to the speech of the President of the Council, which, he said, contained many inconsistencies, and which had he been doubtful, would have inclined him against the Treaty. The Treaty was not what he would have desired, but it was the best British diplomacy could obtain, England was exceedingly anxious that it should be ratified, and he could not resist that appeal; he could not say to England that he did not care for the new principle of a peaceful settlement of disputes, but in the words of the Premier he would accept the Treaty with all its imperfections for the sake of peace, and for the sake of the Empire, and he should therefore vote against all amendments.

Dr. ROBITAILLE said it had been said that great benefits had arisen from the Treaty of 1845, but he believed our fisher men in these transactions were the losers The fisheries of the United States were ruined and the influx of American vessels proved disastrous to the Canadian fisher men. The catch of fish was not nearly so large now as formerly, and indeed the fishermen had now to emigrate to the north shore to follow their pursuits. The Treaty of 1854 was passed because the Americans wanted our fisheries, and the Upper Canadians wanted the American market for their produce, and between these interests the fisheries were sacrificed. The Premier, in a speech which would do honour to the greatest English statesman, had placed before them the position of England, and he had been much moved by his address to the loyal feelings of the members. His constituents were quite willing to bear any reasonable share of the burdens of the Empire, but they consider ed the Treaty asked them to sacrifice too much, and he should therefore oppose the amendments and also the second reading of the bill.

Mr. A. P. MACDONALD said hon. gentlemen need not be surprised at the course taken by the hon. member for Lambton, for not more than a year ago he spoke unceasingly in favour of party government, which was his only cry. The hon. gentle man got elected by 406 majority, Mr. Sandfield Macdonald's government was overthrown, and the hon. member for Lambton took a seat in the Ontario Govern ment, but when he went back to West Mid dlesex for re-election he uttered no word as to "party" then, for after preaching strict party lines, they took into the Cabinet a pronounced Conservative, and added four hundred thousand dollars to the fif teen hundred thousand put by for railway purposes, which they themselves before they got into power strenuously opposed.

The Government of Ontario did not stand as well as they did twelve months ago. 'The hon. member for Lambton was not the same he was a year ago, when crying "party, party;" for he was now working harmoniously with a Conservative in the Cabinet, and doubtless the hon. member for Lambton felt regret at the lead of this House being taken out of his hands by the hon. member for West Durham. Now with regard to the Treaty, he believed the people were anxious for it. It cost us at least $100,000 a year to protect the fisheries, but the people of Ontario did not benefit by it. It was said that the Canadian fishermen could not compete with the Americans, but he should be sorry to think that they were unable to do so, considering the distance from which the Americans came, and he thought that the Treaty would greatly benefit the Maritime Pro vinces. As to the canals, were we giving away any rights the Americans had not pos sessed from 1812 up to the present time? The canals were built for the development of the western trade, and it would be the best thing to give the Americans the free navigation of the St. Lawrence. People in a year or two would bless this Government for passing the Treaty by the majority it would be passed with to-night. How could we expect reciprocity when we could get labour much cheaper than the Americans could, and had to pay large amounts off their national debt? If we could get reciprocity at the end of this Treaty, it was as much as could be expected. Those who had found fault with the Treaty, could not show how we could have done better. It was a wise thought of our Government to get England's en dorsement to the £2,500,000, as the coun~ try needed nothing more than the extension of vast public works for which the money would be expended. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. THOMPSON (British Columbia) thought too much time had already been wasted in discussing the Treaty, and that it would have been better for many of the speakers to have circulated their views through their local organs. He considered the concessions to be made, of no political value. The Treaty was not all they could expect, but he thought it would be madness to reject it.

Mr. MERRITT said tha*, judging from the speeches that had been made, one would be led to believe that the fisheries were the principal interests of Canada. But he thought the provisions of articles 29 and 30 of the Treaty were of far greater importance. The Treaty would give an impetus to the shipping interests of Canada, and many vessels were already

being built in Ontario, in anticipation of the ratification of the Treaty.

Mr. D. A. SMITH (Manitoba) would not have detained the House were it not for the remarks of the members for Gaspé, Gloucester and Westmoreland, as to the fisheries. For many years he had been on the coast of Labrador, and having known the people of that coast for many years before the reciprocity treaty of '54, he could say that they were an honest and industrious but very poor people, living from hand to mouth. At first they looked upon that treaty with dread, fearing the competition of the Americans. 'The fact was that, when the Americans came, the Canadians worked themselves still more, and in a few years, instead of being 80 very poor with very few of the necessaries of life, and none of the luxuries, they became a well-to-do people. The num ber of their fish yearly increased, and they found that, man to man, they were as good as those they had so dreaded. They be. came more manly and felt they were quite able to compete with the Americans. As it was then he was sure it would be now, and they would hail with joy the prospect of a return of that prosperity which they then enjoyed, from being allowed to take their fish into the American markets. It had been said that the people of the fishery coasts were a lawless set of men. Such had not been his experience during & residence of from twenty-five to thirty years. He had known but one single case of crime, which he explained to the House. As to the assertion that the free navigation of the River Yukon on the north-west was of no practical use to Canadians, he thought it was otherwise. That river goes into British territory some 300 or 400 miles, ard while it now takes the Hudson Bay Company several years to get their goods from England to points on that river, by the operation of the Treaty, they will, if the Treaty is ratified, be able to get their stores to their destination in eighteen months. He read a letter from the Secretary of State for the United States to show that at present no person other than United States citizens can go up that river. He would vote for the Treaty.

Mr. WORKMAN said that, representing the interests he did, it would be ill be coming if he did not give expression to the sentiments he held on the matter under discussion. He thought the Treaty, since it was first published, had received the approval of nine tenths of the commercial community of the city he had the honor to represent. They felt

it did not give them all they ought to have, but that it was a compromise and should be accepted. He regretted the course which the President of the Council had taken in endeavoring to make the people of Canada satisfied with the Treaty. It was an Imperial measure, and one which the Imperial Government deemed necessary for the interests of the whole Empire, and Canada should be willing to ratify it. If carried out it would give a certainty to commercial men, and make them feel that they could trade with each other without fear of the future. Canada could build ships cheaper and sail them cheaper than the Americans and could beat them in their own mara kets. He was only too glad to see Ameri can vessels passing through the Canadian canals and lakes and rivers, and thought everything should be done to encourage trade between the two countries.

Mr. MOCALLUM said the feeling against the Treaty had been stimulated by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Canada could build vessels and equip them 33 per cent, cheaper than the Americans. There had been a good deal said about giving up the use of the canals. In his opinion they ought to be only too glad to have the Americans use their canals. It had been the policy of the Government to enlarge canals; it was so provided in the Quebec resolutions, and he was saTM tisfied that, if that policy was pursued, we should have a large increase of business. As to the bonding system the member for Lambton had said that that was nothing to the people of this country, as a man could go and live in New York, import his goods, and send them on to Canada in bond as an American citizen. It was the first time he had heard a statesman advo cate that the people of this country should leave it and emigrate to another country in order to practise what would be virtually a fraud. The member for Lambton also said that the Americans would not do away with the bonding system because they were anxious to get our trade. Why then should we not be anxious to enlarge our canals in order to get their trade? As to the Fenian claims, he knew there was a feeling in the part of the country he represented that the United States Government had not done their duty as a friendly power; at the same time he could not see that Great Britain was wrong in withdrawing the Fenian claims from the consideration of the Joint High Commission at Washington. If they had got damages from the American Government for calling out the Volunteers, the United States would have had an equal right to

QUARANTINE.

Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL moved the second reading of the bill respecting quarantine, which re-enacts laws respecting that subject, except those referring to public health, which properly fall under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Governments. It also includes several amendments to the laws of the Maritime Provinces, which experience has shown to be neces sary.

Hon. Mr. SANBORN referred to the aistinction made by the Government with reference to the subject of public health, and expressed the opinion that they had come to a proper conclusion although the view was different from that taken with respect to many other matters which came before Parliament although belonging properly to local jurisdiction. He urged the Government to lay down a general prin ciple and apply it to all legislation. The Parliament, under its present position, was absorbing an amount of business which ought not to come before it.

Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE agreed with the previous speaker that the time had come to establish a certain principle with reference to such matters. He was glad that the Government had introduced such a measure which, he hoped, would pre vent the introduction of disease into ma ritime ports in the way it was done in Ha lifax last summer.

Hon. Mr. GIRARD alluded to the necessity of preventing introduction of disease into Manitoba from North West by Indians and others.

Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD wished to know what distinction could be drawn between Public Health and Infectious diseases of Stock, on which Parliament had legis

lated.

PUBLIC OFFICERS.

RAILWAY BILL.

PUBLIC LANDS.

The House again went into Committee on the Bill respecting Public Lands, Hon. Mr. Hamilton in the chair.

In accordance with the suggestion of Hon. Mr. BUREAU, the 107th clause was so amended as to read: "Governor in Council shall, at any time hereafter, subject to then existing rights, as defined or created under this Act, withdraw from the operation of this Act such lands as have been reserved for Indians or may be satisfy the half breeds' required to satisfy claims "

The Bill having been considered,

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND asked the Government whether any steps had yet been taken in accordance with his sugges tion of the previous night, that a grant should be made to a class of persons whose claims hitherto had been overlooked.

Hon. Mr. AIKINS would be prepared with an answer before the Bill was read a third time.

Hon. Mr. WARK urged the claims of these settlers to favorable consideration.

The Committee rose and reported the Report Bill with certain amendments. was adopted and the Bill ordered to be printed, as amended, before the third reading.

The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, May 17th, 1872. The SPEAKER took the chair at 3.25 p. m.

JUDGE JOHNSTON'S AWARDS.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE presented the petition of certain residents at Fort Garry,