Canadians, and Canadian vessels would enter upon the carrying trade of the Atlantic and Pacific sea-coasts. This concession was worth more to Canada than all she gave for the treaty. As to our fisheries it was well enough known at what value the Americans estimated them. When the honourable member for Kingston (Sir John A. Macdonald) was assisting in the negotiations of the celebrated Washington Treaty, they would remember, the American commissioners had offered for them the free admission of coal, lumber, salt, and fish, with the provision that lumber should not be admitted free until after 1874. The British commissioners demurred, and the Americans did not see fit to increase the offer, but withdrew it. With regard to the canal enlargement, undoubtedly the expense would be very great to Canada. But the Canadian system of canals was not designed to benefit the Americans, but to divert a portion of the vast commerce of the West from the American canals; and for the purpose of carrying out more fully that plan, it was the policy of this country to enlarge those canals without reference to reciprocity. For this purpose we proposed to enlarge the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, and, by this enlargement, we hoped a very large proportion of the trade that passed through the Erie canal, and from Oswego to New York, would go to Montreal.

Much had been said about the building of the Caughnawaga canal, and efforts had been made to mislead the public regarding it. We were told that we were to be cheated in the operation, because the American government only undertook to urge it on the state of New York that the Whitehall canal and Erie should be opened to Canada, but we were bound to build and open the Caughnawaga canal to American vessels. But the draft treaty reserved to Canada the privilege of refusing American vessels the use of the canal if the state of New York did not choose to accept the recommendation of the United States government, and open her canals to the Canadians. We were to have the free use of the Erie canal, three-hundred and sixty-five

miles in length, and of the Champlain canal, ninety-five miles in length, for the use of the Caughnawaga canal, of about forty miles; that is, we were to get the use of eleven times as many miles of canals as we gave. He considered the construction of that canal would be good policy under the circumstances, because it would afford the cheapest and most convenient outlet for the lumber of the Ottawa valley, and would save fully $200,000 per annum to the Ottawa lumbermen. The vast amount of food consumed in the New England states would go down this canal instead of the Erie canal, and Burlington would become the great distributing point instead of Albany.

It might be urged that, under this treaty, we should not be allowed the free navigation of Lake Champlain; but it would make very little difference, for, instead of Burlington, we would make Rouse's Point, or some place on the boundary line, the distributing point. There were two interests he had not mentioned that would be very much benefited by reciprocity. We had in Canada vast deposits of iron. The trade of the United States in iron ore was enormously great, especially from the Lake Superior mines. Remove the duty of twenty per cent., and great quantities would be exported to the other side. And coal could be brought, and iron manufactured here, and exported to the United States. With this treaty in operation, employment would be given to an immense amount of capital, and to tens of thousands of men. We had in Nova Scotia enormous deposits of coal which could be taken to the New England ports for the New England manufactories. That coal could be laid down in New York more cheaply than American coal, and a great coal business would spring up in Nova Scotia. Had this treaty been ratified, Canada would have received an enormous impetus; we should have entered upon a new career. One of its strongest features was that the treaty would have existed twenty-one years, and in that time interests would have grown up, and grown permanent. We were well aware that Canada had superior

political institutions, and that, standing side by side, the two forms of government were on trial. The Americans had a theory largely evolved from the reasoning of those who framed the constitution, and abstract rather than practical in character. We had a government the result of experience gained in ten centuries. It remained to be determined which of those two systems was best adapted to secure the happiness and prosperity of the people living under it. In order to give our institutions a fair trial, it was necessary that we should have a due share of prosperity. If we went on increasing at the rate of only ten or fifteen per cent. in ten years, while the population of the United States showed twice that rate, we should fall behind in the race of progress, our institutions would attract no attention, and our nationality would in time be snuffed out. All who had the interest of the country at heart should seek a policy that would advance our welfare. He believed that no measure had been devised that was so thoroughly calculated to advance our prosperity as this treaty; and any one who had opposed it for party purposes was guilty of an unpatriotic act. He would only say in conclusion that, when the honourable gentleman (Hon. George Brown), who negotiated this treaty passed away, he needed no prouder epitaph than this: "Here lies the man who negotiated the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874."

REPLY TO PERSONAL ATTACK-THE

LUMBER DUTIES

WHILE the following speech takes the form of a reply to personal attacks, it deals with matters of public interest which are not explained elsewhere, and which could not be explained by any person except myself. The attack which primarily called forth this reply, and which is referred to in the exordium of the speech, was made by Mr. W. H. Bennett, of East Simcoe. The report here given is from Hansard with slight revision.

House of Commons, June 4, 1895. MR. CHARLTON-Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a matter that once engaged the attention of this House, and has provoked considerable discussion in the country. It is a matter pertaining largely to myself; and but for the attention that has been given to it by ministers, by Conservative members of the House, and by the Conservative press, I should not have felt warranted in obtruding it upon the atttention of the House at this time. But, under the circumstances, I feel bound to take the course I now take. About one year ago, on the thirteenth day of June last, a very bitter attack was made upon me, without notice, by a member of this House. I was called upon on the spur of the moment, to refute, to the best of my ability, that attack. Owing to certain circumstances, my course in doing so was to some extent, embarrassed and constrained. The Wilson Bill which placed Canadian lumber upon the free list, was, at that time, pending before the United States Congress,