agent of the Imperial authorities, bound to do what they instructed him to do. That he shouldhave occupied that position while he was the same time Prime Minister of this country, was an extraordinary anomaly in our political system. It was much to be regretted that the hon. gentleman had ever accepted the position. His accepttance of it had done incalculable, im. measurable mischief to the Dominion; but, at the same time he (Mr. Anglin) was free to admit that in accepting it, the hon. gentleman had been actuated by a sincere desire to do what was fair to both countries, loyally to serve his sovereign, and to regard the just rights of this Dominion. (Hear, hear.) He did not believe the hon. gentle. man while at Washington had ever thought of betraying our interests. Perhaps, in point of fact, he had betrayed them; perhaps he had yielded to the influences as well as the arguments that had been brought to bear upon him-of that he knew nothing. We were left a great deal to conjecture in that respect, and in the absence of information were compelled to judge by results; but, looking at those results, disastrous to the country as he believed them to be, he still could not persuade himself that the First Minister, while at Washington, had not, to the best of his ability-and no one could doubt the greatness of that ability-and to the best of his power, subject as he had been to such influences, done his duty to his country (Hear, hear.) Whether the hon. gentle. man should or should not have resigned his commission when he discovered what was to be done, when he found that the interests of this country were to be injured, he Mr. (Anglin) would not say. In the strangely inconsistent speech which the hon. gentleman had himself delivered in this House, he had stated in one sentence that having accepted the duty he could not have withdrawn from the discharge of it; while a few moments afterwards he had said that, if power had not been reserved to this Parliament in regard to the fishery articles, his name would never have been signed to the Treaty. His (Mr. Anglin's) impression, from what had been said in the debate of last session and from all the correspondence and discussion, was that there was a mass of proof perfectly overwhelming in its character to show that the Minister of Justice, when appointed a Commis. sioner had virtually been appointed as the representative of Canada. This impression was confirmed by reference to a despatch of Lord Kimberley, who, in presenting reasons for the acceptance of the fishery articles, had stated his belief that the Canadian people consider that they were represented on the Commission by a mem ber of their own Government." Now, theoretically, Canada as such had no res presentation there, for we all knew that every member of the Commission who had been appointed by the Imperial Government was there as a British Commissioner. But was there anything inconsistent in the character of a Canadian representative and a British Commissioner? He (Mr. Anglin) thought not; and while there was nothing in the whole corres. pondence to show that there was, we had the express declaration of Lord Kimberly, that Canada was represented by a member of her own Government. (Hear, hear.) He would now pass to a consideration of the Treaty itself, endeavouring to avoid ground that had been travelled over already. One of the great merits that had been claimed for the Minister of Justiceone of the wonderful achievements he was said to have performed-was that he had obtained a recognition of the right of Canada to be considered at all in a matter of this kind, and it had been even said that this was the first time a colony had been so considered. Well, in reference to that, it had been shown that in 1854 all the Governments of the Provinces had been consulted and invited to send res presentatives to Washington, not, it was true, to sit as commissioners or ambassa. dors, but to advise the representative of Great Britain as to what concerned the prople of these Provinces, and what was required for the protection of their in terests. Such representatives had gone, and, after the Treaty had been ratified by the two Governments, it was nevertheless reserved for the final acceptance or re jection, not of one Parliament alone, but the Legislatures of all the Provinces. That surely was going as far as if there had been a special clause inserted in the Treaty providing that the question should not be determined until it had received the assent of the Provincial Legislatures. But there was something more in the case. The Minister of Justice had said that when he saw the despatch of Lord Kimberley in which it was stated that the fisheries might be disposed of to the United States for a money consideration, he had felt uneasy, and had protested against it; that the Government here in Canada had also felt uneasy and had entered into correspondence with the Colo nial Office, and that then had come the despatch of the 17th of March, declaring that none of our rights should be disposed of without our consent. That despatchand he (Mr. Anglin) was astonished to find that it had not attracted attention in this particular respect-pointed out in the this House- two-thirds of the members of clearest way that such reservation was which believed the Treaty to be unjustunnecessary. Lord Kimberley, in urging to accept it or risk the consequences, that the Americans should at once be which compelled many of them to obadmitted to our-fishing grounds, had said: serve a silence more eloquent than words, "The fishery rights of Canada are now and to vote in silence for a treaty which under the protection of a Canadian Act every man of them deemed to be an outof Parliament, the repeal of which would rage upon the liberty of this country. be necessary in case of the cession of No, they are not as free as they ought to those rights to any foreign power." The be; not as free as they had been promised First Minister had argued that Great Bri- in the House of Lords, when the Queen's tain, if she felt disposed, had a right to speech was delivered, they would be, when give away those fisheries, and even the it was promised that this House would very soil of this country. Well, if might have full liberty when called upon to dewas right she had the power; if might liberate, to accept or reject the Treaty. was right an Act of the Imperial Parlia (Hear hear.) Coming to the advantages ment would not only dispose of our fish- or disadvantages of the Treaty, he might eries, but would transfer the whole of this say that while it gave away more than Dominion to the United States, and over- the Treaty of '54 had given away, it seride all the protests that the Parliament cured to us much less in return. It and people of Canada might make. That gave to the Americans, he believed, forwould not have been a first instance in ever the right to fish on our coasts, in which the territorial rights of the people return for which we obtain the right to had been given away by the act of a su- fish on American coasts; but that right he perior power. It was not so long ago believed to be of very little value indeed since monarchies exercised the right of to our people. Then as to the surrender bartering away parts of their kingdoms; of the St. Lawrence, although it had been and so too might the Imperial Parliament, represented as of no value, if it did not without our consent, barter away the ter strike at our territorial integrity, all the ritory of this Dominion; but in protesting ideas of national right maintained in the against that wrong we should have the world bore a vast political mistake. It right which justice, truth, and constitu- had been said that it was of trifling im tional law would give us, and that right portance, and that we might as well yield Lord Kimberley acknowledged. (Hear, it because the Americans had set their hear.) Unless the Imperial Government hearts upon it. But he believed that it and Parliament were prepared to disregard was a concession of the very first imall justice they could not have done what portance. (Hear, hear.) It had been said, it was suggested it was in their power to too, that we had secured the bonding do. He believed therefore that, although system. He thought on the contrary, that the Minister of Justice had done all he the Treaty placed the bonding system in could have done to maintain and guard a much more precarious position than the interests of this country, he was not before. It was now liable to terminate entitled to a tittle of credit for the clause with the Treaty at the end of twelve that enabled the House to discuss this years, and if we had not at that time subject to-day; not, indeed, that the lapsed into independence, as one hon. House was free to discuss it entirely apart gentleman had expressed it, or become from undue influences, for instead of annexed as others apprehended, we should being thus free to deal with it, it might be find ourselves face to face with a new diffi. said that hon. members were called upon culty. The United States would probably to accept the Treaty at the point of the have fresh demands to make, some new bayonet. (Cries of "Oh, oh,") An hon. claim upon which they had set their gentleman had cried "Oh, oh," but he hearts, which unless we conceded, they wondered if that hon. member had heard would put an end to the system, Then it the speech of the First Minister, in which had been said that the privilege of carrying he had painted all the horrors of war as grain from one American port to another, being an almost inevitable consequence provided it passed over a portion of Caof the rejection of this Treaty. He (Mr.nadian territory, was of great value to us. Anglin) repeated that they were not in this Parliament legislating freely as the representatives of a free people ought to do. They were here considering a grave matter, deeply affecting the interests of this country, subjected to influence of an overwhelming character, which compelled Perhaps it was. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the Western trade to say, but he presumed, having been purchased at so high a price, it must be of some importance. What had we paid for that? Why we had bound ourselves to allow American lumber to pass down the river to St. John free of duty, and Ame- even a larger police force would be necess rican vessels to pass through our canals sary than was maintained at present. On on the same terms as our own. But "oh," the whole he did not believe that the fishhon. gentlemen said, "we are very glad ermen of that part of the country wanted to allow these vessels to use our canals, the Treaty, and he now stood here as rebecause it builds up the trade of the presenting as large a fishing community country. Quite true; but was not the as any in the Lower Provinces, to say that same true of the bonding system of the the fishermen had no wish to enjoy the United States, and of the carrying trade advantages which this Treaty was said to of the world? Was it not true that the give them. But suppose it did as much passage of Canadian goods over their ter- as its warmest advocates claimed for it, ritory built up their trade, and benefited were there no other interests in this wide their people? Why then were we told Dominion that required to be cared for? that the bonding privilege was of so great (Hear, hear.) What became of the great value to the United States although we agricultural interests of Ontario, the coal had to pay their enormous charges; while interests of Nova Scotia, the lumbering on the other hand when we gave a similar interests of New Brunswick, and all those right to them it was said it was of no conse- vast and varied interests of the Dominion? quence whatever? He did not understand, Were those all to be sacrificed for the and he did not think the country would sake of the fishing interests, even suppounderstand, that mode of reasoning. It sing that they were served by the Treaty ? had been argued by hon. members that (Hear, hear.) It might be said that this the Treaty would confer a vast benefit to was the best that could have been obs the fishermen of this country. His im- tained; but he for one was not satisfied pression was, take it all in all, that, though to barter away our fisheries for any such there might be some exceptions, the fi-h paltry price; and, as far as his voice and ermen did not want it. He had made it vote would go, he would resist the athis duty to visit his constituents and hold tempt so to dispose of them. He referred meetings amongst them for the purpose to the minute of Council of July 28th to of ascertaining their wishes with regard show that the Government had taken as to the Treaty. He had explained the strong a view of the subject as any he had whole subject very tully to them and from expressed. They had put their opinion end to end of the county, which was largely into as strong language as was consistent interested in the fishery business, he had with respect for the authorities whom they just met two gentlemen who were willing addressed. He denied the statement of that the Treaty should go into operation. the Finance Minister that the whole of It might be that the fishermen of Guys- the opposition to this Treaty had come boro' and Lunenburg had large vessels, from the Province of Ontario. When it was fully manned and equipped, to compete first published, a cry of indignation had with vessels of the United States; but arisen in all parts of the country, and in such was not the case with the fishermen the city of St. John the people had gaalong the St. Lawrence and the Bay of Cha-thered together in agitated crowds, and he leurs. These fishermen usually fish in small smacks manned by three men and a boy, and even with the advantage of the present protective system they complained of outrages on the part of American crews, who came down in large vessels with magnificent equipments, and some times actually drove our fishermen away and took possession of the coast. The American fishermen were frequently reckless, desperate characters, and if their conduct now was a subject of complaint, what could it be when they would have a right under this Treaty to enter our waters and take fish wherever they could find them? (Hear, hear.) He read from the report of the Minister of Marine to show that outrages of this nature had been frequent on the coast, and he had no doubt that, when American fishermen obtained a right to do what they now did stealthily, collisions would be unavoidable, and that had scarcely ever seen so much excitement. Nor had the opposition been confined to one party; for the most violent opponents of the measure were gentlemen who had supported the Government from the first day of Confederation. (Hear, hear.) It was not the howl of a party in particular, but the united voice of people of the whole Dominion raised in condem nation. Day after day gentlemen had come to him in the city of St. John, asking what the probability was as to the passing of the Treaty. "Surely," they had said, "the Parliament of Canada was not so bereft of all regard for the interests of the country as to consent to the passage of that measure." He had as sured them that it was his conviction that it would be carried into effect, and by a large majority, and his anticipation had been all but realized. The howl, then, was not from any particular party. They had got tried of protesting in the Lower Provinces; but he utterly denied, as far as his experience went, that there had been any change of opinion in New Brunswick. [Hear, hear.] He thought that ninety-nine hundredths of the people of the Province would vote for the rejection of the Treaty, if they were asked. The Legislature of the Province, yielding to public opinion, expressing for once in their existence the public opinion of the country, had unanimously passed resolutions comdemning the Treaty, and those resolutions now stood on the Journals of the House, unretracted and precisely as they passed. No further expression of indignation would be made, and certainly no resistance would be offered; but public opinion had not change. They were as ready to acknowledge their duties to the Empire as any other part of the Domi nion. [Hear, hear] The hon. Minister of Justice, in the course of his speech, had claimed merits for the Treaty of a most extraordinary kind, and had frequently contradicted himself. He had spoken of the fisheries as of great va ue, and had said that the subject was of such grave importance that, unless it was settled, he feared bloodshed would ensue; but afterwards he had told us that they were of very little value to the Americans. He [Mr. Anglin] was sorry that the hon. gen. tleman should have taken the course of undervaluing our fisheries. The Minister of Justice had seen fit to read to the House anonymous communications of American jurists, tending to show that their rights under the Treaty of 1793 had not been abrogated and he had treated the opinion as if it were a serious matter of consideration, and had boasted that that point had been set at rest by the Treaty. He [Mr. Anglin] repudiated altogether any such claims, and main tained that our rights were without any doubt whatever. While undervaluing our fisheries he (Sir John) had set a great value on the fisheries of the United States, and had stated that the United States could prevent our fishermen from getting manhadden, and could come within three or four miles of our coast and draw all our mackerel away. But if that was possible, he (Mr. Anglin) thought that we would have lost our mackerel long ago. gretted that the Minister of Justice should have undervalued our fisheries in any way, as it would, no doubt, have its effect upon the arbitration to take place under the provisions of the Treaty for deciding what additional compensation should be award ed us. With regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, it had been said that the He re speech of the hon. member for Peel had thrown a flood of light on the sophistries of the member for Bothwell. He (Mr. Anglin) had listened very attentively to that speech, but had not found that he had met the argument of the hon. member for Bothwell. He had alluded to a great many authorities which, in his (Mr. Anglin's) opinion, did not meet the point at all. He considered the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice a mass of contradiction. He had no doubt that that gentleman had great difficulties to overcome; but he (Mr. Anglin) thought that the greatest difficulty he now had to contend with was the minute of July 28. It was really hard to understand why that minute of Council was written, or why, having been written, the Government should have come to the conclusion to press the measure before the House. It was said that this Treaty would have the effect of establishing perpetual peace; but in his opinion it was not calculated to do anything of that kind, as it left unsettled the very question which endangered most seriously the peace of this country; and the ministry themselves had so stated in the minute. The Fenian question had been left unsettled; and the headland question, which had been made the pretext for opening nego tiations, was also left in abeyance; and this fact would render it impossible for the arbitrators to determine, not merely the value of the fisheries, but what our fisheries actually were. He again alluded to the changed position of the Government since July '71, and could not understand what should have induced the change. The correspondence did not throw any light on the subject. The Secretary of State for the Provinces, in speaking of the minute of July, had called it "an able, eloquent and powerful document," and so it was; but he (Mr. Howe) had said: "After having put those views so forcibly before the Imperial Government, and having failed to convince them, what were they to do?" Before that question could be answered, the hon. gentleman should say what they expected to gain by that despatch. The hon. member for Sherbrooke had framed a very ingenious and plausible reason to account for the change. He (Sir Alexander Galt) had said that the Imperial Government had threatened a severance of colonial connection if the Treaty were not accepted; and but for the action of a member of the House that statement would have been allowed to go uncontradicted. He might well ask what reasons had induced this change of opinion, when one considered the language of the despatch of the 28th July. It was true the Government had not re- | just and injurious to the interests of the fused positively to introduce this measure; Dominion. It was putting the loyalty of but they had described it as a measure the country on the Stock Exchange; it that no Canadian would dare to introduce was taking the advantage of the difficulties to the Canadian Parliament; as a measure of England; talking all the time about repugnant to the people of the country; our loyalty, but taking advantage of her and as a measure not necessary for the extremity, and, in a manner, putting a settlement of Imperial questions; and pistol to her head and demanding her they further ventured to state to the Im- money. From the terms of the papers it perial Government that they had not ou seemed that there was a way which the tained any advantage that should require Privy Council thought their hands would such sacrifice on the part of Canada, Why be so strengthened as to enable them to were we required to make that sacrifice abandon the Fenian claims and introduce now? They were told that fresh difficul- the measure to Parliament with a fair ties had arisen because of the claim for prospect of success; and yet this measure consequential damages, and that there was the same that they before deemed was danger of another rupture between unfair and unjust. Hon. gentlemen might England and the United States, and that, smile, but the matter was one for tears therefore, we should do all in our power rather than laughter. The views he had to help England by adopting this Treaty expressed were his honest convictions, for that reason. He (Mr. Anglin) consi- and he would be recreant to his duty and dered that we should not do so, because his country if he did not state these views ratification would not affect the settle in the plainest language. From suggestions ment. If the greater question were not made by hon. gentlemen, England could settled our legislation would be worse not mistake their meaning, and how hu than useless. We were asked to believe miliating must it have been to England to that the promise of the guarantee was in find that a measure for the peace of the some way or other the reason for the Empire had to be purchased at the hands change of opinion. That was not, how of Canada. He quoted from a speech of ever, put forward very positively; it was Lord Cairns, which he said seemed to show rather insinuated. We were told of the that Canada would do England a service great advantages of this guarantee; that if by rejecting the Treaty she should open it would save us a large amount of money a way for a new settlement. He had at annually, and would at once place forty first intended to oppose the Treaty by a millions of dollars within reach of the silent vote, but after he got the correspeople of this country. But in his opinion pondence in his hands, and found they the peculators in rings which were were asked to dishonour the country, to already being formed in connection with degrade Parliament, and disgrace the the Pacific Railway would get possession Government, he felt himself bound to of the spoils. But it had not been posi declare that he for one would be no party tively asserted that the offer of the gua to such a measure. rantee was the cause of the change of policy, and he considered the position of the Government a most extraordinary one. The Minister of Justice had des cribed, one after another the dreadful results of the rejection of the Treaty; but, according to the position of things, all those results would have been risked if the Imperial Government had not offered the guarantee He could not believe that the correspondence put the case be fore the House fairly; it was a case as the Government chose to put it. He had been asked to regard this guarantee as in some way or other to make up the difference between the terms offered for the privilege of mutual fishing in our waters and the great value of that privilege. 'That had been put forward; but he could not believe that the Government of this country, or any man, would for so mean, so base and sordid a motive as that, accept a treaty previously described as un Hon. Mr. TILLEY said he must say that the hon. gentleman had made a very able and, for him, a very important speech. As a member of the Government, however, he must at the very outset repudiate the statement that had been made by the hon. member to day, and yesterday by the member for Hochelaga, and which had been repeated over and over again, that the Government had receded from the position they took in the despatch of the 28th July. They stood by that despatch, and it was satisfactory to know that hon. gentlemen opposite recorded their entire approval of the sentiments then express ed. He defied hon. gentlemen to show any inconsistency on the part of the Government. In July the Government UCcupied the very same position which they occupied during the negotiations at Washington, when they protested against the terms of the Treaty relating to the fish Later they repeated the protest, eries. |