr. RYAN asked whether it is the intention of the Government to take any measures to prevent the valuable woods south of the Assiniboine, in the county of Marquette, from being destroyed by the constantly occurring prairie fires. Hon. Mr. LAIRD This is a matter with which the Dominion Government considers it has nothing to do. The Local Government must attend to it. Mr. SCHULTZ asked whether it is the intention of the Government to permit Homestead settlement on any portion of the twenty miles belt along the proposed Mr. Moss. To Mr. WHITE, in seconding the amendment moved by Mr. SCHULTZ, said he did so because although not a teetotaller himself he believed the Government to be the proper parties to take this matter up. adopt the original motion would amount to nothing, and was like the member for Centre Toronto, who made a long speech denouncing the result of the election of Mayor in Toronto because one of the candidates advocated the granting of a greater number of tavern licenses than the hon. member thought necessary. The hon. member, however, might well do that, for he owned a property in Toronto which was rented for a hotel-the American House -and the fewer licenses granted the more valuable would that property be. Since he (Mr. WHITE) had been in Ottawa he had seen an hon. gentleman take a bottle of wine at dinner on a Sunday, and then go and deliver a violent temperance lecture in the afternoon. He would like to see this put an end to by the passage of a Prohibitory Liquor Law. He fully approved of the suggestion made by the member for North Ontario that the Government should protect the interests of those who had their means invested in the trade on the same principle that Great Britain indemnified the slaveholders in the West Indies on the abolition of the slave trade. Mr. WILKES, in reply, stated that the statement just made was simply a repetition of what had appeared in certain newspapers. He did not reply to it then, nor would be now. His character was sufficiently established not to be affected by such slanders. It was true he owned the American Hotel in Toronto, but he nevertheless would vote for a Prohibitory Liquor Law, and take his chances with the others: as to the loss that might follow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Saturday, March 20th, 1875. The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock. RAILWAY PROPERTIES. Mr. JETTE asked leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Railway Act of 1868. He explained that its object was to remedy a defect in the General Railway Act. Some of the Railway Companies were possessed of property which they did not use for railway purposes. He knew one company in the Province of Quebec which held a very important property in Longueuil that had not been employed for railway purposes for fifteen years, and no company could have possession of it either by ex-propriation or otherwise. It became evident that after a certain time these companies should be placed on the same footing as private individuals, and he would like to allow other companies to ex-propriate such lands if neces sary. The Bill was read a first time. A QUESTION OF ORDER. the hon. member for North Simcoe insisted on pressing his Bill, he (Mr. JONES) would feel obliged to move a three months' hoist. Mr. KILLAM suggested that it should be referred to the Cominittee on Banking and Commerce. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE. Of Hon. Mr. BLAKE said before the Orders of the Day were called he proposed in accordance with the intimation he had given of his intention to call attention, on a question of privilege, to the petition which it became his duty to present some time ago, and which was printed in the votes and proceedings of yesterday. That petition being forwarded to him he believed it to be a duty incumbent upon him as a member of Parliament to give the petitioners the opportunity of stating their grievances or alleged grievances by presenting the petition to the House. the accuracy of the facts therein stated, ho had no further knowledge than he drew from the fact that those signatures to Mr. SPEAKER said he felt it his duty the petition were appended by parties, and to state that having looked carefully into the petition came to him from a source the authorities with regard to the Bill of which was a sufficient guarantee of the the hon. member for North Simcoe, he was genuineness of the signatures, and the satisfied that the Bill was in order, and respectability of the names. He desired that the old principle of regarding penal- to call the attention of the House to the ties imposed for the purpose of enforcing subjects of which the petition complained, an Act of Parliament as an impost upon and the course which it appeared to be the people, in the ordinary sense, had vir- proper to invite the House to take in retually become obsolete. In accordance gard to it. The petition complained of cerwith modern practice, the Bill was intain matters in connection with the last elecorder. The other objection he regarded as tion for the county of Victoria. untenable. be divided into two parts-one with respect to the appointment of the retiring officer, and the other with respect to the conduct of the returning officer in the execution of his duty. He was informed that the petition was now pending in the proper court for the trial of controverted elections, for the county of Victoria, and in that petition of course it was competent to the petitioners to prefer any complaint they might have as to improper conduct on the part of the returning officer relative to the merits of the petition. There might, however, be some conduct on the part of the returning officer which did not relate to the merits of the election petition, and which would not there Mr. COOK asked permission under the circumstances, to allow the Bill to be advanced a stage. Mr. JONES (Halifax) was unwilling that the Bill should be proceeded with without a full explanation of its object. The House would see that it was utterly impracticable to carry out such a measure in the Maritime Provinces. It might, perhaps, apply very well to inland waters where there was no great tidal wave, but it would be impossible to keep ladders on wharves in the harbors of the sea-coast. It would be a great inconvenience to vessels. The more the Bill was looked into the more objectionable it appeared. If Mr. Jette. It might fore come under the cognizance of the court; but most of the acts which the returning officer might be charged with would come before the cognizance of the courts necessarily, and inasmuch as the principal acts here complained of in the conduct of the returning officer were such as properly came before the cognizance of the courts on the trial of an election petition, it did not appear to him that it would be acting in accordance with the spirit of the Act to invite the House to deal with the conduct of the officer in the present state of these proceedings. He would he very sorry to believe that the House had been deprived, by the position of the Controverted Elections Act, of its power over returning officers, and deputy returning officers-of its power to investigate complaints made against them, and to punish them for improper conduct. But when Parliament transferred the trial of election petitions to the Judges, and expressly provided that the conduct of returning officers might be complained of, and they might be made respondents to petitions, Parliament thereby expressed a preference for that mode of investigation, or at any rate a petitioner could adopt that course. Under those circumstances he did not think it would be proper to ask the House to enter into an investigation of the conduct of that returning officer pending the election trial. The appointment of the returning officer was a different matter. In the petition certain allegations were made which the leader of the Government would have an opportunity of answering. Hon. members knew that the general discretion of the Government with respect the appointment of returning officers was by the present Government abridged during last session, and an Act was passed providing that the writs should be sent to one of two officials who existed in every county, from which the electoral districts were formed, namely, the Sheriff and the Registrar; and in the event of a refusal through his disqualification or inability to act, the GOVERNOR GENERAL in Council might appoint another person as returning officer. The petition contained the statement that the writ was not offered to the Sheriff, and that a person being neither the Sheriff nor the Registrar was appointed returning officer. He had been informed not by any mem Hon. Mr. Blake. ber of the Government that there was good and sufficient reason for that course, in that the High Sheriff was unable to act because he was engaged in the discharge of his duty, as an officer of the Local Government, in holding an election the same day. The Government would state whether that was the case or not, and it seemed to be impracticable that the High Sheriff could discharge the duties of returning officer at two elections, when the polling places were at different places and the hours of polling different. There was also the complaint made in the petition that the returning officer was a person of no property in the county, and a brother-in-law of one of the candidates. Upon that he had no information other than what was contained in the petition. He had felt it to be his duty to present the petition which had been forwarded to him, and also felt it to be his duty, not only to the petitioners, but also to the Government, having presented it, to address those observations to the House in order that the Government might offer the necessary explanations with respect to the appointment of the returning officer. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said that he was not aware that his hon. friend had given notice of his intention to bring the matter up to-day, and had not therefore made inquiries from the Secretary of State of the reasons for appointing as returning officer the person referred to. He would offer the necessary explanations On Monday. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said he heartily approved of the course taken by the hon. member for South Bruce. He was glad the hon. member did not propose to ask the House to consider the points raised in the petition when the election case was before another tribunal; at the same time it was not to be supposed that the House had abandoned its right to control, censure, and if need be punish, returning and deputy returning officers. Since Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE making the statement which I have made to the House, I have been informed that the reason this gentleman was appointed returning officer was that the Sheriff was otherwise engaged and the Registrar refused to act. Sir JOHN MACDONALD— Then, of course, the Act applies, and the Government may appoint who they please. Mr. CHARLTON rose and desired to call the attention of the Government to the fact that since the death of Judge WILSON three months ago there had been no adequate provision made for the transaction of legal business in the county of Norfolk. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon. member should have either put a notice on the paper or given him notice privately of his intention to bring up the question. To discuss the subject at the present time was quite irregular. Sir JOHN MACDONALD advised the hon. member to put a notice on the paper respecting the subject. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE My hon. friend called my attention privately to this matter, and it has been attended to as far as the Government can attend to it. INSOLVENCY. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER moved the House into Committee to consider the Insolvency Bill. He said the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred had held numerous sittings, and had devoted much attention to it. With respect to the appointment of official assignees, the intention of the Government in taking to itself the power to appoint those officers was as far as might be in the public interest to appoint to those offices Sheriffs, who, he believed, would be acceptable as such officials. When the Bill was in committee, hon. members had stated that if it was the intention of the Government to appoint Sheriffs their principal objection to the Government having this power would be removed. Mr. YOUNG understood the hon Minister to have offered an explanation only on one point of the Bill. As the question of an Insolvency Law was one of great importance to the country, he hoped the hon. Minister of Justice would extend his remarks so as to clearly indicate the changes -made in committee, and that leading members of the committee would offer explanations, for by adopting that course the progress of the Bill through the House would be accelerated. Mr. POULIOT: Je ferai observer que la discussion de ce Bill semble prématurée. La Chambre n'a pas encore eu le temps de lui rendre justice. La version anglaise vient d'être distribuée, et nous Mr. Charlton, | n'avons pas encore eu la version française. Ce Bill est très important et nous devrions avoir le temps de l'examiner avant de procéder à le considérer. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER explained that the Bill as amended in committee had been reprinted, the object being to allow members an opportunity of noticing the amendments made. When the House was in committee he would, when necessary, call attention to amendments which had been inserted when the Bill was before the select committee. The Bill was a very long one, and had been examined with very great care by a special committee, and as he believed the Senate would require a good deal of time to consider it, he did not think hon. members would insist upon any more details before entering upon the consideration of the Bill in committee, when it could be discussed and explained clause by clause. He hoped the French members would not insist upon having a French copy for this afternoon as it had been impossible to get them printed, and he was desirous of proceeding without waste of time. Mr. YOUNG said they had only just received copies of the Bill and had very little time to compare it with the other Bill, but probably all would be quite satisfied with the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. DECOSMOS said he hoped this Bill, if adopted, would not be applied to British Columbia. There they had some years ago adopted the English law, and it had been found to work very satisfactorily; and the application of this law would be a step backwards as far as British Columbia was concerned. The House went into Committee of the Whole-Mr. IRVING in the chair. On the first clause, Mr. MILLS inquired whether it was the intention that the Act should apply in case of a non-trader who through becoming surety for a trader was unable to meet his liabilities. He thought the Act should contain some provision to meet such cases as these were of not unfrequent occurrence. He did not desire to have the principle of the Insolvency Bill extended to non-traders, but he thought a provision should be made that when any trader or non-trader could go into insolvency the trader ought not to be discharged from his liability to a nontrader. For instance, a farmer was called upon to endorse for a retail merchant, and | he did not think it would be practicable. and non-traders if it were provided that Mr. COLBY said at a meeting of the committee he had brought up the same matter, and there had been an informal discussion, but no memorandum had been made, and he intended to bring before this committee an amendment setting forth that view. He believed that it was within the knowledge of many hon. members that many instances had occurred in which non-traders who had become creditors, or essentially sureties, for traders who had failed, had become involved in the same calamity without the same opportunity of being relieved from their obligations, and many instances farmers had been obliged to sacrifice their entire property to meet that class of engagements, and could get no relief whatever. He could see no reason why a farmer who lent his credit to a trader should become involved in the same calamity as the trader and not stand, as far as relief was concerned, in precisely the same position as the trader. thought the proposition he had made met such cases fully. As to the other proposition of the hon. gentleman (Mr. MILLS) in Mr. Mills. He Mr. PALMER said there was a great deal in what the hon. member for Stanstead stated, but it was well worth discussion whether the operations of the Act should apply to all parties. He thought that every person in the Dominion came within the provisions of the Act. It would be impossible to carry it out in the manner his hon. friend had proposed. As he (Mr. PALMER) understood the proposition, it was that if a farmer endorsed for a merchant he sould receive the benefit of the Act, but did he mean that the farmer could get a discharge from that liability or from any liability. If he proposed that the farmer should be discharged from all his liabilities, it carried the Act to the farmers, for there was nothing to prevent a farmer getting into that position; and if it were proposed to clear him of all his liability, his whole estate would be taken away from him before he could get his discharge. Mr. COLBY said it was intended to relieve the farmers of their liability. Mr. PALMER thought the principle of voluntary assignment should not be in the Act at all. His own view of the working of this Act, so far as had seen it in his own |