Montreal herald and daily commercial gazette, 26 juillet 1858, lundi 26 juillet 1858

[" ïwïuïii anuL» SîiSAM SOUK & JOB PBlSTifi OfflCl No.^09 Notre Sîame Street, (Near St.Francois Xavier St.,) MONTREAL.THE Proprietor of this Establishment begs to inform his friends and the public in general, that having ENLARGED his STOCK of PRINTING MATERIALS, STEAM PRESSES* &c., he is now prepared to undertake every description of Printing, such as Books, Pamphlets, Magazines, Insurance Policies, Programmes, Catalogues, Posting Bills, Hand Bills, Railway Bills, Steamboat Bills, Circulars, Invitation and Funeral Letters, Druggists and other Labels Military Forms of every description, &c., with despatch, and at the LOWEST CITY PRICES.SCf* Business Cards neatly and promptly executed.JAMES POTTS, Jan.26.\t22 PAlUMimiï IttLlMM.\u201c\u201c'LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.Thursday, July 22, 1858.The SPEAKER took the chair at 10 o\u2019clock.CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES.Oq motion of Hon.Mr.CAYLEY the bill to amend the law relative to duties of Customs and Excise and to impose new duties, and also to impose a tonnage duty and a duty on Tavern-keepers,\u2014was read a second time.QUEBEC HARBOR.The amendments to the Quebec Harbor Bill, made in the Legislative Council were then read and agreed to.SURROGATE COURT.tne uui lu aixiouux _______\u201eol \\r A nnON- isdiction and procedure of several Surrogate Courts in Upper Canada,\u2014was received.COBOURG AND PETERBOROUGH RAILWAY.The bill to enable the Cobourg and Peterborough Railway to issue preferential bonds, and for other purposes, was considered iu Committee.The Committee rose and reported the bill.Report received.VILLAGE OP PEMBROKE.The amendments to the Pembroke Incorporation Bill (made in Council) were concurred in.REGISTRY OFFICES.The House then went into committee on the bill to provide for the establishment of Registry offices in cities, towns, counties and ridings of counties in Upper Canada, (from Legislative Council.) After some slight discussion the committee rose and reported.On the question of concurrence in the report, Mr.HARTMAN\" moved in amendment that the first clause be altered to the following effect That no new Registry Office shall be established by the Government in any junior county or riding of a county, or city, unless a majority of the reeves and deputy reeves of the junior county or riding of county, or the Council of such city shall give to their establishment and shall provide suitable fireproof offices to ensure their safety.Mr.BROWN approved of the amendment, but disapproved of the large amount of patronage given the Government by the present measure.The amendment was lost on a division :\u2014 Yeas, 24; Nays, 46.Mr.WALLBRIDGE then moved that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of addino- a clause to the effect that the office of registrar m the different counties and ridings be elective.Mr.J.S.MACDONALD said this bill would only increase the Government patronage.He was sick and tired of the present state of things, and it was, he believed, such as must eventually lead to a dissolution of the existing relations between the Provinces.After some further discussion the House adjourned\u2014it being one o\u2019clock.The SPEAKER o\u2019clock.Mr.MO WAT presented a petition from cer-inhabitants in Toronto, praying for such an alteration in the law as will enable merchants ^ltles t0 collect debts from County Court took tlie Chair at three inteh-colo railway.ro® I-,\u2014\u2014ltselt mio t0 «D\t\u201c>tain resoluti°ns in uter-colomal railway.VOLUME L for the third reading of it.But it did not go far enough and hoped yet to see the amendments made.Mr.DUNKIN gave his reasons for supporting the measure.Attorney General MACDONALD said he did not intend to reply to the member for South Oxford in the manner that he had spoken.They all agreed the bill was a good one ; but his hon friends opposite thought it did not go tar enough.For his part he was not prepared jto extend the bill any farther at present.Mr.BROWN said a few words on the question ; after which.Hou.M.SICOTTE showed that the member for South Oxford in his deeds belied his words, for he invariably voted against the majority of Lower Canada members in matters purely af-fecting'|that section of the country.(Hear.) The hon.member no doubt read the bills carefully and voted according to his own understanding.[Laughter.] Why then should Lower Cana-jectett Dy ao to as.- ° On the motion for the third reading the Opposition seemed unwilling to have a vote taken.It was, however, insisted upon.The whole House then voted for the bill.TONNAGE ON SHIPPING, &C.On the motion for the third reading of the bill to amend the law relative to duties of Customs and of Excise, and to impose new duties, and also to impose a tonnage duty and a duty on tavern keepers, Mr.CAUCHON moved in amendment that no tax be imposed on shipping coming by sea to the St.Lawrence._ Attorney General CARTIER argued that the charge could not be regarded as oppressive, considering the facilities which had been rendered to the shipping in the Gulf and River St.Lawrence by means oi light-house?, buoys, &c., thus ensuring safety and reducing insurance.Mr.DORION said that the dtity would encumber the commerce not only of Canada but of the west, which latter would greatly enrich Canada if properly encouraged.We ought to reduce the St.Lawrence freight as much as possible in order to compete successfully for that trade with the Mississippi and New York roads and canals.After the recess, .Mr.DORION proceeded to say that the Americans had done away with their tonnage dues, and, more, they had taken steps to remove the tonnage dues from the Sound, at the.entrance to the Baltic.They also imposed serious burdens on their whole population for encouraging their shipping.It would he well for us to see we were not distanced by them.We were paying large sums as indemnity to steamers.These vessels would make 25 or 23 trips in the season.Each vessel had an average of 2,000 tons.These very vessels would therefore have to pay £50 each.Solicitor General ROSE\u2014Does the hon.member mean to state that the steamers will have to pay upon 2000 tons ?Mr.DORION having referred to the bill, said he found that the engine room of the sieamers was to be deducted.However he thought the policy proposed was likely to injure the St.Lawrence trade.He would therefore support the amendment of the hon.member for Mont-morenci.Mr.BROWN would vote for the amend-mend.We had done wisely in encouraging the St.Lawrence trade, in which the west had as much interest ns the east.And we should not reverse that policy.Mr.McGEE also uisaproved of the proposed dues.They would discourage the direct trade which was just springing up between the lake ports and transatlantic countries.Besides, what was the use of expending for tug steamers below Quebec and of deepening Lake St.1\u2019eter below Montreal, when we discourage commerce Of these ?'\"''>rj\u2018p\u2019i-hflJ\\.tonnage d™3 1 When the made 25 per.enf Im\".7\tgf AND DAILY COMMERCIAL GAZETTE.^ MONTREAL, MONDAY MORNING, JULY 26, 1858 u.2[ \u2022.Free .2U \u2022 \u2022 Free, 5 NUMBER 175.measure had been defeated and the item had to be struck out.Then the hon.members made a great row about pounds, shillings and pence, when in fact the principle which they had thus unfairly defeated, was a sound, equitable and just one.It was one of those things which exposed the dishonesty of the coalition on the Opposition side.Mr.DORION said it did not lie wita that hon.member to advance any such changes.The Opposition had fairly done its duty in defeating this item.Mr.PATRICK said that the Government had been sufficiently warned, and he hoped that this last blow would take effect.The report of the committee was then received and the amendment concurred in.The bill was ordered for a third reading to-morrow.THE FISHERY ACT.The House then went into committee on the bill entitled the Fishery Act [and referred resolutions], Hon.Mr.SICOTTE explained that he intended making a change in the bill by amending the clause which established a close season for the \u2018V:___,\t.\u2019I'- 'VV tr-RnS pot.heeu able to subject to induce him to carry out his proposed change.Some discnssion having taken place, the committee rose and reported the bill with amendments.Report ordered to be received tomorrow.The House adjourned at one o\u2019clock.reference ^because L routé\tErie CaVal SURROGATE COURTS.-x.cr«jA4iioaxotiua ana procedure of tixv/, f i: could travel RUt7VS aDd ^ger vessels ^da\u201centally wrongd SJStem was in his ' for the entoaiagetnJnl-u i mea-English several Surrogate Courts in Upper Canada.Mr.MO WAT moved in amendment that the bill be not now read a third time, but be recommitted in order to provide that the decision of the Surrogate Courts with respect to the validity of wills extend alike to cases of real as well as in personal property.He thought it was ab-sure that there should be a distinction made between one sort of property and another.If any distinction should be made it should be as regarded the amounts and not the description of property.Attorney General MACDONALD said this subject had been fully discussed at a former stage, and the judgment of the House taken on it.It was very much to be regretted that this plan of moving amendments on third readings should be so generally adopted, after the matter had been previously disposed of.This bill had been prepared so far as machinery went, directly on an opposite principle from the Probate Courts in England.Instead of establishing a central probate court at Toronto, and compelling every person to come there who had a will to settle, this bill proposed to do away with that and give the power to the suirogate judges of the counties\u2014the County Judge to be in all cases the Surrogate Judge.With regard to making a distinction in amount\u2014he diftered altogether from the member for South Ontario.It would be in the highest degree unwise, when adopting such a large step in the way of decentralization to burden the new courts with the trials of interest and titles to real estate.The law was at present sufficiently intricate.Mr.J.S.MACDONALD said that no person could have more experience in this matter than the member for South Ontario, and he should therefore support the amendment.He could not see why distinction should be made between real and personal property.He thought the Attorney General ought to concede the point.Attorney General MACDONALD\u2014It would destroy the bill altogether.Mr.J.S.MACDONALD could only regret that the Attorney General did not matte the concession.Mr- WALLBRIDGE thought the Administration would not get much credit for this sure.It was only a copy of the statute.Attorney General MACDONALD\u2014The hon.gentleman has not taken much pains in the matter if he says it is a copy of the English statute.\t° Mr.WALLBRIDGE knew it was not a copy for there were many good things left out of it.Why call the court a Surrogate Court?Why not call it by a proper name, and one that the people would understand ?The amendment of the member for South Ontario, he thought, should be incorporated in the bill for it was an attempt to improve it.The House then divided on the amendment which was lost.\u2014Yeas, 31 ; nays, 52.Mr.WALLBRIDGE said the law was a very useful one, and he regretted that people would not take interest enough to read the bill.It was very strange that this bill, affecting Upper Canada only, should not be amended to suit the representatives of this section of the Province.He moved in amendment that the bill be remitted in order to abolish the inconvenient and unnecessary distinction proposed and maintained by the provisons of the bill between County and Surrogate Courts, and to give the jurisdiction of Surrogate Courts to the County Courts.Mr.SICOTTE.\u2014What majority have you ?Mr.WALLBRIDGE.\u2014I don\u2019t know.A majority is sufficient.Hon.Mr.SICOTTE.\u2014You have just a majority of one.Mr.POWELL.\u2014And the Speaker\u2019s vote.Mr.SPEAKER.\u2014Order.Mr.WALLBRIDGE had better confidence in the judgment of the Speaker.Mr.POWELL corrected the Commissioner of Crown Lands.The majority was two and not one.But he should have thought that after the vote on the Double Majority question the other day, they would have heard here no more sectional appeals.And he could say that the legal gentleman from Lower Canada displayed as much knowledge of the law of Upper Canada as the member for Hastings (Mr.Wallbridge.) Mr.FERRES said the lay members from Lower Canada derived their inspiration on law matters from the lawyers on both sides of the House.The Attorney General declared the law was good, and so did the member for South Hastings.Why should they not then vote for it ?But a certain gentleman, a leader on the Other side declared he would oppose every bill that came from the Government.That was the course of the Opposition.Mr.DUNKIN said those from Lower Canada were not prepared to be insulted on every discussion that came before the House.They were continually told that Upper Canada alone was Canada, and that they from Lower Can ada should think, speak, and vote according to the members of the Opposition.The bill was a good one,-and he should support it.Mr.MOWAT spoke in favor of the amendment.Dr.CONNOR after replying to Mr.Dunkin said the bill was a good one and he should voté ¦ rin \u2019flfE MO,Y' CHAT, he MONDAY MORNING, JULY 26,\t1858.SUPPLEMENT for ADVERTISE- direct trade with Europe.Why had not the Welland Canal.been enlarged in view ot the in creasing trade?That was what should have been done to invite the western trade through our waters.The Beauharnois Canal also needed deepening.He would vote to the amendment.Mr.CAUCHON\u2019S amendment was then put to the House and carried on the following division : Ytas 50 ; Nays 48.The Yeas were Messrs.Aikins, Bell, Biggar, Bomssa, Brown, Bureau, Burnell, OiiueUon Christie, Cimo , Clark.Conner.Cook, Coutlee, Desiiulnier, D.oion, Dorland, Fortier, Fournier, Gould, Hartman, Hebert, Hogan, Jobiu, Laberge, Langeviu, Lemieux, J.S.Macdonald, McKenzie\u2019 Mattice, McDougall, McGee, MeKellar, Merritt,\u2019 Morin, Movvat, Munro, Notman, Ouimet, Papineau, Patrick, Piche, Walker Powell, Ross.Rymdl, Short, Somerville, Thibaudeau, Wall-bfidge, Wright.The Nays were Messrs.Alleyn, Aroham-beault, Benjamin, Burton, John Cameron, Campbell, Carling, Cayley, Attorney-General Cartier, Daly, Daoust, Dionne, Dufresne, Dunkin, Fel-lowes, Fergusson, Ferres, Galt, Gauvreau, Gill, Gowan, Labelle, Lscoste, Laporte, Leboutillier, Loranger, Attorney-General Macdonald, McCann, MoMicken, Panel, Playfair, Pope, W.F.Powell, Price, Robinson, Solicitor-General Rose, R.W.Scott, W.Scott, Sherwood, Sicotte, Simard, Simpson, Sincennes, Sidney Smith Terrill, Turcotte.Mr.BROWN then hoped an explanation would be made by the Ministry as to what policy they intended to pursue in view of their defeat.Attorney General MACDONALD said that of course the House would go into Committee according to order.Mr.J.S.MACDONALD would like to know how the Inspector General now intended to make good the deficiency in his revenue?The House then went into committee and reported an amendment to the bill the item of the tonnage dues being struck out.On the motion for receiving the report, Mr.J.S.MACDONALD denounced the Government for treating this as a mere verbal alteration\u2014a change in their policy which involved £17,500.He never saw a matter affecting the policy of the country treated with such nonchalance.Hon.Attorney General MACDONALD said that the House having by an accidental majority of two or three-\tJ Mr.CAUCHON\u2014I admire such accidents.Hon.Attorney General MACDONALD said the hon.member was always interrupted; and boded the Speaker would prevent such interruptions.However, the hon.member for Cornwall asserted that the Government had taken a most extraordinary couise in offering no explanation.But there was nothing extraordinary in it.The hon.Inspector General came down to the House with a statement of the expenditure for the year and the probable am.,unt of revenue to be eol- lootoa.Ttiia itom was «.titter or no great IIU- portance.It was a matter of £17,000 provided for the purpose of improving the navigation or the Lower St.Lawrence.Well, in an accidental manner the House disapproved of the item and ordered it to be struck out.That had been done accordingly.The tariff with all its main features remained ns it was.The hon.member for Cornwall further stated that no analogy to the conduct of the Government in this case had ever been heard of- Mr.J.\tMcDONALD\u2014In this Province.Attorney General MACDONALD said that at all events in England there had been similar cases.Hon.members would recollect Lord Naa\u2019s amendment to the motion of Lord John Rnssell respecting the Irish distilleries.On that occasion the amendment prevailed and Lord J.Russell was defeated.But the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day found other means of revenue besides the obnoxious tax.(Hear hear.) The only course the Government had now to pursue was to concur in the vote of the House and strike out the item.The tariff in jta main features had hithe to met the approval of the House.(Hear, hear.) Mr._ BROWN said that if the House was not astonished at the cavalier way in which the hon.Attorney General treated this matter, at least they should agree that the course taken on this occasion was unprecedented.He appealed to the Hon.Commissioner of Crown Lands, if he was willing to have a question of this importance treated as a mere matter of pounds, shillings and pence.It was a matter of the utmost importance.Mr.PGWELL (Carleton) maintained that it was a mere accidental vote, and from a division list he could prove it.Hon.Mr.CAYLEY said it was very remarkable how soon the bon.member for Toronto changed his tone.Five minutes before the proposed tax was so unimportant that there was no necessity for its imposition.Now it was a matter of tremendous importance with him.(Hear.) In relation to the conduct of the Government he would say that in 1656, the same state ot things occurred, when by an accidental vote, the Government were deprived ot their majority for an t0 defeat the Ministry on +k .\t\u201c milue evening.Had the vote been ta-ten hve minutes ,\t.\t.\t.\t* de ^mnage dues later, it would have been \u2022aversed.And the\tlr.^ud®et \u2019 and t^Je consequence was present Government had J,e'nought, taken tbi that no exertions were spared, either by tl proper course on this q'CH®,Ç.n'\tI Miniatrir n-