was entirely uncalled for. Well, Sir, I then took the opportunity of drawing the attention of this House at some little length to the position in which we stood in relation to that Non-intercourse Act. I said 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 be founded on an entire misapprehension of what the position of Canada was in relation to this question. I was very severely criticised-if not by hon. gentlemen opposite, who are always extremely indulgent to me by the Press representing them, for that speech. It was stated to be a very offensive speech, and to have a tone that was calculated to be extremely irritating to the Government 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 non-intercourse would be a very good thing for Canada. Well, Sir, as I dare say you 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 can read the speech I delivered on that occasion and find any foundation whatever for any such statement. I 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 -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 mercy of our neighbours to the south of us as we should otherwise have been. I pointed out that the construction 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: "Deeply as we would deplore so mad and so unjustifiable an act on the part of a great country like this great Republic of the United States adopting such a barbarous policy as that of non-intercourse with a friendly power, we stand in the proud position of knowing that if that policy were adopted to-morrow, we have perfected our own lines of communication, and have the most complete means of communication from the furthest and most remote section of our country down to the sea.” I think, Sir, that that was calculated to show that we had to a certain extent protected ourselves from the ruinous position we should have been placed in if we had not those means of inter-communication; and I do not think that was inviting non-intercourse or intimating that it was a policy of which I approved. I said further: "Non-intercourse would not be an unmixed evil. I would deeply deplore any interruption of the commercial relations which exist between this country and the United States, but I cannot forget that, if the policy of non-intercourse were adopted, it would lead to the development of those channels of communication between ourselves." In another place I said: "While I earnestly hope no such policy will be adopted." I thus call attention for a moment in passing to the language I then used in order to show that I was not guilty of the supreme folly that I would have been guilty of if I had spoken of non-intercourse between sixty millions of people of the United States of America and five millions on this side of the line as anything but what every intelligent Canadian would deplore, as I think every intelligent American ought to deplore it. But, Sir, I will just say that this speech does not seem to have been attended with very unpleasant results that some people in this country feared, who thought it adopted too defiant a tone for a small people like the people of Canada, and was calculated to exasperate our neighbours 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, that instead of having any reason to suppose that I had been guilty of an indiscreet act in making the references which I felt, as a member of this House, I was bound to make in dealing with the position in which the country 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 objection to mentioning that it was Mr. Wiman-at an early day after this speech was delivered, intimated to me that he had had a long conversation with the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Bayard, and that that gentleman had said that he would be very glad to have an opportunity of discussing the mutual relations of Canada and the United States with either my right hon. friend the Premier of Canada or myself. I brought that statement under the notice of His Excellency the Governor-General and my right hon. friend; and as it was quite impossible 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 the House will be able to gather what the effect of that conversation was when I refer to the result. It was on May 21st 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 in which he filled the high function of Secre tary of State, and showed also his appreciation of the importance of maintaining the most friendly commercial relations with Canada. I am relieved, however, from any violation of secrecy in regard to that interview in view of the correspondence which occurred. Mr. Bayard told me that he would repeat our conversation to the President of the United States, and would communicate to me the result at an early day. On May 31st I received a letter with which hon. gentlemen are all familiar. I will not trouble the House with reading the whole of it; but it is necessary, in order to give a proper view of the basis of the conference from which this treaty has resulted, that I should draw the attention of the House to some of the remarks made by Mr. Bayard in that letter.* The result you know. I will read, in order to place the House in full possession of the exact state of affairs, an extract from Mr. Bayard's to Mr. Phelps, the American Minister in London: "The visit here of Sir Charles Tupper, on behalf of the Canadian Government, was received with cordiality, and expressions were exchanged with a mutual desire for the settlement of all existing difficulties, and for the increased freedom of commercial intercourse between the United States and Canada. In consequence of the statement made by Sir Charles Tupper on the occasion referred to, I wrote him a personal and unofficial letter on May 31st, and received on June 10th his reply, and copies of this correspondence were duly sent to you. Yesterday, Sir Lionel West handed me, without comment, the following copy of a telegram to him from Lord Salisbury: 'If the Secretary of State will formally propose the appointment of a commission as suggested by him in his correspondence with Sir Charles Tupper, Her Majesty's Government will agree with great pleasure. 'SALISBURY.' "And I have just telegraphed you to the following effect: * This correspondence is printed in extenso in chap. ix of this volume. |