utmost they could do would be, if the Commissioners misconducted their trust, to dismiss them and appoint others in their place; but no evidence had, as yet, been produced to satisfy the Government that there had been such a departure on the part of these Commissioners from the duties and the proper execution of their trust, and to warrant a resort to so extreme a mea sure. All he could say to the hon. gentleman now was that he would see what communication had been sent to the Commissioners and what reply had been made by them; and, if anything further could be granted with the powers the Government had, they should, of course, have no objection whatever to exercise these powers and procure it. MR. TUPPER said he had no desire to interpose between the hon. gentleman who had brought this matter before the House and the hon. the leader of the House, but he rose for the purpose of entering his protest against what he conceived to be an evasion of responsibility, of which the hon. the Premier was guilty in stating the position upon which he (Mr. Mackenzie) had taken his stand. MR. MACKENZIE: Well, Sir, I think that this is not the time to debate the question. I have given my answer to the hon. member (Mr. Barthe), and if the hon. member for Cumberland wishes to discuss it he must bring the question before the House in the proper manner. MR. TUPPER: I have no desire to discuss the question, but if the hon. gentleman MR. MACKENZIE: The hon. gentleman is discussing it, Sir, and with a view to censure the Government. I object. I call the hon. gentleman to order. MR. TUPPER: I am speaking now to the question of order; the hon. gentleman had better not be quite so impetuous. The point is this: you have allowed the hon. the First Minister to discuss it, you have not restricted the hon. gentleman to an answer to the question asked him, but you have allowed him to discuss discuss elaborately a question of public policy and the question relating to the responsibility of the Commissioners appointed by the Government and the money's expended by them which are guaranteed by the Government, and you have allowed him to discuss that at length. I rise for the purpose MR. SPEAKER: I have allowed him to make a statement. MR. TUPPER: You have allowed him to make a statement with reference to that matter; and what I propose to do is, not to discuss the question, but simply, as a matter which I think is of very vital importance has been brought under the notice of the House in the statement that the hon. gentleman has made, to take exception to that statement. Several HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. TUPPER: There is no violation of order. I am merely stating what I propose to do. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. gentleman is out of order. MR. BARTHE said he wished to say one word in explanation. An address had been voted, and in that address certain papers were asked for which were wanted in order that his constituents might see whether the complaints that were made were well grounded or not. Of course, they understood that the Government guaranteed these payments. His constituents were largely interested in these works; and he desired to secure the papers in question in order to enquire into this matter, concerning which his constituents complained that a family compact existed. SURVEY OF THE PACIFIC RAILWAY BETWEEN RED RIVER AND ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order for the further consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Kirkpatrick, for all reports of engineers, memorials, etc., relating to the survey and location of the line of the Pacific Railway between the Red River and Battleford, read. MR. KIRKPATRICK said that, when | the House adjourned the previous evening, he was expressing his pleasure at having heard the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Public Works that the Government were still open to conviction upon the question of locating the line of the Pacific Railway west of Red River. He fully concurred in the hon. gentleman's remarks that no local or sectional influences should be allowed to decide the important question as to the location of any part of this railway. He thought that the hon. gentleman was quite right in disregarding any local or sectional influences, and he did hope that the hon. gentleman would, at the same time, disregard any preconceived opinions he (Mr. Mackenzie) might have in this respect, and that the matter might be fully and fairly entered into as to where it was best for this line to be located in the interests of the country. They must remember, when they spoke of the best interests of the country, that it related to the settlement of the great North-West, to open up which we were doing so much and spending so much public money, and for the colonisation of which this railway was, in a great measure, The country would not hear of the building of the Pacific Railway if it was not for the fact that it would act, more than anything else, as a colonization agent for the settlement of the North-West. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he had not sufficient knowledge or information as to where the line should be properly located. He would not express a decided opinion with reference to the location of the line south of Lake Manitoba; but he contended that, in view of the evidence before the House, the report of Mr. Fleming and the evidence taken and laid before them in the appendix to the report of the Senate Committee last year, this evidence, so far laid before the House, largely preponderated against the located line; and he made this motion in order that the Government might bring down any further information they had in their possession, to show that the line selected was the proper one. He would point out to the attention of the undertaken. Ministry, and of the House generally, the important fact that, as far as they knew, no engineer had ever been over that line in summer. This was a very important fact. He would also like to cail the attention of the House to a very important letter which he found was brought down last year by Mr. Fleming-this was a letter that had been written by LieutenantGovernor Morris, under date of May 8th, 1875, some three years ago, in which he directed attention to the very important difference existing between the country which was to be traversed by the located line, and the country lying to the south of Lake Manitoba; which was admitted on all sides to be one of a very superior character, and a great deal better than the country north of it. In justification for bringing this motion before the House, he might mention the fact that, in Manitoba, no two opinions were entertained as to where the proper location of the line should be. There was no question about this; and, if the report of Mr. Fleming and the evidence in question were true-if there was no mistake on that point, he was sure that the hon. the Minister of Public Works could only come to the conclusion that the line as located was a mistake, and that the hon. gentleman would take steps to make further enquiry into the matter, and send some competent person over the line at another season of the year to examine and report upon it. MR. MACKENZIE said he had nothing to add to his remarks of yesterday. He admitted, not only the right, but the duty of his hon. friend the member for Frontenac (Mr. Kirkpatrick) to bring forward this matter, and he had done it in a way with which no fault could be found. It was his utmost desire to obtain all possible information as to this and other parts of the railway route, and to take such measures, in concert with the engineers, as would result in promoting the general interests, and, if it could be done without interfering with general, to likewise promote local interests. With regard to seeking further information, he could only say the Government was seeking information every day, about every part of the line, and acter caused it to traverse a different route, it was only unfortunate that those people should be located in a place through which it was impossible to carry the railway. He had given the House, in all frankness, any information he had been able to gather in addition to the evidence contained in Mr. Marcus Smith's report, and, while he was willing to bring down all information, he did not think there was anything behind which could materially affect the question. He would refer to one point. It seemed to be taken for granted that every engineer entrusted with the location of certain portions of this section of the road must have made a report report similar to that of Mr. Cambie. That was not the case. The latter was a survey for the purpose of obtaining definite information. A special report was absolutely neces sary to give the character of the country, the quantities of materials to be removed and required to be filled in at one time. In these other cases, the general character of the country being known, there was scarcely anything to report. The only place where there were any engineering difficulties was at the crossing of the Narrows at Manitoba, respecting which the engineering department had all information. The reports of officers along the line consisted principally of the usual field notes of engineers and surveyors, and not the plotting of the road. If there was any further information required, it would, of course, be brought down, so that hon. gentlemen would have the utmost possible information with regard to the road. anything that could be done in so vast | But, if other reasons of a general chara country to procure further informa tion, he believed had been done, and would continue to be done until they reached a point where they must stop, and proceed, if it were possible, under the Act of 1874, with its construction. The various statements respecting the character of the soil were conflicting. He had taken care to-day to ascertain from one of the engineers—at least his deputy did—in what manner he had ascertained the character of the soil of the country while traversing and surveying it in the winter. The engineer, Mr. McLeod, stated that in every place where there was any softness, openings were made, and the ground carefully sounded, and that the bottom was in all cases found to be firm, the soft places generally ranging from a few inches to a few feet; in some places, from five to six feet, and, in a bog near Red River, to ten feet. Mr. McLeod was the gentleman who had been engaged from Shoal Lake to Mossy River, a distance of 126 miles, which was confessedly the worst part of this route. The part from Red River to Shoal Lake, fortyfive miles, was surveyed by Mr. Forrest, who reported it to be very good land, not at all marshy or wet. From Mossy River to Livingstone, one hundred miles, had been traversed by Mr. | Lucas, who was also present at the interview. The information of those engineers diffe ed so materially from the statements of hon. members that he was compelled to come to the conclusion that the evidence of parties who had surveyed the land must be superior to that which was obtained by hearsay, from people who were, to say the least, very strongly interested,---he did not mean in a corrupt way----but on account of living in or near Winnipeg, in obtaining a deviation of the line in their direction. Those opinions should always be taken with a certain allowance; while the opinions of men who had gone over the ground carefully, and whose professional reputation was at stake, must be superior in every respect to that made by parties who were desirous that the railway should traverse the country where they lived. All things being equal, it would be very much preferable that the road should traverse a well-settled district. MR. TUPPER said he would like to remind the First Minister that he owed the opportunity of making this extensive statement to the courtesy of the Opposition-a courtesy which the hon. gentleman had refused to him in a similar case. MR. MACKENZIE said he was not desirous to give any part of the speech he had given, but did so in the interests. of the House. He considered the object of the hon. member for Cumberland had been to raise a discussion, when the subject had not been put before the House. He (Mr. Mac the Senate, which had been composed of gentlemen entirely favourable to the Southern route, and with a view evidently to adopt that route, had refused, at first, to receive Mr. Fleming's report, and it was only on his inform kenzie) had merely given reasons why the report was not extended. He had not entered upon a discussion of the principle involved, but merely made a statement. The opening remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland seemed to him to intend to controverting them that, unless they received it, the position taken by the Government on the question, which would have been quite out of order. MR. MASSON said he remembered what had been said last year, and, he believed, the year before, that the Government were completely aware of the fact that the route adopted was the worst with regard to the quality of the land; on the other hand, the hon. gentleman knew the route south of Lake Manitoba was the best, and traversed one of the finest countries in the world. He would like to ask the hon. the Premier whether he had caused to be made, before adopting the route by the Narrows, entailing an immense expenditure in building the telegraph line, an instrumental survey of the route which the people in general and common sense indicated should have been adopted. He saw by the report that the Government had not done this. In fact, instrumental surveys had only been made last year; the survey by which they had arrived at the conclusion that the crossing of the little Saskatchewan would involve very serious difficulty and increase the distance about nine miles; that the crossing of other rivers would cause difficulty had not yet been ascertained by instrumental survey. The primary duty of the Government was to take the common sense line; that route which would materially benefit the rest of the country, and if, after experience, it was found that serious difficulties existed-and that could only be ascertained by instrumental surveys-the Government was at liberty to have explorations made in the other parts of the country. MR. MACKENZIE said an instrumental survey had been made last season. He would have preferred that his hon. friend had given him notice, as he would have liked to refer to Mr. Fleming's report in order to ascertain what instrumental surveys had been made formerly. The Committee of which had been formed He he would, necessarily, have to get it printed himself, that they accepted it. He had not that report before him, but hon. members would understand that any one walking over that country, descending into the deep valleys by such streams as Bird Tail Creek, the Little Saskatchewan, and the Assiniboine, would see that an instrumental survey was not necessary to show the very great difficulty of descending and ascending those valleys and gorges. had stated yesterday that some of them were between 200 and 250 feet and that it required an extension of nine below the general level of the prairie, miles to surmount one difficulty shown by the instrumental survey last year. by the instrumental survey last year. The number of those valleys would account for the entire mileage apart able to state whether Mr. Fleming from the extra mileage. He was not those valleys or not, but an experihad made instrumental surveys of enced engineer would see that very great difficulties existed, even before an instrumental survey was made, to ascertain the precise length of the road, and the grade required to overcome the ascent and descent, each way That was what Mr. respectively. Marcus Smith had acquired during the present year, and his information was before the House. MR. MASSON said the House would perceive that the hon. gentleman was wrong, and had, unwittingly, no doubt, misled the House yesterday, when he said the question was still an open one, and that it would be considered whether the route should be changed or not; but he now stated the simple fact of an engineer walking over the country was sufficient to prove that it was impossible to make a road in that direction. What was the use, therefore, of the House and the country expecting that there would be a change of policy and a change of route. un MR. MACKENZIE: My impression | during last Session, he introduced a is that the hon. the member for Cum- Bill, the object of which was to allow berland (Mr. Tupper) asked a ques- persons charged with criminal offences tion across the House, whether this an opportunity, if they so desired it, line was absolutely fixed or not, of giving evidence upon oath on their because, if absolutely fixed, little use own behalf. That measure was discould result from discussing it. I said cussed somewhat exhaustively by the it had been fixed where it had been House, and it was evident, from opinlocated, but, of course, not so absolutely ions expressed in not at all an but that it could be changed with the friendly spirit on that occasion, that, consent of this House. I think these although the conclusion arrived at are the very words that I made use of. might be to a large extent favourI said further, that it would have been able to the principle of the Bill, a mockery to Parliament and the the time had not come for so radical country to have pretended to send a change to be adopted. He observed engineers over these routes again, un- that a similar measure had recently less it was with the view of making a passed its second reading in the British change, if that change change should should House of Commons, and that it had be found to be in the public the public been referred to a Select Committee, in interest. I have not stated the order to receive further consideration determination of the Government since before it finally became law. On perthey have obtained this information, using the report of the debate on that because, before determining, we have to Bill, it appeared to him that the referconsider the whole question, and I was ence of the Bill to a Select Committee quite willing, as I stated, that any might be rather intended to shelve it hon. gentlemen should put me in pos- for the present, than with a view to its session of any further information early adoption. There was evidently he might have before we finally de- a degree of immaturity in the views termined upon this point. If the hon. and sentiment of those who took part gentleman will tax his memory a little in the debate, both as to the scope and he will find that I have reported what details of Mr. Ashley's Bill, that would I stated yesterday. prevent it, for some time to come, from becoming the law of the land." noticed, however, that the opinion he expressed last year, and which he still entertained, that, ultimately, the measure he then introduced, or a similar one, would be successful, had gained strength, in a portion, at all events, of this Dominion. In New Brunswick, a few days since, the Lieutenant-Governor in his speech at the opening of the Legislature, spoke as follows: MR. RYAN Yesterday, I said that certain statements made by the hon. the Minister of Public Works were untrue. I was not aware that the expression was unparliamentary; I did not mean to impugn the veracity of the hon. gentleman, nor do I think I did. I meant to say that the statements he made were incorrect; I did not doubt that in making them he thought they were correct. He "The administration of justice being a MR. MACKENZIE: The explana-matter of Provincial concern, I would draw tion is perfectly satisfactory, and I accept it with all possible cordiality. Motion agreed to. EVIDENCE ON COMMON ASSAULTS BILL. [BILL NO. 3.] (Mr. Dymond.) SECOND READING. Order for second reading read. MR. DYMOND said it would be in the recollection of the House that, attention to the state of the law respecting evidence in criminal cases, in the hope that a change may be made by the Parliament of Canada-in which body alone the power to legislate in such matter exists. I regard it as conducive to the good administration of Justice, as well as to the interests of the public, as in fairness to the persons charged with crime, that all persons so charged should, whatever the magnitude of the crime, have the right to give evidence in their own behalf. The existing state of the law, however advantageous it may be to the guilty, is clearly prejudicial to the innocent, and, if the object of the existing law were the protection of guilty persons, little could be |