Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said he had no objection to that.

The motion was then carried, and the House adjourned at half-past twelve.

SENATE.

TUESDAY, May 21.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at three o'clock.

After presentation of petitions

DIVORCE.

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Select Committee, reported that one of the witnesses called to give evidence respecting the divorce case, refused to be sworn. He then moved that Mr. Lount was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and that he be taken into custody by the Gentleman Usher under warrant of the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST ob. jected to the manner in which the case had been presented to the House, inasmuch as the petition and bill had been intro duced by a member of the Government, who was also chairman of the Committee which was acting as a judicial tribunal, He also objected to having the case again brought up after it had been more than once dealt with by the Senate.

Hon. Mr. CHRISTIE took similar ground, referring to Todd's Parliamentary Practice, Vol. 2.

Hon. Mr. ODELL took a different view, and urged that such an objection ought to have been made previously, but in any case that was not the proper stage at which to bring up such a point.

Hon. Mr. WILMOT exonerated the chairman from having in any way whatever attempted to influence the Committee.

Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON said the House was entirely deviating from the actual question under consideration-the assertion of the privileges of the Senate.

Hon. M. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST did not intend to say that the least undue influence was used by the Chairman.

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL perfectly under stood that.

Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST acknowledged the ability of the Postmaster General to act as chairman, but he wished to establish a principle in accordance with the usages of the House of

would withdraw from the Committee.

Hon. Messrs. WARK and BOTSFORD said it would now be very inconvenient to alter personnel of Committee, though it might be well to establish a principle for future guidance as soon as a similar case arose hereafter.

Question was postponed in order to allow the minutes to be laid before the House, giving rea on why witness refused to be sworn.

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL said that he had been guided solely by the desire to assist in establishing precedents for the future in connection with a matter new to the House. He only assumed such a position temporarily until the House came to a decision as to the proper course to be pursued in relation to such questions here<< after. It was, however, purely chemerical to argue that he could exercise any undue influence on the Committee. He had simply charged himself with it as a matter of duty and in the interests of the House for the reasons given.

INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD asked why the Intercolonial Railway, between Amherst and Truro, was not opened for traffic at the time stated by the Government it would be, and when it is probable such portion of the Railway will be opened?

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL replied that he was informed that the road will be probably opened early in July or August.

Hon Mr. DICKEY said that the Postmaster General was a month earlier than the Commissioners, who said September. better say September. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. CAMBPELL-Then we had

Hon, Mr. McLELAN alluded to the heavy bridging, tunnelling, and grading on the line, and explained that the road was rapidly drawing to completion, as it was nearly ready for the track.

Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE was glad to hear hopes held out that the line would be soon opened.

Hon. Mr. DICKEY said the general expectation of the public had not been sat-isfied but the difficulty arose from the loIcation of the route with which the Commissioners had nothing to do. He found by the report of the Commissioners that all the money had been paid to contractors six weeks before for work which was not nearly completed.

INDEMNITY, &c.

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL moved the fol lowing resolution:

That the Clerk be instructed to lay before the

Senate, at the commencement of every session, a statement of the Indemnity and mileage paid to Senators for the last session; and until further orders, to deliver to the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons charged with the audit of the Treasury accounts a copy of any such statement, whenever he may deem it necessary to apply for the same.-Carried.

QUARANTINE.

On motion of Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL the Quarantine Bill was read a third time, an amendment having been made by the Government with the view of preventing the introduction of disease by peltries, furs, &c., as suggested by one of the mem. bers from Manitoba on a previous occasion.

RAILWAY BILL.

On motion of Hon. Mr. FERRIER, the Grand Trunk Railway and International Bridge Agreement Bill was read a third time.

DOMINION NOTES.

The House then went into Committee on the Dominion Notes Bill.-Hon. Mr. SHAW in the Chair.

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL said that he had expressed his opinion on the previous day when some hon. gentlemen had argued in favor of a 40 per cent. reserve, that the Finance Minister was not wedded particularly to the 20 per cent. He had said so because he had believed from the Finance Minister's remarks elsewhere that he did Į not intend to keep only 20 per cent. but that on the contrary he would always keep a larger sum. On consultation with the Finance Minister, he had come to the conclusion that 35 per cent. would be a fair sum to have, and accordingly he would move to alter the bill to that effect. Of course, the sum in reserve would always, for the reasons he had given on a previous day, amount to very little below fifty per cent. It should be remembered that the larger notes issued by the Banks were never issued except for gold, and the House was only called upon to legislate with reference to the small notes; and as respects the limitation of the issue, he did not think it necessary, for the Government would only issue the notes through the banks and could not go beyond the re quirements of the country.

Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON expressed the gratification he felt at the announcement of the Postmaster General.

Hon. Mr. SANBORN said that it had been quite manifest to those engaged in business throughout the country that there had been a great scarcity of notes of a small denomination. The amendment, however, now proposed, seemed to him to be rather in the interest of the banks than

in that of the public; for he did not see that there was to be any security that the smaller notes would be put into circulation.

Hon. Mr. TESSIER did not consider that the amendment was an improvement, so far as the original intention of the Bill was concerned. The $9,000,000 provided for originally would have been quite sufficient for general business if the notes had been circulated, but the banks had kept them locked up hecause they wished to give circulation to their own notes of four dollars and upwards. The object of the present Bill was to remedy this state of things, but he did not believe it would be accomplished to the extent anticipated. If the Finance Minister had been allowed to deposit a certain amount of these notes with the different banks, for which he was to receive no interest, then the banks would find it to their profit to circulate them. On the other hand, if Government took away from the banks the interest they had in circulating those notes you defeated the object of the Bill. The double liability of the bank, was a better security than the additional 15 per cent. imposed by the amendment.

Hon. Mr. WARK made some remarks but he was only imperfectly heard.

Hon. Mr. BENSON said that he had always been opposed to the principle of the Bill-the issue of Dominion notes. He had every confidence in the present Finance Minister, but we should guard against the future in legislating for the monetary concerns of the country. He did not think the bill was much improved, and regretted the issue of notes was not limited.

Hon. Mr. NORTHUP reiterated the opinion that the measure would be bene. ficial to public of Nova Scotia, inasmuch as a large amount of notes would certainly go into circulation.

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL said that certainly no one could accuse the present Finance Minister of a desire of favoring Banking institutions. He was sure that smaller notes would get into circulation, and if any difficulty should arise on ac count of the Banks not lending their assistance - he did not apprehend that— then the Government would take steps to remedy it.

Hon. Mr. SIMPSON believed that the Government had acted prudently in meeting the views of hon. gentlemen and would be glad were they also to limit the issue of the notes.

After a few remarks from Hon. Mr. WILMOT,

The Bill was passed in Committee,

INSOLVENCY LAWS.

The next order of the day, the Bill to repeal the Insolvency Laws (from the House of Commons) was then taken up. Hon. Mr. SANBORN said that he deemed it advisable to make a few observations in moving the second reading of a Bill which had created a good deal of discussion throughout the country. The Insolvency laws, as they existed in the Dominion of Canada, had been in force for three years; and substantially they were in operation since 1864 in the united Province of Canada. It was urged that a law regulating the affairs between debtor and creditor was necessary for the interests of trade and commerce, and that it should be of a permanent character. That was, however, a subject of debate; no laws in Englaud or the United States relative to bankruptcy had been of a permanent character, but liable to change. At present the Insolvency laws of England, of the United States, and of France, were all widely different from one another; they were based upon different principles and started from a different stand point. The proposition was laid down in England that the object of a bankrupt law is this, that you should as cheaply and as fairly as practicable divide the property of the Insolvent among his creditors; but there was no recognition whatever of any rights on the part of the debtor. In former days we had imprisonment for debt in Canada; it also existed in England and the United States; but it had long since been repealed and was now regarded as a relic of barbarism. Since the remov. al of that law from the Statute Book, a very different view has been taken with regard to the treatment which should be meted out to those who are unfortunate in business. In the United States they laid down these principles-that the intent of a Bankruptcy law is to divide as fairly and as speedily as possibly the property of an Insolvent among his creditors, and provide at the same time for the relief of the Insolvent. Our law went further than either in England or the United States, its object, above all others, seemed to be to protect the Insolvent. The causes that led to its adoption was the state of the country at the time, on account of a panic which had left many persons embarrassed ; and it became necessary to enact a law to afford relief to such individuals, and enable them to start anew. The law was really intended to deal with a temporary state of things; it relieved the parties in question, and he was not prepared to say that it was not advisable to legislate for them; but it

should be remembered that the law was intended for an exceptional order of cir cumstances and ought not to beër general application, when those circumstances no longer existed. It had been urged in the press and elsewhere that the hostility to the law emanated chiefly from that much abused class-the legal profession; but so far as it was concerned, it was really divided on the question. In need not be urged that any measure which led to complications and disputes, was really an advantage to the profession. Now the Insolvency law was really of a hybrid character-not calculated to be permanent nor to be incorporated into our jurispru dence. It has been fraught with results to the whole country injurious in the extreme. He denied that the principal opposition came from the rural districts; for he found that the gentlemen who came from the cities were as much divided in opinion as members of the legal pro fession. He found that the mercantile community in the cities was divided; for instance, he had before him a petiton from the largest city of the Dominion, containing seventy names of wholesale dealers in favour of the repeal of the law. He knew from personal intercourse with Montreal merchants that many of them are decidedly opposed to the statutethat they have as hearty an aversion to it as any class of persons in the country. He was aware that some Boards of Trade had given an opinion in favor of the continuance of the law, subject to amendment, but on looking into the matter he saw that the Dominion Board of Trade were actually divided on the question. The majority favored the law when amended, while a minority of 13 voted for its repeal. He maintained that the rural districts had a right to speak on a question of this kind, for they were the feeders of our commerce. The retail business stimulated our trade, and acted a very important part in working out the prosperity of the country. The retailers were the small rills running in the rivers, which flow steadily onward and make up the great ocean of commerce. He referred to the evils arising from certain unscrupulous traders who manage somehow to get goods on credit, and come into the rural districts to compete with legitimate trade. They would sell their goods at a price no honest trader could put theirs at; and after a few years, when the wholesale dealer was becoming impatient for pay. ment, they would say:-"If you do not press me, I will pay you, but otherwise I must go into bankruptcy The merchant at last would be compelled to force pay