.cepting it. If, however, the Imperial Government had taken the position indicated by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, he (Mr. Bowell) would be reluctant to accept the responsibility of voting against it, and he thought the Government should make some declaration which should go to the country, on a point so important. As for the amendment, it had been dexterously drawn in order to have a fling at the Gov. ernment; but, as that was its only object, and not the defeat of the Treaty, he would vote against it; he desired a direct vote upon the Treaty, and he would take care that an opportunity for such a vote should be given. Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD, in answer to the question of the hon. gentleman, stated at once that Her Majesty's Government had held out no threat, (hear, hear,) had given no intimation that any consequences of the kind, either of severance of the connection between England and Can ada or of coolness in their relations, would follow our rejection of the Treaty. Her Majesty had taken occasion in her speech from the throne to say that the power was left to Canada, and her Prime Minister and principal adviser had again stated the same thing in his place in Parliament, that the free and unrestricted right was reserved to the people of Canada to deal with the clauses of the Treaty respecting the fishery rights, by way of ratification or rejection as they pleased. In no respect and in no communication public or private, confidential or otherwise, had there been any intimation that England desired to influence us in any way, except in the fair arguments that had been used in the official des patches. That was the simple and sole communication the Government had to make to the House, as to the desire of Her Majesty's Government on that particu. lar. He thought it necessary to state this, so that no hon. member might be influ enced to vote either for or against the ratification by any supposed views of Eng. land; but that he should have full liberty to vote as he thought best for the interests of Canada and the Empire. He objected to the Governu. nt being held responsible for the remarks or speeches of any hon. member of the House, except a member of the Government; and certainly the pɔsition and the relations of the hon member for Sherbrooke with the Government, were not such as would give any hon. member the right to suppose that he had spoken by the authority or with the sanc tion of the Government in any way what ever, He (Sir John) had stated in his speech that the House had entire liberty to vote as it pleased, and that statement had not been withdrawn or modified by any expression from himself or his colleagues. The hon. member for Sherbrooke had said that the Government had taken a certain course against the Treaty, and then, arguing from the change that had occurred, he had adduced an inference that there must have been communications of that kind from the Imperial Government, but it was merely imaginary, having no foundation or basis on fact. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir John) denied that either he or his colleagues had cheered the declaration of the hon member for Shers brooke, whose great talents they all admired, and who, although not with them was still a personal friend, when he had spoken well about maintaining the pres tige of England; and he (Sir John) had cheered him lustily when the hon. member said he would vote for the Treaty. There was no sort of cheer from those benches when he expressed the sentiment that we should be severed in any way from England. The debate was then dropped, and the House adjourned at 11.40. HOUSE OF COMMONS. OTTAWA, May 13, 1872. The Speaker took the chair at 3.20. SMOKING. Hon. Sir GEO. E. CARTIER complained that somebody had been smoking within the precincts of the House. He had no objection to the habit, although he did not indulge in it; but there was a room devoted to the purpose, and hon. members who wished to smoke should go there. He hoped that Mr. Speaker would give his attention to the matter. Mr. THOMPSON -refer to the smoking committee. (Laughter) TORONTO SAVINGS BANK. Mr. HARRISON introduced an Act res◄ pecting the Toronto Savings Bank. Read a first time. DOUBLE RETURNS Hon. H. CAMERON said the other member who had been returned for the District of Marquette Province of Manitoba, (Mr. McKay,) was present in the House, and he therefore moved that the standing orders with regard to double returns be read. The motion was carried, and the rule being read by the Clerk, Mr. McKay retired. THE TREATY. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE asked the Go vernment if they had any intelligence to communicate to the House with regard to the negotiations respecting the Treaty of Washington. They all knew that discussions had taken place with regard to the Treaty, and that these discussions had disturbed the course of the negotiations, and within the last few hours they had learned that an entirely different arrange ment had been proposed to the terms provided in the Treaty. It had occurred to him, therefore, that the Government might be disposed to make some state ment to the House concerning these renewed negotiations, and the changed as pect in which the House and country stood in consequence of those negotiations. Hon. Sir J. A. MACDONALD said the Government had no communication as having been received from any official source whatever. He had received a telegram from a private friend saying there was a good prospect of an arrangement, and that explanations would be made in the House of Commons to-day, and the only other information he had received was contained in the ordinary midday des. patch to the newspapers, an advance copy of which he had received, and which he would read to the House. He then read despatches from London and New York of to day's date respecting the latest phase of the negotiations, (these despatches being the same as appeared in the Morning Papers of that day.) The first order of the day being called for the second reading of the Bill to carry out the Treaty of Washington, oppose the Treaty; but he would find that those who were in favour of annexa. tion to a man would support the Treaty. as they believed that its adoption would be another step in the direction of annexation. He (Mr. Bodwell) also attacked the member for North Lanark for referring to the local politics of Ontario, he (Mr. Macdougall) had said, as if for the purpose of ingratiating himself with the hon gentleTreaty in a speech in Western Canada last men opposite, that he had advocated the year; but he (Mr. Bodwell) believed that he had not discussed the question at all. gentleman, and, when found that his old The Government had got rid of the hon. friends did not want him, he was trying to Bodwell) disagreed with the arguments make friends with them again. He (Mr. used in favour of the treaty. It had been said that the Minister of Justice was an Imperial Commissioner, and not a Cana dian Commissioner, but he thought the correspondence would show that he was appointed to represent Canada, and his own speech of last session, to which he (Mr. Bodwell) referred, led to this conclu sion. He felt satisfied that the House thought the hon. gentleman was acting ded the withdrawal of the resolutions of for Canada, or they would not have conce the hon. member for Sherbrooke. The hon. gentleman had said that no territosubmission to the people. It had been rial rights would be sacrificed without a shown that we had interests and rights to navigate the St. Lawrence, and which were peculiarly our own, yet these rights had been given away without our consent. As to the fisheries, we had the option of ratifying or not as we pleased, but we were told that if they were not ratified war would follow, and we should be considered disloyal. In acceptiong a money payment for the Fenian claims the Government had accepted a bribe for the passing of the Treaty. He desired more liberal and commercial relations with the United States. The House had been told that the fisheries and the navigation of the St. Lawrence were levers to produce reciprocity; but we had given up all these without any ades quate returns. Nothing in fact had been gained except the navigation of some out of the way rivers in Alaska. He objected that we could not act in this matter without being threatened with war and separation from the Mother Country, and des Mr. BODWELL resumed the debate. He attacked the Secretary of State for the Provinces (Mr Howe) for having discusssed this question in a profane and vulgar manner. He (Mr. Howe) in alluding to the Fenian claims, had taken the ground that a full recompense for our outraged feelings, as well as for the damages sustained, could be made with money, and to sustain a position he had said that the United States were willing to accept money payment for their outraged feelings in connection with the depredations of the Alabama. He (Mr. Bodwell) contended that this was not fairly stating the case, as the United States had, in the first instance, required an expression of regret or an apology from Great Britain; and he ven-precated the expressions of hon. gentletured to say that, if such regret had not been expressed on the part of Great Britain, no treaty would have been made. The leader of the Government had said that only those who were disloyal would men to that effect. The Treaty was a step in the direction of annexation, and as such highly unacceptable to the people of this country. He urged this point at some further length, and concluded by moving the following amendment-that all after the word "That" be omitted, and the following inserted:-"Having regard to the existing differences between the Uni ted States and Great Britain, concerning the proceedings necessary to give effect to the Treaty of Washington, it is inexpedient to proceed further at this time with the said bill." Hon. Sir J. A. MACDONALD said the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution had of course a right to do so; and, as he was a member of the Opposition so ably led in the House by the hon. members for Lambton and West Durham, it was not to be supposed and believed that he was taking a course opposed to the wishes of those hon. gentlemen. (Hear, hear.) It was rather to be supposed and believed that this amendment was moved with their concurrence and saction. (Hear, hear.) If that was so, then the Government must conclude that the Opposition had taken wit in their anger, (cheers) and that, although the hon, member for West Durham had proposed a vote of want of confidence yesterday he was afraid of it to day, and therefore got the hon. member for South Oxford to move this resolution. (Cheers.) Now the question became an interesting one, was the resolution which had been moved by the member for West Durham to be pressed or not? If it was to be pressed, then, as a matter of fairness to the Government a distinct vote of the House ought to be taken upon it; such an idea as an hon. gentleman moving a vote of want of confidence, and then get ting another on the same side of the House to move an amendment, had never been heard of in parliamentary proceed ings. It did not show a spirit of fair play. It was simply juggling, and ought not to be done or tolerated by the House. (Cheers.) He (Sir John) could understand if an hon, member opposed to the motion of the hon. member for West Durham did such a thing as this, but he could not understand it otherwise, except upon the presumption that the Opposition were now afraid of the motion of the hon. member for West Durham, and were trying to get rid of it in this way. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir John) thought that in fairness to the House and the Government, they ought to be told whether the hon member for West Durham would press his amendment or support this motion in amendment to his own; and also whether the hon. member for Lambton would support a motion which was in effect a supercession of the resolu¡ tion offered by his colleague, the hon. member for West Durham. It that was the case, if they did support this amendment, it would show that they were afraid of their own motion, and that they were com mitting something which it would not perhaps be Parliamentary to characterize in the language it deserved. (Cheers.) It might be, however, that the hon. member for South Oxford had taken the bit in his teeth, that he did not care what he moved, and that he had made up his mind to op pose the Treaty on his own account. It might be, too, that he thought the motion of the hon. member for West Durham did not meet the case, and that it was in his power to offer a better one. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Whatever was the cause, the House ought, in all fairness, to have an explanation of a proceeding which was unparliamentary, extraordinary and very funny. (Cheers) Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon. gen. tleman might set his mind at rest, for the amendment of the hon member for West Durham would be pressed; it would be voted upon; and every hon. member would have an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon it by voting. (Hear, hear.) It was not, however, unparliament. ary, as the hon. gentleman had said, for an amendment to be moved to a motion by an hon. member on the same side of the House, and the hon gentleman could call to mind no doubt when the same thing had been done on his side of the House. Since the amendment of the hon. member for West Durham had been moved, the House had learned from the hon. gentleman himself that circumstances had arisen which did not exist at the time when that amendment had been proposed, and the hon. gentleman need not try to hold a whip over the heads of his followers in order to deter by threat those of them who were disposed to support that amend. ment. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Mackenzie) did not look upon that amendment to the motion for the second reading of the bill as simply and purely a motion of want of confidence. To be sure hon. gentlemen on his side of the House had no confis dence, and did not pretend to have any in the Government but in proposing his amendment, the hon. member for West Durham had no wish to express want of confidence. The Opposition only desired to express an opinion upon a question which was above all the interests of party, because it deeply affected the future relations and condition of this country as a dependency of Great Britain. (Hear, hear.) It was in that sense that the amendment had been moved, and not as the hon. gentleman had said, to express want of confidence in his Government, Although it had that effect, it would be none the less acceptable to him (Mr. Mackenzie) on that account. Sir JOHN MACDONALD-The hon. gentleman had said that the motion of the hon. member for West Durham was not purely and simply a vote of want of confidence. The motion did not say that in so many words, but it was a vote of censure, and a vote of censure, as everybody knew, was the same as a vote of want of confidence. The amendment was in fact in the strongest sense a vote of want of confidence; and as such it ought to be pressed. The hon. gentleman had said that it was to be pressed and voted upon by the House. Well, how did he know that? (Hear, hear.) How could he tell it was to be voted upon, unless he and his supporters had made up their minds to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for South Oxford? He could not know otherwise but that the latter amendment would prevail, and then how could there be a vote upon the amendment of the hon. member for West Durham.. (Cheers) The hon. gentleman had said that, since that amendment, new circumstances had arisen, and that the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford was intended to meet the change that had occurred. Now he (Sir John) would ask the hon. member for South Oxford if, at the time he moved the adjournment of the debate on Friday last, he did not have his amendment all ready prepared? (Cheers.) Was it not then writ ten and ready to be proposed, although the hon. member for Lambton said it was drawn with a view to meet the change that had since occurred in the circumstances connected with the Treaty ? (Cheers.) Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon. gentleman had no right to misconstrue what he (Mr. Mackenzie) had stated. He had said that, since the amendment of the hon. member for West Durham had been moved, circumstances had changed. He did not say that this motion was to meet the change, although he was well aware that it had occurred, for he had the information in his desk, and it did not require the hon. gentleman to read the despatches in order to make him aware of it. Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD-Why did you ask for information then? [Hear, hear.] Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he had asked because it was possible the Government might have received information confirmatory of what he had known before; [oh! oh!] so he [Mr. Mackenzie] was not caught yet. [Laughter.] Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS said it was not without some reluctance that he, as a member for the Province of Ontario, rose to continue the debate, because he really thought that, so far, the members from that Province had monopolized the discussion; nor had he risen because he concurred with a remark of the hon. gentleman who had preceded him, that it was the duty of every hon. member to speak upon this subject. He was desirous, however, of placing before the House and the country the views he entertained, and which he believed the Government enter tained, upon this important question. There were three points to which he would address himself, these being-first, as to whom the parties were who were respon|sible for this Treaty; in the second place, he proposed to discuss the merits of the treaty itself; and finally, he proposed to consider what was the duty of the House in regard to it, whether it should determine that the treaty had merits or demerits. With regard to the first point, the responsibility of the treaty, he contended that, throughout all the discussions in the Imperial Parliament, there had been no question whatsoever. It was a thing quite unheard of, to make two distinct parties responsible for the same act, which could only have been performed by one of them. It was perfectly unheard of in all diplomatic relations, that parties who des rived their power from, and were respon. sible to, a Colonial Legislature, should be placed in a position to dictate or exercise any control over a Treaty negotiated by Commissioners acting under instructions from Her Majesty's Secretary of State. Upon this point he would refer very briefly to the opinions of two distinguished noblemen who had taken part in an im portant debate in the House of Lords upon this Treaty; the first was the Earl of Derby, who had said : "I now pass to the larger question of the Treaty itself and I wish to say that I look on it as the Treaty of the Govern ment, and of the Government exclusively. I join in all that has been said in praise of the gentlemen who undertook, at the request of the noble Earl and the Cabinet, that arduous public duty; but, under all the circumstances, bound as they were by their instructions, I pass over the parties who were engaged in negotiating the Treaty, and fix the responsibility exclu sively on those who advised them." Again, Lord Cairns, formerly Lord High Chancellor of England : "In the observation which I make upon this document, I would speak of the Treaty as one having been entered into by the Government. This is a Treaty which, in form, was negotiated through the medium of Commissioners. So far as the British Commis. ssoners were concerned, we have the clearest evidence, from these protocols, that every clause of that Treaty was communicated to the Government at home, and by them assented to. [Hear, hear.] It is, therefore, a Treaty upon which the Gov ernment did not merely give a final approval, but for the daily composition of which they were virtually responsible. Now, was the House to disregard these statements, and hold the first Minister of Canada responsible in the absence of all arguments to support such a pretension? for there really had been no argument; and the doctrines which had been laid down by the hon. member for West Dur ham would have been laughed to scorn, if they had been set forth in the Imperial Parliament. [Hear, hear.] The speech of the hon. gentleman was the ingenious argument of a lawyer to bolster up a bad cause. He had attempted to found some sort of argument upon a minute of Coun. cil, in which it was suggested that a Commission should be appointed, composed of one Commissioner from England, one from the United States, and one from Canada. That was a proposition that had certainly come from Canada; but he [Sir Francis] hesitated not to say that that Commission therein suggested was of a totally different character from the Joint High Commission which sat at Washing ton. It had never been contemplated that this Commission should have such extensive powers as the Washington Commission. The idea of a Mixed Commis. sion originated in 1866 with Mr. Adams, who was then Minister from the United States, in England. In that proposition, which had been adhered to throughout from beginning to end, it was never contemplated to give the Commission any power except to make suggestions for the approval of the Governments of England and the United States. In point of fact the main object of the Commission was to try and define the headlands by laying the line down upon the charts. The Commis sioners were not to negotiate a new treaty, they were to interpret the then existing treaty-the treaty of 1866. and they were to endeavour to lay down the limits beyond which the American fishermen might not go. After performing this duty they were to submit their recom mendations to the respective Governments of Great Britain and the United States. The latter part of the minute of Council, which he questioned very much whether the hon. member for West Durham had read, showed what the idea of those who It showed proposed the Commission was. clearly that, in case of disputes, there was some third party, some impartial arbiter, to whom the question was to be referred for discussion. It was, therefore, quite clear that the Commission then proposed was of a totally different character from that which sat at Washington, [Hear, hear.] On a previous occasion he had stated that the First Minister could not, as a man of honour, have acted on the Commission entertainining the views which hon. gentlemen opposite en tertained. It would then have been his duty to have told the Secretary of State that he intended to act on his responsibility, and that if he happened to differ from the views of the English Commis. sioners he should resign. If he had made such a stipulation, England would never have appointed him. But even assuming that England might have assented to his occupying such a position, it would have been her duty to have advised the United States Government on the subject; and if such had been done the United States Government would at once have broken off the negotiations. The way to look at the question was to consider what the member for West Durham would have done in the circumstances. Would he have taken a place in the Commission deceiving the Government which had done him the honour to appoint him, taking a part in the negotiations, and then, at the last moment, declaring that he would not sign the Treaty? The hon. member had well stated that there was one case in which the First Minister would have been justified in refusing to agree to the Treaty, namely, if the articles relating to Canada had not been left to the discussion of the Parliament. As to the navigation of the St. Lawrence he did not intend to speak at length on that point, as one of his colleagues intended to address himself to that subject; but he must say that the arguments of the Opposition on this ques. tion were perfectly futile. No member could say that it was any injury to Canada to cede the navigation up to Montreal. Was the river not open to the flags of the that whole world? It was said, constantly, in the negotiations everything was conceded to the United States. The same charge had been made in the House of Lords of England; but the Opposition there, as could be seen from the speeches of Lords Derby, Cairns and Salisbury, had treated the matter in a very different way from the Opposition here. They had not |