home market. Earlier experiences of Canadian statesmen showed the futility of efforts to induce the United States to negotiate an equitable reciprocity agreement. Our tariff, while ensuring reasonable protection for all our people, has never had the almost restricted character of the American fiscal system.

It was a great day for the Dominion when the people rejected the Taft-Fielding reciprocity agreement, for under the radical revision of the United States tariff Canada, without giving any equivalent, will reap enormous advantages. As a people we have demonstrated to the world our ability to develop along national lines. Who is there that does not recall with pride the attitude of Canada at the time of the enforcement of the McKinley tariff, many of the clauses of which were specifically aimed at our common country?

The following quotations from my speech in the Dominion Parliament in February, 1870, throw some light upon the origin of the National Policy.

"But this country is so geographically situated, and so varied in its produced and natural resources, that nature has placed it in our power to protect ourselves by a policy not retaliatory or vindictive, but by a national policy which shall encourage the industries of this country. By proper attention to the development of our resources we shall have an interchange of products, and in two years I believe we shall be utterly indifferent as to whether we have a treaty or not.

"I would ask whether the policy which will bring the people into the country, which will stimulate every industry in the Dominion, is not one

that is worthy of the attention of this House, irrespective and regardless altogether of its effect upon the United States; and I have no hesitation in saying that under the effects of a policy such as this that would restore greater prosperity in this country than we had under reciprocity, we shall not need to go to other countries nor to the United States for a renewal of reciprocity or improved trade relations, because they will be coming and seeking it at our hands.

"Is it not worth while to try and see how far we may increase these native enterprises, and give prosperity to the country by adopting a policy which will meet the unfair opposition by which the Canadian manufacturer is met from other countries?

"My honourable friend the Secretary for the Provinces has relieved his mind to some extent, but I may tell him that this Canadian policy-this national policy-this rational policy-will stimulate the enterprise of all the provinces, and will aid in and assist in building up this great Dominion. And I may further tell the honourable gentleman that so friendly is Nova Scotia to this policy of building up our own interests that there has not been one single newspaper out of the eleven newspapers published in Halifax that has raised any objection to it, and some have come out warmly in its support."

CHAPTER IX

THE NATIONAL EVOLUTION OF CANADA

THE national evolution of Canada in its diplomatic position has undergone many important changes during the past thirty years. The Canadian Government in 1879, having appointed Sir A. T. Galt High Commissioner for Canada in London, applied to Her Majesty's Government to have him appointed Commissioner where treaties were being negotiated in which Canada was interested.

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, then Secretary of State, in a dispatch to Lord Lorne, said:

"In reply I have to inform you that it is not thought desirable to appoint a Canadian Commissioner to take part in the negotiation of any treaty, but if your Government desire to send a person enjoying their confidence to advise with Her Majesty's Government, or with the British Ambassador, on any questions that may arise during the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government will be happy to give attention to his representations."

Having been appointed to succeed Sir A. T. Galt, I took up the question with Lord Derby, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and with the assistance of Lord Fitzmaurice, who was then Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office, and of the late Sir C. M. Kennedy, then at the head of the Commercial

Department of that office, I obtained for Canada the right to negotiate commercial treaties with foreign countries. The Foreign Office sent a letter, dated July 26th, 1884, containing the following extract:

"If the Spanish Government are favourably disposed, the full power for these negotiations will be given to Sir Robert Morier and Sir Charles Tupper jointly. The actual negotiations would probably be conducted by Sir Charles Tupper, but the Convention, if concluded, must be signed by both plenipotentiaries."

In 1892-3 I negotiated in this manner, in conjunction with the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, a commercial treaty between France and Canada.

The first and only time that a Canadian representative took a position independent of Great Britain was at the International Congress for the protection of submarine cables held at Paris in 1883. Twenty-five Powers were represented. I attended for the Dominion, and at one session, when an important point was being discussed, I voted against all my British colleagues. The next day Sir Charles Kennedy, one of the British delegates, asked for a reconsideration of the question. This was agreed to, and the British delegation voted as I did, having in the meantime consulted the Foreign Office.

"We were all of the same opinion as yourself at the first discussion, but voted in accordance with the views of Lord Lyons, the British Ambassador," Sir Charles Kennedy remarked to me afterwards.

In 1868, as I have already narrated in an

earlier chapter, as a delegate of the Canadian Government I succeeded in inducing the Right Hon. Colonel Stanley, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to concur in the views of the Canadian Government as to the protection of our Atlantic coast fisheries. That was the year following the action of the United States in denouncing the Elgin Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. Our first step was to double the licence for fishing in our waters, and to seize their vessels for violation of the law. This vindication of our rights resulted in the treaty of 1871, which allowed the free entry of our fish into the United States, and provided for an international arbitration.

After hearing the evidence, the arbitrators awarded to Canada about five hundred thousand dollars annually as compensation for the fish caught in Canadian waters by United States fishermen. When, in 1883, this treaty was abrogated by the United States, Canada had no alternative but to protect her rights under the treaty of 1818. The result was a hue and cry throughout the United States. The Republican and Democratic Press joined in denunciation of Canada for its alleged cruelty to their fishermen.

When the Hon. T. F. Bayard was Secretary of State I visited him in 1887 in Washington at his request, to discuss the relations of the two countries. He met me with the frank declaration :

'Well, Sir Charles, the confederation of Canada and the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway have brought us face to face with a nation, and we may as well discuss public questions from that point of view."