except for four specified purposes. Even the privileges enjoyed under those four specified purposes were distinctly declared to be subject to their use in such a manner as in no way to abuse the privileges thus granted. The adoption of this treaty was followed by the passage of laws on the part of the Imperial Government and also of the British North American Provinces for the purpose of giving it effect. Of course, although the treaty distinctly laid down the International law as between the two countries, special legislation was requisite in order to provide a means for carrying that treaty out and for enforcing its provisions on the part of Great Britain and on the part of British North America. The exclusion of the United States fishermen from the fishing grounds of British North America led again to collision and difficulty. Seizures were made. The old difficulties that had existed before the formation of the treaty were again called into activity by the presence of United States fishermen in our waters, and by the measures which were taken, especially by Great Britain, for the purpose of protecting the rights of the inhabitants of British North America. The result of these difficulties was the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. The firm stand taken by Her Majesty's Government, the firm position taken to protect the undoubted rights of her subjects in British North America, led to the adoption, in 1854, of what is known as the Reciprocity Treatya treaty which for twelve years removed all difficulties in connection with this question. On that occasion there was no attempt to limit, define, or interpret the points that had been raised in the controversy between the two countries, but they received their quietus, and all difficulties were removed for the time by the adoption of a policy of giving to the Provinces of British North America and Newfoundland certain commercial privileges by which the trade between this country and the United States was extended.

I may say that I took the opportunity, when deliver

ing my speech on the financial condition of the country a year ago, to draw the attention of the House to the results of that treaty, and I will just call the attention of the House for one moment to a single extract in that speech, in which I referred to the trade results of what is known as the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. It will be found that the United States, during those twelve years, from 1854 to 1866, exported to British North America home products to the extent of $300,808,370 and foreign products to the extent of $62,379,718, the total exports to British North America being $363,188,088. The imports from the British Provinces into the United States during that period amounted to $267,612,131, showing a balance during the twelve years in favour of the United States of $95,575,957. That is to say, that they sent under the operation of that treaty into the British North American Provinces over $95,000,000 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 favour of British North America, and not equally in favour of the United States.

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 the result of the 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 further expansion of trade to the United States in relation to British North America. I am glad, after spending some three months at 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 opportunities of discussing this question with them, and that the result is that I did not find one statesman in the United States who expressed his satisfaction with the termination of that treaty. I believe the general

expression in that country is that, commercially, it was a mistake to have terminated that treaty, and that it would have been infinitely better for the United States and for Canada if it had been continued. That treaty was not abrogated on commercial grounds. It was not in consequence of any commercial reasons that the abrogation took place, but it was, as is well known, in consequence of an unhappy 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 a very great reason to question the soundness of that opinion. Although from the nature and position of our country, being neutral territory, advantage was taken of it by the Southerners, by those who were engaged in carrying on that war from the South, to make Canada a basis of operations, the Government of Canada never showed the slightest favour, 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. I scarcely know of any aid being given to the South, while we know that at this moment the Government of the United States are paying a large sum of money to persons who were British subjects then and are British subjects now, in Canada, for their services during that war. Taking that as the best test that the country can show as to where its sympathies were, as far as the most substantial and important kind of aid could be found, it will be seen that British North America rendered a great deal more support and assistance to the North than to the South. Now, I may say that the treaty of 1854 removed for twelve years all these difficulties, but, unfortunately, from the causes to which I have alluded I believe to a large extent, a misapprehen

sion of the true facts of the case led to that treaty being abrogated. Both parties in this country, both parties in the various provinces-because it was before 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 abrogated, to endeavour to have it or something equivalent to it restored at as early a period as possible. But those efforts were unsuccessful, and then, and while these efforts were being continued, as hon. gentlemen opposite know, Canada resorted to a system of licences to prevent too sharp an interference with the long-accustomed habit of United States fishermen of fishing in the waters of British North America. We adopted a mode of endeavouring to prevent collision and difficulty. While there might be any hope of our being able to settle this question by a recurrence to something like the treaty of 1854, every effort was made by the adoption of licences to remove irritation and prevent collision of every kind, in order to favour, as far as possible, the solution of the question in that way; but ultimately 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 very seriously interfered with, they had a right to demand at the hands of the Government and the Parliament of Canada that measures should be taken for the protection of the rights which they undoubtedly enjoyed, and which, under the treaty of 1818, had been settled in what one would suppose was as clear and concise and emphatic a manner as it was possible for any question to be settled. The result was that seizures were again made, and the American fishermen, encroaching upon the waters of British North America, found themselves again in difficulties. 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 have thought of the manner in which my right hon. friend on my left was attacked in this House and out of it, in connection 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 public man in Canada but was ready to do everything possible to maintain and continue that very treaty. On that occasion, as hon. gentlemen know, 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 privileges which their fishermen were anxious to enjoy in the waters of Canada, such an expansion of commercial intercourse 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; and when the treaty was presented for consideration to this House, I remember well when hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House felt it their duty to criticise very severely that treaty, and we were compelled, in self-defence, to say something in its support. I remember very well appealing to hon. gentlemen opposite, as I shall appeal to them to-day, not to press the Government unduly to show to Parliament and to show to the country the advantages that were obtained by the Washington Treaty of 1871. One of the conditions of the treaty was that an International arbitration should take place at Halifax for the purpose of ascertaining the greater value of the fisheries of Canada to the people of the United States over and above the remission of the duty on fish and the corresponding right to fish in their waters so as to arrive at the amount that 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