came to be voted on, there would be a large majority in favor of the Treaty, and that the vote would be taken that night. The discussion had been full on both sides of the House and all the members were as well informed as they could be, and he hoped that, after the question had been disposed of, the business of Parliament would be proceeded with in the ordinary manner. Mr. SCATCHERD said members from the Maritime Provinces and British Colum. bia had spoken of the advantages the Treaty would afford to their Provinces, but that was not the ground on which the Gov. ernment offered it to the House. The Treaty was presented as not acceptable until the guarantee was promised by England. For many years he had heard of the value of the fisheries, and last year the Minister of Justice had said that the right to fish within three miles of our shores could not be ceded away without the cons sent of Canada. The Treaty was signed in May, 1871, and in June the Government in their despatch spoke of the Treaty as most objectionable, because there was no adequate compensation for the fisheries. Great stress had been made by the Govern ment on the money consideration. The Minister of Justice had stated that Parlia ment was free to accept or reject, and therefore the real question to be considered was whether Canada secured adequate compensation for the rights she ceded away. He believed not. He referred to the remark of the Minister of Finance that the howl arose from the Grits of Ontario, and said it was those very Grits who, placed him in Parliament and power. He believed it was in the interest of the country that the Treaty should be rejected. Hon. Mr. ANGLIN moved the adjourn. ment of the debate. This was opposed, and on motion to call in the members, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE passed the adjournment, and said if the debate was not adjourned there would be no division, for many members desired to speak, himself among the number, Hon. Mr. HOLTON hoped the Govern ment would accept the motion for adjournment. When it was understood last night that there would be a division to-night, it was not known that the Minister of Militia would occupy the House. Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said there had been an understanding that the debate should close to-night, and Le would not have kept the House so long but for that understanding. There would be other stages of the bill at which discussion could take place, and he thought it would be perferable to get on with the measure. After some further discussion, in which Mr. Blake and Mr. Mackenzie still pressed the adjournment, Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD agreed, both sides agreeing, that the debate should close to-morrow. The House adjourned at 2.50 a.m. SENATE. THURSDAY, 16th May, 1872. After presentation and reading of Petitions, PETITIONS. Hon. Mr. SANBORN-From Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, reported favorably on Petitions of Louis Archambault of Quebec; of D. McInnes and others; Canadian Suspension Bridge Co.; G. E. Archer and others; D. A. Macdonald and others of Alexandria, O.; T. Reynolds and others; W. McMaster and others; Committee reported petition from Chatham Board of Trade as belonging to jurisdiction of local legislatures. MESSAGE. Messages were received from House of Commons with Bills respecting securities given by officers of Canada, Dominion Notes, G. T. R. and International Bridge Companies. These Bills were read a first time. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Hon. Mr. GIRARD asked whether the Government intends to give the Province of Manitoba, a law regulating weights and measures, or to extend to that Province same laws and provisions on the subject of weights and measures as are in force in other parts of the Dominion, and to appoint Inspectors of weights and measures there. Mr. CAMPBELL replied that it is not the intention of the Government to estab. ish the same laws in Manitoba during the present Session, but they hoped to establish Dominion when the next Session meets. a perfect and uniform system for the whole POSTAL FACILITIES. Hon. Mr. GIRARD again made the following enquiry and urged the attention of the Government to the subject which is of much importance to the Province he represents, where there is considerable diffi. culty found to transmit money, especially in small sums:-Whether the Government intends to complete the organization of the Postal System in Manitoba, by establishing therein a Money Order Office or Money Order Offices and a Savings Bank Office or Saving's Banks Offices, such as are established in the other parts of the Dominion. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL replied that the Government had every disposition to meet the wants of the people of Manitoba in every particular, and would pay attention to the postal requirements of that Province at the earliest date possible. PUBLIC LANDS. The House then went into Committee on Bill respecting Public Lands. - Hon. Mr. HAMILTON in the Chair. Hon, Mr. GIRARD said in French that he naturally felt great interest in the measure, affecting as it did the people of his own Province. He had looked carefully over the Bill and had no objection to many of its details, but there were certain features which he did not approve of and which he thought required modification and amend ment. He proceeded at some length to state his objections, and read some amend ments which, whilst they did not affect the principle, materially affected the details of the Bill. Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST proposed that the hon. member have his amendments printed, so that the House might be in a position to undersand their actual tendency. Hon. Mr. AIKINS agreed to go on with those clauses to which there was no particular or valid objection. Hon. Mr. CHRISTIE said the Bill in re spect to homestead principle was really more liberal than the American law. In answer to an objection raised by Mr. Girard to the 18th clause respecting those Townships reserved to Indians, Hon. Mr. AIKINS explained that when the Hudson's Bay Company transferred their rights, they were entitled to receive 5 per cent. of the lands of the Territory. The Company adhered to the right, and the Government had no option in the matter. Clause 22 respecting Educational endowment having been read, Hon. Mr. BUREAU proposed an amendment dividing the lands among all reli gious denominations for separate school purposes, in proportion to their number. Hon. Mr. AIKINS explained that such a provision could not properly be incorpora. ted with the present Bill which simply set apart the lands as an endowment for purposes of education. Hon. Mr. BUREAU agreed to defer his amendment until another stage in the pro. ceedings, stating that he wished to have lands in question disposed of according to certain principles. Hon. Mr. GIRARD suggested that the land should be under control of Trustees or School Commissioners of sections where they may be, who would keep them for education, but would not have authority to dispose of them except through an order in Council. Hon. Mr. AIKINS explained that such provision was superfluous in present Bill. Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST thought the means of assisting Education should be entrusted to the Local Government. Hon. Mr. AIKINS said, that it rested with the Parliament hereafter to say what shall be done with the lands. In reply to Hon. Mr. SANBORN, Hon. Mr. AIKINS stated that one dollar per acre, would be about the same as that fixed to land in Minnesota; the Govern ment thought that the price would deter persons from buying for mere speculative purposes. Hon. Mr. SANBORN hoped, when village lots were laid out in accordance with clause 31, care would be taken to reserve space for market places, cemeteries &c. The Committee rose and reported progress. AFTER RECESS. The House again went into Committee on the Bill. Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD, in reference to the 31st clause, thought the upset price should be fixed on village lots, which may be sold at private sale. Hon. Mr. AIKINS said the principle generally laid down by the Government was to sell by public Auction, but it was deemed advisable, in certain cases, to allow a choice of selling by private sale. In reply to a suggestion by SENATOR FLINT Hon. Mr. AIKINS replied that there was no intention of having cemeteries in villages that might be laid out. The pre emption clauses were amended so as to merge them into the homestead system, in accordance with the principle to be adopted in the United States. Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND urged in strong terms the claims of a class of persons who were not considered in the arrangements with respect to the lands of Manitoba. These persons were living on very narrow strips of land, and many of them would be obliged to leave. During the recent troubles no men had acted more patriotically than this class of persons whose claims had been ignored. It was a great injustice that the people in the section where he himself lived should have been forgotten in the allotment of grants of land. He did not blame the Government but was under the impression that the rights of these people who were the pioneers of the settlement had not been sufficiently pressed on their attention. Hon. Mr. MacFARLANE urged the claims of these people to consideration. Hon. Mr. AIKINS said it was open to these or other settlers to get 160 acres of land on payment of a small fee. Hon. Mr. SANBORN said then they were not placed in any better position than new settlers. Hon. Mr. LETELIER DE ST. JUST said that these people were not treated as well as those who belonged to his own nationality, and expressed the hope that their claims would receive attention Such a concession as that suggested would tend to the harmony and happiness of the whole community. Hon. Mr. GIRARD said that if the Government adopted the suggestion they would do what would be satisfactory to all classes of the population of Manitoba. After some remarks from Hon. Mr. BENSON to a similar effect, Hon. Mr. AIKINS replied that he would take the matter immediately into consid eration. Considerable desultory discussion arose on that part of the 34th clause which did not allow a settler voluntarily relinquish ing or abandoning his claim, to make a second entry After remarks from Hon. Messrs. Christie, Flint, Skead, and others, Hon. Mr. AIKINS agreed to amend the clause so as to allow the second entry. In reply to an amendment proposed by Hon. Mr. GIRARD with reference to hay lands, 36th clause, Hon. Mr. AIKINS stated that the question of hay land would be dealt with dur ing the present season, and the right of common would be ascertained. Those who have the right of hay or common would get their consideration in land. In clause 45 respecting coal lands, An amendment was adopted on the suggestion of Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST, allowing mine to be forfeited in case parties cease to work them for six consecutive months. Hon. Mr. GIRARD urged that the Province of Manitoba should be exempt from the provisions of the 48th clause: Any tract of forest land covered by forest timber may be set apart as timber lands and reserved from sale or sttlement." Hon. Mr. AIKINS explained that such Hon. Mr. ANGLIN resumed the debate upon the second reading of the bill to give effect to the Treaty of Washington. He said that, although there could be no doubt of the result of the debate, yet the responsibility resting upon every member was of the most serious character, and therefore he thought that, on considering the question, they were one and all bound to look at it in all its aspects, not merely in its bearing upon the Dominion, but upon the interests of the Empire at large. Before he proceeded he would protest against the effort that had been made by one member of the Government, and by others in the House, to accuse those who took objection to the Treaty of being actuated by party motives. The hon. President of the Council should have been the last to have taken that course, for that gentleman had, on the very day he believed that this Treaty was signed, in an address to his constituents, demonstrated the importance of obtaining for Nova Scotia through those negotiations, and by the proper disposal of the fisheries, a renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty, not reciprocity merely in the matter of fish, but such reciprocal trade arrangements as would open the markets of the United States, as well to fish as to coal and agricultural products, and stone, and other articles previously exported from Nova Scotia free of duty. That same gentleman some time after the Treaty had be en pub. lished, after there had been ample time for consideration, became a party to the minute of Council of July 28th, in which, in the strongest terms, he condemned the Treaty as unjust to the Dominion; and now we find him urging that Treaty upon the acceptance of the House, because, as he alleged, it was essentially a good and profitable bargain. He (Mr. Anglin) would not undertake to say what had produced that extraordinary change of view; but that hon. gentleman should not have charged any one, after the course he had taken, with acting from party motives in the case. He (Mr. Anglin) disclaimed for his own part any such motives; in fact, he did not know how party interests were to be served in this particular matter. He took a somewhat different view of the Treaty from any that he heard expressed, and he would review the circumstances antecedent to the negotiations which led to this Treaty. In the session of 1871, when the papers were brought down, he was somewhat pleased at finding the extraordinary zeal on behalf of the interests of the Dominion displayed by the Government of the Dominion. He was as tonished to find that they had pressed upon the Imperial Government with such earnestness for a settlement of a question which, although an important one, was not then engaging the attention of the people of the country. The Hon. Minister of Justice, in a speech introducing this subject to the House at that time, had told us that the fishermen were insisting on a settlement of the headland question. He (Mr. Anglin) represented a community largely engaged in the fishing business, and he had never heard that this headland question was pressed in any way, either by the fishermen or by the merchants en gaged in the business, and therefore it struck him as extraordinary that the Gov. ernment should at that time have shown such zeal in pressing that question. He was also surprised at the course they took to protect the fisheries; their instructions, and their policy, and the condnct of their officers was of the most extraordinary kind. The people of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island during the exist ence of the Reciprocity Treaty and after its abrogation-the price of the various materials had become so high in the United States-were in the habit of supplying American fishermen with a very large proportion of the material required for their business, and the trade was found to be a lucrative one. Well, these six fast sailing schooners, assisted by the cruisers of Her Majesty, were employed not so much in protecting the fisheries as in driving away the trade from Prince Edward Island and the Strait of Canso; and his idea was that this policy had been adopted to harrass the Island of Prince Edward, and compel them to come into the Confederation. He could not imagine to what else the policy of the Government tended at that time. Prince Edward Is land was then largely engaged in the fishing business, and some of the vessels employed in it were seized because, although they were registered in the name of Bri tish subjects, they were held to be the property of American citizens, and they were captured, although those people were residing in the Island and doing bu siness there. It was also the habit of Americans to land at Charlottetown and other ports, and ship fish there for the American market, taking them free in American bottoms. That trade greatly benefited our fishermen, but it also was put an end to. His impression then was that these measures were dictated entirely for the purposes of coercing Prince Edward Island into the Confederacy. His feelings upon that point, however, had been greatly shaken, when he saw the report of the debate in the House of Lords which the Finance Minister had quoted some days ago. In that debate Earl Gran ville had given a full and minute account of the manner in which the negotiations with the United States in regard to the Alabama claims had been re opened. After setting forth what had occurred before his acceptance of office, the noble Lord had said that he had carried out strictly the policy of his predecessor, which was a policy of quiet acceptance of the position. That policy had been carried out till the autumn of 1870, when certain circumstances occurred which rendered it necessary that the British Government should review the position of England with regard to the other States of Europe and the great powers of the world. That review forced the Government to the conviction that something had to be done to establish better relations with the United States. The noble Lord had then gone on to tell the House that he had received letters of various kinds from persons resident in the United States, which assured him that a great change was going on in popular feeling in that country, and that, though the people felt hurt and aggrieved at the manner in which they had been treated by England, nevertheless, there was a growing desire among them that a final and satisfactory settlement of all difficulties should be arrived at. Still Lord Granville had not been satisfied with these assurances, for he had told the House that he had made further inquiries, and that he had also employed a gentleman who was familiar | The House knew that information wa He sometimes concealed by some members of the Cabinet from the knowledge of their colleagues; for had not the Secretary of State complained, on a recent occasion, that he had been kept in ignorance of some of the proceedings of the Govern ment; and had not the Minister of Justice himself in his opening speech, stated that he bad received a communication from the Governor-General respecting his appointment as a Commissioner upon the express condition that he was to keep the matter secret from his colleagues? It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that the Finance Minister had not apprehended to what the whole of these proceedings tended; and that he had not fathomed the purposes which underlaid what he had regrettedthe mixing up of the Alabama question with that relating to the fisheries. If that was a cause of regret to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice had frank. ly expressed a different view; for he had told the House that he was rejoiced that the fishery question had offered an opportunity which led to the re-opening of the Alabama negotiation. Now, if the result of these negotiations had been satisfactory, every member of the House would have shared in that feeling of gratification and would have been equally rejoiced with the Minister of Justice that any sacrifices which it was within the power of this country to make had contributed to the welfare and happiness of the Empire at large. Wheu it had been otherwise, however, when the result had been to make sacrifices uselessly he (Mr. Anglin) could not but feel, in view of all the facts, that we had not been treated with that frankness which was due to the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) As to the position of the First Minister upon the Commission he would not have much to say. Our Colonial condition was such as to render certain anomalies inevitable. The GovernorGeneral of the Dominion was at the same time the agent of the British Government, and the chief of our constitutional system. He was bound to act upon the instructions of the Imperial authorities, and sometimes his duty in that respect clashed with his duty as the head of the Government. It had occurred over and over again in the past, and might occur in the future, when he would have to act rather at the dictation of the Colonial Office than as the head of the Canadian Administration; when he would have to become a partisan on one s.de or the other, and sometimes have to set all parties at defiance. In the same way, when the First Minister accepted a seat on the Commission he had become an |