coast, but not beyond the limits of the Dominion. He had grave doubts whether any courts this House could establish in any way by a Dominion Act, and under the appointment of the Great Seal of Canada, could deal with this question. This subject was worthy of all consideration, and he had no doubt the Minister of Justice would give it that consideration between now and next session. With regard to the navigation of the lakes, it was a question whether this Parliament had the right of dealing with ships on the Upper Lakes. He was afraid Ontario would be very apt to advance a claim on the subject and assert that they came within the jurisdiction of Ontario. This was also a subject of very great importance, and no doubt the hon. gentleman, having called the attention of the House and the Government to the matter, would be satisfied to drop his motion. Mr. MILLS consented to withdraw the motion and trusted the Government would give him an opportunity of moving a resolution on the subject before the close of the session. He thought we should maintain the rights that were conferred upon us by the British America Act, without going to England to ask whether we possessed them or not. The motion was withdrawn. Mr. GORDON moved the previous question. Mr. IRVING thought it was unfair to shut off all amendments in view of the rapid manner in which the Bill passed through the committee. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said this motion was in effect introducing a system of cloture. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE hoped the motion would be withdrawn. In accordance with this request the motion was withdrawn. is adopted and approved by the Legislature of the Province of Quebec as to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases relating to property and civil rights and civil procedure in the said Province of Quebec. M. CIMON :-J'ai opposé le Bill de la Cour Suprême à l'encontre du Gouvernement et de certains messieurs pro-éminents de ce côté-ci de la Chambre, et je suis plus opposé à cette loi ce soir que je ne l'étais, depuis qu'on nous a ôté le droit d'en appeler au Conseil Privé-ce qui rendra cette loi beaucoup plus funeste aux lois civiles de Québec. C'est ce qu'ont admis les députés de Jacques Cartier et d'Arthabaska en mettant sur le papier un amendement par lequel ils devaient proposer qu'il n'y eut pas droit d'appel à la Cour Suprême dans le cas où la Cour d'Appel de Québec aurait unanimement confirmé le jugement de la Cour Supérieure. Cependant ces messieurs ne parlent plus de cet amendement. Il me semble que puisqu'on n'a pas confiance dans la Cour Suprême on ne devrait pas nous priver de pouvoir aller de l'autre côté de l'océan pour obtenir la justice que l'on pourrait obtenir ici. appelle aux députés des autres provinces et les prie d'accorder à nos lois civiles la protection dont ellss ont toujours join sous le drapeau anglais. J'en The House divided on the amendment with the following result: Yeas 20, nays 106. YEAS: Jones (Leeds), McDonald (Cape Breton), Montplaiser, Mousseau, Ouimet, Taschereau, Wright (Ottawa)—20. Hurteau, Bain, Mr. MOUSSEAU moved in amendment: That this Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend it by providing as follows: Aylmer, This Act or any part thereof shall take effect and be exercised only and after such time or times as shall be appointed by proclamation under order of Governor in Council, but in so far as this Act concerns the Province of Quebec, no such proclamation shall take effect unless and till this Act Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. Barthe, Bowman, Brouse, McDougall (Renfrew) Mackenzie (Lambton), Mitchell, Monteith, Orton, Paterson, Pelletier, Pickard, Pozer, Ross (Durham), required only a few words of explanation. Preparation for the enlargement of the Welland Canal was going on and we had had a good deal of discussion upon the propriety of having a greater depth than that contemplated by the Government. He thought the balance of argument was in favor of a greater depth. Of course his hon. friend understood perfectly well that this was not put as a motion of want of confidence. They had contended too long when on the other side for the privilege of putting such motions in accordance with English practice, with the distinct understanding that they were not to be considered as motions of want of confidence, or as in any way tending to thwart the policy of the Government, to render it necessary that he should offer one word in explanation of his position. As the question had already been very fully discussed, he would not detain the House, but would place his motion in the SPEAKER'S hands. Casey, Casgrain, Cauchon, Cheval, Moss, Murray, Church, Norris, Pope, Farrow, Pouliot, Ferguson, Fiset, Robillard, Fleming, Forbes, Fournier, Fraser, Fréchette, Schultz, The Bill was then read a third time and possible, and to add his opinion to that passed. SUPPLY. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT moved that the SPEAKER do leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said he proposed putting a motion into the hands of the SPEAKER with a view of placing on record his own opinion on a very important subject, for which no other opportunity would offer this session. He begged to move, seconded by Mr. MACDOUGALL (East Elgin) "That the SPEAKER do not now leave the chair, but it be resolved that in the opinion of this House it is desirable that steps should be taken to ascertain the feasibility and cost of adapting the Welland Canal to vessels drawing fourteen feet of water before the Government is irrevocably committed to plans involving a less depth. His reason for offering this motion Hon. Mr Cartu right. already expressed of the great importance of making the fullest examination into this matter, with a view to carrying out the work referred to, if it was at all practicable. Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said if the hon. gentleman had made his motion more general, he might perhaps have supported it. If it was necessary to make this examination with regard to the Welland Canal, it was also necessary with regard to the St. Lawrence Canals. Mr. KIRKPATRICK said he did not rise so much to give his opinion upon this subject, as that was pretty well known, but merely to say that he cordially approved of the motion of the hon. member for Chateauguay. With the permission of the House he would read an extract from a letter which he had received, without any solicitation on his part, since the last discussion on this subject, from a gentleman of very high authority in this, the meantime, and if the motion was lost country, Mr. SHANLY. In this letter Mr. upon a division it would go upon the SHANLY said: records. "The Welland Canal never can perform its proper functions so long as larger vessels can put in at Buffalo than can come down "to Kingston, and it seems really too bad, "with our long canal experience in Canada, "the improvements' now entered upon should "be deliberately planned on an impefect and insufficient model. I have always contended "that until the foot of Lake Ontario be made "for Montreal what the foot of Lake Erie is to New York-the great transhipping point "from lake to canal (and river) craft we never will be in a position to compete on "equal terms-where we should be able to do so on much better terms-with Buffalo." ઃઃ Mr. NORRIS said he was pleased to see that the petitions pouring in from all parts of the country on this subject had produced their effect, and he was sure the country at large would have the fullest confidence in what the Minister of Public Works had said to-night; and he was quite satisfied that it would be found that it was quite practicable to procure 14 feet of water in the Welland Canal. He agreed with the hon. member for Frontenac that if this was to be done at all it should be done now so as not only to prevent expense, but obviate the necessity of different classes of vessels having to be built at different periods. He considered it right to read this letter to the House, coming as it did from an engineer of so high a standing as Mr. SHANLY. In answer to a deputation which Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked why it was waited upon the Minister of Public Works necessary that this motion should be lost recently on this subject, that hon. gentle- on a division. He understood the First man had stated that he thought it would Minister quite approved of it, and if be better to proceed with the con- passed would strengthen the hands of the templated enlargement at present, Government in dealing with this question. and afterwards, if it was thought It would be as well therefore to allow it desirable, to deepen the canal to fourteen feet. He (Mr. KIRKPATRICK) wished specially to point out one reason why such a course was undesirable. It would have the effect of paralyzing the shipping interests. Ship-builders and ship-owners would not know what class of vessels to build or buy, and for the next five years or so this uncertainty would have a very bad effect upon our shipping. If it was found advisable to proceed with the work of getting fourteen feet he hoped there would be no delay. If the opinion of the House was expressed in the direction of this motion he would be quite satisfied to leave this matter in the hands of the Government. to pass. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said it was not usual, and it would be inconvenient when the Government practically complied with what was understood to be the view of the House to bind them by formal directions. Hon. Mr. TUPPER observed that he only wished to draw the attention of the First Minister to the difficulty that would arise by the Government negativing this resolution, and then going on with the work. It would be almost better to withdraw the resolution than to have it lost on a division because that would seem to erect a barrier in the way of going on with the work. Mr. JONES (Leeds) said this question should not be regarded as a party one, and therefore he saw no reason why the sense of the House should not be taken on it. Mr. McCALLUM pointed out that it was very important that the House should pass upon this question now, because if they delayed till next session a great deal of the work would be done which would Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he hoped it would not be found necessary to have a discussion upon this question again, as they were anxious to get on with the business. He understood the object of the hon. gentleman was to place his motion on record. That could be done by allowing it to be lost on division, he (Mr. | MACKENZIE) giving the House the assurance that the Government were taking steps and would take steps steps have to be gone over again if it was then during next season to ascertain decided to have fourteen feet. the cost of deepening both the Welland, and the St. Lawrence Canals. He hoped that assurance would be enough in Mr. Kirkpatric Mr. YOUNG said he had expressed an opinion favourable to the deepening of the Welland Canal to fourteen feet, and he thought those who were favourable to that view should be content with the statement of the First Minister. So far as he was concerned, he was not prepared to tie the hands of the Government before they fully examined into the question, and those who took an interest in this work would, he thought, consult its best interests by accepting the assurance of the First Minister. Mr. WOOD expressed his gratification that the First Minister had promised to obtain full information not only in reference to the deepening of the Welland Canal, but the St. Lawrence canals also. the greater number had to return, they would easily understand that a very considerable expenditure was necessarily incurred. A large portion of the amount was expended for transport, and the purchase of stores, which were deposited at a point near Swamp River, and still remained in possession of the Government. Another large expenditure was that connected with the provision of winter quarters at the Rocky Mountains, together with the construction of barracks at Fort Pelly. Other leading items were amounts paid for dredges for Prince Edward Island, taken from the Prince Edward Island Government in accordance with the terms of The amendment was then lost on a Union, and for repairs to the steamers division. Mr. KIRKPATRICK rose to move a resolution which he had had upon the notice paper for some time. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said it was out of order to do so. Mr. KIRKPATRICK quoted from May in support of his position. Mr. SPEAKER read an extract from May to the effect that an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply having once been negatived no other amendment could be moved. The House went into Committee of Supply-Mr. SCATCHERD in the chair. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said that the large item of $800,000 which appeared in the supplementary estimates was for the change of the guage of the Intercolonial Railway, but inasmuch as hon. members were cognizant of the circumstances under which that expenditure became necessary they would not be disposed to object to it, although they might regret that the change had not been effected at an earlier period. The greater proportion of the remaining amount was made up of unexpended balances brought forward by Order in Council in the usual manner. They had not usually been brought forward in the Supplementary Estimates, but last year and on the present occasion, it was deemed best to pursue this course, and thereby more fully comply with the law. Exclusive of the change of guage and the unexpended balances, the principal charges, &c., consisted of expenditures incurred in connection with the expedition of the Mounted Police. When the House remembered that that force travelled 1,000 miles through an almost desert country, and that Mr. Young. "Napoleon III." and "Sir James Douglas." There were also certain additional allowances to British Columbia, which hon. members would observe were about equal to those which the House found it necessary to vote for the year 1875-6. He moved the adoption of the first item. The first item was passed without discussion. On item, No. 2, for Mounted Police in Manitoba, $126,910, Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked what was the number of the force, and the estimated annual charge when. the force should be fairly established. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT replied the force was fixed at 300 men. The expenditure, as near as they could estimate it, excluding the cost of the expedition and winter quarters, would be some $200,000. Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand) asked how many guides and ox-drivers there were attached to the force, and what their pay was. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said that about 200 of those men went up with the expedition, but the exact rate of wages paid them he did not at present know. He would, however, be glad to furnish details before concurrence was taken. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL asked if the $25,000 placed in the estimates for the erection of winter quarters at the Rocky Mountains, were expended as far west as that point, or did that sum cover expenditures between Manitoba and the Rocky Mountains. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said the structures in which this sum was expended were somewhere near the Belly River, at a spot where Assistant Commissioner MCLEOD had a force of ninety men. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-What is the number of men you propose to retain there? Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT -Somewhere between 80 and 90. Mr. SCHULTZ objected to these items being placed under the head "Manitoba, when they should be placed under that of the "North-West Territories, a fact which was calculated to mislead, and which he believed had misled the country in regard to the amount expended in the Province of Manitoba. It was generally supposed in the House and the country that Manitoba had been drawing large | sums of money from the Dominion Treasury, while in reality it had received a very small sum indeed in proportion to what he believed it was legitimately entitled to. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the greater portion of the amount was expended in Manitoba the principle part of the supplies having been bought there. Mr. SCHULTZ did not think it would be found on inquiry that a great quantity of stores had been purchased in Manitoba. He did not believe that one single dollar's worth of the goods set down in the Esti mates was purchased in that Province or that Manitoba derived the slightest benefit from the expenditure. • Hon Mr. TUPPER denied that the fact of stores being purchased in Manitoba, if they were so purchased, was any justification for placing the expenditure under the head of that Province, any more than if the stores had been purchased in Toronto, it would have been correct to have charged the expenditure under the head of "Toronto. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the force were quartered in Manitoba during the greater portion of the winter. Hon. Mr. TUPPER said the point made by the hon. member for Lisgar was correctly taken, and it was natural that he should not desire that amounts expended on the minor Provinces of the Dominion should appear larger than the amount actually received by them. The Mounted Police was not organized for service in Manitoba. They might make their winter quarters there, but that did not constitute it a Manitoba foree, although, too, it were true that their services might be used in Hon. Mr. Cartwright. some portions of that Province to a limited extent. The force was organized for duty in the North-West Territories, and therefore the charge ought be to made under that head. Mr. SCHULTZ said that the fact of the Mounted Police coming to Manitoba in the winter was a mere accident, and was not contemplated either by the Government or the Commander of the force. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE agreed to strike out the objectionable word "Manitoba." The item was then passed. On item 3, $15,000-Penitentiaries, maintenance of prisoners, Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked for an explanation of the item. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said both the number of prisoners and the expenses had increased over what they were in 1874. The public accounts showed that the expenditure for Penitentiaries had assumed considerable proportions. The largest outlay had been in British Columbia where the comparative expenditure for maintaining the inmates of the prison, was nearly four times greater than that in any other Province. Mr. BUNSTER declared that there were very few inmates of Penitentiaries in British Columbia, and that they were maintained as cheaply as in any other Province. Mr. SCHULTZ asked what arrangements, if any, had been made with the Manitoba Government in respect to the maintenance of prisoners in that Province. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said the Government were obliged to pay for the maintenance of prisoners, the money being re-couped by the Provincial authorities as far as possible. Mr. SCHULTZ asked what check the Government had on the expenditure, adding that he believed that the Penitentiary in Manitoba, which was an institution under the control of the Local Government, had been grossly mismanaged in the matter of the purchase of its supplies. If the Government had passed the accounts from that Penitentiary without any sufficient check as to their correctness, then there would be an objection to the passing of the item. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said the vouchers were checked by the assistant of the Receiver General in Manitoba, Mr. |