iving on the line of the Intercolonial could not prosecute a claim against the Government. Such cases should be met in a spirit of fairness, rather than one of strict justice. The Government had established a great system of railways throughout the country, and would constantly be subjected to claims for damages, and it should be understood that the people through whose lands the lines run, would be treated with kindness, because the safety of the passengers depended very much on the spirit in which the law was administered by the superintendents and other officials into whose hands the management of the railways was entrusted. Cases had occurred in which the parties aggrieved had taken the law into their own hands, and it was very bad policy on the part of the Government to attempt to stand rigidly upon their rights, when, perhaps, a little yielding would save great trouble and annoyance, not only to the people in the neighbourhood, but also to the passengers travelling over the roads. MR. POPE (Compton) said that many farmers would find the finest market in the world if the Government would pay them for all cattle killed on their railways. While the Government should be just to such parties, their duty to the people required them to guard that nothing more than justice was done, and, if the Government were not liable for damages, they should not pay them. He therefore objected to the liberality which some hon. members were disposed to show when dealing with those cases. All the Government had to do, after ascertaining their liability, was to to pay a fair and reasonable, but not liberal, sum. MR. CAMERON said that, under the common law of Great Britain, to which the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. MacDonnell) appealed, cattle had a perfect right to pass along a highway. No doubt the Government desired to do what was right in the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, and the subject under discussion was unworthy of occupying so much of the time of the House. Motion agreed to. THE INTERCOLÒNIAL RAILWAY. MOTION FOR RETURN. MR. ROSS (West Middlesex) moved for a statement of the number of miles of the Intercolonial operated on 1st July, 1873, and the cost of operating the same; also a similar statement for the years beginning 1st July, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877. Motion agreed to. THE LACHINE CANAL. MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE AND CONTRACTS, MR. CARON moved for copies of all complaints made against any inspector or other officer of Sections 6, 7 and 11 of the Lachine Canal, with copies of all correspondence between the Department of Public Works or any of the officers thereof with any person in relation to such complaints; also copies of contracts entered into for the enlargement of Sections 6, 7 and 11 of the Lachine Canal, with the specifications accompanying such contracts, and the Engineer's estimates in respect of such contracts. upon which payments have been made MR. MACKENZIE: The estimates for payment I am quite willing to give, but the estimates of the engineer in preparing his specifications are always confidential; I cannot give them. MR. CARON said that, after the statement of the hon. the Premier, he would withdraw that part of his motion. Motion, as amended, agreed to. VISIT OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL TO BRITISH COLUMBIA. MOTION FOR DETAILS OF EXPENSES. MR. MITCHELL moved for a return in detail of the expenditures incurred from the Treasury of Canada for the expenses of the journey of His Excellency the Governor-General and suite to British Columbia and back in the year 1876; also the expenses of his tour to Manitoba and the NorthWest in the year 1877. to the motion. I think there are suffiMR. MACKENZIE: I must object cient details given in the Public Accounts, unless, indeed, the hon. member takes upon himself to assume | ple had a right to get, the hon. the that, as a matter of course, these ac- Premier attempted to impute other counts have been made out unfaith-motives to him. He had been asked, fully, and that His Excellency and those immediately attending him here have deliberately falsified the Public Accounts. I think it is disrespectful to His Excellency to make it. It is the first time I have ever known such a motion being made, and I think it is an ill return for the services of His Excellency during the period he has represented this country. The motion appears as though the hon. member would imply something wrong on the part of the Governor-General, and is in its very essence almost an insult to the very person to whom we are so greatly indebted. If the hon. member for Northumberland does not withdraw his motion, I must ask hon. gentlemen to vote it down. outside this House, what those journeys cost, and, when he had heard it remarked that they had cost the country a great deal larger sums than appeared in the accounts, he thought it right to ask the question in this House. Let the hon. Premier divide the House upon his motion if he dared. If he stood alone he should be able to go back to the country and tell the people the reason why the hon. the Premier had chosen to object to a motion he had a perfect right, as a representative of the people, to make. He publicly disclaimed any idea of disrespect to His Excellency, in the motion. He had the highest respect for the GovernorGeneral and recognised the service he had done to the country. The eloquent language in which he had spoken of the resources of this country would go forth to the world and be of great benefit to Canada. Yet, his motion had been repudiated and it had been stated that he had personal motives in bringing it forward. He had taken this course, purely from a sense of duty, because he believed it was due to His Excellency that the misrepresentations about his journeys should be put right; and, that, if more money was spent in that than appeared in the Public AcCounts, the people ought to know it. He had heard statements made abroad not creditable to the hon. the Premier nor to those connected with him, but he had never believed them. He knew, however, that gentlemen on the other side dare not put such a motion on the paper, because it would be held to be discourteous; therefore, he, an inde pendent member, had taken that MR. MITCHELL said he looked upon the remarks of the hon. the Premier as very discourteous to the hon. members of this House. He moved this motion, not out of disrespect to His Excellency, not because there was anything wrong in the accounts; the latter was the hon. the Premier's suggestion, and the cap seemed to fit very well. He had made no charge, and did not imply any charge against the correctness of the Public Accounts, and he had no intention of being guilty of disrespect to the head of the Government of this country; but, as an independent member of this House, he had the right to ask information as to every account and every subject in connection with the Treasury of the country, when they found that the taxes, the money that was taken from the pockets of the people, were enormously increased, and that the expen diture of public money had also enormously increased during the last few years. And, when they found, too, that the expenses connected with the head of the Govern- MR. MITCHELL said he was indement had largely increased, and that pendent, and it would be better if money was taken out of the Treasury to there were more independent memmeet this that was needed for other pur-bers in the House. He had asked the poses. It came with a bad grace from the head of the Government to challenge him, as a representative of the people, as to his right to an explanation of this increased expenditure. Because he asked for information that the peo course. MR. DOMVILLE: You are independent? hon. member for King's (Mr. Domville) to second the motion, but he ha declined, and the hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches had declined to allow it to pass. They said it was an insult to the head of the country; he denied this. He repeated that it was conceived without the least motive such as the hon. the Premier had chosen to impute to him, and he trusted the House would not deny the people the only means they had of obtaining information to which they were in every way entitled. The motion merely asked for certain details with regard to an item in the Public Accounts, and the hon. the Premier said sufficient details would be found in the Public Accounts. He might make that objection to three-fourths of the motions that came before the House, and yet such a ground never was taken by the hon. gentleman. He (Mr. Mitchell) was not prepared to say that more money had been expended upon these journeys than appeared in the public accounts; 700 pages of figures was too much to wade through for people who were not accustomed to it. He wanted an authoritative statement from this House so that he might put it before the country next summer whether they had spent thousands and thousands of dollars for the purpose of advertising the country. If he were to state that a quarter of a million of dollars had been expended in connection with Rideau Hall out of the Treasury, it would startle the country, and if it was not true he wished a statement to that effect to be put before the House. If it was true, it was discreditable to the country. He held in his hand a resolution, moved by the hon. the member for Chateauguay, and seconded by the hon. the Premier, declaring that the salary of the Governor-General ought not to be so large, and asking for it to be cut down from $50,000 to $35,000 per annum. In 1868, when they were fixing the Governor-General's salary MR. HOLTON: No; you were not fixing it. MR. MITTCHELL: No, it was fix. ed the year before. MR. HOLTON: It was fixed by you under the Union Act. MR. MITCHELL said it was fixed hy them under the Union Act at £10,000 sterling, and the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) voted for its reduction in the following year. this It was moved by Mr. Holton and seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that the salary of the Governor-General be reduced to $35,000 per annum. They had moved that resolution, and yet the hon. the Premier said he (Mr. Mitchell) desired to insult the distinguished head of the country, because, forsooth, he wished to remove an impression which prevailed throughout the country with regard to expenditure. He had been asked: "Is it possible that, while this enormous expenditure is going on, you sit there, and, knowing these things are done, yet dare not ask a question with regard to them?" He had asked the question and the hon. the Premier had told him that this act was an insult to the Governor-General. His motives were not to dispute the great service which the Governor-General had rendered to this country; he believed that all his relations with the country had been of the most friendly, social and hospitable kind, that in the discharge of his duties he had been of great service to Canada and well deserved the thanks of her people. It was not in regard to His Excellency that he made this motion, but in regard to the perpetuation of an expenditure which would be established as a precedent when the next Governor came. He had heard various rumours about certain nobility in connection with the future government of this country when our present respected Governor left us, and he would repeat again that His Excellency had well earned the money that had been spent in connection with his high office, but he did not desire to have an extravagant system established for those Governors-General who perhaps would not earn it. He recognized the great services, the great ability, and the liberal expenditure of his own means, he was told, of the present Governor-General, and wished entirely to disclaim anything of a personal character in his motion. All he wished to do was to put a stop to this extravagant expenditure, which this country, especially in the present depressed state of trade, could not afford. It was the duty of the representatives of the people to put a stop to the enormous expenditure of public money that was going on, and let him tell those gentlemen who looked upon this independent motion of an independent member as an insult, that, though,in 1868, they considered $35,000 was quite sufficient to Cover the salary and everything connected with the Governor-General, they now seemed to think $50,000 or $60,000 too little. He did not desire to give figures. He moved his resolution in silence, and had hoped that the hon. the Premier would let it go for what it was worth. But the hon. gentleman had chosen to take another course, and he was welcome to do so. He (Mr. Mit- | chell) felt that he had only done his duty to the country and his constituents in bringing forward this motion. | MR. TUPPER said he regretted exceedingly that this motion should have been made, and considered it undesirable that such a matter should be discussed in this House, but no person could, for a single moment, question the strict right and propriety of any hon. member of this House making such a motion as the one under consideration. He might say that he had also expressed his regret to his hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) who had placed the notice on the paper, and had hoped that it would have answered his purpose not to press his notice to a motion. But the motion had been made, and no hon. member on either side could question the strict right and propriety of the hon. member for Northumberland in bringing it before the House, if he found it necessary, in the discharge of his duty and in he public interest, to do so. He (Mr. Tupper) regretted very much that the motion had been made, but he regretted still more that the hon. the First Minister had-he hoped simply in the first blush of the moment-felt it his duty to resist it. He trusted the hon. gentleman would not persist in dividing the House upon this motion. He did not see how it was possible for the First Minister of the Crown and the leader of this Parliament to take the ground publicly before the country that the Government would refuse to permit a motion to pass for investigating the expenditure of public money, however low or high the party might be to whom this expenditure referred. He said simply it was a course the hon. gentleman could not defend in this House, and which he could not defend before the people of this country. He (Mr. Tupper) regretted that the motion had been made, because he felt, in common, he believed, with every member of this House and the great majority of the people, he might almost say the whole, that Canada owed a great debt of obligation to the present Governor-General. Under Lord Dufferin, Canada had enjoyed the privilege of having a Governor more eminently Canadian in his sentiments than perhaps anyone who had filled that high and distinguished office before. He was eminently Canadian, and believed most thoroughly in the future of this great country. He (Mr. Tupper) believed that the information His Excellency had obtained, and the expenditure in connection with his making himself, as he had made himself, at great personal inconvenience, familiar with every section of the country and its resources, and the great and wonderful ability he had exhibited in laying before the people, not of Canada alone, but of the world, the position this country enjoyed, its great resources and the great advantages it possessed, would be of incalculable value to Canada, and it was upon that ground mainly that he regretted the motion had been made. He could not defend it here or elsewhere, but, while he was perfectly prepared to defend the Government in the expenditure they had made with regard to His Excellency's journey in the North-West, he could not supper the proposition to vote down the motion. He trusted the hon. the First Minister would feel that he would best discharge the duties of Parliament, and of the high office he occupied, if he did not call for a division upon question. It was certainly within the province of every member of this Parliament, and of every member of a British Parliament in any part of the world, to bring forward such a motion; and for the hon. the Premier to follow the course he had proposed, would be to lay down a most fatal precedent with regard to the rights and liberties of the people. the MR. HOLTON said he quite agreed with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Tupper) that no Government had a right to withhold information from the people as to any expenditure public money, but he (Mr. Holton) understood the hon. the First Minister to say that all the information that could be given in reply to this motion was to be found in the Public Accounts, and he understood the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) to say that he could himself give the House the figures referred to if those figures were called for. This established the fact stated by his hon. friend all admired so much and recognized as having discharged his high functions with signal ability and impartiality, was on the point of leaving us, was a sort of Parthian arrow which ought not to be shot at him by this House, The acceptance of this motion would be to attack His Excellency the Governor General, as it were, in the rear. MR. MITCHELL: It is attacking him in front, in my opinion. MR. HOLTON said that, when His Excellency was on the point of leaving this country, it could not but be ungrateful to His Excellency's feelings MR. MITCHELL: That was not and it was besides, he thought, unwhat I said. the First Minister. MR. HOLTON: I cannot be interrupted. I only wish to point out briefly that, by the hon. member for Northumberland's own showing, the House is already in possession of the information sought by the motion. MR. MASSON: He did not say 80; let him explain it. MR. HOLTON: No; while I am on my feet I wish to state MR. MITCHELL: Then you are misrepresenting what I said. MR. HOLTON: The hon. gentleman said he could give the figures if he desired. MR. MITCHELL: I said that I could give the figures from the Public Accounts, but not the figures that I wished to obtain; and that rumour says the expenditure much exceeded the figures in the Accounts. MR. HOLTON said that the Public Accounts showed the expenditure for this particular service. For that expenditure, the Ministry of the day was responsible to Parliament, and, if details were sought as to the personal expenditure of the Governor-General and his family in regard to these journeys through the country, there was no doubt that those who asked for these details were casting suspicions on the good faith of that high functionary himself. MR. MITCHELL: Not at all. MR. HOLTON said he could not but feel that a motion of this kind, made at the present moment, when that distinguished nobleman, whom they generous-for the House to pass such a motion. If a motion of this kind, impugning the good faith or in any way attacking this distinguished functionary had been made earlier in his term of office, when he could make and unmake Ministers, taking that course; but to do this now, there would have been some courage in when he had officially announced to them his early departure from the country, was, he (Mr. Holton) might say, an evidence of something he could not characterize as courage. He would not characterize it in any positive way, but simply in a negative manner, and say that it did not come up to his standard For his part, he was very glad that the of political courage or civic courage. hon. the First Minister had taken the stand he had with regard to this motion. It was a motion which was not fit to be made; under all the circumstances of time and place, this was a motion which was not fit to be made; it sought for information already in possession of the House; a full explanation of these items could not be given; and, therefore, he hoped that the House, by an overwhelming majority, would reject it. An HON. MEMBER: It is a public question. MR. HOLTON said he was rather surprised, he confessed, to hear the hon. member for Cumberland intimate his purpose of voting for this resolution. He did hope that the House, by an almost unanimous vote, would pronounce against the attempt which he would not characterize as it deserved, but which, he felt very |