HC Deb 18 May 1866 vol 183 cc1151-78
MR. WATKIN

rose for the purpose of calling attention to the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty. He said, it was with considerable pain that he felt compelled, although a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, to believe that on one of the most important questions that had claimed the attention of the Foreign Department for years, not only had the action of Her Majesty's Government been characterized by great negligence, but it had also been marked by the absence of that faculty which induced men of business to look ahead. He thought also that the House had not been fairly dealt with, because the information which ought to have been furnished to hon. Members had, he believed, been withheld. Government appeared to forget that while Cabinets were not held in much reverence, how much soever distinguished individual Members of them might be and were, across the Atlantic, the opinion of the House of Commons was invariably regarded with attention and respect. The debates of that House, whenever devoted to the discussion of questions affecting America, were invariably published in full by the American press, and they were universally read and criticized. They influenced public opinion as the expressions of British public opinion; hence it was that, in the absence of all information from the Government, he had venture to invite the House to consider this question, involving, as it did, those relations of commerce and of friendship which men of all parties in that House were anxious to preserve between the great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race. Were any other reason required, he should find a still further excuse for bringing it forward upon the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the news that arrived in this country only the previous day, that a fleet of sixteen vessels, among which were the Miontonomah and the Dunberberg, which were regarded by many naval men, not in the United States alone, as the most powerful ironclads afloat, was to be sent to the fisheries. It could not be necessary to send that enormous armament to preserve the peace among the fishermen, and therefore any person reading such an account unaccompanied by any explanation from Her Majesty's Ministers would be led to believe that the question was one of a far more serious character than they had been led to suppose. Probably every hon. Member recollected that before the treaty was made in 1854, very serious difficulties were continually arising from the conflict of right between the fishermen of the respective countries. Lord Clarendon then stated distinctly that Her Majesty's Government felt the difficulty to be one of so grave a character as to require the services of no less able a man as Plenipotentiary than Lord Elgin. On the 27th of June, 1854, Lord Clarendon said, in the House of Lords, in answer to a question put by Lord Fitzwilliam— It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the return of Lord Elgin to Canada afforded an opportunity which ought not to be neglected of endeavouring to settle those numerous questions which for years past have been embarrassing the two Governments. One of those questions, especially that relating to the fisheries, has given rise to annually increasing causes of contention, and has sometimes threatened collisions, which, I believe, have only been averted for the last two years by the firmness and moderation of Sir George Seymour and the British and American naval commanders, and by that spirit of friendship and forbearance which has always characterized the officers of both navies. But my Lords, your Lordships are aware that there are other questions which have given rise to embarrassing discussion between the Governments of the two countries—questions which involve the commercial relations of our North American possessions with the United States, and that those questions which involve very divergent interests, have become so complicated as to render their solution a matter of extreme difficulty."—[3 Hansard, exxxiv. 730.] And he added— I trust, therefore, that nothing will occur to mar the completion of this great work which, I firmly believe, more than any other event of recent times, will contribute to remove all differences between two countries whose similarity of language and affinity of race, whose enterprize and industry ought to unite them in the bonds of cordial friendship and to perpetuate feelings of mutual confidence and good will."—[3 Hansard, cxxxiv. 731.] On the same occasion all the noble Lords who spoke agreed as to the vast importance and value of the treaty, but Lord Derby, in doing so, added the following caution:— He was afraid that, if we had to consult the colonies with respect to a treaty with a foreign country, the effect would be that on such questions the colonies would be independent."—[3 Hansard, cxxxiv. 732.] The House would remark that in 1854 the services of the ablest of our negotiators, no less a man than the Governor General of British North America, who was armed with plenary powers, were called into special requisition. He had, however, of course to avail himself of provincial advice and aid, but he himself undertook the serious responsibility. In 1866 the Government, so far as they had enabled the House to know, did nothing until the exigency compelled certain gentlemen from the provinces to take up the subject for themselves and to go to Washington some six weeks only before the treaty came to an end. Proceeding to consider the Reciprocity Treaty itself, he said it might be described under four heads. It permitted in the first place free trade in the produce of the soil, the forest, and the mine, all customs regulations being abolished in that respect on both sides; the fisheries on the coast and the tributaries running into the ocean were thrown open to the fishermen of both countries; the navigation on Luke Michigan and of the St. Lawrence from Lake Ontario to the ocean was free to both; and lastly, the Americans were free to float their timber down the river St. John. In addition to these provisions two Acts were in existence passed by Congress in 1845, called the Bonding Acts, by virtue of which the Canadians, shut out from using their ports in consequence of the severe winters during five months of the year, might transmit their merchandise in bond through the States by the ports of America. In order to show what the treaty had clone, he observed that the trade between the States and the British North American provinces had increased from 20,000,000 dollars per annum in 1853 to 68,000,000 dollars in 1864; and during the whole period of the treaty, the trade between the United States and the British provinces had amounted to £100,000,000 sterling, the balance of trade being £10,000,000 in favour of the United States. So great, indeed, had the trade between the British provinces and the United States become, that it was only second to the trade between the States and England herself. It was three and a half times greater than the trade between the United States and China or Brazil; three times larger than the trade of the States with Mexico; two and a half times greater than the trade with Hamburg and Bremen, notwithstanding the direct lines of steamers; and two and a quarter times greater than the trade with France itself. But its reciprocal operation over so wide an area led to a singular balance of exchanges of the same article. He would cite the case of coal. Pennsyl- vania supplied about 170,000 tons of coal a year to Upper Canada, while Nova Scotia, 1,000 miles apart, supplied 200,000 tons to the Eastern and Atlantic States of the Union. The Western States sent their wheat and flour into parts of Canada, while Canada supplied some of the Eastern States with the same articles, and New York and Boston sent similar supplies to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Americans had no doubt benefited largely by the arrangement with regard to the fisheries. One of their principal trades was the mackerel fisheries. In 1852 they had only 250 vessels engaged, but under the operation of the treaty they had now 600; and while they had only 2,700 men engaged before the treaty, they had now 9,000. The total value of the catch during the year 1852 was 850,000 dollars; but during 1864, it amounted to 4,500,000 dollars. If he wanted to describe what had been the operation of the treaty, what had been its intentions, and what had been its moral obligations, he could not do so better than by quoting a few terse words which appeared in a letter written by the hon. Member for Birmingham to Mr. Aspinall, of Detroit, during the sitting of the convention held in that city in July last, on the Reciprocity Treaty. Mr. Bright, writing to Mr. Aspinall, said— The project of your convention gives me great pleasure. I hope it will lead to a renewal of commercial intercourse with the British North American provinces, for it will be a miserable thing if, because they are in connection with the British Crown, and you acknowledge as your Chief Magistrate your President at Washington, there should not be a commercial intercourse between them and you, as tree as if you were one people, living under one Government. It was held, too, by some distinguished men in the United States that the fisheries were essential to preserve their naval position. One able American in official position had recently stated that if his country was ever to secure naval supremacy, it must be either by encouraging its fisheries or by absorbing the British maritime provinces. But above and beyond mere physical and material benefits appeared the moral good in peace, friendliness, and good neighbourhood borne along by the treaty. It had, in fact, fulfilled all the anticipations of Lord Elgin and Mr. Marcy. That being the position of affairs, he had at various times endeavoured to induce Her Majesty's Government to give some information upon the subject. In May, 1864, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs asserted in reply to his question that no negotiations were in progress with respect to the Reciprocity Treaty. Inquiring in February, 1865, for any papers in the possession of the Government of a later date than 1861, he was told that none existed. That, he regretted to say, was an answer common to the Treasury Bench, and by no means creditable to it. Lord Palmerston, at about the same time, of course informed by the hon. Gentleman, made a similar declaration to the hon. Member for Radnorshire; and after a most diligent search he had been unable to learn of the presentation to Parliament of more than two papers touching the question—the one giving a letter from which he should quote, the other being the notice from the American Government of its intention to terminate the treaty, and a brief acknowledgment of the receipt of the notice. Thus it happened that a treaty which had been negotiated by Lord Elgin, and had resulted in extraordinary benefits to both the British possessions and the United States, had been allowed to come to an end without a single opportunity having been afforded to the British Parliament to offer its opinion upon the subject, or to press upon the American Government and people the policy and justice of a renewal of so beneficent a compact. The Government could not excuse itself on the ground that it had been taken by surprise in the matter. The question had been under discussion during the last five years, both in the States, in the provinces, and at home. In 1861 the Chamber of Commerce of New York called especial attention to the subject, and Congress referred it to the "Committee on Commerce," and that Committee reported in 1862 in favour of an extended treaty, and its Chairman (Mr. Ward) reported resolutions for a joint Commission in 1864; and in the following year the matter was fully discussed in both Houses of Parliament in Canada. Then, on the 23rd of November, 1864, Mr. Adams, echoing a despatch from Mr. Seward, wrote a letter to Earl Russell upon the subject, and he would read the following extract:— The welfare and prosperity of the neighbouring British provinces are as sincerely desired on its part (the United States) as they can be by Great Britain. In a practical sense, they are sources of wealth and influence for the one country only in a less degree than for the other, though the jurisdiction appertain only to the latter. That this is the sincere conviction of my Government has been proved by its consent to enter into relations of reciprocal free commerce with them almost as intimate as those which prevail between the several States of the Union themselves. Thus far the disposition has been to remain content with those relations under any and all circumstances, and that disposition will doubtless continue, provided always that the amity be reciprocated and that the peace and harmony on the border, indispensable to its existence, be firmly secured. The fulfilment of that obligation must be, however, as your Lordship cannot fail to perceive at a glance, the essential and paramount condition of the preservation of the compact. Even were my Government to profess its satisfaction with less, it must be apparent that by the very force of circumstances peace could scarcely be expected to continue long in a region where no adequate security should be afforded to the inhabitants against mutual aggression and reprisal. From the year 1861 to the 23rd of November, 1864, there appeared every disposition on the part of the United States to negotiate a treaty; indeed, they seemed to be in advance of England in their desire to establish relations similar to those then existing. On the 17th of March, 1865, however, notice was given to put an end to the treaty. In the month of July of the same year, a convention was held at Detroit, at which delegates from the Western and Eastern States attended; and, after many days of anxious and serious discussion, they passed a resolution requesting the President of the United States to enter into negotiations with the Government of Great Britain, with a view to the execution of a treaty between the two countries for reciprocal commercial intercourse which should be just and equitable to all parties, including the free navigation of the St. Lawrence river, and the making of such improvements in the river and the canals as would render them adequate for the requirements of the West in communicating with the ocean. Here was again an opportunity for the commencement of friendly negotiations, but there did not appear to have been any attempt to take advantage of it. The next happened when the Government of the United States delegated to Mr. Derby, of Boston, the duty of reporting upon the treaty, and when the Revenue Commission of the United States presented their report upon the subject. Both reports, while admitting that it was discreet to give notice that the treaty would terminate, contained strong recommendations to re-establish international and commercial relations on a broader basis, and observed that it would be impolitic on the part of the United States, to decline the consideration of propositions with that end in view, seeing that such, a course would be in entire opposition to the spirit of the age, the liberality of the American people, and the policy of reducing their debt by rapidly developing their resources. Six weeks only before the termination of the treaty, deputations from Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia attended in Washington and discussed the subject with what was called the Committee of Ways and Means, which consisted for the most part of the chief Protectionists of the United States, but the negotiation failed entirely in its endeavour to effect the object in view. A majority of the Committee decided that they would not accept a treaty with Canada except upon such terms as would practically have excluded the great bulk of the Canadian products from the markets of the United States. The delegates from the British provinces, with a view to overcome the difficulties in their way, proposed to agree that whatever internal taxes might be put upon particular articles, the same should be imposed upon similar com modifies imported from the British provinces, so that no favours should be ex tended which were not enjoyed by the people of the United States. They also proposed to retain the free navigation of the lakes and rivers, that goods should be passed from one district to another in bond. The negotiations, however, were a failure. The delegates from the British provinces then drew up a report, and presented it to Sir Frederick Bruce, informing him of the result of their endeavours, stating the propositions they had made and those made in return, Sir Frederick entirely concurring in the course they had pursued, though he, unfortunately tinder the circumstances, could do nothing He would now inquire whether Her Majesty's Government had any excuse for not negotiating. He might, however, be told that the Government could not take cognizance of matters of public notoriety, and that they could only act upon official documents. Well, on the 19th of February, 1865, the Executive Council of Canada passed a minute, which he was sure was sent to the British Government, and which could not have been thought of so little importance as to allow of its being thrown into a pigeon-hole and lost sight of. That minute stated that the recent proceedings of the Congress of the United States with respect to the Reciprocity Treaty had excited the deepest concern among the people, those proceedings having as their avowed object the abrogation of the treaty at the earliest moment. A very practical request was then made, his Excellency being asked to induce our Government to institute negotiations for the renewal of the treaty, with such modifications as might be mutually agreed to before notice was given. The fear was also stated that the notice for the termination of the treaty, if once given, would not be revoked; and the desire was expressed that the matter might be brought under the immediate notice of Her Majesty's Government. Here, then, was a direct official representation from an important dependency, sent through no less a person than the Governor General to Her Majesty's Government; but, notwithstanding that, no negotiations based upon it were entered into. He was, therefore, bound to ask what Her Majesty's Government had done in the matter during the period from 1862 to 1865; and this suggested a further question—namely, which Department of the Government is it, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, or the Board of Trade, which has charge of these vast and important relations subsisting between this country and the United States? Would any hon. or right hon. Member on the Treasury Bench get up and say that he was responsible for the future, if not for the past, so that the House might be assured that somebody had charge of these questions? The House had not been supplied with any papers in regard to the treaty in question, although it concerned a trade of £13,000,000 annually. He asked, what had the Foreign Office been doing? Why negotiating, and with what results every one knew and many deplored, about Poland and Denmark. Between the years 1862 and 1864, negotiations were entered into by Her Majesty's Government with regard to Denmark and Poland, and no fewer than 369 papers were printed and laid on the table relating to Denmark, and 170 relating to Poland. A reply might be made to this statement that Her Majesty's Government were most anxious to preserve their relations with the United States, and were ready to negotiate at any moment, but that the temper of the United States during the recent struggle in that country rendered such a course impossible. He would, however, meet that issue with a distinct denial, being supported in that denial by personal knowledge. Beginning with the year, ever to be remembered, when Her Majesty's eldest son went across the Atlantic in the latter portion of 1860, down to the 23rd of November, 1864, there was never a week, certainly never a month, during which it would not have been possible, if proper means had been taken, to initiate negotiations which would probably have led to a satisfactory settlement of the question. To show that the Government of the United States were disposed to deal with difficult international questions, notwithstanding the war in which they were engaged, it was only necessary to mention the manner in which it dealt with the treaties as to the slave trade on the coast of Africa, negotiated in 1862 and 1863. That involved a question which had been agitated in vain for a quarter of a century. Yet the United States Government had met the wishes of this country, and after negotiation had made, and the Senate had confirmed, a treaty disposing for ever of the question of the right of search. If further evidence were required in regard to this treaty, he would quote from the speech of a Member of the House of Re-presentatives of the United States, and whose words on matters of fact could be relied upon. Mr. Brooks, on the 14th of March, 1866, stated that— He did not believe there would have been thirty votes obtained in this House last year for the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty with Canada; but on the explicit understanding that some sort of reciprocity in trade would be forthwith reestablished, either through the treaty-making power, or through the legislative power of the Government, he had voted for its abrogation under a high sense of duty. The people of the United States were ground down by the internal revenue taxation, and he had not felt at liberty to let the Reciprocity Treaty stand, without being at liberty to make some sort of bargain with the people of Canada, that whatever our internal revenues might be, the same would be levied, either by them or by us, on our imports from them. What he complained of especially was, not merely that the opportunities of making better arrangements with the United States had been lost, and, in his opinion, most culpably, but that the indifference which Her Majesty's Government had shown, and their entire want of apparent care for the interests of the provinces, had led to a feeling in the minds of many persons in the United States that this country would not much object to the doctrine of annexation being put in practice. The American Government was com- monly spoken of as a Government of the majority, but anybody who had studied the Constitution of the United States knew that there was no country in the world where the influence of a small but active minority was so unmistakably felt. By the course which Her Majesty's Government had taken the annexationist and protectionist parties in the United States, small minorities as they were, had been fanned into importance. And the result was seen, among other things, in the language held by the United States Consul, at Montreal, in the Convention assembled at Detroit in 1865—the very Convention to which the hon. Member for Birmingham wrote. Mr. Consul Potter, who told the Convention that he was authorized by his own Government to attend and express his views, said— I believe I express the general feeling of those who are the most friendly to the United States, in Canada, when I say that it is not the policy of our Government, or our policy, to continue this treaty, and I believe that in two years from the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty the people of Canada themselves will apply for admission to the United States. The Consul also quoted a letter which he had received from Mr. O. S. Wood, an American citizen, of Montreal, who stated that all the friends of the Western States there would rejoice to submit to temporary inconvenience and loss for the purpose of preventing the renewal of the treaty, knowing that such a renewal would be the only effectual check on the annexation movement, and that the renewal would be one of the greatest political blunders on the part of the United States. Mr. O. S. Wood was the manager of the Montreal Telegraph Company, and that position he was compelled by public opinion to resign; but in the case of Mr. Potter, the United States Consul, who attended the Conference and made these statements, ostensibly on the part of his own Government, no steps whatever appeared to have been taken, and no remonstrances, as far as he could learn, had proceeded from Her Majesty's Government against this attempt to seduce or force the provinces from their allegiance. Mr. Potter, he believed, was still Consul at Montreal. The Republican journals in the West had since taken up a similar tone, and even Mr. Derby, in his official report, circulated like our own blue books, said— And if, as an inducement for this treaty, and in settlement of Alabama claims, we can obtain a cession of Vancouver's Island, or other terri- tory, it will be a consummation most devoutly to be wished. All that sort of language had arisen, he maintained, from the laxity and indifference which Her Majesty's Government had shown. [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed amused by the circumstances to which he had alluded, but he regarded them, he confessed, with extreme sadness. Twelve months ago a state of things existed between the people of the British provinces and the United States which was highly to be encouraged, containing as it did the elements of peace. But now, through the termination of these engagements, a state of things had grown up charged with the elements of war. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to re-assure the House, but when a fleet of ironclads were sent to the fishing grounds the relations between the two countries could hardly be in a healthy state. If it were alleged that Her Majesty's Government were not responsible for what had occurred, he-would ask who was responsible? If Her Majesty's Government felt that the negotiations were going past them and beyond their ability to control, the House, he felt convinced, would have stepped forward and interfered, as it had done before on memorable occasions with advantage; but that opportunity was not given to the House, for, not only had the Government done nothing themselves, but they refrained from laying before the House the information which would enable it to form a solid and useful opinion. Under these circumstances, what was to be done? He was told privately that some satisfactory proposal had been made to the Government in reference to the rights of fishery. But he wanted to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to effect a settlement upon this one question which would be in every way to the advantage of the United States, without also securing the perpetuation of those Acts which enabled our goods to come from one portion of the country to the United States and vice versa, and whether they would not also obtain the free navigation of Lake Michigan and the waters which flowed into it,? There was another very important question unsettled—the boundary line on the Pacific coast. Had any proposal, he would ask, been made to extend or alter that boundary line? It was also essential to ascer- tain whether the Government had in their minds any scheme as to the international relations of these two great countries, and what they had done towards endeavouring to carry that scheme into practice. He believed that it was only by taking a frank and comprehensive view of the subject that the Government could hope to establish relations as good as those which had previously existed, and they must not shut their eyes to any changes which had taken place. Sitting on one of the Benches behind there was an hon. Member who had rendered eminent service at the time when the treaty was concluded by Lord Elgin. If the Government consulted that hon. Member, he could tell them, no doubt, many points connected with that negotiation which would be of the greatest service to the country. He could also remind them that since that treaty was adopted the wisdom and foresight of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire, then Colonial Minister, had laid the foundations of British Columbia and Vancouver's Island as separate dependencies, and that Vancouver's Island contained all the bituminous coal existing north of Panama, on the American coast. He must apologize to the House for the length of these observations. Having made his charge, if such it must be called, against Her Majesty's Government, he hoped that there would be no more statements about the impossibility of producing papers while negotiations were pending, for such statements he, as a plain man of business, should take simply as excuses. Instead of putting forward assertions of that vague character, the Government ought to deal frankly with the House, tell what had happened, and how at this moment stood the relations between this country and the United States. Above all, the House ought to be assured that somebody had his attention directed to these all-important questions, if they were to be brought to a termination by the Government without necessitating the interference of the House.

MR. LAYARD

said, his hon. Friend seemed to be in some doubt, when he was on the point of sitting down, whether he had made a charge against Her Majesty's Government. He confessed, however, that he had never heard an indictment of greater severity brought against any Government. The hon. Member had accused Her Majesty's Ministers of all kinds of laches. According to his statement they had exhibited a great amount of negli- gence, they had shown themselves indifferent to the great interests of the country, and going a step further, he declared that their management of this important matter had been even culpable. Not satisfied with having attacked the Government generally, he singled out the noble Earl now at the head of the Government, and charged it upon his well-known coldness, angularity of temper, and bad management that this question of the Reciprocity Treaty had not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. But with strange inconsistency he went on to say that a matter of the greatest difficulty and delicacy, the negotiation of a Slave Trade Treaty with the United States, a negotiation which required all those qualities in which, according to the hon. Member, Earl Russell was entirely deficient, had been carried on by Earl Russell with the most complete success. If it had been the object of the hon. Gentleman to make a speech rendering it difficult for this country to come to an understanding on this subject with the United States, he could not have delivered one of a more mischievous character, or one better calculated to arouse in the United States feelings of irritation against this country, which would preclude the possibility of any fresh Reciprocity Treaty being entered into. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government were as much alive as the hon. Member could possibly be to the importance of the Reciprocity Treaty; they looked upon it as a most beneficent measure, and believed that it had been equally advantageous to both countries. In support of his argument his hon. Friend quoted some statistics, and in order to show the House the enormous advantages which had been gained by the two countries by the adoption of this treaty, he would also quote the following statistical returns:— The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States reports that the total imports into the British provinces from the United States were in 1827, 445,118 dollars, and the exports from those provinces to the United States, 2,830,674 dollars; total trade, 3,275,792 dollars. It is stated by the Select Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, that the whole value of exports and imports between the United States and the British North American Provinces was in 1849 6,000,000 dollars, and had grown slowly up to that amount. We find stated on the same authority—In 1854.—Imports into Canada, 15,583,098 dollars; exports from Canada to the United States, 8,649,002 dollars. In 1855.—Imports, 20,828,676 dollars; exports, 16,737,277dollars. In 1803.—Imports, 23,109,362 dollars, exports, 22,534,074 dollars. Those figures showed an increase of trade not to be exceeded, he believed, in the commercial relations between any two countries in the world in so short a period. At the meeting referred to by his hon. Friend—the one held in Detroit—Mr. Howe, a gentleman representing the interests of the British North American Colonies, and a great authority upon this subject, made a speech in which there was this statement— Looking at the industrial results of the treaty any fair-minded and dispassionate man must admit that they have far surpassed, in utility and value, all that could have been hoped by the most sanguine advocate of the measure in 1854. The trade of the United States and of the provinces, feeble, restricted, slow of growth, and vexatious before, has been annually swelled by mutual exchanges and honourable competition, till it is represented by a grand total of 456,350,391 dollars in about nine years. This amount seems almost incredible, but who can hazard an estimate of the figures by which this trade will be expressed ten or twenty years hence, if this wise adjustment of our mutual interests be not disturbed? If there be any advantage in a balance of trade, the returns show that the citizens of the United States have had it to the extent of 55,951,145 dollars. But great as had been the commercial advantages of the treaty to the two countries, its political advantages had not been less considerable. For a period of forty years questions of a most irritating nature had constantly arisen in reference to the right of fishing on the coasts of our colonies, and had it not been for the prudence and forbearance of the two Governments, and of the officers who were sent to preserve order on the fishing grounds, misunderstandings of a very grave nature might at any time have ensued. But by the treaty all matters of difference between this country and the United States, on this and other subjects of scarcely less importance, were at once brought to a termination, and during the eleven years in which it had been in operation, not a single irritating question nor cause of misunderstanding had arisen with reference to them. It was evident, therefore, that the strongest reasons existed to induce Her Majesty's Government to prolong the existence of the treaty. His hon. Friend had argued the case as if Her Majesty's Government had the power of negotiating with the United States, and had neglected to exercise it, and as if it depended upon them alone whether the treaty should continue in force or not; but, in truth, they had nothing to negotiate—the treaty was in existence, and Her Majesty's Government did not wish it to be brought to an end. On the contrary, all they desired was that it should be allowed to remain in force between the two countries. Of course, it was open to the United States to put an end to it if they thought proper to do so, and they did put an end to it, by giving the notice of its termination according to an article in the treaty. Moreover, his hon. Friend seemed to forget that there was no power of negotiation on the subject vested in the executive Government of the United States. Mr. Seward had no power to negotiate on the part of the United States with Her Majesty's Government; and, therefore, the whole of his hon. Friend's argument on that point came to nothing. The question of bringing the treaty to an end did not lie with the Executive of the United States Government, but with Congress. If his hon. Friend turned to the' papers already presented to Parliament, he would find that the notice to abrogate the treaty was not given by Mr. Seward as Secretary of State but by Mr. Lincoln, the President, through Mr. Seward as the organ of Congress. The notice was in pursuance of this resolution— Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that notice be given of the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty, according to the provision therein contained for the termination of the same; and the President of the United States is hereby charged with the communication of such notice to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That being the state of the case, the question was not whether Her Majesty's Government could obtain a renewal of the treaty by negotiation with Mr. Seward, but whether Her Majesty's Government could have brought about such a change of opinion among the members of Congress as would have induced that body to alter their policy with respect to the Reciprocity Treaty. On that point he was entirely at issue with his hon. Friend, As to his argument that a resolution of the House of Commons in favour of continuing the treaty might have been obtained by the Government, and would have induced the Congress of the United States to change their policy, he would ask his hon. Friend to reverse the case, and to suppose that the House of Commons had resolved to put an end to the treaty. What would have been the effect of a resolution of Congress calling upon the House of Commons to renew a treaty which it had determined should cease. The only effect of the course which the hon. Gentleman suggested would have been to make Congress persist in its policy, and to render any attempt to renew the treaty utterly hopeless. His hon. Friend used one of the most extraordinary arguments he had ever heard. He said there were a strong party in the United States who were very anxious for the, annexation of our North American colonies to that country, and that they looked upon the continuance of the Reciprocity Treaty us the most effectual obstacle to their designs, consequently, he went on to say we ought to have insisted on the renewal of the treaty. Did not he (Mr. Watkin) see that he could not have used a weightier argument against any attempt on the part of the House of Commons to influence Congress than he had done when he mentioned that fact? The hon. Gentleman had also pointed out that there were the rival interests of the East and West—the producing and the manufacturing States, which were affected by this treaty. There was a great difference of opinion upon the treaty between the Eastern States and the Western; and while it was true that large meetings in favour of the continuance of the treaty had been held in the United States, meetings of no less importance had been held there in favour of putting an end to it. The Chambers of Commerce at New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukie, and St. Paul, had all agreed to resolutions in favour of the renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty; and at the Detroit Convention, when 500 delegates from the United States and fifty from the British colonies were present, resolutions to the same effect had been carried. Mr. Howe made a most able and eloquent speech at that meeting, in which the whole question was discussed; in fact, it was greatly owing to his speech that the resolution in favour of the treaty was carried. But, notwithstanding these expressions of opinion, coming from those weighty bodies, there was, on the other hand, so strong an expression of public feeling in favour of putting an end to the arrangement that Congress adhered to its resolution. All this shows that no Resolution of the House of Commons, or action of Her Majesty's Government, was likely to have influenced the United States Congress. Mr. Seward last year expressed to Mr. Burnley, our Charge d' Affaires, his willingness to take into consideration the question of the renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty; and accordingly, when Sir Frederick Bruce went to Washington as our Minister in March last, he was instructed to say that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to treat on the subject with the Government of the United States. But on his arrival he found that, owing to the state of affairs which existed there, it would be most imprudent if it were even possible to open negotiations. Mr. Lincoln had re cently been assassinated; Mr. Seward was himself in great danger from the wounds he had received; and there was great irritation in the United States against this country consequent on the proceedings of the Alabama and other vessels fitted out in England against their commerce. Under these circumstances, Sir Frederick Bruce communicated to Her Majesty's Government his opinion that it would be very unadvisable to attempt to open negotiations at that time; and Her Majesty's Government felt themselves bound to acquiesce in the views of their Minister. Sir Frederick Bruce had, however, placed himself in communication with the Governor of Canada, and had requested Mr. Galt, a distinguished gentleman, and one of the Ministers of the colony, to come to Washington to assist him in ascertaining how far it was practicable to influence public opinion in favour of the renewal of the treaty. Mr. Galt accordingly went to Washington, and after several interviews with Mr. Seward and other leading statesmen he arrived at the same conclusion as Sir Frederick Bruce, that it would be most unwise at that time to make any formal proposal for the prolongation or renewal the treaty. Not merely political, but other reasons were put forward by powerful parties in the United States against of the treaty. There were in the United States many who were opposed upon principle to all Reciprocity Treaties. Mr. M'Culloch, the Secretary of the Treasury, for instance, differing from the Chambers of Commerce, maintained that the commercial relations between Canada and the United States should not be the subject of a treaty, but should be regulated by mutual legislation—a course which the British Government themselves generally preferred to reciprocal treaties—and those who shared his opinion thought that it would be useless to negotiate, with a view to reciprocal legislation, with each colony separately, and that the commercial relations between the United States and the North American Colonies could not be placed upon a satisfactory footing until the projected confederation of those colonies had been accomplished. Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, a majority of two-thirds of the Senate was requisite to authorize the President to carry through a treaty of this nature, and, in the existing state of public opinion, it was hopeless to think of securing such a majority. It was then suggested by the Government of the United States that, though the public opinion of the country was so strongly opposed to the renewal of the treaty, it might be possible to obtain its prolongation for a year, and thereupon Sir Frederick Bruce was instructed to ask the American Government to endeavour to induce Congress to assent to that course. Congress, however, was not disposed to do so, and the attempt failed. Mr. Seward then suggested that, as the negotiation of treaties of this description, which had reference to matters of revenue, rested entirely with Congress, and not with the Executive, the best course would be for the British representative to put himself in communication with the Finance Committee of Congress, and endeavour to get that committee to report to the Senate in favour of the prolongation or renewal of the treaty. Sir Frederick Bruce accordingly communicated with the Governors of the North American Colonies, and Messrs. Galt, Small, Henry, and Powlam, were sent as delegates from Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, to Washington in order to enter into communication with the Committee of Finance. His hon. Friend had described these gentlemen as amateur negotiators, who went to Washington to negotiate on their own account; but the fact was quite the reverse, for they were officially invited, officially sent, and placed in official communication with Sir Frederick Bruce and with the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, that Committee was presided over by Mr. Morrill, who, as was well known, was an advocate of protection, and was, consequently, opposed on that ground to any renewal of the treaty. Several interviews took place, and proposals and counter-proposals were made; but the demands put forward by the Committee on behalf of the United States were such as the delegates of the colonies found it impossible to accede to, and after much negotiation the attempt at an understanding fell through. All the attempts thus made to renew or pro- long a treaty having proved futile, Sir Frederick Bruce, in accordance with I113 instructions, addressed on the 16th of February a note to Mr. Seward, which, with the reply, he would now read—

"Sir Frederick Bruce to Mr. Seward.

"Washington, Feb. 16,1866.

"Sir,—As the Reciprocity Treaty is about to expire, I am anxious to report in a formal shape the disposition of the Government of the United States with reference to the important question of its renewal, and I therefore submit for consideration the following proposals, which embody the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to it. Her Majesty's Government have seen with much satisfaction the increase of the trading relations between the United States and the British Provinces which has grown up under the treaty, and the beneficial results of the stipulations it contains, by virtue of which each contracting party enjoys the uninterrupted use of the facilities of transport to the sea-board possessed by the other, and participates side by side in the fisheries without restriction or interference. Her Majesty's Government would be well content to renew the treaty in its present form. At the same time, they are ready to re-consider the treaty in conjunction with the Government of the United States, if such a course would be agreeable to them, and so to modify its terms as to render it, if possible, more beneficial to both countries than it has hitherto been. If the Government of the United States should feel disposed to adopt the latter course, an arrangement of a provisional character might be entered into, with a view to afford time for fresh negotiations, and I should take pleasure in submitting to the consideration of my Government any proposal to that effect which you might do me the honour to communicate to me.—I have, &c,

"FREDERICK W. A. BRUCE."

What was the reply to that note? He thought his hon. Friend would find it a complete answer to all the accusations which he had preferred against Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Seward replied thus—

"Mr. Seward to Sir Frederick Bruce."

Department of State, Washington, Feb. 17, 1860.

"Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a note which you addressed to me on the 16th instant, concerning a proposed extension of the Reciprocity Treaty. Perhaps I could not reply in any other manner more satisfactorily than I shall now do by stating anew the verbal explanations which I have had heretofore occasion to make to you upon that subject. The character of the constitutional distribution of public affairs among the different departments of the Government is well known. It confides commerce and national finance expressly to the Legislature. The now expiring Reciprocity Treaty constitutes almost the only case in which the Executive Department has, by negotiation, assumed a supervision of any question of either commerce or finance. Even in that case, the Executive Department did little more than to make a treaty, the details of which had been virtually matured beforehand in the Congress of the United States, and sanction was given to the treaty afterwards by express legislation. The question of continuing that treaty involves mainly subjects of the special character which I have before described. Careful inquiry made during the recess of Congress induced the President to believe that there was then no such harmony of public sentiment in favour of the extension of the treaty as would encourage him in directing negotiations to be opened. Inquiries made since the reassembling of Congress confirmed the belief then adopted that Congress prefers to treat the subject directly, and not to approach it through the forms of diplomatic agreement. In accordance with this conviction, all communications, verbal and written, upon the subject have been submitted to the consideration of the proper Committees of Congress, and the question of extending a system of reciprocal trade with the British Provinces on our frontier awaits their decision I have, &c,

"WILLIAM H. SEWARD."

Mr. Seward thus declined any diplomatic negotiations on the subject of the treaty as beyond the authority of the Secretary of State or of the President, and referred the British Government to Congress. All these attempts having thus failed, it remained for Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost to prevent any evil consequences which might arise from the abrogation of the treaty, and here he might remark that, although the interests of the colonies had, no doubt, suffered considerably, he did not think they had suffered more than those of the United States themselves. Happily, the friendly relations between the two countries had not been affected. There were two very important questions—namely, the navigation of the St. Lawrence and the fisheries—which might cause a misunderstanding. Now, as regarded the St. Lawrence and the canals connecting that river with the great lakes, the Government did not intend to return to the state of things existing prior to the treaty, and at any rate, for the present no interference would take place in their navigation by citizens of the United States; but as regarded the fisheries, the matter was on an entirely different footing. When the Reciprocity Treaty was entered into certain Acts of the British Parliament and of the Colonial Legislatures, imposing heavy penalties on American subjects who should fish or should cute their fish within three miles of the British shore were suspended; but the moment the treaty expired these enactments came again into full force, and the British Government and the Colonial Governors were bound to carry them out. It was therefore Lord Monck's duty to issue a proclamation warning United States fishermen against infringing the law, and of the penalties they incurred by doing so. This was obviously no hostile measure; it was, on the contrary, a friendly warning to those who violated the law that he would be bound to enforce the penalties, as he had no power to suspend the law. No doubt there was great danger of collisions on the coast, not only through disputes which might arise under ordinary circumstances between the fishermen, but from the presence of those conspirators, who, he believed, were as dangerous to the United States as to us—namely, the Fenians. The Fenians were ready and anxious, if possible, to embroil the two countries in a dispute, they did their very best to bring that result about, and these contested rights of fishery might furnish them with the opportunity of doing so. The Government were perfectly aware that considerable numbers of American citizens had invested a large amount of property in these fisheries, and that many persons were annually employed in them; and though it was no fault of ours that the treaty was abrogated, as we had expressed our readiness to adhere to it, and if any harm accrued to them, it was entirely due to the action of their own Government, yet Her Majesty's Government were most anxious to prevent any losses from falling upon these fishermen and those who had thus invested their property in a bonâ fide manner in the fisheries on these coasts. His hon. Friend had read a list of vessels of war which he called ironclads, though he believed only one was of that description—[Mr. WAIKIN: I said two were ironclads]—and which, he said, had been sent by the American Government to the fishing grounds. He was not aware whether that list was authentic or not, for he had not seen it in any official paper, and he believed such statements were frequently made by New York journals through interested motives. It was possible, therefore, that the statement might be very much exaggerated; but, however that might be, it was no demonstration of a hostile character, and from what he knew of the official correspondence between the two Governments, he could state that the United States Government had shown the very best disposition to deal with this question in a friendly, fair, and conciliatory manner. To tell him, therefore, that the sending vessels of war to the fishery grounds was a source of danger was to tell him what he could not believe. If the fishermen were left to themselves it was not impossible that collisions might arise which might lead to misunderstandings; but the presence of vessels of war, commanded by officers who were gentlemen—men of honour—who felt the responsibility cast upon them, and who were anxious to prevent their country being involved in war, was the best security for the preservation of peace. The very fact, therefore, of the American Government having sent their fleet was, to his mind, the best possible proof that they were desirous to maintain peace, and to prevent collisions which would otherwise be likely to take place. Her Majesty's Government had received from the United States Government very friendly assurances of assistance in preventing any such collisions, and in bringing about a good understanding on the subject. Proposals having reference to the fishery question had been made on both sides, but for obvious reasons he could not, at present, lay them before the House, although he might say they were of a satisfactory nature. He hoped in a short time a result acceptable to both countries would be arrived at, and this was now likely to be the case, since nothing could be more friendly and conciliatory than the course pursued by the United States with regard to the fisheries. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the stoppage of the trade between the United States and our colonies would be a disaster to both countries. It was not, however, in the power of Her Majesty's Government to force a trade upon the United States, and they were therefore compelled to leave the matter to the action of public opinion in that country. He believed that the people of the United States would soon be brought to discover the vast benefits that they would derive from a free and unrestricted trade with our North American Colonies, and that they would of themselves remove those impediments to the commercial intercourse between the two countries which were so much to be deplored.

MR. OLIPHANT,

having been Secretary to Lord Elgin when he negotiated the Reciprocity Treaty, asked permission to address the House very briefly. In the first place, he desired to bear his testimony to the difficulties which were experienced in the course of the negotiations, and to the diplomatic skill with which they were overcome by that nobleman. The success of that treaty afforded the best evidence of the loss which the nation had sustained by his Lordship's death. He had listened with some surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport, and could truly say that had the hon. Member been engaged in negotiating that Reciprocity Treaty, that speech would have been an impossibility It showed the little acquaintance the hon. Member possessed with regard to the mode in which treaties in America were negotiated. The power of making commercial treaties did not rest with the Executive—and without the consent of Congress no such treaty was possible in the United States—hence in 1854, when Lord Elgin went to Washington, he was accompanied by a delegation from Canada who had interviews with Mr. Marcy and the Members of the then Finance Committee exactly in the same way that Mr. Galt and his Colleagues had consulted first with Sir Frederick Bruce, and had then communicated with Mr. Morrell and the existing Committee. In both cases reports were made to the diplomatic agent intrust ed with the negotiation of the treaty by the Canadians who assisted him. But in the one case, that of Lord Elgin, the American Committee of finance was in favour of the treaty, and reported that there would be no difficulty in carrying it through Congress; in the other just the reverse was the case, and consequently, while in 1854 a treaty was concluded, in 1866 it was impossible to obtain its renewal. Now, a very interesting question arose, whether the renewal of the treaty was desirable or not. For himself, he did not agree either with the hon. Member for Stockport or the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that the abrogation of the Recipro city Treaty was a great misfortune. On the contrary, he was very doubtful how-far Imperial treaties dealing exclusively with provincial interests were desirable,, and he was sure that when they were terminable they were very undesirable, for there was always a period of uncertainty before the renewal of a new treaty which was apt to give rise to diplomatic difficulty. It was of the utmost importance to keep the honour of the mother country as separate as possible from the material interests of its colonies, so that no treaty by linking them together more than was absolutely necessary should expose the mother country to attacks in a quarter in which she had no material interest at stake, or render the colony liable to be in- vaded for some quarrel in which it had no concern. In this opinion he was confirmed, though unintentionally, by the report of Mr. Derby, which had already been referred to. Mr. Derby desired the renewal of the treaty in order to prevent the confederation of the British provinces. We had lost the treaty, but we should probably obtain the confederation the earlier for that loss. Not only did he doubt the paramount importance of the treaty, but he did not think that the Canadians were now suffering from its cessation, and he was sure that in future they would suffer less and less every year. The principal articles of trade between Canada and the United States were lumber, wool, grain, coal from Nova Scotia, and fish, which would be sent by a different arrangement, and cattle. The lumber was essential to America; and whatever import duty they levied on it would only increase the cost of their houses is regarded wool, the Canadian wool was peculiar, and possessed qualities which rendered it absolutely necessary in the States, and it would be imported whatever the duty. As to grain, it, was a curious circumstance that all the whisky drunk in the United States was made from barley imported from Canada, while all the whisky drank in Canada was manufactured from Indian corn imported from the United States. Therefore if America placed a high import duty upon barley, and Canada, as she ought to do, abstained from imposing a similar duty upon Indian corn, the Americans would drink very dear whisky, while the Canadians would drink very cheap whisky. Where trade had attained to such an enormous development as that which had been shown by the Under Secretary of State, it was perfectly impossible to suppose that the Americans would deliberately deprive themselves of its advantages. The balance of it had been £10,000,000 sterling, and the tonnage was greater than that of any other branch of American commerce. It was impossible for America to do without that trade. The whole of the North Western Provinces of America were almost entirely dependent on Canada; Canada had the whole thing in her hands. She could, if she chose, pursue a retaliatory policy, and could impose any duty she liked, provided there was an intercolonial railway. The report of the Illinois Commissioners stated that so great was the importance to the corn-growing provinces of the north-west of having an outlet to the sea through Canada, that 1,000,000 of tons annually passed under the Reciprocity Treaty which otherwise would not have passed. With such an immense trade between the North West Provinces and Canada, and considering the relations subsisting between Canada and the United States, how was it possible for the American Government or the American people to gratify any temporary feeling of national prejudice or antipathy at such an enormous pecuniary sacrifice. He was therefore perfectly contented to trust to the good sense of the Anglo-Saxon race on the other side of the Atlantic for the settlement of this great question, which so deeply affected their material and commercial interests.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport had censured Her Majesty's Government for not having done something which, in his opinion, they ought to have done. The hon. Member seemed to consider that this Government ought to have dealt directly with the American Government; but it seemed to him (The O'Conor Don) that the fallacy which ran through the whole of the hon. Member's speech was, that he supposed the American Executive Government had the whole management of this question in their own hands. The hon. Gentleman below him had shown that the course adopted by the Government on this occasion was almost precisely the same course that was taken when the first treaty was negotiated, the only difference being that in the first steps of the proceeding a different result was arrived at. He attributed the difficulties which had arisen as to renewing the treaty to the taxation which was imposed by the American Government, in consequence of the Civil War, upon commodities, many of which were included in the treaty. But although in the proposals that were made to the Finance Committee of Congress the provincial deputies proposed to alter their own financial arrangements in many respects in order to meet the views of the United States Government, the Finance Committee insisted upon the imposition in many cases of duties which from their excessive character were in reality little less than prohibitory. It was therefore evident, considering the reasonable nature of the proposals made on behalf of the North American Provinces, that there was no desire on the part of Congress to benefit by reciprocity. The party in America, indeed, who possessed the power to settle this matter wanted the will. He felt convinced that action by the British Government instead of by the provincial Governments, far from tending to success in the negotiations, would have been rather likely to lead to unmitigated failure.

MR. KINNAIRD

thought that the hon. Member for Stockport, so far from being open to sensure, had rendered a great public service by bringing the subject before the House, particularly when it was remembered that the fishery question was leading to the brink of war, and that some of the finest ships in the American navy had been sent to the coast to watch operations. The question had created a great amount of uneasiness in the public mind, both in this country and in Canada; and, therefore, the information which had been elicited from the Government to the effect that negotiations were going on favourably afforded ground for rejoicing. He should like to know, however, whether the Bonded Acts which were so valuable to our American Colonies were affected by the termination of the treaty, and whether their privileges had been secured to our colonies by any provisional arrangement?

MR. WHITE

said, that according to the showing of the hon. Member for Stockport, of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and of every other speaker upon this question, it was quite obvious that there was an ill-feeling in America with reference to England; and that public opinion was so strong with regard to the conduct of England that the President was obliged to give notice that the Reciprocity Treaty would not be renewed. He thought the hon. Member for Stockport deserved the thanks of the House for drawing its attention to our relations with America. The people of America were outraged by the conduct of our Foreign Minister, who would not consent to refer to arbitration what they considered their just claims by the depredations of the Alabama. When notice was taken in the House of the devastation committed by the Alabama, a large portion of the House cheered, and the intelligent and well-informed people of America became aware that sympathy was thus expressed for the rebel cause. They thought that the noble Lord at the head of the present Government to a certain extent represented that antagonistic spirit by refusing to refer the just claims of the American Government to arbitration, and hence this treaty had not been renewed.

MR. CARDWELL

thought it scarcely desirable to enter at the present time upon a discussion with respect to the Alabama; and, as his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated how much the Government desired to get the Reciprocity Treaty renewed or amended, he would only address the House upon the question raised by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), when he asked whether any temporary arrangements had been made whereby the bonding privileges granted to the Canadians would still be extended to them, so that they might carry their goods through the United States during the winter to some American port for shipment. Those bonding privileges did not depend upon the Reciprocity Treaty, but upon the interests of the two countries; they were not disturbed by the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty, nor did he think it was the intention of the American Government to repeal the Acts conferring the privileges. With regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence and the canals on the one hand, and Lake Michigan on the other, although that was stipulated for in the treaty, yet there was no intention of terminating it. With respect to the fishery question, he had great pleasure in confirming what had been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard), and in stating that Her Majesty's Government were in most friendly communications with the Government of the United States upon the subject, and he also concurred with his hon. Friend when he said he regarded with satisfaction, and not alarm, the presence of a naval force of the United States upon the station. Distinguished naval commanders on both sides would tend to the prevention of differences which might otherwise arise between the fishermen of the two countries. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) as to the very able and distinguished men whom he called amateur negotiators who went to aid Sir Frederick Bruce at Washington he desired to say very little, inasmuch as his observations had been so well answered by the hon. Member for the Stirling burghs. Those who had watched the proceedings of the British North American Provinces were cognizant of the distinguished ability which characterized the Ministers of those provinces; and he was sure that when Mr. Galt and his Colleagues assembled at Washington, Sir Frederick Bruce must have derived the greatest benefit from their official experience and knowledge of the subject.