1877: was defectively done. He did not eries telegraphed on 16th January, blame Mr. Coker for that, because he only made an occasional visit to the vessel daring its construction; but Mr. Nisbett was there day by day, and he (Mr. Smith) appealed to every hon. member from Prince Edward Island to say whether every officer of the Department was not anxious that the vessel should be well built. Mr. Nisbett was declared to be one of the best men who could be obtained in the Province of Quebec to inspect the building of the vessel; he was liberally paid, and reported to the Department every week. He (Mr. Smith) did not know that he was to blame; he had simply stated the facts. As to the statement that the vessel was defectively built, perhaps such was the case, though the Government had endeavoured to have her thoroughly built. Time and experience in developing the enterprise would, however, suggest improve MR. SMITH (Westmoreland) said that it was under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, assisted by the Railway Department of Prince Edward Island. MR. PLUMB said he found in a report made to the Department, which had been submitted in compliance with a resolution of the Prince Edward Island members, the following statement: "About going through fixed ice, she will steam very slow through five inches; any more, she will have to back and run at it; and in heavy ice she will run up on it and stick fast, so that we have to use the jack screw against her stern, and cut the ice round her besides, the engine backing full speed. But I think this could be remedied by sheathing with iron, say from one-third of the way from forward and down to the hull. The action of the ice would keep the iron bright and slippy; so that when the boat got in again she would slip back. The green heart with which the boat is sheathed, stands the chafe very well, but is inclined to stick to the ice." There was no harmony on board the boat. Mr. Sewell, who was sent down from Ontario to show, as far as possible, that his experiment was successful. and to endeavour to aid the captain and crew seemed to have got into trouble. The hon. the Minister of Marine and Fish "Sewell telegraphs that your mate is abusive to him. This must not be tolerated. He should be treated with consideration, and you will advise and consult with him regarding the management and running of the vessel. Seweil says you refuse to go out. Is their good reason for this ?" Of course the hon. the Minister felt that such impropriety should not be toler ated, and telegraphed back that all swearing must be stopped. Then came a telegram: "Sewell swearing at men. Mate objected. Thick snow storm. Considered it was safe to go to sea. Could not see quarter mile disLant. Moved down harbour as far as safe. Sail in morning if clear." The following day Mr. Sewell telegraphed: "No use my remaining here to consult. Captain and crew look upon me as an intruder. The work requires that every man in the ship should be with me; otherwise I cannot succeed. Captain refuses to go out. It is positively disgraceful. Mate most impertinent and abusive. You should give me Captain full power or I cannot succeed. has never been instructed to recognize me." Another telegram read as follows: "I propose leaving here (Georgetown) on 15th of this month, when the guarantee man (Thomson) leaves for Quebec, as the end of the trial term will then have arrived. I should have remained to see the vessel through the ice season, but feel that the ignorance and prejudice, which will then reign in the engine room of this much-abused ves sel, would not justify my remaining by her longer." Mr. Sewell telegraphed that the men were utterly incapable of doing their work, and, consequently, it was not possible his scheme could succeed. Per haps the vessel had not received a fair trial, and they had yet to learn that he had been able to procure the removal of any of the officers in the ship or any investigation into the disagreements between the builder, who went down to handle the vessel, and the recalcitrant captain and his disorderly and lame crew. It was evident that a House so divided against itself, as the documents proved the Northern Light, with its builder, mate and crew, to have been, could not go on very well, and he was not surprised at the difficulties which had occurred, even if the steamer could break through ice more than five inches thick; but not being able to do so, she was entirely useless for the service for which she was built. After two years' experience, the Government should be satisfied that the Northern Light, could not perform the service expected from her, and discontinue the expense involved in running her. Motion agreed to. ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS. MOTION FOR RETURN. Killed. Injured. Total. Passengers 5 238 286 57 113 304 413 109 Employés 48 Other persons 56 Total Taking for granted that the statement was correct, the large number of accidents to railway employés demanded attention. There were, according to the last census, 2,739 railway servants in the Dominion. Supposing the number should now be increased to 3,000, there would be one person killed to every 62 employed, and one injured to every 12 engaged in the service The question naturally suggested itself: Why was it that so many men were struck down every year while engaged in an essentially peaceful occupation? It might be of interest to notice, in contrast with those returns, the comparatively small number of casualties which occured in Great Britain to men engaged in the same kind of service. In the Report of the Railway Commissioners presented to the House of Lords in 1874, it appeared that there were 274,535 engaged in railway service. Casualties amongst them were 788 killed and 2,815 injured, being one killed to every 350 employed, and one injured to every 100 employed. In Canada, therefore, in proportion to the men engaged, there were six killed to one in the United Kingdom, and eight injured to one in the latter country. It might be said that those accidents happened to railway servants through their own carelessness. If this were true, then Canada had a less efficient staff of hands than Great Britain. He did not think that was the case, but that investigation would go to show In that other causes were at work. In England, where the subject had received a good deal of attention, it had been found that a number of accidents occurred through the excessive hours of labour which some of the employed were called upon to perform. occurred through the non-enforcement of rules by railway companies, while quite a number were attributable to the want of safety appliances. Railway corporations were very slow to introduce anything of that kind. They were not responsible for the lives of their employés. It cost nothing to MR. FLEMING moved for a return showing the number of accidents and casualties which have occurred on the Railways of the Dominion during the years 1874, 1875, 1876 and 1877, setting forth: 1st. The causes and natures of such accidents and casualties; 2nd. The points at which they occurred, and whether by night or by day; 3rd. The full extent thereof and all the particulars of the same. He said it was desirable that fuller information should be furnished, relating to the circumstances connected with railway accidents, than had hitherto been given to the public. The Railway Act of 1868 provided that a true and particular return should be made to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council semi-annually, by the railway companies of the Dominion, of the accidents and casualties that might have occurred on their respective roads. All the information, however, that was made public was the simple statement that so many were killed and so many were injured, and they were not even certain that the numbers given were the actual number of casualties that had occurred. the Report for the year ending 30th June, 1875, it was stated: "That the following companies have kept no record of the accidents that have occurred:-Canada Southern and Toronto, Grey and Bruce. Several others make no returns, but do not state the reason." The Report of the year ending 30th June, 1876, did not say whether returns had been received from all the companies or not, but gave the follow ing as the number of killed and injured for the year: Others kill a man, but it would cost something | excessive. In one case, a gentleman to make use of a mechanical contrivance came here from a distance to be emthat might save his life. Whatever ployed as a reporter, was only here a might be the cause, the result was little over two weeks, and yet he (Mr. disastrous to the families of the Mackenzie) found that he was paid sufferers, and through them, to between $500 and $600. He would the public; for it ofttimes happened not oppose the motion, but he did that, when a railway employé lost his think he was entitled to ask that the life, his family became a charge on greatest care should be taken not to their friends or on the public. He enter on such expenditure during the supposed he had stated sufficient facts current Session. to justify him in submitting the motion to the House. MR. TROW said the total expenses incurred by the Committee on Immigration and Colonization had been only $94 in 1876. Last year he presumed they were something more, but they had endeavoured, on all occasions, to keep such expenditure down; taking advantage of the presence of persons who were in town on business with the Government to secure evidence they required. MR. SPEAKER said the remuneration to be received by shorthandwriters had been settled two or three years ago. MR. DYMOND said that the fees were fixed, but not the work imposed on shorthand-writers by Committees. There was no doubt a great temptation when such writers were employed to protract the proceedings longer than if hon. gentlemen themselves had to take down the evidence, as was the sometime ago, or to rely upon the case with one important Committee clerk's notes. He confessed that, as far as the Committees on which he had been during the last three or four years were concerned, for the evidence to be of any value at all, it was absolutely necessary that a shorthand-writer should be employed. It was quite obvious that, when hon. gentlemen who were not trained lawyers examined witnesses, each from his own point of view, there would naturally be a larger number of repetitions than would otherwise be the case; and that expenses would be incurred, which, if strict economy were practised, might be avoided. He thought that the matter was one which would have to be left to the discretion of the members of Committees. MR. SPEAKER said it seemed very extraordinary that $500 should be received for two weeks' work. MR. DYMOND said that this was by no means extraordinary. He could mention cases where shorthand-writers, employed professionally, had received a far larger amount than $500 for a fortnight's work. It must be remembered that this profession required special qualifications, and that it did not afford constant employment. He might add that, the demand for shorthand-writers in this country having largely increased, owing to their employment in the Courts as well as in connection with the Official Reports of the House, their services were not likely by any means to be cheaper, but rather dearer than they were at present. Motion agreed to. DUTY ON MALT. QUESTION. MR. YOUNG: I have a question I would like to put to the Government, and my reason for asking it is on account of the importance and urgency of the matter to which it refers. It seems that an import duty of 85c. per bushel, a merely nominal duty, was put upon malt entering Canada. This was done, no doubt, with the view of protecting the Excise, or, at least, because it was supposed to be necessary to protect the Excise Department. It appears that this duty, is nominal, as no malt enters Canada, or is likely to be entered, from any foreign country, and that this very heavy duty of 85c. per bushel has been made use of as an argument and lever in the United States on the part of the malt sters there to endeavour to increase the duty, and put on a prohibitive duty or what would be equal to that on Canadian malt entering the United States. The ground upon which they ask this large increase of duty being the very large amount of duty that has apparently been placed upon malt coming into Canada from the other side of the line; and as this duty, as I understand it, is merely nominal, I should like to ask the Government if they see no objection to answer the questionwhether they are prepared to agree to the prayer of the petition made by the maltsters of Ontario, who met some three or four weeks ago, and prayed that this nominal duty should be taken off malt coming into Canada from foreign countries. MR. PLUMB: I would like to ask when this duty was put on. MR. YOUNG: I am not certain as to the date. MR. CARTWRIGHT: The question to which the hon. gentleman refers was brought before the attention of the Government not long ago by a deputation composed of prominent brewers and maltsters of this country. The hon. member has correctly stated that this duty was not put on for revenue proposes, but simply for the convenience of the Excise, and as, on consultation with the officers of Excise, it appears that their interests can be sufficiently protected, although that duty be removed, I think that I shall advise the Government, and that they will recommend to the House to remove this duty from the Customs Department, and place imported malt in the same position, substantially, as that made in this country. As to the other question asked by my hon. friend from Niagara, the Customs duty has always existed and has borne a fixed proportion to the Excise duty. The Customs duty was doubled last year, in the ordinary course of things, at the time the Excise duty on malt was also doubled. that the 85c. duty, as increased, arises MR. PLUMB: We may understand out of the legislation of last year. MR. CARTWRIGHT: Whatever the duty was last year, it was doubled at the time the Excise duty was doubled. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY THE GEORGIAN BAY BRANCH. QUESTION. MR. WHITE (North Renfrew) enquired, Whether the Government has, since the 15th February, 1877, entered into any contract or contracts for the construction of the Georgian Bay Branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway; and, if so, whether such contract or contracts will be submitted for the approval of Parliament during the present Session ? MR. MACKENZIE: ment has not. OFFICIAL REPORTING OF THE DEBATES. COMMITTEE'S REPORT CONCURRED IN. MR. ROSS (West Middlesex) moved the adoption of the first report of the Committee on the Official Debates. It was important that one clause in this report should be accepted by the House, in order to enable himself, as Chairman of the Committee, or the Committee to take certain action. They would observe that the report this year was simply a repetition of last year's report, with the addition of the 10th clause, which was as follows: been asked $5 for an extra volume of last year's Hansard, and he wished to know whether this was to be the price of the volume. It was most unwieldy in size, and he thought it reflected no credit on the Committee who had the matter in hand. MR. ROSS said he was not aware of any understanding existing as to price when any person wished to get more copies than the number assigned him by the Committee. The Committee had conThe Govern-sidered themselves exceedingly liberal last year when they provided that each member should have five instead of two bound copies, as was the case the year previous. It would be difficult for them—and he thought it would be unreasonable to expect them—to regulate the price of a marketable commodity, printed by an individual who, to a certain extent, was beyond the control of the Committee. It was true that they controlled the printer with regard to a limited number of copies; but, if he chose to print a certain number of copies on speculation or for sale to members, he presumed that he had a right to charge his own price. He was glad that his hon. friend had referrel to the unwieldy character of the volume. He hoped that this year such would not be the case. They were anxious that the contractor should condense, as far as he reasonably could, the speeches of members on both sides of the House; and he believed that the contractor was anxious to do so; but it was exceedingly difficult for the reporter, who would like the reports to be somewhat satisfactory to hon. members, to curtail them to a very great extent. But, if they were able to do so, and thus meet the views of his hon. friend, he was sure that this would be a source of very great pleasure to himself. "That no documents or other matter not read or uttered in the course of the debates, shall appear in the reports." This was the only amendment or addition, with the exception of the fact that they were employing this year one more reporter than last year-six instead of five. MR. KIRKPATRICK: Is it to be done by contract. MR. ROSS: It is done by contract. MR. KIRKPATRICK: Have the Committee any control over the contractors, in the way of making the volume more portable and convenient in size? MR. ROSS: We claim to have control over the contractors in all these particulars ? MR. KIRKPATRICK: ought to be exercised. Then it MR. JONES (South Leeds) said he thought it was understood last Session that the sessional Reports were to be supplied to members at the rate of $2.50 per volume. He had, however, MR. TUPPER said he was afraid that some of them were not altogether free from blame with regard to the large size of Hansard; and it was just possible that this was a subject which was a good deal under their own control. He rose to call attention to what he believed was a misapprehension on the part of his hon. friend from South Leeds. He had under |