s^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 ■^£■28 S RAO |Z2 2.0 11.25 up Photographic Sciences Corporalion 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WltSTn,N.Y. I4SM (71«)S71-4S03 CIHM/ICMM Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/iCIVIH Coiiection de microficlies. Canadian Instituta for Historical iVIicroraproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions hittoriquaa Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas techniques et bibliographiquas The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Teatures of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checkaid below. L'institut a microfiimA le meilleur exemplaire qu'il !ui a At4 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage son\! indiquAs ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D n Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or iamincted/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou peliiculAe pn Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gtegraphiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReilA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serris peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ li se peut que certalnes pages blanches ajoutAes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, male, lorsque cela Atait oossible, ces pages n'ont pas AtA fiimAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires; D D D 0 0 Q D D D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurtes et/ou peiliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pagee dArolortes, tachetAes ou piqutes Pages detached/ Pages dAtachtes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ QuaiStA InAgale de I'lmpression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppKmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition dieponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiollement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont AtA filmAee k nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. T s T \n Hi d ei b ri< r€ m This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X 20X 26X SOX y a4x 28X ] »x I tails I du odifier una mag* Th« copy filmed hare has baan raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity or: UniMrsity of Sasfcitehewin Sailurtoon Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grflca i la gAntrositA da: Univtrtity of Sail JrtchmMn Saskatoon Las imagas suivantas ont At* raproduitas avac la plus grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattatA da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad beginning with tha front covar and ending on tha last page with a printad or illustrated impres- sion, or the back covar when appropriate. All other originel copies ara filmad beginning on the first page with a printad or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printad or illustrated impression. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sent filmte en commen^ant par le premier plat at en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ij second plot, selon le cas. Tous lee autres exempiaires originaux sont filmte an comrien^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte ui.e telle empreinte. The Sast recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUEED"), or the symbol V (mebning "END "). whichever applies. Un das symboles suivsnts apparaltra sur la darnlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le ces: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ere filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames ss required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmte A dee tau. : de rMuction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra raproduit en un seul ciich*. 11 est film* A psrtir de I'sngla supArisur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaira. Les diagrammas suivsnts illustrent la mtthoda. rrata :o >aiure. Id 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 0M^0M0mm0m SECOND SESSIOIsT, SIXTH Pj^RLl^MElsrT.-51 VIO. OFFICIAL EEPOET or TBI 8PHf n OF HON. SIR CHARLES TUPPER, G.C.M.G., C.B., MINISTER OF FINANCE OP CANADA, AND ONE OP HER MAJESTY'S PLB^J1P0TBNTI ARIES AT THE WASHINGTON FISHERY CONFERENCE, ON THE FISHERY TREATY. DtLITIRBD IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA, APRIL 10th, 1888. Sir CHARLES TUPPER moved the second reading of Bill (No. I'i) respecting a certain Treaty between Her Britannic Majesty and the President of the United States He 8Bid : Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, I desire to say that if I had not on bo many past oooasions esperirnocd the kind indalgenco of both sides of the Honso, I shonld hesitate to undertake, in the present state o.' mj health, bringing foiward the very important subject it now becomes my duty to lay before the House. I am glad to know. Sir, that the question of tbe protection of oar fisheries, and of the results that havp followed the course that wan adopted by the Govern- ment and Parliament of Canada, has not been a. party question. I am glad to know. Sir, that in approaching the very important subject that I am now aubmitting to the HouHe, I can rely on the patriotic consideration of this question by gentlemen on both aides of the House to whom it is thoronghly familiar, and who on various oooasions and in variona oapaoitiea have been called on in the past to deal with it. Far more than a hundred years this question has been a aonroe of irritation between the Imperial Govern- ment of Great Britain, the Oovernmont of the United States, and the people and Governments of British North America. So long ago as I78H a treaty was made between the Oovernment of Great Britain and the Government of tbu United States at Paris. Article 3 of that treaty pro- vided: " It U iftreed that the people of the nnitcd States AM continue to enjoy, unmoleated, the rfght to takeflih oferery kind on th« Qnnd Bknk, and on all the other bank) of Newfonndlinil ; alio in the Quit of Hi. tawrenoe, and at til other plsoee in the iea where the inhabitanti of both countrlei oied at enr time heretofore to fish; and aNo, that the Inhabitant) of the Uatted Btatei ahall hare the iinertj to take fi^h of every kind onneh part of the coaet of Newfonndtand m British fl'iher- meo shall nse (bat not to dry or oure the same on that Inland), and also on the toasts, bays and creeks of all other of Bis Britannio Majesty's dominions in America ; and that the American fiihermen shall hare liberty to dry and curs fiib in any of the unsettled bays, harbors and creeks of Nora Scotia, Magdalen fglands and Labrador, so lontc as the same shall remain ansettled ; but so joon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawfbl for the said flshermen to dry or cure fijh at snob settlement, withoat a prerioas agreement for that pnrpoie with the inhabitantr, proprietors or possessors of the gronad." Now, I need not say to the House that the concession made to the })oople of the United States to enjoy in common with British suJi)jdots the fisheries of this country, was fi treaty of a very extraordinary and abnormal char- acter. I need not remind the House that the Treaty of Ghent, which was made between Great Britain aad the United States at the termination of the War of 1812, is found to bo entirely silent upon this subject, for the reason that the Government of Great Britaiiv had arri\red at the conclusion that it was impossible to permit the continuance of such an nuwirianted interference with the rights of the people of British North America as had been enjoyed by the people of the United States under the Treaty of 1793. The Government of the United States took the ground that the treaty was not affected by the ^ar. That position, however, was strongly controverted by Her Majesty's Government, and as the representatives of the United States Government had been instructed not to con- cede on the question of the fisheries, and the Government of Great Britain were equally inexorable on that point, the only course that could be adopted was to give the question the entire go by. It therefore found no place in the Treaty of 1812. The Government of Great Britain, however, acting upon the principle that they had maintained — the principle which has r>ome to bo recog- nised throughout the world— that a war abrogates all treaties, and especially treaties of that character, asserted their rights in these terriiorial waters of British North America, and proceeded to seize firihermen of the United StatOR for trespasBing in these waters. The reenlt of that coarse ^vas the Treaty of 1818, in which this question was again considered by the two Governments, and I may call attention to the terms of the principal article of that treaty, BO far as the fisheries are concerned : " Whenu diOiannceibkTe arisen reipeoting the liberty cUlmed by the Citted States for the iahabitants thereof, to take, dry and cure liib on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic H^esty's do- minioBi in America, i t is agreed between the hiffh contractinir partiei thai the inhabitants oi the said United Btates (hall hare, forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish ofevery kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which exiendsfrom Oape Ray to the Ramea lalaads, on the western and northern coast of Newlonndland ; from the said Oape Rny to the Quir- pon Islands ; on the sborea of the Magdalen Islands ; and ali7. That is to say, that they sent under tho operation of that trea'y into the British North Ameri- can Provinces over •9&,00l),000 more than we sent into that country. I have often been at a loss to know how any person in the United States, and much less how any person in Canada could disparage that treaty, or could speak of it as a one-sided treaty, altogether in favor of British North America, and not equally in favor of the United States. Mr. CHARLTON. Would not the excess include goods pasi-ing through the country in bond and in transit, such as tho exportation of wheat through the western canals ? SirCHARLKS TUPPBR. I think not. I think tho hon. gentleman will find that ihertO are the legitimate figures connected with the trade of the two countries, and 1 noticed, shortly after the delivery of that speech, that the Hon. T. F. Bayard, the Socrotary of State of the United States, was interviewed in relation to this question, and, so far as the account of that interview went, I understood him to confirm the accuracy oi the figures which I had used on that occasion. I Hay I have been greatly at a loss to knuw how, under the eiruumslanves, any person can be ioiiud, CNpecially in this country, to treat this as a one-sided meas- ure in thfi interests of Canada. So far as what is known as Canada is concerned, we know that the trade of our country took a very great bound, and that t'lo result oi tho Reciprocity Treaty was to give a very sudden and great and steadily continued impetus to our trade with the United States; but, as I said before, the result was to give a still greater expansion of trade to the United States in relation to British North America. I am glad, alter spend- ing some three months in Washington, to be able to say that I had very intimate intercourse with gentlemen of different politics holding high positions in the Senate and House of Representatives, that I took many oppor- tunities of discussing this question with them., and that the result is that I did not find ono statesman in the United States who expressed his satisfaction with the termination of that treaty. I believe the general expree- « • kioD in that oonntry is that oommoroially it was mistake to have t«rminated that treaty, and that woald have been iofinitoly better for the United States and for Canada if it had been oontinued. That treaty was not abrogated on commercial grounds. It was not in uonseqnenoo of any commercial reasons that the abrogation a taken for the protection of the rights which they nndoubt- it ediy enjoyed and which, under the Treaty of 1818, bud been settled in what one would suppose was as clear and concise and emphati ' a manner as it was possible for any question to be settled. The result was that seizures wore again made, and the Ameri- took place, but it was, as is well known, in consequence of can fishermen, encroaching upon the waters of British an annappy sentiment which grew up in the United States, that, during the time of the Civil War which rent that country asunder, the sympathies of the British North American Provinces were very strongly with the South. I think there is very great reason to question the soundness of that opinion. Although from the nature and the position of our country, being neutral territory, ad- vantage was taken of it by the Southerners, by those who were engaged in carrying on that war from the South, to North America, found themselves again in diffiouUios. The consequence was, as you all know, that in 1871 a new treaty was made, and I have often thought of the old adage, that " everything comes to him who waits," when I havo thought of the manner in which my right hon. friend on my left was attacked in this House and out of it, in connec- tion with the Washington Treaty, and the satisfaction he must have experienced when, after the treaty had been in operation for ten years, there was not a single pnblic man make Canaida a basis of operations, the Government of in Canada but was ready to do everything possible to main- Canada never showed the slightest favor, but took every means in their power to prevent British North America being made use of in that struggle. I think, if the records of the United States were examined, it would be found that ten Canadians, or ten British North Americans, fought in the ranks of the Northern side for every one who fought on the Southern side. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Twenty. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I am inclined to think tain and to continue that very treaty. On that occasion, as hon. gentlemen kuow, my right hon. friend made the same effort to settle this question upon the lines that had been adopted in 1854 ; the effort was to obtain from the United States, instead of a money payment for the privi- leges which their fishermen were anxious to enjoy in the waters of Canada, such an expansion of commercial inter- oonrso between the two countries, as would meet the wishes of the people of Canada, and be a settlement that would commend itself to the judgment and approval of everybody. That effort, however, was not successful ; that my right hon. friend is nearer the mark than and when the treaty was presented for consideration to I am when he says they were twenty to one. I scarcely this House I remember well when hon. gentlemen on know of any aid being given to the South, while we the other side of the House felt it their duty to criticise know that at this moment the Government of the United very teverely that treaty, and we were compelled, in self- States are paying a large sum of moncjr to persons defisnco, to say something in its support— I remember very who were British subjects then and are British subjects well appealing to hon. gentlemen opposite, as I shall appeal now, in Canada, for their services during that war. Taking to them to-day, not to press the Government unduly to show thai as the best test that the country can show as to where to Parliament and to show to the country the advantages its sympathies were, as far as the most substantial and im- that were obtained by the Washington Treaty of 1871. One portant tind of aid could be found, it will be seen taat of the conditions of the treaty was that an international British North America rendered a great deal more sup- arbitration should take place at Halifax for the purpose of port and assistance tojthe North than to the South. Now, ascertaining the greater value of the fisheries of Canada • I may say that the Treaty of 1864 removed for twelve years all these difficulties, but, unfortunately, from the causes to which I have alluded I believe to a large extent, a miiapprehension of the true facts of the case led to thf^t treaty being abrogated. Both parties in this country, both parties in the various Provinces — because it was betore the Union of Canada— regretted that abrogation. I believe there was not a Province in what is now the Dominion of Canada that did not make every exertion first of all to avoid the abrogation of that treaty, and, after it was abro- gated, to endeavor to havo it or something equivalent to it restored at as early a period as possible. But those efforts were unsuocessfal, vnd then, and \7hilo these efforts were being continued, as hon. gentlemen opposite know, Canada resorted to a system of licenses to prevent too sharp an interference wilh the long accustomed habit of United States fishermen of fishing in the waters of British North America. We adopted a mode of endeavoring to prevent collision and difficulty. While there might be any hope of our being able to settle this question by c recur- rence to something like the Treaty of lo54, every effort was made by the adoption of licenses to remove irritation and prevent collision of every kind, in order to favor, as far as possible, the solution of the question in that way ; but ulti- mately we were obliged to fall back on the principle of protecting our fisheries ; we were obliged to adopt such measures as the fishermen had a right to expect at our hands ; being excluded from the American market by high duties, having their calling \ jry seriously interferea with, they had a right to demand at the hands of the Government and the ParliMnent of Canada that measures should be to the people of the United States over and above the remis- sion of the duty on fish and the corresponding right to fish in their waters, so as to arrive at the amount w&t should be paid by the United States to Canada. I appealed to hon, gentlemen opposite on that occasion not to compel us, in self-defence, to show that the treaty which had been signed was one advantageous to Canada, not to compel ns to take such strong grounds as would be used against us when that arbitration, at a subsequent time, should take place. Well, Sir, I am sorry to say that my appeal on that occasion was not as successful as I ti'ust it will be on this occasion ; I am sorry to say that wo were forced to make some very strong and very clear statements to the House in justification of my right hon. friend tor putting his namo to the Washington Treaty of 1871. Well, just as I ex- pected, and nobody knows bettor than the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Jones), who sits opposite — for this arbitra- tion took place in the c>"^ where he lives— iio person knows better than himself, thai one main element of the United States case was the production of the very speeches which we had been compelled to make on the floor of this House in defence of that treaty. Every word that wo uttered on that occasion was used to our disadvantage and to our de- triment, I will not say that it was very sncoessfully used, because I do not think that Canada has any great right to complain of the amount tbatwas awarded on that occasion— 86,600,000 for the period during which the treaty was to last, for the benefits derived by the people of the United States over and above those which were con- ceded by removing the duties on fish. Many persons have said, Sir, that we were not only Euooessftal in that arbitration, but that we wore too suooessfbl, that, in fact, tho awarci that wan mado was the main reason why the United States tooic the oarliosl possible moment to denoanco that treaty and to tarminato it. I do not believe, myself, that the award was too great. I bnlieve it is «lmo«t impossible to over-estimate the advantages of enjoying the ishories that, fortunately for us, are con- tained in tho jarisdictional waters of Canada. Bat, anfortanately, that treaty was abrogated. And, Sir, I must, in passing, pay my tribute to the hon. member for Bast York (Mr. Alackonzie), who at that period led the Government of this country. It is well known that that hon, gentleman, in the discharge of what he conceived to be, and what undoubtedly was, tho duty that he owed to Canada in the high position he occupied, adopted measures to prevent that question of money ever being considered. The hon. gontloman sent one oi his colluagues, or if not one of his colleagues at tho time, a gentleman belonging to his party, of great ability and of great attainments, the late Hon. George Brown, — he sent him to Washington to cn-oporate with tho British Minister a'. Washington, and once more a strenuous effort was made t(> settle this question of tho greater value of our fisheries ovor those of the United States, and over the advantages to bo derived from having an opportunity of entering our fish free in the AmoricaL market ; I say, he obtained the ap- pointnuent by Her Majesty's Government of the Hon. George Brown as a plenipotentiary, and that gentleman exhausted every effort in his power to carry out the views of the hon. member for East York, and again revive the Eeoiprocity Treaty of 1861. As that treaty had been refused on a former occasion, ho went further than tho lines of that treaty, and by introducing a certain number of artirlus to bo passed free between the two countries, as well as the natural products of the two countries, he endeavored to enlarge cud expand what had been obtained by the Treaty of 1864. I believe there was not a single item that was free undei the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, that the Hon. Mr. Brown did not embody in the treaty which he signed as to be mado free between Canada and the United States, under tho Treaty of 1874, which draft treaty was arrived at between the two Governments. As I said before, and as I said the other day, I feel it is only right, in passing, to say, that the effort to obtain the freest possible commercial intercourse between Canada and the United States, consistent with the rights and in- terests of the two Governments, is a policy that does not belong to one party only, but it is the property of both parties in this country. The hon. member for East York showed his hearty appreciation of the value of sucL a policy, when he was leading his Administration, just as much as my right hon. friend showed it on the occasion of going to Washington in 1871, and on all and every ocoasion when that question has come up for consideration. But tho Senate rejected that treaty, or, at all events, did not take it np, and consequently we were thrown back upon arbitra- tion ; and I think it is a matter of sincere gratification, and always will be to tho people of Canada, to know that alter the most careful and painstaking examination, after taking all the sworn testimony that nould be adduced on the side of tho United States, and by Janada, and after the most careful consideration of that testimony, and the fullest con- sideration of the whole question, that international com- mission awarded no lets than tO,oOO,000, or something approaching 9600,OUO per annum, as the v.'tlue of the fisheries of Canada over and above tfaoso ol' the United States and the additional advantage of a free market ill the United States for the fish of Canada. Now, bit', under those circumstances, that Treaty of 1871 was abrogated on 1st July, lb85. But I must do the Govern- meat of the United States the credit to say that they seemed to be equally impressed with the Government of Canada as to tho importance of avoiding tho diffiooltiM and collisions that were likely to arise oat of the abrogation of that treaty, and as those difficulties were likely to again present ihomsolves a measure woe arranged jointly between tho Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain, on behalf of the Government of Canada, for the purpose of endeavoring to prevent those diffionlties again presenting themselves. Paftt experience had ahown both countries how exceedingly undesirable it was to have men like the fishermen of the twoconntries, who were away from home, who were not under such easy control aa peraons on land are, carrying out measnres tbe end of which it might be very difficult to foresee; and at the snggoetion of the Brit- ish Minister, Mr. Bayard, then and now this distingniahed See- rotary of State of the United States, entered into a tempcrary arrangement whereby American fishermen were allowed the privileges of ti.d treaty during the remainder of the season — that is, the «eason of 1885— with the understanding that the Pr.^tident should bring the question before Congress at its next session, and recommend a joint commission by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain to oon- sider the question " in the interest of good neighborhood and friendly intercourse between tho two countries, thus afford- ing a prospect of negotiating for the development and ex- tension of trade between the United States and British North Americi." I use Mr. Bayard's words. The Govern- ment of Canada most readily assented to this view, and true to the policy that had been invariably pursued on both side* of this House, that of doing everything possible to promote trade relations between the two countries and to romovo difficulties connected with the fisheries, the Government at once agreed that if the President would send to Oongross a recommendation for the appointment of a commission having suoh objects in view, they would allow the American fishermen to have the same free acoess to the fisheries of Canada, as thoy had enjoyed daring the con- tinuance of tho treaty. Prosident Cleveland, keeping good &ith with the Governments of Great Britain and (Mnada, sent a mee^ajo to Congress on 6th December, 1885, premis- ing that : " la the iaterejta ot good neighborhood and of the commeroial inter- coarse of an adjacent oommunitjr, the qaetiion of the North American fiBheries is one of moch importance." He recommended a commission : ■■ Charged with tlie consideration and settlement, npon a Jost, eqai* table and honorable basis, of the entire qoestion oi tbe fishing right* of the two QoTernments." Unfortunately, the Senate did not approve the recommenda- tion. The fishermen of Gloucester, who, naturally I sap- pose, confined their attention to their own intereets, and regardless of the effects of the course they proposed to pur- sue, at once petitioned Congress in the most earnest manner against any suoh proposal. They declared they did not want to have anything to do with the fishing grounds or waters of Canada, and they induced the Senate to reject the proposal by a vote of thirty to ten, atid the proposal was re- jected accordingly. We were then thrown back, necessarily, upon the only means of protecting the rights and inte- rests of Canada. I may say that a very mistaken apprehension has arisen from the continuous exertions of all parties and classes in this country to obtain reoiprooal trade relations with the United States. The policy of obtaining the free interchange of the natural products of the two countries, the products of the sea, ot the forest, oi the farmland of the mino, as [ have said, has been continuously the policy of both parties in this country, and they have pressed that in season and out of season upon our great neighbors to the south of ue>. And that, unfortunately, has led to a very erroneous impression. When my hon. friond the MinUter # « • I k i i ni ItaniM «Bd FitbtriM ww oonpallwl to «dopt the ume poliovihat ImuI (mm adopted by tiie hon. oiamber for Nornanibeiltpd (tCr. Ifitobelt), wboorganiied that depart- ment vith gXVti' ability aod who filled the poaitioa of Hinigtor of Marine and Fisheries with equally great ability daring « oonaiderable time ; I aay, when the Minister of Marine and Fiahariye fell baok cpon the same policy his proiiecaHor had adopted under like oiroumstanoeB and took ■aoh mjBasaree as ware absolutely neeessary and indispen- aible fpr tha piotection of the rights and interests of the fishermen of Canada, the United States com- plained bitterly. Difflonlties again took place. Fisher- men, perbape, are tho most intraotaUe and uncontrollabln geople in t£e world, and when a fisherman gets on board is little amaok he thinks he ia mon«irob of all he surveys, and he can go where he pleases, aod do what he pleases. Tho result was tnat, as before, collisions occurred. Those parties brought themselves under the operation of the law, and it was absolutely necessary, as I have said, in the defence of tho rights of Ganadian fishermen, to make examples of those parties who showed that disregard for law. The result was, AD entirely erroneous Impression grew up throughout the United States. It was shared by the Qovernment— by the Senate, by the ^ouBeof Representatives. It was accepted by the great body of the people; and the press and the people of the United States, almost without exception, came to the oonplgsion, without a particle of ground to justify it, that Canada was enforcing a most harsh, ungenerous and un- warrantable oonstrnotion of the terms of the Treaty of 1818, for the pnrpose of forcing reciprocal trade relations npon the United States. Hon. gentlemen oj)poRito know that this became a universal sentiment in that country. One can understand the moss of the people in the United States sharing suoh an impression. People said, and at the outset it seems a reasonable propo- Bition : " Why is it that the fishermen of the United States of America cannot obtain tho same consideration in a Canadian port that a Canadian fisherman obtains in the United States ports?" Well, Sir, the answer is obvious. The Amerioap Government renounced the right to enter our waters, «8 Bogland and Cicada never did renounce the ru[ht to epter the waters of the United States of America. The United States, in consideration of certain territorial lights over a portion of our country, in a part of Newfound- land and Labrador, and the Magdalen Islands, and in con- sideration of obtaining suoh territorial rights en I believe are unparalleled in the world in any other country, re- nounced forever the right of their fishing vessels of any kind whatever to come into the jurisdictional waters of Canada or British North America, as it was then called, except for specified purposes, and then under such terms and condi- tions as would prevent them abusing the exceptional privi- leges which the treaty allowed. This is obvious, but you can- not make tho mass of the people understand it, and it is astonishing how many men of standing and position in the Ooitcd States seem never to have grasped the litct that the fiehermen of the United States occupy an entirely different position in the waters of Canada from that which the fishermen of Canada occupy in the waters of the United States, This was not done by any act of the Government of this country, but one can see. Sir, how easy it is that the mass of the people, not understanding those terms, not understanding tne ohstracter of this treaty, and not understanding the obligations which the Govern- ment of the United States had taken in regard to this ques- tion, should be misled. Then, Sir, another difficulty arose, aod that was with reference to the rights that those fishing Te!>8els should enjoy when in our waters. It was claimed by the Government of the United States, in 1818, that as no com- mercial vessel coold come into the waters of British North Amerioa fh>m tho United States, thftt there was no inter- course, that those were privileges given to the flshtiig ves- sels by that treaty beyond anything that was enjoyed by any other cias't of vessels. And whoi a changcU condition of things came about) when tho cummercini urrangoment of 1830 had, as they contended, entirely changed tho status of their fishing vessels in our waters — jinno, as they said, under tb'it commercial arrangomert it wa.-) pruvidud that their trading vessels could enter freely the ports of British North America and our trading vessels could enter their ports — as there was no exemption or exclusion of fishing vessels, they olainied th'tt rights had been acquired by the fishing vessels that entirely took them out of the category of the Treaty of 1818, under whioh thev were restricted from going into our waters for any but the four purposoH, I think. Sir, that that contention, upon examin- ation, proves to bo entirely unfounded. I do not think it would be possible for any constitutional lawyer to maintain that proposition for a tingle moment. The arrangement of 183yiag the a.* van- tage of buying bait and supplies of all kinds for your fishermen under this treaty, and you must considur what is due to the Government of Canada for those privileges whichyouenjjy"— I say, Sir, there was the fact that Mr. Foster, acting as the Agent of tho Govornmont of the United States, moved a resolution dooluring that under the Washington Treaty, the Government of tho United States had no such right and no such privilege to tranship a cargo offish or buy bait or supplies ofanykiud whatever. Although daring the Beoiprocity Treaty of 1851 it had been freely permittod by the Government of Canada during the 12 years that Treaty was in force, they declared that under oUoae 29 of the Washington Treaty, ait it stands there to^lay, and under whioh this right is claimed, that they had no saoh privilogOH before the fishery clause wai' removed from that trchly, as it was by its abrogation. Therefore I Bay that when this matter comes to be examined, the Uoase will see the position we occupy ; the Hoaie will also see the difficalt position wo were in, with the public mind of the United States iodamed by a misnpproboneion on this ques- tion. When wo aad the Oovornment and CongroHS of the United States acting as one man in relation to this qaes- tioD, it will be at once appreciated how difficult and now serious this matter had become. Although we were not giving an ungenerous or an extreme interpretation to the treaty at all, but wore simply doing that which my hon. friend opposite found it necessary to do, as did his successor, that Ih, to dcfor.d the J"'t rights of the fishermen of Canada —and no Governmen' mid be worthy of the name who would shrink for a siog.u moment from that doty— the result was that bocauBO wo took this action the sentiment of pub- lic men in the United States became inflamed, and instead of thinking of anything like increased freedom of commer- cial intercourse or of anything that was calcnlated to be of advantogo or benefit to ttie two countries, they hod recourse to the passage of what was called a Betaliatory Act. It was not a Retaliatory Act, but it was a Non-inter- course Act based upon an entire misapprehension of the posi- tion of the two countries and of the questions in relation to them. And as I said a year ago when standing here, it was an Act that was entirely uncalled for. Well, Sir, 1 then took the opportunity of drawing the attention of this Houjo at some little length to the position in whioh we stood in relation to that Non-intercourse Act. I Bikid that it was the only cloud on the commercial horizon of Canada, and I pointed out the unwarrantable character, as I considered it, of the Act, I pointed out that it seemed to bo founded on an entire misapprehension of what the position of Canada was in relation to this ques- tion. I was very sevurely oriticiBed— if not by hon. gentle- men opposite, who are always extremely indulgent to me — by the press roprcfcenting them, for that speech. It was stated to bo a very offensive speech, and to have a tone that was calculated to be extremely irritating to the Govern- ment of the United States, and two or three leading and prominent newspapers in this country have from that day to this asserted that here in my place in Parliament I declared that nnr-intcicourdo would be a very good thing for Canada. Well, Sir, as 1 dare say yon know, I do not often correct statements made in the press, however much they may misrepresent what I say or do ; but I may here take the opportunity of saying that no man cun read the speech I delivered on that occasion and find any foundation whatever for any such statement. 1 did state that it would become the imperative duty of the Government of Canada, in vindication of the rights of our fishermen, to adopt the policy of protecting our fisheries. I stated that there was no warrant for such an Act as had been passed in the United States ; and as the best means of protecting ourselves against the effects of a policy so unjust and so injurious to everybody — so detrimental to the interests both of the United States and Canada— I pointed out that, fortunately for Canada, we had attained a position that did not leave us so entirely at the me"cy of our neighbors to the south of us as wo should otherwiBC have been. I pointed out that the const! uotion of the Canadian Pacific and of the Inter- colonial Railways had given the people of Canada means for the free intercourse of one Province and one part of our people with another, without their being forced to go through the United States of America. I used language as strong, I think, as could be used to show the opinion I had of such an Act, when I said: " Deepl; as we would deiilore so mad and bo unjustifiable an act on the part of a great country like tbU gnat Bepublioof the Unittd Btatei adopting neh a barbarou poller as tbat of acn-int*reoim« witb a friendly power, we etaad in tbe proud podttoa of knowing that ii tbat poUojr were adopted to-morrow, we bare perfeoted our own lines of oommonlcation and hare the moit complete means of oommunleation from tbe fhrtbeit and most remote leetioa of our countrr dowa to tbe Ma" I think. Sir, that that was calculated to show that we had to a certain extent protected ourselves fVom the ruinous position we should have been placed in if we had nut those means of ioter-communioation ; and I do not think tbat was inviting non-intercourw or intimating that it was • policy of which I approved. I said farther : " Non-intercoune would not be an unmixed evil. I would deeply de- plore it ; every member of the Houie and every intelligent Canadian would deeply deplore any Interruption of the oommereial relatloBi whieb exiit between tbii country and tbe United States, but I cannot forget that, if tbe policy of non-interooarse were adopted, it wonld lead to the development of tnote cbanneli of commuaioation between ouf leWei." In another place I said : ■* While I most earnestly hope no such policy will be adopted." I thus call attention for a moment in passing to the Ian- gaago I then used in order to show that I was not guilty of tbe supreme folly that 1 would have been guilty ot if I aad spoken of non-intercourse between 6i>,000,000 of people of the United States of America and 6,000,000 on this side of the line as anything but what every intelligent Canadian would deplore, as I think every intelligent Ameri- can ought to deplore it. But, Sir, I will just say that this speech does not seem to have been attended with the verv unpleasant results that some people iu this country feared, who thought it adopted too defiant a tone for a small people like tht people of Canada, and was calculated to exasperate oui neighbors and bring about those unfortunate results. All I can say is that those remarks received a very considerable amount of attention in the press of the United States. Some portions of them appeared in leading journals in the United States ; and the result was, Sir, tbat instead of having any reason to suppose that I had been guilty of an indiscreet act in making the references whioh I felt, as a member of this House, I was bound to make in dealing with the position in whioh the oouutry stood, the only result, so far as I am aware, was this. I do not know that the speech had any connection with it; but I know this, that a mutual friend — I have no objiotion (o mentioning that iii was Mr. Wiman— at an early day after this apeeoh was delivered, intimated to me that he bad had a long conversation with the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Bayard, and that that gentle- man had said that he would be very glad to have an opportunity of discussing tbe mutual relations of Canada and the United States with either my right hon, friend the Premier of Canada or myself. I brought that state- ment under the notice of His Kxiellency tho Governor- General and my right hon. friend ; and as it was quite im- possible for him to leave his place in Parliament at that time, I took advantage of the Easter holidays to accept this informal invitation. I went down to Washington, and was presented to Mr, Bayard by Her Majesty's Minister there. Our conversation on that occasion, as you are aware, was personal and private, but tbe House will be able to gather what the effect of that convorsatirn was, when I refer to the result. It was on the 2 1st of May that I had that interview with Mr. Bayard, and I can only say that it was a very gratifying one in every possible respect . That distinguished gentleman seemed fully to appreciate what he owed to the great country iu whioh ho filled the high function of Secretary of State, and he showed also his ap- preciation of tho importance of maintaining the most friendly commercial relations with Canada. I am relieved, however, '-om any violation of secrecy in regard to that iBt«iTi«w in view of the oorreeMndeioe which ooonrred. I oonolcded by UTiotT > Mr. Barard told me that he wonld repeat oar oonveraation to the Preaid t of the United Statea, and wonld ooiaiiiani- oate to me the reault at an early day. On the 31bi of May, I received a letter with which hon. gontlomen are all familiar. I will not trouble the Hoaie with reading the whole of it ; bat it is necessary, in order to give a proper view of the basis of the conference from '.'hich this treaty has resaltod, that I shoald draw the atten- tion of the House to some of the remarks made by Mr, Bayard in that letter. In his letter to me ho said : ■■I h«T« thooght it nj duty and kliothimoit eftetnal msnasrof giTing tfliiot to 7oar luggMtloSi to iB*ke knowa to Lord Ltnidowos ths purport of 107 oorrcipondenca with jou He li ttronKtr deilroni of rMlIltatlag a Nttlement, aod will at once briog tha mati' r htton tb« BcerttarrofStat*, wltlianripreiiioa ol hia liupe tl»t no time will bt loit la taking itapi for eitabllihing, by me am of peraonal communlea- tioni with 7oar UoTerameDt, a moJutvifnndituch aiyou bar* dficribed, and alio for arrtrlng at ao underitanding in regard to a luting adjuat* meat of our oommeroial nlationi. ' ' " The immediate difficulty to be settled ii fonnd in tbe Treaty of 1118 between the United Statei and Qieat Britain, which baa been ind included, for a single ar- rangement should suffice to regulnte all tbe joint and several interests involved. I should, iherefure, ba informed spstdtly through the proper channel as tu the authorisation and appointment by the Imperial Gov- erumunt of such rtipreMutatives. " The gravity or tbe present condition of affairs between our two countrias demand entire frankness. I feel we stand at 'the parting of the ways.' In one direction I cau see a well assured, steady, health- ful relationship, devoid of petty jealousies, and filled with the fruits of a prosperity ariilng out of a frienlfbip cemented by mutnal interests, and enduring because baaed upon juatice ; on the other, a career of embit- tered rivalry, ataining our long frontier with the hues of hostility in which victory means the deitrcction ot an adjacent prosperity without gain to tte prevalent party— a mutnal, physical and moral deterioration which ought to bd' abhorrent to patriots on both aides, and which I am sure no two men will exert ibemselves more to prevent than the parties to this unofficial correspundoncs." I replied on the 10th June to ilr. Bayard in the following terms. I will not trouble the House by reading the whole of the letter, but only such parts that will show the basis of this conference : " Ut DiiB Ub. Batabd,— I had great pleatare in reoeiving yonr letter of Hay 31, evincing as it does the importance which you attach to an amicable adj istment of the fisheries question and the maintenance of the cordial commercial relations between the United States and Canada, under whicbj such vast and mutually beneficial reaulta have grown up. I entirely concur in your atatement that we both seek to attain a just and peimanent settlement— and that there is but one way to procure It —and that4s by a straightforward trsatment on a liberal and statesman- like plan of the entire eommercial relations of the two countries. I note {larticularly your anggestioni that as the interests of Canada are so mmediatefy concerned, Her Uijesty's Oovernment should be iuvited to depute a Canadian statesman to negotiate with yon a ' moiut tivtndi to meet present emergencies and also a permanent plan to avoid all dispntes,' and I feel no doubt that a negotiation thus undertaken wonld greatly Increase tbe prospects of a latisfactory solution. " The result yon know. I will read, in order to place the House in full possession of the exact state of affairs, an extract from Mr. Bavard's letter to Mr, Phelps, the Ameri- can Minister in London : "The visit hereof Sir Charles Tupper, on behalf of the Canadian Oovernment, was received with cordiality, and expressions were ex- changed of a mutual desire for tbe aettlement of all existing difficulties, and for the lnoreavernment of Canada at this conference, and it is only right to my right hon. friend (Sir John A. Haodontld) that I ahoald My th«t they intlraated, a« it was very natarally to b« czpeotod thay wonld, thnt the appointment to that poeition of the name diKfinfrnlfihed eentleman, who hod aotel an a Joint Hlf(h Commifnioner in 1871 with (.ncli uliilify and «nooewi wonld be entirely Roneptable to TTor Mflj.'g'yV Government. I oame ont to Canada without iho nli«hto8t idea whatever that 1 woald be appointed in connection with thia commifaion. I rrtarned here after having discharged in London the datiea which were inoambent on me and whioh I had been called upon to perform. Immediately, my right hon. friend told me thnt he wur nnxious that I ahoald go to Washington aa the third plenipotentiary, Loril Lmndowne waa good enough to Join in expresRing hia dnxire that I ahould 611 that position. I dareHay, if the truth were known, my right hon. friend here thought that having had so much to do with the rojoliation of thia conference, and repreaonting, a:)Thndthe hon^T of roprcsenting in thi Government of Citnada, the interests of one of the most important of the Maritime Prcvincrs, the Province ol Nova Sootia, there was a certain fitness in my hoing called upon to discharge this doty. I thought that, under the circnrastanfos, I could not decline, bat I made it a condition that I should have the ableand invaluable assistance of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, as thn leiral adviser of the B''itish »ido at this conference, as I knew that matters of the greatest impor- tanoo would arise in which the opinions and the advice and the legal and constitutional kno'wlodgo of that hon gen- tleman would be invaluable. With the utmost readi- ness, that hon. gentleman at once consented to associate himcclf with mo in tlmt cnpirity ; nnd I must at the s.ime lime lon'lor my honilfolt thanks to the Minister of Maiino and Fisheries, vtho^o province I waa to a certain extent apparently invading, for the very zoalous nnd hearty and valuable co-operation whioh his intimate knowledge of that subjcnt enabled him to give us, I take this opnortiinity of saying that a statement whioh has been made bv loading pnblio joarnals ia this country in refer- erco to my own position on (hat occasion is erroneous, A pood deal of sympaMiy has been expressed for me. I lave already roentinncd the great kindness wh'ch I have received oven from my opponents, but an amount of sympathy has been extended to me which I must disavow having any occasion for. A groat deal has been said and a great deal of sympathy hns been expressed, a.s to the nnfortunate position ii whi^h Sir Charles Tapper found himself in Wa'^hington in battling on the one side for the rights of Canada, and finding tho pressure of Her Majesty's Government on the other side ; and that in fact I was com- pelled, by the strong line which wiis toker. by Her Majesty's representative, Mr. Chamberlain, to yield and surrender what it must have cost me a great deal of pain and Buffering to do. I would be nnworthy of the position I occupy in th's House if I did not at onoe disavow anything of the kind. I do not think it wonld have been pos- sible for Her Majesty's Government to have made a better or a more judicious selection than they did in Mr. Cham- berlain, aa the leader of the British side in that oonferenue. That hon. gentleman is one of the foremost statesmen in England ; that right hon. gentleman, aa the House very wen knows, as the leader of the Radical party in Great Britain, was perhaps especially qualified, by the position he occupied in Imperial politics, to be an acceptable envoy to the United States of America; and, after three months of very intimate intoroonrse and association in the city of Washington, I have no hesitation in saying that T do not belie^'e it would have been possible for Her Majesty's Government to select any gentleman who wonld have been more acceptable to all parties in that great ■capital . In regard to my own position in that conference, I navelalready shown the House how largely I am res)K>B- sible (br what hM (tkM MM*. TiM oMflffMM WW tow- ated from the iDterriew whlell tO0k plaw b«tw«n myaalf and Mr. Bayard. I waa rabMqiltintly Mkad tOMrr* M Mt of Her Majesty's plenlpotmtlAnes on that importaot mia- alon; but I am bjond to say (hat if, inatead «f (he Right Hon, Joseph Chamberlaifi and Sir Lkmel Saokrille Wart, I had had as my oolleagvea two of the foremoet atateaman of Canada, taken from either aide of the Honse, it Woald have been impossible to have had the contentiona of Canada more nniformlv snpported than they were from the begin- ning to the end. If there Is any mistake, if thia treaty la not what Canada had a right to expect it shoald be, ^ am honnd to saj that there ia no man ■torereaponaiWe for that than myself. Thoae hon. gentlemen, flroai the begianinff to the end, stood by the IntOreata of Canada ia the mon unflinching way. I have heard, in thia Hoaae and ont of this Honse, that it was deairable that the time abonld oome when Canada conid appoint her own plenipotentiaries and envoys to deal with the negotiation or treatiea, bat I apeak from experience and from a knowledge of the facta when 1 say that a greater mistake it wonld M impoasible to con- ceive. In the |)Osition Whioh Canada oooapiea, great and important as it is, and with the great future we have on- doubtedly before us in the development of the enormous resources of this country, while the time may come when wo will bo in a position which will enable as to go into an international conference with that power and infloenco which alone will qualify a plenipotentiary to negotiate cffoclively with otner countries, nntil that time cornea it ia impossible to overrate the valae of having the Bmpire of Great Britain behind na. A plenipotentiary is able to command, when he ia flghting a keen and hard battle for his country, Jast that amonnt of in- flaenoe and power whioh that oonntry ooaamanda among the States of the world; and I eay that, nntil wo Obtain that influence and that power> nothing would be more detrimental or suicidal to the beat intereeta of Canada than to divest ourselves of the potent inflaenoe of atanding under the ngis of the mightiest Bttipire In the WOrld. Now, I must say a single word with reference to my ocrileagnaa repreenting the Government of the United Stataa. I nava already given yon a tolerable insight into the Views ci Mr. Bayard, That hon. gentleman, aa the House knows, is the worthy representative of a long lin^ of the moat eminent statesmen in the United States, and no person in the Gov- ernment of Ihatcoantry commanda more nniforuly or more deservedly the respect and confidence of the United States than the Hon, T. P. Biyard, the Secretary of State. In the Hon. W. L. Putnam, wd had opposed to as a gentle- man occupying ao distinguished a legal position In New Kngland that his name has boon frequently beard within the i:i8t fortnight as the probable saooessor of that eminent Jurist, the late Hon. Chief Jnstioe of the United States ; we had in him a gentleman more intimately aoqcaitttod with the fishing interests of the United States than almOat any Other gon'leman who ooald be suggested, and whoae legal stand' ing and position are caloolated to obtain the oonfldenoe and retpeotof all who know him. In the third pienipciientiary r« presenting the United States, we ha:l Mr. Angell, PreaideAt of the Michigan University at A no Arbor, a gentleman who, although a supporter of the Repablioaa partv, was Eeleoted in oonsequetice of his great kbowlec^ of inter- national law, and the fact that he had been chosen by a Bepublioan Government in the United States to dis- charge most important duties 88 a Commissioner to China, in the arrangement of a treaty. 1 do not believe, Sir, that it would be posaible for any Government in the United States to select three gentlemen more eminently patriotic, more heartily devoted to the interests Of their country, than the three gentlemen I have named ; and after sitting face to face with them for three months in keen and sharp oontroTerty, the only reault of oar oommanicn- tion hao Men to leave upon my mind the very hiKhcst refpeot for the character, atAnaioff and ability of tho^o gentlemen, and a desire not only of uontinoiog tbe acquaint- ance which I had the pleasnre of making with them, but that it should perpetuate a genuine and thorough friend- ship. I can only xay, Sir, that when 1 oamo to moot them in conference, I waM greatly surprised, and you will not bo Borprised to learn that Nuch was the case alter hearing the papers I ^hnll road with reference to commercial inter- course. After the statement of the President of the United States in his Message of 1HH6, asking for a commii-sion, after the letters which (lassed butwoen Mr. Bayard and mysulf, vou will readily understand that I wont there expcctiiig and looking forward to a settlement of this question on very much the same lines as those upon which it hud boon settled in 1854, and to some extent, in 1871. I am right in saying that the instructions with which I was charged by this Uovernment were to obtain, if it was pos- sible, as near an approach to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1661 OS I could obtain, that is, the policy of carrying out free exchange in the natural products of the two countries. I was to urge that policy, and I think yoa will have no doubt as to the course pursued by me after reading the proposition that I made in the conference on the 3rd December, 1887 : "Sir ObarleiTupper betrged leara to lubmit a note eontaiDinat tha ioUowlng prcpoaal tion on both sides of the House I think yon were rather furtunate in not having another speech inflicted upon yoa on that occasion by myself ; hut I am bound to take this oppor- tunity of sayinff that you may ao to Washington, as I did ; yoa may mingle for three months, as I did, with the lead- ing men of sU partiea and all olawes ; yoa may go throagh 9 the House of Representatives from beginning to end, and canvass every man, ard you may go to the Senate of the United States and canvass every man, and I say you will not find a single roan who will talk to you on the subject of nnrestricted reciprocity, as I did not find one at the time when public attention was being turned to it in this country. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). There are two Bills before Congress. Sir CHARLES TUPPKR. Was it not desirable that wo should know what the views imd sentiments of iho United States woro upon the subject ? Talk to thorn, Sir, of con- morcial union — I tell you that I did not meet u man of any parly, I did not meet an American statosraan who would not hold up both hands for commorciul union with Canadit. Why, Sir ? Because he knows that it would give Canada to tha United States, he knows that you would never occupy the degrading position of having a neighboring country make your tariff, and impose taxes upon you. I say, Sir, that It is a condition of things from which the most craven Canadian would recoil. This proposition of unrestricted re- ciprocity, of free trade with the United States, with liberty to make our own taritf with the rest of the world, I say I did not meet a man — I discussed this question fully and freely from day to day with scores of leading publio men in the United States— I did not meet a man that would talk about such a thing for a single moment. Why, Sir, they treated the very propoitiiion with scorn. They said : " Do you suppose that wo intend to make a free trade arrangement with Can- ada, that would involve free trade with England, and destroy the position that we occupy in relation to all the vast in- dustiius of this country ? I say. Sir, that under the.-o cir- oumfitances I did a service to Canada. And you have got the answer. Yon did not got from Mr. Bayard the state- ment: "If you will go the whole length of nnrestricted reciprocity with us, if you will make everything free, then we will talk with you." Nothing of the kind. Here is the answer, coming from the leader of the Admin- istration of the United States, which conclusively shows that — I was going to say, but, after the interesting and animated discussion we had in this House, I will not say .oat it was a waste of time to take up a fortnight of the time of Parliament in discnssine that which it is just aa rational as to have been discussing how to construct a rail- way from Canada to the moon. The answer is hare i " While continaing their propoaal heretofore aubmittad— on the 30tb altimo— and fully abariog the deaire of Her Britannic Majeaty'a plani- potentiariea to remove kVI canaea of diSarenoa in oonnaction with tha Btberiea, the Amt-rican plenipotenliariea are '■nnatrained, after careful coDaidemtioa, to decliou to aak from the Praaident authority requiaite to Cuntider the propoaal conveyed to them on the 3rd inatant aa a meana to tbe desired end, becauae the greater freedom of commercial intercourse ao propoaed would neceaailata an adjuatmant of the preaent tariffof the Dnitad Statea by congreaaional action, which adjustment tha American plenipotentiaries consider to be manifestly impraoticabia of accomplldhment throngh the medium of a treaty under tbe clrcnm- atancas now existing. Nor could the American plenipotentiariea admit that such a mutual arrangement as is proposal by Her Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiaries could be accepted as coastttutiog a auitabla baaii of negotiation concerning the rights and privileges claimed for American fishing Teasels. It still appears to tbe American plenipo- tantiariea to be possible to find an adjustment of differences by agreeing on an interpretation or modification of the Treaty of 1818, which will be honorable to both partiea and remove the preaent causes of complaint to which end tbey are now— as they bare been from tha beginning of tbia conference— ready to devote themsalvea." Mr. Bayard gives a farther illustration of the position in his letter to the Senate. It is dated Washington, 22nd March, and in it he says : "In conformity with the invariable course puraaad in previous negotiations, whan the conference met it was agreed that an honorable confidence should be maintained iu its deliberations, and that only rcanlta should be announced and such other mattera as the joint proto- ooUstf ahoold sign under tha direotion of the planipotentiarias. With 10 tula uadersUnding, wbicb wpi »Ult\\j kept, the discusalons of the oon- ference proceeded, through its numerous sad prolonged aesaion, with that freedom and informality in the exchange of Tiewa which the nature ot the uegotiationa required and without which ita progrejs would have been materially hampered and any agreement rendered very difficult of attainment. "Upsi the conclusion of the treaty some members of the coDference at once left the city under the pressure of other duties, and it is thus possible that some statemmts were ezcloded that otherwise might bare been placed ia the Joint protocols." I have explained to the Hoase my great Barprise at finding they did not give what 1 assamed that the purely formal protocols to which I asBonted wonld give, that is to Bay, all the proposals made, and the counter-proposals and the replies on both sides. I ai-samod that the protoco's would contain those. Mr. Bayard ha^ explained how it was that this was not done. "After the conference had fiually adjourned and Sir Cliarlea Tupper had returned to Ottawa, a request w>i8 received through the Britieli Minister that assent bo given to the publication nf a certain proposal which unl bee.--, submitted by the British plenipotentiariea uud declined by t je Americana. The consent as desired was given, and I enclose herewith a cupy of the papers ao referred to. Kvery point aubmitted to the n inference is covered by the papers now in the possession of the Senate." I wish the House to note that. Although wo have not given any proposals and counter-proposals, here is the Btato- mont, whioh I contiria as being thoroughly and entirely accurate, that the papers submitted to the Senate, as the papers submitted to yon give all the information necesBary for the consideration of this quobtion. " K'-jepting the ([uestion of damages sustained by our 6shermen, which, being met by the counter-claim for damages to British vessels in Bebring's Sea, was left for future settlement." President Angoll, who was one of the commissioners, after he returned homo, made the following observations : — " We were a long time getting down to the real work of the commlj. sion, all letter to me and my letter to him and his instructions to Mr. Phelps, and I was not prepared to be met by an absolute re- fusal on the part of the United States plenipotentiaries to take up and consider the question of commercial intercourse at all. But the explanation was this, and I ".hink it is right and fair that in his absence 1 should give it. Mr. Bayard statci now, and has stated throughout, his great desire to have the freest commercial intercourse between us con- sistent with the position aid interest of the two coun- tries. Ho says, it you wait to see the jjoUcy of the Government 01 the United Stdces you have it in tne Presi- dent's Message to Congress j there is our policy. Our policy is to meet this enormous surplus revenue in the United States, not by a reduction which will stiike at the labor and capital of the country by reducing tho duty on manufactured articles simply and purely, but it is to meet it by two courses— by making everything that operatives use cheap, by making it free, by making the natural pro- ducts of the two countries free ; in other words, by remov- ing the duties from the food and things that are used by operatives, and by removing the duties from raw materials, which instead of injuring the manufacturing industries is a protective policy. 1 say, Sir, that after stuuying the policy of the United States, of tho Democratic Parly— the frte trade party of the United States as they are very impro- perly called, for there is no free trade party in the Uoited States, they have got beyond that long ago— after ozamin- iog their policy, after reading the President's message, ofter reading the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, after reading the speech of Mr. Carlisle, the Speaker of the House of Representatives on taking the chair, I have come to the conclusion that their policy is just as close to the policy of the Government of Canada as any two things possibly can be. Oar policy is to make natural products free ; our policy is to make raw materials free ; our policy is to make the country m cheap a country as we can for the artisan, and at the same time to give his labor a tM return, by such protection of the manufacturing industries of the country as will build up those manulactures and give employment to the people. Now, Sir, that ia our policy. Mr. Bayard and those other gentlemen said that " there is only one way to reach this (for Congress alone cnn take the duty off any article), and on account of the exasperation that has been excited in this country by those fishery diffioulties you have nn unanimous Bill passed by the House of itepre> sentat'.ves and passed by tho Senate and assented to by the President, you have to meet what they hold was the inhospitable conduct fthey used good deal stronger terms in some of their State papers I am very sorry to say), of Canada in reference to tho treatment of their fisher- men, our representatives have said that they would never purchase from Canada any immunity for their fibhermon by reciprocal trade arrangements " imbued, as their minds were, with tho idea that we had adopted that policy to force reciprocity upon them. They imagined we did it for this purpose, instead of doing it as we did it to protect orr rights. While we were ready to have the freest commercial inter- course iu the natural products of the two countries we never attempted to nso that as a moans or as a leveir hy which to coerce the psople of the United States. We were simply and wholly animftted by ft dMire to protect «• we were bound to 11 do the flahermen of thia ooontry who are engaged in one of our greatest and most important indastries. Well, Sir, what was this Non Interooarse Bill? It not only provided for shutting Canadian fishing vesaels of all deacriptioDsoutoftboir ports but it contained a provision against all interohauge of trade. Hero ia one of the pro- visions : " Th»t whenever the President of the Unitsd Rutea ah&U be istiBfied that Ameiican iiihermea are Tiaiting or being la the waters or at anj fiorti or placea of the Britiab Uominiona nf North America, are or then ately have been denied or abridged In tuo enjoyinent of anj riRhts ■ecured to them by treaty or law, or are or tney lately have been uajiistly vexed or harassed in the enjoyment of such rights, or subjected to unreasonable restrictiond, regulatioaj or reqiiirementa in respect to such rights ; or otherwise unjustly ve^cad or harassed in said watem, port) or place], or whenever the President of the UniLed States shall be Biitiitittd thtt dDy such tiihiog resjels or fiihermen hivinft a permit uu'ler the laws uf the UniteJ States to touch and trade at any pirt or puns, place or places, in the Britls*^ Dominions of North America, are or then lately have been denied the privilege of entering such port or ports, place or places, in the game manner anl under the Stime regulk- tiODS as may exist therein applicable to trading vesaela of the most lavoriid nations, or shall be unjustly vexed or harassed in respect thereof, or otherwise be unjustly vexed or harassed therein, or shall be prevented from purchasing such auppliea as may there be lawfully sold to trading vessels of the most favored nation ; or whenever the President of thi' United btates shall bo aatisfiiid that any other vessels ol the United States, their masters or crews so arriving at 3r being in such British WKtera or ports or placea in the British Dominions of North America are or then lately have been denied any of the privilege therein accorded to the vessels, their masters or crews of the most favored nation or UDJustly Vrxol or harassed in respect of the same, or unjustly vexed or harassed therein by the authorities thereof, then, and in either or all of such cases it shall be lawful and i ihall be the duty of fie President of the United (States in his discretion, by proclamation to that effect, to deny vessels, their masters and crews of the Uritish Dominlnus of Vortb America, any entrance into the waters, ports or places of or within the United States (with such exceptions in regard to vessels in distress, atrcsc of weather or needing supplies as to the Piesident shall seem proper) whether such veisela shall hare come directly from said dominions on such destined voyage or by way of some port or plac9 in such destined voyage elsewhere ; — ' ' And tLis point, covering complete non-intercourse with the entire country, — "and also to deny entry into any port or pUoe of the 0ait«d Statu of fresh fish or aalt fish or any other product of said dominicns or o:her goods coming from said domfniona to the 0nited States. " That was the law placed upon the Statute-book of the United States by the unanimous vote I believe of bot.h the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, If there was a " no " at all it wns a single one. That ex- pressed the sentiments and the feeling in the United States of America, and our friends the plenipotentiaries represent- ing the United States, said : ■' If we make a treaty with you aflfect'.ng the tariff, however small the inducement yon might be willing to accept, it is certain of absolute rejection by the Senate, because the Congress of the United States have stated their position firmly, and they will not permit any interference on the part of the Administration of the United States by tr^^aty, with anything that involves a change in the fisoci laws of the United States. They said, secondly, that not only was that the case but such was the hostility of [mblio men in regard to Canada and the treatment by Canada of their fishermen, that if tomorrow any relaxation of the tariff of the United States was made by an Act of Congress it would contain a clause excepting Canada from its operations so as to deny ns its advantage. Bat they said our policy is pro- claimed to the world ; you will rea<. it in the President's speech ; you will see it everywhere: our policy is as far as we can to make the natural products that come into the country free and what lies in the wa; of that policy is this irritation connected with the fishery question. If we can solve that, if we can take that out of the way you will find at once that our own independent policy — the policy ok' the United States on this questicn of commercial intercourse^ will be such as to produce the most intimate commercial relations again witn the Dominion of Canada." And, Sir, under thoie oircamstanoea, denied as we were the free const* deration of the question, of which fact I hf>ve given you abundant evidence, we turned our attention to the only moans by which we could avert what everybody would feel would be the greatest disaster that could befall this country. We turned our attention to the means by which it could be averted and those were the removal of the causes of irritation between the United States and Canada (for it was Canada rather than Great Britain that was referred to) and by removing those causes of irritation, and giving free scope to this policy to which thoy were committed, we believed that it would at a very early day give us everything tbitt we could desire in the way of greater freedom of com- morclal ii^tercourse. Now, Sir, I am in soriiewhat a similar positioniu explain' -g this treaty, wbichlhave now reached, to that in which I was in 1871 when dofonding the treaty of my right hon. friend under Hoinowhit diffei-b^t circum- stances. Then I said: " Every word that you force us t0 8'''y in support of this trei<*^y oill be used against ns at Halifax in diminution of tbe payment that we are entitled to for the greater value of our fisheries." To-day I am in a some- what similar position. For, every word that I say in de- fence of the treaty to which I have put my hand and to which I ask the sanction of this House with the utmost confidence, every word that I say in support of it may be used to-morrow in the Senate of the United States, where support to the treaty may be more difficult to obtain than it is in the House of Commons of Canada. Tbe House wilt, therefore, understand that on this occasion it cannot be expected from me that I shall point out very elaborately the advantages accruing to (Canada under the treaty to which we have placed our hands. What I say is this— I say, Si^, that the course that has been adopted in reference to this treaty has been adopted with a view to secuie in the only way that was found practicable, the best interests of Canada. I am told, in fact I received a message, that the hon. leader of the Opposition wished me m lay on the Table of the House a map showing what Canada claimed under the Treaty of 1818 in regard to the headland question, and another map to show what the result of this treaty was— how much wo had surrendered, or how much we had secured. I can only say that I am not able to respond to thiit invitation, for this reasan, that thi.s troaly provides, in rugaid to the delimitation, that the work shall bo done by conamii^sioners, two appointed on each side, eminent men of hi^h qualifications, who shall mark on British admiralty charts the linos as they are laid down and agreed to in the treaty. My hon, friend the leader of the Opposition will at once see that it would 'not do for me to anticipate the action of that coort of delimitation, or to undertake in advance to set aside the important duties with which they are charged, and give exactly my view of it. Mr. LACJRIBjR. I have seen it done. Sir CHA.RLES TUPPBR. He has seen it done, and he has seen it done in this very case. I have seen in the New York Herald — I do not know who gave it to them — tb"* de- limitation marked ; and I have seen in the Globe newspaper that very enterprising journal which gives so much atten- tion to these important questions— this question of delimit- ation dealt with, and a map publ'sbed showing the results of the delimitation, both as to Newfoundland and as to Canada. Now, I do not intend to endorse the 'etter-press of this article, which declares that there has boon a complete surrender of Canidian interests by myself; but I will say thi4 much, that this is a very t;ood effort on liie part of an enterprising journal to put before the eountry the results of the delimitation us described in the treaty. It is very spocittcally desoribod in the treaty, and those who study this map rttentively, will, 1 think, be able to form a very fair idea of the results — quite as 19 good at they woald ftom any nnanthorised map which I could have constructed, and which 1 would have no right to lay before the Houae. I do not think it was a complete Burrendsr, and I will briefly tell the House why. But be- fore proceeding to that matter, I may say that there was one subject on which I was glad to find that the American plenipotentiaries, and myself especially were entiioly at one. They expressed no wish to acquire the right to tiith in the jurisdictional waters of Canada, W^ith that expres- sion of opinion on their part I heartily concurred. I be- lieve. Sir, it would bnve been difficult to obtain any pos- Bible treaty that could repay Canada for having hur inesti- mable fishing grounds thrown open again to United States fishermen. V7ith the recent modes of catching fi-jh by means of purse seines, my fear wonld be that if onr fishing grounds were thrown open to our neigh- bors to the south of ns, in ten or fifteen years we should have very little better fisheries than they have, I believe such an event would lead to their destruction, and, therefore, I was very glful to find that there was no desire on the part of the United States to acquire the right to fish in the inshoro'^dhinggrounJs of Canada; and I want it to bo kept steadily in view that in all the arrangements provided by this treaty, Canada holds for Canadians her fishing grounds for their own exclusive use and benefit ; and. Sir, with the intelligence, the industry, and the enterpride of our people, I am quite certain that they will be able under the provisions of this treaty to hold their own anywhere. I will now, Sir, procood to deal with the subjeot of ttie treaty itself, and I take up first the most important ques- tion, that of delimitation. I need not tell yoj that that is aquestion in controversy. U is a question, as my hon. friend from Northnmberland (Mr. Mituboil) knowr>, has been u most fertile cause of discussion between the United States and Great Britain and Canada. The Americans have main- tained that what we termed our exclusive right to shut them out of all bays was not well founded in the treaty. They have maintained that they had an indefeasible right under that treaty to approach within three miles of the shore of any iiayor indentation. My hon. friend shakes his head ; but I hold in my hand authorities, and I could give them to him by the score, in which they have ag>tin and again maintained that position, and demanded that right. Mr. MITCHELL. Dli not Groat Britain for forty years enforce hor construction of that Treaty of 1818 ? Sir CHARLES TUPPBll. I can only say that nobody knows bottei- than my hon. friend that Great Britain in- duced him to recall his regulation^ and instructions, after he had issued them, and restricted his jurisdiction to within three miles of the shore. Mr. MlTOHEFiL. And why? Because Great Britain could control the Government of this country, and I had to do it ; that is why. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. Never mind. My hon. friend's enquiry was as to the pobition of Great Britain, and I give it to him. Great Britain has always contended, and has rightly contended, for technical exuiusion from any bay, and the Crown cffioers of England have sustained that con- tention. But my hon. friend knows that it ia one thing to hold a technical construction, and it is another to under- take to enforce it. Mr. MITCHELL. Will the hon. gentleman let mo put one question to him? He states that Gieat Britain has held a technical construction of the Treaty of 1818. I would say that Great Britain has actually enforced her technical construction for forty years. And with leference to what the hon. gentleman says abc :t exclosion from bays, the first decision was given in reference to the Bay of Fandy, where the headland on one side was American and the headland on the other was Canadian or Nova Sootian. That 'vos the first give-away of our treaty rights. Sir GHARLE3 TUPPBR. My hon. friend then means that for the tirdt forty years Great Britain hold a particular view which ulie has abandoned for the last forty years, Mr. MITCHELL. I do not mean that. I will say what I mean if the hon, gentleman will let me. I say that for the first forty rears Great Britain legitimately enforced that contention and the Americans recognised li. Under the decision in the case of the Biy of Fundy, one side of which wad American and the other side Nova Sootian, it was held that that bay was not exclusively an English bay, and upon the decision in that case oar rights were given away and suspentind by England, and were not enforced as strictly as they haa been before, S-r CHARLES TUPPER. Well, I do not intend to be drawn into a discussion by my hon. friend, because I do not question very much his statement', but I want to ask him whether he thinks a right which is technically claimed but prHCtically abandoned for forty years, is gaining in strength. I take a different view. But perhaps my hon, friend will allow me to proceed, and reiserve his remtrks for a future period. On the 17th September, 1845, Lord Stanley wrote to Lord Falkland— ' ' Her MHjnntj'a novernment have atteDtlrely conBiderel the repre- fentution? iDnt'itinel ia jour despatch^a, respectinf; the policy of Kraat- in((permi3ian tJ ihe Sihermea of tha (Jaited States to fi^h ia the Bay of Uhtleurs. and othpr iarna bays at a ^timilar chtraoter on the coast of Hew Brunswick and N'or.t Scotia ; and apprehendinit, from your state- ment, that any such general concejdion would be injurious to the inte- rests of the British North imericiT P.ovincos, wa liwe abandoned the intention we hal enterlHiDod on th<4 subjent, and shall adhere to the strict left'"' '■f I '.e treaties which exist between Oreat Britain and the United States, relative to Ihs (Jsheries in North America, excep': ia ao far as they may relate to the Bay of Fundy, which has been thrown open to the North Americana under certain restrictions." So that Lord Stanley, intimated practically that what was done in the Bay of Fundy was tu be the.rule, Mr. MITCHELL. No. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell), The very opposite. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. He says in so many words that this was what they had intended but that they had abandoned the idea upon representation, Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Let the hon. gentleman read it again. Sir CHARLES TUPPER :— " Mr. Brerett thought that the negotiationi were now in a molt favorable atate " That is, after the Bay of Fundy was given up, "— for a full and aatiafaotory adjustment of the diapnte. He bad the fulleat asanrance that the British QoTornment contem- plated a farther eitenaion of the aame policy by the adoption ot a general regulation i hat American fithermeu ahuuld be allowed tntlj to enter all baya of which the moutha were not more than alz miles ia width." In May, 1845, Lord Stanley oommnnioated this intention to Lord Falkland, who immediately replied. Then Nova Scotia came forward, and Canada came forward, and the result of their firm remonstrances, based on this constita- tinnal right, was that he receded from the intention to allow the Americans to go within three miles of the shore, and decided to maintain the original contention. , Mr. MILLS (Bithwall). Hear, hear. 19 SIrOHASIiBS TUPPER. That is what I Mid ezaotljr. I oome to this qajstion, and, as I aaid before, no public officer, in my jadgment, no Minister, ever exhibited more zeal or ability in the management of hia department than did my hon. friend. Mr. MITCHELL. Never mind that. Sir CHARLBS TUPPBR. From the time it was organ- ised under his charge he showed the ereatost possible determination to hold on to all thet ho had, and to got ns much as he could in the interests of Canada. Now, I will draw the attention of my hon. friend and the Honse to the fact that, actuated by that motive, in 1870, he sent out the following instructions : " la such oapacitf your Jarisdietion muat be Btrietly conflded withia the limit of three marine milea of any of the coaatg, baya, creeki, or har- bors of Canada, with respect to any Hctiou you mity take aKiiinst Amer- ioan llahing reasela and the United States citizens engaged in liihing." Mr. MITOHELL. Undur instructions from England. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. No. This U before the pres- sure, as the hon. gentleman wil! seo, but be wont on trying to get in the thin end of another wedge, and I commend his attempt. He said : "Where any of the have, creeka, or barbora, aball not exceed ten nographical milea in width, you will consider that the line of demarca- tion eitenda from headl&n 1 to headland, either at the ent—.v.j of such bay, creek, or herbor, or from and between giren points on both fides thereof, at acy place nearest the mouth, where the shores are less than ten miles apart : and may exclude foreign Qihermen and fishing vessels therefrom, or seize, if found within three marine miles uf the coast." Then he went on to i^ivotho juiif'dictionand the action that should be taken under it; and the bays from which he in- structed his officers to exclude Amerioau fishing vessels are those ten miles in width. What followed ? We have a despatch from Lord Oranville to the Qovernor General : " Her Uajtity's OoTernmaat hopes that tha Doited dtates flshermen will not be for the prassnt prevented from flahiog except within threa miles from land or in bays which an less than six miles broad at tha month." That is the answer to the instructions. My hon, firiend, I grant yon, was under compulsion ; he waa, I grant you, under pressure from Her Majesty's Government; but that only makea the case stronger from my standpoint, and my standpoint is that in the position we occupy, dependent upon Her Majesty's Government for that right arm. and strength, and power, which will enforce a regard for tha interests of the people of this country, we mast pay some deference to Her Majesty's Goverument. Considering the fostering care which Her Majesty's Government have at all times given the interests of Canada, we are bound to reci- procate by meeting any just claim for consideration from the party which is mainly involved in our contentions. Therefore, I say my hon. friend was right, but he did with- draw that instruction, and he issued in its place the follow- ing instructions, as contained in a report of Council :— " The Oonncil la aware that when the Britiah Oorernment in 184ii opened the Bay of Fundy to American fishermen, aa an amicable relaxa- tion ol treaty rights, the act was officially regarded aa a practical abaodonmeoi by American authorities ot the Briiis*: uoos'Taotton of the Oonrention of 1818. It waa immediately followed by a demand for general application to all intends exceeding six miles In width.' ' So that I say to my hon. friend that I gave his own terms, as sustaining the statement that 1 made of the demand of the Government ot the United States to ha e access to our waters within three miles of the shore, whether in bays or out of bays. Mr. MITCHELL. I promised not to interrupt the hon, gentleman, and I will not; but 1 will simply eny that I ava a complete answer to that. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. No doubt the hon. gentl«> mdn is so ingenious that he could answer himself ovsr and ovar again. Mr. MITCHELL. He is so careful in his public capa- city that he can do it. Sir CHARLES TUPPBR. I have no fault to find with my hon. friend in his public capacity as a Minister. I have a great deal more fault to find with him in his private capacity, as sitting on the other side of the Houae. Do you think there is much difference a despatch from Mr. MITCHELL, between us. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. Here is Downing Street, dated 6th June 1870; " Her Vajeety's Qoverament ere fully aware that no step shonld be taken which should prejudge the question," I want to draw the attention of the Hou^^o to tb'> fact that thiei was uot a, soliled or uonuluduj qiiuHtioo, that it was not u qut'siioD upon which tho Govorninouts of Great Britain und the United iitatod had ngroed or on which they ha.l arrived at a, common intorprbiution ; and I want to draw my hon. friend'e altontion to the doubt that Her Majesty's Government had upon the subject. Wiiat do they say? " Her Majesty's Government are fully awnre that no steps shonld be taken which ebould prejudge the question— what are Canadian waters? Or should admit the right of Ujitid Htates fishermen to fith within those waters except within the limits prescribed by the Oonvention uf 1818." '- But they do not abindiin the hope that the qiiestion of abstract right may yet he avoided by some arrangume'it between Oanadk and the Oniled Stater, or that tiie limits may be Ue J aitely settled by arhl- t'atioc or otherwise ; aad while any expectation of this kind exists, they desire to avoid all occasions of dispate, so far as this is possible, oonsistenlly with the sabstantial protection of ttie Oanadian fisheries. With those objects, they think it adviseb.e that 0oited States flshermen shonld not be axolnded from any rrat; rs except within three miles from the shore, or in tha onnsaal caa* ot a bar which is less than six milea wide at its mouth bnt spreads to • greater width within. It will, of course, ba onderstood and explained to tha United States Oorarnment that this liberty is eoBoadad temporarily and without prejndies to the right of Oreat Britain to fall baok on her treaty rights, if the prospect of •n arrangemeat lessens, or if the eonoesslon is found to interfere prac- tioally with tha protedtion of the Oanadian fisheries." That waa also a despatch from Lord Granville, June 6th, 1870. Now, under the pressure of this, as my hon. friend has stated, he changed his instructions in reference to the ten milea and put in six milea, and forbade his officers to interfere with the American fishermen, not as in the first instructions he gave, if they were within three miles of the mouth of the bay, but only if they were within three milea of the shore, and he says : ■■ Until further inatmcted, therefore, vou will not interfere with any American flshermen unless fjund within three miles of the shore, or within thrte miles of a line drawn aoross the mouth ot a bay or oreek, which, thoagh in parts more than six mileo wide, is less than six aeo- graphical miles in width at its mouth. In the case of any other bay, as Bale des Ohaleurs, for example — — " The very bay he excluded them from was more than ten miles wide. —"yon will not Interfere with any United States fiabing vessel or boat or any American fishermen, unless they are found within three miles of the shore." Mr. MITCHELL. Under positive instructiana from England, against my representations and everything else. Sir CHARLKS TUPPER. I think I have satisfied my hon. friend that, as fur as lldr M ijusty's Government wore concerned, while they maintained the abstract right under the treaty, they wore unwilling to raise the question of bays, and the result is, as my hon. friend knows, that for the last thirty-four years, certainly since 18S4 — and 1 will 14 not go farther btok thAn 1S54— there hu been na pr»otio«l interferenca with American fishing veBsela nnloie they were within three milee of the shore, in bays or olsewhere. Mr. MITCH BLL. Will hia honor allow me to aak him one qnestioD ? Sir CHARLES TUPPBR. I would ask the hon. gentle- man not to do it now . I was in hopes to finish by 6 o'clock and I am sure the Houho will sympathise with me in that desire. Ths Govornmont instead of considering this ana question [instod beyond controversy, did what? The hon. gentleman was a member of the Government at the time, and the GjverDraontdopiHed Mr., now Sir Alexander Camp- bell to go to Lord Kimborloy and ask for the appointment of a comroinsioD on which fUngland and the United States and Canada would bo roprcHontod, to settle what was the correct view in leforonce tu the British bays, to settle this very qaestion of delimitation. Mr. MITCHELL. Ob, no, not that. Some hon. MEMBERS. Order. Mr. MITCH KLL. For the purpose of maintaining colonial rights to the fisheries as claimed by England. Sir CHARLICS TUPPER. I will read from a despatch sent by Linl Kiraherley; " Mr. Campbell broui?lit unier jay consideration the follnwinit inb- jects;— Tlie liret was tin iiroteotion of the Canadian fuh^ries from encroai'lin-.enl-i liy torcik'n fisliinR veajela On ihis point I concur with TOur Uiniste-s, ibst it woiilit lie deaimble tbut the qiCBlionB vhlch oare been eo loiip in (i.^p:!" with Ih^ Unit-^i Statei, as to the geo- graphiCHl limits uf ilie exil'isive fiibiM|( rigbta of Canada under the Treaty cf l:jl8, shou'.d be settled, bj n joint British and Am^ricaa com- mitiioa, on which the Dominion abould be repreitnted. Her Uijait^'i Oovernment will propoae tu the United Btatti QoTemment the appolnt- maat of iucb a commisaioo.' ' I ^ive that to the Houst as the proof that, so far from this being regarded as a matter npcn which no question could arise, it was not so treated. Lord Eimberley, in a despatca of the 10th October, 1870, said : " The ofajeot of Her HajeitT's OoTemment it, m yon will obMrre, to give effect to the wiehea of jour UoTernmest, by appointing a joint commiuion, on which Great Britain, the Daited Btatee and Oanada are to be repreaented, with the object of enq liiing what ought to be the feographical limiia of the tzjluaire ti^beriei of the British North imerican colunies. In BCCordairf> with the nnderitood deaira of rour adfiters, it is proposed thi>t 'he ei^qiiry should be held in America." And then there is a momjrandnm from the Foreign Office giving the reasons for the appointment of that commission, and irum that I will read a single sentence : " Ttie right of Oreat Britain to exclnde American fishermen from wateii within three miles of the coast is unambiguoua, and, it is believed, unconteated. But there appears tn be somo doubt what are the watera described aa within three mile] of bays, creeks, and harbors. When a biy is less than six miles broad, its waters are within the three milee limit, and therefore clearly within the meaning of the treaty; bnt, when it is more than that breadth, the qaestioo ariaet whether it it a bay of Her Britannic U^jeity'i dominion!. " I hope I have satisfied the House that, so far from the ques- tion of delimitation, when we took it up at Washington, being one on which no question could be raised, it was an open question in which Canada and Great Britain on the one Bide maintained an extreme contention, and the United States Government maintained the very reverse, which was also an extreme contention. Mr. MITCHELL. Nothing of the kind. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. If I have not made it clear to the bon. gentleman, I am sure I have not been so unfor- tunate with ibo rest of the House. Now, what more? The hon. geuttumun knows tbut, in the first place, the Govern- ment of Canada hod agreed to a commission to ascertain whfttthiM right* were. Wonld we i «ree to » ocmuiaaion to aaoerUin whether a foot of land n Canadian territory was oora or belonged to some one eh ) 7 The hon. gentle- man knowa that we would not. fiat we did agree to thia commission. My hon. friend flrom Bothwell (Mr. Milla) seemed a little while ago to be somewhat restive as to whether there was any doubt at all on this sabieot. A great many members in this House will recollect that, when the Treaty of Washington had been arranged, that hon. gentleman moved in this House that, before the Halifax Commission should sit, the doubts respecting our geographical limits shouli' first be settled. I am not saying that I did not agroe with him, but I say that at that time the question was not raised properly, and I opposed bim, and I gave my reasons for so opposing him. If yon look at the debates of that date, you will find, in the statements made by my right hon. friend the loader of the Government and those of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, that the desire was expressed that these doubts, which undoubtedly did exist, should be set at rest, but we did not think the timo opportune before the sitting of that Halifax Commission. When we changed sides, and the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) sat on this side of the House, with the hon. mem- ber (Mr. Blake) who, I regret to know, is no longer able to lead that side of the House, after having pressed upon us the vital importance of having this questiiu settled before tho Halifax Commission sat, they forgot all about it. When they had to deal with the responsibilities of office, and to discharge the duties which rest upon Ministers of tho Crown, they agreed with U3 that it was not desirable to raifc tho question before the sitting of the Halifax Commission, and they have allowed it to sleep until now. I um frank to say that the plenipotentiariea now have made concessions on this question. Mr.MITOHBLL. Hear, hear. Sir OHABliBS TUPPESL. The hoq, gentleman says " hear, hear," but did he ever hear of any two nations, or of any two individuals, who had a diffloully or controversy between them, going into an arrangement to havo it amic- ably settled and adjusted without both sides giving way in some d> j,'ree or other ? I think the very spirit and policy of this Commission which was proposed, was to ascertain, to settle and to remove these doubts, and 1 say, when we met these gentlemen and they proposed to us this ten mile limit, and said: If yon give up the extreme contention that no ba^, however broad its mouth, can be entered by an American fisherman, we will agree to take the ten mile limit, and when they met us further and said that, in addi- tion to that they would take up and consider the qaestion of any special oays we thought ought not to be open to foreigners, then we took this question up, as we were bound to take it up, and found a solution ny mutual con- cession. Instead of giving into their contention that they oonld go into the Bale des Chaleurs within three miles of the shore, we made a treaty by which they cannot enter the Baie des Chaleurs at all. And the hon. ffentieman kmows that the Miramichi Bay, anda num- ber of other bays that we. consider of vital impbrtanoe to be kept free fron any kind of introsion, have been conceded to us. We met them in a spirit of mutual concession. I havo no hesitation in saying that I believe tbut when we parted, and long before we patted, we were animated by the conviction that we owed it to the countries wo repreaented, by mutual conoessions, as far as could possibly be done, to find such a solution as would settle these questions that have disturbed the intercourse and threatened the peace of the two great- est English-speaking nations of the world, on the best terms that we could possibly find. 15 Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Will as the meaning of article 6 ? ■« '^» .1< Sir CHARLES TUPPER. If the hon. gentleman nill po8M» bis Bonl in patience for a little while, I will try to do BO. Wliitt is article 5 7 If the hon. gentleman haa it in his hands, perhaps he will read it Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). " Article v.— Nothing In thig treaty ihkll be eonitraed to inelnde within the oommon waters any auoh interior portiont of any bayi, oreeka, or barbora as cannot be reached from the sea without paisfnir within the three marine milei mentioned in Article I of the Oonrention of Ustober '<0, 1818." Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I am obliged to my hon. friend for his question, and I will 'give nim a most ex- plicit and, I am qaito sare, a satisfactory answer. I hold the delineation ot a uuv in my hands. It is imaginary, it is trae, hot it is none .'he leas jast what you may meet with at the mouth of acy Lay xhis bay is fifteen miles from mainland to mainland and vet under the instructions of my hon. friend from Nov^bumberland (Mr. Mitchell) not to go within three miles ot' the shore, they could not get into that bay. Why? Because there are islands in the mouth of the bay, and the island carries its three miles of marine jurisdiction etretohed around it, the same as the mainland. I will send it over to my hon. friend to show h'm just what that article means, and the reason why it was necessary, in order to provide for a possible contingency by which a bay being fifteen miles wicie, they could not got into it now. I said : Ton do not propose by that ten-mile arrangement to enter a bay that yon could not enter nnder the sis-mile arrangement, do yon ? Certainly not. Then I gave them tblM delineation, and that clause was put in the treaty for 'he pur- pose of giving effect to it, and to prevent giving any possible uncertainty. Now, Sir, as I said before, we were met in a L>i\;ad and liberal spirit, and I think the sentiment that animated us on both sides was that we owed it to each other and to the countries we represented, not to quarrel over points that could be satisfaotorilv wijiuted, and (hat if it were possible to find a solution that would be equitable to both countries and advantageoua to all, it was bur duty to find that solution, and to agree upon terms that we could honorably ask Great Britain on the one side, and the United States on the other, and Canada, to accept, as a great improvement upon the existing condition of things. There- fore, as I said, we made the concession, not of any thing that has been enforced practically by Canada, bat the abstract risht to exclude from bays that wdre more than six miles wide. It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair. After Recess. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. Before passing away entirely from the subject of delimitation, to which I drew the atten- tion of the IIouso for some time, I would like to say that in addition to the donbts which have been admitted on all sides to exist and required to becetatrest, theGtovernment of the United States bad a very strong standing ground, a very strong p:>sitioo, in the delimitation which was adopted by what was called the North Sea convention, a convention between Her Britannic Majesty, the German Emperor, the King of Prussia, the ICing of the Belgians, the King of Denmark, the President of the French Repablio, and the King of the Netherlands, regulating the North Sea fisheries. This convention was signed at The Hague on the 6th May, 1882 ; and if, upon a deliberate review of the bays from which foreign vessels should be exoloded. tbeae powers kdoptad the prinoipU of liniitiag thftt wrtuHM to )mj$ ihtt the hon. gentleman te'l were less than ten miles in width, you can readily see the strong position the Government of the United States would have in claiming that the delimitation should have some regard to the international policy of these great countries that had been dealing with a precisely similar question. Article 2 of the convention says : "The flihermen ot each oonatrr shall enjoy the excluaire right to flsb within a disUnee of three miles from low water maric, " The three marine miles mentioned in Article 1 of the Oonrention of October 20, 1818, shall be measured seaward from low water mark ; but at erery bay, creek or harbor, not otherwise ipecitlly provided for in this treaty, such three marine miles shall be measured seaward from a straight line drawn across the bay, creek or harbor in the part nearest the entrance at the first point where the width does not eiceed tea marine .Ules." As I have said before, to accept the dolimit.ition, io accept as the jariBdictional waters of Cunadu fVom which foreigners shall be excluded, the ten-milo limit as proposed by the Government of the United Stales, was ti> stand not only upon tbe ground that a good deal of doubt and hesitation seem to have been exhibited by Uer MnjoHiy's Government and the Government of Canada in dealing with that sub- ject, but they had in addition the precedent of the Hague convention, where all the great powers to which I have referred, after careful examination and deliberation, de- cided that the fishermen of all countries should be at liberty to come into any waters where the bay was more than ten* miles wide at the mouth. When we accepted this ten mile delimitation, which was all that appears to have been aimed at by any Canadian Government, the extreme limit that any person bad proposed as a matter of delimitation, we made it a condition of the acceptance of that restriction that certain bays should bo exempt from its operation, and although 1 have not furni8hod hon. geiiUoiucn o|)poHite with a chart on which those delimitations are markeJ by myself, as I thought it would hardly do to do that, it will be seen by the examination of such representations as have been given on this subject, that the exceptions which the plenipotentiaries of the United States were willing to concede have left us very small ground for complaint, although I fk'ankly state it was a concession made by the plenipotentiaries of Her Majesty for the purpose of arriving at a common ground on which we could solve the difficulties with which this.question was surrounded. Our concessions did not stop there. I am quite ready to admit, and I think it might as well be stated in the outset, that the Canadian Government would find it, I would find it, quite as diflicult as our friends the plenipotentiaries of the United States would find it, to justify this treaty if it was to be examined in the light of the extreme contentions maintained on both sides previously. I need not inform the House that in diplomatic intercourse it is customary, it is right for the representatives of a Government to state the strongest and most advanced ground that they possibly can sustain in relation to every question, and I would not like, I confess, to be tried before the House by the ground taken by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The ground they took was quite right ; they were authorised by the strict terms of the treaty in takine the strong ground they did ; they would have failed in tneir duty to this House and to this country if, called upon to deal with this question as a mat- ter of diplomatic intercourse and discussion between the Government of the United States and of Canada, they had not taken the extreme contention that the literal terms of the Treaty of 1818 would warrant. They did their duty in adopting that couree ; but when it comes to a question of oonterence, to a question of international discussion for tho purpose of ascertaining whether between the extreme con- tention on the one side and the extreme contention on the other, any standing ground may be found on which the two partiw OMf moot km settle « dupato of gre»t intorsfttioul 16 difilonlty by mntn*! oonoeulon, th« cue is entirely altered, and the respoDsibility lesting upon the plenipotentiaries ot any oonntry would be very great if they reftised to consider fair and reasonable concessionB on the one side and to meet them by fair and reasonable oonoessions on the other. So that I nave no hesitation in saying that, dealing with this ffreat question in that spirit, dealing with a question that M of vital importance to the British Empire, of vital importance to the Government of Great iJritain, who were oonstantly threatened with embarraesment and sorioas diffioaltiea and colliition with the groat coantry to the sooth of UE, a question, too, of grc ai ma^nituiJo to the United States of America, a question uf still greater nugnilude,in myjudg- ment, to the people of Ctvoada, ouo on which wo had more at Btakeand more to lose in a groat struggle of that kind than either of the groat couutiios to whicli I have referred — I Bay looking al Uio qucslion in that broad and national spirit, looking at it with a det-iro to remove tlio poH'ibiiity of what I consider would bo the greatCHt misfi)iauno th:it could hap- pen to tho civilised world — a colli»ion between tho two great Eiigl|sh-.-.poiikiiig nations — looking al it from that broad stardpoint, it would have boon ciirainal on my part and on tho part of tho.ie who ro])rcsontod Her Majesty's Government ai\d tho interests of tho people of (Janada, if they hud not endeavored, by mitkiiig fair and reason- able concoHxioDB, to find a common ground that would present a solution of tho^o important and Korious questions, thiit might enable a treaty to bo formulated and accepted as a just and equitable eiottlement upon both side-i. As I have said, our concoi^sions did not rest at tho delimita- tion. We come now to tho nozt portion of the treaty, and that is tho treatment of American fishermen within our waters, I tru^t I have oxplainol article 6 to tho satisfaction of the hon. member for JJothwi.ll (Mr. Mills), and tho other articles immediately following refer to the mode of delimi- tation and do not require any special remarks from me. Article 9 says: " Nothing in till treaty ahall interrupt or itfiect the free naTigatlon of the Strait of Oanso by flMug vetiela of the United Statei." I may explain to the House that that was not a surrender of British intereuts or Canadian interests al the dictation or at the request of the pleripotentiaries of the United States. That clause was inserted in the treaty by ourselvca, and for this reason : That the rale for the delimitation which was adoptod, tho ton-milo rulo, would have nccostiarily excluded, if wo look in Chcdubuc'o Bay, which wo did take in by making tbodelimiiaion, a-* hon. gentlemen will see, not from one side of tho main land of tho bay to tho other, which would have opened it to the United Stales, but from tho island between ; by that delimitation the United States wonld have been (hut out altogether from passing through the Strait of Cant^o bccauso they could not have gone into Chedabucto Bay, and therefore they asked that Chedabncto Bay should be excluded from tho delimitation, which made it an eiclnsive bay, in order to prevent their being shut out of the navigation of the Straits of Oanso. Well, Sir, under those circnmhtanccs we met that by providing nothing new. We provided cimply that nothing in this treaty should in- terrupt the free navigation of the Straits of Canso, as pre- Tionsly enjojcd by fishing vessels to which we oonfinod it, and in that way we avoided making an exception of Cheda- bncto Bay, which is the entrance from the Atlantic side to the Straits of Canso. Article 10 provides : "That United Statei fijhing Teiieli entering the baya or harbon referred to in Article I of this treaty ahall conform to harbor tegula- tiona eommoD to them and to fiihing reiiela of Canada or Newfound- land." I do not think that requires any reference on my part because it speaks for itself, and it simplv provides that iriaUirw harbor regaktioas thwa are in roroe tbo fiahiog Teasels shall be obliged to oonform to tbsm. Article 10 further provides : "They need not report, enter, or elear, wlien putting into neh ban or bubort for shelter or repairing damages, nor when putting into toe lame, ouuide the limit* oi eitablTihed porta of entry, for the purpote of purehaaing wood or of obtaining water ; except that any aneb Teaael remalaiDg more than twenty.fonr hours, exoluaire of Snndaya and legal holldaya, within any aoch port, or eommonicating with the ahore there- in, may be requiteil to report, enter, or clear; and no Teiiel ahall be excnaed hereby from glTing due information to boarding offlcert." I may say. Sir, with reference to this, that a great deal was made of the apparent injustice of subjecting fishing vessels obliged to put in for humane purposes, snob as vessels in distress and vessels under stress of weather to rigor- ous restrictions. A great deal was made of tho difficul- ties that wore thrown in thoir way, und the obstructions that wore placed apparently by Canada, in tha wav of their exorciHiog and enjoy, ag those privilogOH that the Treaty of 1818 clearly and distinctly provided they should enjoy. I think. Sir, that this House and tho people of this country will agree with mo that it was not undesirable in the interehts of good neighborhood, in tbo interests of the good reputation of Canada for humane und friondly coneidera- tion to fishing vessels obliged to put into our ports for shelter, and OBpocially where thoy had under the treaty a right to come in under such circumsluncos, that we should remove any obstructions or hindrances that lay in their way. It was urged, on tho other hand, that in the Utiited States our fishir>g vohsoIs were not treated with the same strin- gency that those vessels were which under treaty right are permitted to come into our wuors for those four purposes, and evidenco was placed before the conference to show that in the port of Portland the course pursued was a more liberal couree than the stringent regulatiunr> which had been used in Canada. The collector of that port who had boon collector for 30 years was examined and gave bis tes- timony OS to the treatment of the Dominion vessels in the United States waters. He was asked : " During the time yon hare been depaty collector, whether or not, there have been numernna caaes of Domlaion vegaela, including veaaela engaged in fishing in that part, and if they failed to report, though lying more than twenty-four hours, have penaltiea been imposed for iuoh failure during the term of your aerrice l " His answer was, as I remember: "If there were any inatanc^s of Domiuion Te^sela fitillDg to report when lying more than tnrenty-four hours, their presence has besn otrer- lookeil by the port officers. I do uot recall from metnoTy a aingle Instance when or where a penalty was Imposed, and I find no record of any such payments in the accountg of this office." Under those circumstances wo folt that we might fairly allow vessels that had i.aaifb ontBti, pruriiiooi and I It was represuotod that a fisherman coming in by dIatreRB or by stress cf wi'Qther w .s oompollud to take a pilot or was subject to the charge lor a pilot and that this was felt to be very oloiuus while the tact is that onr own fishermen were prauticuliy fioe from auy such pilotage regalations and it was thercfoio a ooDooBt>ioa to remove the pilotage dues. I admit it was a ooncebsioo to relieve them from the charge of pilotage. It was a case in which in my jadgment " the play was not worth the candle," and the money that woald be obtained io- pilotage was very small, while it would create a most nnpleoHani impression abroad if it were andorstood that while giving them the shelter the treaty oompelled un to give them, we took the opportunity to force apon them a charge for pilotage that they did not require and which they thought uuDOoessary, Ur. MlTo'HELL. Are not vessels under a certain siae exempted from pilotage, Sir Oharles ? Sir CHARLKSTUPPER. Undo) 80 tons they are exempt. As my hon, frionci knows our fishermen are pilots them- aelves, and they do not require to pay, and this was practi- cally putting their fishermen upon the same footing as our own fishermen in regard to this charge. Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. Sir CHARLES TU PPBR. And the same regulation, we were informed, was the practice in the ports of the United States. At all events we believed that that was not a very great concession to make. Mr. MITCHELL. It is not much. Sir CHARLES TUPPEB. My hon. friend !s right ; it is not much. I think he will quite agree with me it wa<4 too amall a matter to quarrel over — too small a matter to be a question of a breach between two uationa. Mr. MITCHELL. would be satisfied. If yoa did nothing more than that we Sir OHARLES TUPPER. At the same time i.. was a contention, and it was a conoession for the purpose of meet- ing them half way as far as we were able, and whioi: we were glad to bo able to do. The article further says :^ " They sball not b« liable la tuok bayi or harbon for oompulaorr Silotage ; nor, when thertin for the purpoie of shelter, of repairing amages, of purchasing wood, or ot obtaining water, ihalltbef be liable for harbor dnei, tonnag* duej, buo; da«a, Itght dnea, or other similar dnet; but thii enameration shall not permit other ehargei inaonsiatent With the enjojment of the Ubertiei raserred or tecored ej the Ooavaa- Uon of uctober iO, 1818. " The troth is that although there appears to ^be a consider- able concession in that, it does not amount to much from the fact that we have no light dues. In Newfoundland where they have rather heavy light dues it is a much more Mrions concession than it is in Canada, but Mr; Winter, the sble Attorney Seneral of Newfoundland, whose adviee and assistance we had throughout these negotiations, felt that that was a concession wbivh the island of Newfoundland would not object to alihongh they would lose something in the way of light duos. Now, Sir, article 1 1 provides t " United States fiihlng reaaela eataring the ports, htjt and hMbori of 8w eaitaru atnd aorth-eaitern aoaati of Canada or of the eoaau of swfcnndland ander atreit ef weather or other tainaltr aaj nnload, anppliea damaged or lost br disaater ; anil io eaaa of deaik ur sick- neai shall be allowed all naedful faoililisa, including the abtpping of erawi. " I do not think, Sir, I shall have to take much time in satis- fying this Hoi. .e tliat, although this is b very considerable and important concession, and although we 'ci-e not com- poMed, in my Judgment, under a strict literal interpretation of thu Treaty of 18 18 to make it, yet it was a wise and in Jiuious concession to make. Wbtt would be thought of Canada if an American, or a United States fishing vessel — I do not like to use the word American, because I think it is a term we have as much right to as onr neighbors ; I prefer to speak of thorn as the people of the United States, and our- selves as Canadians, and when I speak of the whole continent of America, I do not hesitate to apply the term American to the people of both Canada and t.Se United States— but what would be thought of Canada if i^ vessel of the United States, loaded with fresh maekerel or fii h of any other description, were driven by strei-s of wea her, and perhaps in a sinking condition and oompelled to 'esort to a Canadian port, and if, instead of allowing her to tranship her cargo or sell it on paying the duty and go upon a warine slip for repairs, we said : No, you must throw ovei board the whole of your cargo, because we find you are not allowed to bring your fish into CunaJa 7 Mr. MITCHELL. Do yov. not r^fase a vessel that privilege ? Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I say that under the Treaty ot 1818, we could refuse. Under the strict interpretation of that treaty, they had no right to unload their cargo and tranship or sell it ; but what I say is that in making thia conoession — it is an undoubted concession — we were only acting from the dictates of humanity and with a due regard to the credit and reputation of our country all over the world. Mr. MITCHELL. But I ask the question, did yon not refuse it in one case Y Sir CHARLES TUPPER. No, I did not refuse. Mr. MITCHELL. You would not, I know; you are too warm-hearted. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. If my hon. friend really wants a frank answer— and he knows how frank I desire to be on all these occasions — I will tell him. We said ; Under this treaty you have no right to do it, but we will allow you to do it when the application was made ; but, we said 1 mast not be regarded as a precedent, but it is a conces- sion, and in attempting to reach a settlement of these questions there must be concessions on both sides. Artiola 11 further provides: <* Lieanaei to pnrabaie la eatabliahed ports of entry of the aforesaid eoasta of Canada or ot Newfoan<*)and, for the homeward Tojage, such proTiaiOBa and anppliea as are oruinarUy aold to trading Teaaela, ahall oe granted to United Htaue flahing ressela In snch ports promptlr npon application and without eharge, and auoh Teasels, baring obtained licenaes in the manner aforesaid, shall also be accorded npon all occa- sions such facilitiea for the purchaae of eaaual or needful provislona and supplies as are ordinarily granud to trading vesse'is ; but proTi- aiuna or supplies shall not be obtained bj battel, nor parohased for re- sale or traqo." That was another concession. There is no doubt at all, Sir, that these were rights which under the strict terms of the Treaty of 1818 they could not demand, nor could they insist npon them being granted ; but at the same time I think I am within the judgment of the House on both sides, when I say that in the case of a vessel which is homeward bound and requires provisions or naedtul sappUes to take her home, if, for instanee, «he has tome of her rigging carried away, or lome of her salt muhed overboard, and is obliged to loss II her vo/agto picuoiifi form that tho momont you nee tho vo.ssel yoii will I{Dmw that it is an American fishing vessel. That will enable you lo invt'stigato hor chnractop and poniiion and evci'ything about her. Allhi.nyb I have soon th(i Cto''iTn- mont of tho United States voiy sovoioly oriticisod for sub- jocliiisf th(i,>-o voH^uls to such an indignity, 1 do not ro^'ard it ill tiKit lii^bt at all. It is purely a raattor of husinesa bot>non tho iwo countries for tho purpose of facilitating tho reccL'iiiliou of VixiHuis, and thus making it much easier to (loil wirh any question th;.t may ai-iso in relation to hor; and as y" i will know eviry ve^fnel to which yuu have given a lii'.eiiHi!. ilio moment yua see avossol,you will know whe- ther she hiis a license or not. This metsure gicos you an oppoilunity of iJciiUlyiii;^' a vo-^.-icl, and protociii^g your fisliirg (^i(«unds much more ottocuially than jou could do wiihoul il. Article li jtrovidoh: "The penalt'es for unlawfully fiihinp; in the waters, haya, creelcs, and hurb'.rs, referred to in article 1 of this treaty, may extend to for- feiture of the lioat or vessel ami Appurtenances, and also of the aupplies and eargo Kb ird wlien ibe off-iice whs coiumitted j anj for preparing in such wat rs to unlawfully liih therein, penalties shall be fixed by the court, not to exceed those for unlawfully fishing." That is to say, if you are able lo o.slablihh a charj^o against tho vessel ot unlawfully preparing to tish, the coQit may in its jniigmont fbifoii tho vessel, but a discretion is ieU with tlie uourt, which it had not boloro, of imposing a comparatively much lighter penalty than the forfeit uv of iho vessol. 1 do not think anybody will quos- tion tho wisdom ot dealing with this quu»tion as wo have done. Wo have left tho ))onalty for unhiwtully fishing to extend to tho forfeiture of tho vessel and everything appor- tainitjg to hor. I think the Hou-uiitiaries of the United States stated thoy were quite "nahlo lo put anything in the treaty that would necessarily loufh the fiscal policy of their country. They said that to do so would be simply to invite rejection of the treaty, on tho ground that they bad infringed the jurib^diction which Confjcros- possessed, the United Stales Congress having, as 1 have shown tho House, adopted, in the most emphatic form, tho policy not to allow any changes in their tariff except by the act of Congress itself. We therefore put this in the contingent clause. We provide absolutely for the concessions that havo been made with reference to delimitation, and with roferonoe to the treatment of United Status fishing ve^sols, wheneom- pelled to resort to our ports in distress or in need of casual supplies or for a homeward voyage. All those were mado absolute by the treaty ; but when it came to that which is of great value to the United States fishermen, whea it oame to i u « « 19 i V that which enables the United States flghermen to make Oan- ad.iabot-isof supplies for the purpose of better eorapcting with onr own fishermen, wo Ihen'tolt that wo had a right to take oar stand, and if Her Majeety'it plenipotoitisrio-i Hove not been able tOKnpport the extreme oontention of tho Canudiaa Government hon.i^eutlumen will And that, on the other hand, the plenipotentiaries of the United States, who had, oh a matter of diplomatic intercourse, taken a very Htrom; ground as to the indefeasible rights of Amoricaa fishing ▼eseels to obtain, in our ports, as commercial vesHuls, what- ever supplies they required for carrying on their fishing— to be able to purchase bait, to be able to purchase suppTiei* of every kind and to be able to tranship their tixh — thoy will find that our Irieods on the other side had, in the Hame way, to concede a great deal as compared with the extreme contention that they bad made. Here it i» provided, &» a just and proper security to the interests of the flohermon of Canada, who have the right, while oscladed by liouvy datics from the markets o' the United States, to such protection as thu Treaty of 1' 8 has ])rovidcd for them, that whenever thoquohiion Arises as Vi Canada doing made the bn^is of supply t')r the American deep sea tiMhing vohsoIs — be the Dominion of Canada and New- foundland." "And upon such remoral of duties, and while the aforesaid article! are allowed to be brouiiht into the United States by Britibh subjects, withnut duty being reimposed thereon, the privilege of entering the ports, bays and harbors of the aforesaid coasts of Canada and of Newfoan>tland Shall be accorded to United 6tates fiuhing vessels by annual licenses, free of charge, fur '.he fallowing purposes, namely *'l. The purchase inppliea and outfits; '1. The purchase of providions, bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other ' i. Transhipment ofcatch, for transport by any means of conveyance; "3 Hhippiug of crews. " ijupplirs ehall not be obtained by barter, butbaitmay be so obtained. "The like privile<{e9 shall be continued or given to hshing Teasels of Canaia aud of Newfoundland on the Atlantic coasts of the United States." I think that is n mcaHiiro which will meet with the hearty approval of tho Honso. I think that will bo regarded OH a lair htkI ruaHoniiblo propuHiiion, that, if fishing vesdols of the United State.s are allowed to make Canuil.i a biiHu for obtaining thoir eiipplies and fu'nieh- ih^ uil ilio niulcriaJH ncce»Hury for the riuttit of a fish- ing voyai;o, fir tho tn;n»lii()mont ot their catch, and makiny oiii- h.'U'liors and jioi'tf llio moaM'i of currying on thoir iiidu^'try, tho tish'.'rma:! of Uanuda, with whom they aro in that ca-ro better able to uorapete than they could othorwirto, arc niititlod to ha^rrt thoir tish onterud fruo in the ports of the United States. While the plenipotentiaries of the Uuituii Slates were not able to make this an absolute pro- vision, 1 do not hesitate to Hay that I look confidently to tho pjriotl in tho not remote future whon ti-^b will be made free and tho fishermen of tho Unitod ijuttot will be able to obiuin all the ailvantagos in our ports whuih are here given to them. It will bo observed that wo have made this much larger in its provisions than either the Rooiprocity Treaty of 1»54 or tho VVttihingion Treaty of trill, inasmuch as wo have made it cover mtiny places which were not covered by either uf those treaties, and not only that, but we have taken care to guarl against what might bo called tho rather sharp practice, if such a term were admissible in regard to a neighboring country, that, while allowing our fish to come in free, they should impose a doty upon the cans or tins or coverings in which the flah were inoladed. !Iore than that, we have made this cover all the inland waters of Canada, as well as the sea coast, and have made this provision as to tho entry of free fish, provided they take advantage of this clause and make Canada the base of their supplies, apply to the fish of British Colombia, that is, to tho whole of Canada, the sama as it does to tho Atlantic caast. I think I have now dealt with tho treaty in its entirely as it st^tmU, and I have only to refer to the moilus vinendi in Sohodiilo M, which provides that, while this treaty is sub jwlice. b.ifom it mm hn ratiiiod by the Senate of the Unitrd Stnti'H, thu Ptirliamont of Canada and the Legislature ()f No'.vfoiindlsnd, during two years or pending that ratificitiion, until thoNO privilogus to which the American fishermen would b pot- ton, I need not toll you that, on tho evo of the rntifieatlon of a treaty of this kind by the Sonato ol tho UiiileJ Statts, a collision between tho fi^llerl^on of tho two countrios or anything which would incite bad blond or become a cause of prejudice would probably prevent tho rntifieatlon of a treaty which would bo other wIho rati Bod, and to prevent that we offered in this modui I'ictmdi for two years tho privilege to thrhO Unitod States firthermon of obtaining these various bonoSts which iiro proviuod for ir the treaty l)y the payment of i\,^0 por ton. I do not think this will be regarded as an oxcLSsivit lato, iinl 1 thick it will greatly conduce to good neighborhood heiweon tho United Stales and Canada. This moihis vii'mdi was accepted by the Unitod States plonipotoniiarioH in liio most kindly spirit. They recommended tho Pi-osidoni to submit it to the Senate for their information, and I think I may fcny that it carries on the face of it tho approval of the Governments ot both coii.itrics. Now, having referred to the various provisions of tho trcK.y, I am happy to say that I shall have to detain tho llonin but u fow minutes longer, bat I would like to draw tho attention of the House to what has been aecomplishod by this treaty. I have told you what position Canada stood in with regard to the United States ot America before thu initiation of these proceedings. I have told yo\i lln.i. wo stood face to face with an enactment which had boon put on the Statute- book by a unanimous vote of Conf^ros , niiit'ied by tho President, providing for non-inlercour.-*o luuween the United States and Canada. I need not tell you that thai Bill meant commercial war, that it meant not only llio oniinury sus- pension of friendly feeling and inturc.miso bjlwoon two countries, bat that it involved much more than that. If that liill had been brought into opetMiioii by the procla- mation of tho President of tho United SLiilos, [ hiivo no hesitation ill saying that wo stood in ihv) relaiiin to that great country of commercial w.'ir, and iho lino m very narrow which separates a commoruiul wur l)oiwoon two countries from an actual war. cipoukiiiir a year ago, I pointed out in my remarks, with a view to prevent Iho pos- sibility ot such an Act going iulo foroo, ull tho ttilvuntages that in our present position we could avail oursnivos of to protect ourselves against such an unfriendly uci on tao part of the United Slates. 1 said then that it woulil bo a mad aot. I say BO now. No man who knows anyihini; of tho inlimato commercial relations which e'lisi huiwoen Cana la and the United States could contemplate suoli an Aet going into operation without feeling that it would teai' up from the fouodaiioa th >so tatimaie social and coinuoroi^tl relations which exist between these two countries, whieh, in friendly commercial rivalry, are making rapid progress which has attracted the attention of the civilised world. It would produce a condiiinn of things iho onl of which no man could foresee. If that Act had been udopted, we had no means ot lookiug to any increaaod com- 80 mercial intercourse between that great coantrjr and the Domioion of Canada. Under thoae ciroumataucee, it behoved the Government of Canada to adopt any means in ita power to avert Huob u diHastor, which, great as it wonid have been to Cauada, would have been still greater to the United States. But it would be a very poor compen- ■ation e negotiations. But, Sir, that is not the posi- tion. Let tho Senate of the United States to-morrow reject this treaty, I trust they will not do so; I have a hope that there is independent statebmansbip enough in the great Kepahlican purty of the United States who have the power at their dit>posal to-day in the United States Senate to allow that sentiment of patriotism to oveiweigh the party advantages they might tiope to ol)taiu by preventing the present Administration ircm bettlibg this vexed question — out when they lerLember that for 70 years, these questions Lave been agitated tvhicb are now disposed of, they may see that if thoy should tome into | ower ihemsehes at any early date it would be t;ri auvaMugo to have this ve«ed question between the two great Erglich-speaking nations of the world sot at rest, thnt tlere may be no renewal of the difficulties which have existea so long a time. But let me take the very worst contingency, that cf the rejection of this treaty, and bow do we stand r Why, Sir, let me read from a letter of the Secretary of State of the United States, written to the citizens of Boston, who invited him to go there to deliver a speech upon tho treaty. In Mr. Bayard's letter, of 26th March, he says: " I sm conTinred that th« welfare and tru« intcptt ofour couatrj and a juat and wiic trraUnrnt of tb* Briti.'b Anwrioan populalioD oo our northern frooUer alike couoiel th« adoptioD o> tho treaty, la its iDitlaliou, Qegotiatiou and coocluaiuo I can truly aajr fur mj awuoiatff, and Dijielf, uo Tiewi but thoie uf a lingle mlmled patrlutic intent hafe been allowed place or eipreHlon, nor can a trace or lUftKeitioaof parti- laniblp be Jnitly alleKed. The lole aad difficult quetliuo to wbick the treat; relates, the iiabery riiibta, c( one nation iu the ivriidigtioairi watcra o< anutter, beKxn with the firat dnwn of our recugniaed Indepen- dent exiatence a* a nation and ever aince baa coneplriioaaiy presented itaeir at interTalieieilios bitter oootroT*ra]r, and never beea latitfae- tory or pre-emioentij diapuied of Heaowbile the aurruundiog circuaii> tancea oaTe iniportautl; cbanxed In advance wiih ropid and raat growth. The Treatj of 1818 remains unsfTected In its terms by aerentj years of such material prof teas and deTelopmeot on this continent, as we uf to-day are the witnesaes. IJnleas the Treaty of 18:8shall be wholly abrogated and recurrence nectuarily had to the dnngproua status that John QalDcy Adams ao ably but u:iaTailably dlDru'trd with the Bar! ot Bathirst, In 181S, and which bad resisted all t-Sorts of negoliatioa and at Qbeat in the year rreTiuua, it is manifest tbai a joint and equltabl* eonslructioD in consonance with their eziating relationi and mutual needs must be agreed upua between Oreat Britain and the Cnited Btatet and this, 1 aiBrm, is done by the present treaty." Again he says i ■■ Oonciliation and mutual Deiihborly concessions hare togetberdon* their honorable and honest wnrlc in this treaty, pared the way for the relationi of enmity and matual adraotage." Now, Sir, 1 ui-k yon whether all the time, all the trouble cxpenried in this matter in not amply compensated for by the declaration of the Secretary of State of the United States bearing his tribute and his testimuny to this Treaty as a fair, equitable and just interpretation of the Treaty of ISli'-. And what more, Sir ? Let me road from the Message of the President of the United States : " As a result of such negotiations, a treaty has been asreed npoo between Her Britannic Majesty and tb* United St«,i the lapse of time the difficulty and obscurity have only in- creasen ■> Ne iations in 18t!4, and again in 1871, ended In both cases In temp( .,- reciprocal arrangement ot the tariffs of Canada and New- foundland and of the Dnited IStates, and of the payment of the money award by tke United States. Under which the real qacstions in differ- ence remain nnsettled, in abeyance, and ready to present tbemaelves anew just as soon as the conventional arrangements were abrogated. " The sitoation, therefore, remained unimproved by the results of the Treaty of 1871, and a grave uoadition of affairs, presenting almost Iden- tically the same fea'.ures and causes of complaiut by the United States against Osnadlan action and British default in its correction, eenfroited us in Hay, 186'/, and has continued until the present time. " The four viurposes tor which our fishermen under the Treaty of 1818 wereall(>w>j to enter the bays and harbors of Canada and Newfound- land within the belt of three marine miles are placed under a fair and liberal construction, and their enjoyment secured wiihoot such con- di'.':./oa and lestrictions as in the past have ambarrused and obstructed t^em so seriously. " 'I he enforcement of penalties for fishing or prepariag to fish within the inshore and exclusive waters of Canada and Newfoundland is to bs accomplished nrder safeipiards against oppressive or arbitrary action, thus protecting the defendant fiabeiman from punishment In adTonce of trial, delays, and inconvenience and nnnt^eessary expense, *' The hospitality secured for our vessels in all cases of actual distiei^ with liberty to unload and sell and tranship their oargoes, ii tail and liberal. " These provisions will secure the substantial enjoyment of the treaty rights for our fiahermen under the Treaty of 1818, for the contention hu been steadily made in the correapondenee of the Department of tttats, and by our Minisur at London, and by the American negotiators of the present treaty. " The treaty now submitted te you baa been framed In a spirit of Ubaial equity and raaiptocal benefiu, ia tbs eonvietionyhat mntoal ' ■* 21 'I r I" •dTtnUga •nd Mnrtaixne* an tke onlj parmurat raandktlon ol peao* •■d Mtodibip bttweta Btalci, and tb«i with lh« kdqptioo of th* tr«»tj now placed b«fur« tht Htnate, k b«airi»i, to necure liindlj and paacefal relviont dur nil the pailod that mt) be required for the ooniideratloa of Iha treaty by the mpectlre Clorernnvute aid for tbo enactment of tba naeetaary laKiilatiun to otrry it4 nrorltiont intoaSVct if approrad. " Tbli paper, trariy and on their own motion, ilgned by the Britlih oonfereat, not only txieud adrautitKea to our liib'-rnirn, peodlntt the ralifieatlon of the treaty, but Kppean to have bean dictated oy a Iriendly and amloabla iplrit." I ask yoa to ootitratt that language with the po-tilion we oocupied a year ago in refrurd to the great Rrpoblio to the south of as. Let theSeonto rejuot the treaty to-morrow, and I aak what ia the changed position of Canada 7 Yes- terday we atood face to fao<^ with a Non-interconrae Bill, aoHtaioed by the anited action of tho Senate and Honse of BeprerentatiTOH, t-UHtained hy almost the whole press, Aepablioan and Democratic, of the United States, sastained with few escoptioDs by a prejudiced, irritated and exasper- ated people of tO,000,OJO lying on our borders. What, I repeat, is our position to day 7 Ii that treaty were rejected by the Senate to morrow, we have sained this "antage around, that we stand in the po->ltton of hsving it declared by the Secretary of State of the United Stataa and by the P/psidont of the United States that Canada haabeen ready to make, and that Her Majesty's O.wernment on be- half of Canada, through her plenipotentiaries, have made an arrangement with the plenipotentiaries of the United States that is fair, just and equitab o, and that leaves that country no possible cause of complaint. What is the result? The result will bo this : that let a fisherman com- plain to-morrow of our interpretation of the treaty, of the enforcement of our most extreme construulion of the treaty, the answer to him is this : Nobody is to blame for the in- convenience you suffer except the Senate of the United States, Tour President, the Executive of your country ; the Democratic party from end to end of the United States, de- clared it was a fair settlement. Thoy represent an undoubted majority, in ray judgment, of the people of the United States to-day, and I believe they will repreuoDt it to-morrow. We stand in the position that instead of being alone with the whole United States, President, Government and people ■11 against us, all denouncing us as adopting a harsh and barbarous interpretation of an old, antiquated treaty for the purpose of forcing reciprocity upon them, we occupy the ▼antflge ground of having these men oat of their own months declaring that nothing has been wanting on the part of the Government of Her Majesty, or on the part of the Dominion of Canada to place this question on a fair and equitable basis such as might honorably be accepted by the United States. I hold wo have accomplished that without injuring in the slightest degree the fish- eries of Canada, without ininring Canadian interests to any extent whatever. We liave made conces- sions, as I have said, but we have made tbom with the avowed object of placing all our people, not only the fishermen, but the agrioulturi^tt, the lumberman, every man in this country in a better relation with the United States than he was before. What is the result 7 As I have said Mr. Bayard told as, the American plenipotentiaries tuld us that there was but one way of obtaining what we wished. Ton want greater freedom of commercial intercourse. Ton want relaxation in our tariff arrangements with re- spect to natural products in which you ate so rich and abundant There is but one way to obtain it. Let us by common concession be able to meet on common ground and remove this irritating cause of difilcnly be- tween the two countries out of the way, and you will find that the policy of this Ch)T«mm«nt, the polioy of the Pre- sident and of the House of Representative", the polioy of the great Duraooratin party of the United Sates, will at onoe tako an onward mHi-ch in tho din-ctioii you pro- pose, ard aocomptiHh stoudily that whii-h you would aeHiro, Ih tho only wuy by wh uh it cm evi r bo attained. ThOHo Wore nut empty wmN, iho-te woro tlio sober ntteranrc^ of dihtinKulMhi'd »iiut'.«moi', who pointed to the uvowod polioy of tho Oovti-nmont of tho United States »H the boHt avidonci' ui' iho rtinceriiy of what ihey r-aid. Wtiat hits happened nlreuiiy 7 Alrca'ly wo h.ivo nctlDn by the flnan' i»l ••xponent '1' tho A liii iii-.trBlion (if tho United Stii'os 1 meun Vlr. MilU- -iho^'(Mit!nm >n who in the United State!) Coi^rOHM ropt'onont-) Iho tJoveinmoni. of tho Uay, ond standi in the poHJtion moHt ana'o^ouH in tho United States to tho finance MintHtor in thi^ llouso, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Moans, who propounds the polioy of the Administration in the Uoune. How is he delected 7 Tho Democratic party nustaining the Government Holocts a man as Spoalcer of the House of Representatives, who is in accord with the polioy of the Administration for the time being, and Mr CarliHle, the Spea- ker ot the HouHe of Representatives, nominates the Chair- man of the Committee of WayH and MeanH and all the mem- bers of the committee, and therefo/e tho Chairman of that committee occupies the position of representing the Govern- ment in bringing foiward such Bills as will reproHont the views and sentiments ol the Domorratic party in the United States supporting the Adninlstration, What have we seen 7 The ink is barely dry upon this treaty bifore ho, as the representative of the Govornmont and Chairman of the Com- mittee of Ways and Means, brings forward a meisuro to do what 7 Why, to make free articles that Canada sends into the United States, and upon which last year $1,800,000 of duty Wits paid. Some hon. MEMBERS. Wo paid i* Sir CHARLES TUPPBR I asif, Sir, if that is nothing. Some hon. MEVIBBRS. Who paid 7 Sir CHARLES TUPPER, I do nut intend to insult both tho groat politieal partioH of IhiM country w)io have since 18&4 and long befoio maintained tbut tho iutoiosts ot Can- ada—the inter-^-its of Bi-iiish Nurih Americii— wore inlira- tttely bound up in obtaining free inlercourr ; with tho United States for our natural products— 1 do not Intend to insult the two great parties in this country by tolling them that thoy were fools, that they did not know wbiit thoy were doing. Down to the present hour wo have adopted the policy on both sides of the House, and wo have pledged ourselves to the people to do everything that lay in our power to obtain a free market for the natural products of our country with tho United States, and I say you must answer mo tho question as to whether that waa an act of supreme iolly or whether it was wise states- manship on the part of both parties in this country to adopt that policy, before you ask me such a question as " who pays the duty ?" 1 say that under this Bill which has been introduced and which, I believe. Will pass, for it does not require two-thirds of tho Senate where tho Republican majority is only one in tho whole House to pass this Bill, it requires a majority of one only and I am vory sanguine that this Bill will pass during tho present session. Moditiod i' may bo, but I am inclined to think tho amendmunts will be still more in the interests of Canada than as the Bill stands to-day. If this is the case I think wo may congratulate ourselves upon securing the free admission of our lumber, upon which was paid during the last year no loss than f 1,316,450. On copper ore mado free by the Mills' Bill wo paid, or theie was paid— to make it meet tho views of the hon. gentlemen opposite more correctly — 196,945. Uu Mlt |21,01<2 duty wm |>aiil, ThJH in rondurod frvu by tho Milli' Bill. I am M>rry lo Hnd iin I hnpod w<)dM bu Ihn ouxo from tbo 6rMl (V)|)y oftbo Hill that uikmo tn mo that |i(ilu- tow wore not incliidod amonuHt vuttutublc <. I am Hoiry to tirnl there i* adnubi, tt!i to whotncr thu toim ' vft(utiibleti noi Hpccielly cnamerato I " will not oii<'!iido (iDiutoiK. In ^ruppling with thiH uolioy of making tlio tittturnl pi(Klii('t< of the two countri.'H Vroe, yuu do notoxpiot any |)or^ol) who waritM lo carry aBill tu put a liouviei loul upon biich 'uidorn than he ia able to carry, liMt hu raity broulc down und In notbinff. You oipoct him to take it in dutuil, und as I believe, you will find tho policy uontained in thiH filll of making thono natural pro^luctH ul Canada Irco, carried out until you bavo perfect freedom ot intorenurHo between the natural product* of Canada and the United Stateiiof America, Ot wool we ttent latil year 1,3 1!),30U Iba. of one kind, and a variety of other kindx, upon which a duty was paid to the extent ot 11*^3,85.2, Now an I nay on articles of prime importance and inloreat to Canada ibo removal of doty by the Milln' Bill amount* to no Ich* tban |l,H00,193. Tou will be (;lad to bear that I do not intend to detain the Hoaiie any longer. In diHi^hargo of the dulio-i — the very onerous and important dutie* — of one of ll.'r Majesty'* plenipotentiarieH at that coiiforonoo, I have *tcare- KcntHti .-0 ot thu Government (in Canada, nor can my (iiftniuore It) ibo Trualy nuuuiwarily impi^ the approval and tu^piio't of t'V n thu riovcrnment of Cunuidu. I occupied ou thai occSr Mion tlio poHitiuu of one of llor Majuoty's plunip^tentia I i<"<, charged not only with thd roN|»