IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. «p 1.0 1.1 11.25 |5o ^^* MHl ^ 1^ |2.2 2.0 lU M 1 1.6 ^ <^ /a m ^/. '^ ^>' *^ o>. /A Photographic Sdences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 Z Z ^ i CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas 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 iti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-4tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. rri Coloured covers/ K I Couverture de couleur Q Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie r~~] Coloured pages/ D D D a Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie eVou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) D D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^colorees, tachet^es ou piquees Pages detached/ Pages ditachees Showthrough/ Transparence D D Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrstions en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents □ Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inigale de {'impression D Includ'S^ supplementary material/ Comprend du matiriel supplementaire D D Tight binding may cause shadowf or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge Intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M film^es. n 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.. cnt it6 filmees A nouveau de facon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires; >»i. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 7 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy film«d hare ha« b««n reproducad thank* to tha ganaroaity of: Seminary of Q Library ;3bec L'axamplaira filmi fut raproduit grica A la gtniroaitA da: SAminaire de QuAbec Bibliotltdque Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality poaaibia eonaidaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Laa imagaa auivantaa ont 4t* raproduitaa avac la plua grand aoin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattati da l'axamplaira filmA, at an conformiti avac laa conditiona du contrat da fiimaga. Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa* sion, or tha back covar whan ^ppiopriata. Ail othar original copiaa ara filmad iliaginning on tha firat paga with a printad or Illuatratad impraa- aion. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaalon. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat imprimte aont f llmte an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration, soit par la sacond plat, salon la caa. Toua laa autras axamplairaa originaux aont filmto an commandant par la pramiira paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaaion ou d'illuatration at 9n tarminant par la damiAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Tha laat racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol «i»> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), whichavar appiiaa. Un daa symbolaa suivanta apparaitra sur la darniira imaga da chaqua microficha, salon la caa: la symbola — ^ signlfia "A SUIVRE". la symbola V signifia "FIN". Mapa, plataa, charts, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraly includad in ona axpoaura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand comar, laft to right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illuatrata tha mathod: Laa cartaa. planchaa. tablaaux. ate, pauvant Atra filmte A daa taux da rMuction diffirants. Lorsqua la documant aat trop grand pour Mra raproduit an un saul clich4, il aat filmA A partir da I'angla aupiAriaur gaucha. da gaucha it droita, at da haut 91% baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagaa nicaaaaira. Laa diagrammaa suivants iiluatrant la m^thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 «•-■■»..:» /i ov SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD, V ON INTRODUOUia THB IILL TO OITB EFFECT TO THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON AS REGARDS CANADA, Delivered in the House of Commons of Canada, on Friday the 3rd May, 1872. Mr. Speaker, I move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect certain clauses of the Treaty negotiated between the Unit- ed Utates and Great Britain in 1871. The object of the Bill is stated in the title. It IS to give validity, so far as Canada is concerned, to the I'reaty, which was framed last year in the manner so well known to the Hou^se and country. The Bill in itself as I proposed to introduce it the other day was simply a Bill to 8us> pend those clauses of the Fishery Acts, which prevent fishermen of the United States from fishing in the inshore waters of Canada, such suspen- sion to continue during the existence of the Treaty. 1 confined it to that object at that time because the question really before this House, was whether the fishery articles of the Treaty should receive sanction of Farliament or- not. As however, a desire was expressed on the other side that I shonld enter into the object fully on askmg leave to bring in the Bill, and as on examining the cognate Act, which has been laid before Congress at Washington, I find that all the subjects —even those subjects which do not require legislation — have been repeated in that Act, in order, one would suppose, to make the Act in the nature of a contract to be obligatory during the existence of the Treaty, so that in good faith it could not be repealed during that time, I propose to follow the same course. The Act 1 ask leave to bring m provides in the first clause for the sus- pension of the fishery laws of Canada, so far as they prevent citizens of the Unit4»d States from fishing in our in-shore watersn The Bill also provides that during the ex- istence of the Treaty, fish and Hsh oil, (ex- oept liita of the inland iakM of ibe I United States and the rivers emptying into those lakes, and fish preserved in oil,) being the produce of fisheries of the U nited States shall be admitted into Canada free of duty. The third dause provides for the continuance of the bonding system during the twelve years, or longer period provided by the Treaty, and the fourth clause provides that the right of tranship- ment contained in the 30tb clause of the Treaty shall, in like manner, be secured to citizens of the United Statei during the existence of the Treaty. The last clause of the bill provide* that it shall come into ett'eot whenever, upon an Urder-in-Counoil,a proclamation of the GovernorGeneral ia issued giving etteot to the act. In submitting the act in this form I am aware that objections mi^ht be taken to some of the clauses on the ground that having relation to questions of trade and money they should be commenced by reso* lution adopted in Committee of the Whole. That objection does not apply to ths whole of the bill — to those clauses which suspend the action of our fishery act ; but it would affect, according to the general principle, the clause which provides that there shall be no duty on fish and fish oil, and also the clauses respecting the bonding system and transhipment. I do not, however, anticipate that that olijeotion will be taken, because in presenting the Bill in this form I have followed the pre* cedent established in 1854, when the mea< sure relating to the Reciprocity Treat/ was introduced in Parliamec It was then held that the Act ha\ g been introduced as based upon a Treaty which was submitted by a message from the Crown, became a matter of pubUoand genenu poUoy, and oeased t9 be merely a matter of trade, and altbongh those boD. gentlemen wha interested themselves in Parliamentary and political matters at that date will remember thit the Act which was introduced by the Attorney Ueneral for Lower Canada in 1854, Mr. Drummond, w.ih simply an Act declaring that v.irious ariicles being the Sroduce of the United States should uring the existence of the Treaty be re- ceived free into Canada, and th'it Act re- f)eale 1 the taritl' pro tinto, it was not ntroduced by resolution, but after the Treaty had been submitted and lud on the tvble, and after a formal message had been brought down by Mr. Morin.the leider of the Uovernment in the House, to the effect thit the fiill was in- troduced with the sanction of the Govern* or General. I do not therefore anticipate that objection will be taken by any hon. member, and I suppose the precedent so solemnly laid down at that time will be held to be binding now. Should objection, however, be taken, the clauses of the Bill respnoting the suspension of the Fishery Act and transhipment, are suilicieut to be proceeded with in this manner. The other portions m^y be printed in italics and can be drought up as parts of the Bill or separately as resolutions as may be tbouj^ht best. The journals of the House stated that on the 21 st of September, 1854, Mr. Chauveau submitted a copy of the Treaty, which was set out on the lace ot the journals ; on the same day Mr. Drummond asked leave of the House to bring in a Bill to give effect to a certain Treaty between Her Majesty and the Uni- ted States of America; and on the 22nd on the order ot the day for the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Morin,by command, brought down a message from the Gov- ernor General signifying that it was by His Excellency's sanction it had been in - troduced, whereupon the House procee i- ed to the second reading. That Bill was a simple one declaring that various articles mentioned in the Treaty should, during theexiste ice of the Treaty be a'd- mitted into this country free of duty. The House »now, Mr. Speaker, if they give leave that this bill shall be intro- duced and read a Krst time will be in the nossession ot all those portions of the Treaty of Washington that in any way come within the action of the Legislature. Although the debate upon this subject will, as a matter of course, take a wide raui^e and will properly include all the subjects connected with the Treaty in which Canada has any interest, yet it must | not be forgotten that the 'Ireaty as u j wkaU is u fore* with Mm partiouiar exceptions I have menttoaed ; and the decision of this House will after all be simply whether the articles of the Treaty extending from the 18th to the 25th shall receive the snnctian of Parliament, or whether thoee {ortions of the Treaty shall be a dead let- ter. This subject has excited a great deal of interest, as was natural in Canada, ever since 8th May, 1871, when the Treaty was signed at Washington It has been lar|el7 discussed in the public prints and opinions of various kinds nave been expressed upon it— some altogether favourable, some aU together opposed, and many others of intermediate shades of opinion— and among other parts of the discussion has no( been iorgotten, the personal question relating to myself— the position I held as a member of this Government, and as one of the High Commissioners at Washington. Upon that question I shall have to speak by-and bye, yet it is one that has lost much ot its interest, from the fact that by the introduction of this Bill the House and country .will see that the policy of the Government* of which I am a member, is t» carry out or try to carry out the 'iVeaty, which 1 signed as a plenipotentiary of Her Majesty. Under the reservation made in the Treaty, this House and the Legislatur* ot Prince Edward Island have full power to accept the hshery articles or reject them. In that matter this House and Parliament have full and complete control (hear, hear) No matter what may be the conse- quences of the action of this Parliament, no matter what may be the consequences with respect to future rela- tions between Canada and England, or between Canada and the United States, or between EngUnd and the United States, no matter what may be the consequences as to the existence of the present Govern- ment of Canada, it must not be forgotten that this House has full power to reject the clauses of the Treaty it they please, and ni/ntain the right of Canada to exclude Amenoans from inshore fisheries, as if the Treaty had never been made (hear, hear). That reservation vtas fully provided in the Treaty, it was made a portion of it — an essential portion ; and if it had not been so made the name of the Minister of Justice of Canada would not have been attached to it ('^ear, hear.) That right has been reserved, and this Parliament has full power to deal with the whole question. I will by and-bye speak more at length us to tht- part I took in the negotiations ; but 1 feel that I performed my duty— a grave and serious duty, but BtiU mj duty— k attMkiag n to tk* IhifKtgr u one of Her M^)««t7'i MprMentatives and serTanU (bear, hear). Now, sir, let me enter into a short retro* ■peot of occurrences which transpired Tor some years before arrangement.') were entered into for negotiating the Trenty. The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States existed irom 1854 to 18CG, in which latter year it expired. Qreat exertions were made by the Qovernment of -jEanada, •nd a great desire was expre8s«)d by the Parliament and people of C.inada for a renewal of thnt 'i'leaty. It was felt to have worked very beneKcial ly for Canada. It was felt to have worked uso to the advantiige of the United States: and there was a desire and a feeling that those growing interests which had been constantly developing and in- creasing themselves during the existence of the Treaty would be greatly aided if it were renewed and continued. I was a member of the Government at that time with tome of my hon. friends who are still my ooUeagues, and we took every step in our power, we spared no effort, we left no stone unturned, m order to gain that object. 1 he House will remember that for the purpose of either effecting a renew- al of the Treaty, or if we could not oblnin that of arriving at the same o1 jeet by means of concurrent legislation my honor- able friend the member ted States, and conb<'({uently my friend and colleague, the Postmaster General, went to England to deal with that sub- ject. The results of hi:^ misdion are btfore Parliament. At the same time that he dealt with the question I have just men- tioned, he pressed upon the consideration of Her Majesty's Government the propriety of England maKing on our behalf a de- mand on the United States Government for reparation for the wrongs known as 'the Fenian Raids." England agreed to press upon the United States both these mat- ters, and to ask that all the disputed questions relating to tne inshore fisher- ies u .tier the Convention of 1818 should be settled in some mode to be agreed upon between the two nations, and also to press upon the United States, the wrong sustained by Canada at the hands of citizens of the United States who had invaded our country. Before Her Majesty's QovernmeEt had actually, in compliance with their promise, made any representation on these two subjects to the United States Government, j.ngland had been engaged on her own behalf in a controversy of a very grave character. It was known that what was commonly known as "the Alabama claims" was a sulgect of dispute between the two coun- triAN, involving the gravest consequences and that hitherto the results had been most unsatisfactory. An attempt had been made to settle the question by what was known as the Johnson Clarendon Treaty, but that Treaty had been rejected by the United States authorities. So long as this question remained unsettled between the iwo nations there was no possibility of the old friendly relations that had so long existed between them being restored, and England felt th it it was of the first importance to het that those amicably re- lations should be restored. It was not only her desire to be in the most friendly position towards a country which was so closely associated with her by every tie. by common origin, by common interest, by common language, but it was also her interest to have every cloud removed between the two nations, bMauM ih* had rMion to feci that h«r position with respet^t to the other great powers of the world wns greatly affected, by the knowledge which those other na-> tions had of the position of Hff.iirs between the United Staten and herself. The pres- tige of Great Britain as a great power was anectod most seriously by the absence of an entente cordiale between the two na- tions, Two years ago, IJngland wns ns a matter of course greatly int'tuested in the great and serious (juestions which were then convulsing Europe, and was in danger of being drawn by some complication into hostile relations with some of tbeconflict- ing powers, and she felt, —and 1 speik merely what must be obvious to every hon. member in the House, that she could not press or asuert lier opinion, with the same freedom of action, so long as she was aware, and so long ns other nations were aware, th:ii in case she should be unfortu" nately placed in a state ef hostility with any aation whatever, the United Sfstes Government would be forced, by the United States peo7)le to press at that very time, when she might be engaged m mortal con- flict with another nation, — for a settle ment ol those Alabama claims. Hence, Mr. Speaker, the great desire of Eni^land in my opinion, that that great (]uestion should be settled, and, hence also, the intermingling of the particular qijestions relating to Canada with the larger Impe perial questions. And, sir, in my opinion, it was of greater consequence to Canada than to England, at least oi as great consequence, that the Alabama ques- tion should be settled (cheers). Sir, Rngland has prouiiscd to us, and we have all taith in th it promise, that in case of war, the whole force of tho Empire should be exerted in our defence (chetrs). What would liuve been the position of England, and what would hav« been tho position of Canada, if she h'^ I been cilled upon to use her whole foi e to defend us. when engaged in conflict elsewhere. Canada would, as a matter of course, in case of war between England and the United States, be the battle ground. We should be the Sufferers, our country would be devastated, our people slaughtered, and our property destroyed ; and while Eng land would, I believe, under ull oiroura- stances, faithfully perform her promise to the utmost (cheers), she would be greatly impeded in carrying out her desire, if engaged elsewhere. It was therefore, as much the interest of this Dominion as of England, that the Alabama and all other questions that in any way threatened the disturbance oi the peaceful relations bes 1n(ra«n the two oouatri*B should be settled and adjusted ; and therefore, elthoagh to a considerable extent I agree with the remarks thit iell from the Minister of Finance when he made his Budget speech. that looking at t he subject in a commeroial point of view, it might have been better,in the interestof Canada, that the flsheryand Fenian questions should have been settled free and apart from the Imperial question. I am pleased, and I was pleased, that the fact of Canada having asked England to make these de- mands upon the United States, gave an opportunity for reopening the negooia- tions with respect to the Alabama and other matters, it was fortunate that we made that demand, for England could not, with due self respect, have initiated or re- opened the Alabama question. She had concluded a treaty in London with the re> presentative of the United States, and this treaty having been rejected by the Supreme Executive of the United States, England could not herself have reopened negociations on tho subject. And, there- fore, it was fortunate, I say, for the peace of the Empire, and for the peace of Can- ada, that we asked England to make these demands upon the United States as it afforded the opportunity of all these ques- tions being m ide again the subject of ne- gotiation. The correspondence which is before the House, between the Secretary of State of the United States and the Brit- ish Amb:>ssador, Sir Edward Thornton, has shown how that result was arrived at. The invitation wag marie by the Briti»h Ambassador to con- sider the Fishery Question. The United States Government, I have no doubt, though, I do not know it as a matter of fact, by a quiet and friendly understand- ing between the two powers, replied ao- ccding to the request, on condition that the larger and graver matters of dispute were also m ide a matter of negotiation. Hence, it was sir, that the arrangements were made under which the Treaty of Washington was effected. Sir, Ihavesaid that it was of the greatest consequence to Canada, and to the future peace and pros- perity of Canada, that every cloud which threatened the peace of England and the United States should be dispelled. I was struck with an expression that was used to me by a distinguished Enalish states- man, that those powers in Europe who are not so friendly to Englind heard with dismay that the entente cordiale between the two nations was to be renewed (hear, hear), and you have seen mentioned in the public press the active exer- / tions that were made by by the repiw^atetive of one power, or 9nr th« pMrpoM of prerentlng that hnppy result (henr, hear), and nltliough Mr. C'a- tacazy has been disavowed! by the Gov- eminent of Russia, in the Mama way as poor Vioovioh was on a previous oo- OHsion when he was the oigun of Kussia in the East, I cannot but feel that he was punished only beotuse his seal ouu.tn his discretion. I can vouch for bis active exertions for the purpose of preventing this Treaty of Washington le- oeiving the sanction of the Senate of the Tnited States (hear, heiir ; While Eng- land therefoie was stronti' ' interested in the settlement uf these questions both for herself and for Canada, the Cnited States were also interested and niHCie overtures in a most friendly spirit. I be- lieve that there wns a real dt- sire among the people of the United States to be friendly towards Enj,r in this negotiation. To proceed with the history | of the circumstances immediately preced | ing the formation of the Joint 1 1 igiiUommis« | ■ion at Washington, I wi 1 sttte that on the first February, 1871, a oommunicition : was made to me by His Excellency the Governor Gener.il, on beh.ilt of Uer Ma jesty's Government, asking me in cage there was going to be a .Joint Commission to settle all questions between England and the United States, whtHher 1 -.vouM act as a member of that Commission. 1 give the date because it Ins licen asked for. The communication was verbitl, and founded upon a tele- graphic coinmunication to His Excellency which cannot be printed, being of a na^ ture which the Housp can readily ii^nderstand, ought not properly to be 1 lid MbM iki» Motue. Tkia ooTnnwiaiiwtion was, in the flrit place, Ibr myaelf aloB*, I was not allowed to mention it for th« time to any one else. My reply wae that I would be greatly embar- rassed by any injunction of secrecy aa regards my colieigues, and that under no cir> umstances would I accept the position without their consent. I sub- sequently nceived permission to communicate it to them, and I receivei I their consent to act upon the Commission. Before accepting, however, I took occasion, for my own information and satisfaction, to ask through His Excel- lency what points of agreement and of diil'erence existed between England and Canudi with regard to the Fisheries. 'J he answer was a very short one, by cable, and it was satisfactory to myself, it was iifterwards extended in the despatch of the I6chotFebru!iiy,1^7I.Itshortly stated that of course it was impossible frr tier Majes^ ty's Government to pledge themselves to any forgone condusion ; that as it was a matter of negotia- tion it was, of course, out of the question on the part of either Government to give cast iron instructions to their re- presentatives because that would do away with every idea of a negotiation. But the despatch went on to say that Her Majesty's Government considered our right to the inshore fisheries beyond dispute ; that they also believed that our claims as to the head- lands were juet, but that those claims might properly be a mitter of compro- mise, it went on further to state that iler MHJesty's Government believed that, us a matter of strict right we could ex- clude the Americin fishermen entering our ports for purposes of trade and com- merce, and that they could only enter our waters, in the language of the Treaty, for wood, water, and shelter ; but that this, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Go- vernment, would be a harsh construction of the Treaty, and might properly be a su'Ject lor compromise. On reading that de!rx>atch, i ctiuld have no difhculty, as a member of the Canadian Government, in accepting the jposition, to which my col- leagues assented, of plenipotentiary to W.ishington, because, as a matter of law, our view of those three points was ackn( vledged to be correct, and the sub- ject as therefore devoid of any embar- rassm>nt from the fact of Canadians setting up pretensions which Her Majesty's Government coull not support (hear, hear). When ihe pioposition was first made to me 1 must say that i felt considerable embarrassmoat, and great relu«- tanes to beooue m mauMi . ',"■',.■■•:. ■ i# of the Oommiiiion. 1 pointed oat to my QoUeagues that I was to bd onn only of five, that I was in a position of being over- ruled oontinualiy in our disouscions, and that I could not by any possibility bring due wefght from my iBolated position. I felt also thit I would not receive trom those who were politically op- posed to me in Canadit that support, which an ollicor going abroad on behalf of his oountiy generally received, and had a right to expect (hear, hear). I knew that I would be made a mark of attack, and thi« House well knowi that my anticipations have been veritied. I knew that I would not fet fair play (hear, hear). 1 new that the same policy that had l)een carried out towards me for years imd yeard would contioue, and theretore it was a matter of grave consideration for myself whether to accept the appointment or not. Sir, a sense of duty pre- vailed (cheerii), and my colleagues pressed upon me also that I would be wanting in my duty to my country if I decli led the appointment; that if from a iear of the consequences, from a fear that 1 would saoriHoe the position I held in the opinions of the people of C mada, 1 should shirk the duty, I would be uni^orthy of the confidence that I had received so long fVom a large portion oi the people of Ca- nada (cheers). What, said my colleagues, would be said if, in consequence of your refusal, Canada was not represented, and her interest in these matters allowed to go by default? England, after having offered that position to the first Minister, and it havmg been refused by him, would have been quite at liberty to have prO" oeeded with the Commission and the settlement of all thesis questions without Canada being represented on the Commi<4- sion, and those very men who attack me now for having been there and taken a certain course, would have been just as loud in their complaints and just as bitter in their attacks, because 1 had neglected the interests ot Canada and refused the responsibility of asserting the rights of Canada at Washington. (cheer.^). Sir, ^knowing a^ 1 said be- fore what' the [consequences would be to myself of accepting that office, and foreseeing the attacks that would be made upon me I addressed a letter to His Excellency the Governor Ueneral informing him of the great diffi- culties of my position and that i: was only from a sense of duty that I accepted the position (choers). On proceeding to WaBhingto'j . t'c and a general desire Jimong Am ifwo !'"<' -^A«* into which the Joint High Commission divided Itaelf, aa m^taX desire, I should say, on the part of th* United States Commissioners aa well •• of the British Commissioners that all que*- tions should be settled so far aa the two (ioverninents could d^ so. There waa a specid desire that there should be a settlement. It v.'as very easy for the Commissioners, or the Government through their representatives, to make • Treaty, but in the United States there is a power above and beyond the ment. the Senate of the United Statea whiib had to be considered. It waa felt that a second rejection of a Treaty would be most diiastrous for the future of both na- tions ; that it would be a solemn declara* tion that there waa no peaceable solution of the questions be« tween the two nations. An Ameri- can statesman said to me, " the rejection ot the Treaty now means war. ' Not war to«morrow or at any given period, but war whenever Kngland happened to be engaged in uther troubles, and attacked from other sources (hear, hear). You may therefore imagine Mr. Speaker, and this House may well ima;:ine the solemn oonsideratieoa pressing upon my mind, as w^ll aa ui>on the minds of my colleagues in Canada with whom I was in daily eommu- nication, if by any unwise ooune, or from any rigid or pre conceived opinions we shouli risk the destruc- tion for ever of all hope of a peaces able solution of the difticulties between the two kindred nations (cheers). Still Sir, I did not forget that I was theur chosen representative. 1 could not ignore the fact that 1 WIS selected a member of that Commission from my acquaintance with Canadian politics. I had continually bei "-e me, not only the Im* perial question, but the interesta of the Dommion of (Janada which I waa there specially to represent, and the diffi - culty of my position was that if i gave undue prommence to the intereato ot Canada 1 might justly be held, in England, to be taking n purely Colonial and selfish view, regardless of the interests of the Empire as a whole, and the interests of Canada as a portion of the Empure, and on tiie other band, if I kept my eye solely on Imperial considerations 1 might be held ns DeglectiD>; my especial duty towards this my country of Canada. It waa a difficult position as the House will believe, a position that pressed upon me with great weight and severity at the time, and it his not been diminished in any way since I hive returned, except by the cordial sup- port of my colleagues, and I believe also my friends ia thiaUoiue. (obeers) In order tp i ■} show thai I did not for » moment forget that I was there to repre- sent the interests of Canada, I must aak you to look at the despatch of 16th Feb- ruary, 1871, which reached me at Wash- ington, a few days after I arrived there — it will be seen that Lord Kimberley used this expression, "as at present advised "Her Majesty's Government, ore of "opinion that the rij'a of them. Wo may now rest certain that for all time to come Eogiaad will not, without our ooo- Bent, make any cession of these interests. Now Mr, Speaker to come to the various subjects which interest Canada more par- ticularly. I will address myself to them in detail, and iirst, I will consider the question of most ^importance to us, the one on which we are now specially asked to legislate, that which interests Canada as a whole most particularly, and which interests the Maritime provinces especial- ly. I mean the articles of the Treaty with respect to our fishery rights. I would in the first place say that the protocols which accompany the Treaty, and which are in the hands of every member do not give chronologically an every day account of the transactions of the conference, al though as a general rule I be'ieve the protocols of such conferences are kept from day to day, bat it was thought better to depart from the rule on this occasion, and only to record the conclusions arrived at ; therefore, while the protocols substan- tially contain the result of the negotia> tions ended in the Treaty, they must not be looked up'>n as chrono'ogical details of facts and incidents iis they occurred. I say so because the protocol which relates more especially to the Fisheries would lead one to suppose that at the first meet- ing, and without previous discussion the British Commissioners stated "thit " they were prepai ed to discuss the ques- " tion of the Fisheries, either in detail or " generally so aB either to enter into an " examination of the respective rights of " the two countries under the Treaty of "- '"'^H, and the general law of nations, or " to approach at once the settlement of the "question on a comprehensive basis." Now the fact is that it was lound by the British Commissioners when they arrived at Washington and hid an opportunity of ascertaining the feeling that prevailed at that time, not only among the United btates Commissioners, but among the public men of the United States whom they met there, and from their com- munications with other sources of information, that the feeling was universal that all questions should be settled beyond the possibility of dispute in the future, and more especially that if by any possibility a nolution of the ditii- cully respecting the Fisheiies could be arrived at, d'a satisfactory orrHngeinent made by which the Fishery qii^ etioii could be placed in aheyanct^ as in 18j4, it would be to the advantige of both nations. It must be rembered that the (J()mmi^sion satin 1871, thatthe < xciusionof Auiericm fishermen from our waters was enfbioed and kept up during nhe whole of I8TU, and that great and louJ, though i I believe unfounded, complaints had been made that American fishing vessels had been illegally seized although they had not trespassed upon our watern. Persons interested had been using every effort to arouse and stimulate the minds of the people of the United States against Canada and the Canadian authorities, and it was felt and expressed that it would be a great bar to 1 he chance of the Treaty being accepted by the United States, if one of the causes of irritation which bad been occurring a few months before should be allowed to remain unsettled ; collisions would occur between American fishermen claiming certain rights, and Canadians resisting those claims, that thereby un friendly feelings would be aroused, and all the good which might be effected by the Treaty would be destroyed, by quarrels between man and man engaged on the fishing grounds. This feeling prevailed, and 1 as a Cana- dian, knowing that the people of Canada desired, and had always expressed a wish to enter into the most cordial reciprocal trade arrangements with the United Slates, so stated to the British Commis- sioners, and they had no hesitation, on being invited to do so, in skitmg that they would desire by all means to remove every cause of dissension respecting these fisheries by the restoration of the old Heciprocity Treaty of 1854. An attempt was made in 1865 by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Sir A. T. Gait) and Mr. Ilowland, on behalf of Canada, to renew that Treaty, but failed, because the cir- uurastances of the United States in 1865 were very diitei-ent from what they were in 1854, and it appeared out of the ques- tion and impossible for the United States to agree to a Treaty with exactly the same provisions and of exactly the same nature us that of 1854. So the British Commis- sioners, believing that a treaty similar in detail to that of 1854 could not be ob- tiimed. urged that one conceived in the same spirit but adapted to the altered c'vcumtitances uf the two countries si.ould bo adopted, and this view was strongly pressed upon the Joint Commission. This will appear from the protocol referring to this br«nch of the Treaty. It will uho appear Iroiu the piotoc >l thtt ilie Lnited S>:it:!S Couiini-isiuneis stated that the lie* cipiocity treaty was out of the question, ihit it could not be accepted without being submitted to boili branches uf Congiess, and there was nut the slighiett possibility of Congiess passing such au Act, and that the agreement by the two (io- vernments to a treaty including provisions sixuiiur in spirit to the Treaty ot 185^ ■ 10 would only ensure the rejection of the Trotity by the Senate, and tberet'ore that some other solution must be found. I believe that the United States Oommis- •ioners were candid and weie accurate in their view of the situation. I believe that hi*d the Treaty contained all the provisions, or tbe eFsentiiil provisions of the Treaty of 1854, ihey would have ensured i"* rejection by the Senate. When I speak of the otnferenoes that were held on 'the fisheries 1 would etite, tor the information of those mt>mbers of tbe House who mny be unacquainted with '.iie usage in smh matters, that thd Commissioners did r.H act at the discussions individuilly. Tbe eonferance was composed of two units, tbe British Comniisaon alc?ment of the disputed questions in lelation to tlieti»beiie», &oas to settle the headland question and tbe other one lelating to trading in our ports by American fishermen, and I would have been well satistied acting on behalf of the Canadian Government it that course had been adopted by the Imijeiial Government; but Uer .vinjesty'ti Government lelt and so instructed her Commissioners, and it was so felt by the United States Commist-ion ers, tb^l the leaving of the chance of collision between the Amcri^Tan Ksbermen and tbe Canadian lisherinen a initter of possibility would destroy or greatly preju- dice the great object of the negoticitians that were to resloiu the nmicible relations and friendly feelings between tbe two na- tions, and thcrefoie Her Mnjes'ys Govein- meni- pressed that tb( se questions should be idlvjwed to remain in abeyance, and that some other selileaient in the way of comi-enr.ition to Caniilubhoulil be found. Tbe protocol shows, Mr. (Speaker, tijat the United State:* Governmeur through their Commissioners, mide a considerable adr* vance, or at least come advance, in the direction of Ueciprocity, because they to ■""'"MjT" for otir ioaboM fisheries in the first place the right to il«h in their waters whatever that might b« worth, and ihey offered to admit Canadian c>)al, salt, fish, and, after 1874, lumber. They oHiered Ueciprocity in these articles. On behalf of Canada the British Com- missioners said that they did not consider that th t was a fair equivalent (hear, bear). It is not necessary tnat I should enter into all the discussions and arguments on that point, but it was pointed out by the British Commissionera that already a measure had parsed one branoh of the Le.iblature of the United. States, making coal and salt free, and stood readf to be passed by the other branch, tbe Senate. It wis believed at thit time that the American Congress for its own purpose, and in the interest of the American people was about to take the duty off these articles, and therefore the remission couli not be considered as in any way a comi>ensation, as Congress waa goin;^ to take pQ the duty whether there was a Treaty or not. Then as re- gards the duty on lumber which was of- trred to betaken off in 1874 we pointed out th It nearly a third of tbe whole of tbe time for which the 'J reaty was pioposed to exist would expire before the duty would be taken off our lumber. The Britiab Commissioners urged that under those circumstances the otter could not be con- sidered as a fair one, and that Canada had a fair right to demand compensition over and above theae proposed reciprocal arrangements. Now, Mr. ^peaker, before that proposition was mide I was in communication with my colleagues. Tbe Canadian Uovemment were exceedingly anxious that the origi- nal object should be carried out, that if we could not get reciprocity as it was in 18&4 that we should be allowed to retain our fisheries and that the questions in dispute should be settled ; but , Uer Majesty's Government taking tbe etrtrng ground that their acceding to our wishes would be equivalent to an aban- donment of carrying the Treaty into effect, tbe Canadian Government reluctantly saia that from a desire to meet tier Ma- jesty's Government's views as mach ap possible, and not to allow it to be felt ill Enulmd that irom a selfish desire to obtain all we desired we had frustrated tbe ett'orts of ller Mnjesty's Government to secure peace, we consented that the pro- position I have mentioned should be made, and so that proposition was made to tbe United btates. Although 1 do not know it as a matter of certainty, I have reason to believe that if it had not bewi for ibe eoUoa of tbia Legiaktur* left Ml* * be«n •Ion wa wovld now be pusing an aet for tb« parpose of ratifying a Treaty In which coal, Scilt, ond lumber from Canada would he received into the United States freeof duty (hear, hear.) 1 hnve reason to believe that hid it not been for (he in- terposition of this Lpgialature. and I ^peak now of political fiiends as vrcM as Ibes, those teims which were oilieied by the United States would have been a portion of the Treaty instead ot itr> stHnding M it does now (applause.) I will tell the House why 1 siy m. The otler was made early by the United States Government. The answer made by the British (Jommls- Bioners Was that under the circumstances it was not afdir and adequiite compensa tion for the privilegps iliat were asired, and tlieBiitish Commissioners at iht^ sug« geitionofthe Ginadi-in Uoveinment re- ferred the question to Her Majesty's Uov- •mmeitt whether they had not a right in addition to this ofier of the United States to expect a pecuniary oompensation. that pecuniary compensa- tion to be settled in some way or oi her. That took place on the 25t h of March, 1871. On the 25th of March 1 think the Hn^d pro- position was made by the U. S. Uovern- ment, and on the 22nd March, only two days before, the resolution ctrried in thin House by whi h ihe duty was taken 0(4' coal and salt and the other articles mentioned. Betore that resolution was carried here no feeling was expressed in the United Stated agunsl the taking oil the duty onCanadi»n coal and salt into t e United States; no one raided any difficulty about it. I am as well satisHed a^ I can be of any thing which I did not see occur that the admisiiion of Canailim coal and snlt into the United Slates would have been placed in the Treaty if it bad not been for the action of this Legislature On the 25ih of March that oti'vr was made, and it was referred to Enjiland. The English Govt. e:nment stated that ti.ey quite agreed in the opinion that in addition to that olier there should be compensation in money, and then on the 17th of April the Ameri- can Commissioners withdrew as they hid the right to do their otfor altogether. And why did they withdraw the otf.T alto- gether? One of the Commissioners in conversation said to me ■' 1 at" quite surx prised to find the opposition that has spiungupto the admission of Canadian coal and salt into our m irket. 1 was quite unprepared for the feeling that is exhibits ed." 1 knew right well whit the reason was. The monopulists having the control of Ameriom coal in Pennsylvania and salt in New York, so long as the Tieaty would open to them the morke ts in Cnmdn, for their ptodoeta, were wffllDg that it should cany, because they would have the rdv.intage of both markets, but when the duty was taken of) in Canada whm you bad opened our market to them, when they had the wlu'lecontrol of their own market hnd free access to ouri<, whether lor coal or salt, the mono- polists brought down nil their ecergiei iip.m their friends in Congress, and through them a pressure on the American Givernment for the purpose of pret venting the odmi-sion of Canadian coal and sr^lt into the Amerion miirket. and from that I hive no doubt came the withdrawal by the Am»iican Coinmi4>ioner8 of their offer. When my hon. fiiend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) said last i:^e8>ion, ■' there goes the Canmt dian National Policy," he was little aware of the coniieqnences of tbo recklets course he had taken (heir, hear). Hon. gendeman may laugh, but they will find it no 1 lughing m ttt'^r. The people of Canada, both East and West, will hold to strict account those who acted so unpa- triotically in '.his matter. Under these circumstance*, Mr. .Speaker, 1 felt myself poweiless, and when the American Commissioners made their last oflcr, which i-t now in the Treaty, offering reciprocity in fisheries, that Canadians bhould fish in American waters, and that Amercans slioul 1 K&h in Canadian waters, and th It fish and tir.h oil should be reci» pioc»lly free, and thatit'on arbitration it were found that the bargain was an unjnst one to Can id i, and Ctnada did not receive sutlicent compensation for her fisheries by that nrrin^ienient, it was remittt^d to ller Majesty's Government to say what sli )uld bu done, and as will be seen by the last fcentence of the protocol, " 'Ihesubit '■ ject was further discussed in the cont* " terences of April 18lh and I'.Uh and the '■Briti-h Commifisioners having referred "the list proposal to the Government,and " received iustructions to accept it, '■the Treaty articles, 18 to 23, were "agreed to at the Conterenca on the 23rd "Ot April." Thus then it occurred that these articles from 18 to 25 aro porti* ns of the Treaty. One of these articles reserves to Canada the right of adoption or rejection and it is for this Parliament now to say whether under all the oit* cumstancesit shou d ratify or reject them. The pipers thit have been lud before ihe House show whit wis the opinion of the Canadiin Govei-nment. Under present cir* cumstinces ot that question, tbe Canadian Government believe that it is for the ia- tere!>t of Canada to accept the Treaty, to ratily it by legislation. (Llear, hear.) Tae/ believ* it U for tb« interest of Canada to accept it, and they are more inclined to be- lieve it From the fact which I must say has surprised me, and surprised my colleagues, ami has surprised the country — that the portion of the Tre;>ty which was supposed to be most unpopular and most prejudicial to the interests of the Maritime Provinces has proved to be the least unpopular. (Hear, hear. ) iSir, I could not have anti- cipated that the American fishermen, who were otiered the advantages of fishing in our vraters would bo to a man, opposed to the Treaty MB iuilicting upon them a ijreat in- jury. I could nut have anticipated that the ijshermen of the Maritime Provinces, who, at first expressed hostility, would now, with a few exceptions, be anxious for its adoption. (Hear, hear.) In viewing these articles of the Treaty, I would call the con- sideration of the House to the fact that their scope and aim have been greatly mis- rupresented by that portion of the Cana- dian press which it opposed to the present Qoverumont. It has been alleged to be an ignominous sale of the property of Canada, a bartering away of the territorial rights of this country for money. Sir, no allegation could be more utterly un- founded than this (.Hear, hear.) It is no more a transfer and sale of the territorial rights of Cannda than was the treaty of 1854. The very basis of this treaty is re- ciprocity. [Hear, hear.) To be sure it does not go as far and embrace as many articles ms the treaty of IS52. 1 am sorry for it. I fought hard that it should be so, but the terms of this Treaty are terms of reciprocity, and the very first cle use ought to be suthcient evidence upon that point, for it declares that Uiinadians shall have the same right to fish in Ameri;aa waters, thit Americans will have under the Treaty to fish in Canadian waters. 'J'rue it may be ■aid that our tisheries are more valuable than theirs, l)Ut that does not affect the principle. The principle is this — that we were trying to make a reciprocity arrange- ment and going as far in ihe direction of reciprocity as possible. The principle is the same in each case, and as regards the Treaty that has been negotiated it is not confined to reciprocity m the use of the inshore fisheries of thn two countries. It provides that the products of the fish- eries of the two nations, fish oil as well as fish, shall he interchanged free. The only departure from the principle of reciprocity in the present treaty is the provision, that if it shill be found that Canada had made a bad bargain and had not received a fair compensation for what she ga/e; if it shall be found that while there was re- oiprooity as to the enjoyment of rights and privileges, there was not true reciprocity in value, then the difTerenoe in value should be ascertained and paid to this country, (Hear, hear.) Now if there is anything approaching to the dishonourable and the degrading in these proposals 1 do not know the meaning of those terms. (Hear, hear.) This ) 'revision may not be one that will meet tie acceptance of the country, but I say that the manner in which it has been chai icterized, is a wilful and deliberate use of language which the parties employing it did not believe at the time to be accurate, and to which they re- sorted for political reir ons, and in order to create misapprehensions in the country. Sir, there was no humiliation. Canada would not tolerate an not of humiliation on the part of its Gov* rnment. England would neither advise nirpermit one of her faithful colonies to be degraded and cast down (cheers.) But it is said that the American fisheries are of no value to us. They are not as valuable as ours it is true, but still they have a substantial value for us in this way — that the exclusion of Cana- dian fishermen from the American coast fisheries would have been a loss to the fishing interests of the Maritime Provinces, and i will tell you why. It is quite true that the mackerel fishery, which is the most va- luable fishery on these coasts, belongs chiefly to Canada, and that the mackerel of the American coast is fur inferior in every respect to the Canadian fish, but it is also true that in American waters, the favourite bait to catch the mackerel with, known as the menbadden is found, and it is so much the favourite bait th:>t, one fishing vessel having this bait on board, will draw a whole school of mackerel in the very face of vessels having an inferior bait. Now the value of the privilege of entering American waters for catching that bait is very great. If Canadian fishermen were excluded from American waters, by any combination among American fishermen or by any Act of Congress, they might be deprived of getting a single ounce of the bait. American fishermen might combine for thatobjeC, or a law might be passed by Congress forbidding the exportation of menhaiden; but by the provision made in the Treaty, Canadian fishermen are allowed to enter into American waters to procure the bait, and the consequence of that is, that no such nom'uuation can exist and (Canadians can purchase the bait and be able to tisli on aijual terms with the Americms. (Hear, hear.) It is thus seen, sir, that this Reciprocity Treaty is not a mere matter of sentiment — it is a most valuable privilege, which is not to be negleotad, despised, or sneered / »t. With respeot to the language of these articles some questions have been raisetl and placed on the paper, and I h ive aakod the hon. gentlemen who were about to put them, to postpone doing so ; and I now warn hon. members, and 1 .io it with the most sii.cere desire to protect the interests of Canada, if this Treaty becomes a Treaty, and we ratify the fisheiy articles —I warn them not to Mise questions wliich otherwise might not be laised. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, there is no greater instance in which a wise discretion can be uf^ed than in not suggestin^i any doubts. With respe :t, however, to tlie question wliich was put by the hon. memler for the County of Charlotte— and it is :; question »viiioh might well be put, and which requires some answer— I would state to that hon. gentleman, ami 1 think he will bH satisfiei with the answer, thit the Treaty of 1871, in tlie mattej hisqu. stions refers to, is larger and wider in its piovislms In favor of Can.ida thin was the Tjeaty of 1854, and that under the Treaty of 1854 no question was raised as to tlie exact locality of the catch, but all fish brought to the United States market by Canadiin vessels were free. I say this j advisedly, and I will discuss it with the I hon. gentleman whenever he may choose i to give me the opportunity. The same practice will, 1 have no doubt, be conti- j nued under the Treaty of 1871, unless I the people of Canada themselves raise ' the objection. The warnin„' I have just I now expressed I am sure the House will take in the spirit in wliioh it is intended. No hon. member will, of course, be prevented from exercising I his own discretion, but I felt ' It my duty to cill the attention of the j House to th(^ necessity of greit prudence ' in not raising Heedlessly, doubts as to the i terms of th« Treaty. It will be remem- I bered that we have not given all o, fish- eries away, the Treaty only iipplios to the fisheries of the old Proviuce of Canada. ' and in order that the area should not !,o ' wilened, it is provide 1 that it shdl only apply to tho li-lieries of Quebec. Nov.i Soolia, New Brunswi-.k and Piiuce Ed war 1 Island, so that tho Treaty does not allow the Americans to have access to the Pacific Co.ist tisheries, nor yet to the inex haustible and priceless fisheries of the Hudson's Bay. Thoie are great sources of revenue yet undeveloped, but after the Treaty is ratified, they will develope rapidly, and in twelve years from now when the two nations sit down to reconnco of iv market and Irom tlie lact of the Canidian lisheiniim being completely under the coiitiol of the foreigner. With the duly oil Cmaiiiun li-h, the Canudiin (i-heiinnn miy sen^ a telli h one. What woul«,l be said by the people of Ontarij if the United Stites had offered, lor their own purposes, to adiiiic Canadian grams fiee, and Nova .Scotia lnul objected, saying, -'No. you bhtU not have that maiket; you must be dttpiived of that market for ever, nnleai we oan takt in our fi-^h aho; you must lose all that great advantage until we can get a market for our li>h" ? Apply the argument in this way and you will see how seltish it is. liut the argument has no foundation, no ba-is of fact, and I will show this House how. In 1854, by a strict and rigid observanceof the principle of exclusion, the Amerioin fishermen were driven out ot those waters. At thges to shew the gen eral stitement of the case. " We shall now enquire whether the ''convention of 1818, is an existing com- " pact, and if not, what are the rights of ''American fishermen under the treaty of •' peace of 1783." •• fcince the expiration of the reciprocity " treaty in 1866, tl.e British Government, , " both at home and in the provinces, has, { "in itsst>tutes.its ofhcial instructious,aod 1 " its diplomatic correspondence, quietlf ; ■■af'sumed tiuit the convention of 1818 is ! "again operative mail its proviiiions. Tliak " the Stitte Dep rtmect at Washington I " should by its silence have admitted the I " correotnesh of this assumption, which is I " equally opjiosed to principle and to au- "thority,i3 rr-markable. We shall maintain •' the proposition that the treaty of p«M« of \ / 16 " 1783 in now in full force, that all limita- *' tions upon its etliciency have been re- " moved, and that it is the only source " and foundation of American fishing rights '• within the North Eastern Territorial " waters. In pursuing the discussion we " shall show, first, that the renunciatory " clauses of the convention of 1818 have " been removed ; and secondly, that article '< 111 of the Treaty of 1783 thus left free " from the restrictions of the subsequent " compact, was not abrogated by the war of 1812." The writer thus concludes : •• Article III of the Treaty of 1783 is « therefore in the nature of an executed " grant. It created and conferred at one " blow rights of property, perfect in their " nature, and as permanent as the domin- '• ion over the national soil. These rights " are held by the inhabitants of the United " States, and are to be exercised in British " territorial waters. Unaftected by the war " of 1812, they still exist in full force ami " vigor. Under the provisions of this " Treaty, American citizens are now " entitled to tike fish on such parts of " the coasts of Newfoundland as British " fishermen use, and also on all the coasts, " bays, and creeks, of all other His Bn- " tannic Majesty's dominions in America, " and to dry and cure fish in any of the " unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of " Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islan'ls ami " Labrador. " The final conclusion thus reached is " sustained by principle and by authority. " We submit that it should be adopted by " the Government of the United States, " and made the basis of any further nego- " tiations with Great Britain." I quote this for the jiurpose of shewing that the pretension was formally set up and elaborated by jurists of no mean standing or reputation, and therefore it is one of the merits of this Treaty that it forever sets the dispute at rest. The writers on this subject, the very writers of ..whom I have spoken, admit that under this treaty the cluim is g«ne, be- cause it is a formal admisisiou by the United States Government that under the convention of 1818, we had on the 8th of May, 1871, the prop-rty in these inshore iisheries, and thi> was no admitted after the question had liee.n liii-eU in the United States, that the ratilici- tion of the treaty of 1854 was equal in its effect to nn ubrogi- tion of the convention of 18 IS. They agree by this treaty to buy their entiy mto our waters, and this js the sirongesi possible proof that their argument could M no longer maintained. Judt as the payment of rent by a tenant is the htronge:it proof of his admis- sion of the right of the landlord, so is the agreement to pay to Canada a fair sum as an eqiiiv. lent for the use of our fisheries, an acknowledgment of the permanent continuance of our right. So much, sir for that i)ort:on of the treaty which affects the fisheries. 1 alluded a minute ago to the St. Lawionce. The surrender of the free navigation of the River St. Lawrence in its natural state, was resisted by England up to 1828. The claim was renewed by the present Government of the United States, and asserted in'a message to Congress by the present President of the Unit«d States. Her Majesty's Government in the instructions sent to Her Commirsioneri took the power and responsibihty of this matter into h own hands. It was a matter which , -i could not control. Being a matter of boundary between two nations, and affecting a river which forms the boundary between the limits of the Em- pire and the limits of the United States, it is solely within tlie control of Her Majesty's Government, and in the ia- sti ictions to the plenipotentiaries this lan- guage was used : " Her Majesty's Gov- " ernment are now willing to grant the " free navigation of the St. Lawrence to " the citizens of the United Slates on the " same conditions and tolls imposed on " British subjects." I need not say, sir, that as a matter of sentiment I regretted this, but it was a matter of sentiment only. However, there could be no prac- tical good to Canada in resisting the ooq- cessiun, and there was no possible evil in- flicted on Canadi by the concession of the privilege.' of navigating that small piece of broken water between St. Eegis and Montreal. In no way could it affect pre- judicially the interest of Canada, her trade, of her commerce. Without the me of our canals the river was useless. Up to Montreal the St. Lawrence is open not only to the vessels of the United States, but to the voss^ls of the woi Id, Canada (ourts the trade and the ships of ihe world, !.nd it would have been most absurd 1 ) suppose that the i)orts of Que- bec and Montreal should be closed to AmericL i shipping. No greater evidencA short o' actud w^r cm be adducrd of un riendly lelotions than the lactof t^e ports of a country being closed to the comujeice cf another. It never entered into ihe minds of any that our ports should be closed to tlie trade of ttia w:rld in general, or the United States in particuhir, no more than it would enter into the minds of the EQjjIiiih to cloae the ports of Londoo 'if s open United le woi Id, lipsofibe )en most s of Que- closed to evideiic« iidduc< d han the lUjl closed It never thai our trade of or the no more minds of of Londoo or Liverpool — those ports whither the i flags of every nation are invited and wel- comed (cheers). From the source of the St. Lawrence to St. Regis the United ! States are part owners of the banks of the \ river, and by a well-known principle o[ intomational law the water flowing be- i tween the two banks is common to both, ^ and not only is that a principle of law, | but it is a matter of actual treaty. The only question then was whether, as the Ameri- i can people had set their hearts upon it, | and as it could do no harm to Canada or to England, it would not be well to set : this qut-stion at rest with the others, and , make the concession. This was the line | taken by Her Mtijesty's Government, and ' which they had a right to take ; and when ' some one writes my biography — it I am | ever thought worthy o< UAving such en interesting document prepared — and when, as a matter of history, the questions connected with this treaty are upheld, it will be found that upon this, as well upon every other point, I did all I could^to protect the rights and claims of the Dominion (cheers). Now, sir, with respect to the right itself, I would call the attention of the House to the remarks of a distinguished English jurist upon the point. I have read from the v?ork of an American jurist, and I will now read some remarks of Mr. Phillimore, a standard English writer on Intern\tion:il law. What I am about to read was written under the idea that the Americans were claiming what would be of practical use to them. He was not aware that the difficulties of navigation were such that the concession would be of no practical use. He writes as follows : — •' Great Britain possessed the northern " shores of the lakes, and of the river in " its whole extent to the sea, and also the ' " southern bunk of the river from the "latitude forty five degrees north to its •' mouih. Ihe United States possessed " the southern shores of the lakes, and of " the St. Lawrence, to the point where " their northern boundary touched the " the river. These two governments were " therefore placed pretty much in the " same attitude towards each other, with " respect to the navigation of the St. L'iw- " rence, as the United States and Spain '' had been in with respect to the navigd- " tion of the Mississippi, beloie the ac- •• quisitions of Louisiana nnd Florida. " The argument on the part of the " United States was much the same us " that which they had employed with re- " spect to the navigation of the Missis- " sippi. They referred to the dispute " about theopemngof the tkshe dt in 1784, " and contended that, in the case of that " river, the fact of the banks having been "the creation of ct'-UJicial labour was " a much stronger reason, than could be " said to exist in the case of the MiB8ia< " sippi for closing the mouths of ihe sei " adjoining the Dutch Canals of the Sas " and the Swin, and that this peculiarity " probably caused the insertion of the " stipulation in the Treaty uf Westphalia; " that the case of the St. Lawrence differ^ " ed materially from that of the Scheldt, " and fell directly under the principle of " free navigation enbodied in the 'I'reaty " of Vienna respecting the Khine, the " Neckar, the Mayne, the Moselle, the " Meuse, and the Scheldt. But especially " it was urged, and with a force which it " must have been difficult to parry, that " the present claim of the United States " with respect to the navigation of the " St. Lawrence, was precisely of the same " nature as that which Great Brituia had " put forward with respect to the naviga- " tion of the Mississippi when the mouth " and lower shores of that river were in " the pos.«ession of another State, and o? " which claim Great Britain had procured " the recognition by the Treaty of Paris " in 1763. " The principle argument contained la " the reply of Great Britain was, that fhe " liberty of passage by one nation through " the dominions of another was, accordiog "to the doctrine of the most eminent : " writers upon International Law, ' " a qualified occasional exception ' " to the paramount rights of property ; I " that it was what these writers called an I " imperfect, and not a perfect right ; that I " the Treaty of Vienna did not sanction I " tliis notion of a natural right to the free I " passage over rivers, but, on the contrary, ' the inference was that, not being a na<> " tural right, it required to be established '• by a conmntion ; that the right of pas- " sage once conceded must bold good for " other purposes besides those of trade in " peace, for hostile purposes in time of " w.ir ; that the United States could not " consistently urge their claim on " principle without being prepared to " apply that principle hy way of recipro- " city, in favor of liritish sulgricts. to the ' navigation of the Miss'.saippi uud the " Hudson, to which access 111 gh be livt " from C.inuda by l-iud caniigo or by lUe " c.iuals of New Vorkcind Uliio. " The United Siates replied, that pi-ac " tically tlieSt. L proper position by '< Treaty. ' The re.sult of this controversy has " hitherto produced no effect. Great " Britain has maintained her exclusive '• light. The United States still remain "debarred fiwin the u»e of liiii great •' highway, and are not pei milted to carry " over it the produce of the vast ami rich " territories which border on the lakes " above to tlie Atlantic ocean. " It seems dillicult to deny that Great " Britain m«y ground her refusal upon " strict law; but it is at least equally diffi- •'cult lo iieny, lirst,. that in so doing slie *' exercises har'-hly an cxueuic and hud •' law; secondly, i.nt her conduct with re- " spect to the uiiv.g ition of the St. Law- ••rence ih in glariiii; anding excluded from those ports. The Western Sta e-i. and especially those bordeiing on the Great Lakes, would resist this to the death. 1 would like to see a Congress that would venture to close the ports »f Like Michigan to the shipping of £aflM)d| or of UiuMda, or of tfae wKirU. / 10 The onall portion of tho at. lAwraaoe whioh Urn between the two points I bare mentioned would be of no use, an there ia no advantage to be obtained therefrom as a lever to obtain reoiprooity. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE: Hear, h»u-. Hon. Hir JOHN A MACDUNVLD: My hon. friend says '• H^ar, hear," but I Will tell him that the only lever for the ob- taining ot reoiprooity i ' the sole control of our canals. Ho long I'.s we have the control of these caiiMlti we are the raasteri, and can do just at> we please. Amerioin vessels on the <' wn trip can run the rapids, if thoy get a strong Indian to steer, but they will never come "mck again unleHS Canndji chooses, (hear.) The keel drives through thos^ w iters and then the mark disappears forever, and thit vessel will l>e forever absent from the place thit once knew it unless by the consent of Canada. Therefore as I pointed out before the recess as wo had n'"' lever in our tisheriis, to get Reciprocity, ho we had none in the mvigtiou of tiie St. Lawrence in its nituial course. The real substantial means to obtain recipro cal trade with the United States is in the canals, and is expressly stnted m the Treaty : and when the treaty in clause 27 which relates to the cannls uses the words- '• The » of the United States, bubjfct to any laws .in- 1 regulations of Great Britain or of the Dominion of Canwla, not inconsistent with such privileges of free navig.ation,"' Therefore lest it might be argued that .ns at the time the treaty wis made it was known that for the purpose of ascent the river could not be overcome in its natural course, the provision granting the right of ascent must be held to include the navigation of the Canals, through which alone the ascent could be made. if so the next clause provides and s^ jilies that theee oanali are specially within the control of Canada »nd th« Canadian Gov- ernment, and prevents any infrrenct* being drawn from the language of the E receding article. 1 know, sir that there as been in some of the newspnpers a sneer cist upon the latter paragraph of that article which gives the United States the free ute of tho St Lawrence, —1 refer tothitpart of the article which gives to Canadians the free navigation of the rivers Yukon, t'orcupine and Stikine. Hon. Mr. MACKE.NZIE-Hear, hear. Hon. Sir .10HN A. .MACDONALD— My hon. friend again s:iys " hear, hear.'" 1 hope that he will hear, and perhaps he will hear something he does not know, (hear, hear) J may tell my hon friend that the navigation of the River Yukon is a growing trade, nnd that the Americans are now sending vessels and are fitting out steamers for the nivigation of the Yukon. I will tell my hon. friend that at this mo- ment United States vessels are going up that river and are underselling the Hud- son's Biy people in their own country, (hear, hear;, and it is a matter of tho very greatest importance to the Western coun- try that the navigation of these rivers should yd been settled between Russia and England, that the Unite I -States now had that country, imtl w )uld deal with it as they ehns >, and therefore, as this was a tre:ity to settle all old questions, and not to raise new ones, it w is well that the free ni- vigitim of the rivers I have mentioned, should he settled Ht once between Eng- land and the United States, as before it had been between Englaml and Russia. Be- fore leaving the question of the St. Law- rence, I will make one remark, and will then proceed to another topic, and that IS, that the article in questiou does not iu any way hand over or divide any proprietary rights ou the River St. Lnwrence, or give any sove- reignty over it, or confer any right whatever, except that of freo navigation. Both banks belong to Canada— the management, the regula- tion, the tolls, the improvement, all belong to Cnnada. The only stipulation made in the Treaty is tliat the United States vessels may use the St. Lawrence on as free terms As those of Canadian subjects. It is not a transfer of territorial rights -it is Kiin(ily a permission to navi- gate the i.ytt liy Ameiican vessels, that the navig'iiioa sh'U ever remain free and open for the purpose of commerce (and only for the purpose of commerce) " to '• citizens of the United ,Statt>8, subject to " any laws and regulations of Great " Britain, or of the Dominion of Canada, " not inconsistent with the privilege of " free navigation.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I shnll allude to one ot the subjects in- cluded in the Tre ity, which relate to the navigation of our waters.although it was not contem^>lite• the bonding Hystoni,'' Wo Icnow liow vivluible that hiis licen to us. how valuable during the vvintei; mouths wli^n we are deprived of the use of our own seaports on the St. Lawrence The tact lliat the American press has occisionnlly culled tor the al)olition of the system is a prool of the boon wliicli they considored it to l)e. They huve said at times whi^n they thought an unfriendly ♦eeling e.xisted towards them in Canada, that if Canadians w nlil be so bumptious, they should be deprived of this system, Hud I'lloweil to rem lin cooped up in their frozen country. 11 the United Htates should ever commit the tolly of in- juring their carrying trade by adoi)ting a hostile policy in that respect, ^ind they have oooisionally, as we know, adopted a policy towards us adverse to their commercial interest thoy could have done so before this Treaty was ratified — they cannot do so now. For twelve years we have a right to the bonding system from he United States over all their avenues ot trade, and long before that time ex- pires, I hope we shall have the Cinadian Pacific Railway reaching to the Pacific Ocean, and with the Intercolonial liailway reaching to Halifax, we shall have an un- interrupted line from one seaboard to the other (cheers). This is one of thi sub stantial advantages that Canada ha i gained by this Treaty. Then, sir, the 30th article conveys a most valuable privilege to the railwiiys of Canada that are running from one part of the country to another, and 1 must take the occasion to s:iy that if this has been pressed upon the consideration of the American Government and American Commissioners at Washington, during the negotiation, much of the merit is due to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. .\ler ritt). He it w is who supplied me with the facts, he it was who called attention to tae great wrong to our trade by the Act of 1866, and impressed by him with tho great importance of the subject, I was enabled to urge tke adoption of this article and to I bare it made » portion of the treaty. Now { sir, that this is of importaiiae, you can Me by reading the Buflalo piipers. Somatane I ago they were crying out that the entrance I had been ma i edover toCmada. Under this clause if we I choose to accept it, Canadiwn veaieU «an go to Chicago, can take American produce from American ports, and can carry it to Windsor or Collingwood, or the Welland l{Ailway. '1 hat same American produce can be sent in bond from those and other points along our Railways, givi,pg i the trallic to our vessels by witer and our I railways by 1 md, to Lake (Jntario, andean then be resliippe I by (/madian vessels to Oswego, (Jgdensburgh, or Rochester, or ther American ports ; so that this clause gives us in some degree a relaxation of the extreme, almost harsh exclusive coasting system of the Uni- ted Mates (hoar,) and I am quite sure that in this age of railways and when the votes and proceedings show tbitt so many new Railway undertakings aro about to start this will prove a substantial improve- ment on the former state of aftairs. There i-> a provision that if, in the exercise of our discretion, we choose to put a differential aoale of tolls on Ameri- can vessels passing through our canals, and if New Brunswick should continue her export duties on lumber passing down the river St. John, the United States may with- draw from this arrangement so that it will be hereafter, if the treaty be adopted, and this act passed, a matter for the consider- ation of the Government of Canada in the I iirst place, and of the legislature In the I next, to determine whether it is expedi- I ent for them to take advantage of this , boon that is offered to them. ASi to the expediency of their doing so, I have no ; doubt, and I have no doubt Parliament ' will eagerly seek to gain and establish those rights for our ships and railways, (hear, hear ) The only other subject of ' peculiar interest to Canada in connection ' with the treaty — the whole of it of course is interesting to Canada as a part of the Empire, but speaking of Canada as such and of the interest taken in the treaty locally — the only other subject is the man- ner ol disposing of the San Juan boundary que^tion. That is settled in a way that no one cm object to. I do not know whether many hon. members have ever studied that question. It is a most inter* esting one, and has long been a cause of controversy between the two countries. I I am bound to uphold, and I do uphold, the I British. TJew rwpectipg the obiuip»l wl>iaii SI ?l forms the boundtiry as the correct one. The United States fJovernnient wert, I believe, as sincerely convinced of the justice of their own case. Both believed they were in the right, both weve firmly grounded in that opinion ; and such being the case there was only one way of it, and that was to leave it to be settled by im- partial arbitration. I think the House will admit that no more diatinguished arbiter could have been selected than the Emper or of Germany. In the examination .and decision of the question he will have the assistance of as able and eminent jurists as any in the world, for there is no where a more distinguished I)ody th m the jurists of Germany, who are especially ffimiliiU' with the principles and practice of inter- national law. Whatever the decision may be, whether for England or .'gainst it, you may be satisfied that you will get a most learned and careful ju Ignient in the nut- ter, to which we must bow iC it is a,^ain.st us, and to which 1 am fure the Tnited States will bow if it is against them (hear, hear ) I think, ,Sir, 1 have now gone through all the articles of interest connected with Canada, I sh ill now dlude to one omission from it and then I sh ill have done; and that is the omis.sion of all allusion to the .settlement ot thi Fenian claims. Thit Canad i wis deeply wronged by those outr iges known as the Fenian raids is in'Jisputable. Enghuid has admitted it ami we nil feel ii We felt deeply grieved when those raids were committed, and the belief was gener.al in which I must say I share that sufficient vigi- lance, and due diligence were not exercised by the American (Jovernment to prevent the organization within their territory of bands of armed men openly ho.stilo to .1 peaceful country, and to put an end to incursions by men who carried war over our borders, slew our people :iml destroyed our properiy, it was therefore proper for ua to press upon Euslanl to seek compen.sation at tiie Inmls of the American Government for these great wrongs. As a consequenf-e of our po i tion as a dependency we could only -lo it chrough England. We h id no means or authorii} to do it dirtctly ouiselve^ : and consequently we urged our case upon the attenticn of Eiuj;land, and she consented to open negotiations with the Jnited .States u. on the sub- ject. In the instructions it is litited that Canada had been invited to Bend in a statement of her claims to Eng- land and that it had n«t done so : and 1 dare say it will be char^zed —indeed, 1 have seen it so stated in some of the news- p»p«r»— that thai was an iaitanc« of Can- | adian neglect. Now, it is not an instance of Canadian neglect, but an instance of Canadian caution, (hear, hear.) Canada had a right to press for the payment of those cla'.ms whatever the amount; for all the money spent to repel those ineur^ions had been taken out of the public treasury of Canada and haii to be raised by the taxation of the country. Not only had they right to press for that amount, but every individual Canadian who sutler, ed in person or property because of those raids had a right to compensation. It was not for Canada, however, to put a limit 10 niose claims, and to state what amount of money would be_ con- sidered 18 .'i satisfactory liquida- tion of them. It has never been the cse, whon I'.omiuissioas have been appointe 1 for tho settlement of sue'.' claims to hand in those claims in detail before the sitting of tho commis- ^^ion. What Canada pressed for was that the principle should 'uo established, that the demand should be made by England upon the Unite 1 States, thit that demand shou'iil be ac(iuiesoed in, that the question of ilamagcs should be referred to a tribunal like that nov sitting .at Washington for the inves'.ig ition of olaims connected with the ci.il Vr-.ir in the .South, that time should be given within which the Canadian Gov- erntaent as a (lovernment and every indi- vidual Canadiin wiio suffered by those outrages should hive an opportunity pf liling their cliinis, of putting in an account and of o'fet ing proof to establish their right to an inlemnity. The Canadian Government cireiullv avoided l)y any statement of their views the placiuL' of a limit upon these olaims in ailvanco of exa- mination by such a , commission ; and I think th-3 ilouse an I country will agree that we acted with due discretion in that .'espeiH, (hear, he u). Xow, one of the protocols will .ihow the result of the de- mand for indemnity. The demand was made by thrt British Commissioners that this (piestion should be discussed and con-i- dered by the coniiiiissioii, but the United States Commissioners" objected, taking the groun'l lliat the consideration of these claims was not included in the correspon- dence and reference. In doing that they took the .same ground that my hon. friend tiie memljer tor Slierbrooke, with his usual acuten.'ss and appreciation of the value of languige, took wlien the matter was dis- cussed ill this House before my depar- ture for Wadiington. He said then that he greatly doubted whether under the corresi)iindonce which led to the appoint- ment of the High Commission it could be held that tiie Fenian olaims were to be 81 considered ; and althou^'h my hoiS. friend the Minister of Miiitia ihoughi it might fairly be held that those claims were mulu- ded, I myself could nu., hel]) feeling the strength of the argument advaneod by the hon. member lor Slier- brooke, and 1 iitated a: the time tliat 1 thought there wixs great weight i;i the objection which iio jioiuted out. I'lie American Commissiouerts, as the 'jvent proved, raised that objection, maint ;iuing that the point who not include ( in tlie cor- respondence in which thesubjects ot deli- beration were st ited, and wnen it was pro posed to them by the British Commission- ers, the American Commissionors declined to ask their Government for iresh instruct- ions to enlarge the scope of iheir duty in that respect. Now, wo could not help that. There was the f orrespondence to speak for itself, and it was matter of considerable doubt whether tliose claims were included in it, The British ambassador represent- ed that he haU always thought that the correspondence did inclu le tliem ; and ho was struck with surprise— perhaps 1 ought not to say surprise, for that was not the expression he used — but he was certainly under the impression that it ha>i ueen regarded by all parties that tliey weie cov- ered by the correspondence. Still, let any one read those letters, and he will iind it is very doubtful. As it was doubt- ful, and as objection was raised on that ground, the British Commissiouers iiad no power to compel the American Com- missioners to I letermme tiie djubt in their favor, and lorce these claims upon their consideration. The conse(iuencc was that they were omitted from tho deli- berations of the (,'onimission. Whose fault was tint? I'eitainly not ouis. It was the lault i.if Uer ^Mijesty's Govern- ment in not domandiijg in clear language, in terms which could not 'ne luiRunder stood, that the investigation oi these ilaiius should be one of the matters dealt with by the Commission (hear, hear), it was i great disappoin ;ment to my colleagues in Canada, that the objection was taken, and that all hope of getting redress lor the injury done by those Fenian laids was de- stroyed so l!ir as the (,'ommission at Wash- ington was ooncerncil, in consei|uence of the defective language of the correspond' ence and the delect ^•e nature of thu sub- mission to the Ci mmiisioners. Now, JKngland was rer^poasil)le tor thdt eiror. liugland had piomised to nuke the de- manil, and Knglatid lud iailed to mike it. Not only that, but Her Majesty s Go- vernment took the responsibility or with- drawing ihe claims altogether, and Mr. (.^kdiMme fuU/ absomed all the respon- sibility of this step, and relieved the Ca- nadian Government froua any share in it, when he stated openly in the House of Commons th it the Imperial Government had seen ht to withdraw the cldms, but that they had done so with great reluc- tance and sorrow for the manner in which Canada had t)een treated. Canada, there- fore, had every right to look to England for that satisfaction which she failed to receive through the inadequacy of the correspondence to cover the question. England, ty taking the responsibility of (ieclining to push the claims put herself in the position of the United States, and we had a fair and reasonable ri^^ht to look to her to asBume the responsibility of settling them. .She did not decline that res- ponsibility, and the consequence has been tiiat although we failed to obtain redress from the United State* for those wrongs, we h ive had an opportunity of securing compensation from England, which would not have been oH'ered to us if it had not been for the steps taken by this Governcaent [hear, hear]. But, sir, we are told th.ti. it is a great humiliation lor Canada to t ike this money, or rather this money'sworih. Why, it is our due. We are entitled to it, and we must have it from some one. >]ngland re! ised to ask it for irs from the United States, and she accept- ed all the reponsioility which that refusal involved, ^he was wise in accepting that responsibility; she must take the oonse- (luences, and she is willinL; to do so. But the Canaditta Government, on the other hind, were uawilling that the compensaa tion which iingland thus acknowledged w.is due to us by her sliouM t ikf a direct )iocuniary loitn. We were u.i\.illing that ii should be the payment of a certain ;uii0unt ot money, anu there were several stioii'.^ reasons why we should prefer not to accejit reparation in that shape. In the first place, if .1 proposal of that kind were maile, .t would cause a discussion as to the amount to be paid by England of a most un-eemly character. We would h:ive the spectacle of a judge appointed to e.xamrne the claims in detail, with Canada {jressing her case upon his atten- tion, and England probably resisting in some (.a.sos, and puttrng herself in au an- t.igoriistio position w Irnh sh uld not be .allowed to o'-.cur between the Mother Count 17 and the colony It was, theietore, in tho last degree un- advisable that the relations between Ca- nada and the Mother country, which th oughout have been oi so friendly and pleas.int a character, should be placed in jeupaidy in that way ; and accoitirogly a »u|(geBtioa was made by ua whiob, withoat S4 caUBing. England to expend a sixpence, or putting the least additional burden upon her people, would, if acted upon, do us more good, anil prove of infinitely greater advantage than any amount of mere money compensation we could re i" sonably[expect. This was a mo>ie of dispos- ing of the question in the higliest degree satisfdotory to both countries, and one which does not in the le ist compromise our dignity or our selfiespeot. (Hear, hear) The credit of Canada, thank God, is well established; her good faith is known wherever she has had financial dealings. H^r M-ijesty's Government can go to the House of Commons and ask for authority to guarantee a Canadian loan With a well-grounded assurance that the people of England will never be called upon to put their hands in their pockets or tax themaelves one farthing to pay it. ; (Cheers) At the s ime tl0^e the Imperial ] Government, by giving us this guarantee l grants us a boon the value of which in en- abling us to constiuct the great works of public improvement we have undertaken was explained the other day so ably and in a in a manner that 1 would not attempt to imitate by my hon , frieii I the Finance Minister. Besides the double advaatige to ourselves in getting the endorsement of England without disadvantage to the English people, there is to be con> sideted the great, the enormous benetit that accrues to Canada from this open avowal on the part of Kngland of the in- terest she takes in the success ot ou» great public enterprises. (Cheers) No one can say now when she is sending out one of her distinguislied s'uitesmeii to take the place uf the nobleman who now so worthily represents Iler Majesty in the Dominion ; no one can say when England is aiding us by endorsing a loan spreading over so many ye.irs, and which will not be finally extinguished till most of us now here will have been gath'-red to our fa,;.L.crc ; no one can say u* ■ ^r these cir- cumstances she has iiny idea ' separating herself from us and giving ^, tho colonies. [Cheers] The solid subs .ntial advantage of being able to obtai money on better terms than we could on our own credit alone is not the uu.y benefit this guar.m- tee will confer upon us ; lor it will put a finish at once to ilieliope^ of all dieaniers or speculators wlio de.iiio or belifve in the alienation and separation of the colo- nies from tho Mother I'ountry. Th it is a more incaL;ulible benelit than the raereadvantigo of Kivlanil's guarantee ol our tinanoi.d stability, great and important as that is. [houd cheers] Ajo, but it is said that it is a humihation to make a bargain of this kind. Why, Sir, it was no humilia- tion in 1841 to obtain an Imperi il guarau- tee for the loan necessary to construct the canals o-iginally. It was not consi- dered a humiliation to accept a guarantee for £1,400,000 in 1865 for the purpose of buildingitortilic itions, nor was it a humilia- tion to obtain £4,000,000 upon a similar guarantee to construct the Intercol nial railway. Why is it a humiliation then in this case to accept the guarantee when Enizland voluntarily comes forward ;in I accepts the responsiblity for withdrawing our claims in respect to the Feniin raids. It was by no prompting from us that that responsibility was as- sumed, for Mr. Gladstone rose of his own motion in the House of Commons and by accepting the responsiijility admitted that it should take a tangiole shape. It did t:d:e such a shape, and 1 say a most satisfaotoiy shape in the guarantee of £2,500,000 immediately and we may say £4,000,0U0 in all ultimately. [Cheers] But I hear it objected that Canada ought not to have made a bargain at all. 8he should h ive allowed the Fenian cl dms to go and dealt with tho Treaty separately, accepting or rejecting it on its merits. Sir, Canada did not mike a bargain of thit kind, but she went fairly and openly to hei Majesty's (iovernment and said: Here is a Treaty that h.as been negociated through your influence and which alfects important commercid interests in this country. It is unpopular in '..anada in its com- mercial aspect, but it is urged on us for imperial causes and for the .«ake of the • peace of the Empire, but the pecuniary interests of C.,.:ada should, in the opinion of the Canadian Government, be consider- e Ibhed a principle which can never be for- got^on in this world. No future question ise r likely to arise that will cause such irritation as the escape of the Alabama did, and if they could be got to agree to leave such a matter to the peaceful arbitrament of a friendly power, what future cause of quarrel can in the imagination of man occur that will not bear the same pa- cific solution that is sought for in this. I believe that this Treaty is an epoch in the history of civilization, that it will set an example to the wide world that must be followed ; and with the growth of the great Anglo Soxon family, and with the development of that mighty nation to the south of us, 1 believe that the principle of arbitration will be advocated and adopt- ed as the sole principle of settlement of diBierences between the English speaking peoples and that it will have a moral influence in the world. And although it may be opi. .oed to the ante- cedents of other nations that great moral principle which has now been established among the Anglo-Saxon family, will spread itself over all the civilized world (cheers). It is not too much to say that it is a great advance in the history of mankind, and 1 should be sorry if it were recorded that it was stopped for a moment by aseltish consideration of the interests of Canada. Had the Govern^ ment of Canada taken the course, which was quite open to them, to recommend Parliament to reject these articles, it might have been a matter of some inter- est as to what my position would have been. I am here at all events advocating the ratificaiion ol the Treaty, and, I may (^ay, notwithstanding the taunts of the hon. gentlemen oppo-ite, that although I was chosen for the position of a Commissioner, certainly because 1 was a Canadian, and presumably because 1 was a member of the Canadian Government, yet my com- mission was given to me as a British subject, as it was to Sir Stafford North- cote and other members of the Com- mission. I went to Washington as a Plenipotentiary, as Her Majesty's servant, and was bound by Her Majesty's instruc. tions, and I would have been guilty of dereliction of duty if I had not carried out those instructions. And, sir, when I readily joined under the circumstances in every word of that Treaty with the exception of the Fishery Articles, and when I succeeded in having inserted in the Treaty a reservation to the Govern- ment and the people of Canada of the full right to accept or refuse that portion of it, I had no difhculty as to my course (cheers). 1 did not hesitate to state that if that clause had not been put m, I would have felt it necessary to resign my my commission. 1 was perfectly aware in taking the course I did in signing the Treaty that I should be subject to reproach. I wrote to my friends in Can- ada from Washington that well I knew the storm of obloquy that would meet me on my return, and before even 1 crossed the border I was complit mented with the names of Judas Isoariot, Benedict Arnold, Ac. The whole vocabul- ary of Billingsgate was opened against me, but here 1 am, thank God, to-day, with the conviction that what I did was for the best interests of Canada ; and after all the benefits I have received at the hands of my countrymen, and after the con- fidence that has been accorded me for so many years, I would have been unworthy of that position and that confidence if I were not able to meet reproach for the sake of my country. [Cheers]. I have met that reproach and I have met it in silence. 1 knew that a premature discussion would only exaspe- rate still more the feelings of those who were arrayed against me, and of those who think more of their party than theur coun- try, (loud cheers.) 1 do not speak parti- cularly of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but I say that the policy of the Opposition i'* regulated by a power behind the throne which dictates what that policy must be (cheers.) No one ever saw a patriotic policy emanate from that source except on one occasion, and that was when that source was induced by myself to forget party struggles and party feelings for the common good of the country. (Cheers.) 1 have not said a word for twelvemonths ; 1 have kept silence to this day thinking it better that the subject should be discussed on its own merits. How eagerly was 1 watched 1 If the Government should come out in favor of the treaty then it was to be taken as being a betrayal of the people ■Ml 27 ot Canada. If the Government should come out against the treaty, then the first Minister was to be charged with opposmg the interests of the Empire. Whichever course we might take they were lying in wait ready with some mode of attack. But " sUenoe i« golden," Mr. Speaker, and 1 kept silence. I believe the sober second thought of this country accords with the sober second thought of the Government, and we come down here and ask the people of Canada through their representatives to accept this treaty, to accept it with all its imper* feotions, to accept it ior the sake of peace, and for the sake of the great Empire, of which we form a part, I now beg leave to introduce the Bill, and to state that I have the permission of His Excellency to dd so. Ihe hon. gentleman resumed his seat at 9:45, after having spoken for four hours and a quarter, amid loud and continued applause from all parts of the House.