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

Fea k ered iu conn@tion . fi"' but it was quite ovldnh, to ; 'him (the ~that as the e "s lrew LoaL geutlieman thought the | f time was comefor him to make his olfictln:' .\ speeches. That seemed clear from the M' -- the speeches he had made in the House 1\1:;:' | the past few weeks, when he had comp } . -olou*ly of the alleged bnckwudnpu% t?t.' tlemeaA in Muskoka, andthad even hinte tn the ®etilers were almost on the vyerge 0 t. ' rebellion because their hardships were so gTOXt. Now, although the hon, member felt so strong-- ly on this matter, he had not brought in even now any substantive measure On his own recount, but simply groposod some resolutions as amendments to the bill brought in by the Government. Ifthe hon. gentleman had taken this matter in hand three or four years aAgO, when the law was just as it is now, the Houso. would have had more faith in' his resolutions 4 they might have beon led to think that he ha at heart the intcrests of the settlers, and had no other object. But now when the Govern« ment brought in a bill increasing the payments from 25¢ to 33¢ per thousand on pine cut on his graut, and proposed to givo other grivilezel noj now possessed by the settler, the hon. gen: tiemanr woke up from his lethargy and ap* pealed to the House to change the whole law on the subject. He repeated that the prox: imity of the election must have something to do with his action to--day. Now the law to--da in respect to free grants was almost the sam & as when is was enacted hg' tho Sandfield Mac-- donald Government in 1869, 'The only change was that of 1880, by which the settlers got the 25 cents per 1,000 from the Government on ¥me cut on their grants by licensees, instead of their selling the right of cutting to the lumbermen at a.considerably lower figure, as in many cases they had been used to do, 'There were good reasons for this change in the law, as had been shown by the late Mr. Pardeo at the time it was made. Ho bad stated that after much examination the law as it was before this amendment had been found to work badly. The lumbermen either came in immediately before the settler took up the land and stripped it, or kept their eyes on the place until his five | years had elapsed and then stril?ped it, unless they could get the permission o L{w settlers to do so before. -- Frequently the settler sold the timber to the lumbermen at from ten to fiftoen cents per thousand, about half what they recoived under the amendment of 1890. _ Sometimes the settlers in this way sold oif all their timber, so that even they had not lefi on the land suflicient to make a fence or build a house when they took u?\lheir patent. The arrangementi evidently worked to the in-- jury of the settler. _ It was in the interests of the settler that the timber should be left on the land for a time,and that the Government when it came to pay them for what was cut should pay them a fair price. The settier was allowed to cut all the timber himself that he needed for his ow n purposes, and could even cut for selk* ing on condition that he paid the usual dues t9" the Government. -- The Commussioner saw no reason to believe that there was any feeling in favor of a reversion to the old law. Mr. Mar-- ter had quoted very largely from speoches made by Mr. McKellar. But in 1869, when the Free Gran's Bill was first introduced, timber was cheaper, the systeimn was new und the| country was wild.&jAlmost anything in reason / would then have been a good thing: if tiv. would only induce immigration. 'The' Liberal party of that day in face of the opposi-- tion of the Government had advocated pro-- ceeding along the lines laid down in what Mr. Marter had quoted from the speeches of Mr. McKellar and from the editorials of Tne GioBk. Buta very different state of things now prevailed. The country bhad been settled since then, the licenses had been sold, new and vested interests had arisen, and what could have been done then could not be done now without serious interference with the Govern-- ment revenues and the interests of the licon-- sees who had bought since then. It was not possible torevert in the manner Mr. Marter yv'oposed to the principles advocated then. The hon. gentieman, said Mr. Hardy, spoke as ifthe settler of Ontario were badly treated by this Government and by the Sandford Mac-- donald Government. He challenged Mr. Mar-- ter to name any Province, or Colony, or any country in the world where so imuch was given to the settler as was given to the Ontario settler, HMe gzot two hundred acres free. That was something considerable in the first instance, 'Then they got all the timber they wanted for their own use, and even for firewood, 'They kad timber provided them for all the buildings they wished, no matter how many they were, In what other country was this done for the setiler? They had even the right to cut all the pine trees on their grants and soll them, and _ were only asked to pn( the Government the _ regular dues. When the hon, gentleman spoke the other day of a "reboilion" in Muskoka, the House might be sure it was an election dodge, and that was another reason why the present time wasfchosen for these remarks. Be-- sides these privil#ges to the settlers,the Govern. ment built road§ for them, gave them high-- ways, employe¥ them in the building of the same, and, of course, Pmd them for their labora And in spite of all this, the hon. gentle-- man talked about a rebellion in Muskoka. Why, the market price of hay and oats in Muskoka and Parry Sound was higher than in Toronto, owing to the operations of the lambermen, and therefore they could find a market for these articles at thirown doors. As the late Mr, Pardce had often pointed out, it was to the interests of both lumgermen and settlers that they should go hand in hand, The settler often got employment, and was enabled to make considerable money through the operations of the lumbermen. . The hon. gentloman had the other day accused the Gov-- ernument of being responsible for the alleged backwardness in settlement of Muuko'fm. \ Now, was this really the case? There were in Muskoka, exclusive of the great lakes, but in-- cluding the smaller lakes and the rocks, 800,000 acres, of which 612,000 acres were located, leaving only 188,000 acres unlocated, Of the latter a large Eroportlon at least was composed | offthe smalilakes and rocks andswainps, It was really surprising, when the chnracter of a great mo! the district was taken into connl.('iera- to find how rapidly settlement had gone there, 'The hon. gentleman spoke o{ the _of 1880 as if it aifected nil settlers, ~when, as a matter of fact, it only affected those vho held patents issued after 1880, amendment was made, The one nQkAs As }| th ber, which was the chief source of its revenue. If the: Government were to begin doing so, the revenue would be very seriously diminished within a very fow years. It was rathe{inconsistent, too, on the part of hon. gentiemon opposite, the Commissioner said in conclusion, that while they were on the one hand condemning the Government for parting with its timber resources at a good price, they were on the other hand condemning them for not actualiy giving their timber away, The setilers elsewhore were treated the same as those on the free grants, except that they did not get the free %rnnts. There was no renson why any of the hon. gentleman's propositions or amendments should be adopted by the House.. (Applause.) . . ... '$N. ... TMg Mr. §Meredith complained that the hon. Commissioner, insteadfjof addressing himseif temporarily to the question raised by the hon. member for Muskoka, had taunted him with having brought this matter up for electionecr-- ing purposes. He thought it was very unrea-- sonable and vory unfair when an hon. gentle-- man rose in the House togive an expression of his views upon a matter which he regarded as of importance to those he represented that he should have imputationscast upon his motives, espocially by a member of the Government--it was unparliamentary. t --Hon. Mr. Hardy--How does that apply to the arguments the other day ? ________ # Mr, Meredith did not think the hon. gentle-- man bad any right to make the asscrtion that hon. gentlemen were not actuated by the best of motives. -- He had sajd his hon, friend had been sitting in the Mouse for three years and he had never made any similar proposition until now, when he was on the eve of going before the electors. That might be so, but he had more than once called attention to the wants of the settlers, But ho (Nr. Meroditn) would point out that the recommendations contained in one of the clauses of the bill had been--laid before the Crown Lands Department long ago, and how was it that the Minister had not given effect to it until now on the eve of a general election? Mis friend, if he were dis-- posed, might retort with the tu quoque argu. ment,. A change was made in the law some time axo, and, why, when he was making that -- change, did he not make this ? He quite admitted the difficulties that had to be met in this case between the settlers and lumbermen, But if this country was going to be built up, if they were going to encourage settlement, if they were to meet the competi-- tion of the great prairies of the west and the countries on the other side of the line, the re-- quirements of the settlers would have to re-- ceive more consideration. It was an unfair thing to induce men to go into this class of set-- tlement unless they wore to deal with them tairly and liberally. The Minister had found fault with provositions of the hon. gentlemen from East Victoria and Muskoka, and said that the policy of legislation on the statute books was wise and liberal, but this was not so. It was a most objectionable provision that the Government should for all time own the timber on the land. 'Then his hon,. friend seemed to have forgotten the fact that it his officers did their duty no settlers would be located upon land that was valuable for its timber. It was most unfair that every stick of timber growing upon the land should be cut off, and the settle-- ment left entirely without provision for the wants of the settlor. And yet that was the provision of the amendment of 1880, Hesub-- mitted that there ought to be some provi-- sion that where tho quantity of timber on the land was greatly reduced the land should be withdrawn from license. Then, again, why should the hou. ¥onl.icmun object to limilimf the occupation of the land to three years? Why should three years be the limit in the Rainy River District and five years in Muskoka? They#ougcht to be willing to accept the proposition that the period should be three years. It seemed to him that in these respects something ought to be done in the way of ncting in the liberal spirit that the hon. gentleman said they should act in, and that the Legislature had been desirous of acting in in the past. lnstead of the member for _ Muas-- koka being talked to as he had been, the House ought to give him credit for what he had done. Let them look into these propositions "K"" their merits, and if they did so he felt sure they would come to the conclusion that changes ouaht to be made in the direction suggested, and there should be a reservation of the timber .