contended for was that Canadian ships should not be included in the general mass of British ships in British legislation, that Canadians should legislate for theirs, and that the British legislation for Canadian shipping in British ports should be identical with that for foreign shipping. If the Parliament of this country were left to regulate our own shipping affairs in our own interest, to see that the lives and property of Canadian subjects were safe, and that our ships went to sea in a proper condition, the result would be that an impetus would be given to this trade, as we had the people and the material out of which to build up a splendid navy.

Hon. Mr. SMITII said it was neces sary for him to make a few observations in consequence of the remarks of the speakers who preceded him. He understood the hon. member for St. John to say that the Bill which is now before the British

House of Commons making it a misdemeanour for any persons who are guilty of sending an unseaworthy ship to sea was an outrage.

Mr. PALMER said that was not his objection; what he considered the outrage was throwing the onus of proof of his innocence on the proprietor of

the vessel.

IIon. Mr. SMITII said a law identical with it had been on the Statute Book of this Dominion for two years.

The hon. member for St. John was in error in supposing we had the power of coasting trade prior to 1869. Since 1853, and up to 1869, it was regulated by Imperial legislation. In the latter year an Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament authorizing this Dominion to exercise that power, and unless they did so, the coasting trade of this country would be thrown open to the world. His predecessor was in office at the time, and exercised the power given by the Imperial Government. The hon. gentleman scemed to think, under responsible Government, the Imperial authorities. had no power to legislate for our vessels in ports of the United Kingdom. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-I never said that.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said in the Act relating to Masters and Mates, the hon. gentleman, instead of exercising the right which he contended we possess, to legislate for ourselves, stated expressly under Her Majesty's will that Act should remain in suspension; and now he claimed that England had no right to legislate for our shipping in her ports.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-What I said was that England, having given us the right to deal with shipping, she ought

not and would not interfere with it if proper representations were made.

Hon. Mr. SMITH asked if the hon. gentleman claimed by the British North 'America Act that right was given to us, why did he suspend the operation. of laws passed by this Parliament.?

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-I will give the reasons for it.

Hon. Mr. SMITII called his hon. friend's attention to the Act relating to the shipping of seamen, which also contained a suspending clause. If we had the right claimed by him, why did he abandon it in both of these Acts? In the measures relating to deck-loads and the loading of grain, the hon. member claimed the right to legislate for English vessels in our ports, yet he denied the right of England to legislate for our vessels in her ports.

in favour of the establishment of a He (Mr. Smith) had always been Canadian Lloyds, but he could not deny there was a widespread feeling among ship-owners against it.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-The hon.

gentleman is mistaken.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said if the hon. Marine Department he would find the gentleman could see the fyles in the great majority of the ship-owners were hesitate not to say it was on that account very much opposed to it, and he did Not six weeks ago a large meeting of he had refused to put the Act in force. ship-owners was held in St. John, at which there was an almost unanimous expression of opinion against the ostab lishment of a Canadian Lloyds. He asked this House whether the Government had not shown prudence in yielding to that sentiment.

The hon. gentleman who now wanted exemption altogether for our own .

shipping, simply asked in his dispatch to the Imperial Government that Canadian vessels be exempted for twelve months. Notwithstanding that the present Government forwarded a dispatch asking that the Imperial legislation should not affect Canadian shipping, but it had no effect, because last Session a Bill was passed ignoring altogether our request. On reflection he (Mr. Smith) did not think it reasonable to ask England to exempt Canadian shipping.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-Why did you do it, then?

Hon. Mr. SMITH-I have explained the circumstances. We found the remonstrances of the Government of this country had no effect.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-Because you did not follow them up.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said he had followed them up, but notwithstanding that, the British Government passed their Bill without regarding them. Mr. Plimsoll seemed to have control of the public mind, and even of Parliament, notwithstanding the powerful influence of the British ship-owners.

He believed Mr. Plimsoll was the cause of the adoption of the present Bill and some of its provisions were forced on the Government. He (Mr. Smith) did not think it would be in the interest of Canadian ship-owners to exempt them from Imperial legislation, and was satisfied it would be unwise to separate the Flag, because they knew the prestige it gave them in foreign countries, and whenever English ships got into trouble in foreign waters they only had to appeal to the British Consul for assistance. He could not see that the Bill contained any provisions that were inimical to the shipping of Canada. He did not hesitate to say that if they would only make the law applicable to foreign ships it would be a great benefit. The marked feeling which existed in England was not engendered by Canadian ships. When a Canadian ship got unseaworthy she was sent to England, sold and transferred to the English register. The matter of The matter of load-lines was one of some inconvenience, but it was not a great hardship. It was simply a contract

into the

be

between the owner of the ship and the sailor. Then as to the deck-line there was no hardship and it gave very little trouble. Another objection was that the vessels were subject to survey and inspection by officers appointed by the Board of Trade. One quarter of the sailors could detain a vessel on complaint, but in Canada we also had a law by which a quarter of the sailors could detain a ship. Then a foreign vessel coming into port of Montreal could supervised by the Port Warden. Therefore no objection could be offered to the two last regulations which were to be found on the Canadian Statute Book. Ships coming from England to Canada were subject to the laws of the Dominion, and why should Canadians ask that their ships should be free from English legislation in English ports? The despatch dated the 18th of February, and forwarded to England, had met with general approval throughout the whole Dominion, and by the ship-owners in almost every part of it. It seemed to him that the true interest of the ship-owners should be to ask the British Government to make no special discrimination between foreign Canadian shipping, and to approve of the amendment which had been offered to the House.

and

Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN said he thought the hon. member for Kent, when he asked them to endorse every word in the despatch of the 8th February, was asking too much. He was sure three-fourths of the House had never read the dsspatch.

Hon. Mr. SMITH-They ought to have done so.

Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN-No doubt; but the hon. gentleman knew that there were many other despatches and documents which are not read. Members have not and cannot get time for the task. The despatch would not appear in the journals, and out of 206 members they would not find twenty who would be able to lay their hands on it and give their reasons for voting. He moved the following amendment to the amendment:-That all words after "that

in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted: "In the opinion of this House it is

"desirable that the Government should continue the efforts made by the late and present Governments to insure "the exemption of Canadian shipping "from the effects of Imperial legisla"tion calculated to place Canadian shipping at a disadvantage with foreign ships in British and foreign "waters."

on

Mr. PALMER stated that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had made a rather fierce and entirely uncalled for attack on him. He was surprised at the position the hon. gentleman had taken with regard to the legal question. He, of He, of course, admired the extraordinary knowledge of the lawyer, but they all knew that the privileges granted foreign vessels with regard to the coasting trade, and the rights of foreign ships in British waters, were entirely a matter of Imperial legislation. Another of the hon. gentleman's arguments had been equally abstruse to the effect that legislation this subject was to be reserved for the special assent of the Queen in Council. He had never heard before the argument that a subject concerning which the Canadian Parliament had power to act without any delay, should be so reserved. He had imagined that the greatest tyro in the world would have known more of constitutional law. He had been misrepresented touching another matter. The hon. gentleman had said that he held that the Imperial Government had no power to legislate with reference to ships in their own waters. So far from this being the case, he had declared the very opposite over and over again. Canadians should have the exclusive right of legislation with reference to Canadian shipping; this ought not to be left in the charge of persons who had no interest in, and who might have interests which are entirely hostile to it. The English ship-owners invested in iron, and the Candians in wooden ships. The Imperial Parliament had control over British ships everywhere, and the result might be that if Canada legislated in this relation, we might have laws entirely dissimilar and antagonistic to those of Great Britain.

Hon. Mr. SMITHI said notwithstanding the very lucid and clear exposition

of our constitutional rights of the hon. member for St. John, who spoke ex cathedra on this very important question, he did not explain the point he took. Since the establishment of Responsible Government the various British possessions in America had the right to deal with the subject and exercise the right of exclusively legislating with relation to British shipping. England did not legislate in Canada with reference to foreign ships in our waters; we had this matter in our own hands. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-By the passage of an Imperial Act?

Hon. Mr. SMITH-Certainly. When the hon. gentleman said the Queen has power to disallow any Act, that was, of course, very important information. The hon. gentleman did not seem to know the distinction between the right of disallowing an Act and one with which there is connected a suspending clause. As to the amendment, it really did not cover the ground. While in the abstract it was very well, the hon. member would recognise that it was confined to a particular point. The hon. member had read various suggestions from the despatch in ques tion, but he might say that these had received the approval of the shipowners of the whole Dominion.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-Of a few ship-owers of St. John.

Пon. Mr. SMITH—Of St. John and of the whole Dominion.

not

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE thought it very desirable that the House should come to a conclusion in this connection, consistent with the provisions of the British North America Act, and satisfactory to the general sense of the House and of the country. However, as the debate had occupied a great deal of time, as those who were experts in the matter of ship-building had very little opportunity for saying anything at all on the subject, as it was late and another motion would on the morrow probably occupy a little more of their time than they could spare for this purpose every night, actuated by a wish to arrive at a satisfactory result, he moved the adjournment of the debate. The debate was accordingly adjourned.

The House ajourned at Twenty minutes past Eleven p.m.

!

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, March 14, 1876. The SPEAKER took the chair at Three p. m.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK moved that the petition of Frank Smith and others of the City of Toronto, praying for an Act of Incorporation under the name of the British Canadian Loan and Trust Company be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, in conformity with the recommendation of the said Committee in the report presented to-day.

The motion was carried.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. YOUNG (Waterloo)-An Act to Incorporate the British Canadian Loan and Investment Company, (Limited.)

Mr. CURRIER-An Act to Amend the Act incorporating the Ottawa Gas Company, to confirm the resolution of their shareholders placing the preferential and ordinary stock on the same footing; and to confirm, amend and extend their corporate powers.

Mr. VAIL-To Amend Acts therein mentioned respecting Militia and Defense in the Dominion of Canada.

Mr. CURRIER-Explain.

Mr. VAIL said the Bill explained itself. It was intended to amend the clause that made it incumbent on the Government to make an enrollment of militia during the present year. It was proposed in this Bill to defer the enrollment until 1880, and that enrollments should take place every five

years.

Mr. DEVEBER-TO incorporate the Maritime Savings and Loan Company.

Mr. NORRIS-To change the name of the Security Permanent Building and Savings Society of St. Catharines to that of the Security Loan and Savings Company.

Mr. CAMERON (Cardwell) moved the suspension of the rules in order to enable him to introduce a Bill to incorporate the Synod of the Church of England in the Diocese of Rupert's Land.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-An Act to amend the Railway Act of 1868.

Mr. BOWELL-What is the nature of the Bill ?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the

the appointment of a third arbitrator object of the Bill was to provide for under certain contingencies not provided against in the existing law.

VIOLENCE, THREATS AND MOLESTATIONS.

The House went into Committee on Bill to amend the Criminal Law relating to violence, threats and molesta tions; Mr. Mills in the Chair.

On the second clause,

Hon. Mr. BLAKE said he had decided not to adopt the suggestions of his hon. friends from Kingston and Cardwell with respect to this clause. He entirely agreed with them as to the importance of preserving to the minority of any trade or occupation its liberties against an improper assertion of the so-called rights of the union or majority, and he would always be ready while he sat in this House to sustain any legislation that time might determine to be necessary for that purpose; but this House might be for a real and admitted evil. As far as averse to enact special legislation unless he knew there was no reason to apprehend that this clause would be inadequate.

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

CROSSING NAVIGABLE RIVERS.

The Bill to make provision for the crossing of navigable waters by railway or other road companies incorporated under Provisional Acts, was read

the second time.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE suggested that the Bill should be referred to to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Tele graphs.

Mr. PALMER said this was a very important Bill and might, if passed, have the effect of injuring the navigation of certain rivers.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE said he was aware of the importance of the Bill, and his reason for referring to the Standing Committee was to have these clauses thoroughly considered. Of course it could be fully discussed afterwards in.. the House.