were held up, and in compliance with the call of the meeting he was allowed to speak. After he had explained his position, he spoke of the Treaty of Washing ton and asked if it was not expedient. on the part of those who had called the meeting, to give a hint as to the course they proposed to adopt. He spoke in gener terms and gave his views very distinctly, and had a vote been taken, he felt sure a majority would have endorsed his views. The hon. gentlemen answered, but they did not touch the Treaty. They went back to the clergy reserves, and questions of thirty years old. He then referred to the result of the elections of last year, and the defeat of the Ontario Government when one tenth of the House was unrepresented. He did not think that gen tlemen representing themselves to be such could properly claim to be the leaders of the Reform party. Since they had acce ded to power, they had, in every action, reversed the very policy they had advocated and he instanced the policy on the railway question, and their great departure from principle in forming a Coalition -(cheers)-and he believed that the honest Reformers throughout the country had lost faith in them. The hon. member for West Durham had undertaken to speak as representing the Reform party of Ontario; but he (Mr. Macdougall) believed that he did not represent that party, but that he was merely the head of a faction. (Cheers.) He would not speak of the canal system, as he thought there was not a member who did not agree in the expe diency of enlarging the canals to encourage the trade of the west. That policy had been stamped on this country and Government since he had been in Parliament. Some people objected that the Treaty of Washington would throw open the canals on the same terms to Americans as to our own people. He could not see that that would be any great surrender of honour and dignity. He was satisfied the English Government would look after that. Had not American vessels of war been admitted through the canals to the lakes? and he could not see what injury the country could sustain from that admission of American vessels in the time of peace; and if they could not protect their rivers and canals in the time of war, the Treaty would be useless. The desire of some hon. gentleman was to raise a captious opposition, to find fault, and to act against the interests of the Empire. He had no objection to sit down and consider the views which prevail with many English statesmen, that Canada had arrived at a period of manhood, and should

therefore, as a family arrangement, be reconstructed; but so long as the present constitution should remain in force, they should not attempt to assert an indep en dence which they did not possess, andcould not in the interests of the Empire exercise. The Imperial Government should be left in the hands of Imperial Ministers. (Loud cheers)

Mr. RYMAL said that the gentleman who had just sat down had taken occasion to allude to a gentleman not in this House as swaying the destinies of the Reform party. For his part, he would say that he pinned his faith to no man's coat-tails, that he formed his own opinions, and gave expression to them when necessary. He could recollect the time when he (Mr. Macdougall) was one of the most subeervient followers of the gentleman he had alluded to, and it was owing to that gens tleman that he had accepted any promi nent position as a member of the Reform party. He ridiculed the position of the member for South Lanark, who, he said, was ready to make another somersault, and as he looked over to the Treasury benches seemed to be saying "Oh whistle and I'll come to thee my lad."

Some conversation here arose on the part of the Opposition as to adjourning the debate; but, as the Government desired to continue, the question was proceeded with.

Mr. YOUNG rose with diffidence to address the House after the able speeches he had listened to, and he did so with some disadvantage, as he had not expect ed that, at so late an hour, the Governs ment would have sought to force a vote. It was fortunate that, in discussing this question, there could be no doubt as to the position of the country with regard to the fisheries. The Premier had seen fit to quote statements from American writers throwing doubts on our rights to the fisheries; but he preferred to take his (Sir John's) statement of last session on the subject, to the effect that there could be no doubt whatever as to our right to the fisheries within the three mile limit. It was fortunate, also, that there could be no doubt as to the opinion of the House with regard to the fisheries and their disposal. the debate which took place last year there was but one opinion, and that was, that they could not be given up except in consideration of some commercial ad vantages to the Dominion The Premier had then stated that England would, under no circumstances, give up our acknowledged rights, and that the fishing ground within three miles of the coast was

On

just as much our territory as three miles of our land. In consequence of those statements the resolutions of the hon. member for Sherbrooke were withdrawn. and under these circumstance he thought the House had good ground for charging the leader of the Government with want of good faith in signing the Treaty and sacrificing the rights of Canada. The American policy ought to be considered in connection with the matter, and the whole aim of that policy had been to worry England until she should withdraw her flag from this continent. This had been evidenced in the war of 1812, in past years, and most clearly in the matter of the Treaty. They saw England giving up everything, while the United States refused to allow strong claims against her to be considered at all, while she demand. ed the use of the Canadian fisheries. The British Commissioners were not versed in American diplomacy; but the Minister of Justice had no such excuse, and ought to have withstood the demands of the United States. He never heard a speech at once so inconsistent and unreasonable as that of the hon. gentleman a few days ago, and that was because all his reasons were contradicted by the terms of the des patches he had addressed to the English Government. He did not think the whole blame of the Treaty should be thrown on the Imperial Government, for they took

care

that the parts effecting Canada should not go into effect until they were ratified by this Parliament, and therefore the responsibility of the adoption of the Treaty must rest with the Government and Parliament of Canada. The real question to consider was: was the Treaty fair and just to Canada? was she to give up the St. Lawrence, the fisheries, and the Fenian claims? He spoke of the great value of the fisheries, as shown in the reports before the House, maintaining them to be one of the great national resources of the country. In return for all the proposed cessions, they were to get free access to American markets, a certain money consideration, and the right to fish in American waters. The money consi. deration was of small account; the fishing in American waters was of no value, and the privilege of obtaining access to the American markets, he would show, would, under the Treaty, last for a short time. The whole thing was a shameful sacrifice of Canada's interests, and this was generally admitted, and the member for West Durham had fully proved it. He referred to the quantity of fish exported by Canada, showing that only a small portion went to the United States. He said agricultural

products had not suffered by being shut out from the United States, and so it was with the fisheries. A large trade had sprung up with the West Indies and also with European countries, and any action that would increase this trade would be just as good as trade with the United States. They had no guarantee that the duty to be taken off fish and oil would not be continued, because the Ameri cans would be able to give their fishermen a bounty which would do away with all the advantages for which the fisheries were to be given away. It was a great mistake that this bounty should not have been prohibited in the Treaty. Nothing could be more objectionable than the cession of the joint sovereignty of the St. Lawrence, and the abandonment of the Fenian claims. On both points, as far as the United States was concerned, the cession was completed and without equivalent. As to the navi. gation of the rivers in Alaska, it was simply an insult, to make them an equivalent for the free navigation of the St. Lawrence. He had always been in favour of inducing American trade to our waters, but it should be a privilege, not a right, and the concession might lead them to interfere in our affairs in order to worry England into leaving Canada to take care of herself. The Minister of Justice should have seen that that right was not ceded until it had been submitted to the Canadian Parlia ment. As to the Fenian claims, the object was not money, but to obtain an assurance that the United States would do what was right in future; and if the Commissioners had properly upheld the justice of the claims they would not have been withstood. The question was now in a most unfortunate position, and would lead to fresh raids in future. There was almost moral cowar lice in not pressing the claim. There was great feeling on the question throughout Ontario, because they believed the Treaty imperrilled the country, and at all events would prevent any possibili ty of reciprocity for years to come. If the system of exclusion had been continued, much better commercial terms might have been obtained, and the people of Western Canada were therefore deeply interested in the matter. This was no reason why the Treaty should be ratified. He had seldom heard more paltry reasons than those urged by the Government in pressing the acceptance of the treaty. No danger would result from Canada stands ing up for her just rights, and the most certain way of rushing into war was giving up those rights and so provoking aggression. He thought the English guarantee the most disgraceful and humiliating part

pealing Act, be admitted free. If that were the case, the importer in Canada would be placed at a disadvantage as com. pared with the American importer; for while the latter would be able to send his surplus stock at any time into Canada free of duty, the Canad an importer would be met with a duty of ten per cent. upon any shipment he might make to American ports. He had instituted enquiries which would enable him to announce on Tuesday next the exact effect of the law passed by Congress, when the Government would state whether they would place the mer chants of this country on the same footing as the American merchants.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the Government was following the course of the American Legislature.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-They are look. ing to Washington.

Hon. Sir F. HINCKS admitted that they had been influenced by American legisla tion, but it was the necessity of the cise. Canadian tea importers carried on as large operations as the Americans, and in the fiscal arrangements of the Government it should be an object to place them on quite as favourable a footing.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said his impression was that the American Act repealed the duties on tea and coffee purely and simply. Under the former policy of the United States before the war, before it became necessary for revenue purposes to impose a heavy duty on tea and coffee, it encour aged the long voyage, as it was called, that was the shipment direct from the place of growth to ports in the United States. This law applied to tea, which it wasan object to import direct instead of by the usual way of England. But he hardly thought it applied to coffee, which was grown in the West Indies, Brazil, and other countries west of the Cape of Good Hope. He had not seen the Act as it had finally passed Congress, but he had seen the bill that went up from the House of Repre sentatives to the Senate and judging from that, it was his impression that it re pealed the tea and coffee duties absolutely. What struck him as peculiar in the proposition of the hon. gentleman. and in the proposed modification of his measure, was the slavishness with which ths Gov. ernment was following American prece dent in the matter of commercial 1-gisla tion of all others. (Hear, hear) thought we in Canada might learn wisdom from them in some respects; but least of all in matters of political economy. This measure of the repeal of the duties on tea and coffee in the United St te3 was a stroke of tactics on the part of the pro

He

|

tectionists to reconcile the populace by holding out to them the prospect of a free break'ast table, and thus preventing a res duction of duties on other imports, which would interfere with their monopoly. Although he did not wish to worm out the secrets of the Government, he would be curious to learn whether they proposed following to its logical consequences the steps they were now taking by proposing the imposition of high protective duties on the other articles. Public attention was now drawn on that question, and he con fessed that, when be found his quondam free trade leader following so slavishly the precedents of American protectionists in this respect, he had grave misgivings as to his future intentions on that subject.

Hon. Sir F. HINCKS-I have got into bad company it appears (Laughter.) The motion was then adopted.

CAPITATION DUTY.

Hon. Mr. POPE moved the House into Committee of the Whole to consider the following Resolution:-That it is expedient to amend the Immigration Act of 1869 (32 and 33 Vic. c. 10) by repealing the capitation duty of one dollar thereby imposed for every passenger or immigrant above the age of one year, and instead thereof to impose a duty of two dollars for each passenger or immigrant above the age of one year, arriving at their port of destination in Canada in any vessel not cleared under the sanction of the Imperial Commissioners of Emigration, not carrying a surgeon and on board of which proper measures for the preservation of the health of the passengers and crew have not been observed during the voyage."

The motion was carried, and the House went into Committee.

Hon. Mr. POPE, in proposing the Resolution for the adoption of the Committee, said that the object was two-fold: first, to encourage immigration by reliev ing immigrants entirely from the capita tion tax. That tax had been remonstrated against by many, and was felt to be burdensome to those bringing immigrants to this country and to the immigrants themselves. The Government had been placed in a position which would require them to ask the House this session tc refund to charitable societies in England money that had been advanced on this account. The second object of the resolution was to remove as far as possible the difficulty and expense that was experienced at Quarantine on account of overcrowded and illventilated ships. The Americans avoided that difficulty by imposing a penalty of