BRITISH, COLONIAL, AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 287 



and the United States was practically abolished. Of course the laws 

 were not enforced rigidly. I do not pretend to say that hon. gentlemen 

 cannot point out exceptions; but the laws were so utterly abhorrent 

 to the people that they were not enforced. No doubt vessels did go in, 

 and we had a sort of illicit traffic between the two countries, but it 

 was contrary to the law of the land unless it was done in British ships. 

 The British Government did not allow any Provincial vessels to carry 

 on trade with the United States. That continued until 1830, when a 

 change took place, and reciprocal intercourse with the United States 

 became easier. Since 1854, with the exception of a period of six or 

 seven years, during which time our relations with the United States 

 have been growing more natural, more pleasant and more friendly, 

 this treaty of 1818 was in force. 



******* 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. It came to an end in 1866, and this protection 

 which my hon. friend described then began, but, as he admits, it was 

 not enforced with such strictness as on former occasions. We had 

 not then the National Policy; we had not a high tariff; we had not 

 the customs laws developed to the condition they are today; and so 

 the old treaty of 1818 was not enforced with the same strictness that 

 it was in 1886 and 1887. However, a relief came in the Washington 

 Treaty of 1871, and that lasted until July, 1885, and was continued 

 until the end of that year. Then we were again back on the treaty 

 of 1818, which was wholly unsuited to the condition of things that 

 in the meantime had grown up between Canada and the United States. 

 What was the policy of the Government then? It was announced 

 that the National Policy was to be one of the levers that was to bring 

 about reciprocity. It had not, however, succeeded. Then it was deter- 

 mined that we should put the screws on the United States that we 

 should enforce this old and barbarous treaty, and that we should insist 

 on having our pound of flesh that we should carry out the treaty of 

 1818 in order that we might force the United States to admit Canadian 

 trade into their markets. 



******* 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. * * * They distinctly affirm the principle that 

 they will have their pound of flesh under the treaty of 1818 in this 

 year of grace 1888. I ask you could anything be more irritating or 

 exasperating thrown at the people of the United States than that 

 attempt of ours? 



The Government now are only too glad, through the instrumen- 

 tality of the Commission, to give away what they ought to have given 

 2 years ago what they ought never to have claimed. Had the Gov- 

 ernment of this country acted in a fair and liberal spirit and on a 

 just interpretation of this treaty of 1818, it would not have been nec- 

 essary to have the treaty of 1888. The Americans wanted no more 

 than they got and we ought to have given it to them with some de- 

 gree of grace, not in the manner in which it has been done. Now let 

 us take, in contrast with that, the opinion of one of the Provinces of 

 the Dominion before she came into Confederation, let us take the 

 opinion of Prince Edward Island. What was their view of the 

 treaty of 1818? It would appear that this treaty was practically 

 abrogated by the independent Island before it became part of the 

 Dominion of Canada. And their attention was called by the Gov- 



