a As United States should not be allowed, under to deny that we had great advantages. any circumstances, if it could possibly be I understand it, our case on that occasion avoided with honour, to come to a bloody was not so strong and not so unanswerable arbitrament; but I may be excused as a as the case which these hon. gentlemen had Canadian in thinking that if this was so very in the matter of the Behring Sea award. much for the general good of humanity, it is But, sir, we had great advantages, and pera little hard that the expense should be borne haps it was not the least of these advantages by us solely. Nevertheless, I am not going that upon that occasion Canada had engaged to deny that the conduct of the British Gov- the services of my hon. friend beside me ernment on this last occasion was in some im- (Mr. Davies, P.E.I.); and I remember, unless portant respects a material improvement on I am gravely mistaken, that the United their conduct in 1887; I am not going to deny States, on that occasion, had engaged the that it is more gratifying to our national self-services of the hon. the Minister of Justice. love, that it is, on the whole, a more decorous Now, the fact of the matter was that on the way of doing business that we should be occasion of the Halifax award, Canada was allowed to appoint an arbitrator and counsel represented by two trained and capable than that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain or any statesmen, by Sir Alexander Galt and Sir other British potentate should be sent over Albert Smith; Canada on the last occasion here to knock the heads of Canadian Minis- was represented by-well, comparisons are ters together and tell them that Canada odious, Mr. Speaker, and besides that, I do should not be allowed to embroil England really not wish to say anything harsh. and the United States for the sake of a few Moreover, I am convinced that the hon. cod-fish. My hon. friend, before recess, gentlemen probably did their best, and, after alluded wittily to a certain famous scene all, the fault did not lay with them, but with from a certain famous French comedy, where the persons who placed them in a position a certain courteous cook invited his poultry for which they were not especially fitted by to come together to consider with what sauce training and capacity. However, in deferthey would prefer to be eaten. Sir, I am ence to the prejudices of the Minister of going to push the parallel a little further. Justice, I will apply the test to which he will We were treated, I admit on this occasion a not object, the arithmetical test, and the result little more courteously than this most cour- is that in the case of the Halifax award the teous cook treated his poultry, because we people of Canada came out five million dollars were allowed to send over two of the poultry to the good; while in the case of this award at themselves to assist in the composition of the Paris the people of Canada will pay their sauce wherewith they were to be cooked. Now, own costs. Now, there is a lesson to be Sir, if we have lost everything else it is a learned from this, and I commend it to the source of unfeigned pleasure to see that these serious consideration, not merely of the hon. two animals have been returned to us at any gentlemen, but of every Canadian from one rate safe and sound. The elder bird, I am end of this Dominion to the other. The lesson bound to say, looks even sleeker and snugger I deduce is this, the utter uselessness and I and more sanctimonious than of yore; while say it with emphasis, I say it with knowledge as for his pretty companion, he has come back the utter uselessness on the part of the to us with a ribbon tied around his neck to in- people of Canada of relying on English inform us of what we know pretty well without tervention in any shape or form. When any special information from him, how thor- Canada, as in the case of the Halifax award, oughly and completely the anser canadensis was allowed to settle her dispute with the was first plucked and then cooked by the United States in her own way without the arbitrators, and what an excellent vehicle ar-interference of Englishmen, Canada for the bitration sauce was for assisting in its con- only time in the history of English negotisumption. Now, Sir, let me tell the hon. gen-ations with the United States, came out a tleman that there is a right and a wrong in substantial gainer. Sir, what we require this matter, there is a true policy and a foolish to-day is to have the right to settle our dispolicy for Canada to pursue. Sir, the hon. putes with the United States after our own gentlemen have got to learn, and Canada has fashion. We require to have our own acgot to learn, that to bluster and to brag is credited agent at Washington responsible to not the way to ensure a triumph over a us alone, and reporting to us; and had we nation like the United States. Now, I have had that advantage, I tell the hon. gentlebeen a member of an Administration which man we could not possibly have fared worse in its time had occasion to conduct an arbi- than we did in this case, and with any kind tration with the United States, and the hon. of discretion we would have come out vastly gentleman would have done well to take the gainer. Now, I think the hon. gentleexample by the manner in which the Macken- man would do well to consider the propriety zie Administration conducted their arbitration of improving this occasion in order to carry with the people of the United States. Has out the suggestion I was making. It is time the hon. gentleman forgotten that there was to have a little plain speaking with Great such a thing as a Halifax Award ? Has Britain on our part. Sir, if, in any given he forgotten the genuine success which at- case, the Government of Great Britain will tended the efforts of the Canadian negotia- come to us frankly and honestly and say to tors on that occasion? I am not disposed us: Imperial interests require a surrender 1 their subsidized press, and in the expressions used to and of the Government of the United States. They were obstinate when they should have been yielding; they were weak and illadvised in action, and what is more, and what I regret much is, that they have thrown away many golden opportunities which, had they known how to use them, might have established us in a satisfactory position in regard to the United States. More than that. They knew perfectly, and the Minister of Justice must have known, that in former times they incurred a frightful risk by their folly in dealing with the United States, and if they escaped a collision it was most assuredly rather by accident than by their own foresight. In proof of what I have said I will read an authority, which the Minister of Marine at all events will not dispute. I called attention some little time ago to the extraordinary danger in which the folly of the present Government had placed Canada from having complicated matters in connection with the Behring Sea difficulty, by reason of pursuing a mischievous policy on the other side of the continent. Here is what in this House in my presence six years ago, the present High Commissioner, Sir Charles Tupper, told the House with respect to the position the policy of the hon. gentleman opposite had placed us in the year of grace 1887. Sir Charles said : I would like to draw the attention of the on your part, we know that we cannot adequately protect you, and therefore in your interests and in ours we require a certain surrender-I am not going to be unreasonable, if the British Government choose to make such a statement, let us accept the situation, but let us demand that the corollary be accepted also, and the corollary that I deduce from this same transaction is that while maintaining our connection with Great Britain we should have the right to demand and ought to demand a free hand to settle our difficulties with the United States, and with any other people on this continent, at least, in our own fashion and according to our own way. Sir, I know, and no man knows better, the very great value of the friendship of the United States to England. For five and twenty years I have privately and publicly from my place in Parliament and in the Cabinets of English ministers urged this view, and have never ceased to point out through good report and evil report, that no consideration under Heaven is so valuable to the people of England as to retain the friendship and good-will of the people of the United States, and as a private man and as a minister I have done my best, and I will continue to do my best to the day of my death, to bring about that most desirable end. But while I will go as far as any man to obtain the friendship of the United States for Canada and the mother country, I desire it to be done by fair and honourable means, and I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that this is not the way to win it. House to what has been accomplished by this I repeat again that to conciliate does not treaty. I have told you what position Canada mean to crouch, and that the worst possible stood in with regard to the United States of way of seeking the friendship of the United America before the initiation of these proceedings. States is to bluster and then to cringe. II have told you that we stood face to face with an know, because I have had dealings with the enactment which had been put on the Statute book American people, and my hon. friends around by a unanimous vote of Congress, ratified by the me have also had in their time dealings with the United States and Canada. President, providing for non-intercourse between I need not tell you the people of the United States. I know that that that bill meant commercial war, that it meant the Government of the United States respects not only the ordinary suspension of friendly feeling fair and courteous opponents, and as a matter and intercourse between two countries, but that it of fact the Administration of Mr. Mackenzie, involved more than that. If that bill had been which had made it a part of their policy by brought into operation by the proclamation of the all fair and honourable means to conciliate United States, I have no hesitation in saying that the United States, but which at the same time never gave up one jot of the rights of Canada without receiving adequate compensation, never stood higher in the estimation of the United States Government than after showing at Halifax that while they were willing to maintain the most friendly relations with the United States, they were also determined to maintain to the uttermost the rights of Canada. I am sorry to have to say it, but the policy of the Canadian Government with respect to the United States, for the last seven years at least I hope a better time is coming, and I take some courage after the remaks made by the hon. gentleman in hoping a better time is coming-but for the past seven towards the United States almost at the years at least same time that these outrages of which I their policy was one long mistake. have spoken were being perpetrated on our I say they were rash and insealers and ships in Behring Sea. Sir, I retemperate in their language, and in the language permitted by them to be used by only. It is true we have removed the cause peat we have had one gain, and one gain we stood in the relation to that great country of commercial war, and the line is very narrow which separates a commercial war between two countries from an actual war. Yesterday we stood face to face with a non-intercourse bill sustained by the united action of the Senate and House of Representatives, sustained by almost the whole press, Republican and Democratic, of the United States, sustained with few exceptions by a prejudiced, irritated, exasperated people of 60,000,000 lying on our borders. Having said what I have said as to the British Government, I felt it right to put on British Government, I felt it right to put on record what Sir Charles Tupper had to say record what Sir Charles Tupper had to say of the results of the policy of his colleagues and of friction, and doubtless the process was judge, the hon. gentleman is the author of a very easy. We removed the cause of friction, criminal code of more or less value-rather and doubtless the process was very easy. less than more, according to Mr. Justice We removed the cause of friction as we Taschereau, but that is not a point I intend might remove all causes of friction, by giving to dwell upon. Anyhow, the hon. gentleman up everything demanded of us, and there so is the chief executive officer of the Depart far and no further, no doubt the hon. gen- ment of Justice, and I want to know whether tleman has scored a success. Now, Mr. he is prepared to apply this rule ? I want Speaker, having spoken like my hon. friend to know whether he is going to give equal of what the Speech does contain, I have a British rights to all classes of men, equally word to say in regard to what the Speech and indiscriminately? Sir, it is known to does not contain. The Speech does con- me, and probably the Minister of Justice, tain an allusion, not in very glowing terms, that there are many persons now confined but still in terms sufficiently glowing, to the in the several prisons and penitentiaries of great diplomatic victory obtained abroad, but by a singular omission, for which it is this Dominion whose health is suffering from confinement. I am informed that the col difficult to account, the Speech contains no allusion to a much greater diplomatic vic-worthies are in prison, would not amount, all lective sums, for the theft for which those tory which the Government obtained at home. Sir, there can be no doubt whatever that a few weeks ago the Government of Canada were in a very awkward position, to use a vulgar phrase, they were in a remarkably tight place. There can be no no doubt whatever that the Government of Canada by the exercise of diplomatic skill successfully avoided a very great danger. There can be no doubt whatever that it required no trifling exercise of finesse to enable the Minister of Justice to get those injured innocents, Messrs. McGreevy Connolly out of jail in good time before Parliament met. Had they been in durance vile when the House assembled, I shudder to think what might have been the consequences to the hon. gentlemen opposite. They might have spoken inadvisedly with their lips, they might have furnished much most curious information regarding the inner machinery to which the hon. gentleman and his colleagues owe their seats in this House. I really think the success of the hon. gentieman deserves special mention in the Speech from the Throne; I might also say that it deserved a Te Deum Laudamus with which generals are wont to celebrate their great victories. There is another consideration. The hon. gentleman is great in precedents; in his time he has established some remarkable precedents. He established a very remarkable precedent in showing how to deal with charges presented against members of the Cabinet. Now, the hon. gentleman has established another precedent, which will be of great use no doubt in the future, namely, how to deal with exM.P.'s who happen to know too much. I desire to know is the Minister of Justice prepared to apply this rule? Is the Minister of Justice prepared to declare in future that if a prisoner finds his health suffers from confinement he is prepared to discharge him after he has gone through about one quarter of the punishment the courts believed adequate to the offence ? I know that the Minister of Justice is not very strong in political economy. I have not myself discovered that he is a very great adept in matters of arithmetic; but the hon. gentle. man is a lawyer, the hon. gentleman is an ex put together, to more than ten per cent of but of one resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for Motion agreed to. ADJOURNMENT-EASTER. Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Hon. members adjournment for the Easter recess would be proposed, and it might therefore be convenient that we should come to an understanding about it to-day. My proposition is that when the House adjourns on Wednesday next it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 27th March, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and if there is no objection I will now make a motion to that effect. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Then I public money, I cannot say; thing I am certain, that the the Cabinet aforesaid might, to quote Lord Dufferin, "On their honour as gentlemen, on their fealty as sworn advisers of the Crown" have assured His Excellency that from their own knowledge they were aware that Mr. McGreevy and Mr. Connolly were very sick from being in prison, and very angry too. I did not hear my hon. friend are continually inquiring at what time the from Ottawa (Sir James Grant), Grant), make special allusion to it, but I have noticed in the press many congratulations, and I have no doubt very proper congratulations, on the recognition which has been extended by Her Most Gracious Majesty to the Minister of Justice. The hon. gentleman will permit me to offer my congratulations on the still better merited recognition which was extended to him recently by His Excellency in this matter of McGreevy and Connolly. He will also permit me to make a slight retraction. It is true, when starting out with my remarks, I declared that the meeting of the House had been delayed in order that the hon. gentleman might look to Washington to see what the United States authorities were doing. There is no doubt, Sir, that that was a reason and a powerful one, but, Sir. I believe that after all that that reason was a secondary one. The true reason is the last one. This Cabinet so strong in the people's love, this Cabinet so feared abroad and honoured at home, this Cabinet with so ample a majority, this combination of all the virtues and all the talents, these illustrious statesmen so confident in the consciousness of their own inner purity,―dared not meet Parliament, dared not meet their own supporters, but preferred to paralyze the business of this country, preferred to subject themselves and the whole House to the greatest possible inconvenience until such time as they had been able to make their peace with Messrs. McGreevy and Connolly. Mr. MACDONALD (Huron) moved the adjournment of the debate. Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned. Sir JOHN THOMPSON moved the adjournment of the House. Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MONDAY, 19th March, 1894. The Speaker took the Chair at Three o'clock. PRAYERS. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. presume that the hon. Minister of Finance Sir JOHN THOMPSON. It is impossible to say how long the debate on the Address will continue. Mr. LAURIER. At all events, it will never do to have the Budget speech on a day that is a private members' day. Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I do not quite see that. Of course, members' business will have precedence. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. If private members' business have precedence, as usual, there is not much question as to the Budget being reached. I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance, or the Controller of Customs-I do not know which has the matter in charge-whether it would be convenient to have distributed to the members of the House a certain official document showing the rates on goods imported from England, and the rates on goods imported from the United States, which I understand has been prepared, and which would be of great interest and value in the approaching discussion. Mr. FOSTER. I do not know to what document my hon. friend alludes. I suppose he has not by him a copy of it which he could give one. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I had one, but I haven't it here. Mr. FOSTER. If there are any documents which are necessary for the understanding of the tariff question when the Budget comes before the House, we shall be very pleased to bring them down. Mr. LAURIER. I would be loth to believe that the Government had such a document prepared, if it were not necessary. If it is necessary for the Government, I think it is necessary for the members generally. Mr. FOSTER. follow. Mr. LAURIER. That does not always for the year 1894 ? If so, are the said instructions identical with those of last year, and do they permit the taking of soft fish I think it does. Mr. LANDERKIN. The Government need during the close season for game fish? When it more than the members generally. Motion agreed to. FIRST READINGS. Bill (No. 2) to secure the better observance of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday. (Mr. Charlton.) Bill (No. 3) to repeal the Electoral Franchise Act, and to make certain provisions in place thereof.-(Mr. Charlton.) Bill (No. 6) to disfranchise voters who have taken bribes.-(Mr. Weldon.) were the said instructions forwarded to the fishery overseers of the said counties ? Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Yes. The instructions are identical with the exception that pickerel cannot be caught after 1st April. They permit the taking of soft fish during the close season for game fish. They were forwarded to the fishery overseers of the said counties on the 24th February, 1894. FRENCH COMMERCIAL TREATY. Mr. LAURIER asked, What is the policy of Bill (No. 7) to extend the ballot to the the Government with regard to the ComNorth-west Territories.-(Mr. Martin.) PREVENTION OF CRUELTY ANIMALS. ΤΟ mercial Treaty with France? Is the Government to ask or not to ask the ratification of the treaty ? ference to this treaty, and the Government have therefore decided to defer giving their answer until after the Easter holidays, after these delegations have been heard. TUBERCULOSIS. Mr. FOSTER. I beg to say in reply to Mr. COATSWORTH moved for leave to the hon. gentleman that two important deintroduce Bill (No. 4) to make further pro-legations have asked to be heard with revision as to the prevention of cruelty to animals and to amend the Criminal Code of 1892. He said: This Bill is the one I introduced last session. The law has been found inadequate to meet the number of cases coming before the different magistrates, and the object of this Bill is to make further provision as regard the prevention of cruelty to animals, in order to meet cases of abandonment of diseased animals, and over-driving, and the use of animals as targets, the carriage of animals by rail and water, and other cases. The present provisions of the law are to be modified so that all cases of cruelty may be brought within its scope. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time. Mr. SMITH (Ontario) asked, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation this session dealing with tu berculosis? Mr. FOSTER. The department is now making studies with reference to this matter, and no definite answer can yet be given. ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCEL LENCY'S SPEECH. The House resumed the consideration of His Excellency's Speech at the opening of the session. Mr. MACDONALD (Huron). In rising to make a few observations on some of the topics touched upon in the Speech from the Throne, I beg leave, in the first place, to extend my congratulations to my professional confrère, the hon. member for Ottawa (Sir James Grant), on the very able and eloquent speech he made in moving the address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. His graceful and well-timed remarks concerning the Earl and Countess of Derby, who left our shores a few months ago, after in this country, are well deserving of comhaving so ably filled the Viceregal position pliment. His reference to the worthy and the noble Lord and Lady who have been called to preside over the destinies of this country was also exceedingly appropriate. I am sure that every member of Parliament, and every citizen of the country, will agree with these sentiments, so kindly and so eloquently expressed by the hon. member for Ottawa (Sir James Grant). Mr. Speaker, we in |