an extraordinary conclusion to come 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. - 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. Hon. Mr. GIRARD I wish to 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. SCOTT The Government do not say so. 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. Campbell, Sir Alex. Hon. Mr. SCOTT-I do not think | Bull, my hon. friend ought to ask me to completely 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 sug. gestion 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. Cornwall, Kaulbach, Montgomery, Ryan, Simpson.-24. 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. Gibbs, Hamilton (Inkerman), Howlan, Campbell, Sir Alex., Lewin, 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 circum- Carvell, stances of voting down the amendment Cornwall, which has been offered, an amendment Dever, which I Dickey, was desirous, personally, of securing, if it was to put an end to the discussion. Dickson, Aikins, Montgomery, Odell, Ryan, Simpson.-25. The Senate divided on the amendment, which was rejected by the following Girard, Grant, The Bill was then read the third time and passed. Hon. Mr. ALLAN - I wish to offer 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 | drawn from the country, to have an unwittingly offended against a rule of the agency in the province where they had House, I apologize for doing so, and par-done business, so that any judicial proticularly to the hon. member from Hal-ceedings might be served upon them. ifax. 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. 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. Hon. Mr. AIKINS moved the second reading of Bill (64) "An Act to continue in force for a limited time the Act 43rd Vic., chap. 36." (Mr. Aikins.) A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Before the adjournment, 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. attention to the matter if a correspon- The Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m. THE SENATE. p.m. Prayers and routine proceedings. is collected on beer in the United States. ment in the same direction and it was 6,732,403 bushels. 488,623 Up to the prestime I find that there has been no 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 shil 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, iflings a bushel, and the only return I can 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 maltsters. 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 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 think it is open to us already, and there open to us for the export of malt. I 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. diminished, while the amount of illicit distillation would be ten times as large 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. stand the necessity there is in England Hon. Mr. READ - I can quite underto 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 the beer he brews, and I do not think he pounds a year does not pay any duty on has to take out a license. Licenses are issued for six shillings to those who members of this Hcuse were not aware 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 brewers in England. I think the hon. gentleman's remarks about illicit distillation in this country are rather far fetched, betion of malt cause although it does take a small porI think about 220 lbs. of malt to 17,000 or 18,000 lbs. of grain-almost anybody can choose. -- Hon. Mr. REESOR make it if he I am very glad the hon. gentleman from Belleville has called the attention of the House to this question. I think, so far as possible, the Government ought always to allow the manufacture of malt for a foreign market to be as free and as little restricted as possible. So it is. Hon. Mr. AIKINS Hon. Mr. REESOR The hon. gentleman says "so it is," but he must bear in mind that those who engage in the manufacture of malt do not want to be |