situate therein against fire, and prescribes North America Act be governed by certain conditions, which are to form part of the law of the Province of Quesuch contracts. These contracts, and the bec, and that seems to be a fair and rights arising from them, it was argued, came legitimately within the class of subjects, reasonable construction of the statute. Property and Civil Rights.' The appellants, Not only have we the pledge of the on the other hand, contended that civil rights Government, and of the hon. the Minister meant only such rights as flowed from the of Justice as a member of that Governlaw, and gave as an instance the status of ment, but the people of the Province persons." have, to a certain extent, the pledge of the Hon. gentlemen will notice that in this British Government, made in the statute case the persons who were contending of George III., and at a previous time, against the Provincial claim held that when the Province of Canada was ceded Civil rights meant rights flowing from the to Great Britain, that they should have law, and referred to the status of persons. the right to decide these matters by the Now, it seems to me that everything laws of the Province of Quebec. connected with matrimony-the right to decide who shall marry-those who are HON. MR. ALMON-I hope I shall in a position to marry, and who are not-not be guilty of doing as many who preis just a question of status: "Their Lordships cannot think that the latter construction is the correct one. They find no sufficient reason in the language itself, nor in the other parts of the Act, for giving so narrow an interpretation to the words 'civil rights. The words are sufficiently large to embrace in their fair and ordinary meaning, rights arising from contract, and such rights are not included in any of the enumerated classes of subjects in section 91." The last quotation with which I shall trouble the House-and it is one to which I think the Minister of Justice should pay a good deal of attention-is this: ceded me have done in giving a re-hash of the hot joint which was served up some days before on the last discussion on this Bill-a hash a great deal spoiled in the cooking and the keeping; but I want to make a few remarks on this subject. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bellerose) has said that the law on the statute book has only the effect of what was meant by those who framed it. I am not a lawyer, but I have unfortunately been in court, and heard long-winded, prosy arguments from lawyers and wished I was somewhere else to get rid of them; but I never heard It is to be observed that the same words them tell the judge that a statute did not 'civil rights are employed in the Act 14 mean what its words convey, or quoted George third, chapter 83, which made pro- the speeches of those who framed it to vision for the Government of the Province of explain what it meant. The judge would Quebec. Section eight of that Act enacted that His Majesty's Canadian subjects within say it was not what they meant, but what the Province of Quebec should enjoy their they said, that must guide him. To say property, usages and other civil rights as they that the solemnization of marriage dehad before done, and that in all matters of pended on who is to be married is like controversy relative to property and civil saying that the last visit of a doctor and rights, resort should be had to the laws of the certificate of the disease he died of Canada and be determined agreeably to the said laws. In this statute the words 'property were the solemnization of the burial serand civil rights are plainly used in their vice. There is just as much sense in one largest sense; and there is no reason for hold- as in the other. My senior colleague from ing that in the Statute under discussion they Halifax says that because a sympathetic clergyman, beloved by his congregation, Now, it is perfectly clear that the right has got the names of a few men, and a to decide who should not marry was one good many women and children, to petiof the rights that belonged to the Province tion against this Bill, that therefore public of Canada, before it became the property sentiment is opposed to it; but the fourth of the British Crown, and this is one of estate is a much more powerful index of the rights which are protected by this Act public opinion, and the press is a unit in of George III, There is the authority of favor of this measure. It has been disthe Lords of the Privy Council for saying covered in this House that the Bill is unthat everything which by that Act of constitutional. It passed through the George III. was left to be governed by lower House, and Mr. Blake, whose legal the French law, should under the British skill is admired by everybody, though his are used in a different and narrower one." Lewin, McKay, Macdonald, statesmanship is not, failed to discover it, and| Alexander, HON. MR. TRUDEL-We are here to revise the legislation of the other House. HON. MR. ALMON-If these hon. gentlemen live to be as old as Methusaleh they may rival the leaders to whom I have just referred but they certainly will not within the three score and ten years now allotted to man. HON. MR. PELLETIER-I should like to know what we are called to vote upon. This amendment, in my opinion, is not in order. The Bill provides that a man shall be permitted to marry the Gibbs, Macfarlane, Macpherson, Montgomery, Muirhead, Read, The House then went into committee. HON. MR. ODELL called attention to the wording of the first and second clauses. When this Bill was before the Lower House a decided opposition had been manifested to the marriage of a widow with her deceased husband's brother. In 1880 a provision to that effect had been defeated by a vote of 130 to 10 and in the present session by a vote of 87 to 49. He believed there was also a of Parliament. This being the case he very strong opposition to it in this branch drew attention to the fact that the wording of the first section would legalize a marriage between a widow and the brother of her deceased husband. For instance sister of his deceased wife: the amendtwo brothers marry two sisters. The wife ment proposes that the first clause of the of one and the husband of the other die, Bill, which contains the whole principle this Bill in its present shape would enable of the measure, shall be struck out and a the survivors to marry, since all laws proclause of a different character altogether hibiting marriage between a man and the substituted. If the amendment is adopt- sister of his deceased wife are repealed ed the Bill will be something entirely by the first clause of this Bill. different. I do not believe the amendment is in order. He thought it his duty to call attention to this 2. This act shall not affect, in any manner, any case decided by or pending before any court of justice; nor shall it affect any rights actually acquired by the issue of the first marriage previous to the passing of this Act; nor shall this Act affect any such marriage when either of the parties has afterwards, during the life of the other, lawfully inter-married with any other person.' He considered this language very vague. The words "any such marriage,' in the twelfth line, referred to the previous "first marriage" mentioned in the eleventh line, and not to a marriage with a deceased wife's sister, as was evidently | having signed the petition they were supposed intended. The marriage in the eleventh to have signed." "You will permit me as one of the few persons of Montreal to give the statement a most emphatic contradiction." line would be a legitimate marriage. A And Mr. McGibbon goes on to say: man being lawfully married could not, during the life of his wife, be married to another woman, and it seemed to him (Mr. Odell) that there was a confusion in He (Mr. Odell) wished to give the the wording of this clause which it would statement thus imputed to him a "most be well to remove before reporting the emphatic contradiction"; he had never stated Bill from Committee. He desired to such a thing; he had never said that these correct an error which appeared in a cards were not signed by the persons from report of his speech, by which he was whom they purported to come. What he made to say that the postal cards which had said was that while it was stated all of were presented as petitions in the other them were signed by clergymen, only a branch of the legislatnre, came from a portion of them were signed "Rev. SoMr. McBean, instead of Mr. R. D. McGib-and-So," and the others were signed bon. This Mr. McGibbon had written a merely by the names of the parties, and it letter to the Montreal Gazette, which was was impossible, therefore, to say how as follows: THE DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. To the Editor of the Gazette. many were signed by clergymen. But he had made no allusion whatever to their being got up in this improper manner. He had no doubt that the signatures were all genuine, and he did not want this assertion to go abroad uncontradicted. The petitions referred to by several hon. SIR ALEX. CAMPBELL thought gentlemen in favor of the bill were not nearly that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Odell) so numerously signed as had been stated. that the case was not The whole work in support of the measure laid stress upon the supposititious case had been done by a few persons in Montreal, which he had put, he should be prepared and a large number of the signatures were put to submit an amendment to the clause, on under authority contained in postal cards, but it seemed to him (Sir Alex. Campbell) the people themselves never having seen the petitions they were supposed to have signed. a probable You will permit me as one of the "few per- one-that it was so very remote that sons in Montreal" to give the statement a it was hardly necessary to deal with most emphatic contradiction. Postal cards it. In the meantime he desired to expressing a desire to see the bill pass, were received from something like 1,000 clergymen, suggest an amendment to this clause as and these cards were bound and presented to the result of a letter which he had received the House of Commons. All the other from a judge of the divorce court of one petitions were signed personally. of the Provinces, who had occasion to Discussion of the question is unnecessary pronounce a divorce between a man and here, but an insinuation that even one of the his wife on account of this very difficulty many petitions presented had been manufac-that he had married his deceased wife's tured in Montreal, cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. sister. Upon that very question the judge had pronounced a divorce, and the man had married somebody else. R. D. McGIBBON. Your obdt. servant, Montreal, 6th April, 1882. Now it was proved by the stress put HON. MR. POWER-That is provided upon the petitions from Montreal and for by the second section. from Montreal alone, in both branches of Parliament that the greater portion of them HON. SIR ALEX. CAMPBELL thought came from there and there was no doubt it would be well to report progress and that the whole of those postal cards emanated from that city. The only part of this extract improperly stated is the following: "And a large number of the signatures were put on under authority contained in postal cards, the people themselves never ask leave to sit again. It was doubtful whether the clause covered such a case, and as it was a very important measure, it would be well to leave no doubt upon the question. HON. MR. MACFARLANE thought He Bill (62) "An Act to incorporate the Lake Athabaska and Hudson Bay Railway Company." (Mr. Sutherland.) the object of the hon. Senator from Rook- Canada Mutual Telegraph Company." wood (Mr. Odell) was to postpone if (Mr. Bureau.) possible the passage of the Bill and not to amend or improve it. If there was any thing in the hon. gentleman's objection the difficulty was a very remote one. would hardly find in the whole country a single case to support the position he had taken, and he was merely sticking up a bugaboo to knock it down. He (Mr. Macfarlane) thought the clause covered such a case. BILL INTRODUCED. Bill (V) "An Act respecting bridges. over navigable waters constructed under the authority of Provincial Acts." (Sir. Alex. Campbell.) Bill () "An Act to grant certain powers to the C. W. Williams Manufacturing Company and to change the name thereof to the Williams Manufacturing Company." (Mr. Ferrier.) SIR ALEX. CAMPBELL thought that on the whole the language of the Bill covered the case referred to in the letter from the judge of the divorce court, but the hon. Senator who had charge of the Bill would probably allow him to propose DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER MARan amendment if one should be considered necessary at the third reading. HON. MR. FERRIER-Certainly. HON. MR. ODELL said that as he was opposed to the principle of the Bill he did not care to offer any amendment. HON. MR. GIBBS, from the committee, reported the Bill without amendment. HON. MR. FERRIER moved that the Bill be read the third time to-morrow. The motion was agreed to. The Senate adjourned at 5.50. p.m. THE SENATE. Ottawa, Friday, April 14th, 1882. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock. Prayers and routine proceedings. RIAGE BILL. HON. MR. ODELL-When I gave notice of adding a clause to the Bill to provide, "That this Act shall not come into operation until Her Majesty's assent shall have been first thereto had and declared," it was with the intention of preventing any complication under it, which it appears to me may take place if the Bill be not reserved as I suggest; because I foresee if the Bill goes into operation, that marriages may take place under it previous to the Royal assent being given. We know that twice over in New Zealand the Royal assent was withheld, and until the Bill had been passed the third time it was not given. To prevent complications, I proposed to add this clause to the Bill. At the same Bill (20) "An Act respecting the Por- time it appears to me that the feeling in tage, Westbourne and Northwestern Rail- the House is to pass this Bill exactly as way Company." (Mr. D. MacInnes.) it now stands, with all the difficulties Bill (55) "An Act to incorporate the which it appears to me will result from THIRD READINGS. The following Bills, reported from the Standing Committee on Railways, Telegraphs and Harbors, were read the third time and passed. it. In the first place with regard to marriage, as I pointed out the other day, between a widow and the brother of her deceased sister's husband, and also difficulties such as are described in the letter produced here by the honorable the Minister of Justice with reference to creating bigamy in effect, because it is quite clear, I think, in the case referred to (and there may be many more) if this Bill passes, the person to whom allusion has been made will in effect have two wives, because you legalize the first marriage. Under these circumstances it does appear to me to be a very crude measure, and I am sorry to see it pass. However, since there is this feeling in favor of it, notwithstanding the difficulties to which I have referred, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment of which I gave notice. The amendment was withdrawn. HON. MR. TRUDEL-I beg to move that the Bill be amended as follows: "Page 1, line 3-Leave out from "follows" to "2" in line eight being the whole of the first Section, and insert Every marriage between a man and the sister of a deceased wife, which is contracted according to the laws of the church or churches to which the contracting parties belong and with the sanction of the religious authority of such church or churches, is hereby declared valid. All marriages heretofore contracted in conformity with such laws and with such sanction are hereby also declared valid." assertion I am open to the objection which is frequently made here, that when such high authorities as leading gentlemen in the other House pronounce an opinion in one direction, it is not proper for us to pronounce one in a different sense. However, I contend that the constitution imposes upon us the duty of considering the measures which come before us on their merits. We not only possess the power, but the obligation is imposed upon us to revise or examine the legislation which comes to us from the other Chamber, and to deal with it wholly irrespective of the views which are entertained by that Body, and when we have a decided opinion upon any particular measure, I respectfully submit that it is our duty to act according to our convictions, without regard to views which may be entertained elsewhere. HON. SIR ALEX. CAMPBELL—Hear, hear. HON. MR. TRUDEL-I believe that no member of the legal profession would, after mature deliberation, hazard the opinion that this amendment is beyond our jurisdiction. I think there is some confusion as to what the subject or matter of legislation is, and what is only a condition of the validity of legislation—two very different things. To illustrate this, I may say we have no power to legislate upon I need not remind the House that I am those things which are beyond the control not favorable to the Bill; but as the of man. This Parliament could not pass majority of the Senate has expressed a an Act to declare that the St. Lawdesire to pass it I take the liberty to pro-rence should be covered with ice on pose an amendment to render it more ac- the first of December, but it does ceptable to the community as a whole. I not prevent us from declaring that merknow perfectly well that marriage is not chandise carried between Canada and a considered by all denominations as a foreign country over the ice shall be free religious rite; but I think it will be readily of duty. I may further illustrate this admitted by everybody that marriage point by referring to legislation which should be contracted only according to passed this Parliament in 1879. During the rules of the church, or churches, to that session we enacted that as soon as which the contracting parties belong. I France and Spain should remove certain know that some hon. gentlemen see a duties imposed on Canadian goods it would difficulty in the way of adopting this be competent for our Government to pass amendment on the ground that we have an Order-in-Council admitting into Canada no jurisdiction to legislate on matters free of duty certain merchandise from mentioned in this amendment, and I those countries. What would have been have been told that even a legal opinion the answer of Parliament if somebody has been given to that effect; but I beg had objected that we had no control over leave to submit to the House that the legislation of foreign countries, and such an opinion is unfounded. I that consequently this Act would not be in making this valid? The rule applies in the same know that |