come to. that territory from the importation of liquors — villainous stuff that goes under the name of "forty red," "fire water," that poisons the people and drives them crazy. But we are going to open that vast territory to the liquor traffic, and permit it to be sold without reserve. The consequence of such a step will be something terrible. an extraordinary conclusion to The Government, and both political parties, took some little credit to themselves for having established a prohibitory law in the North-West; the people have gone in and settled there on that basis; but now you are going to withdraw a considerable portion of it and add it to Manitoba an area of territory so large that Manitoba is dwarfed into the size of a county when compared with it and declare that the prohibitory law shall no longer be in force there. consider it is inconsistent on the part of the Government, and a departure from a wise policy. Hon. Mr. GIRARD . I wish to I do not go explain that I mean Manitoba as it is, within its present limits. I further than that. I suppose the part of the territories to be annexed to Manitoba should enjoy all the benefits conferred on them in the law for their organization. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL You will have the laws of Manitoba, but also those which the Parliament of the Dominion have alone power to deal with? Hon. Mr. SCOTT. No; the greater should include the less. Manitoba should, at all events, have an opportunity of pronouncing whether she shall adopt the prohibitory law or not. Here is a territory where the prohibitory law has been actually in force advisedly in force, not by the action of the people, but by the action of Parliament-and the people have gone into that territory on the faith that the prohibitory law was to be maintained there in the interests of the Indians and those who settle amongst them. The consequence of such action as is now proposed will, I believe, be fearful. If it be that the prohibition is to be abolished in that large area of territory the consequence will be something that one cannot contemplate without horror. That whole country will at once be subject to the liquor traffic. People will rush in there from all directions and liquor will be sold indiscriminately to the Indians, and the consequences will be dreadful. Hon. Mr. GIRARD I do not know what the Government will say when the Bill comes before the House. I should perfer not to have the extension without these privileges. I think that they have facilitated, up to the present time, the colonization of that territory, and if you take those privileges from them I do not know what the consequences will be. I thought I could come with confidence to this House, and ask them to confer upon Manitoba the benefits enjoyed by the North-West Territories - that is, to let the law stand as it is now. Since the passage of that Act it has been adopted by more than half of the Province of Manitoba, and before many months I am satisfied that it will be in force in three-fourths of the Province. I should be sorry to see all that work lost, and, therefore, I ask this House to exclude Manitoba from the operation of this clause which has just been incorporated in this Bill. If the House will adopt my amendment it will render a service to Manitoba, as it has often done before. The members were called in. Carvell, Hon. Mr. SCOTT-I do not think | Bull, my hon. friend ought to ask me to com- Campbell, Sir Alex. pletely sacrifice all the views I have on the subject. I think the point will be gained, and we will be but doing an act of justice if we comply with the suggestion of the hon. member from Manitoba. Hon. Mr. BELLEROSE - Even though the hon. leader of the Opposition had consented to let the Bill pass without further opposition, I do not know that he has the right to bind anybody else. I do not feel myself bound by any such arrangement, and will move any amendment I see fit. Hon. Mr. SCOTT called for the ayes and noes on the motion that the Bill be read the third time. The Senate divided on the motion, which was agreed to by the following vote :— Almon, Bourinot, Bull, CONTENTS: Hon. Messrs. Campbell, Sir Alex., Hon. Mr. DICKEY I made the Boucherville, de, suggestion in the interest of peace. The House will understand the spirit in which it has been met, and will under stand the necessity under the circumstances of voting down the amendment Cornwall, which has been offered, an amendment which I was desirous, personally, of securing, if it was to put an end to the discussion. Hon. Mr. GIRARD I offered the amendment on my own personal responsibility, and was surprised when the hon. member from Ottawa did me the honor of seconding it. I did not speak to any body on the subject of my amendment. Dever, Aikins, Chapais, Scott, Stevens, The Senate divided on the amendment, which was rejected by the following Girard, Trudel, vote: Grant, Haythorne, Vidal, Wark-21. McLelan (Londonderry) an explanation with regard to a question of order. I was not aware that when a member paired with another member of the House with reference to his vote on a particular question that he was thereby debarred either from appearing in the House, or, if he appeared, from speaking on the question. Such has not been, so far as I can recollect, the practice of this House or of the House of Commons; since I have spoken, however, I have had an opportunity of seeing a paragraph in May in reference to the subject, from which it would appear, though not very clearly, that this is the practice in the House of Lords. If, therefore, I have unwittingly offended against a rule of the House, I apologize for doing so, and particularly to the hon. member from Halifax. THE PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT. SIXTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. Hon. Mr. SIMPSON moved the adoption of the sixth report of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament. He explained that it was one of the ordinary reports recommending the printing of certain documents. The motion was agreed to. ADDITIONAL JUDGES IN QUEBEC BILL. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL moved the second reading of Bill (58) "An Act to provide for the salaries of an additional Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, and an additional Judge of the Superior Court, in the Province of Quebec." The Bill was read the second time. drawn from the country, to have an agency in the province where they had done business, so that any judicial proceedings might be served upon them. The Bill was read the second time. ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RAILWAY COMPANY'S BILL. FIRST AND SECOND READING. Bill (23) "An Act to incorporate the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company," from the House of Commons, was introduced and read the first time. Hon. Mr. ALLAN moved the suspension of the 41st Rule, in order that the Bill might be advanced another stage. The motion was agreed to and the Bill was read the second time. BILLS INTRODUCED. Bill (57) "An Act to provide for the correspondence of certain provisions of the Act respecting the navigation of Canadian waters, with the provisions for like purposes in force in the United Kingdom."(Mr. Aikins.) Bill (76) "An Act relating to the CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN DISPUTED TER- Canada Military Asylum in Quebec." RITORY BILL. THIRD READING. to Hon. Mr. AIKINS moved the second reading of Bill (64) "An Act continue in force for a limited the Act 43rd Vic., chap. 36." (Mr. Aikins.) A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Before the ad time journment, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that my name has a second time been left out of the The Bill was read the second and the division list. I would not have paid any third time and passed. GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY BILL. SECOND READING. Hon. Mr. FERRIER moved the sec attention to the matter if a correspon- ond reading of Bill (21) "An Act re- Canada." The Bill was read the second time. CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE ACT SECOND READING. Hon. Mr. BELLEROSE moved the second reading of Bill (P) "An Act to amend the Consolidated Insurance Act, 1877." He said the object of the Bill was to require foreign companies that had done business in Canada, but with I was here, not only on that occasion, but I have voted in every division that has taken place this session. The Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m. THE SENATE. p.m. Prayers and routine proceedings. 14,146,919 cwt. £5,542,503 Or 33,030,727 34-48 bushels. The Canadian exports of barley in 1880 were: To the United States...... 6,732,403 bushels. To Great Britain.. 488,623 He said: I should like to say a few words before making this inquiry of the Government. It is within the knowledge of the House, no doubt, that the excise duty is collected on beer in the United States, and not on malt. Last year a bill valued at $4,482,585. Up to the preswas introduced by the British Govern-ent time I find that there has been no ment in the same direction and it was carried through Parliament, so that at the present time in England the excise duty is collected on beer instead of malt, and has been since October last. Those who have been watching the proceedings in the United States Congress will have observed that for two sessions at least, if not longer, there has been an agitation there to increase the duty upon malt entering the United States. There are two parties interested in this movement the brewers aud the malusters. In this country maltsters are generally brewers as well, but in the United States they are two distinct interests, as there are very few cases in which the brewers make their own malt. The brewers are purchasers of malt, hence it is to their advantage that malt should be allowed to come into the country under as low a duty as possible. It is owing to the opposition of the brewers that the duty on malt has not been increased. That it will yet be increased I have no doubt, and my object in asking this question is to draw the attention of the Government to the matter, so that, when we are prevented from entering the United States market, we may possibly have a market in England under the alteration of the law in the Mother Country. There is no reason that I can see why we should not send malt to England as well as barley. The quantity of barley im malt imported into England. The reason for that is obvious when you come to look at the import and excise duty. In the first place, foreign barley was not as good as the native grain, and then it had to bear high rates of import and excise duties. The malt duty was three shillings a bushel, and the only return I cau find of imports was one of five quarters of malt imported from France in 1878. Last year we exported to the United States 37,988,788 pounds of malt, valued at $843,132. It may be expected that we will soon have the British market open to us for the export of malt. I think it is open to us already, and there is no reason why we should not sell a large quantity of malt in England. My reason for making the inquiry of which I gave notice is that maltsters may know whether under this change of circumstances they are to be relieved of this excise duty. It is true that they get a drawback on the malt they export, but the trade is burdened with troublesome and expensive regulations. If it would answer the exchequer as well, it would be a great convenience to free this industry, for which the markets of the United States and England are open, and collect the duty from beer instead. Hon. Mr. AIKINS The statisticsgiven by my hon. friend are very interesting, and I presume that many hou. as it is at present. The matter has engaged the attention of the Department, and I quite agree with my hon. friend that, in consequence of the English market being opened to us to send malt there, every facility should be afforded to maltsters to make malt with as little trouble and expense to themselves as possible. The barley interest is a large one in this country, and the Government are quite alive to the necessity of seeing that the trade is not hampered in any way whatever. It is not, however, the intention of the Government to make the change to which my hon. friend has alluded. members of this Hcuse were not aware | diminished, while the amount of illicit of the extent to which the barley trade is distillation would be ten times as large carried on in this country as well as in other countries, and the amount of malt that is used in England for brewing purposes, perhaps more than for purposes of food. There is this difficulty, however, in making the change designated by the hon. gentleman in his speech: It is true that in the United States the excise duty is levied on beer instead of malt, but I think it is admitted, even in that country, that about forty per cent. of the duty is lost. That is the opinion of those who are most conversant with the trade there. In England, which is a very thickly peopled country, and where an excise officer is found in almost every neighborhood, there would be less difficulty in seeing that the duty is collected on the beer than in the United States. But I may state to my hon. friend that, although the present Administration in England has thought proper to make a change and collect the duty on beer rather than on malt, it was done for reasons other than the hon. gentleman supposed. It was understood that the cost of collecting that duty would be largely increased, and one of the first things that was done was to appoint about 300 additional excise officers to attend the breweries and see that the duty would be properly collected. Now my hon. friend says it is rather harassing to have restrictions placed on the production of malt. It is very true, but if the change he desires were made it would be transferred from the maltsters to the brewers. At present there is very little attention paid to the brewers. The malt houses have to be watched very closely, and the necessity for it is very great, particularly in a sparsely settled country like this. It is a dif The moment you allow malt to go out, then you afford every opportunity for those who wish to indulge in illicit distilling, About fifty dollars will enable any tinsmith to get up sufficient apparatus to enable a man to distil spirits if he has the malt, but the difficulty is to get the malt. ficult matter in a country like this, where you have any amount of unoccupied territory, such as woods and swamps, to prevent illicit distilleries from being carried on, and if the duty was taken off the malt and placed on beer our revenue would be very much Hon. Mr. READ-I can quite understand the necessity there is in England to employ three hundred officers more to look after the brewers than the maltsters, because in the part of England from which I came nearly every person brews. A farmer would almost as soon think of going into the farming business without a plough as without brewing utensils. In England the law is such that a person occupying a house worth less than ten pounds a year does not pay any duty on the beer he brews, and I do not think he has to take out a license. Licenses are issued for six shillings to those who brew for their own use on a larger scale, but not for sale, SO that you can easily see why so many officers are required to look after brew. ers in England. I think the hon. gentleman's remarks about illicit distillation in this country are rather far fetched, betion of malt - I think about 220 lbs. of cause although it does take a small pormalt to 17,000 or 18,000 lbs. of grainalmost anybody can make it if he choose. |