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

: J s s 1k . a ... commogn . | crease in the amount paid to Preasurers of \ | onpm\c buildings, 314,23'2 fox: gran!.l to | gountio C was $60,929.wWoul d hon, gentle-- L gaols, $27,818 for Municipalities Fund, men opposite say that that was an unwise i $16,741 for Land Improvement Fund, and expenditure, or one for which the Govern-- $54,750 for miscellaneous, making a total, meut should be condemned? 'There was > ~ iucluding the expenditure on pvublxc build-- then the amount paid to Ag;ize reporters, ; ings, otc,, of $298,607, not $397,016, or a g6,300--an expenditure which had greatly E ' * discrepancy compared with the hou.gentle-- reduced the expernse connected with the * mean's figures of $100,000. He -- was attendance of jurors, etc, There was also } forced to the conclusion that the hon. gen-- an increase of $12,865 for the _a'dyninm- | € tleman's figures were intentionally cooked tration of justice in the new districts, the . fot the purpose of arriving at the conclusion figures for that purpose bemg,' in 1871, ! come to in the resolution. (Hear, hear.) | $10,363, and in 1878, $23,228,. 'The cost of t It was an old saying that figures could not . ' the'police force at Niagara was also an in. | lie, but the author of that statement had | | creave entailing an cxpenditure of $4,571. l never examined Oppositiop motions. | 'The figures he had given showed that out s (Laughter,) But amerecomparison of figures | of the cutire increase under tho' head of was misleading, and he only way in whicht { Administration of Justice of $112,748, the \ , proper comparison could be instituted was sum of $84,065 was directiy returned to the | by taking the increases that bhad been made | ople. Au excess was thus left of $28,0§3, | ks | in the separate items of expenditure, and | g:bich was largely counterbalanced by in. ; # enquiring whether or not they were judi-- rease in the revenue derived from Faes & s cious and necessary. He had pointed out C d Fines of $10,873. Yet all theae.[n., f that the other hon. gentleman had de-- s ases wore condemned in the resolution, | ducted from one year items which ho had mu hpfl-fecfly justiflable and unavoidable, included in the other, and his comparisons 'tlt'll? ef under the bead of Education the total ' were therefore totally incorrect. It might nditure in 1871 was $351,306, and in f be a question whether, in a comparison of expC as $556,056, an increase of $zo4,ooc that kind, it was proper to leave out the 1878 ':h mtio'ot 5'3 per cent. The prlncipal' ' cost of public works, and ho was sure that or In t k re in the amounts distributeg the hon. gentleman would not have done mcre""e'l ""$t'6 3G0 ; Poor Schools, $6,003 . & so had the expenditure uot been much to 9'7'['?". ol 1 F ET239 ; these three items o' : & larger in 1871 than in 1878. HMe held that Higi se it it en 460 2. WhIck ant f ' esenting ai outiay of $79,602, whiclh was f a proper comparison between the two n oin Adireo ly fo the people. For| f periods would exclude all expenditure ht tCE o oo es enim SHS tacrense was | 7 which was cloearly a distribution to the Pubhe: Hchool Insnectotk HLG o enepar : | $ people of the funds in the nands of the $16,534 ; Superannuated Weachers. ¢35,1 76 ; | tar: Government, and under that head came aid Model S« h'»:'ls_ $20,815 ; uu'-! Normal School | F to railways and surplus distribution. -- The 21 Oitaws, $11,318. . Thede LAoteages foolod 1 total expenditure for 1868 was $1,182,389, | up to $163,499, and yet he doubled whetiher : ' * and for 1871 $1,816,867, and in neither of | hon. geutliemen opposite would condemn j those years was there any expenditure for the Government for making any one of railway aid or for surplus distribution,. 'The thein, { increaso in the expenditure between these Mr. CREIGWMTON said that the bon. | years was $634,417, which; divided by four gentleman was aware that members had not | would give an annual increase between 1868 the Public Accounts tor 1878 yet iu their and 1871 of 5158,619. possession. f Ml'. MEREDLTH--Is that a fair com-- Mr. ROSS said that every item he 1.udf parison ? quoted was given in the abatract of receipts | Mr, ROSS thought it was ; but the way and expenditure which had been brought in which the hon, Member for Loudon had down this session. '(Hear, hear.) The & arranged his figures was not a fair compar. increase in tus expenditurs upon Agricul-- & ison,. 'The increase between 1868 and 1871 ture and Arts had been $22,101, the amounts | e had been in the ratio of 54 per cent, and it being in 1871 $74,027 and in 1873 $97,028, t 4 alarge increase of that kind were to be but he did not think that the Opposition i : held as showing extravagance in the pres-- would seriously object to that increase. U & ent Government,the same deductions could Then the expenditure upon Hospitals and § & $ surely be drawn from & similar increase -- Charities had increased $30,407, trom q ' ~C2 under the Sandfield Macdonald Govern. $40,260 in 1871 to $70,673 in 1878. Was $ C ment. In 1878 the total expenditure was | that not a proper and wiso increase, aud , $2,902,000, including for raiiway aid $232,-- ' one which it was judicious to make in the 520 and surplus distribution §$108,171, | prescat period of distress and sufiering ? which . deducted _ from _ the entirel One of the most importaut increases was f \ expenditure loft the sum ot $2,561,688, that which hbad taken pluce in the | against an expenditure in 1871 of $1,861,867, l Maintenance of Publio Institutions, In | or & t.otal incroage of $744,820, and an an-- | 1871 the amount expended for that . | nual increase 9f§106,403, as against an an. l purpose was $171,423, and in 1878 fA y | nual increase in Saudfie!d Macdonald's four $482,466--an increase of $311,043, or in '~ #% | years of$108,619. 'The percentage ol increase | the ratio of 181 per cent. That ex. & in seven years of Reform administration penditure was in a large degree not con-- y was 41 per cent, compared with an increase | trollable by the Government, but was § of 54 per cent. under their predecessors. : forced upon thein by the necessity of pro-- * 'The mover of the resolution had named an viding ior the increased; number of un-- a enormous sum at which the expenditure of fortunates seeking admission to the 5 ' the Province would arrive if increased in institutions, _ For the Toronto Asylum the the same ratio as at present ; but he (Mr. expenditure in 1871 was $73,261, and in Ross) directed the attention of the House to | 1878 $54,953, or an increase of $11,604. the fact that if the expenditure had gone | I But the cost per capite had during the same on increasing as it had under the Adminis. | | period decreased from $129 85 to $122 Ti-- tration of Sandfield Macdonald it would now | & reduction of soms $7 per putient. 'There be$2,9027,200 instead of $2,561,688. (Cheers,) | was then the London Asylum, tor which But after all comparisons made in that man» ; the cost in 1871 was $55,712, and in 1878 k s | > y < hE+ ner were, he was free to admit, useless, | $90,766--an increase 0f $35,056, There had The ouly way to mukg & proper compari-- | «lso beeu a decrease in the cost por paticnt, son was, as he had pointed out, to take the | though he could not give the exact figures expenditure in detail, and 1 s h 5 a se tbve exp ; see whcether the the information as to that not being avail-- f increases that have been made were justi. | bic."'T'he i » g oi o. ie . o C f able, The Asylums at Kingston, Hamiiton fiable or not,. 'The item which he would and _ Orillia w t' in' ion first take up was that of Legisiation, 'Whe : | ; oJ l €16 _ not. in operalion expenditure in 1871 under this head was | jIn 1871 and cost in 1878 §51,726, $94,177, and in 1878 $126,463--an ;fi'cr"a' | ©31,861, and $19,742 respectively. _ At § of 34 per cent. 'The 'éausa of that mcr:::: | d ie . sprg C aik t}xem were maintain, | was the increased amount pard to members | | g(:)(; $ t'thcs'e 'mstx.tutwn? m 44 t 4 | as indemnity in the latter year. _ In 1871 | i 6 patients, as against 1,28% in 1871, a | that sum was $37,809, aud in 1878 $71,170 fact which alone showed that a large in. an increaso of $33,361, or a sum gre'atc; creass had been necessary since tho L}tter than the total increaso betweeu 1871 and o. O:)Id:'tr:_count of the greatly enlarged uc-- 1878. He would not discuss the question Cost of maintatiine 18e 'Dart and onb as o which party attached the ros TOnsi 'COSt.ut maintaining the Deaf and Dumb bility for that increase, but it haul bcn-- I;nsmulc at Belleville had been §17,137, the | concurred in by hon, members oppositev;; | ' n 19e bfl:nvg $20,000 in 1871, and $37,857 f well as members on this side ofths House, | | 24 1878, _ The cost per capite in 1871 was { Yet that increaso was one of the increnses | | $$.yn, :'".'f,., in 1878 8161 91, a reduction | includcd in tho resolution,. _ Under the | | (l)) """r": ©3G 42-- hb'"d,t"'l" uumber of patients head of Administration of Justice the total | | lem,; t in 1871, and 248 in 1878. -- Would cxpcn.(.h(ti!rq. in 1871 was $182,G'.€l, Sud in | 10n. ;..elltlclnclropposlte contend thai thx}t 1878 $J.:a,3u9,.or an increase of $112,748, | | <=x!n!4t was an extravagant one, lIn his How was tnat increase made up? Te in.: opinion it showed the greatest economy. | B The Blind Asylum at Eranttord, which |