according to the acceptation of the the laws of Canada relating to Indians. We will then have nothing more to do with their affairs, except as ordinary subjects of Her Majesty.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-The

Bill is a very important one. It affects

the interests of the Indians who are especially under the guardianship of the Crown and of Parliament. From the statement of the hon. gentleman, I have a great deal of doubt whether it would be well to give every Indian, when he becomes 21 years of age, the right of absolute disposal of his lands.

I am afraid it would introduce into this country a system by which landsharks could get hold of their estates. However, we will have a better opportunity of discussing the question on the second reading.

I may take this occasion to say, I think it is hardly fair for the Government to take up other days besides their own to introduce their Bills. I did not object to it before, but as the paper is now so full of measures in the hands of private members, it is only fair that we should have a little time.

THE TRANSLATION OF THE DEBATES.

Mr. MASSON-It will be observed, by referring to the Orders of the Day, that I have followed the course which appears most satisfactory to the Premier, and in accordance with your views, with regard to the question of privilege relating to the translation of the Debates into French. Up to this moment we have not seen the first number in French. I have followed your ruling and given notice; I now move that the second report of the Committee on the printing and reporting of the Debates of Parliament be concurred in.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-The hon. gentleman's motion is on the order paper.

Mr. MASSON said he had acted on the suggestion of the Premier in the first place, but Mr. Speaker had ruled that two days notice must be given before the question could be brought up.

Now the Hon. Minister of Justice remarked it must be taken up in its course. He (Mr. Masson) contended that it should be moved at once, because if taken up in its order it would

not be reached before the end of the Session, and the Debates would not be translated. If the hon. gentleman was right, notice should have been given in the same way when the first report was dealt with. May furnished instances in which quasi questions of privilege had been given priority.

tion.

On Feb. 16th, 1836, the consideration of a petition relating to a corrupt agreement in the Carlow election stood 9th on the orders of the day, but was taken before all the notices of moup On June 5th, 1837, a similar precedence was given in the matter of à petition relating to the printers of the House. On April 26th, 1844, a question of breach of privilege stood the 11th order of the day, and was taken first. He contended, therefore, from the facts and precedents that his motion had priority.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE said these very precedents showed that the motion could not be referred to until the orders of the day were reached. He (Mr. Blake) would then be prepared to reply to the hon. gentleman's arguments.

Mr. MASSON contended it was a question of privilege, and claimed that he had a right to move it at once.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he had been quoted as saying the motion could be made a matter of privilege. What he did say was, that it might, perhaps, be mentioned as a matter of privilege, but not that it could be introduced as a motion. The only ground on which it could be brought up as a question of privilege would be urgency. Now, he understood the first sheets of the translation would be placed in the hands of members to-morrow.

Mr. BOWELL-I cannot understand how it is possible that the translation of the speeches can be delivered to members of this House to-morrow, unless some person or persons, the Government or the Chairman of the

Committee, or some one else, have assumed a power to which they have no right under the circumstances. The report adopted by this House places the translation in the hands of the Committee, and states further, that if any assistance be required to enable the officers of the House to do the work in question, this is to be given

unter the supervision and the instructions of the Committees. So that no persons have power from this Housefrom this Houseunless it has been assumed by the Government or the Chairman of the Committee without authority to translate these debates.

In answer to the Hon. Mr. Blake Mr. BOWELL said the officers of the House has not given the requisite authority.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-So the hon. gentleman stated this morning.

Mr. BOWELL-I beg your pardon. Hon. Mr. BLAKE-The hon. gentleman said that if any additional assistance was needed, the Committee was to take action.

Mr. BOWELL-I did say so; but if any additional translators have been employed, an authority has been assumed for which no right was given.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I am not aware that any additional employés have been engaged.

or

Mr. BOWELL-I have reason to believe that they number three four, and the best reason is, one came and, with reference to a speech I made, questioned me regarding the mode of rendering certain of my expressions. I will read the report of the Committee to be found on page 48 of the Votes and Proceedings

regard might fairly say he did so on the ground of privilege, to some extent. His opinion was that this was a matter of such importance and urgency, and partook so much, at all events, of the nature of privilege, that precedence should be given to it when the notice of motion where it stood was reached.

CROSSING OF NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-I beg leave introdoce a Bill making better provision for crossing navigable waters by railway and other road companies in

corporated under Provincial Acts.

Considerable inconvenience has been caused by the lack of such legislation as is proposed, as special Acts from the Parliament of Canada have had to be procured for this purpose; and it appears to the Government that such procedure is hardly requisite, and that under proper restrictions, as contained in this Bill, an easier mode of facilitating the operations of Provincial companies may be carried into effect. The Bill proposes, when a railway or other road company is lawfully incorporated by a Provincial Act, and it is necessary that such line should be taken across or along navigable water, sections 54, 55, 56, and 58 of the RailA clause is way Act shall apply. added requiring any company desirous of constructing any work under this Act, to give notice for six weeks be submitted to the Railway Commitin a local newspaper; the plan must tee of the Privy Council, and it must be authorized by the Governor-inCouncil.

Mr. SPEAKER remarked that there was no precedent for the system followed in this relation, as the English House of Commons did not employ official reporters. His own impression was, that the House having ordered an Official Report, and appointed a Committee to superintend it, any member having reason to complain in this

Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN-Does the Bill apply to existing companies?

striction on any companies whatever, but it gives permission to those incorporated under Provincial Acts to cross navigable waters under certain

conditions.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The Bill will remove an existing anomaly, placing it in the power of companies to cross navigable streams under arrangements provided by law.

Mr. WRIGHT (Pontiac)--Would this apply to the Northern Colonization Railway at present?

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-If this railway is empowered to construct its line, this Act will not interfere with it in the slightest degree; if not, then the company will be able to obtain such power under its provisions.

Mr. DOMVILLE-In the event of corporations, such as cities, not wishing to have railways crossing navigable streams, would this Act enable the companies to carry their roads across without the consent of

such cities and corporations? A year ago a Bill was introduced to permit a road to be carried across the St.

John's River at a navigable point, interfering with the rights of owners of wharves in the vicinity; it was thrown out, but it gave me a great deal of

trouble.

Mr. WORKMAN-I would also ask if it would cover an application to be made in this House for the construction of the Royal Albert Bridge at Montreal? I have already received a great number of letters in opposition. to the scheme; but of course as the Bill is not yet submitted I have not said anything.

a

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-I do not know whether the Royal Albert Bridge is to be built as part of local railway; if not, the Bill has nothing to do with it. The provisions, I hope, are sufficiently guarded to prevent any such injustice as that to which the hon. member for King's County, (N.B.), refers, as notice must be given in a local newspaper of any such intention. I do not think that there is any likelihood of any injustice being committed.

MONEY IN THE HANDS OF FINANCIAL

AGENTS.

Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked whether the Government will lay on the Table of the House a statement of the amounts of money belonging to Canada in the hands of the financial agents, or the banks in Canada or their agencies in England, on the 15th day of June last, and at the present time respectively; specifying the amounts that were bearing no interest and the rate of interest on all the other amounts respectively?

TERMINUS OF QUEBEC RAILWAY.

Mr. MASSON enquired whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt any means to assure the construction of a line of Rail way to connect Portage du Fort, the proposed terminus of the projected Quebec Government Railway, with the subsidized portion of the Canada Central Railway?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The Government had a memorial transmitted to them from the authorities at Quebec on this subject, but we have not had it I can only say to formally before us. my hon. friend that the Government of course are disposed to regard favourably anything in that direction.

BEACH LOTS ON THE ST. LAWRENCE.

Mr. CASGRAIN asked whether the Government is aware of the fact that the Government of the Province of Quebec is issuing letters patent granting to private individuals rights of property in beach lots on the St. Lawrence between the lines of high and low water, and even beyond the line of low water in the navigable waters of the St. Lawrence and the seaports thereof; and if so, whether the

the Government acknowledges the right of the Government of Quebec so to act?

Hon. Mr. SMITH-I may say that

the Government have some information and correspondence on the subject, but I am not in a position to state what they may do in respect thereto. I will suggest to my hon. friend that he had better move for correspondence and papers, which I shall have no objection to bringing down to the House when Government may be prepared to state what they are prepared to do.

EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS.

Mr. DYMOND enquired whether any, and if any, what steps have been taken by the Government towards enlarging the scope of the existing provisions for the extradition of criminals as between Canada and the United States?

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-Steps have been taken by the Government towards that end. I suppose they are in the nature of correspondence, which, if asked for, there will be no objection to submitting.

GRANT TO RAILWAYS oF QUEBEC.

Mr. CIMON asked whether it is the intention of the Government to ask this House to agree to a grant to aid the Railways of the Province of Quebec ?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is not the intention of the Government to ask for an appropriation to aid railroads in any of the Provinces.

THE BOATS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND LEVIS.

Mr. ROULEAU asked whether it is the intention of the Government to pass such a law as will prevent the boats, which cross during the winter between Quebec and Levis, from breaking the ice bridge which forms there every year?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is not the intention of the Government to propose any such law.

THE IRON STATION AT HALIFAX.

Mr. DOMVILLE enquired-Was the iron station now at Halifax awaiting erection purchased privately or by public tender, and from whom?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—I did not. observe the question until this moment.. The contract was by tender, but I of the don't recollect the names

tenderers or contractor.

Mr. DOMVILLE-Then I will let the question remain on the paper. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE Very well.

SNOW SHEDS ON THE INTERCOLONIAL. Mr. DOMVILLE asked whether the Government have authorized the General Superintendent of Government Railways to place iron snow sheds on the Intercolonial Railway in the place of the wooden ones now existing; if so, has the contract been awarded, and to whom; also was it by private bargain or public tender?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-There are no iron sheds in existence that I am aware of.

Mr. DOMVILLE--That is not the question. I asked whether the Government have authorized their substitution for wooden ones?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE----The thing has never been discussed at all.

THE TRANSLATION OF DEBATES.

Mr. MASSON moved that the report of the Select Committee on reporting the debates of the IIouse, he now concurred in. The hon. gentleman said: I wish to say to my hon. friend, the Premier, that I would be very sorry he should remain under the impression that I had wilfully misrepresented anything he said. In the Hansard I find the hon. gentleman said: "The hon. "Mr. Mackenzie said this matter was

brought up as a matter of privilege, "but it would be better to wait until the "chairman of the Committee came." I think if it is possible to bring it up as a question of privilege, it is equally correct to bring it up as proposed.

Mr. DELORME----I beg to move as an amendment-"That the House ad“here to the mode of translation propos"ed by the first report of the Committee, "and that the Committee be instructed "to secure such assistance as may be necessary to ensure the prompt execu"tion of the work."

Mr. MASSON questioned whether. the amendment was in order.