manifested by the hon. gentleman at the supposed effect of the passing of the resolution that had just been carried. When responsible government was first established in this country it was prophesied by many alarmists that it would inevitably lead to separation from England, but instead of that, the connection only became more intimate and cordial, in proportion as the people enjoyed the privileges of self-government. So it would be, he had no doubt, in this instance. Instead of this Bill having the effect anticipated by the hon. gentleman, he had no doubt that the public sentiment of this country would become still more attached to Great Britain, from the knowledge that they had a court which would be to our people what the new court in England was to British subjects there-a final court of resort. It was not unreasonable to expect that we had men here equally as capable of administering our laws as the Judges in England, and speaking from a political point of view, he did not think his hon. friend was at all justified in the alarming predictions he had indulged in.

Hon. Mr. FOURNIER said that when he introduced this Bill he was of opinion that it was very desirable to restrict appeals to the Privy Council. The right of that appeal had been very often abused. Wealthy men had made use of it to force their opponents to accept an unjust compromise. He could mention an instance where a man who had succeeded in the three courts of the Province of Quebec, the Judges in each being unanimous, and who was compelled by the adverse party to renounce his rights by a threat of taking the case to the Privy Council. He might mention other cases of the kind: It was true that when he introduced the Bill there was no provision in it for the abolition of appeals to England and there was, also no provision in it providing that the execution of judgment should be stayed in cases of appeal to the Privy Council. Under the Bill, as he introduced it, the judgment of a court would be exectuted no matter whether an appeal from or not. It was evident, therefore, that it was the intention of the Government, by this Bill, to restrict as much as possible the exercise of the right of appeal to England. The discussion of the measure before the House had increased the feeling in favor of abolishing the appeal Hon. Mr. Mckenzie.

altogether. He protested against the idea that the effect of the Bill as amended would be to weaken the connection with the Mother Country. Had he believed that the amendment would be taken in that sense either in this country or in England, he would not have accepted it; but he did not believe that it would have any such effect. He deprecated the raising of the loyalty cry and hoped it would not be repeated; because there was no one in the House against whom such a cry could be raised with any shadow of truth or reason. As to the House having been taken by surprise in this matter, that could not be because the notice of this amendment had been on the paper for several days.

Mr. LAFLAMME said he was much surprised at the gush of loyalty which had been exhibited by the hon. member for Kingston because two suitors from the Province of Ontario, in the course of five years, had thought proper to bring their cases before the Privy Council and to pay the solicitors in England the sum of £1,200 sterling; and because perhaps five Lower Canadian suitors, amongst them probably four French Canadians, also took their cases to the Privy Council and paid a similar amount, therefore we would be breaking the connection with the Mother Country if we abolished appeal to England. It was really surprising to hear such utterances from rational men, especially in this case when the Royal prerogative would still permit of appeals being made to the foot of the Throne. Would it tend to sever the connection between Great Britain and Canada to establish a court in this country for final appeal, just as a court was established in England for the final appeal of cases arising in England? He could not understand it in that way, and he did not believe any reasonable man in the country would so understand it. But there was certainly something which might give rise to anxiety in the threat of the right hon. gentleman when he seemed almost to declare that this Bill would be vetoed on the other side of the water. He seemed to have the key to the councils of HER MAJESTY in Great Britain which nobody had as yet discovered on this side of the House. We all cherished the institutions of the Old Country, but we believed that we were entitled to the same privileges as were enjoyed by British subjects residing in the British Islands. He deprecated

M. MOUSSEAU : J'ai été étonné d'entendre l'hon. Ministre de la Justice dire que le public du Bas-Canada et du pays entier serait satisfait de voir que l'appel au Conseil Privé était aboli. L'abolition de l'appel au Conseil Privé n'a jamais été démandée par le Parlement Local ou par la Province de Québec. Pas une seule voix ne s'est élevée pour faire cette demande. Pas un seul député d'un parti ou l'autre n'en a jamais le désir. Les sources auxquelles on peut s'informer sont donc toutes adverses à cette prétention de l'hon. membre que la Province de Québec a demandé et accueillera avec joie l'abolition de l'appel au Conseil Privé. Je pars de là pour dire que ce Parlement n'a pas le droit de dire au Bas-Canada qu'il va le priver de son droit d'appel au Conseil Privé, sans son consentement. Le BasCanada possède ce droit de trois manières 1° c'est un droit inhérent au sujet anglais; 2 c'est un droit garanti par la législation impériale; 3° c'est un droit garanti au Bas-Canada par un statut passé en '41 et au Haut-Canada par un statut passé en '49. Ce droit est devenu une partie de notre Code, qui pourrait par ses dispositions au montant suffisant pour interjeter appel et à la procédure. Cet amendement n'est rien moins que la révocation d'un grand nombre des articles de notre procédure civile. Nous n'avons pas ce droit là. Bien plus, d'après la Clause 101 sur laquelle ou se fonde pour nous imposer cette mauvaise loi de la Cour Suprême, le Gouvernement a bien le droit d'établir cette cour et des cours de justice, mais il n'a pas le droit d'abolir aucun tribunal existant. Je répèterai donc avec l'hon. député de Kingston que le droit d'appel au Conseil Privé est un droit inhérent au sujet britannique et que personne ne s'en plaint, sauf quelques plaideurs malheureux. Il est tout-à-fait en dehors de notre compétence d'abolir l'appel au Conseil Privé, et je proteste contre la manière dont on nous enlève un des droits du sujet britannique.

The amendment was lost on division. Mr. MOUSSEAU moved, seconded by Mr. CIMON :-That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to a Committee of this Mr. Laflamme.

"The Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice who shall be called 'The High Chancellor of Canada,' and of two Judges of each of the Provinces in the Dominion, namely, the Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the Province of Ontario; the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench and the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec; the Chief Justice and the Puisne Judge first in rank by seniority of appointment of the highest Court of each of the other Provinces.

“The High Chancellor and one of the said two Judges of each of the said Provinces shall constitute a quorum to take cognizance of a case, matter, or thing with reference to which jurisdiction is given to the said Supreme Court. shall extend to the Constitutional question indi"The jurisdiction of the said Supreme Court cated in sections 55, 56 and 57 of the said Bill and to those in relation to which any Province may give to the said Court cognizance and jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by Section 58

of this Act.

"The said Supreme Court shall also have cognizance of appeals in matters of Controverted Elections, in cases and in the manner provided for by Section 50 of this Act," and in all cases forth in Sections 63 and 64 of the said Bill, relating to the revenue, and other matters set adjudicated upon by the Courts of the several Provinces of Canada.

"The jurisdiction of the said Supreme Court to no other matter or thing whatsoever. shall extend only to the matters aforesaid and

"The said Supreme Court shall hold one Term each year, and the beginning and duration thereof shall be determined by an Order of the Governorin Council and published in the Canada

Gazette.

The said Supreme Court may further adjourn from time to time, and be convened in the manner directed by Section 15 of this Act. And that the Courts of the several Provinces of Canada havihg both original and appellate jurisdiction (in the same manner as those of Manitoba and British Columbia) in cases relating to the Revenue and other matters set forth Sections 63 and 64, the Section 72, and all in Sections 63 and 64 of the said Bill, the said the words after Supreme Court of Canada' in the first section of the said Bill, and all provisions relating thereto, be struck out; that all and every thing in the said Bill contrary to the foregoing be struck out, and the whole Bill so changed as to accord with this amendment."

M. GAUDET-M. l'ORALEUR, je demande à cette honorable Chambre de me permettre de dire quelques mots à ce sujet. Jusqu'à présent, je n'ai eu en vue que le côté économique de la question; les hons. membres ont bien traité la question au point de vue légal, mais on a semblé oublier que c'était le peuple qui payait les frais de cette organisation. Les dépenses, sous ce Gouvernement, augmentent tous les jours de plus en plus. On évalue les

The amendment was carried, and the House went into Committee, Mr. CASGRAIN in the chair.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were read and concurred in. Mr. MOUSSEAU moved that the Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole with instructions to substitute for section 83 the following:-" This Act or any part thereof shall take effect and be exercised only at and after such time or times as shall be appointed by proclamation under order of the Governor in Council, but no such proclamation shall take place nor be issued in any case unless and until this Act is adopted and approved of by the Legislature of each Province of the Dominion."

The amendment was lost on a division. Mr. MILLS said it seemed to him that while this House was extending its authority on one side, it was withdrawing it on the other. Under the British North America Act this Parliament had a right to legislate on the subjects of shipping and navigation. Now, it seemed to him that this embraced every civil matter over which the ordinary Courts of Admiralty had jurisdiction. This House had a right to do all that a people in time of peace could do to extend and regulate commerce by legislation. If this Parliament were to constitute courts for the purpose of giving effect to our Maritime commercial legislation, and to provide for the settlement of disputes arising in connection with our shipping interests, it would be, in effect, establishing courts of admiralty jurisdiction, and though our Government had not yet taken any steps for establishing courts of original jurisdiction in admiralty, there could be no doubt, whatever, that they had the power. Before the British North America Act was passed, the Merchants' Shipping Act of Great Britain, was in force in this country. After that time a new Act was passed in Great Britain, which was not extended to this country the old Act remaining in force in Canada as a Canadian Act, until superseded by another one enacted here. It would be very unwise on our part to deny that we possessed such powers as had been actually conferred upon us by the British North America Act. He believed that this Parliament should assume that they possessed them, and that they had the right to Mr. Mousscau.

establish a court for the administration of such laws. We could recognise the Courts of Vice-Admiralty established here by the Imperial authorities as Courts of original jurisdiction ; but we could, also, very properly, in the Bill before the House, give the Supreme Court appelate jurisdiction over these courts. With a view to giving effect to this opinion he proposed putting a resolution in the hands of Mr. SPEAKER. If it did not meet with the sanction of the Minister of Justice and the House, he did not desire to press it ; because he did not wish, by an adverse yoteto have the declaration made that we did not believe we possessed the right conferred upon us by the British North America Act he did not want to prejudice our rights by such a result. He moved “That the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole to be so amended as to confer upon the Supreme Court appelate jurisdiction in Admiralty cases.

:

Hon. Mr. FOURNIER said that the hon. member had inquired at the beginning of the session whether the Government were taking any steps towards securing the necessary legislation to give to this Parliament the power of extending the Admiralty Courts to the inland waters of the Dominion. The House was informed, on that occasion, that correspondence had been going on for five or six months past in relation to that subject, and that it was not yet closed. The House was also informed that the Government had asked legislation from the Imperial Parliament in relation to the subject. He (Mr. FOURNIER) did not think it would be proper, now, for this House to decide a question which the Government had thought proper to sub mit to the consideration of the Imperial Parliament. In the state the question was at the present time, it would not be proper to press this motion, and the hon. member for Bothwell would best serve his purpose if he would withdraw it. It was dealing with a delicate question in a very summary way.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD said this Parliament could not oust the Imperial Admiralty Courts of their jurisdiction. They were Vice-Admiralty Courts, and had the right of appeal to the High Court of Admiralty in England. This House might propose for concurrent jurisdiction over vessels within three miles of the