for North Lanark, lately delivered at to believe that their demands would Hamilton, and said it seemed a very be fairly and justly considered, and some notable instance of extremes meeting accommodation made, and yet there was to find that member of the same mind no mention of this in the speech. He with the Secretary of State for the Pro- supposed Quebec would come next, and vinces. The member for Lanark had also it would never do for Ontario to lag referred to utterances of persons in behind. Either the gentlemen from New England, but such utterances being Brunswick had been deceived by the Govmade by irreponsisble people were of ernment, or the Government were deceivsmall consequence, and until the Imperial ing the House. He then referred to the Government evinced the disposition absence of laws for trying controverted to act in the manner suggested, elections in Manitoba, or for securing puhe did not think the question rity of election, and complained that should be discussed. Referring to the these matters were not mentioned in the Treaty of Washington, the member from Speech. Again there was no mention of Brome had spoken of the very great credit the Supreme Court Bill, which, on former which it reflected on the distinguished occasions, had been considered of such statesman who represented Canada, but great importance. In point of fact scarcely that gentleman would find that there was anything was mentioned. No reference a very great diversity of opinion on that was made to the conduct of the Lieut. subject, and that probably a majority of Governor of Manitoba. At the time of the House took a very different view. Te the House rising last year there was a might say that the London Times had very strong feeling as to the conduct of said in speaking of the proposition to ap- the Government in that Province, and the point a new commission, that a new House had scarcely risen when they Commission might be appointed, but found trouble had arisen with regard to certainly not with the same "Commission- land in that territory. Industrious, ers, and he thought that whatever allow hard working settlers had gone ances might be made for British statesmen there from Ontario, expecting to be coming out to deal with Canadian ques. able to make a home in the prairies of tions, no such excuse could be made for the West, and they were actually forbidthe Commissioner who had represented den by Governor Archibald to settle until that House. The Secretary of State for he had provided accommodation for all the Provinces in his lecture had termed those who chose to take land in accordthe Treaty a Comedy of Errors, and an- ance with the grant made by the Dominion other minister had stated at Quebec, that Parliament. In the month of June His when it was seen that there was Excellency was asked to indicate the mode an intention to give up the adopted to regulate the rights of common fisheries for the small consideration men- and cutting hay, and it was stated that tioned in the Treaty, the Government the arrival of emigrants made it pressing protested energetically, but that the that there should be a solution of the British Government, nevertheless, in- question. With regard to the settlement structed the Commissioners to sign the of the lands Governor Archibald referred Treaty. The instructions of the Imperial the people to the rules adopted by the Government, however, never contem. Gevernor General, and said that if he had plated all the Commissioners signing the to designate the townships in which allotTreaty, and he scarcely understood how ments to half-breeds should be made he the "distinguished statesman" could should be guided by the selections made claim much credit if he signed a treaty by the half-breeds themselves. Subseof which he did not approve." Another quently they had had the extraordinary omission from the speech he referred to, spectacle of the representative of the as the claims of New Brunswick, which Crown in that Province, in the light of were now being brought forward. He re- day, shaking hands with the man who had ferred to the manner in which Nova been the leader of what Col. Wolseley Scotia had been treated as having been called a gang of banditti, and who took the means of opening the way for com- the life of an unoffending man. Nothing plaints from other Provinces, and claimed was said of this, but on the eve of Parliathat if the proposition of his side of the ment it was announced that the Lt. Gov. House had been accepted, there would had resigned. It ought not to have been have been no opportunity for re-opening a resignation, but an instant dismissal. these questions. They were told by Com- The canal system was a matter of extreme missioners from New Brunswick who had importance, but it should be desirable to visited Ottawa that the Govern aecertain what was the exact scheme of ment had given them every reason the Government. In the absence of definite information as to that scheme, he would merely say that he should cordially agree with the Government provided their scheme should be such as would commend itself to the practical experience of the country. As to the Treaty he thought the universal hostility manifested towards it throughout the country was sufficient to justify a deliberate debate before agreeing to the Address, in reply to the speech, but as it had been decided to postpone the consideration, he would not enter into the matter at that time. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS said it was not his intention to follow his honourable friend through all the matters of which he had spoken, but merely to speak of a tew. With regard to the construction of the Pacific Railway as one of the con. ditions of the union with British Columbia and the statement that the resources of the country were inadequate to the carrying out of that project, he wished to say that the contrary was the fact, and that the Minister of Militia was entirely correct in stating on a former occasion that that work could be constructed without adding to the burthens of the country. With re gard to the late calling together of the House he was surprised that the gentleman who had preceded him should express ignorance of the reasons for that occurrence for surely every one could see in the important questions connected with the Washington Treaty every reason for postponement of the meeting of Par. liament. Congress had been sitting four months and had not arrived at a decision, and when the Imperial Government requested delay surely every one would see how important it was that in a question of such import, the Imperial and Canadian Governments should be in perfect accord. The member for Lambton had spoken of a statement made at Montreal that the Government would undertake the deepening of Lake St. Peter, but if he took the statement made in connection with the terms of the Speech the only infere nce was that such a work would not devolve upon the Dominion Treasury though the Government would be disposed to co operate in the carrying out of the work. With regard to the Speech of the hon. gentleman, his colleague, he would venture to say that he would be able to defend himself at the proper time. He (Sir Francis) had not always concurred in the views of the Secretary of State for the Provinces, but no one knowing him, would charge him with such views as those imputed to him by the hon. member for Lanark. He felt sure that the views of the hon gentleman were not dissimilar to those of a member of this House expressed in a London newspaper, the writer of which had preserved his incognito. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Who was the writer? Hon. Sir G. CARTIER- The member for Lambton. Hon. Sir F. HINCKS-With regard to the speeches on the subject of the Washington Treaty occasionally made by members of the Government who have escaped from the control of his hon. friend the first minister, he had been one of those persons who had made one or two speeches on the subject and he would be happy in deed to find any one on the floor of that House who would grapple with the course he took. There were two distinct subjects. The merits of the Treaty itself would have to be dealt with by that House, but there was another question which had been very much discussed during recess, that was the responsibility of the Canadian Government because his honorable friend the First Minister signed the Treaty. He was astonished to hear the hon. member for Lambton refer to that clause which said that the Treaty might be signed by a majority of the members of the Commission. The hon. gentleman must know that that clause was put in, that in case of death or unavoidable absence there might not be a failure in the negotiations. The hon. gentleman and the language of the leading newspaper of his party, indicate them to have very extraordinary and wrong ideas in regard to the manner in which diplomatic proceedings are conducted. When his hon. friend the First Minister was invited to take a seat on the Commission, what would have been his duty were the assumptions of the hon. gentlemen opposite right. Why the first thing he should have done would have been to have stated that he would not take a set on the Commission, unless upon the distinct understanding that he should not be bound to sign any Treaty which he did not agree to. Had his honorable friend done that, and had sat on the Commission with the intention of not signing the Treaty, did it not meet his views, he would have acted to the Imperial Government in a most dishonourable manner. He (the first Minister) knew perfectly well the conditions upon which he had to go there. Had he put such a condition as the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House would have had him do, was there any member of this House who believes that the Imperial Government would have ap-out some explanation from the Treasury pointed him a commissioner. It was of Benches. He held that no one could great advantage to Canada to have a control the Canadian Premier other than Canadian on the Commission on the same the Parliament of Canada, and to that conditions as the other Commissioners, House he should be responsible for all his viz: to obey the instructions of the public acts. As regards the late period responsible Minister of the Crown in Eng. at which Parliament had been called to. land. The views and interests of Canada gether, he saw no reason why the meethad been represented with fidelity and ing had been so delayed, as had they been zeal by the First Minister, and it was most called together in February they might satisfactory to know with regard to the still have been in session. The Imperial proceedings of this Treaty that there has Parliament had not postponed its been perfect accord among the thirteen meeting. nor yet the Congress of the members of the Canadian Government. United States. With respect to the hon. Leading statesmen in England on both Secretary of State for the Provinces and sides of the House had thrown the re- his position in that debate he maintained sponsibility on the Government. Mr. that a minister of the Crown could not Disraeli on the Opposition side had separate himself from that capacity in the charged the Government with the respon- discussion of political questions. With sibility of the Treaty, which Mr. Gladstone regard to the statement of the Minister immediately accepted, and it was unfair of Marine and Fisheries made at Montreal, to throw the responsibility on his respecting the deepening of Lake St. hon. friend, the First Minister, who came Peter, the inference which he (Mr. to the House as free as any other Holton) and many others had drawn from member to take whatever course he the speech in question was, that the should think best in regard to the Government had undertaken the expense Treaty, and he felt sure that when of deepening Lake St. Peter, as well as the papers relative to the "reaty were laid the enlargement of the canals. He considbefore the House they would be shown ered that there was a distinct difference that the Ministry have faithfully discharg- between the reference to the Treaty as ed their duty to the country and to the referred to in the Speech, and the stateHouse, and it would be seen that the ments of the hon. Ministers of Finance and words of the Minister of Public Works Public Works, the terms of the speech spoken at Quebec, expressed the views of implying that the Treaty was a good one, every member of the Cabinet, and that while the hon. gentlemen said the Cabinet they did not agree with the Treaty, but were opposed to it. He hoped that the the course they had taken could not be debate would not close without the Prime discussed until the papers were brought Minister expressing his views. He could down. The hon. member for Lambton not think that he (the Prime Minister) * had referred to so many subjects that he would endorse the views of the hon. Min (Sir Francis) could not answer them all, ister of Finance, that he was not respon. but had no doubt they would be replied sible to Canada for signing the Treaty. to during the debate. Hon. Mr. McDOUGALL thought he saw nothing that should delay the action of the House in respect to the Address. He had hoped that the practice of passing the Address without debite would be followed by this Parliament. The hon. member for Lambton had discussed at considerable length questions to which he could not agree. With respect to the Treaty of Washington referred to in the Address, they were promised so much of the correspondence as could, with due regard to Imperial and Canadian interests, be laid before them. The question is one of great importance, and we could easily see that it might be highly expedient that there should be some reserve in dis. cussing it. The House would look with great anxiety for such correspondence as the Government may think it expedient to submit. He had no hesitation in saying, that after reflecting upon the Hon. Mr.HOLTON, like his hon. friend on this side of the House, had not intended to speak on this debate, but as the hon. leader of the House had failed to rise, in reply to his hon. friend from Lambton, and the Minister of Finance had taken part in the debate, he would say a few words. He inferred from the terms of His Excellency's speech that the Premier and his colleagues had assumed full responsibility in accepting the Treaty. The hon. gentleman had told them that the Premier was not responsible for assenting on behalf of Canada to the appointment which was conferred upon him by reason of his position of First Minister of Canada. Why was he sent to the United States as First Minister? Why was he appointed, if not to forward the interests of Canada? He would not like the debate to close with subject, and having discussed it with his constituents he felt it his duty to say at once that he was prepared to ratify the Treaty of Washington. If he understood the Finance Minister that the Govern ment is prepared to throw any obstruction in the way of or prevent the full ratification of the Treaty he felt sure that many in that House would be opposed to them. He dare say that the correspondence when sent down would show that everything had now been arranged satisfactorily to Canada. He did not hold him self responsible as a member of that House for opinions which he had expressed at various times, and at Hamilton recently as a private citizen, but he would say that we should accept the Treaty as a portion of the empire, or be prepared to change our po itical relations with the Mother Country. He considered the speech or pamphlet of the Hon. Secretary of State for the Provinces very injudicious, as coming from a gentleman holding a Ministerial office. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS rose to explain that the hon. gentleman on the opposite side had misunderstood him as saying that the Government was opposed to the Treaty, what he intended to convey was that the Government had expressed their disapproval of the Treaty, but that since then a correspondence had been going on with the Imperial Government on the subject, and that on the papers coming down the House would see that the two Governments were in entire accord. AFTER RECESS. Hon. Mr. McDOUGALL in resuming the debate said he would not continue his remarks further as he thought it inex pedient that the House should discuss the question of any change of constitution at the present time. They were there to pass the laws necessary in the interests of the country. He was very well satisfied with the terms of the Address and the indications of the policy of the Government, although many important measures which the circumstances of the country required, and which ought to be dealt with during the present Session were not mentioned, but no doubt these measures would be submitted as the session progressed. He concluded by particularizing a law for the trial of controverted elections as especially necessary. Mr. STREET (Niagara) said he wished to make a few remarks on the paragraph of the speech respecting the canal system. Great agitation had prevailed throughout the country on the subject, and he consider Mr. MASSON (Terrebonne) said he rose to take exception to a remark made by the hon. member for Lambton in designating Mr. Riel as a leader of banditti. He contended that so far from this being the case he was the leader of the whole French population of Manitoba, and said that if he wished he could at the present moment be returned to Parliament for half the counties in the Province. He did not wish to defend what Mr. Riel had done, but there was great injustice in the term made use of by the member for Lambton. He then referred briefly to the withdrawal of the troops, maintaining a statement which he said he had previously made that that withdrawal had caused very great dissatisfaction among the people of Canada, and cited the report of hon. Mr. Campbell on the subject in his sup. port. The Address was then passed paragraph by paragraph. Hon. Mr HOLTON thought that before the question closed they had a right to hear from the leader of the Government something respecting his action in subscribing to the Treaty of Washington-and especial. ly as to the constitutional question of the responsibility or otherwise of himself and his colleagues in the matter. He (Mr. Holton) held that the hon. gentleman went to Washington in the capacity of Minister for Canada, and for the one purpose of representing and protecting Canadian interests, and in that capacity for whatever he did or forbore to do, he was responsible to that House. Hon. Sir J. A. MACDONALD was sorry he could not respond to the request of his hon. friend, as he thought it would be highly inexpedient and not for the public interest or the advantage of the House to enter into the matter now. If the question was of such grave import it should not be discussed until the papers were fairly before the house. As to the constitutional question the Government and every individual member of it were res ponsible to the House and the country for what they did as a Government. As to the question of his personal responsibility and whether his position as a member of the Government and a Commissioner in volved a two fold responsibility he must decline to discuss it until the whole course of the Government in regard to the Treaty and of himself incidentally was laid before the House. Then he would be ready to discuss the matter to the fullest extent. He then moved for a Select Committee to draft the Address to His Excellency. Motion carried and Committee presented the Address, which was ordered to be engrossed and presented to His Excellency by such members as were of the Privy Council. The House adjourned at 8.20 until Tuesday next. with one voice, unite in the congratula- under these was probable effect upon the Queen's health of a fatal termination of his illness, and on the tender years of the young Prince Albert Victor, we knew that we had cause for deep concern. And now that the sorrow with which the Queen and the Nation were threatened has passed by, we rejoice with a joy as all pervading as were our grief and our sympathy. We heartily pray that H.R.H.'s life may long be spared, and that his reign, when it shall please God to call him to the Throne, may long perpetuate the constitutional rule under his Royal mother's administration, under which we and all ber subjects have so long enjoyed the blessings of free and just government. I am confident that, notwithstanding the teachings of a small and narrowminded school of political philosophers, the people of England will respond to the sentence with which this address is closed, and which so entirely speaks the senti |