injurious to great public interests." conviction and knowlege it was likely to be

Peel moved what is known as the first

direct motion of want of confidence in the Ministry of the day, after a very lengthy debate on the subject, when the time came for an adjournment (the debate took place on a Thursday) Sir Robert Peel instead of claiming as a matter of right that it should proceed on the following Wednesday (the House adjourned over to that day), put it to the leader of the House, Lord John Russell, asking him whether it could not be arranged that the debate should proceed on the next day. Lord John Russell's reply was in substance that he thought the matter could be arranged, and the debate accordingly did proceed on the next day. It will be seen, however, that it was not because of any right claimed by the leader of the Opposition to persist in carrying on the discussion, but as a matter of arrangement between the two parties of the House. The Ministers then, as on other occasions, furnished facilities to those who assailed them to pursue the attack to its ultimate issue. I find again a motion arising on the 6th June, 1872, which involved, according to the view of the Ministry themselves, a question of confidence in their administration. The question was then raised whether the debate should proceed continuously, and Mr. Gladstone expressed himself

in these words:

"I do not wish to be held bound even by silence to the doctrines that every motion to be made in this House, which the Government may regard as involving a vote of censure, is therefore to receive precedence of all other business and is to be made the subject of immediate discussion. There are various qualifications to be attached to that doctrinequalifications according to the circumstances of the case; qualifications according, also, to the intention of the member by whom the motion is made; qualifications according to the support which that motion receives from large portions of the House; and, finally, let me add, qualifications according to the bearing of the motion upon the public interests at the time. Because it is perfectly conceivable that a vote might be moved, not like that of my noble friend, to which he disclaims attaching the character of a vote of censure, and which might receive considerable support, but for the immediate discussion ci which, nevertheless, it might be contrary to the duty of the Govern

Ilere again Mr. Gladstone speaks from the standpoint-in fact on the ground-that it rested with the Government to determine whether they would afford facilities to the Opposition. I cannot succeed in finding any case in which the parties who moved a mo

tion of want of confidence were not

willing to proceed with it. There is another occasion almost directly in point. It was in November, 1852, when the Liberal party in the House, through Mr. Villiers, while the Budget

was under consideration, made an attack on the Government of the day, proposing a series of his famous resolu tions in favour of the question of freetrade in broad terms, very much as the resolution we have on the other side in this House. That was accepted as an attack on the policy of the Government, an attack involving their existence. It

notice of motion, and an amendment came up after formal was moved to it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fate of the Government depended on that; the debate commenced on Tuesday, and I find it recorded here:-"The House adjourned "until Thursday, Wednesday being a

public day. The question was not "pressed by either party. The Govern"ment did not invite the Opposition to

proceed with the debate, and as a mat"ter of course the rights of the members "to their private day were regarded, the That I consider a case so much in "debate being adjourned till Thursday." point as to leave no doubt as to my ruling on Friday. I am glad to see by these precedents that I ruled correctly on Friday night last.

THE ST. LAWRENCE AND OTTAWA
RAILWAY ACT.

The House went into Committee of the Whole-(Mr. Burpee, Sunbury, in in the chair) to consider an Act further to amend "The St. Lawrence and Ottawa Railway Act as amended by Standing Committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines."

Mr. BLAIN said touching the 18th Section, providing that if parties holding first and second claims did not accept payment, interest should cease,

it seemed to him, that this would alter their position, and he desired to learn whether their consent had been obtained.

Hon. Mr. SMITH replied that this matter had been taken into special consideration, but on the whole it did not seem to be of sufficient importance, to prevent the object of the Bill being attained. Some persons had seven, and others, eight per cent., and some claims were drawn for seven others for eight and twenty years. On receipt of thirty days' notice they would be obliged to accept the money, and the bondholders were quite willing to take it at any time.

The Committee rose and reported, and the Bill was read the third time and passed.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' ASSOCIATION.

Mr. MACDOUGALL (Elgin) moved the second reading of the Bill intituled an Act to amend the Act to incorporate the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada.

The motion was carried.

CANADA SOUTHERN RAILWAY. Mr. OLIVER moved the second reading of the Bill intituled an Act to empower the Canada Southern Railway Company to issue preference stock. Mr. MACDOUGALL (Elgin) stated that he would have no objection to the second reading if he were permitted to make suggestions or move amendments, if advisable, when the Bill came before the House after being considered by the Railway Committee.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE thought it would be more conveninent if any objections entertained were submitted immediately, and invited the hon. inember from Oxford to explain the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. OLIVER stated that he had

informed the hon. member for Elgin

that

when the the Bill came before the Railway Committee, if he (Mr. Macdougall) had any objection to offer to it he would endeavour to obtain for him—as well as for any other person under the same circumstances a hearing. The provisions of the Bill were similar to those of Bills passed during the last Session, being simply

intended to empower the Company to issue preference stock for five millions, to be used in the payment of overdue interest and in the redemption of a certain amount of first preference bonds of a previous issue, the consent of the holders having been obtained; also for the extent of $2,500,000 in order to the issue of second preference stock to redeem $2,500,000 of similar bonds. His only object at present was to have the Bill referred to the Committee, when all objections could be consid ered.

Mr. PALMER was of opinion that it would be very much better if there was a clause permiting the consent of parties whose interests were affected in this connection.

The Bill was read the second time.

SUPPLY OF RAILS.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-Have the Government entered into any engagement with any person or persons, company or companies, in the Province of New Brunswick, to supply them with rails to promote the construction of railways; and if so, what railways, and who are the parties and companies, and what are the conditions of such arrangements?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE did not think that any such answer as was desired should be given. However, he might state that the Government had allowed the temporary use of rails by several branches, such as the Chaham branch, connecting with important points on the Intercolonial; three or four of these roads had applied for this privilege, and he proposed at an early date to bring the matter formally before Parliament.

GRAND NARROWS, NOVA SCOTIA.

Mr. TREMAINE--Is it the intention of the Government to build a pier or brakewater on the north side of the Grand Narrows, Victoria County, Nova Scotia ?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-This subject has not been under the consideration of the Government.

BRAS D'OR LAKE.

Mr. TREMAINE-Is it the intention of the Government to place buoys on the Bras D'Or Lake to mark the several shoals between Grand Narrows and Baddeck, and between Baddeck and Little Narrows, Saint Patrick's

Channel?

Hon. Mr. SMITH-I am not in the possession of sufficient information to enable me to give an answer; but I will make enquiries, and if the work is necessary it will be done.

SHIPPING CERTIFICATES.

Mr. FORBES moved for an Address to His Excellency the Governor-General for all correspondence between the Dominion Government and the

the Local Governments of the Maritime Provinces and the Dominion Government, relating to certificates of service granted by the Dominion to captains in the Merchant Service before 1871.

In explaining the motion, he said it was well known that the merchant marine had rendered good service to the State, and the motion before the House was certainly one that called for the consideration of Government. Canadian captains in English ports were met with the fact that they were unable to clear their ships with the Canadian certificate of service. In 1872 a law was passed in Canada providing that captains in the marine service of the Dominion, upon producing certificates of merit, should receive certificates of service which should carry their ships anywhere in the world. These captains had always done done their duty, and were universally regarded as competent men. The English law, on which our Statute is based, allowed English captains to take their vessels wherever they went, whereas Canadian ships were prevented from sailing from England to other ports on Canadian certificates of service. Under these circumstances Canadian seamen were labouring under a disadvantage. He could not see in what way Canadians were inferior to the masters of British ships who sailed in British vessels registered in England. Canadian vessels sailed from Dominion ports registered in the Dominion. The question arose, had the Imperial Government any control over Canadian shipping, and it was a question which was disturbing the mind of the Canadian shipping masters generally. The disability under which Canadian captains suffered was a reflection upon their seamanship. He thought that it was a subject to which the Government should give their earnest consideration, and which called for active measures on their part.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said there certainly was no objection to bringing down the papers there were on the subject, and while he thought there was some force in the remarks of his hon. friend, he did not altogether coincide with his views.

In 1854 a Bill was passed in the English Parliament authorizing the private examination masters and mates; and providing that any person having been a master on January 1, 1854, should be entitled, as a matter of right, to a certificate of service. An Act was passed in Canada in 1870 providing that masters of ships were entitled to certificates of service, as a matter of course, without any examination, on a certificate of good conduct being produced. He did not think there existed any difficulty in regard to the matter. There were very few of these certificates granted, and they were getting fewer and fewer every year. Many of the persons who held these certificates were undergoing examination for certificates of competency. He would bring down the papers at as early a day as possible.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said this was a matter of some considerable importance when legislation was going on in England affecting the merchant shipping of our country. One of the great objects we should have in view in Canada was to endeavour to get as much relief as possible from interference on the part of the Imperial Parliament. In dealing with the matter we should be able to say, we ask nothing unreasonable, and we ask nothing that you would not "be prepared to deal out to your own "people." His hon. friend from Queen's made a statement which was not quite accurate. He had said an English captain could go to any port in the world. This was not so. There were two classes of certificates issued by the Board of Trado, the first of which would enable a master to take his vessel into any port in any part of the world, while the other class applied to home vessels. Some time ago the Dominion Government applied to the British Board of Trade for permission to legislate upon this subject, and introduced a Bill into the Dominion Parliament similar to the one passed in England in 1854.

The English officials who had superintendence of the shipping interests of Great Britain did not like to give the same classification to certificates granted by Canadian authorities as to those granted by English examiners. It

took about three years to convince them that we were just as capable of conducting an examination, just as sensitive about the standing and character of our shipmasters, and just as careful in regulating our shipping interests as they were in England. While they were slow to give way, the English authorities were always prepared to concede what was fair when just reasons were put forward. He thought it would be very impolitic to ask them now to give a higher standard to our shipmasters than to others. In order to have our certificates of competency recognized in England, it was found that our examinations would need to be pretty strict, and this would be likely to exclude a considerable number of officers who had charge of ships for many years, and were good practical men though they did not possess the scientific advisable to relieve them just as was knowledge necessary. It was found done in England, not because it was thought desirable, but because it was considered unwise to throw a largenumber of men out of occupation. It must be remembered that the English Act but a small percentage of English shipwas passed in 1854, and consequently

masters of that time were alive to avail themselves of certificates of service.

Mr. MILLS-That does not affect the principle.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he was aware of that, but he conceived we were weakening our position when we asked another Government to give our certificates a higher standing than they gave their own.

Mr. FORBES-I do not ask for that.
Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said the hon.

gentleman asked for the papers for the purpose of getting these certificates recognized in England, where very few such certificates were now in force. We had made very respectable progress in obtaining independence in legislating on this subject. We had only now to ask exemption from British legislation when we had legislated for ourselves. The number of British ship masters who held certificates of service under the Act of 1854 was very small indeed, and when the hon. member for Queen's asked to have such certificates granted