twenty dollars per head, it would become the duty of the Government and this House to devise some means by which the circulation in the hands of the people of this country for the purposes of trade would be increased. Last year the exports the United States amounted to $586,000,000, and the imports to $567,000,- | 000, being a total of $1,153,000,000. The exports of the Dominion were $89,000,000, and the imports $128,000,000, making an aggregate of $217,500,000. Bringing these figures to the same test as before which he maintained was the only true test, namely the test of population, it appeared that the total trade of the United States was $28.22 per head of the population, whereas the total trade of the Dominion amount to $54.39, or nearly double that of he United States. He maintained therefore that as we had double the foreign trade of the United States in proportion to our population we certainly required at least an amount of circulation per head equal to that aware it was not a very interesting subject with which to weary the House, but he had put the long array of figures as concisely as possible, without giving details, in order that they might be less difficult to remember. He would summarize them in a few words. We have in this country a double system of banking, described by a gentleman on the Treasury benches as an attempt by the Government of the day to force themselves into the banking business. The system of currency in this country was, so far as he was aware, without a parallel in any country. Mr. PLUMB-I think there is a similar system in the United States. Mr. WILKES said they were not analagous in the last degree. The currency of the United States was irredeemable, and no gold reserve was held for it, whereas the currency of Canada professed to give one dollar in gold for every dollar bill on presentation. This was the distinction between the two systems, and he was not aware that any country in the of the United States. Again, take world possessed a currency like ours. the tonnage of the United States. It That greater evils had not resulted from amounted to 4,800,000 tons, being .12 of it than had been manifested might not be a ton to each head of the population; due to the system, but to the restriction whereas the tonnage of the Dominion was placed on the system. After all, it would 1,073,000, or .27 per head of the popula- appear to any one on the slightest reflection-more than double the tonnage of the tion that the system of attempting to United States in proportion to our popula-supply the requirements of this country, tion. He was not prepared to take the position that some take, that our national debt was an element of strength. He would say that the fact that we had a larger volume of trade per capita than the United States, and the United States had a larger debt, was an additional argument why our circulating medium should be increased. The debt of the United States was $2,290,000,000, or $57.50 per head. The debt of Canada amounted to $140,000,000, or 35.25 per head, showing that even on this basis the comparison lay in the same direction. The revenue of the United States amounted last year to $289,000,000; the revenue of Canada to $24,000,000, showing $7 per head of the population of the United States, as against $6 per head of the population of the Dominion. When it was considered that the rate of duty in the United States was at least double what it was in Canada, both in the tax on imports and the rates of excise, it would be seen that the comparison was very favorable indeed. He was Mr. Wilkes. where there was a circulation of something like $31,000,000 in the hands of the public, by a Government circulation of $3,000,000 was a failure, and did not meet the requirments of the country. The actual effect of the Government issue was simply to place a certain amount of Government legal tenders in the vaults of the banks of the country. There was one useful purpose which this circulation answered. Formerly, banks in settling their balances with each other day after day had to pay the balances in gold. This was a tedious process, and attended with some risk. Now, the advantage of the Dominion note was that the banks were able to pay over their balances in notes of very large denominations. Consequently, a very small package made a large amount, and the balances were easily settled. This was of great use, but beyond that he had been unable to trace any justi fication for the Government of this country undertaking to make an issue of bills payable in gold and at the same time take all the risk consequent upon such a large | to be paid by the United States to Canadə amount being held by monetary institu- under the Treaty of Washington for the tions that might at any day require gold. right of fishing in Canadian waters. The question of profit could be easily disposed of. There was no reason why the Government should not be entitled to the benefit of our circulation instead of the chartered banks. The risk had hitherto been on the part of the country, and the profit infinitessimal. If it were urged that the profit was likely to be larger in the future, he would ask was it well for this country, for a paltry three per cent., to allow $3,000,000 of its capital to remain idle, and to risk disturbing the trade of this country. The system was bad, and the Government would be entitled to the gratitude of the country if they would deal with it in a satisfactory manner. The system in England, New York and else where, would meet in a better way all the necessities of the bank exchanges. In the leading cities of the Dominion it would not be a difficult thing for the banks to arrange among themselves, if they were so disposed, or the Government were to indicate such an arrangement, that they would have a clearing house in which balances could be settled without the use of gold at all. Consequently, the benefit of the Dominion note circulation could be gained in another manner. At six o'clock the debate was adjourned, : Mr. WILKES still having the floor, and the House rose for recess. He Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he objected to the two propositions laid down by his hon. friend from Bothwell in discussing this question, namely; that the commission to meet at Halifax had no power to deal with the fishery boundaries, and therefore could not ascertain the damages; and secondly, that before the commission met, the British Government should be asked to obtain the settlement of the question of boundaries. While he entirely agreed with the object of the hon. gentleman's motion, he dissented from the reasons the hon. gentlman gave for making it. was free to admit that any decision which the commission might arrive at would not be binding upon either country beyond the provisions of the Washington Treaty. In his judgment it would be most suicidal for this country to ask Great Britain to approach the United States in order to obtain the settlement of the question of our fishery limits before the commission should meet at Halifax. Our true position was to claim all those rights which had been recognized as ours for over half a century, and not throw doubts upon our claims by asking England to seek a negotiation with the United States to define what our rights were. Mr. MILLS-Why did you did you send a commissioner to England for this very purpose? Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he was prepared to discuss that question at the proper time, but at present he would proceed with the plan he had marked out for himself, namely: to give an historical résumé of this whole question of our rights. as regards the fisheries. After the American war of Independence it became necessary to consider what were the rights of England in relation to the fisheries of the shores of what was now the Dominion of Canada. The United States as the successors of the old British colonies claimed that as they as colonists had helped to conquer what were now the British Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec from France, they possessed a co-equal right of fishing on the shores of those Provinces with those of the old colonists who remained loyal to the British Crown from whom they voluntarily separated themselves, and in the peace of . 4, 1783 they succeeded in getting consider, the war of 1812 upon the fishery clauses In accordance with the position thus assumed by the British Government and sustained by the law of nations, on refer ence to Wheaton, page 463, it appears that, During the negotiations at Ghent, in 1814, "the British plenipotentiaries gave notice that "their Government did not intend to grant to 'the United States gratuitously the privileges, "formerly granted by Treaty to them, of fish"ing within the limits of the British Sovereignity, and of using the shores of the British "territories for purposes connected with the "British fisheries. In answer to this declara"tion the American plenipotentiaries stated "that they were not authorized to bring into "discussion any of the rights or liberties which "the United States have heretofore enjoyed in relation thereto; from their nature and from "the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, "by which they were recognized, no further ' "stipulation has been deemed necessary by the "Government of the United States to entitle "them to the full enjoyment of them all." Wheaton further adds, that : "The Treaty of Peace concluded at Ghent, "in 1814, therefore contained no stipulation on "the subject; and the British Government “subsequently expressed its intention to ex"clude the American fishing vessels from the liberty of fishing within one marine league of "the shores of the British territories in North "America, and from that of drying and curing "their fish on the unsettled parts of those territories, and, with the consent of the inhabi"tants within those parts which had become "settled since the peace of 1783." - Wheaton, P, 463. By article 8 of the same treaty of 1783 it had been agreed :— "That the navigation of the River Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, should for ever remain free and open to the subjects of "Great Britain and the citizens of the United "Statos.' And, although it was described in "that instrument as a 'right' secured to Bri"tish subjects for ever, it was withheld, and "has been ever since enjoyed exclusively by the United Statas, because the participatory right had not been renewed by the Treaty of "Ghent.' If a definite 'right' of navigation on "the waters of a foreign State be annulled by war, how much more should a participant liberty' of fishery be subject to the same contingency." On this point he referred hon. members to Wheaton, page 353. During the war the Americans practically abandoned the Fisheries, and their common uses with British subjects was incompatible with a state of hostilities. The liberty conceded ceased with war and was withdrawn by the British as it was practically abandoned by the Americans; and by their assent to the convention of 1818 they agreed to an actual abandonment of their rights and to accept a limited enjoyment of conceded privileges, however, repugnent it may have been to their views. In support of these points Mr. MITCHELL quoted from Mr. ADAMS' despatch of September 15, 1815, and Mr. MUNRO'S statements, and read the instructions given to Vice Admiral KEATS in the despatch of Earl BATHURST of 17th June 1815, in which (said Mr. MITCHELL) the views of HER MASESTY's Government were clearly expressed and the position they assumed in relation to the treaty was defined. In the course of that communication Lord BATHURST said:~ "I am commanded by HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS "the PRINCE REGENT, to instruct you to abstain “most carefully from any interference with the Hon. Mr. Mitchell. "fishery, in which the subjects of the United "States may be engaged either on the Grand "Bank of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or other places in the sea. At the same time you will prevent them, except "under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, from using the British territory for 'purposes connected with the fishery, and will exclude their fishing vessels from the bays, harbors, rivers, creeks and inlets of all HIS "MAJESTY'S pessessions. In case, however, it "should have happened that the fishermen of "the United States, through ignorance of the "circumstances which affect this question, "should previous to your arrival, have already "commenced a fishery similar to that carried on by them previous to the late war, and "should have occupied the British harbors, and "formed establishments on the British terri"tory, which could not be suddenly abandoned "without very considerable loss; HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS the PRINCE REGENT, willing to give every indulgence to the citizens of the United "States which is compatible with HIS MAJES'Ty's rights, has commanded me to instruct you "to abstain from molesting such fishermen, or impeding the progress of their fishing dur"ing the present year, unless they should, by attempts to carry on a contraband trade, render themselves unworthy of protection or 'indulgence; you will, however, not fail to communicate to them the tenor of the instruc"tions which you have received, and the view "which HIS MAJESTY'S Government take of the "question of the fishery, and you will above all, be careful to explain to them that they are not in any future season to expect a con"tinuance of the same indulgence. The result of these prompt and decided measures on the part of the British Government induced American Statesmen to see the folly of their pretensions in the recent negotiations, and advances were made which resulted in the convention of 1818. The fishery article of that convention provided :— ઃઃ 66 "And the United States hereby renounce for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three marine miles, of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors of "HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S dominions in "America, not included within the above men"tioned limits; provided, however, that the "American fisherinen shall be admitted to enter "such bays or harbors, for the purpose of shelter "and of repairing damages therein, of purchas"ing 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." By this article the American Government in place of obtaining the concession made then, in the treaty of 1783 of equal rights of fishing with HER MAJESTY'S subjects, t deliberately renounced any liberty they had heretofore enjoyed or claimed, and agreed to their exclusion from the fisheries within three marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors, of British Dominions in America. In order to a proper understanding of the question, Mr. MITCHELL proceeded to inquire as to what are the rights of nations in relation to the fisheries on the high seas, and which are universally recognized and admitted, and what are those exclusive rights which pertain to nations in certain waters. He quoted the following authorities -Twiss' Law of Nations, pp. 252, 253 and 264; Wheaton, p. 326; Angell on Tide Waters; Vattel, 128; Selden, 182; Marters, 161; Wheaton's Elements of International Law, p. 320; Haute feuille Droits des Nations, p. 89; Bynkershoek, p. 323, of Lawrence's Wheaton; Kent's Commentaries, pp. 25, 29 and 30; Grotins de jure belli et pacis, L. II.; Halleck's International Law Puffendorff Law of Nature and of Nations, L. I V.; Vattel's Law of Nations. Mr. MITCHELL (Continuing) said he would next consider the effect and scope of the convention of 1818. That convention left the rights of Americans and British to participate in the fisheries of the open sea just as they existed under the treaty of 1783; but it curtailed the liberty the liberty which the Americans formerly enjoyed of taking fish within the three mile limit, while it gave them enhanced facilities for curing. After signing the convention of 1818, Great Britain continued to exercise and enforce the exclusion of ; American fishermen from our shores, and construed the treaty to mean a limit of three miles from headland to headland, and from three miles outside of the mouths of bays. From that time until the reciprocity treaty of 1854, our exclusive right to the use of the fisheries was rigidly enforced by the British Government. True, our rights were often infringed upon by the Americans, but they were never yielded. In 1841 the Americans began to poach more extensively, and the subject was brought under the notice of the Legislature of Nova the Legislature of Nova Scotia, and on June 8th in that year the following questions were proposed by the House of Assembly for consideration of HER MAJESTY's legal advisers :— "I. Whether the treaty of 1783 was annulled by the War of 1812, and whether citizens of the Hon. Mr. Mitchell. X United States possess any right of fishery in the Waters of the Lower Provinces other than ceded to them by the Convention of 1818; and if so, what right? "II. Have American citizens the right, under that Convention, to enter any of the Bays of this Province to take fish, if, after they have so three marine miles from the shores of such bays; entered, they prosecute the fishery more than or should the prescribed distance of three marine miles be measured from the headlands, at the entrace of such bays, so as to exclude them? "IV. Have American vessels, fitted out for a fishery, a right to pass through the Gut of Canso, which they cannot do without comiug within the prescribed limits, or to anchor there, in the track of the vessel fishing, within the or to fish there; and is casting bait to lure fish meaning of the Convention ? "V. Have American citizens a right to land on the Magdalen Islands, and conduct the fishery from the shores thereof, by using nets and seines; or what right of fishery do they possess on the shores of those islands, and what is meant by the term shore? "VI. Have American fishermen the right to enter the bays and harbors of this Province for the purpose having provided neither of these articles at the of purchasing wood or obtaining water commencement of their voyages, in their own country; or have they the right only of entering such bays and harbors in cases of distress, or to purchase wood and obtain water, after the usual stock of those articles for the voyage of such fishing craft has been exhausted or destroyed. "VII. Under existing Treaties, what rights of fishery are ceded to the citizens of the United States of America, and what reserved for the exclusive enjoyment of British subjects?" the Crown replied as follows :— To these questions the law officers of "1st Query.-In obedience to Your Lordship's commands, we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report, that we are of opinion, that the Treaty of 1783 was annulled by the war of 1812; and we are also of the opinion that the rights of fishery of the citizens of the United States must now be considered as defined and regulated by the Convention of 1818; and with respect to the general question if so, what right,' we can only refer to terms of the Convention, as explained and elucidated by the obser vations which will occur in answering the other specific queries." "2nd and 3rd Queries.-Except within certain defined limits, to which the query put to us does not apply, we are of opin |