Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I might also express the hope that the Prime Minister will take into consideration the fact that we are kept here four or five months every year by long-winded speeches that might well be cut down. I think it is worth while considering whether it would not be possible to offer a premium to those who attend the sittings of the House, on the ground that they must listen to so many of these speeches.

Mr. INGRAM.

And also the speeches of those who speak a hundred times a day, thus preventing others from speaking.

If I might make a suggestion to my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I am inclined to think that if you want to shorten the speeches and improve the debating in the House, you must abolish ' Hansard.'

Mr. -SPROULE. What I wished to draw attention to is this-and I do not know whether it is intended to change it or not. The existing law provides that the indemnity shall be $1,000 if the session continues for over thirty days. But it also provides that members may draw $7 for every day from the opening until the whole $1,000 is drawn. Is it intended to allow that to remain as it is, or to make a change in view of the additional amount of the indemnity? I do nol; say that it would be advisable to make any change in that respect; because there have been sessions when members drawing $7 a day have drawn the last of their indemnity of $1,000 before the session closed, and have then gone home about their business, regardless of whether the work of the session was finished or not, because, by remaining here, they would make it necessary to send home for money to pay their board. If the law is left as it is in this respect, there will be an advantage with the increased indemnity that, even with an unusually long session, members will hardly be able to draw their whole indemnity, and so will not be obliged to send home for money to pay their board, if they remain. At the same time, if it is to be provided that, the members may draw a larger amount per diem than $7, this should be embodied in the Act. But it is not in the resolution.

Hon. Mr. ROSS.

There -are a few speakers in -this House, such -as the premier and the leader of the opposition and a few others on both sides whose speeches will always be received with attention. But there are many speeches made in this House that are not profitable either for the House or for the country. For my own part, I never speak at length, because I feel that my own speeches are, perhaps, only third-class matter, and I do not wish to impose too much or too many times on the House.

On the Question : Shall the Bill be reported :-

Mr. SPROULE.

Before you report this Bill, Mr. Chairman-I do not wish to take up time, but I must -draw attention to the unusual number of cases this session in which Bills are rushed through before they are printed and in the hands of members. This establishes a bad precedent, and even though -the session might be continued a Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

little longer, I think it would be better that that should be done rather than that this abuse should grow. We seem to have been indulging in it -this session more than usual.

The practice to which my hon. friend refers is not altogether regular, I admit. But -I do not admit that it has been indulged iu to a greater extent this session than in previous sessions. All the Bills that we have to consider that are not yet distributed are of a purely formal character. They are Bills upon which the House agrees, and are composed of only one or two clauses. If they were contentious Bills, I agree that they should not be proceeded with until every member had received them and had had time to consider them.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

There are two members who have not been here all session, having been recently elected. Do they reeeive full indemnity?

Who are they ?

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

There is Ynie from Prince Edward Island and one from North Bruce.

The law provides for such cases.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Has this Bill been printed-are there other copies?

The one in the hands of the chairman ds the only one that has been received. It is exactly in the terms of -the resolutions, except in the case of an error with regard to the date at which the bounty shall cease-an error having been made at the Table in making corrections. We are making changes, so that the bounty shall cease with the expiration of the five years. Otherwise, the Bill is exactly the same as the resolutions.

On section 7,

Mr. MACLEAN.

Can the minister say what a ton means in connection with the royalty on Nova Scotia coal ?

I think it is 2,000 pounds, according to my recollection.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

I beg [DOT] to move that the House disagree with the amendment made to subsection 4 of section 7, for the reasons that the provision of this subsection fixing the date as October 1, 1900, are those of an Act passed last session, and which is now in force, and in consequence thereof the original date must be preserved. The provisions are merely a transfer from the Weights and Measures Act to a special Act.