object of one of their amendments was to was that this House could not amend the prevent such a result. Lords' amendments. They might either agree, or disagree with them, or insert anything necessary to given them full effect. Mr. BOWELL said he would read his motion, and he thought the House should be careful not to do anything which might by any possibility create a monopoly. He moved that the following be added to the amendment made to the 14th section of the "Act to regulate the construction and maintenance of Marine Electric Telegraphs" immediately following the words "Canada Gazette," in said clause :—“Giving notice at the same time that said other company has stipulated with the Government that the rates for the transmission of messages will not be greater than those charged at the date of said notice by the existing companies." He did not suppose if by the passage of the Bill as amended the Anglo Company were driven from the shores of Nova Scotia, the Direct Company which claimed the right of landing cables upon those shores would be in a position to charge just such rates as they please for any communication with Europe; but on the other hand, if the Anglo Company elected to accept this Bill, and continue their communication from the shores of Nova Scotia they must of necessity give the right to other companies to land their cables upon Newfoundland. What he desired to prevent was that in case this course should be pursued by the Anglo Company, there should be no combination between the companies by which they might land their cables upon the shores of Nova Scotia, and charge any rate they pleased Sir JOHN MACDONALD said this House could amend any portion of the Lord's amendments just as they could amend any portion of the Bills sent there from the Lower House. The amendment was ruled out of order. Mr. BOWELL asked to have this ruling put upon the Journals of this House. Hon. Mr. TUPPER moved that the word "three" before the word "months” in the 14th section be struck out, and "twelve " be substituted therefor. He presumed no question would be raised as to the propriety of this amendment. It was evident that the Bill was notamended in the Senate without the necessity and justice of it being seen. If it was advisable that a three months' notice should be given, he thought a little consideration would show the House how entirely inadequate that term was for the purpose for which it was provided; and how necessary it was for the House to adopt the amendment which he proposed. It would be difficult to imagine any body of gentlemen or any company in any part of the civilized world having greater claims upon the consideration of an enlightened Parliament than the Anglo-American Telegraph Company. They had accomplished that which for years many of the most eminent scientific men in the world believed to be utterly impossible. They had expended in giving that which was invaluable to the two hemispheres-the means of annihilating both time and distance in the communication between the two countries. It would be impossible for any man to grasp the immense service that had been performed for the world by this company. They had expended an amount of capital Mr. SPEAKER said it would be quite which was almost incredible. When the open to the hon. gentleman to move that first cable was laid, it was found in a short six months be inserted instead of three time that the means of communication had months, or that the notice ap- died out, and it was feared that the pear in several other papers instead prognostications of scientific men that it of in the Canada Gazette, but this was would be impossible to sustain electrical not fairly an alteration of the amendment communication between the two continents of the Senate. It was quite a new thing. for any length of time were realized. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE hardly thought when an enormous amount of capital had this House could even insert six instead of thus been been sunk literally to the bottom three months. of the sea without an appearance that any Hon. Mr. BLAKE thought the rule portion of it would ever be recovered; Hon. Mr. BLAKE contended that this was not an amendment to the amendmement. It was. nothing relevant to it, but was for another object altogether. Mr. BOWELL asked if this House was restricted to simply accepting or rejecting amendments made by the Senate ? Hon. Mr. Blake. But cess. when the experiments that had been tried for the restoration by this cable had utterly failed the capitalists of Great Britain were still equal to the occasion. Notwithstanding the enormous amount of money that seemed to have been utterly and uselessly expended, they came forward and supplemented it with fresh capital as no other capitalists in the world would have done. They succeeded, and the whole civilized world were electrified and delighted to learn that their efforts had been attended with suc- | If there was any company that had a claim, not only for justice, but for the most liberal consideration, it was the Anglo-American Telegraph Company. This measure was only now beginning to attract notice, and it was time for the House to wake up to the fact | that its object was not to get rid of a monopoly, but for the purpose of substituting one monopoly for another. It was a proposition to sweep away all the rights and privileges enjoyed by men who had laid the world under tribute by the munificent manner in which they had subscribed their capital for the accomplishment of a great work. But there was another important consideration. If there was a country that was under a moral obligation to preserve the credit and good name of the country by keeping good faith with those who had invested their capital within its boundaries, that country was Canada. We have a great country, abounding in natural resources which only required foreign capital to develop it, and therefore this question above all others required careful and deliberate consideration in this House, 6,000 British capitalists representing £6,000,000 sterling were interested in this Bill. Could this country afford to have every enterprise, however, sound and substantial that was originated in Canada, and that had to go to England, the great money market of the world for capital-could Canada, I say, afford that these capitalists should feel that it was unsafe to invest their money, because they could not rely on the good faith of the Legislature of the Dominion being kept? If this Bill were passed it would not only interfere with the rights of men who deserved most liberal treatment at the hands of this Parliament, but it would strike a most fatal blow at the most vital interest of the Dominion. It was well Hon. Mr. Tupper. known that the Legislature of Nova Scotia had given this company the right to land their cable in that Province. This Bill proposed legislation such as he was bold to say no legislation in any other part of the world could parallel. It was proposed by an Act of this Parliament to declare that the rights and privileges given by another and a different country to certain capitalists should be surrendered or abandoned, or this House would use the power it had to coerce and compel this company into the abandonment of those rights. Parliament was asking the company to surrender the right and privilege it possessed of exclusively laying cables in Nova Scotia, a right not only conferred by the Provincial Legislature, but strengthened by an occupancy during twenty years. Under these circumstances he felt that if the House did not exercise care as to the action it adopted, Parliament would expose itself to the imputation in the minds of that great body of capitalists in Great Britain, and of every intelligent man in that country, that it was not safe for them to invest money in Canada on the faith of a Canadian Act of Parliament or the Act of any Government in this Dominion. But the proposed legislation was not only objectionable in that point of view, but there was no necessity for it. The island of Newfoundland did not exclusively belong to Great Britain, a portion belonging to France. At St. Pierre the company could land cables without any legislation by the Canadian Parliament. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE objected to the hon. member discussing the principle of the Bill at that stage, when he was speaking to a motion to make a verbal amendment in the Bill as sent down by the Senate. Mr. SPEAKER ruled that the hon. member for Cumberland was out of order in attacking the essential features of a measure which had already passed the House. Hon. Mr. TUPPER, refrreing to the amendment which he had submitted, reminded the House that the Senate had declared that Parliament must not interfere with the Company's privileges, without giving it due notice, and that notice should be twelve months. The Senate had thought that three months would be "due notice," but during that time the company would have to take up cable to the value of one million pounds sterling, which was one of the most difficult and expensive operations, and if the notice were given in December it would be practically no notice whatever. He regretted that this important subject had not received full consideration at an earlier period of the session, but even at this late stage, he would appeal to the sense of justice, if not of fair consideration, of hon. members on both sides of the House, to extend the time from three months to twelve months. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—I do not intend to say anything on the merits of the Bill, but I am bound to notice one or two statements which the hon. gentleman made before I was compelled to stop him by appealing to the Chair. He said we were compelled by regard for the honor of the country, and by regard for our own securities to adopt a certain course.. Now, the hon. gentleman has been attempting to decry a monopoly, and at the same time became the advocate of a monopoly himself. The hon. gentleman knows that company is not bound to take up its cable. He knows perfectly well that they have connections entirely independent. He knows it, for he was a member of the committee before which Lord HAY stated distinctly that they were thinking at various times of taking up the cable with Nova Scotia and making another connection. Not only so, but he gave it to understand that the company's privilege was a very small one. If the company should make any attempt to influence the value of the securities of this country. I shall know where the responsibility for that will rest. I say this deliberately I say that the threat has been made that the hon. gentleman has indicated to-day in his speech; nevertheless, I am glad to be able to state, notwithstanding the threat, that has been made by this monopoly to be avenged because we passed a measure of public utility, our securities never stood so high as it stood yesterday on the London market. to say that this movement of the hon. member for Cumberland to obtain twelve months instead of three months time was confessedly made in the interest of this monopoly which this Bill is framed to destroy. It is a public Bill-has been maturely considered in this House-I made a long speech on introducing it, citing fully all the facts connected with the company; it has been considered in committee and accepted by the representatives of this company in committee, and it passed unanimously. And yet it is now attempted by a motion of this kind practically to defeat its object! The amendment is one, I feel sure, that the House will not for one moment entertain. The amendment was then lost on division. The amendments by the Senate were afterwards read a second time and concurred in. It being six o'clock, the SPEAKER left the chair. On motion of Hon. Mr. SMITH (Westmoreland) the Bill further to amend the Pilotage Act, 1873, was read a second time, and the House went into committee thereon- -Mr. DYMOND in the chair. Mr. McKAY (Cape Breton) said as many pilots were in the habit of proceeding for a time for the purpose of "speaking" vessels as to whether they should come on board, some indications should be given by the master as to whether their services were required or not. Otherwise it was a hardship to pilots to find after they had sailed eight or thirteen miles that they were not wanted. A simple remedy could be provided. If masters would exhibit a triangular flag at their fore, pilots Hon. Mr. TUPPER-I am quite sure the First Minister will allow me to say that this is the first intimation I have received that such a threat was indulged in from that quarter-I never heard any statement of the kind before. My remarks were based solely on my judgment as to the effect of the proposed legislation. would not require to " speak" Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I was about | vessels, and they would save going perHon. Mr. Tupper. those haps eight or ten miles. It seemed to him un- | without an Insolvency Law at all as to give just to the pilots that their interests should Mr. MCDONALD (Cape Breton) called the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that in the district of Sydney, Cape Breton, the Commissioners of Pilots were also pilots. They were two out of the five, and had everything in their own hands. He had written to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries about the matter some time ago, as it was a state of things he desired to prevent. Hon. Mr. SMITH said if he had received a letter he must have overlooked it; but if the hon. gentleman would address him again he would have the error rectified. The Bill was reported, read a time and passed. THE INSOLVENCY ACT. third On motion of Hon. Mr. FOURNIER the House went into Committee of the Whole on the Insolvency Bill and amendments Mr. IRVING in the chair. On the second clause, Mr. McISAAC suggested that in the second clause the words "Supreme Court" be struck out, and "Court of Probate" be substituted. In Nova Scotia it was uncertain whether the County Courts would be organized, and it would be exceedingly inconvenient to carry all the insolvency cases to Halifax. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER was sorry he was not able to accept the amendment. He was satisfied that the Bill now before the Nova Scotia Legislature to repeal the Act establishing County Courts in that Province would not pass, and that the proclamation of the Governor in Council would soon be issued organizing County Courts. Mr. McISAAC-In that event there would be nothing lost by adopting my amendment. Mr. KILLAM hoped the Minister of Justice would see fit to accept this amendment. Nova Scotia might as well be Mr. McKay. jurisdiction to the Supreme Court alone. Even when the County Courts were established, if they were to be established, there would not be a Judge in every county to try these cases. Mr. MILLS said the Probate Judges were officers of the Local Government, and it was objectionable to impose duties on them while there were other Judges for the purpose. Mr. GOUDGE said there was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether the County Courts' Bill would go into operation or not, but should it fail, the Province would be practically without Judges to administer the law. As far as his own experience went the Judges of Pro| bate were very competent men-quite competent to discharge the duties devolving upon them under the law, and therefore he hoped before this clause passed the Minister of Justice would make some provision whereby in case the County Courts should not be organized, there would be some tribunal besides the Supreme Court to try cases under this law. Hon. Mr. TUPPER hoped the suggestion of the hon. member for Antigonish would commend itself to this committee. A law was passed by the Legislature of Nova Scotia a year ago, providing for the appointment of County Court Judges in that Province. That law contained a clause which required a proclamation of the Governor in Council in order to bring it into operation, and though a year had transpired since the passage of the law, that proclamation had never been issued. On the meeting of the Legislature a short time ago, a Bill was introduced to repeal it. Of course it was impossible to say what the fate of that Bill would be. The Minister of Justice asserted that he had been advised that the Bill was certain to be defeated, and it would be in the power of the Governor in Council to bring the Bill into operation by proclamation. There were no County Courts in existence in the Province. Seven County Court Judges had been provided for by the Local Legislature, on the ground that the Supreme Court was so overworked that it was not able to do the judicial work of the Province. Until these County Court Judges were appointed, this Bill would throw all the work it involved on the Court clause was beyond our power as we could not alter the Registration Laws of Ontario. already overworked Supreme Judges. But that was not all. Until the County Court Judges were appointed, parties living 200 miles away from Halifax, where the Supreme Court Judges resided, would be placed in the greatest possible difficulty, cost and inconvenience in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that some means would be taken to provide for the trial of these cases if the County Court Judges should not be appointed. Hon. Mr. VAIL was so satisfied that the Bill to repeal the County Courts Bill would be rejected that he did not think it necessary to provide against the contingency suggested. Hon. Mr. BLAKE did not attach much importance to the prospect of the County Courts not being established, but he thought that inasmuch as the Probate Judges were now Judges of insolvency cases, it would be as well to leave them jurisdiction until the County Courts were established. Mr. MACLENNAN said the same objection would apply to our deciding the forms of conveyance. He thought we had the same jurisdiction to provide for the registration of the deed as the form of it. Mr. PALMER did not think there was anything in the objection of his hon. friend from Frontenac ; and he did not think the amendment was necessary at all. Hon. Mr. BLAKE considered the objection was worthy of consideration, and suggested that it be held over for another day. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER was understood to argue that the. proposition could be carried into effect. Mr. PALMER admitted that the question of registration of deeds was a civil right, entirely within the jurisdiction of the Local Legislature; but as this was one of the subjects abrogated to this Parliament we must necessarily have power over those subjects; and if it were not so Parliament might be blocked any time by the local laws, as his hon. friend from Frontenac would see. Suppose the Local Parliament had a particular form of transfer, would his hon. friend say that no assignment in insolvency would be valid simply because it had not local registration. He thought it would be enough for this Parliament to say that a certain thing must be done. Hon. Mr. BLAKE said there was no doubt whatever that Parliament had jurisdiction in insolvency, and they had jurisdiction to make their disposition of that subject effectual. The question was whether it was necessary to exercise these powers; whether we should provide that an estate should go in a particular way for a particular purpose. It might be necessary that we should provide a form of conveyance; but the question whether it was a necessary incident of that power that we should provide a peculiar mode for the registration of instruments, and so encroach upon the method the local law provided. was Mr. KIRKPATRICK thought it was sufficient for us to say that the deed should be registered and leave it for the local laws to say how. |