The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

I 3 $ Met-- , _ i t + + o _ ue A Mr. ROSS said he had brought a measure of this | s & kind beforo the House on a previous occasion. . He ::"i ;'9""'" was lost. | blamed the legal profession for much of the diffi-- "l'- EREDITH moved the second reading of the | culty, in not being ready with their casos, and Bill to amend the law respecting Building Bocieties ' thought something of the nature of the Bill proposed The Bill was read a second time. ar wou'd relieve the judges of a disagreeqble duty.. A Mr. MOWAT moved t 3 l fecling was arising in the country against the jury + House 1¢ adjournment of the system in consequence of the great expense attend-- M ng . ing it. The House adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Mr. DEACON concurred in the view that the mat-- canitrume Teis s o | ter should be left with the judges. NOTICEKS «: MOTION. | Mr. PATUERSON (Essex) suggested that the Bill . ing--C r , t should be allowed to go to a Committee. It would "gf:'e Iff)(:dga :'tur):: :} eg:;:is'fls"gf 'ztl';'tt'l:'{')!;(l'('r lof_ the | | ' be hardly fair to throw it out. adopted by the Executive Government,and 8;' ations | \| Mr. CLARKE (Norfolk) hoped it would not be rules or 'orders of the Superior Courts res (2.) the 1| thrown out, as many of the profession and some of short--hand reportiug in the Courts; also ",l:utm"' | the judges themselves were in favour of it. ment of the fees collected for short--hand »uofe:tz} | The motion for the second reading was lost on the evidence during 1876 and 1777, | following division :-- \ cmmmenmmmmetm emmmnemenmmmmssmmemmmen Yxzas.--Messrs. Baker, Barr, Bell, Bishop, Boulter, s R (larke (Norfolk) Clarke (Wellington), Dawson, | | Ferris, Gibson, Grange, Grant, HManey, Hargraft, | \ Harkin, Lauder, Macdougall (Middlesex), McGowan, Merrick, Monk, Mostyn, O'Sullivan, Patterson (Us-- f | sex), Paxton, Preston, Richardson, Robinson, Rose-- | vear, Ross, Scott, Widditield--81. |\ _ NAays.--Messrs. Ballantyne, Bethune, Cameron, | Chisholm, Cole, Crooks, Deacon, Finlayson, Klesher, | Fraser, Hay, Munter, Kean, Lang, Lyon, MecCrancy, MeLeod, MeMahon, Massic, Master, Meredith, Mil-- ler, Mowat, Sextom, St, Clair, iwnetsinger, Springer, : Striker, Watterworth, Williams, Wilson, Wood ' f ----33. | IXSECTIYVOROUS BIRDS. | ¢ Mtr. MOSTYN moved the second reading of the C Bill to amend the Act for the protection of insectiv-- § orous and other birds beneficial to agriculture. . He 1 explained that the Bill was intended to allow certain J | birds to be shot which were now prohibited. Besides | withdrawing protection from plover, it provided that < | meadow larks, rails, rice birds, and blackbirds might i J i be shot between the first of September and the first % \ | of January. o \ _ Mr. CLARKE (Wellington) said he introduced in 4 1973 the Bill which the hon, member for Lanark now | sought to amend, and which protected certain in-- | sectivorous birds for the whole of the year. He should be sorry to have the House withdraw that protection, I for agriculturists were interested in this question as | well as sportsmen. _ He had no objection to with-- | drawing protection from plover, but he had a de-- | cided objection to withdrawing it from the rice--bird or bob--o'--link and the meadow lark. Mr. MOSTYXN said he intended moving that the Bill be referred to a Special Committoo, in which these objections could be considored. * * g*e---- "t W The Bili was then read a second time, and refgreod 'to % Committee. \ HIGIL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. s Afr. BETHUNE moved the second reading of the n.'h to amend the lgw respecting High Schools. He said the Bill was interided to explain section 20 of chapter 205 of the revised statutes, wclating to High School districts, -- Me had been led to introduce the Bill in consequence of a decision given by P Mr. Justice Gwynne in regard to a dis-- pute in connection with a High Scehool district in the counties of Stormont and Glengarry. 'The | Bill provided the meaning of the section | in . question to be * that in . the case | of an union of counties each of the connties shall | be considered as a scparate county for the purpose | of the said section, and that in the case of the forma-- tion heretofore or horeafter of High School districts out of the whole or part or parts of the county, the | whole of every saum required to be levied for any ' purpose shall be levied from the High School dis-- | trict." Mr. CROOKS thought the question raised had \ A hbeen provided for by existing amendments to the ] High School Act, which abolished High School dis-- tricts, and conferred on County Conncils the power to divide their particular counties into electoral dis-- tricts, which might be taxed for the High Schools in them. HMo presumed, therefors, that there was no | occasion for the proposed amendment. l l Mr. ARKIN said the effect of the Pill would be | to close up the High Schools of the country, He ' | should therefore take a decided objection to it. \| \ | _ Mr. BETHUNE said that the Hon, the Minister of 3 | Education had misunderstood the motive of the Tsil1. | He was endeavouring to provide such legislation as | would work smoothly, and he felt certain that the ' | proposed amendment was necessary, 3 | _ After some furthor discussion the Bill was read a M | second time, and referred to a Committee. | _ Mr. MEREDITH moved the second reading of j $ | the Bill to amend the law respecting Mutual lnsur-- | a ance Companios. Meexplained that the Bill was intended to provide for the retirement of directors & of insurance compani¢s in turns, so that no impor-- tant changes could be sprung upon the companies. 3 ©@Mr. BETHUNE said that the proprietary system of insurance was much prejudiced by the mutual insurance system. He had had a good deal of ex-- x perience in insurance matters lately. a Mr. MEREDITH--You have had some hard cases. : f (Laughter.) | o Mr. BETHUN®E said yos, he had had a number of / f hard cases, and had come to the conclusion that some ' amendments to the present system of mutual insur-- | i4 % ance were very necessary. 1 Mr. HARGRAFT thought that the mutual in-- | surance companies were doing a good work in their | * +< own sphere. ' 8 Mr. CROOKS said the law in regard to mutual in-- | f surance had been carefuily revised, extending over ( * | two years. | In 1873, after the fullest enquiry and de-- | bate, the present system was organized. 'The whole | system of mutual insurance, as at present designed to be carvied out, was, he thought, a L very good _ one, but he _ understood 'that there were continually _ abuses being _ dis-- covered. _ Many of the companies were involved k in large financial operations in the Province of Qubec, while the inrocent policy--holders of Ontario | , A were paying up the wholo of their premiums | Another practice of Directors was that of obtuininé commissions while they formed a part of the com-- pany. 'There was a great deal of merit in the mutual / P zl'x::rmce principle if it were ouly properly carried | \ 4 s pSa~