British North America. So long ago as 1783 a treaty was made between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of the United States at Paris. Article 3 of that treaty provided:

"It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy, unmolested, the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at time heretofore to fish; and also, that the inhabitants of the United States shall have the liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island), and also on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but as soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to cure or dry fish at such settlement, without a previous arrangement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of the ground."

Now, I need not say to the House that the concession made to the people of the United States to enjoy, in common with British subjects, the fisheries of this country, was a treaty of a very extraordinary and abnormal character. I need not remind the House that the Treaty of Ghent, which was made between Great Britain and the United States at the termination of the war of 1812, is found to be entirely silent upon this subject, for the reason that the Government of Great Britain had arrived at the conclusion that it was impossible to permit the continuance of such an unwarranted 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 1783. The Government of the United States took the ground

that the treaty was not affected by the war. 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 concede 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 on the principle that they had maintained-the principle which has come to be recognised throughout the world, that a war abrogates all treaties, and especially treaties of that character-asserted their rights in these territorial waters of British North America, and proceeded to seize fishermen of the United States for trespassing in these waters. The result of that course was the treaty of 1818, in which this question was again considered by the two Governments, and may I call attention to the terms of the principal article of that treaty, so far as the fisheries are concerned :

"Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbours, creeks of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America, it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have, for ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Ramea Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland; from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands; on the shores of the Magdalen Islands; and also on the coasts, bays, harbours and creeks, from Mount Joli, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northward, indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty, for ever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours and

W

creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground; and the United States hereby renounce, for ever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in Canada not included within the above-mentioned limits Provided, however, That the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them."

Now, Sir, that treaty, which was made between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of the United States seventy years ago, has been the cause of constantly recurring irritation and difficulty between the two countries; and I need not remind the House that no portions of Her Majesty's Dominions have been so vitally and deeply interested in that question as those now known as the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland. This treaty is very striking in two particulars. It gives the same territorial advantages, but to a very limited extent, over a certain portion of the Island of Newfoundland and what is now known as Canada, to the Government of the United States as were given under the treaty of 1783, and in return-for that unparalleled concession by any Government of one country to another -was secured the formal renunciation on the part of the Government of the United States of the liberty of their fishermen to enter on any other portion of the jurisdictional waters of what was then known as British North America

of

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