Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth) moved :

That that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for presenting private Bills be suspended in reference to the Bill respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters of the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 11th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

Before that motion is put, I wish to draw to the attention of the right hon. First Minister the frequency with which the rule with regard to private Bills is asked to be suspended. Earlier this session I drew his attention to the same thing, and I understood him to say that the first session of the new parliament was the proper time for the House to put its foot down on this growing practice, which tends to lengthen the session. Although we must he drawing measurably near the end of the session, the same disposition to suspend the rule continues. It is an evil that should be stopped, and I hope the government will exercise some reasonable control in the matter.

Mr. FLINT.

I wish to state that the urgency of this particular Bill was mentioned at the time permission was given to present the preliminary petition. It is the only Bill at all likely to infringe the rule of the House. It is of great importance that it should be passed this session. It is exactly similar in its terms to another Bill in regard to another society which was passed a week or two ago, and I trust the hon. gentleman will not insist on his objection.

I agree altogether with the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) ; but, we considered this particular case a few days ago, and came to the conclusion that the rule

ought to be allowed to stand aside with respect to this Bill, but with respect to this Bill alone-nothing else.

1. Is Mr. William L. Prince employed as clerk in the railway offices at Moncton?

2. If so, what is the amount of his salary?

3. How many days during the year 1900 was he at work?

4. What amount of salary was he paid for his services during the year 1900?

5. On what dates during the year 1900 was he absent from his duties?

1. Mr. William L. Prince has been in the government railway service for many years, and is now employed as clerk in the audit office at Moncton.

2. His salary is $58.33 a month.

3. He worked twelve days in 1900.

4. Mr. Prince is 83 years of age. and in consideration of his great age, his long and faithful service, and the fact that he was in ill-health, he was paid his full salary in 1900 of $699.96.

5. He was absent from duty in 1900 except on January 4th, 10th, 14th and 15th ; February 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th and 20th ; March 5th and 12th.

I may add that I, as minister, had no knowledge of this matter whatever, not even being aware of such a person being in the employ, or of such having been a usage in the department at Moncton as respects any of the employees.

I assume that the first question has reference to expenditures chargeable to income. The answer to the question is : nothing.

2. (d) Intercolonial Railway $3,516,789 24

(e) Windsor Branch Railway 11,393 78

(f) Prince Edward Island

Railway 181,458 35

Total $3,709,641 373. Intercolonial Railwaycapital $1,561,578 11

Prince Edward Island

Railway-capital 78,741 42

Windsor Branch Railway, nil.

Total $1,640,319 53

MR. JOHN MacINNIS'S DISMISSAL.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER-by Hon. Mr. Prior-asked :

1. Has John Maclnnis, sub-collector at West Bay, Cape Breton, been dismissed?

2. If so, for what reason?

3. Was any inquiry made? If so, of what character, and by whom?

4. Was Mr. Maclnnis given a hearing before dismissal?

1. Yes.

2. For offensive political partisanship.

3. No formal inquiry or hearing was deemed necessary.

4. The information before the department being considered sufficient.