■iC 



359 



States and Englnnd. No person disputes that proposition. It is not doubted. But I 

 suppose tliiU, III) |)t'rsoii will (ii-*pntc the laet tliiit, iilthoiigh i'lnirliind is noniiiiaily the party 

 to the Treaty, the Dominion of C'anadn is vitally interested in the rc>:nlt of tiiis Commis- 

 sion. Tlieie is jnst this diU'erence between this 'i'l'ealy and an oidinury Treaty l)it\veen 

 the United States and I'ngland ; that by its very terms it was wluilly in^iperiitivc as 

 regards the lliitisli Noith American Possessions, unless it were sanctioned hy the 

 Dominion Parliament anil the Legislature of Prince Kdward Island, which at thut time 

 was not a part of tlie dominion. In this respect it dill'ered Iroin an ordinary Trciity, 

 inasmuch as hy the very terms of the Treaty the Dominion of Canada had a voice in the 

 matter. But I am willing to treat the matter, as Mr. Trescot has been pleased to put it, 

 as one between England and the United States alone, as the High Contracting Parties. 

 You will recollect that, in the "Answer" to the British case, it was put prominently 

 forward that this Treaty was not only a boon to the Dominion, but that it was so great a 

 boon that the then Premier of this Dominion, in his place in Parliament, made a speech to 

 that eH'eet, which is (pioted at length in the Answer. Now, it may be right enough to quote 

 the Rtatements of puhh'c men in each of the countries. They are representative persons, 

 and may be suppo?e'l to speak the language of their constituencies. Therefore 1 do not 

 complain of their words being quoted. But I was surprised wiien, in the course of tiiis 

 inquiry, it was argued — I do not know whether it w-as by Mr. Foster or by one of the 

 learned gontlemeu associated with him — that these speeches were cdm expressions of 

 opinion by gentlemen not heated in any way by debate. It struck me thut tliat was a 

 curious Wi y in which to characterize a debate in tlie House of Commons upon a (juestion 

 vital to tlie existence of the Ministry lor the time iieing. I Ihouuht that was just a ease 

 where wc had a right to expect that the speeches delivered on either side would probably 

 partake' of a partizan character, and not only so, but that it was inevitable that the 

 Government speakers would use the strongest arguments they could in lielence of the 

 action of tiieir leader, even tiiough their arguments weakened the case of tlieir country in 

 an international ptjiiit ot' view. Had my learned friends been content to i)ut forward 

 these speeches in their answer, and quote them for the purpose of argument, there would 

 have been nothing to say beyond tliis, that when Sir John A. Macdonald and others 

 talked about the Hshcries, they were speaking of what they knew nothing about. Tliey 

 had no practical knowledge whatever. What |)iaclical knowledge of the matter iiad any 

 of us around this table belbre hearing the evidence ? None whatever. And yet, can it 

 be that Sir John A. Macdonald, Dr. Tupper, Mr. Stewart Campbell, or anvbody else who 

 made speeches, and whose remarks have been cjuoted, had u lithe of tlie inlbrmati m that 

 we now possess. Therefore, 1 think that we may diMuiss tiie whole of tlmse speeches by 

 saying, without meaning anything discourteous, tliat the persons who made them were 

 talking about matters of which they knew notliing, and theierore that tiieir speeches 

 ought to have no weight with this Commission. But Mr. Tiescot has relieved nie (i'om 

 using even that argument, for lie has rel'eried to this Minute of Council which I hold 

 in my hand, passed in the very year in which the Washington Treaty was negotiated, and 



before the Legis'ature of Civ 



\d adopted it. And 1 wish to call the attenticn of 



the Commission to tiic fact tliat the whole Privy Council were present, including Mr. 

 Peter Mitchell, the then Minister of .Marine and Fisheries, ae I especially to the fact 

 that Sir John A. Macdonald was present. The Minute is as folk rts : — 



" I'lfscni. : - 'I'lio Ibiil. Di. Tn|i|:ir 

 GPorj,'c Ki. C'lniirv, the lion. Mr. 'riH''y 

 Clla[uli^;, tiie lion. ^Ir. Laii;4evin, tiio 

 Diuikiii, I he IIou. Mv. Aikiiis. 



" rrivi/ i\iiiitcil Chamber, Oltawn, Friday, July 28, 1871. 



in till' ihiiir; the lion. Sir .Tolin A. Mainlonald, the lion, fc'ir 

 the lion. Mr. .Miloliell, the Hon. Mr. Camiilirll, the ilon. Ih: 

 Hon. Jlr Howe, tlio Hon. Sir Iriuicis lliiicks, the Hon. Mr. 



■ To His Excolloncy the nii^ht Ilououiablo John. Barou Lisgar, G.C.K, G.C.M.G., P.C., 

 " tloveiiior-Guaoral of Ciuada, lic, &C. 

 " May it ploast; j our Llxcolliiney — 



"Tlie Ooinniittee of the I'vivv Couneil have luul niuler their coiLsideratiou the Farl of Kiiuberley'B 

 ilospateli to your Jvu'elleney, dainl du-. 17tli Juiui nliiiiio, tran.sinittiii^' copie.i ol' Uio Ti'oaty signed 

 at Washington on the 8tli May la^t. I'V the iloiia lli;,'li t^iiniiiissioiiL'is, iukI wliieh has siticii been 

 rati tied by Her Maji'sty ami by the United States ol' America; "| the insirinilions to Ilor Majesty's 

 High Coiniuissioiieis, and of tlie I'mloeols of the (.,'onlereiu;e heUI by tlio t!oinuiissioii ; and likowiso 

 the Eavl of Iviinliurleys despateh ol tlio liUtli .lime nltiiiie, explaining the i'ailuiv of Iler Majesty's 

 Governiuunt to obUdii the consideration by the United Slates' C'oinmissiouers, of llio claims of Caiiuda 

 I'or the losses sustained owing to the I'Viiian niids of LSdO and 1870. 



"The Coimnitteu of the I'livy Coinuiil hnv not fuled to give tlioir anxious considoration to the 

 important subjects discussed in the li.ul of Kimberiey's despatches, and they feel assured that they will 

 consult llio best iuttircslM of the Kni)nif bv hiatinu frankly, for the informatioa of Hei Majesty 

 [280] 3 B 2 ' 



