IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 
 4- 
 
 i^. 4^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 ;■: IIIM 
 I;; m 
 
 I.I 
 
 2.5 
 
 M 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 II 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 6" 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 V. 
 
 a 
 
 /2 
 
 A» 
 
 ^» 
 
 /J 
 
 el 
 
 .%.^iij^";>^ 
 
 V#/ 
 
 W 
 
 'J^ ^a^ 
 
 / 
 
 //A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corpordtion 
 
 ^% ^1% 
 
 z\; 
 
 .A ^. 
 
 ^ '<^ "^^^.A.^^ 
 
 33 WIST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTIR, NY. 14580 
 
 '-'16) 873-4S03 
 
 

 # 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de inicroreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The institute has attempted tu obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliogi-aphically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculie 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 oloured maps/ 
 
 artes giographiques en couleur 
 
 oloured ink 'i.e. other than blue 
 Encre da couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 C 
 
 I I Coloured ink 'i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 
 j I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other materia'/ 
 Reli^ avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liur'^ serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors dune restauration apparaissant dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas iti filmias. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtrk> uniques du 
 point de vue b.bliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pelticulies 
 
 T 
 t 
 
 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^colories, tachetdes ou piqu^es 
 
 1 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 fi 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachdes 
 
 y 
 
 D 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Qu 
 
 alit^ in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du matiriel supplementaire 
 
 □ Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 7 
 
 s 
 7 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 d 
 
 e 
 b 
 ri 
 r( 
 n 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., nave been ref limed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont iti fiimiies d nouveiu de fa^on it 
 obtanir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de riiduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 T 
 
 T 
 
 T 
 
 J 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 12X 
 
 1SX 
 
 20X 
 
 MX 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
> 
 
 itails 
 i du 
 odifier 
 ' une 
 mage 
 
 The copy filmed h«r« has ba«n r«pr( ducsd thanks 
 to tha generosity of: 
 
 Seminary of Quebec 
 Library 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in Iteeping with the 
 filming contract specif leaf Sons. 
 
 L'exempiaire filmi fut reproduit grice d Is 
 gin^rositi de: 
 
 S6minalre de Quebec 
 Bibliothdque 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t^ reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin. compte tenu do la condition et 
 de la nettet* de l'exempiaire filmi, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 fiimage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exempSaJres originsux dont la couverture an 
 papier est imprimte sont filmte en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminan'; soit par la 
 derniire page qui comporte une ampreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres sxemplaires 
 originaux sont filmto en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une ampreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration at en :srniiinant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^(meaning "C0^'- 
 TINUED"). or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever appliea. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 derniire image de cheque microfiche, seion I 
 cas: le symbols --•» signifie "A SUIVRE", Ic 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the uppi^r left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Lea cartaa. planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent iitm 
 fllmte A des taux de rMuction diffirents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour itre 
 reproduit en un seul clichA. il est film^ A partir 
 de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le norribre 
 d"images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m^thode. 
 
 rrata 
 to 
 
 pelure, 
 1 d 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
ISHERY TREAT 
 
 ^<^^ 
 
 RITMI 
 
 OF THE GIVEAW 
 
 Position by Copious Extracts from Offi 
 Documents. 
 
 ^ 
 ;x^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -infl 
 jroi 
 
 >*nue the (iiscussWRpf it in the 
 MJ^gh^iOl 4:ili9t#flfedrwith great 
 'tofirTO^e very able and eloquent s 
 
 Mr. Mitchell— Mr. Speaker, I feel that 
 on rising to address the Hoase on this 
 occasion I am speaking on, perhaps, one 
 of the most important subjects that has 
 ever occupied the attention of this colonial 
 legislature since the Dominion was 
 formed. It is not too much to say that, 
 perhaps, no question has ever come be- 
 fore us which has caused so much agita- 
 tion, so much public attention on the 
 part of Her Majesty's Ministers at home 
 and so much trouble and interest to Her 
 Majesty's Ministers in the colonies as 
 this fishery question. And, Sir, I am 
 more than pleased to find that the gentle- 
 men who^have spoken upon that ques- 
 oj^jlpeGI'^fedes of the Hou|%ghave 
 en on it ae JLi)e^fcare >Pee from any 
 ifWSUBS^^ry pmitics andjn a nian- 
 shOM: that«iiri|T^*^^€*pftfed to ap- 
 eCiflismeTauan of it and to con- 
 same 
 atten- 
 very able and eloquent speech 
 of the hon. the Finance Minister, and 
 while I have always admired that gentle- 
 man's abihty, and acuteness, and dig- 
 nity and eloquence, perhaps on no occa- 
 sion has he ever presented a case to the 
 House in which a bad cape was so well 
 put as that put by the hon. gentle- 
 man on Tuesday last. Sir, I listened 
 to him witii great attention when he 
 Hsked thif; House to believe that the Gov- 
 ernment of which he was a member 
 and the commission of which he was one 
 of the representatives of England, in se- 
 curing this treaty had r)erformed a feat 
 which would command the admiration 
 of Canada, and enure to the benefit of 
 her people. Sir, on these points I differ 
 with him, but though I may differ with 
 him in relation to the praise that he 
 takes for the Commission and the lauda- 
 tion which he gave to gentlemen con- 
 nected with it on the British side, and to 
 thti conclusions at whic^h he arrived in 
 reference to the benefits it would be to 
 this country, I must say that, looking at 
 it, and looking at it in Ihe consequences [ 
 which the perpetuation of {)eace with ' 
 our great neighbors on tno soiUh will 
 
 bring about, although I look at the treaty 
 as completely giving away the interests 
 of Canada in almost every particular, 1 
 must tell this House that " give away" as 
 ; it is and whatever the consequences of 
 ! it may be, we have got to confirm 
 [ and to carry out the treaty We have 
 got to do that, Sir, not because it is a just 
 and a fair treaty to Canada, which it is 
 not, and before I sit down I think I will 
 be able, if not to satisfy gentlemen on 
 that side of the House, I will be able at 
 all events to induce the hon. the Minis- 
 ter of Finance to say that he certainly 
 has colored the advantages which he 
 alleged Canada would receive rather too 
 highly. I speak now not for the purpose 
 of opposing the treaty, but I speak fe 
 the purpose of putting the case of Canada 
 fairly before this House and before the 
 i country. I do it not for the purpose of 
 'obstruction, or bringing into disrepute 
 the hon. gentleman v hose work during 
 that long and tedious negotiation of 
 three months in Washington, I have no 
 doubt was done in the best interests as 
 he conceived of the country which he 
 served. I speak, Sir, for the pur- 
 pose of placing that gentleman 
 and the Government he repre- 
 sents on this side of the water, 
 and the Government on the other side 
 of the water that accredited him to 
 Wa8hington,inthe position which I think 
 they ought to be in, and to show that the 
 credit they assume to adopt, for having 
 accomplished the conclusion of a diffi- 
 (Uilt question is not of that creditable 
 character to them which the hon. gentle- 
 man assumes it is. Sir, these gentlemen 
 believe that in accomplishing peace at 
 any price they have accomplished a 
 benefit for the country. Well, Sir, they 
 have. Peace at any price is an advan- 
 tage to Canada in her position in relation 
 to our great neighbors to the south. 
 Peace at any j)rif'e is an advantage to 
 Canada in the situation in which we are 
 placed and in consideration of the way 
 we have been deserted by Her Majoaty's 
 Ministers in Kttgland and bv thatBritisli 
 Government wiiich the hon. gentleman 
 
has stated to us when he spoke the other 
 day when he said: That when we appear 
 at a commission or a convention or a 
 p'iblic assembly of any kind our 
 weight and our influence is measured 
 by the power that is behind us, and I 
 sitting at that commission in Washing- 
 ton as the representative of the greatest 
 Empire in tlie world, felt that my state- 
 ments and words carried with them a 
 weight which I could not have assumed 
 nor could have carried had I been simply 
 a representative of Canada. Perhaps in 
 some cases the hon. gentleman might be 
 right. It is an advantage when we 
 appear in a representative character to 
 have power and influence behind us, to 
 have a moral and material weight that 
 can carry out our wishes or that can en- 
 force our wishes with ix)wer if it is 
 necessary, or with that moral weight 
 which it is always 
 But, Sir, when that 
 that moral weight is 
 it has been for forty 
 Sir, I think it is of little 
 sent to represent the 
 
 desirable to liave, 
 
 moral power and 
 
 simply a name, as 
 
 years past, then, 
 
 use to a man 
 
 interests of a 
 
 country like Canada, and it is not a fact 
 to be proud of. That is the position 
 which I assume, and before I sit down I 
 think I will satisfy my hon. friend, and 
 the gentlemen who sit beside hira, as 
 well as the gentlemen on this side ot the 
 House, that I am right. In mak- 
 ing that statement I am making a 
 statement which the records of the 
 last forty years will sustain ; and. Sir, 
 when I come to that part of my speech, 
 or rather my explanation, becau e I will 
 not call it a speech, I will ask the for- 
 bearance of this House if I have to delay 
 for some time, perhaps it may be too 
 long, in reading authorities with regard 
 to the statement I am making that the 
 record of the last forty years has been a 
 British desertion of the interests of her 
 brightest and greatesc colony. My hon. 
 friend devoted a great part of his time to 
 laudation of the gentlemen with whom 
 he was associated. With that I will not 
 pretend to find much fault, but I will say 
 this with relation to Mr. Chamberlain, 
 of whom the 'ion. gentleman said : No 
 man in England coulf^ have been selected 
 more fit to represent England and to se- 
 cure the interests of Canada at Washing- 
 ton than the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. 
 That Mr. Chamberldn is an able and a 
 clever man no one will deny. That he 
 occupies a prominent position in the 
 political life of Enaland is true, that he 
 may have rendered services to the coun- 
 try of his 1 irth and of his occupation is 
 also true, but, Sir, when he was selected 
 
 i to come out and to represent Canadian 
 : interests — or rather nominally English 
 ' interests, but practically Canadian in- 
 ! terests — at Washington, I differ with my 
 I hon. friend when he says that the selec- 
 tion was a good one, and that no move 
 fitting man could have been selected to 
 occupy that position. Sir, surely Mr. 
 Chamberlain showed before he left Eng- 
 land that he wanted and lacked that dis- 
 cretion which a statesman should possess. 
 At a public meeting, shortly before he 
 left England, he boasted of the position 
 he was going to occupy and said tliat he 
 was going out and that he would conclude 
 a treaty, and he particularly referred to 
 theCanadian claims which had been maJe 
 and wliich could not and ought not to be 
 sustained. Sir, what would you think of 
 ajaryman going on a jury to try a man 
 for his life, who told us before he went 
 on that jury that he knew the man was 
 guilty. Suppose you appointed a person 
 as arbitrator, what would you think of a 
 man stating before he went on there that 
 he was going to give a verdict a^rainst 
 you. That is the position of Mr. Cham- 
 berlain. But there is another objection 
 to Mr. Chamberlain and I think it is a 
 subject of regret, because of it, that ht 
 was appointed. We know, Sir, that 
 there is a very powerful section of the 
 British Empire who have a great cause 
 of grievance against the Government of 
 that countrv. We know in Ireland 
 where the people have been striving and 
 struggling, whether rightly or wrongly— 
 I believe rightly myself whatever differ- 
 ence of opinion there may be about that 
 — I say rightly or wrongly they have 
 been struggling for privileges which have 
 beeu denied them, and Mr. Chamberlain 
 has been one of those men -vho have 
 taken a strong part against tl je national 
 aspirations of the Irish people. Sir, when 
 we look at the United States and find the 
 composite character of its population, 
 when we find the large number of seven 
 or eight millions, if not more, of Irish- 
 men and their descendants who are in 
 that country and wherever Irishmen are 
 you find them occupying prominent posi- 
 tions in the executive of the country, in 
 the legislative halls and in the adminis- 
 tration of the public affairs. Will any- 
 one tell me if we desire to get that treaty 
 passed — if it is a desirable treaty to pass 
 —that the fact that Mr. Joseph Chamber- 
 lain was appointed to come out to en- 
 deavor to secure the treaty was calcu- 
 lated to recommend him to" that import- 
 ant and influential class of people in 
 America who have something to say 
 about the passage of this treatv before 
 
 fi 
 
3 
 
 J 
 
 the Senate? Sir, my impression is that 
 Mr. Chamberlain made a mistake in his 
 utterances, and my impression is that 
 the British Government made a mistake 
 on the part of Canada in selecting Mr. 
 Chamberlain for the posilion. Perhaps 
 I might have said nothing about that 
 were it not that my hon. friend, with a 
 generous desire to speak friendly of the 
 men with whom he has been associ- 
 ated, felt it necessary to give Mr. 
 Chamberlain an amount of laudation 
 and credit to which I have grave ; 
 doubts abor.t his being entitled. That : 
 is my justification for referring to him ; 
 and had the hon. gentleman not brought ] 
 before this House Mr. Cliamberlain's 
 public services, his great ability, and his 
 fitness for the position, and praised t he 
 Government who selected him, I should 
 not have felt it necessary to refer to him 
 in the way I have done. With regard to 
 Sir Sackville West, I believe him to be a 
 ^ very respectable man. He also came in 
 * for a considerable degree of praise and 
 laudation from the hon. gentleman. We 
 know that in his association with other 
 men, the great talents and abilities of 
 our friend the hon. Minister of Finance 
 command attention and respect. We 
 know that Sir Sackville West is and has 
 been all his life an employee in the dip- 
 lomatic service of the British Gov- 
 ernment, and we know that his 
 object is to serve the British 
 Government. Serve Canada! What 
 cares Sir Sackville West for Canada ? 
 What cares Mr. Joseph Chamberlain for 
 Canada ? What they desire to secure is 
 the commendation of England and the 
 English Government. That is the thing 
 they have aimed at, and that is the thing 
 they have obtained by this treaty, and it 
 is the only thing. Sir, my hon. friend, 
 in Iiis speech of Tuesday last, gave an 
 historical account of the fishery (luestion 
 for the past one hundred years. He 
 pointed out what the arrangements were 
 under the Treaty of 1783 ; tlien he came 
 to the Treaty of Glient; then he came ti) 
 the convention of 1818 ; and hs went on 
 to tell us that the British Government 
 had for the last forty years abandoned 
 the view they had entertained as 
 to the construction of the con- 
 vention of 1818 for the pre- 
 vious forty years. Tiie hon. gentleman 
 noticed me shaking my head when he ; 
 made that statement, because I knew it 
 was not true. I do not mean to impute 
 wilful inisstateineats to the hon. gentle- 
 man. I would be sorry to do that, and if 
 anything I say woiil 1 sewm to have that 
 bearing, i know he will believe that I 
 
 would not desire in the least to doubt 
 his word, or suppose that he would make 
 a statement to this House which he 
 knew to be incorrect. But, Sir, I have 
 been identified with this fiehery question. 
 Seven years of my life I spent in work- 
 ing it up. When'l took it in hand the 
 British Government was about to desert 
 us; and for seven years my efforts were 
 directed to trying to keep those men on 
 the other side of the water, in the British 
 Foreign Office and in the Colonial 
 Office, up to their work, and pre- 
 venting them from sacrificing and desert- 
 ing Canada. Sir, I am making bold 
 statements, but I will prove them before 
 I sit down. The hon. gentleman next 
 referred to the Treaty of 1854, eflfected by 
 Lord Elgin, and he pointed out the g/eat 
 advantages which we had derived from 
 that treaty, and I entirely agree with 
 him. I believe that that treaty was the 
 first entering wedge of free coinmercial 
 intercourse between Canada and the 
 United States. During the twelve years 
 tliat that treaty lasted, tol86G, more real 
 commercial progress and prosperity were 
 developed in Canada, more farming in- 
 dustries were created, more mechanical 
 employments were given to our people, 
 than they had at any period up to that 
 time. Sir, it was a matter of regret, not 
 alone to the people of one sec- 
 tion of this country — for we were 
 then a number of isolated Provinces 
 — Nova Siiotia, New Brunswick, Prince 
 Edjvard Island and British Columbia, 
 with separate Governments, Quebec and 
 Ontario as old Canada united — but every 
 province sharing in the benefits of that 
 treaty, regretted its abrogation at the in- 
 stance of the American Government. 
 Sir, the hon. gentleman stated rightly 
 that eflTorts were made by the several 
 Governmruts to bring about a renewal of 
 that treaty. Their efforts failed, I am 
 sorry to say. Neither one party nor the 
 other of the political parties in this coun- 
 try was to blame for that failure. It 
 arose from the fact, as tlie hon. gentle- 
 man rightly stated, that an unfounded 
 prejuiiice existed, whether rightly or 
 wrcngly, based on the belief that we had 
 favored the southern portion of the 
 United States in the iaternecine 
 struggle which had been carried on 
 in tliat country for six or seven years. 
 W hether we did or not may be a matter 
 of opinion, but my hon. friend's state- 
 ment was correct, I have no doubt, that 
 a ve/y large portion of the people of this 
 country sympathised with the North, 
 because for one man who was found in 
 the S iuthera afmy, sis or saven or eight 
 
4 
 
 were to be found in the Northern. At 
 any rate, the treaty was repealed, and 
 the United States Government refused to 
 renew it ; and when Mr. George Brown 
 and Mr. Justice Henry, who I am sorry 
 is so low to-night 
 
 Mr. Ferguson (Leeds.) — Better. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell— I am glad to hear it, for 
 the country can ill spare a raan like him, 
 who has taken such a pn minent part in 
 this country, both in his political and 
 judicial capaci<-,y. When he was sent 
 from Nova Scotia and Sir Albert Smith 
 from New Brunswick and the gentlemen 
 from Canada went to Washington and 
 failed to obtain a renewal ot the 
 Treaty in 1866, it was a inatter of 
 great regret in all the Provinces. 
 Those who remember the history of 
 Canada will remember the position the 
 country was in at that time. Old Can- 
 ada was so torn with political dissensions 
 that there was scarcely a Government 
 that could last a \\ eek with any degree 
 of certainty. We found one of the old 
 Provinces struggling against another, and 
 it was then that the idea btruck the hon. 
 gentleman at the head of the Govern- 
 ment and a number of hon. gentlemen 
 connected with him, to form a confedera- 
 tion of British America. Sir. we did 
 form it, and I am proud to say that I 
 took some part in its foraaation. As the 
 Premier of my own Province, after one 
 defeat I was successful in bringing the 
 .Province into hne and inducing it to 
 onte : the Confederation. When I came 
 here and took the position of Minister of 
 Marine and Fisheries, what did I find ? I 
 found that those gentlemen, in 1866, the 
 year before we c^me here, had protested 
 against the 6110113 of the British Govern- 
 ment to induce us to allow the Ameri- 
 cans to come in and occupy our lisheries 
 for a year. I will oay for the Govern- 
 ment of that day that they wrote a most 
 pungent despatch, in which, although re- 
 quested by the British ^Government, they 
 refused to allow the Americans to come 
 iu and occupy our fisheries as they had 
 done under the treaty. They communi- 
 cated with the Governments of Nova 
 Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Ed- 
 ward Island, and those Governments, out 
 of deference to the wishes expressed by 
 the British Ministers, consented, as did 
 the Government of Canada, to an ar- 
 rangement for allowing the Americans to 
 come in on paying a tax of half a dollar 
 a ton, but for cnly one year. That ar- 
 rangement was agreed to in response to a 
 despatch of Sir Edward Card well, then 
 Colonial Minister. That despatch can 
 he found in a return brought down iti re- 
 
 sponse to a motion made by Mr. Blake in 
 1872. Sir Edward Cardwell urged the Gov- 
 ernment of the Provinces to j)ermit the 
 Americans to occupy the fisheries on the 
 same terms as they did before the repeal 
 of the treaty, stating that if they would 
 consent to that, before the year was out 
 some new arrangement would be made. 
 We did it, the several Provinces did it, 
 and before the term came around again 
 in 1867, we had formed Confederation, 
 and the duty was imposed upon me of 
 creating the Department of Marine and 
 Fisheries. I did create that department, 
 and I think that I can appeal with satis- 
 faction to the House and to the people 
 generally to say whether, during my re- 
 cord of seven and a half years, I did not 
 perform my duty faithfully and effective- 
 ly. "W hen. Sir, in 1867, we were appealed 
 to again to renew the arrangement, I was 
 called upon to enquire into and make a 
 report on the matter, and I did make a 
 report which is contained in the public ^ 
 records of this ParUament. In that re- ' 
 port, while I disapproved of the policy, 
 at the urgent request of Her Majesty's 
 Government, I recommended an in- 
 crease of duty and consented to a 
 continuance of the arrangement, 
 but only for one year more. That 
 ! year passed away. The number of 
 j vessels which took out licenses the first 
 ■ year was considerably larger than the 
 I second, andwhen we were applied to the 
 I third year, to allow the Americans to 
 ! fish on the same terms, we resented the 
 i application. We increased the duty, but 
 i consented only to put it on for one year 
 more. Before that year was finished, I 
 \ found that th*- British Government had 
 I again weakenea, and when I studied up 
 I the history of the question for the pre- 
 ' vious sixty or seventy years, I found 
 that while the British Government had 
 strictly enforced the headland question 
 and the exclusion of Americans from 
 the bays, and protected our inshore 
 fisheries, about which there was never 
 a dispute, for nearly forty years after the 
 Treaty of 1818 was made', yet, when in 
 1854 the Elgin Treaty was made, our 
 exclusive rights over these fisheries 
 were suspended during its existence, 
 for twelve years, and the Americans 
 were permitted to go in and participate 
 in the fisheries under the treaty while 
 I it lasted. But when that treaty expired, 
 in 1886, England resumed the protection 
 ! of the fisheries of Canada, and stated 
 ' the existence of our claims as being re- 
 j vived as they existed in 1854, and led 
 I Canada to believe that she would enforce 
 j the treaty of 1818, as »lw had dune up to 
 
5 
 
 the period of tlie Elgin Treaty, when our 
 exclusive rights were suspended. In 
 place, however, of defending the position 
 of Canada, as she had done for the pre- 
 vious forty years, we found that she 
 weakened, and a large amount of cor- j 
 respondence had to be carried on to ! 
 stiffen the British Ministers, but while 
 ogcasionally they would stiffen, they 
 would weaken again. Wnen the hon. 
 the Minister of Finance taunted me 
 with the fact that we had not 
 carried out our first instructions as 
 issued by myself as Minister, he 
 knew the reason, and I am surprised he 
 did not do me the justice of explaining 
 'that it was under instructions from the 
 British Government that I had issued 
 my orders to carry out the instructions 
 of Sir Edward Card well, then Colonial 
 Secretary. Under this pressure, we had ; 
 to recall our first instructions and to 
 limit the exclusion to bays six miles in , 
 width instead of ten miles. From that 
 time, my efforts commenced; and let 
 anyone refer to the volumes of sessional 
 papers in the library and read over the 
 efforts that were made during those 
 seven years to protect the interests of ^ 
 Canada, and he will see, at all events, ': 
 that the Government of that day did 
 their duty by Canada, and insisted upon ; 
 the British Government not abandoning . 
 our rights. I will not pass this stage ; 
 without paying a tribute to the right | 
 hon. the leader of the Government— for 
 whatever may have been my feelings ; 
 about him of later years, in those days, i 
 at least, he stood out for the interests of the j 
 country that he governed ; and in every : 
 instance, without one single deviation \ 
 he took my part in my efforts to bring : 
 the Colonial and Foreisrn Ministers of ! 
 England, who were both weakening in 
 the interests of Canada, to their senses, ; 
 and we did bring them to their senses 
 pretty well. Whatcame next? In 1870, 
 a crisis arose in relation to the fishery 
 question. It was evident to every one in 
 the Cabinet of Canada, and out of it, who 
 understood the facts, that the British 
 Government were weakening in sustain- 
 ing our claims. First, in 18G0, they 
 asked us to allow the Americans to come 
 in for one year ; then they asked us to 
 allow them to come in for another year ; 
 and then, in 1808. for another year; and 
 in 1869, at last, a little rebellion of a 
 mental character arose in the minds of 
 some of us at least. It became mj^ duty 
 to deal with that question, and I did deal 
 with it. But before discussing thisnoint, 
 I may ask the permission of this House 
 to read in reply to the statement of the 
 
 hon. gentleman my report, because his 
 remarks imply nothing less than that I 
 went back on mv report and the position 
 I assumed when I issued the orders and 
 circulars to the marine police which I 
 had organised. In that report I wil' 
 prove that the statement of the hon. 
 gentleman that the British Government 
 had stood by Canada was not correct. 
 
 Sir Charles Tupper — My hon. friend 
 has entirely misapprehended my whole 
 argument, and my reference to himself. 
 He has not only misapprehended my ar- 
 gument, but he has completely inverted 
 the argument, and I will ask any gentle- 
 man who has looked at the verbatim re- 
 port of my speech, if my argument is not 
 this : that while Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment had technically always sustained 
 the extreme headlands extension, and 
 the exclusion of the American fishermen 
 from our bays, they had refused to sus- 
 tain my hon. friend in his efforts to shut 
 the American fishermen out of bays that 
 are not less than ten miles in width. My 
 argument was the reverse of what my 
 hon. friend says it was. I showed that 
 he had made that effort. I read his in- 
 structions to the House in which he had 
 upheld the ten-mile limit and gave his 
 instructions to that effect to the cruisers, 
 and I read Lr>rd Granville's despatch not 
 to carry out these instructions, but to 
 limit the exclusion to the three-mile 
 limit. I showed that my hon. friend had 
 been obliged, under the pressure of Her 
 Majesty's Government, who would not 
 support the larger contention, to issue 
 further instructions in accordance with 
 the expressed request of Lord Durha n. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell here quoted from Sir 
 Charles Tupper's speech in support of his 
 views, when a brief conversational dis- 
 cussion took place between them, 
 after which he resumed his 
 speech, reading lengthy and important 
 extracts from correspondence between 
 the Canadian and Imperial Governments 
 •embodied in minutes of Council, to sus- 
 tain his contention that Great Britain 
 had virtually abandoned her own and 
 Canada's claims in the fishery question. 
 The extracts covered correspon ience for 
 the past half century, with the Earl of 
 Bathurst, Lord Granville, Earl of Claren- 
 don, Rt. Hon. Edward Cardwell, Earl 
 Kimberly and in fact all British Colonial 
 and Foreign Secretaries who had to deal 
 with the question. Mr. Mitchell then 
 continued : 
 
 Now, Sir, in the record which I have 
 read of concessions yielded year after 
 year by Her Majesty's Government, I 
 think tny hoij. ffiead will fad to p»efCcive 
 
6 
 
 that any strong uronnd has been taken 
 or any material support given, in the 
 interest o' Canada, such as lie spoke of 
 in his introductory remarks on Tuesday 
 last. Sir, I think it is a record which is 
 a discredit to great Britain— to have the 
 interests of a great colony, the greatest in 
 the Empire, and one she is proud of, frit- 
 tered away by piecemeal, as I have said. 
 It is a record of concessions which have 
 been made step by step without even 
 consulting the people who are interested 
 in them. I think the record of the last 
 thirty years, at least the last twenty 
 years, is a disgrace to the British Em- 
 pire and the British Government. In : 
 saying what I do, I do not intend to cast 
 any reflections on the action of my hon. ; 
 friend and his colleagues at Washington. ' 
 He has very patriotically and very mag- 
 nanimously taken the blame for the 
 shortcomings in this treaty on himself. : 
 It is natural for him to do that in such 
 cases; but I know him too well, I know 
 the facts too well, and I have had too j 
 much experience in dealing with the '' 
 fisheries, not to know that what he did i 
 there he did under pressure. Al- 
 though he spoke of the largest ^ 
 power in the world being behind him, 
 as a matter of fact that power! 
 was not there. It was there in name, | 
 but not in power; and if there has been j 
 an act since the formation of this Do- 1 
 minion which has tended to loosen the ' 
 bonds between Canada and the Empire. | 
 if there has been an act which will tend i 
 to produce dissatisfaction and to pro- i 
 mote distrust in the British EmpireTwith : 
 reference to the aflfairs of Canada.' it is! 
 this last act of hers in abandoning us 
 and taking away her fisheries, in the face i 
 of the fact, as I have shown from the ' 
 despatches I have read, that ihe stood 
 pledged to maintain the interests of 
 Canada as they stood when th^y were 
 suspended in 1854. When the treaty ! 
 lapsed by the act of the United States, 
 where was the British Government ? Read h 
 Sir Edward Cardwell's, Lord Kimberley's 
 and the Earl of Aberdeen's despatches. 1 
 The only man among the whole of them ' 
 who has fairly stood by us was the Earl 
 of Clarendon. Yet everyone of them, 
 one after another, assured us that Eng- 
 land intended to stand by us in main- 
 taining the exclusive rights which the 
 British Government claimed and en- 
 forced up to 1854 ; and. Sir, everyone ol 
 them, save Lord Clarendon, went back 
 on his record, and left us to see our rights 
 taken away from us by piecemeal and 
 under false pretences. That is tho posi- 
 tion of the British Government towards 
 
 Canada for the last twenty years— and I 
 speak of it with regret, for I have ever 
 been as loyal a subject as any that stands 
 in the Dominion of Canada. I have been 
 loyal, in fact, I have been more, I have 
 been also loyal in sentiment, but 
 the sentiment is knocked out of 
 me, and I fear that a great many others 
 feel as I do ; and when we see the 
 interests of Canada frittered away Ks 
 they have been in this case, I fear that 
 any desire to create a more permanent 
 loyalty will ooze out of us, and we will 
 become a dssatisfied people. They talk 
 about the federation of the Empire— the 
 ' veriest rot that ever was spoken. What 
 interest have we in common with the 
 j other side of the Atlantic? We owe to 
 England our existence as a semi-nation, 
 it is true; we owe to her our language 
 and our laws, and we are proud of both ; 
 but while England has been one of the 
 greatest colonising nations of the world, 
 there is no nation has worse adminis- 
 I tered her colonies. Take the case of 
 Cape Colony, a record of years of mis- 
 i management, misrule and misgovern- 
 ; ment. Look at her treatment of us in re- 
 I gard to the boundary of Maine, as well as 
 the Oregon boundary, in each of which 
 cases an immense tract of territory was 
 abandoned, either bv ignorance or im- 
 becility, to the United States; and again 
 look at the St. Juan afiair, they are all, as 
 our Behrings Sea interests will I fear be, 
 a complete siv« away, as our fishery 
 rights, in my opinion, have been. In 
 future we will have to look to ourselves 
 to protect our interests, and want no 
 more diplomatic interference by such 
 men as Chamberlain and Sir Sackville 
 West. Indeed what would Canada have 
 been in the past without the administra- 
 tive powers of the Canadians the nselves ? 
 
 Mr. Mills (Both well)— Without the re- 
 bellion ? 
 
 Mr. Mitchell— Look at the record in 
 this case. I, who was intimatelv con- 
 nected with the whole affair and who 
 felt deeply the necessity of standing up 
 for our rights ; I, who spent day after 
 day, and week after week, pressing these 
 claims on the british Government and 
 keeping them upto the n-ark, found 
 them always receding at the first oppor- 
 tunity—and now everything is gone. 
 My hon. friend speaks of the advantages 
 this treaty has given us ; he 
 speaks of the limit of space which 
 is descrilid by the points of the 
 treaty ; he speaks about the delimita- 
 tions which are name! in the treaty. 
 Sir, let any man take up a map— and I 
 regret that my hon. friend should have 
 
made the excuse he did about not pro- 
 ducing the map— for it was his dutv to 
 produce one. His excuse is, that there 
 18 a provision made for the appointment 
 of a commission for the deUmitation on 
 the treaty. True, there is ; that is the 
 official delimitation. But it was the 
 duty of the Cabinet to have prepared a 
 map and to have it submitted to Parlia- 
 ment, so that we could appreciate and 
 understand these advantages my hon. 
 friend has so eloquently described, but 
 which I cannot see. I may tell my hon. 
 mend that, looking to the contentions of 
 Canada and England, as propounded in 
 1818, and maintained up to 1854, when 
 they were suspended for twelve years : 
 under the treaty of Lord Elg-.n, after i 
 which they were urged to be enforced i 
 again and recognised by the British Gov- 
 ernment from that time out, until they i 
 were again suspended in 1871 by a new 
 treaty— I say if a map based on those I 
 contentions, was taken from headland or I 
 headland, and those exclusive rights to 
 the bays delineated upon it, this 
 House would see what the difference is i 
 between the delimitation in that map ' 
 and the concessions given up to the 
 Americans. If I can understand the 
 meaning of the statements in the grea; 
 mass of despatches which I have had to 
 wade throueh, in order to define how ' 
 we have endeavored to maintain the in- 
 terests of Canada, I should say that the 
 men who wrote them were bound in 
 honor to have stiod by Canada and en- 
 forced those I ights. II they had done so, 
 we would have stood to-day with our 
 headland system maintained and our 
 rights to bays recognized— because all 
 that was wanted was a little firmness 
 some twenty years ago— and we would 
 not be in the position of having to beg for 
 reciprocity. About the inshore fisheries, 
 it was never disputed that we nad an 
 absolute right to them, and yet my 
 hon. friend comes here with his eloquent 
 tongue and persuades us— he knows 
 he can do anything in this country, 
 for he can do what none of us can do, he 
 can control the First Minister, as he 
 saved him in the contest of a year ago— 
 he comes with his eloquent tongue and 
 persuades us that in this delimitation, 
 which the treaty provides for, we have 
 obtained a great concession. Sir, we 
 have abandoned everything, and while 
 we have done that, my hon. friend has 
 forgotten one thing. Did he know there 
 were two ends to the shores of America 
 on the Atlantic? Where is the provision 
 in the treaty to give tho Canadians th 
 same rights in the Delaware and Chesa- 
 
 peake, in Boston Bay, and Narraganset, 
 and Albermarle, and from the Cape of 
 Horida past the mouth of the Missis- 
 sippi, that they have captured from us? 
 Do we find that the interpretation which 
 I they set upon their shores, bays and 
 I coasts is the same as they ask us to 
 set upon ours? Have they not 
 i rights which they claim from head- 
 land to headland, and which are enforced 
 even among themselves, and from which 
 we are excluded ? Where is our right to 
 ! enter their bays ? It is true it is the sep- 
 arate states own them there, but that 
 does not alter the law or right on the 
 question. Where has my hon. friend 
 ; provided in the treaty that we should 
 I liave the use of those bays to the south 
 of where our boundary terminates ? Why 
 have we not secured the same privileges 
 in the American bays, straits, and head- 
 lands, that they demand in ours ? There 
 IS no such provision in the treaty. L?t 
 a Canadian fisherman go down to Dela- 
 ware and Boston, or the sound, or go 
 down amongst their oyster bays and at- 
 tempt to fish, and he will soon find him- 
 self in prison. Where is tho withdrawal 
 of the outrageous American pretension 
 in reference to Behringo Sea, and why 
 was the settlement of that outrageous 
 claim omitted from the treaty ? Did my 
 hon. friend forget all about these impor- 
 tant questions f I am sure not. But 
 my hon. friend found himself in Wash- 
 ington with instructions in Mr. 
 berlain's hands to make a 
 and as to what that treaty 
 be neither Chamberlain nor the 
 British Government, nor Sir Lionel 
 Sackville West cared, and the only man 
 who did care was my hon. friend Sir 
 Charles Tupper, and he had to obey his 
 instructions as a servant of the British 
 Government and representing their in- 
 terests. He was handicapped, weighted 
 down and overborne by the influence of 
 thatgreatest Empire of the world.ofjvhose 
 power he has boasted. I feel I have 
 taken up too much time of the House 
 to-night, but I felt it to be my duty, even 
 at the risk of wearying the House, to 
 place upon record the history of this 
 fishery question, not for the purpose of 
 eclat to myself, but as a duty I owe the 
 country, that we mp-y be able to trace in 
 some available way the history of the 
 iniquitous manner in which the British 
 Government has treated this colony of 
 ours. I am as loyal a subject as any 
 man, and I hope to remain so, but I will 
 remind the House that the time is fast 
 coming when, if the British Governmenc 
 continues to allow our interests to be frit- 
 
 Cham- 
 treaty, 
 should 
 
8 
 
 tered away in this way, she will find the 
 colony itself frittered away before long. 
 It is as well some plain speaking should 
 be heard. I do not wish to be un- 
 derstood to express the opinion that 
 I desire it. I should regret it notwith- 
 standing this treatment, and while I 
 have heretofore felt proud of belong- 
 ing to a colony of England, Canada can- 
 not and will not always remain a colony, 
 and I should not be surprised to find that 
 this treaty will promote such change. 
 Children do not always remain in their 
 father's house, and we are gradually 
 growing into the position when the inter- 
 ests of Canada demand we should branch 
 out for ourselves. I do not desire to see 
 this for some time to come, but a few 
 more cases Uke this and I would not 
 give much f6> the power of England in 
 this colony w Canada. There are a 
 great ma^y "^points I wanted to talk 
 about, but I have taken up so much time 
 in submitting the proof of these matters 
 in otder to sustain my contention, that I 
 think it would be trespassing too much 
 on the time of Parliament for me to con- 
 tinue. I will, therefore, not take up the 
 time of the House any longer in dis- 
 cussing this painful matter. I 
 
 and 
 
 felt I had a duty to perform, 
 I only regret that I have per- 
 formed it so inefficiently. Of course this 
 treaty will pafs ; there is no doubt about 
 that, but I disapprove of it entirely, as I 
 think the Americans have got everything 
 and we have got nothing. I soeak with 
 knowledge of the subject when I say that 
 we have got nothing. The delimitations 
 that are spoken of are simply allowing us 
 to retain an infinitesimal part of what 
 Britain has over and over aeain declare! 
 we had an absolute right to, and has for 
 nearly forty years enforced before the 
 treaty put them in abi^yance. Our rights 
 revived when that treaty ceased, and 
 what did we find ? AVe found that taken 
 from us by the Commission which sat 
 under the authority of the British Crown. 
 I regret very much that England should 
 have so much humiliated herself before 
 her c.tiildren here, and it is a humilia- 
 tion, and I regret that it should be done 
 by a nation which professes to have kei)t 
 faith, especially with her colonies. I re- 
 gret that I have to speak as I am now 
 speaking of England, but I say this as a 
 duty to my country, Canada, as a duty to 
 myself, and as a duty to this House.