cr^l

^ :^

^^'<>

.yj>-

'V'

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0 !lf

^lilM
142

ii«

»t

1.1

|12

■ 40

12.2

M
1.8

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

1.25 1.4

1.6

.4 6" —

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la methods normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommag^e

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages ddcolor^es, tachet6es ou piqudes

Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

□ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Pages detached/
Pages ddtach^es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quality in6gale de I'impression

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

□ Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion 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 ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6td filmdes.

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires;

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

SOX

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

laire
i details
lues du
t modifier
iger une
a filmage

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Thomas Fiiher Rare Book Library,
University of Toronto Library

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

L'exemplaire 1\\m6 fut reproduit grdce d la
ginArositA de:

Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library,
University of Toronto Library

Les images suivantes ont 6ti reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de lexeinplaire film^, et en
conformity avec las conditions du contrat de
filmage.

/
j^es

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 back 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.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont film^s en commencant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — •- signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbols y signifie "FIN".

ire

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 upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds A des taux de reduction diff6rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 A partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut an bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

ty errata
Bd to

ne pelure,

1900 d

32X

//iLh the Compliments of

David Mms,M.P.

^v-^

House of Commons ® ebatcs^

SECOND SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT.

SPEECH OF MR. MILLS, M.P.,

»'i

THE BUDGET

TUESDAY, MARCH 29th, 1892.

Mr. MILLS (Rothwell). Mr. Speaker, it is not
my intention to enter into any ehiborivtc di-scussion
or review of the tinanciiil stiiteiuent made by the
Minister of Finance. It is clear, I think, to the
House, that the hon. gentleman, witii the (Jovcrn-
nient, and those who support hi n and tliem, have
got back upon their old grounds. We have had
in the speech of the Minister of Finance, the
old uiusic and the old instrutneiits with scarcely
any variations. The hon. gentleman has told
the House, that the diminution of the deposits
in the savings kinks are no indication of the
diminished prosperity of the country. When
the amount in the (lovernment savings banks
increased it was an evidence of the increased
wealth of the people, and when that amount has
diminished it is no e\-idence cf increased poverty
or diminished wealth. When the crops of the
agricultural population are gootl it is an indication
of the wisdom and care of tiie Administration,
and when the crops of the agriculturists are bad, it
is the fault of Providence, ami the Administra-
tion ought not in any degree to be held resjjonsihle.
We are told from tlie Treasui'y benches, and by the
gentlemen who support the ministry, that indus-
tries ought to be fostered. They are well fostered
in the Province of New Brunswick ; they ought
to be fostered over the entire Dominion ; and
we are also told that our commercial relations with
the United States have recently enjoyed the foster-
ing care of the Administration. Now, Sir, we are
having some new phases in the tactics of the Con-
servative leaders ; we are having a new departure
in parliamentary government ; we are having new
constitutional usages introduced and established,
and I suppose before many years elapse, should the
hon. gentlemen opposite continue to administer the
Government, we will have a complete change in our
parliamentary system. It used to be, and it is still
in the United Kingdom, the practice under our
system of parliamentary government, that the
House of ('ommons, the body which represents the
nation, is the most potent council to advise the
Sovereign. It is that body which is supposed to
exercise a paramount influence over every other

institution in the State. But, Sir, this is no longer
the case, so far as tin' Parliament of Canada is
ccmcerned. This Parliament is now supposed to be
a mere registering body, to register the wishes of
the Administration that may be expressed land
acquiesced in, some time before finil action is
taken, if the Administration finds it convenient,
or I'arliament may be called upon to sanction, as a
matter of form, what has already been finally
determined. So far as the prerogatives of the
Crown are concerned, we are having, in a large
degree, a revival of the doctrine of high preroga-
tive. We are ha\ ing introduced into this country,
in the practice of the Government those notions of
prerogative tliat led to the great civil war in the
time of Charles the First, and that were supposed
to be altogether overthrown by the revolution of
1088. It is true. Sir, thsit the hon. gentlemen on
the Treasury benches, are not claiming these extra-
ordinary powers on behalf of the Sovereign or the
Sovereign's representative, but they are claiming
them on behalf of that viceroy who exercises auth-
ority over the sovereign, and so we are having a
parliamentary committee known as the Cabinet or
Administration, usurping all these powers that
were at one time ('enied to the Sovereign ; usurping
them in the name of the Sovereign to be exercised
by the Sovereign, always upon the advice of the
(Jcvcrnment whose advice the Sovereign is not at
liberty to disregard. Here, this extraordinary
power is actually in the hands of the Adminis-
tration. It has been exercised by the Administra-
tion, and in a way that diminishes the usefulness
of Parliament, and seriously affects the interest
which the people take in the conduct of the Gov-
ernment of the country. There is nothing, in my
opinion, of more importance in the maintenance of
our parliamentary system, and in the protection of
the community against serious abuses on the part
of those in authority, than the maintenance of a
healthy public spirit in the community, and that
cannot continue to exist when the Government
acts without the sanction of the people's repre-
sentatives ; when they intimate to the represent-
atives of the people in Parliament and to the electors

.'jiMi

» ^1

at large,' that they may give their mind a holiday,
tiiat the (jovernment of the country is in safe
hands, that their interests will be properly cared
for, and so they need give themselves little oi- no
trouble about the conduct of public affairs I
notice, Sir, that the "new colony," as it has been
designated by the (Conservative organs, who occupy
seats on this side of the House ■" oorting the
Administration— I notice tiiat tlw w colony "

praise the present state of things, i ney praise the
delegation to Wasliington, not for wliat they
accomplished, but for what they failed toaccomplish.
There has been a general expression of rejoicing,
not because the Oovernnient succeeded in doing
anything, but because tlie (Jovernment tlid iiothing,
and because those wlio went to Washington came
back able to declare that they had not succeeded,
and that they did not see before them any prospect
of success. They had the wisdom >,o fail, and by
failing to protect tlie farming population against
these calamities, wliichif they liad succeeded, would
have inevitably followed from that success. This
has been the declaration of nearly every hon. gentle-
maawhohasspokeninsupportoftheAilministration.
One hon. gentleman after another has arisen in the
Houseand declared that reciprocity with the Uniteil
States in the agricultural products of the two
countries, would have resulted in a very serious
calamity to the Canadian farmers, and so I have
been at a loss to understan 1 why these gentlenien
should, under these circumstances, have gone to
Washington at all. I am unable to understand
why they should havp gone there for the purpose
of obtaining from the viovernment of the United
States a (leclaration that they entirely agreed
^vith the Minister of Finance — that they did not
see how he was to raise revenue if he succeeded,
and that he had Ijetter maintain the present
condition of things. Why should not these hon.
gentlemen who have recently come into Parlia-
ment, praise the Administration ? They may say to
the Government, and to some of the supporters of
the Administration in Parliament, and some perliaps
out of Parlianiei. j, that it is "Thou that hast made
us, and not we ourselves, and we are tiie slieep of
thy pasture." These hon. gentlemen sit here by
the grace of the Administration, and l)y the favour
of some hon. gentlemen who support tlie Adminis-
tration ; and there is no doubt that tliose
potent influences which have brouglit so large
a number of recruits to the otlier "lide, have
proved of inestimable advantage to the hon.
gentlemen who have recently obtained seats
in this House. The hon. gentlemen who have
spoken in support .of the Minister of Finance
on this subject find it very difficult, to spell
free trade and non-intercourse in one word.
Punch, many years ago, represented Mr. Disraeli
as a chameleon, on whicli the words free trade and
protection were mixed up together. Now, the
Canadian chameleon has not been a very active
animal, and there is not much chance of convincing
the community that the (iovernment are in favour
of reciprocity with our neighbours, and, at tlie
same time opposed to putting the larger number of
products, which may 1)e interclianged between the
two countries, upon a free list. The lion, gentle-
men wlio have spoken are, no doubt, pleased, for
another reason besides that of protecting the farm-
ers against the calamity of having a free market in
the United States. They can use their old speeches.

Those speeches, Sir, are not in danger. The visit
fo Wasliington has not rendered them absolutely
useless, and so far as we can judge from what has
been said by the Finance Minister, they may serve
a useful purpose to tliose hon. gentlemen for many
sessions to come. At all events, they will, no doubt,
serve them as long as the hon. gentlemen who now
occupy 'he Treasury benches, continue to sit there.
There is to be no furtlier efTort at negotiating a re-
ciprocity treaty with our iieighbtnirs across the
border. The march has taken jilace ; the capital
of the United States has been visited ; the attempt-
ed negotiations have failed. The ( Jovernment have
convinced themselves, and their sujiporters.and they
have convinced Mr. Blaine and ( Jeneral Foster, that
there is no chance whatever-of success ; and so this
whole business is ended, and the (Jovernment must
.eniaiii where they are. They must retain the olil
policy, they must sing the ohl tunes, their friends
must support the old leaders, and wave the old flag,
and that is tlieir business. They are confined
within very narrow limits ; their work of investi-
gation and reflection is at an end ; and all they have
to do is to defend tlie fortress, retain the hon.
gentlemen who support them, and use the old arms
for the maintenance of the citadel. Well, Sir, I do
not exactly see the matter in that light. Whatever
may have been the intentions of the Government —
and we can hardly suppose now that they were
serious or that they ever expected to accomplish
more than they did accomplish — it is pretty clear
tiiat thoir friends who followed and supporte<l them,
did not *'nke the same comfortable view of the
situation, us long as the negotiations were threat-
ened, or were in progress. They felt sonieuneasiness.
They were inclined to think that in some way or
other, the hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches
had got oflf the old path, that they were deviating
from that course to which the economic orthodoxy
of that side of the House required that they should
adhere, and that they were in danger of being lost ;
ami th'»y could never understand how it was that
those gentlemen should stray so far away from
home as to go to Washington to negotiate about
a business, which, if it succeeded, would prove so
detrimental to the interests of Canada. That was
their position. They supposed that some sorceress
had got possession of the Finance Minister— that
some false Duessa, who had robed herself in gar-
ments tliat did not belong to her and appeared
young and beautiful, proved, when sti'ipped of these,
to be a \'ery offensive, oUl, deformed individual,
like the falr.e Duessa in the " Fairy (Jueen." Now,
Sir, the hon. gentleman, no doubt, when he
started for WashingUm, played the part of the Red
Cross Knight. He got to the White House, which
was, his friends feared, a palaceof enchantment ; but
somehow, by the interposition of some friendly fairy,
the hon. gentleman was released from hit delusions,
and became clothed and in his right m'nd ; and ne
returned without inflicting any serious injury on
the people of ( "anada. That is, in their estimation,
the hon. gentleman's position. I remember some
years ago reading a play in whicli the here, call d, I
think, Sir Pertinax McSycophant, was anxious to
grow suddenly rich, but was puzzled h 'W to
succeed unless he found some rich person wlio
would be ready to marry liiin. So it appeared that
he met an old, toothless, phthisicky, ricketty, rheu-
matic specimen of humanity whose affections he
won in a fortnight, whom he married in a mouth

\ '

■j

and buried in a year ; and tlien, with a largo hu
of money, a sorrowful countenance, aniT a light
heart, he was enabled to begin life anew. Now, the
hon. gentleman uamc bauk here, and I uni sure it was
a melancholy pleasure to liim to tell how he failed.
He was very mucli like .Sir I'ertinax ; and not
only did we see the nielanclioly ])lea.sure wit!)
which — no doubt with a melaneiioly countenance,
btit with real pleasure at iieart — he announced to
the House the failure of the negotiations, but, .Sir,
the pleasure was not a melancholy one to the "new
colony," nor to his older followers. It was perfectly
clear from the loud cheens with which tiie
announcement was received, that it was a nuitter
of genuine rejoicing to them. It was aday of emanci-
pation. They were once more free. Thej' couhi
once more, without any limitations or reservations,
declare themselves supjOTrters of t he ohl policy to
which they had atlhered for so very long a time.
Now, Sir, there is not only this feature of the dis-
cussion, 1/ut tiiere is a larger one, if we look at the
circumst nces which gave rise to this visit to
Washington. It is important, in order to under-
stand t!ie whole (juestion, to notice how it l)egan,
as well as iiow it ended. There was a dissolution
of Parliament, and tins tlissolntion, we were in-
formed, was for tiie ))urpose of obtaining popular
sanction to the very serious business in which
tiiese gentlemen were about to engage. There
was no popular sanction sought by the
(Jos'ernnient for the Franchise Act. There
was no yjopular sanction sought wlieu it was
proposed to ])ut the wards of tlie ( lovernment, the
unenfranchised Indians of tiiecountry, upon the list
of voters. There was no popular sanction required
ivhen it was proposed to undertake otlier constitu-
tional changes or not less importance. Sir, Parlia-
ment is elected for a period of five years. The law
provides for the continuance of Parliament during
that period. The law has entrusted the Crown
with the power of dissolution, under certain circum-
stances. What tliose circumstances are, is pretty
well defined Ijy the usages and practices of Parlia-
ment and the Crown, in the mother country. It is
not a power that can be lightly used. It is a
power, says Sir Robert Peel, " which never can be
employed carelessly with.iut blunting tiie instru-
ment," It is of the first conse(|uence that those
usages and practices should bo regardeil by the
(tovernment, when advising the Crown, to dissolve
Parliament. I am not going into a discussion of the
question whetiier this was, and in what respect it
wiis, an improper dissolution. I referred to the
subject last yea'-. I have no doulit whatever, that
tiie Crown was badly advised, and that the preroga-
tive of dissolution was abused, when that power was
exercised in putting an end to tlie Parliament
which prececled this. Honourable gentlemen
want popular sanction for negotiations, the
character of which wtis not disclosed. They asked
the judgment of tiie cov.iitry on a question «hich
tl\e country was not psrniitted to know and to
understfvnd, and they h<.-i)ed that the jjeople of thi.s
country would regard tliat as a serious declaration
of principle. Now, let us look for a moment at
what Parliament did in former years, and what it
did without question, in puttinc upon the Slatute-
l)ook what is called " the standing offer. " There
is a law which declared that the Government should
at any time, under certain circumstances which are
set out in the statute, enter into negotiations with

the United States, and immefliately put a large num-
ber of articles, indicated in the statute, upon the free
list. This ( Jovernment re(|uired (Hipular sanction for
wiiat Parliament had autiiorized it to (hi. Does
the (<overn!nent reipiiie popular sanction for wliat
has already, over and over again, received popular
sanction ? Most assuredly not ; and it can be
hardly said tliat the Administration were serious
when they undertook t(» appeal to tiiecountry, and
assigned as a reas(jn for that appeal, liiat they
re(|uired iK>]iular sanction for the step they were
almut to take. The lion, gentleman, the Minister
o' Finance, says that the (loverniiient are not re-
s]ionsible for the McKinley Hill. Well, I dissent
from tiiat view. We all reniemlier here the discus-
.sioii we liad in 188(5wlieni. large number of articles
had Ijeen put upon the free list by the Congress
of tiie United States, and we asketl that they should
be ])ut upon tilt' free list by tlie Parliament of
Canada. They were natural jiroducts. They were
such as a large numiiur of our people had a special
interest in, especially those who reside in the
Maritime Provinces. A large trade was growing
up in them. We were exporters of many of them,
yet tiie Ooverninent, at the instance of some of
their supporters, voted down the proposition to put
tliese articles on tlie free list. The financial depart-
ment of the (ioverimient was then in charge of Sir
Leonard Tilley. Two years later the (Jovernmeat
entered into negotiations with tlie (Jovernment of
Washington about another matter, the treaty of
1 8HS, relating to the fislieries. Sir Charles Tupper,
wlio a .'te<l as Comniissii/ner for Canada, came nei-e.
He wt'.s, I tiiink, ilinister of Finance at the time.
He was, at all events, a member of the Government,
anrl he pres.sed upon tlie ( tovermnent thenecessity of
putting upon the freelist tliese articles, that we had
propo.sed slioulil go on the free list two years before.
He did so, on representations from Washington.
The Government luid declared against doing that
particular act. Tlie lion, gentleman who now leads
tlie House had himself spoken against the proposi-
tion not two days before ; but. at the instance of
the Minister of Finance, theinatterwaspresaedon the
attention of the (Government. They receded from
the position they liad taken, and put those articles on
the free list. These articles remained there but for
a single season, and were again put back on the
list of dutiable articles, and then the McKinley
Bill came into operation. Now, the Government
for a series of years, acted upon these representa-
tions tliat had been made. What were they ?
Why, they had said again and again : If you per-
mit us to pursue a courageous policy, we will bring
the Congress of the United States to their
knees, we will bring them to their senses ; and
Sir Charles Tupper, as a member of the Ad-
ministration, '•"'iuted out again and again to
this House, .king a statement which was
not accurate, but which wa« ::c,ortheless
made, that the mere threat of putting a duty
upon American coal had the effect of inducing Con-
gress to take the duty oflF Canadian coal. He gave
that as Un instance of tlie power Canada liad, if
she chose to exercise it, of completely altering the
fiscal policy of the United States. The Govern-
ment pursued this system, talking loudly, talking
very grandly, intimating what we had power to do,
intimating the cowardly, the humiliating position
we would be in if we failed to exercise our power,
and to show the Congress of the United Stateo our

% -

independence of thoin. All this tall talk, and these
actions ultimately called attention, whicli was not
before attracted, to the relatioiis between
Canada and the United States. They speci-
ally called the attention of the American (Jov-
ernntent to the matter, and the result was
the McKinley Bill. The McKinlcy Hill, Sir,
had its origin in the policy and in the language
employed by the hon. gentlemen who .sat on tiie
Treasury benches, and in thejuewspapers supporting
tliem, and the hon. gentlemen who voted with them
auvl occupied seats behind them in this House.
Well, on the eve of the last general election, these
hon. gentlemen announced that they were about
to negotiate a treaty with tiie United .States. They
were divided between their support of a treaty
and their support of the National Policy. They
were to leave here on tiie 4tli of March, they were
to reach Washington on the 6th, at a pei'iotl when
it would be '■ ^ n how great a victory they had
achieved, " . -iir hands wotdd be strengthened,
so that t )uld successfully carry on their

negotiatioi. ,jth the neighbouring Republic. I
think that the correspondence, to whicii I shall
refer, shows that the representations then made
were not such representations aa ought to have l)een
made to the people of this country; that tliey were
I'epresentations made for the purpose of convincing
those who were tlissatisfied with the policy of pro-
tection, that they were about to receive relief at the
liands of the Administration ; that the relations be-
tween the United States and Canada liad undergone
change ; that the ( Jovernment had abandoned their
fiscal policy of restriction, and that they were pre-
pared to treat that policy as a mere means to an
end. In fact, we were told again and again, at tiie
last general election, tliat the policy of protection
was not adopted as a policy good in iiself but as a
means to an eu<l ; that their policy, as the resolution
of 1878 in fact declared, was 'dimply a means of
forcing the people of the Uniteil States to agree to
freer trade relations, and to froer commercial inter-
course, with the people of th's country. Now let me
call the attention of the Hoiue to the correspondence
which took place between His Excellency and the
Colonial Office, and the (Government of tliis coun-
try and the British Embassy at Washington, for the
purpose of promoting a belter under8tan<ling in
connnercial matters between Canada and the neigh-
bouring Republic. Before commencing to read quo-
tations from this correspondence, let me say that,
although the Government sent an embassy to
Washington a little latei- than they had promiseil
the people of this country that such a delega-
tion or embassy would be sent, that delegation
or embassy remained there for a remarkably short
period of time ; it did so because the Secretary
of State complained that faith had not been kept
with him, and those gentlemen were put on
probation for misconduct before those negotiations
could be renewed. On the 3rd November, 1890,
the Colonial Office informed the Foreign Office that
suggestions had been received from the Governor
General by telegram, and that a reply fo these
suggestions should be telegraphed to the British
Minister at Washington, if the Foreign Office
approved of what the telegiam contained. The
words are :

" With instructions to consider in what way the wish of
Canada to be included in any arrnngement may fristbe
made, and to telegraph home foi consideration the erras

of any convontton or arranccment which be thinks could
bo obtained or is desiriible.

This was done by the Foreign Office on the
following day, and on the tttli Nf)vcml)er the
Foreign Office informed the Colonial Office that
they had received "the substance of a draft conven-
tion from Sir Julian Vauncefote that ho had pri-
vately communicated to Mr. Hlaine for an arrange-
mentastotishingqut'stioiisand as to trade regulations
between the United Stjites and Newfoundland. I
am to point out tliat Sir .luliau Pauncefote defers
replying to the enquiry addrcNsed to him ad to the
best mode of inchuling (Canada in such an arrange-
ment until he has discussed tlie draft witli Mr,
Blaine." On the lOtli November, a protest is made
by the Canadian Government against the New-
foundland treaty. On the 2()th November, the
(\inadian Government wim jiiformed by Lord
Knutsford that " Her Mpjesty't. Government will
delay the Newfoundland convention if Canadian
negotiations can be entered upon at once on lines
proposed by your Ministers so that both may
proceed part paixn. Any reciprocity treaty between
Canada and the United States would, as previously,
be framed so as not to place imports from tiiis
country at a disadvantage, and it is presume<l
that Canada would wish to retain control o\'er her
taritF with a view to possible extension of her
trade with the colonies and England." There is
a suggestion from the Colonial Office in con-
se(|uence of a communication received from the
Government of Canada with reference to the pro-
posals of the (Tovernment which have not been laid
liefore this House. What correspondence was
there, that gava rise to this suggestion '! How is it
that that conmunication of the 19th November
from the Government of C'anada has not been laid
before Pai liamont? The Governor General informs
Lord Knutsford on th.'; same day that "the (/ann-
<lian Ministers are prijpared to open negotiations
immediately on the lines indicated in my telegram
of the 19th." What were those lines indicated in
tne telegi-am of the 19tii ? Why is it that the con-
tents of that telef/am have noj been laid before this
House, and that the (Jovernment have not seen
proper to communicate to Parliament the proposal
which is necessary, to enable Parliament to form a
judgment upon the conduct of the Administration?
They go on to say : ' ' Provided their representatives
at Washington could bo commissioners associated
with the British Minister and empowered to nego-
tiate directly instead of being merely <lelegates."
Thatisthecondition on which they proposed tounder-
take immediate negotiations. VVha*' were the lines
indicated in that telegram, not a word of which
has up to this hour been communicated to Parlia-
ment? We arerefiuired, oni'.jcountof thestatement
of the hon. Minister, to exercise our judgment
upon the conduct of the Administration, and
the papers which are necessary to enable us to
form a judgment upon the conduct of the Adminis-
tration are not yet laid before Parliament. On the
28th November, 1890, Lord Stanley informs the
British Minister at \^'ash^ngt,on that

" Wo are prepared to arrange for commercial relations
with the United States being liberally extended and wish
that the United States may be so informed. This Govern-
mont objects to sending delegiitesto Washington unoffl-
oially, as liable to give rise to misunderstanding, but is
ready at once to open formal negotiations with the sanction
of Her Majesty's Government."

They also say ;

8 COUltl

(

" They woulU noRotiiite iminddintRly on the lines
indioiiti'd in my toIuKram of the liltli if tlioir ropreBontii-
tlvci could be cuniniissionorH oinpuwored to nogotluto
directly iniitoad of uoroly dclegatoK."

Tiiu.sf! are the wonls eontaineil in the despatch of
HiM Kxcellency uiroii tliiH very important suWjeet.
(In the 1th Deceniner, l»r<l Kniitftford, iu acominu-
nii.'iitioii to r^jnl Stank-y, says :

" With reforoiico to yourdospaloh of the 19th of Inbt
month, Her Miiicaty'n Govornmont agree to the Miniater
at Wii8hini;ton being assigtod by one or more Canadian
i)leni|ioteMtiario8, if the United etatrg oonsont to negotia-
tioDf."

On tlie oth I)eceinl)er,
Lord Kmiteford :

Lord (Stanley telograplis

" May wo now moke definite official proposals through
the HritiHb Minister to the United States Qovernment.

'I'liat coniinunieation sIiowh tl'ut up to that time
no formal cominunication, or no proposal, had been
made liy the (lovernmeiit of Canada to the liritiiih
Kmha.isy at Washington with the view to its heinj/
I'ounnunicated to the (Jovernnient of (he United
States. Their eoiinnuniuation which they i)roposed
us a basiH of negotiations oirthe suhjcct of recipro-
city, was with the Colonial OfHce. That is con-
tained in the telegram of the 19th Noveml)er,
wliich has never been laid before I'arlian'ent, but
the Colonial Ottice calls forcaution — thatthey would
notui.'.ertake to discriminate against liritish goods,
and that they would not enter into such trade re-
lations with the United Stiites as would make it
iiupossiblu for them to extend their relations with
the mother country, or with other British pos-
sessions. On the 17th December, .Sir Julian Paunce-
fote writes to Lord Staidey :

" I Hill informed by thoScorotarv of State (Mr. Blaine)
that his (lovcrninent could not re; pond to the suggestion
of a formal commi.'<sion until a bos^s of arrangement had
been first reached. Ho expresses i. strong desire to con-
clude a wide reciprocity treaty."

These were the words used in the des-
patch of tlie liritish Minister at Washington, that
Mr. Blaine desired to conclude a wide treaty of
reciprocity. He does not limit the Government
to any specific kind of treaty exec >t that it ought
to be a treaty mutually beneficial and comprehen-
sive in its provisions. I^ord JStiv-uey informs Lord
Kuutsford, on the 13th December, upon what terins
the (Government are j)repared to negotiate. Now,
the fact that that telegram of the 19th is suppressed,
and this formal despatch of the 13th December is
given, goes to show that the contents of the tele-
gram did not c(jrrespond with the contents of the
despatch. Let us know what were th ; Government's
first impressions. What were the views, what
were the proposals in contemplation as a basiii for
connnercial arrangements with the United States,
as suggested in this telegram of the 19th November?
The House has a right to know what views the
Government entertained on the subject at thpt
time. Now, this despatch of the 13th December
reads as follows ; —

" I '.lave the honour to send to your Lordship 'o-day a
telogiiiphic message of wiiich the following is the sub-
Btancu:"

That telegraphic niessage of *A\e 13th is not here.

" With roforenCfi to my telegram of the 10th inst., this
Government is dasirous . to propose a joint com-

mission, such aa that of 1871, with authority to deal
without limitation and to prepare a treaty respecting the
following subjects : —

I " 1, Renewal of the Rooiprooity Treaty of 1854, with the
] moditioiitioMs required by the altered circumstances of
I b(>th countries, and with the exteiiaions deemed by the
I r uuuisgion to be in the interoat of Canada and the United
States.

"2. Heconaidorationof the treaty of 188Swlth respect to
the Atliintio fisheries, with the ann of securing the free
admibsion into the United States markets of Canadian
fishery products in return for facilities to be granted to
the United States fishermen to buy bait and supplioa and
to tranship cargoes in Canadii, all ^uch privilegea to oe
mutual.

"3. Protection of mackerel iind other fisheries on the
Atlantic Ocean and the inland waters also.

" 4. Relaxation of the seaboard coastuig laws of the two
countries.

" 5. Relrvxation of the coasting laws of the two countries
on the inland waters dividing Canada from the United
States.
" fi. Mutual salvage and saving of wrecked voasels.
"7. ArrangcmontH for settling boundary between
Canada and Alaska."

Now, the«e were the topics that were suggested in
this communication of the 13tli December as sub-
jects for discussion in the I'arliamcnt of C'anada
and the (Jovermnent of the United States. It will
be observed that the (Jovernment proposed in this,
the treaty of 1854 as the basis for negotiation be-
tween the two (lovernmcntson the subject of reci-
procity. The viovernments had again and again
mformed I'arliament through a long series of years
beginning in 1S71, that itwas not possible to secure
a treaty of reciprocity with the United States
u))on the basis contained in this first proposition ;
and why they should undertake to suggest as a
basis for the negotiation that which they them-
selves stated never could be a basis for a successful
treaty, I confess I am unable to understand, except
upon the o le hypothesis, that, however anxious
the 'lovernniont might be to succeed with regard
to some of the other matters, they were merely
anxious to allay public feeling, to postpone the
public decision, until the elections were over ; and
then if they failed, or if it became iiianifest that
tliey did not desire to succeed in the establishment
of reciprocal trade relations with our neighbours,
no harm could come to them politically. That is
the one ..iference which may be drawn, and it seems
to me the only one that can be drawn, from the
proposition, and from what subscviuently happened
with regard to it. I need not refer to the second
proposition. Isupposcthe Government aicanxious to
accomplish that. I should have been sorry to have
seen tliem successfid with regard to some of
the provisiona of that treaty of 1888. I am
willing that the Administration should go a long
way in establishing freer trade re'itions, and
making liberal commercial arrangements in all
those mattcLS referred to in the treaty of 1888 ;
but I am not anxious, I am not willing, to see
any government, or any party, sacrificing the
sove' eign rights of this country to the demands
of o ir neighbours, and those sovereign rights
were, in uiy opinion, to no inconsiderable degree
sacrificed by the terms of the treaty of 1888, I
need not refer to tiie protection of the mackerel,
or to the relaxation of the laws relating to the
coasting trade. I may say that the proposition
relating to m-utiial salvage und the saving
wrecked vessels, which the Minister of
when Minister of Customs, fought with so much
vigour and success for a long series of years,
he supported at \Vashington. I think I may con-
gratulate the Minister of Militia on the progress
which lie has mac'e in that particular, and that he
is now prepared to support, as in the interests of

iig of
War

humanity iva well iw in t\\v inturoRts of connnerco, a
|Hility wiiich ho Iiok liithcrto oppoHcd witli iv great
ileal (if vigour and with a great ileal of hmoccus.
Now, the next Huhject to which I nhall icteriMa
Htatonient made hy a nienilier of the < iuvcrninent.
It iu tliJH :

" Mr. Hlninc roiilipil tliia lo ondciivoiir to olitiiin the
u|)p<iinttnoin oft lio t'ormitl ("immiKiiion to iirri vo at the rooi-
pyooity woidil l)o iifohiHi', Ixil tlmt tlic> UnitcMl gtaten (lov-
ernmuiit waH williiiK to diKi'iins the (juexlion in private
with Sir.IidiHM l'iiiiii«'«foti' Hedoiio ornioriMli<l<'initi'nrrom
Canada, and to consiili'r every mibjool as to wliicli there
wa« a liope of aKroumcnl on the groundx of minual in-
terostfi ; if not to rJMlt bo ariive a uton nntil by private (lin-
oininiun he him natiiflod liiinnelf that Ruod Rronnd existed
for expeeliiid an iiKreenient l)y nioiinH ofii cnnitniByion.
Ho addi.d that he would lie prepared lo enter into private
negotiations at any time after 4tli March "

IIo added that he would lie j>re'|.ared to enter
into these negotiations iitaiiy time after 4tli .March.
This waH the o(nninnni>!ation the (ioverninent
received from WnHhington a«to Mr. Hlaine's inten-
tions. Mr. Blaine informs Sir .Jnlitui I'anneefote :

" I had not a moment to give lo llio ituhlort u".til after
the adjournment of Congre.><H in March, but ,ftcr that
date I would be willing to respond toy.ur request, to
have a full but private conferenee with tile HritiHU Minis-
tor and one or rnoro agents from Canada to go over every
point of diB'eroncc and oonsidcr every subject upon which
a mutual interest can be loinuicd. If an agreement is
reiiched, all well ; if not, no ofliciiil mention is to bo made
of the elTort. Above all thingi* it is important to avoid
public reference to the matter. This the President will
insiKt upon."'

Now, this was the nmlcrstanding in regard to
these initial negotiations. Mr. Blaine said, when he
received the proposith)!! which the (lovernnient
Bubinitted : I am not prepared to enter into negotia-
tions by the appointment of a formal t'ommission.
Your proiiosition for reciprocity is vague and may 1)3
one exceeilingly limited. I do not know how you
propose to deil with the matter. I do not know what
your proposals are. It may be a useless waste of
time to undertake negotiations on such a basis :
let us hy private and infornuil intercourse,
which is to be kept strictly secret, ascertain
whether there is any reasonable {)rf)spect of arriv-
ing at an agreement before we appoint a
Commission for the purpose of negotiation.
That was hib proposition. And why he wished
to keep it secret is perfectly obvious. 8uch
a proposition as the one contained in the topics
for negotiations supplied by the (Jovernment is one
which ndght arouse against it a very large section
of the population of the United States, without
bringing a singlesection to support the Administra-
tion that would entertain it. Ic was important
to know more specifically what it was that.
Canada was willing to agree to have re<;inrocal trade
in, and until that should be asr^i-taiuid, it was
most undesirable that tlie matter should be put
before the people ; beca'.ise '.\,e (Joverninent of tlie
United States would be in this position : there
would be a large nundwr of intorests prepared to
attack the propositio.:, and no interests prepared
to give it their support, '"hat would be the neces-
sary consequence of making public a proposition
such OS the Government of Canada submitted to
the United Suites. That was not done. The
Government did not keep secret these informal
negotiations, on the contrary they published abroad
that such negotiations were to be had, and of this
Mr. Blaine complained, and he certaiidy com-
plained with good reason. After that a member of
the (Jovernnient said :

"Sir John Ma^donald'.« (loveriimpnl not long ago made
n doHnlte proiiosRl to the Wasliingtoii nulhorltins for the
■cttlcincnt ol^ all xliliiig diffcrl■ll(■o^ ootwfcn the two
eouiitric'K, on the biuis of the extciisiou of tnide bolwocn
the two cciuiitrles. It involves partial rooiprcioity, llie
enumcratnd iirllcleH to inoludo genenilly » number of
naturnl proilucts. IJut the proposition disriirds any idea
of commi'roiiil union or inirestrictod rflclproolly. More-
over, lliese proposals wire invited and suggfunl by flio
Wiisningtoii iiuthoritlos,"

Did Mr. UluineH HnggeRti(Ui- that If the Hubject of
reciprocity was entertained it slnnihl be a wide pro-
j)osal for reciprocity wariimt a statement of
this sort ? ^ In my opinion, it did not. I hold it
to be a nusreiireMentation of Mr. Blaine's state-
ment to Miey that it warrants the assertion made iu
i\w paragraph I have read. It is further said :

"The Commissioners from Cnnada and Great Drltain
■tart tor Washington on the 4th March, the date of the
opening of the new Coiigrcs."."

The reason was not that a new Congress waa to be
oj)ened at that date, but that the Secretary of
Stale woidil have leisun in conse(|nence of the
ternnnati(ni of the old one. There is no statement
nnide by Mr. Blaine that warrantt; the intimation
that negotiatioiks were to begin on the 4th of
March, and that a delegation was to start ■«» the
4th March. There is not a particle of the corres-
pondence brought down that warrants a state-
ment of this sort. Mr. Blaine says that before
that time he will not have leisure. It is clear that
the intention was that the fixing of the date for
these negotiations was to be a matter Utv future
arrangement. But that was not one acted unon,
nor wliat was represented to the Canadian pnnlic.
A Minister said :

" The result of the Canadian elections will be known on
the 6th March, the day the Commissioners reach
Washington. In order that the Commission may have
no uncertain sound. Sir John A. Macdonald has decided
to appeal to the country and ask for judgment on tb«8e
propCuals of his to the Washington autlioritios."

What were tiiese proposals V Was there a'lything
definite, on which jntlginent could be passed '! No,
It was necessary that negotiations should take
place, that conclusions should be reached, that the
public should know what those conclnsicms were
before it would be possilde for the public to form
a judgment. It should not have been dime
before negotiations were begun. If the opinion of
the country was recjiiircd, it was required after
negotiations were com)deted, and the terms agreed
\ipon were known, and it whs a mere ijretense to
dissolve I'ttrliameut, under the circumstances, for
any such pui-pose as that set out in this statement.
It is impossible it could be so. .Sir John Macdonald
shortly after this time issued an address himself.
It was elaborate. It discussed the various issues
that had been put before the people. It iliscussed
the policy laid before the country by the
party of whicii he was the head ; but there
is not in the 'wldress from the Ixiginning to the end
a syllable with respect to those negotiations that
were to take place at Washington. He said noth-
ing in regard to them, and I suppose the reason he
said notliing was the understanding with Mr.
Blaine that tiiese matters were not to be made sub-
jects of public discussion. Nor was the fact of the
discussion of this question in an informal way to
be made public, unless they reached a conclusion
justifying the appointment of a Commission for' the
purpose of negotiating a formal treaty. When the
statement became public, Mr. Baker, a member of

th
an
th

pa
St a

in I
wi

CongreM, AiMieMMfd a Icitttr to Mr. liluiiu' ailliii((
Mr. MliiiiUi'H ultciitioii to wlml liml Iwcii k'uU-iI liy
tliu (iovurniiiuiit or the iiic'--' of tln' (iovcriimciit,
liiiil HxkiiiK liiiii wimt rouiiuitioii tlirri' wiim for
tliCMc repreHtiilHtioiiH. \Ir. IUkcr'8 li-tter Ih thin :

" My Dkah Mh. Ul.AitiK,— It Ik roporleil in the nown-
liiipOFH of (!iiiin<lu iiikI iiIork the iiortliprii Ixirilvrof my
iflnli', wht'ro my cdiii'tiliit'iitH iir« d ^'I'ly iiitt'r»'Hti'(l in tlic
aiil>jucl, lliut ni'Kotiiilioni' urti i;i>iiiiri>n luMwi'fn tliidODiui-
Iry and (Iroiil llriliiin, witli a view to jmrliiil ruciprocity
with Ciii.iidii, inrlnilinK niiluiiil prntluvti only mid not
iniinurHcturi'H ; iind it i-< uliitod lliiit Sir CliiirU^H Tuppor Id
(in liiH wiiv liorc ii" ii I'omniinHinm'r to ni'Kotiiito for unci)
inodifipiitlonH of iiiir larilV. I nlmll be very Kind if you
will enublo mo to iinHWur iny coniititiioiitt.
" Very truly your»,

••(•HAS. ,'^. Il.AKER."

To tliiH .M''. Il'iiiiii; on lliu ><unie diitu, llie •JtJtIl
tlaimary, ISitI, uddrt'HHeil tliu foUowinj^ icply : —

" Dkati Rill. Hakkh,— I iiutliori»!o ymi to I'mitriidict tho
ruinourn you rolor to. TIiiti! art' no nonotiations wliiilovur
on foot tor li rccir.rocity troiily with riiiinidii, iind you
iniiy !)« iiHaurod that no suoh Hohonio for a rociprooity
troiity with tho Dominion, confined to natural products,
will hoontertaincd liy thinOovornmont. Wo know nothing
i»£iiir ('hallos Turipor'n comir;: to Wanhinnton.
" Vi'ry tridy, Sic,

•• J.VMKS (J. HLAINE."

Now, Sir, ai:y one wlio IniH lead t lie coiieMpoiideiicc
between the ('oloiii:d Olfiee and the Foreign OHiee,
between Lord .Staidcy ami the Colonial Ottice, be-
tween Loiil Staidey and liie liriliHh nird)a8Nador at
Washington, the minutes of Comicil, and the eoni-
inunicution by the (iov<'rnment of Canada, will see
tliat in every |iartiiniliii' thiH letter of Mr. lilaine
is true. Ther*! weie no negotiationH pending. He
refused to agree to the appointment of a Connnis-
sion, he refused to agree that there shouhl be nego-
tiations, until by inforniiil ami i)rivute conversation
with the lion, gentlenu^n on the Treasury benches
he had aseertuineil what their meaning was when
they proposed a re(aj)roeity treaty on the basis of
tiia't of IS,')4, moditied as re(|uired by the changes
tliat luid taken |)lace in both countries in that
j»eri;>"; of time. Mr. Blaine's view was clearly
stated in this letter ;and thetioverninent, from the
time that letter was written down to the time that
they say they failed at Wasiiington in these infornuil
negotiations, knew j)re;i8ely what kind of proposi-
tion the American (ioveriiment were prepared to
entertain. That that proposition must be as V)road
and ai comprehensive as tlie Finance Minister has
stated to this House, I do not believe. I think that
a treaty of a very ditl'erent character, without these
restrictions which he suggested, can be negotiated.
I think that he did his best to preventany agreement
that his party woidd be willing to accept. I have
no doubt of that whatever, and 1 say. Sir, that
under these circumstances it was of the first conse-
(pience that every memorandum, every letter, every
oomniunication, every report of matters that took
place between the Canadian tioverinnent and the
(Joverninent at Washington, and every report that
was made to His Kxcellency here in reference to
this visit to Washimiton, shoulil have been lai<l
before Parliament before the Minister of Fin-
ance undertook to discuss the subject at all. Now,
there is in this letter of Mr. l-Waine a specific decla-
ration. He declares that no projtosition looking
to a treaty confined to natural products will be
entertained, and the (iovernment knew that before
they left Ottawa for Washington. They promised
to go to W ashington while tlie general elections were

pending, they left on tlitN tinal v. nit of theirs when

the bye eleotioiis were pending, ami so the (lov-
ernment have, by their action it, the first instance
ami in the lust, shown what in .heir opinion wan
the public feeling on tlu- subject of recipnjcity.
Strongly, as they Iwdicrvcd, the syHtetn ..f protection
had taken hold u|K)n the minds of the inanufuctur-
ing dasMes ; strongly as they felt thcmselveH
entrenched by their subserviency, shall I say, to
that class; at iili events let me sny, by their
devotion to it ; they still felt that the agricultural
popidation and the conimercialclasses of this country
were interested in freer trade with the neighlsnir-
ing Hepnblic. It would not do when any number
of liye-clections were pending, iiuiuh less would it
do when a general election was pending, to leave
till ,>ublic of this country to si.ppose that they
were not pre)>ared to entertain jiropositions looking
to more liberal trade relations with the Uiiiteil
States. On the (tth February last year the Minis-
ter of ilustice spoke to the people of the city of
Toronto, end he said in his speech amongst other
things, those which I will now read :

II when tho lime oomos tbat in
1), wliatovor lii» Bontimonts may

" It will bo proved I'
rciipontiu to that Mr. 1(1
bo— and 1 am bound foi u
(landor — as tho noKotim
luiit the Dominion of Vn
these two countries, he
for reciprocity and oni
hor. That etaluraont i >>
ourselves of that to extend

•nt to (live him credit for

Vowfoundland would not

r u trade troatjj between

mg to make a wide treaty

"pnrato neKotiatiuns with

'", we are jbound to avail

ide."

That the United States were willing to make a wi<le
treaty of reciprocity, he knew. That statement
was made by Mv. Hlaine, and he says we are IkiuikI
to avail ourselves of that to extend our trade.
Yes, Mr. .Speaker, I think the (iovernment were
bound to avail themselves of it, liut the (lovern-
inont in the course which they ailojited and in the
pro|)osition which they made, showed that thoy
were not <lisposed to make a wide treaty of reci-
procity. It was a treaty of ii very different char-
acter ; it was a treaty that would require to lie
cliaract<!rized by other terms than as a wide treaty
of reciprocity, which they expressed their readiness
to negotiate ; a treaty the character of which was
such that they knew from the time that this pro-
position was submitted to the British Government
to be communicated to Washington, that it would
not be accepted. Again the Alinister of Justice
said :

" The next reciuost from Mr. DIaine was that preparatory
to negotiations Doing entered upon, tho Canadian (Jovern-
inoiit would propound a basis upon which tho convention
would eventually proceed. We did so in a document
which has been published in the press offering to consider
a renewal of the reciprocity of 1854, with such modifica-
tions as the oircumstancesof tho two countries might call
for."

Now,Sir,that is a statement which I have no cloubt
is fairly accurate. Mr. Blaine no doubt insisted upon
preparatory negotiations before such a proposition
was made, bv.t tliat jiroposition when made was of so
indefinite and of so vague a character that it pre-
vented the appointment of the Commission until
theCiovernmentof Canada made cleartheir meaning,
until they explained tothetiovernment of the United
.States how far they were prepared to go and what
modifications they were prepared to propose. The
Minister of Justice goes on to say :

" It is stated that having made that proposition to Mr.
Blaine without any prospect of its being accepted, and
without any prospect of it.s being eventually entertained.
Sir John Macdoneld has sprung the elections on the peo-

l« of CKtindii uiidi'r tlio pntMM Of hi* HoiliK (<) iiiitnrtttiri
e iiriolliitioiin wliil« In r««ll^ tnn CiililiH'l HI WniililiiR-
ton win linvti iiciiMtnf it. Let inu It'll voii lliiit.nii fiii I'rniii
Ihitt ni'liiH triio, wt< hnil tlii> |iri>|M)iiiiroii ilmt whk 'ul)iiiit-
teil til Mr. Illiiiiir ; that tlinnimwt'r thiil Mi'. Illitiiio iiiiulu
to UK wnx thitt III' WHK williiiK ti> iiiilGr mi ii in'i'liiiiiiitiry
illioiinHiiiii to iiri'ct'rii' till' iiioro I'lirniiil eiiiiiiniiiiliiii ; lie
wttM williiiK tu uiilnr ui>oii tliikt iliituiiaiiloM nml In iMiimiili-r
nil iii'ititH cmhriuMtii In It, l>.>i would imt lie iircpiiri'il to
do io until nfturllic 4th iil Miiruh."

Nuw, Sir, the I'liiniiiiunt wliiili 1 niiiku ii^ailiHt that
Htati'iiient of llir NliiiiNtt'r nf .luHtici' Im, that ut the

tilllV it VVikH lllllllc tluTV WUHtiVCrV ri'UHOlllllliogl'Ollllli

foi' MiippDHiii^ tliat thii critii'iMin whii'li liti wiirt
aiiHwtiriri^', wild a well foiiiidt'd criticiMiii. What
(l<M)H his critic dhv ? Tiiat tliu (iovrriiiiu'iit hiiij
nimlo the iiroponition to Mr. HIaiiii' without any
proHpcct (it itH iK'ing acccptt-il. \(i\v, iliil they not
Hu iiiakii it? Hull thuy any priiHpei't that it woulit
Im) aecepttMl ? Ilail not .Mr. lUaincH rcfuMul to ap-
|ioint coinuiiHNioncrH, his iiHiHlancvon ii iircliniiiiary
(lisuuHHion of tliiM iironoMition, and IiIh li'ttcr to .Mr.
liaker w))icli liaii alrcaily appcarcil Iicfoic tiiiH
Hpeecli was delivcniil had not all tliettv thiiigi*
niadi! it perfectly clear that the < Joveninieul were
not going to Mucceed.and that when they nought to
perHuadetheelectorHofC'anadatohiild theirjudgiiu^it
in suHpense until the elections were over, and tiie.se
negotiations had taken place, they were giving the
jteople of Canada an aHBuninee whicli tliey were
not warranted in giving them ; liecantu there was
not any ground whatever for hoping tliut the (iov-
erninent would Huccced in the i)rop<mition whicli .t
had suliinitted at the time. Tha Houne will hear
in mind that these negotiations, which the hnn.
Minister of .Justice discussed so fully and freely in
that speech, were negotiations, that were to have
been kept secret. Whether he felt that lliey had
been already divulged by the Prime Minister >.nd
Sir ( 'harle.s Tujiper, uiul that lie was not making
matters any worse by further discussion, or not, I
do not know ; he has never given us any explana-
tion on that point. How was it that the ple<lge
of secrecy was broken, and that those statements,
which were to be kept secret, and about which
nothing was to be said if there was no snccesH, were
fully revealed from the very beginning? Well,
Sir, after the elections were over and t'arliament
met here, the negotiations were made the subject
of discussion in the debate on the Address, in
which my lion, friend from South Oxford criticised
the "onduct of the (lovernment in reference to
these matters, and his criticism was answered liy
the Minister of Finance. In the eour.se of his speech
the hoii. Minister of Fiiniuce said :

'' Cougequeiitl}', when there is an nltcriiativo, when the
Minister of Justice makes asolomnstatutnoiit in Toronto,
when he gives oincial uttarance, H|)eakinK as a MinLster
of the Crown, as to how these negotiations were eoin-
raenced, and how they were carried on ; and on the other
hand, there is a letter sent hy Mr. Blaine ton Mr. liaker
saying some things, and not statingothers, the hon. gentle-
man says : ' I believe Mr. Btiiino and not the Minister.'
I think, if my hon. frienC will allow me to tell him so, it
would be well for him to trust, thoCniiiidinii people alittle
more, and oven to trust the Canadian Ministers when they
make grave statements on their responsibilities as
Ministers of the Crown."

He further said :

"Is the hon. gentleman afraid of his case? Was ho
afniid that if ho waited three or four days, until these
papers came down, that ho would not be able to make the
speech ho has just made, and so decided to forestall the
Address and get his surmises .spread throughout the
country before they could have a chance of being con-
fronted by documentary truth."

i '\'\\n hon. li.ember for South Oxford would not wait

' thriu' or four days until thoMe |Mi|Miri were brought

iliiwii. Well, the lioimv waited three or four

I iiiiiiiiliM before Moiiie of the papers made their ap-

I p<>aranc(!, and when they Mere brought down many

j pullers of the utnioitt iniiHirtaiii'i' to the proper elu

riilutloii of the Hubjei't were omitted, and to this

hour the lloiiKi' is not in pusseMMion of them.

Sir iIOH.N THOMI'SO.V. Will the hon. gentle-
man allow me to ask him w betlier he did not com-
iilain that tlii^ telegram of the llllh of NoNenibur
liail not been brought down ? If xo, that is a mil-
take, beiNiiise I liiid it is in the iHiok.

Ml. MILLS (Itothwell). The lion, gentleman
will see, I think, there is just an extra 'I fro.ii that
telegraiii, but there is not a HyUable referring to the
propositions of the (ioveriinient on this Hubjuct.

Sir ilOIIN TIIO.Ml'.SON. Tlieie is u rofmenco
to the telegram, according to the custom in all
diplomatit^ commniiications, but tlieii^ is not an
extract, with the exception of half a dozen words.

Mr. MILLS (Itothwell). On page 7.'i I lind an
extract from the telegram of Lord Stanley of I'res-
tcni to Lord Knntiftird, dated lltth .November, IN'M),
as follows :

" lliivo roi^t'ivcil ymir tulegniiimf 15tli iiist. Mydovern-
mont view with the iitmosi iiliiriii proponed convontion
between Newt'oiiiidlHiid and the United otute.'",

" It iitTeot!' flilu'rii'S iiiteiciil." of CaimdH Uii well iis those
of Newroundhiiiil, iiiid phii'us fl.iherios and other priiiliict.>
.if Cmiiiilii on ilitluront ioothig from those ol' Newfound-
land in United .States markets.

" Sanetioii of Nuwfouiidl.tiid Treiily by Her Miijeatv'n
(Joveriinient would niateriiilly aid United Slates policy
by placing Canada I'l di^advaiiliige with neigliboiirinif
colony of Newloundliind iind producing disciintont here.

" Dominion (iovernment resipei'l fully remonstrate in
strongi'st terni." iig;iin!<l signature of pniposcd I'onventioii
at Wiislilngtoii. I will leiegruiih text ol Council Minute
when received."

On the next page, I find this telegram :

" Canadian Ministeri' are prepared to open negotiations
immediately, on liiie.i indicated in my telegram of the
li)th, proviifeil their rcpre9i'iitalive!< iil WasTiington can
be commissioners associated with liritinh Minister, and
empowered to negoiiato directly instead of being merely
delegates."

Now, the extract from the telegram of the lOth
does not allude at all to the negotiations. What I
complain of is that that telegram contains proposals
US the basis of negotiations, and the ISritish Oov-
er'inient in their answer say that they hope the
negotiations will not "place imjiorts from this
country at a disadvantage, and it is presumed
that Canada would wish to retain control over her
taritt' with a view to possible extensiop ■>? her trade
with the colonies and Knglaud." Now, when I
take that statement as springing out of the receipt
of this telegram, and the other allusion, it is clear
that the telegram of the lilth November must have
coiitaiubu proposals relating to the basis of negoti-
ations which are not in the extract ]iublished. Now,
I I have said this much with regard to the papers that
I are brought down, and the suggestions these papers
contain are not fully disclosed. I wish now to
discuss the subject of the recent negotiations and
what I regard as constitutional usr.gcs with refer-
ence to the rights of Parliament in respect of papers
and documents whichJiave l>een the outcome of the
intercourse between the Unit<!d Slates and Canada.
There are two thingg to consider, the rights of the
Crown and the rights of I'arliankciit. Now, with
regard to the rights of the Crown, every one knows
that under our constitutional system the Crown is

the ori^n of the nm-urntnent for nouotiation
witli fiiri'igii utttUw. Kxciy uik* kiioHN lliiit tin-
iiititrrDiirMt iHttwoeii ('Hiintlu iiiitHln-ut Kritaiii iiiiil
uny foreign Mtuti' \h tin iiitciTountti IukI tlimiigli the
iiiHtrmiiiMiliility of tli«- Sovurfiuii, itii<l lliat uvcry
MiniMtvr or iiinl>ithMik<lor HprikkH in tliti niinif of tho
M<ivvrci){n in (^itrrving on (Iii'nv ncgoliutionN. Now,
tlu) prat'tiou iH tlmt ii ict'onl hIiiiII Ik* l.i^pt un<l a
t-u|K>rt niailu to th(! MiniHtiT of Foreign AlFairN un
tliu (irfj;an of tliv SovoiciKO in tliJM iNirliciilar, of
ovitry trimMactionand of mi'iy iliHiniHNion whieli iiiii
tuitcn pliu'it iKitweon any ri'pi'imcntativr of tint ^iov-
ornnuMit of (iri'ut lliituin or of Cunaila ami any
rcprvHcntiilivu of a foirign Htat*^ Tlii-n, aftci niicIi
a iliMciiMMion liaN taki^n |ilao(<, if any parlianiinitary
action ii4 riM|uii)'il or any ilim'nHHion lakcH place
in I'nrlianiunl. it iH the i-igjit of I'arlianii'nl to
have liefore it all tlume paixTH vvhii'ii tliepulilic
intcreHt will permit to lie luiil U'fore it ; ami the
iirat^ticu Ih that if the important ilociinuuitH eaiuiot
lie laiil liefore Parliament, iliHcuMMion on that Hulijei^t
nIiuII Ite poxtponeil, I \enture lo say that 'he lion,
gentlemen on the 'I'leaHnry lieneheH will not liiiii
one iiiMtunee in a century where hiicIi a iliHciiHHioii
hao taken place in I'ltrliaiiiciit at the iiiHtancc of the
MiniHter, without all the paperx lieiiig put liefore
I'arliiJiient. Let me cull the attention of the iioiiHe
to an important rule in tliiM particular, ami I will
firHt reail an extract or two from Mr. ToiIiI'm Uiok
on I'iuliaiiicntary ( Hiveriiiueiit. Todil Muyit at jiuge
.'<r»0 <if \'(iluiiie I :

" It if uiHiueBtiiiniilily of iiiiiiiuiisc advantaKi' t<i lliu
country, that thodiiilciuuitiu lraniiactioiiHaii(l|ii-oc(teiliiiK8
ot lluidovcriiDiiiiit ahroail .slicnildbc freely ouiiimuiiiuutud
liiI'arliainiMit, I'ortln'reliy the Ibreign iiolicy of tlieCriiwii
nnliimrily reeiiivi'H the iiiiiirnbatiiiii of I'lirliaiiionI, and is
HUStaincil hy Ihu iitruiiRtn ot an i-iillithtoiicd tiiiblie upl-

iiioii. TIiIh in itHolt' coiift'i''* Hti addltiiinal WHlKlit to our
liolivy mill niiiiiionn aliroad,"

'I'lieii, at pagt^ 4.S1», he further Niiys :

"The nile whioli forbids any uiicroaohmoiit by Parliii-
nieiit upon tho exrcutive autliorily of llic Criiwn ling a
fiirtlivr ii|i|iliuation, to which our attention niui<t now be
diroeted. It ih imiicrutivc that Parliaiuonl rball bo duly
informed of evco'tliinif that may be uecoi'.xiiry to explain
tho milicy and prociicdiniw of tlovoniuient in any part of
tlio Empire, and tbo fnllejit informal ion is cominuniuated
bv (loverniiK'iit to bulb IIousom, from tiniu to time, upon
all luiilterH of public eoiiceni. For it i." in Parliament
that autboritalivo statunieiit.i arc uuide or information
(fivon, by Miiiintor.'', upon public (iuciition.M; and iioaetion
in Parliiiment should lie buKod uii declanitionii of policy
made olccwhorc."

Now it in us much the right of Parliament to know
what has passed lietwecu any Miiii.iter of the
("rowii and any foreign (iovernment or otiicial, as it
in the riglit of the ("rown to know what hiiB passed.
This Parliainent has ix superintending power over
the Cabinet. It exercises a supreme authority over
the poli(^y and conduct of the Administration. It
is entitled to form a judgment upon all jiroceedings
of every department of the (Jovernmeiit ; and t<i
enable it to discharge that duty intelligently and in
the public interest, and not to take a leap in tliedark,
not to depend wholly u|)on a statement made by a
Minister of the Crown in the House, it is the un-
questioned right of Parliament, before it is called
upon to discuss any matter of public importance,
to have all the papers relating to that subject laid
))efore it for the purpose of enabling it to form an
accurate and unbiassed judgment. Let me give to
the House a few instances from the practice of the
Imperial Parliahieut, which go to sustain the gene-
ral proposition I have just stat«d. I am not stating
merely a proposition relating to a rule of proceilure

2—0

in the Houne. I »m Mating a ennitHtitional prin-
ciple whieli (jiiabloit the HoiiHu to uxerciiHi an effec-
tive ami an intelligent control over the (-onduut of
every oll'cer of the State, and over the conduct of
the nu^inbiirit of the AtlininiNtration coinbined. i am
uKHertiiig liere, in the intereiitM of parliamentary
uovei tiim-nt, tlii^ maintenance of a principle, which
it IN iieceMwiry to maintain, to enable the House to
discharge its duty in this particular, i am not ask-
ing that the lIoUNe shall undertake the work of tho
.Ailiuinistralion. I am imt asking that it shall exer-
cise a iiKMldleHome intcilii ciicc over any Ministor
in the discharge of his duties in his department,
but I am maintaining that the House, as thesuiireinu
council of the iiiition, has siipri nic autiiority
in advising the Crown on all matters of
great public im|Mirtaiice, and Iiim a right to over-
rule every other council of the State in its views ;
and I am stating what is alwolutely necessary to
enable it to disciiarge a duty, which, under the
cinistitution, it is called upon to discharge and
which it Iuu4 a right to discharge. Now let ine
give you a few instances. I say this, that there
Is not an iiiMtance in which the < ioverninent ever
initiateiladiHciission and withheld the papers, in the
history of the Knglish Parliament, as far as I know.
There are instances where private nienilHU'8 have
insisted upon discussing a ipiestion before all the
papers could be brought down, or when it was in
the interests of the State that some of the iwiiers
should be Held back : but when the (ioverninent
have not laid all the iNipers on the Tabic of the
House, the House has insisted upon the iKistpono-
inent of tho discussion. Ihit for a Minister of the
Crown to initiate a discussion upon an important
((uestion of public jiolicy, ami to inform the House
that he will give it no information excejit what he
chooses to give in his speech, is an unprecedented, u
most unconstitutional and impro|ier course to pur-
sue, one that would make it, if acted on generally,
(juite impossible for the House to dircharge those
high functions it is called ujioii to discharge ivs a
council of the State.

It l)eing Six o'clock, the Speaker left the t'lmii'.

After Recess.

Mr. MILLS (|{<ithvell). I shall now refer to a few
cases which I think will go to establish the general
proposition which I laid down, and which I think
IS supported by the two citations I made from Mr.
Todd's vei-y excellent work on Parliamentary
(ioverninent in Knghmd. The first is a short
conversation which took iilace in the House of
Lords between certain noble lortls on the subject
of the aid that had been given by the Government
towards the maintenance of tho Colonial Govern-
ment in the Fiji Islands. Viscount Canterbury
moved for copies or extracts of any other corres-
pondence or documents ex];lainii)g the present
position of the colony of Fiji. It Was stated by
liini that up to that time-there had been only three
papers laid before Parliament, and that the nei -s-
sary information for tlie consideration of the con-
dition of the colony was not before the House.
Lord Kimberley, who had been Colonial Secretary,
but whose party was not in office at that time,
said the reason assigned for the delay in the
preparation of the {tocuments was the pressure
of work in the Colonial Office. It Mould

/■I

•f*:

seeiii from his statement that application
for these documents had been made under
a former Administration. Lord Carnarvon said
" thib only showed the inconvenience of bcinc
olhitfed to speak on a suliject without having all
the mforniation necessary to render their statements
quite accurate." The discussion vas a mere incid-
ental discussion as to tlie importance and necessity
of liaving the documents before the House for the
further discussion at a later period, but Lord (Jar-
narvon pointes'l out that some of tiie opinions
expressed were inaccurate, and that tli"irinaccunicy
was line to a lack of the proper information, which
v/ent to show the importance of liaving tlie informa-
tion in the hands of members before the subject
was made a matter of serious discussion. Tlie next
case to which I will refer is a motion wliich was
made for the Berlin memorandum in iS7(i. 'i'lmt
motion was made in tiie House of Lords by Lord
Campbell, in reply to whom Lord Derby, who was
then the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said :

" Ihopc I shiill not bo charged with dUrespoct to this
House or discourtesy to nny member of it, if I do not in
my turn take the opportunity of explainmg and justifying
In detail the policy which we have pursued."

Further on in the same speci'li, Lord I)erl)y said :

"There is another reason why a full discussion is not
at present possible — it would require as i\ preliminary,
that the papers relating to what is past should be before
your Lordsnips, and that your Lordshijis should have had
time to consider the-»>, The production of these papers,
which has often been premised, has been unavoidably
delayed ; but they shall he laid before Parliament during
the present session and in time for a full discussion of
them, if such discussion be thought desirable. But to lay
them at the present moment on the Table would be pre-
mature and inconvenient ; and moreover, they could only
be produced in a very fragmentary form."

There were two reasons assigned for not proceed-
ing with the discussion to which the papers related.
Tlie one was tliat the House had not all the papers
and correspondence in its possession which would
enable it to discuss the matt-jr i;<telligeiitly, and
the second w&s that, these papers being largely
c ■• spondence with foreign Governments, the
' -I'-'nistration were not in a position to lay them
dj'.ve Parliament. Yon will observe, Mr. Speaker,
;iiat thi.'< discussion, incidental and brief as it was,
' s not initiated by the Administration but
bN pilvate members of the House, who asked
for the papers in order that a full discussion
should be had ; and that it was stated that
these papers were essential to a discussion of the
matter ; that the Minister admitted that, and
also that the duty devolved upon him to bring
down these prpers. Then, in another case that
took place in the same year, 1876, Mr. Bruce,
who was subsequently a member of the Adminis-
tration, and who was at that time a prominent
member of the House, asked Mr. Disraeli, who was
the leader of the House of Commtms at the time,
" Whether he can fix a day for the discussion of the
motion upon the aflfairs of Bosnia and Hcrzigovina."
This motion had reference to the contemplated
acquisition of these two provinces, which had pre-
viously been part of the Turkish Empire, by the
Empire of Austria, and these papers were asked
for in order to have an intelligent discussion on
that subject. In reply to Mr. Bruce, Mr. Disraeli
said :

" I quite recognize that my.hon. friend has a locusHtandi
in this question m the notice he has previously given ; and
assuming as a matter of course that there will boa discus-
sion on the subject even if there may not be one which in-

Tolveg the opinion of the House by a formal motion, I
sbculd, under those circumstances, recognize the claim of
my hon. friend and endeavour to meet his convenience.
But until the papers arc on the Table, I think I should
hardly do justice to the feeling,'* of the House if I made
anj; arrangements for the discussion of a question of such
iiU important character by a private member.

Tlie reason given for not fixing a day for the dis-
cussion of the (luestion was that the papers had not
yet been brought down. Uptni the motion that the
papers on the Eastern question should lie laid on
the Table of the House, Mr. Disraeli said :

"All those papers are public recor's of the feelings,
policy and views of the differciil countries, and can always
be produced ; but in course ot ju'gotiations of this kind,
there are confidential communications made by foreign
powers, and" it is very often highly necessary for the vindi-
cation of our cour.^e, and as illustrative of our policy that
those do^-vments should be pul.iisbod ; but the House will
see at once that the ancient custom which has always been
observed, of consult'ng foreign powers before confidential
communications on t-icir part are Inid before Parliament,
i; a very proper and very wise one. The House will feel
that otherwise there would bo an end to all confidential
intercourse with any foreign power. When we are told
that all the Government has to do is to consult the House
of Commons, and not under any circumstances fo consult
those who are our allies, the only consequence ot anch a
policy would be that all the papers we could lay on the
Table would be documents which the Honse would soon
find were wanting in light and information on many points
of the most interesting character."

Here Mr. Disi'aeli points out in the first place that
a full presentation of the papers may be necessary
to a full consiileration of the conduct of the(iovern-
mentandtoa justification of the viewsof theGovern-
ment on an important matter of international con-
cern. But he also points out that before these
papers can be laid upon the Table, some of which
were of a confidential character, the consent of the
foreign (Tovernment, with whom that communica-
tion was had, siiould be obtained ; because if a
Government were to assume, without such consent,
tlie right to lay papers, under all circumstances,
before the House of Commons, a (iovernment would
be extremely cautious as to what its public docu-
ments would contain. It might be driven to carry
on, by private and unofficial communication, through
private or unofficial channels, that highly confi-
dential correspondence that is, under present prac-
tice, found in the papers of a public character.
Now, in so far as any correspondence of this kind
may be immature, as the question has not yet been
finally dieposed of, the Government may find it in
the public interest to witiihold these papers. But
the Government that iloes so must also find it in
the public interest, so far as it is concerned, to take
care not to initiate a discusssion upon the subject.
When they ask the House to consider their conduct,
and to pass it in review, commenting upon or ap-
provingof thecourseth^yhavotaken, they aro bound
to put the Housein possession of all these documents,
and all tiiat information which is necessary to enable
the House to form a proper judgment. Now, what
I complain of in this case is that the Minister of
Fiuance introduced into his speech a discussion of
communications of an informal character that had
taken place with the Government at Washington,
a correspondence which was of th". highest import-
ance to the people of this country, 'flie hon. Min-
ister has made a statement to the House ; he has
told us what passed in a veiy imperfect manner,
but he has withheld from tiie House all those
papers, all the memoranda, all the notes, or pn-
tocols, if any were kept, of the communications
that were had, and he givesusno opportunity, except

in so far as his speech gives it, of forming an opinion
for ourselves. I say that it is treating the House
in '\ highly improper iiinnner, it is treating it with
the greatest possible iuilicnity. The Administration
sit on these benches anil noltl their official position
with the sanction of this House. Their continuance
in office is due to the goodwill and confidence of
the House, but that confidence should be a rational
confidence, and mot a superstition. They deny to
the House an opportunity of coming to a ra-
tional conclusion when they withhold from us
that information which is necessary to enable
the House to judge properly for itself. Let
me mention another case. When Sir Austin
Layard, in 1853, proposed to discuss the invasion
of Turkey by Russ'a, and moved for the ])aj)er8.
Lord Palmerston stated on tliat occasion that
it vould be highly inconvenient to lay those papers
before Parliament, and as the papers could not be
laid before Parliament, it would be very improiKjr
to call upon the House to discuss the subject ; that
the House, before that discussion took place, ought
to be in possession of all the facts, and that it would
not be in the public interest to carry on such a dis-
cussion in the absence of the necessary material by
which a proper conclusion upc-n the subject could
be reached. This was tlie statement made on tliat
occasion by one of the first parliamentarians of the
cr ntry, by one who was as conversant with the
Ci. stitutioiuil rights of Parliament and with the
constitutional rights of the Administration, ius any
man who has, in our ilay, sat in the English House
of Commons. Sir, I do not know that I could quote
to the House a higher authority than the one to
which I have just referred. Lord Palmerston held
the office of Foreign Secretary in tlie United King-
dom for nearly half a century. At a later period,
in 1878, during the Kusso-Turkish War, the flast-
ern Q.iiestion was again discussed, and the Karl of
Oranville on that occasion moved for certain papers
and public documents, and I will read a sentence
or two from a very brief speech he made on that
occasion, and the answer that was given by Lord
Beaconsfield :

" Earl Qranvii.lk— I am quite sure Her Majesty would
net desire ihat a matter of such great imporUmoo should
be considered without the fullest information tiaving
been afforded to the House."

And again :

" I should bo ghidtoknow when those papers will bo'n
the hands of mombtrs of this llouso ? I also wish to know
whether the correspondence will include, besides the cor-
respondence between this country and Russia, the corres-
pondence with the other powers?

"Lord Beaconsfikld— They will not be limited to the
correspondence between this country and Russia, but
'will contain papers relating to the proposition of the
Congress by Austria."

Lord Beaconsfield proposed that Monday week
should be a day for the consideration of this
message.

" Earl Granville— I think that will depend entirely on
the papers which, I understand from the noble Earl, will
not bo confined to the papers between this country nnd
Russia ; but will include also those between this country
and Austria. I think wo have a right to know the views
of all the great Powers with regard to whether there
should be a conference or not.

" Lord Bkaconsfikld— I shall not fix the day for the
discussion till Monday."

Now, these papers were to come down innnediately,
and it was not until after the papers were in the
hands of the House that the Government proposed
to fix a day for the consideration of the subject to

which the papers alliuled. Is that the way in
which the House was treated on this occasion?
Not at all. Here the Administration informed the
House last year, it informed the country again
and again that there was to be an unofficial dis-
cussion on the subject of reciprocity with the
tiovei'iiment of the United States. That unofficial
discussion has taken place. The correspondence,
tlie papers that the Government submitted — which
I will undertake to show must, in the nature of
things, be very important— have not yet been
brought down. Sir, the Minister in his speech, if
he wislied the House to consider this subject, ought
to have »tated when these papers would have been
brought down, when the House would be ])ut in
full possessio'i of everything that was in the pos-
session of the Administration ; and after he had
put the House in full possession of these papers
and this correspondence, he might then have aaked
the House to fix a day, or have proposed him-
self a time when the subject should lie-
taken into consideration. But to propose a
discussion on the subject, to undertake to tell
the House what the (lOvernment thought, what
certain members of the {Tovernnient said to the
(loverument at Washington, and to declare that
the subject now is put at rest forever, is to treat
the House, I say, with the greatest possible in-
dignity. The lion. Minister has not dealt fairly
and frankly with the House ; he has not given to
the House that consideration to which it is entitled,
when he withheld the papers and proposed himself
to remain the master of the situation. Sir, I need
not cite any furtlier authorities than those which I
have already cited. They are sufficient to illus-
trate the principle which I laid down before we rose
at six o'clock, which was confirmed by Mr. Todd,
and which is abundantly sup] lortsd liy these autho-
rities. I say that the rule is clear, that it is a
highly improper proceeding for Ministers to initiate
a discussion in Parliament upon a subject, and I'.t
the same time to withhold papers relating to that
subject, fn n Parliament. Let me say again, there
is a diflference in this respect between a Minister
and a private member. If a private member, in
face of the fact that the House has not been put in
possession of the papers, and against the remon-
strance of the Administration, insistsupon a discus-
sion, he may express his opinion upon the subject.
But the House is not liound to go on with the dis-
cussion. It is, however, altogether different with a
Minister of tiie Crown. The information is in his
pospession, and he must act upon the well-settled
principle that the House is never ready for discus-
sion until the Government are ready to lay before
the House the papers which are necessary to
enable it to come to an intelligent conclusion.
The Hoase ought to be iii possession of all the
information of which the Government are possessed ;
it ought to have the same opportunity to form its
judgment which the Government has, because the-
members of the (lOvernment for all these purposes
do not in any respect differ so far as their rights
are concerned from any other members of Parlia-
ment, it is the right of every lion, inomber, before
he is called upon to vote or to discuss a question of
this sort, to have in his possession the material
which wil' enable him to form a proper judgment
upon the subject. Sir, I have already alUuied to the
fact that the Minister of Finance, and I may now say-
also the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, exhil/lteft

no little pleasure in referring to the circuin-
stanee that they had faile.l. The Minister of
Marine and Fisheries said that the failure
would be satisfactory to the business men <.f
the country ; the question was disposed of,
in fact it was now put out of the purview of practi-
cal politics, and the country might have some rest.
Let me, having said tins mucli M-ith respect to the
constitutional (juestion that has been raised by the
o.ourse which the Minister of Finance has pursued,
say a word or two with respect to the negotiations
as' they are disclosed to the House in the speech
which the hon. Minister addressed to it. He said
that recipiocity on the lines offered by Mr. Blaine
would necessitate discrimination against the impor-
tations and products of the motlici' country. I am
not here going to contest that pro])ositiou. I si ,ll be
better prepared to discuss it when I have at my
disposal the same material the Minister liimself lias.
But I wish to call attention to this fact, that the
Government have long proposed, and this Parlia-
ment has long sanctioned, apolicy of discrimination
against the United Kingdom. The taxes on the
products of the United Kingdom are discrimina-
tory. The Government do notplace the indus<-''Lo of
the mother country upon the same footing as those of
some other countries. Let me remind the ( i o vernment
of this fact that, when the products of f)ne country
are free and we tax the products of another country,
it is not necessary that those pioducts should be
of the same kind in order that the taxes should be
discriminatory, in favour of one country as against
the other. Does not the hen. gentleman know that
when he imports tea and coffee free, tliat when he
exempts them from taxation altogether, he obliges
other imports to bear larger taxes or on such
of them as are the subject of taxation ? Does he
not know that he is discriminating against the
United Kingdom and in favour of the countries
where tea and coffee are produced ? Can there be
any doubt on that subject '! Does he not know that
he seriously affects, by the amount of free importa-
tions the imports of the country which are subject to
taxation ? Has not .Spain over and over again com-
plained that Spanish wijies are subjected to a higher
tax than the wines of France, and is it any re-
ply that the wines produced in Spain are of a diffev-
ent character from those produced in France V Thei'e
is discrimination. Tlie whole policy of taxation is
policy based on the self interest of tlie Government
that imposes it, and it can only be justified on the
ground that it is in the interest of the people in whose
behalf it is imposed. There is uot a counti-y in the
world, so far as I know, that places all countries
on an exact footing of e([uality. The products of
some are admitted without taxation, and the pro-
ducts of some are highly taxed. And the fact that
they are different does not alter or change the
principle ; the fact tliatone cmnmodity is taxed and
the other is free makes the tax discriminatory as
much as if we received the articles from exactly
the same countries. In another respect it is dis-
criminatory. Take, for in.stance, M'oollen products.
Sir Francis Hincks years ago showed tliat the tax
on woollen products of England were higher than
the tax on similar products of the United States.
We tax certain articles according to weight, and
specifically, and also ad valorem, and wlien taken
together tlie tax on liorse blankets is very nnicli
higher than the tax on broadcloth, in proportion
•to their value. So it is in regard to some otiier

articles. The whole system of taxation is unequal,
and as Sir Francis Hincks showed the few
blankets imported from the United States
paid in proportion to their value a far lower rate of
taxation than corresponding articles from the
United Kingdom, l)ecause they belonged to a
different class. But the whole system ot specific
taxes will make it discriminatory and such as
exists at this moment, and it is against the pro-
ducts of the United Kingdom. The Minister of
Finance said tliere couhl not be a treaty of recipro-
city with the United States on the part of Canada
unless it was a discriminatorj^ tariff against Great
Britiiin. What evidence does the hon. gentleman
submit to us ? Recently the Americans made a
treaty with the West Indies. It is not discrimina-
tor}'. They had concluded a treaty Ahich the
hon. gentleman succeeded in defeating, with New-
foundland. That was not discriminatory. I am
not prepared to admit that any treaty which does
not discriminate against Great Britain cannot l)e
made with the United States. I am satisfied that
the negotiations, if carried on by hon. gentlemen
who were anxious for a treaty, instead of hon.
gentlemenwho in all their speeches have p'-onov -iced
themseh'es against a ticaty, whose supporters in
this House since the financial speech was nuide by
the Minister of Finance, have, without an excep-
tion, spoken against a treaty of reciprocity, show
the spirit by which the party of hon. gentleman
opposite are actuated, and the spirit in which those
hon. gentlemen journeyed to Washington for the
purpose of carrying on those negotiations with
the United States would have resulted differently.
I think a fair ti'eaty is a possibilitj'. I
think that we have before us up to this time no
evidence that this subject was fullj% exhaustively
and adequately considered by hon. gentlemen
opposite in their intercourse with Mr. Blaine. Let
me say this, that some preparation for the proper
discussion of this subject is necessary, some consi-
derati(m of the facts, some careful analysis of the
trade between the two countries, .some estimate of
the possibility of an uicrease in consecjuence of
the change which the (Government proposes. One
of the statements made l)y the hon. gentlemen Wiis
that Mr. Blaine said tluvt a treaty of reciprocity
confined to natural products could not have in it
any of the elements of nuituality in reciprocity.
What evidence is theie o* tliat ? What answer did
the hon. gentlemen make to that statement ? What
document or menioraiulum did they prepare wheu
they went to propose a treaty of reciprocity in
natural products ; what argument did they advance,
for the purpose of upholding that proposition ?
Hnw is it, that tliis is not before Parliament boforr
this (juestion was made a subject of discussion ?
Wlien I look at our Trade and Navigation Returns
I find that there liave been imported from
tlic '" ited States into Canada last year $24,00(),(KK)
wortn of products that were not subject to taxation
at all. How mucli do we send to the United States
free from taxation at this moment ? How much
of that )?24,(M)0,0(K> worth are natural products,
and what would be the volume of trade between
the two countries under a system of free trade in
natural products ? If the hon. gentlemen went to
Washington to make a proposition to tlie Govern-
ment of the United States, and they proposed to
confine reciprocity to natural products, I suppose
they went there prepared to show that that propo-

Let

sition was a fair one to the Unitetl Stiites. The
lion, gentleman told us that Mr. Blaine said it was
unfair, but the hon. gentleman did not give to the
House a single statement to show that he contended
the contrary. He does not lay before the House
any memorandum of facts by w!iich the oflfer is
justjfied and by whicli an attempt is made to show
that it is a fair .ind proper offer. Now, Sir, it
seems to me that the( lovernment ought to have come
to the House prepared to submit to the House all the
data by which tlioy had fortified themselves, liefore
they set out on their journey to the southern cap-
ital. Why is it not in our po.ssession ? Why do
not the Government give us an opportunity of seeing
how far they acted earnestly and in good faith, or
how far they sacrificed the interests of the agricul-
tural and labouring population of this country to a
few persons engaged in manufacturing, whose confi-
dence the (iovernment have so unremittingly en-
joyed ? It seems to me that it is clear that the Hou.,e
has not been properly dealt with in this niatter, and
that the comse taketi by the (lOvernment is not
usual and is not constitutional. I believe that the
House is entitled to full infoinnation. and that
everything that the (■lovernment had in their
possession by which they undertook to sustain tlu^
propositions which they made to the (4ove\"mient
o<^ the United States, and the answers whit!, they
received from the Government of the United States
should have been at this moment in our hands, and
until they were prepared to put these papers in our
hands they ought to have abstained from initiating
any discussion upon this subject. Sir, 1 have stated
already that I know a number of gentlemen in this
House, some of whom are Here for the first time,
some, after an interval of absence from the House,
who refer to the result of these bye-elections as an
evidence that the country supports the policy which
the Government have pursued. But, Sir, what is that
policy ? Is it the policy that the Government in-
tended to pursue, or that they sought to persuade
the country that they intended to pursue, when
they set out on this journey to Washington, or is
it the old National Policy, and when a member
of the (iovernment told this House, that no greater
disaster could liefall this country than to permit
the free importation of foreign products of the

United States, and that reciprocity in natural pro-
ducts would be a calamity ; and when that calam-
ity was one of the things which the Government by
these negotiations, if they were in earnest, in-
tended to inflict on the country ? Was it protec-
tion or reciprocity upon which the recent elections
turned ; which was it that these gentlemen sup-
ported ? Did they support the Government in
undertaking to negotiate a reciprocity treaty, or
did they support the Government in opposing
negotiations and undertaking to secure the defeat
of that treaty? What were the views that these
hon. gentlemen were elected to uphold in this
House ? Now, Sir, I have said that there were
potent influences other than those of the popu-
larity of th<- measures of the Administration which
were not wit-hout their effect in the elections which
have taken place. Let me read a letter which has
recently appeared in some of the newspapers. This
letter is addressed from St. Mary's by a Mr.
Ingram, of St. Thomas, to a gentleman in that
city. It says :

" Dear Sir,— Your tolegram to hand this afternoon and
am (find to hear from you. Thing.« were quite dull until
to-night, and mayhap to-morrow it may be all O.K. Hold
yourself in readiness at any time. I will write you when
to come if O.K. ; if not, I will write you ' no good,' Mr. R.
Ber. is not here yet ; keep patient.

" Yours in haste,

" AV. H. IN6KAM."

I supjjose most hon. gentlemen will understand the
significance of a communication of that sort, and
that it means a good deal, I have no doubt. I draw
my inferences, and every hon. gentleman in the
House can do the same thing. But, Sir, I am of the
opinion that the protective policy of the Admin-
istration enjoys, to-day, in no degree, a greater
mcnsure of public confidence or a greater degree of
popularity than it did when the general elections
took place in March last.

OTTAWA :

Printed by S. E. Dawson.

Printer to the tiueen'§'Most Excellent Majesty

1892.