hon. friend had left it, and show the posi-,
tion which Canada occupied to-day in rela-
tion to these fisheries. In the treaty of
1818, the last made on the subject between
England and the United States, it was
very clearly defined that certain privileges
were conceded to the United States,
which the United States claimed as a right,
but which England denied as a right.
a right.
It was agreed that the Americans should
have the privilege to enter our ports for
wood, water, shelter and protection, and
to fish within three miles of the coast.
From 1818 to 1842 the right of Eng-
land to preclude the Americans from
coming within the three miles head-
land line was never conceded by England,
but always enforced. Instructions after
instructions were given to the commanders
of the British maritime forces on our
shores to enforce this right, and keep
American fishermen outside of the head-
land line, and seizure after seizure was
made of their vessels for infringing within
the three miles limit of the headland line.
About 1842 matters became rather mixed.
England claimed the right to exclude the
Americans from the Bay of Fundy. The
Americans claimed that as one of the
headlands of the bay was in Nova
Scotia, and the other in Maine, it was
not an exclusively British bay. After a
very great deal of correspondence in refer-
ence to the seizure of an American vessel
in the bay, it was decided that the Bay
of Funday was not such a bay as was
included within the restrictive clauses of
the convention, and the vessel was releas-
ed, but it was never conceded with refer-
ence to the other bays along our coast.
From 1842 up to 1854, when the first
Reciprocity Treaty with the United States
was made, there was a continual
agitation going on, the Americans
claiming then, for the first time with the
intention of enforcing their claim, the
right to come within the three mile limit.
They tried to set up the decision in the
Bay of Fundy case as a precedent for
coming into other bays. The Govern-
ments of the colonies resisted it, and one
of the great objects of the Reciprocity
Treaty was to settle that very difficulty
and one of the great objects the United
States had in view in giving us the privil-
eges conceded under that treaty was to
have equal rights with our fishermen to
fish in our waters. That treaty lastep
Hon. Mr. Mitchell.

till 1866, and during its existence the
Americans had the same right as our own
people to the use of our fisheries. When that
treaty was repealed, it became a question
for the Government of Canada to consider
what course should be adopted in relation
to the fisheries on our coasts.
That was
before Confederation, and the several
Provinces could not take united action at
the moment. Correspondence was opened
between the Governments of Old Canada,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to take
some united action in reference to the
policy to be pursued in the new crisis
which had arisen. The Government of
Old Canada decided upon a policy, afte
correspondence with HER MASESTY'S
Government of allowing American vessels
to take out licenses to come and fish
within our waters. The object of that was
this; after the Americans had for so long a
period under the Reciprocity Treaty enjoyed
the same privileges as our own people,
they did not like to adopt a system of
exclusion. Another reason was that it
was desired by HER MAJESTY'S Govern-
ment that nothing should arise between
the two countries which would lead to
difficulties between the two Governments.
Hence the licensing system was adopted, and
the first year some six or seven hundred
American fishermen obtained licenses.
After Confederation one of the first sub-
jects brought under the notice of the new
Government was how the fisheries of the
country should be dealt with, and what
was to be done to prevent our rights from
lapsing, and our concessions from being
regarded as rights. The late Government
brought the matter under the notice of
HER MAJESTY'S Government in England
for the purpose of preventing our rights
from lapsing. The licensing system could
not last long. The number of licenses
taken ont dwindled from six or seven
hundred in the first year to something
like 120 in the third year.

It being six o'clock, the debate was adjourned, Mr. MITCHELL still having the floor. The House adjourned at six o'clock.

{++:

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, 18th February, 1875.
The SPEAKER took the chair at three P.M.

SPEEDY TRIAL OF FELONS.

Mr. MACDOUGALL introduced a Bill

relating thereto. With the indulgence of two or three causes. In the first place there the House, he would briefly explain his was a natural dread in the mind of the motive for placing this resolution in the juror lest he should be unhappily the hands of the SPEAKER. It would be means of convicting an innocent person. observed that it was divided into two Having paid a good deal of attention to the parts, the one asking for information subject in England, and also to the law which could only be obtained from the here in Canada, he, (Mr. DYMOND), did Governments of the several Provinces, not believe that of late years the cases of the other asking HIS EXCELLENCY to take conviction of in nocent persons had been at measures relating to criminal jurisprudence. all frequent where the English system of He (Mr. DYMOND) had mentioned last jurisprudence prevailed. The sentiments session that he hoped to be able to bring of humanity which pervade the whole of the question of abolishing capital punish- our race presses very largely against the ment before the House this year. It was sad catastrophe of the conviction of an a new one in the Dominion Parliament, innocent man, and that was the cause no though so long ago as May 5th, 1855, a doubt of many murderers escaping from motion that capital punishment be justice; and then there was the extraorabolished was discussed in the Provincial dinary difference in the degree of moral Legislature of Canada. As would be seen guilt attaching to those who committed by the journals, the hon. member for murder, and the jury would of course take Chateauguay and the present Chief Justice into account, knowing what the penalty of of Quebec, with two or three leading a conviction was, all these considerations, members from the Upper Province, and would thus to alarge extent be thrown voted for that motion, and although off their balance. Ajuryman once observed Mr. DRUMMOND moved the three to him (Mr. DYMOND) when challenged on months' hoist, he did so more because it was too late in the session than from any opposition to the principle of the resolution. He believed he was correct in saying that Mr. DRUMMOND, like the hon. member for Chateauguay and Mr. DORION was opposed to capital punishment. He would remark, as some of his friends had indulged in some pleasantry at his expense, that he did not raise this question on sentimental grounds. Coming here with other hon. gentlemen in order to effect practical legislation, and to attain results of practical value, their arguments should be put or a practical basis. The object of punishment was to cause the prevention of crime. When sheep stealing was a capital offence, a man who was sentenced to death for this crime pleaded that his life was worth more than the life of a sheep. He was told by the judge "you are not to be hanged for stealing sheep, but that sheep may not be stolen." On the same ground men were hanged-not for committing murder, but that murder might not be committed. Now, in our jurisprudence we must have the element of certainty. He would be able to show by statistics, not obtained here but from the old country, that whilst the crime of murder is one which above all others we should desire to punish with the greatest certainty, it is the one in the conviction for which the most uncertainty existed. That arose from Mr. Dymond.

this subject, that he would not dream
of punishing one charged with murder on
the same evidence that would satisfy him
of the guilt with the secondary offence.
The motion made last year was for com-
mitments, convictions, acquittals, and the
results of convictions, where they had
occurred, since Confederation. He had
been able to obtain a return of convictions
simply for the reason that the Minister of
Justice received a report in all cases where
capital convictions took place, but in no
others. But he had no official statistics
of any other form of crime. Murderers
and members of Parliament were the only
persons whose offences were reported to
this House. He said murderers because,
although in Canada the punishment of
death nominally attaches to three or four
other crimes, he was glad to observe since
1867 no person had been executed for any
other crime but murder. From 1st July,
1867, to April, 1874, the number of
capital convictions in the Dominion were
69, of which 41 were for murder.
these 22 were executed. Why he desired
statistics on this subject would be shown
by the fact that there was an extraordinary
discrepancy between the convictions for
secondary offences, and the convictions for
murder. In England the number of
persons committed for trial for murder, in
1872, was 70. Of these only 30 were

convicted, being 43 per cent. While for burglary, housebreaking, sheep-stealing and forgery the number of convictions was 90 per cent. of the whole number tried. Some years ago while paying considerable attention to this subject, he found that the number of convictions for murder did not exceed 21 per cent., whilst in the cases of other crimes more than 80 per cent. of those who were accused were convicted. The testimony of Judges who had been examined at various times before commissions in the old country, had been the same—that there was an uncertainty attaching to the punishment of the crime of murder which did not attach to other crimes. If he could show the House that justice was flouted, that murderers were at large who should be punished, in consequence of the death sentence, he would advance a strong argument for the abolition of the sentence, and show that the question was a strictly practical one. The question of statistics had already been before the House during the present session. He hoped that judicial statistics would receive the attention of the Government as well as statistics relating to other branches of legislation. It did certainly seem extraordinary that while since Confederation we had consolidated the criminal laws, and whilst during every session measures had been introduced altering or amending the criminal law, we had no evidence upon which to base conclusions as to whether those amendments were necessary or not. In our present state of darkness we had no information that enabled us to ascertain what crimes were increasing or decreasing. He was quite aware that in this country we had not as in the old country a large criminal population, but we had growing up in our large cities a class which, if not strictly criminal in its character, was one from which criminals were bred, and he would strongly urge upon hon. members that we should grasp this evil in its infancy, and endeavor to meet it while still in its inception, rather than delay to grapple with it until it had here, as in other countries, almost passed beyond control. The administration of law being in the hands of the provincial authorities he was unable to obtain any report of commitments and acquittals for murder, and for this reason he placed the result in the hands of the SPEAKER. M... Dymond.

Hon. Mr. FOURNIER said the Government acquiesced in the motion calling for this important information. The motion was carried.

Mr. BUNSTER moved for copy of resolutions declaring the expediency of a survey of Dominion lands in British Columbia and the establishment of an office at which reliable information may He be obtained by intending settlers. said these resolutions would commend themselves to the House. It was, in his opinion, a step in the right direction, and one he was directed to take by the constituency he had the honor of representing. Many settlers arriving in Vancouver Island were looking for land, but on going to the land office they were informed that the land was reserved for Dominion purposes, owing to the contract entered into by British Columbia with The hon. memthe Dominion of Canada. ber for South Bruce had referred to British Columbia as an inhospitable colony in his great Aurora speech. He (Mr. BUNSTER) did not think the public would believe it when it was remembered that they paid $5,000 per annum to an agent in London towards encouraging the settlement of emigrants in that Province. He (Mr. BUNSTER) had on his desk a sample of wheat grown in Vancouver Island, and he challenged the hon. member to produce as good wheat as that sample. The farmer who raised this wheat, when he read the speech of the hon. member for South Bruce, in which it was stated that British Columbia was a sea of mountains, and that its people were inhospitable, said:" Mr. BUNSTER, I wish you would take a bag of our wheat and exhibit it in the House of Commons against any wheat raised in South Bruce or any other part of Canada." The hon. member for South Bruce went on to attack the Province, and to state that the terms were extravagant and the demands of the people impossible of fulfilment. He further stated that every thing that could done be was done in reasonably He (Mr. order to their fulfilment. BUNSTER) did not think the hon. member could consistently say that, inasmuch as two years had elapsed and only an insignificant survey had been attempted to be made. Even now, the first surveyor had not been across that portion of the road which the Government proposed to make

Mr. DECOSMOS said he thought the hon. gentleman who had introduced this motion was moving in the right direction. But the question arose with respect to what was called the railway belt of land in British Columbia,-whether the Dominion Government at present was entitled to any land there at all or not. He thought, if he remembered rightly-and he spoke under that,

this year, namely; that from Victoria to | could not get nearly as much as he Nanaimo. The hon. member for South wanted, because an order from a Victoria Bruce had further commented upon what merchant had to be filled up, and there One hundred acres he was pleased to call the extraordinary was not enough over. expenditure of many millions of money of that land had been sold for $25,000 in which the first cost would entail, the many cash, and there were portions of be sold for much more, more necessary to keep it in running order, it could and of the impossibility of commencing to but they were locked up by the of The people Bribuild the railway in what he termed a Government. country which was a sea of mountains tish Columbia were not receiving that until complete surveys were made. He attention from the Government which they (Mr. BUNSTER) denied that the country deserved about those lands. He did not was a sea of mountains, and as for the know who was to blame, but he wished to climate, it was a better one than that of find out so that he might explain to his Ontario better far than that of people. He hoped the hon. member for Quebec, if he could rely, as he did South Bruce would do Columbia the rely, upon the accounts which had been honour of paying it a visit, and informing given him of it. In fact, he held himself upon its climate and resources by that the climate of British Columbia was personal observation; and he was sure had the finest of all the Provinces of the the hon. member lived as long in the ProDominion. He proposed to make a quota- vince as he (Mr. BUNSTER), he would never He therefore tion from the report of the San Francisco have said what he did say. Board which would show in what estima- moved the resolution. tion they held the natural resources of British Columbia, but before doing so he would remind the House that but a few years ago that same city, now one of the largest exporting centres on the continent of America, was spoken of with as much disdain as that made use of by the hon. member for South Bruce in reference to British Columbia. British Columbia had coal exported to England, not so subject to much because she had much more the railway clause of the terms of British Columbia was on hand than she required, but because union, of its quality. According to the to convey to the Dominion of Canada terms of union, there were 20 miles a belt of land on both sides of the of a belt upon each side of the railway, railway to an equal extent as lands in the but the Dominion Government never North-West territory that might be approstated where the railway was going to be priated by the Government for railway built, and the Provincial Government did purposes. The original intention it appears not therefore know what land they would was that the railway should be built by a require. The Local Government would company and not by the Government. see that the people had their rights, and Now, unless some new legislation, some were not afraid to tell the Government new arrangement was made between the here what they thought. He asked for Province of British Columbia and the this land on behalf of the people of British Dominion, it seemed to him there was a Columbia and on behalf of the whole difficulty in the way of the Dominion Dominion. It was rich in agricultural putting forward its claim to that land. and coal resources, and yet, as was shown He was perfectly satisfied, however, that by the report of the San Francisco Board the Provincial Government was willing of Trade, of the 531,947 tons of coal to convey to the Dominion Government required at that port, British Columbia the railway belt of British Columbia such only furnished 140,000. If these lands acreage per mile as would be appropriated could be made available we could supply along the railway line in the North-West the whole that was wanted. A merchant territory, with a view to provide for the to the coal region of British expenditure of its construction. Now, in Columbia to buy supplies, but found he regard to the relation in which British

came

Mr. Bunster.

correction

bound