Canada and the States

by Sir E. W. Watkin

"That the hour was too late to permit more than a speech in outline as to the Reciprocity Treaty and the Bonding Acts. Under the latter, articles chargeable with duty could be sent through United States territory and Canada in bond, and as Canada was for the present, and would be until the completion of railway communication to Halifax on the Atlantic, cut off from access to the ocean for five winter months of the year, the Bonding Acts enabled her commerce with the outside world to pass unimpeded. The Northwestern States received in return corresponding facilities of access through Canada. The Reciprocity Treaty included three essential provisions—the rights of fishery on a shore line of 1,500 miles, the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, and the free interchange of productions between the British Provinces and the United States. (The beneficent theory of the treaty was to make two countries, politically distinct, commercially one, and to induce the two peoples, otherwise opposed, to live in co-operation and in peace.) The provision as to the fisheries had settled for the time difficult questions leading, in past days, and over and over again, to dispute, collision, and sometimes the imminence of war. The free navigation of the St. Lawrence and of Lake Michigan had removed jealousies and fostered the idea of common interests in the great waterways to the ocean, while the results of trade had been so happy that a total annual interchange of commodities of a value of nearly 10,000,000_l. a year in amount between the British Provinces and the United States now existed. They were now threatened with the termination of this treaty at the end of twelve months, and no hope appeared to be held out, so far, of an amicable revision and extension of its benefits. The consequences to commerce were evident, and at first would be most serious. Trade at last, no doubt, would take other channels, and the British Provinces, trading between each other and with the Mother Country, and reducing their duties to a low rate, might at the end be largely benefited at the price of a present loss; but that was merely the money view, and such a gain would be dearly purchased at the cost of humanity and civilization if it broke up the commercial and social union heretofore existing. He held that peace and progress and the future good relations between Great Britain and the United States, on which peace and progress were largely based, would suffer by such an isolation, and he would look with distrust upon a prosperity which was not still shared between the people on each side of the border. He had travelled much on both sides of the British lines, and it was cheering to see there how thoroughly one the two peoples had become, socially and commercially. They traded together, went into partnership together, visited together. A Canadian or New Brunswicker would often have a farm on each side of the, practically imaginary, boundary line; and a citizen of the United States often lived on his own and traded or manufactured on the other side of the border. In fact, the border jealousies which had caused such bitterness and danger even in our own country had in this generation all but disappeared in this case, under the operation of high-minded and far-sighted legislation. Considering, therefore, the magnitude of the commercial interests, the grave questions of navigation, ocean rights, and free communication, he must express the most anxious, surprise to learn that Her Majesty's Government had allowed the matter to drift into its present position. He was told that no effort whatever had been made to preserve the treaty as it was, or as it might be amended, by negociations at Washington. His honorable friend, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had said, in answer to a question he had put in that House last May, that no negociations were pending as to the Reciprocity Treaty, and that Government had no official information upon the subject of the Bonding Acts. He was bound to take that answer as a correct statement; and he then asked, Was it possible that her Majesty's Government could remain inactive when a trade of 10,000,000_l_ a year and the issues of future peace or disturbance were in the balance? Were the proposed notice to terminate the treaty any matter of suddenness or by way of surprise, he might comprehend it; but for above three years the subject had been agitated and discussed in Congress, in Canada, and in all the Chambers of Commerce in the North-west. It had been notorious to everybody that one party desired isolation from the British Provinces and another desired the operations of the treaty to be extended. It was, therefore, a question to be discussed in advance of the present entanglement; and, as Canada had no treaty-making power, the responsibility rested with the Government at home. This was a question so serious from every point of view that the House would have to take it up as soon as the noble lord at the head of the Government laid upon the table the notice which he had told them would be given on the 15th March next. Then would be the time to discuss it fully and in all its bearings. His object now was to prepare for that discussion by obtaining all the facts. The papers laid before the House last week did not go back far enough. It appeared that in the autumn of 1861 the New York Chamber of Commerce memorialized Congress for a revision of the treaty, and a committee reported upon it in February, 1862. That report he had here. It did not advocate notice; no, it advocated adherence to the principles of free exchange, and it proposed that commissioners should negociate an extension of the treaty. In March, 1864, Mr. Ward reported resolutions appointing commissioners for that purpose, and ultimately the discussion was postponed to December, 1864. During all this time surely communications of some kind passed to or from this country; and it was self-apparent that the treaty might have been revised and extended before recent causes of irritation had appeared. Those causes had led to much bitter feeling, and it might now be too late to restore the principle of the treaty and of the Bonding Acts in all their integrity. He now moved for all papers subsequent to December, 1861, with a view to further discussion hereafter. He would call attention to a very singular letter, given at pages 70 and 77 in the papers printed last week. That letter had been intercepted by General Augur, and was stated by Mr. Seward to be undoubtedly genuine. He would ask whether any explanation of that letter had been offered by his Excellency the American Minister, Mr. Adams? And, if so, why that explanation had not been printed? The letter was from a Confederate agent residing in Canada, apparently to Mr. Seddon, the Confederate Secretary for War. It must have been written at the end of October last year. It stated that the writer had made an arrangement with parties 'powerful and influential with the Government of the United States' to deliver supplies of meat in exchange for cotton, 'at any port Mr. Secretary Seddon may designate on the east side of the Mississippi,' or on 'the west side,' and after this delivery it was said that 'the way was perfectly clear to deliver anywhere within General Butler's department.' He adds, that he has made another contract with another Federal American citizen, 'by which supplies of meat will be furnished at Mobile by written permission of the President of the United States to the free passage of the blockading fleet at that port.' His contract, he says, is for 5,000,000 lbs. of meat in exchange for 5,000,000 lbs. of cotton. Now, if this were true, it opened up a very large question. Merchants in England who had run the blockade had been most properly censured for the practice. Their having done so was naturally matter of diplomatic complaint; but here were the seal and the signature of the President of the United States himself made use of to send supplies to the enemy on the one hand, and to give cotton to the manufacturers of the Northern States on the other. He thought that letter ought not to have been printed without some comment. If explanations had been given by Mr. Adams and were not printed, the omission was a slight; and he thought a good understanding with the United States, desired so sincerely by, he hoped, the House at large, would not be promoted by its publication."

The "Observer," referring to this speech, made the following remarks:—

"There is a great disadvantage in bringing any important question before the House of Commons at a late hour of the night, because in such a case it is impossible, arising from the exigencies of the morning papers, that full justice can be done by the parliamentary reporters to the speech of the speaker. An illustration, of this occurred on Friday evening. Mr. Watkin, in moving for papers respecting the Reciprocity Treaty between the United States and the British North American Provinces, entered at considerable length and with great ability into that important subject. His speech will be found in another part of our impression. It would not be easy to overrate the importance of the interests to this country involved in the question which Mr. Watkin so lucidly brought before the House. He showed that under the operation of the existing treaty British trading interests to the extent of 10,000,000_l_. per annum were involved. This is no inconsiderable sum. Assuredly it is much too large to be heedlessly sacrificed if means can be found consistent with the honour of the country to prevent it. And yet, notwithstanding the great and manifest importance of the subject, and though the United States have given notice of their intention to terminate the treaty in twelve months from the present time, it would appear that no steps have yet been taken on the part of the Imperial Government to avert the evils of which the termination of that treaty would be productive to the British North American Provinces, and through them to the Mother Country; for, apart from the stoppage that would ensue to the international trade now existing between the States and Canada and her sister provinces, the old vexed question as to the right of Americans to participate in the fisheries in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, along a shore upwards of 1,500 miles in length, is again raised. To call attention to these facts was the main object of Mr. Watkin's speech. He had no wish to embarass the Government in any way, but was simply desirous of impressing on it the importance of early action in the matter, with the view to the preservation or modification of the Reciprocity Treaty. It is to be hoped, now the matter has been so fully and ably brought before the British Government, that steps will be immediately taken to enter into such negotiations with the United States as will secure this desirable result. If this were done, we cannot doubt that the Government of the United States will respond in a friendly spirit to the wishes of our own Government, and that not only the best results will follow as regards the treaty in question, but also as regards the general commercial relations between the United States, the British North American Provinces, and this country."

I felt so strongly that great opportunities had been lost owing to the negligence and incapacity of our rulers, that I drew up and widely circulated, various memoranda, intended to inform public opinion in England. I felt convinced that, if once this wise and fraternal treaty were allowed to expire, the future relations of the British Provinces and Canada must gravitate towards antagonism, or towards annexation. My forebodings are, at this moment, justified by the action of the United States Congress in the matter of the fisheries. Because Canada has enforced the provisions of the, still existing, and recognized, Treaty of 1818, the Congress of the United States has, in 1887, by statute, instructed the President to put in operation odious "reprisals"— reprisals which throw the "Milan Decrees" of the first Napoleon into the shade of barbarism. The President, believed to be an enlightened man, threatens to put his powers into strict operation. If he goes to the full length of this unique enactment, he may practically close all industrial, and even social, intercourse between the British territory —a territory larger in area than that over which he rules—and the United States. Such legislation, so eagerly acted on, is simply sickening. Talk of fraternity and liberty for all mankind. Delusion —mockery.

A concise resume of this question, written by me in 1865, here follows:—

"A treaty of amity and commerce between Great Britain and the United States of America, known as the 'Reciprocity Treaty,' [Endnote 1] has been allowed to expire with the expiry of the twelve months' notice, given on the 17th March, 1865, by the Government at Washington, under the authority of the Senate.

"No explanation has been given to Parliament; nor has a single paper of any kind been laid upon the table of the House by Her Majesty's Government. It is, therefore, thought to be time to ask for explanations, and thereby, so far as may now be possible, to prevent that gradual 'drifting' into serious complication which disfigured the transactions of the Whig Government in 1854 (Russian war), in 1861-2 (Poland), and in 1863-4 (Denmark). The Reciprocity Treaty provided not merely for free interchange of commodities between Her Majesty's North American Colonies and the United States, but it settled the fishery complications, on a coast line of 4,000 miles, and provided for the international navigation of the St. Lawrence (1,200 miles), and of the canals and locks of that mighty river, and of Lake Michigan and its tributaries. It thus dealt with questions which, unsettled and in doubt, had led to antagonism and the recurring danger of war; and, in the twelve years of its existence, its operation has alike enlarged the commerce and the friendship of the neighbouring subjects of the two powers parties to the treaty. Perhaps no convention of modern times has more tended to produce material prosperity and peace and goodwill amongst those concerned. But it has been, it is repeated, allowed to expire, and, as will be shown, owing mainly to the culpable negligence and maladroit management of those who have had charge of British interests.

"On the 27th June, 1854, Lord Clarendon said in the House of Lords, in answer to a question put by Lord Fitzwilliam (see 'Hansard's Debates,' 27th June, 1854):—

"'It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the return of Lord Elgin to Canada afforded an opportunity which ought not to be neglected, of endeavouring to settle those numerous questions which for years past have been embarrassing the two Governments. One of those questions especially, that relating to the fisheries, has given rise to annually increasing causes of contention, and has sometimes threatened collisions, which, I believe, have only been averted for the last two years by the firmness and moderation of Sir George Seymour and of the British and American naval commanders, and by that spirit of friendship and forbearance which has always characterized the officers of both navies. But, my Lords, your Lordships are aware that there are other questions which have given rise to embarrassing discussion between the Governments of the two countries—questions which involve the commercial relations of our North American possessions with the United States, and that those questions, which involve very divergent interests, have become so complicated as to render their solution a matter of extreme difficulty.' And he added, 'I trust, therefore, that nothing will occur to mar the completion of this great work, which, I firmly believe, more than any other event of recent times, will contribute to remove all differences between two countries, whose similarity of language and affinity of race, whose enterprise and industry, ought to unite them in the bonds of cordial friendship, and to perpetuate feelings of mutual confidence and goodwill.'

"In the conversation which ensued all parties coincided as to the vast importance of the treaty, and Lord Derby, while doing so, took the opportunity of insisting that Her Majesty's Government should keep such treaty negociations affecting the whole Empire in their own hands, and not permit them to be dependent upon the will or consent of the local authorities. He said (see 'Hansard,' 1854):—