Subsequent the Liberals lost ground. Moreover, it soon became yet more events apparent that the Americans were determined to give no

Joint High
Commis-

sion.

reciprocity which did not include an agreed list of manufactured goods, and which did not compel Canada to give preferential treatment to the United States as against Great Britain. The McKinley tariff, which imposed high duties on Canadian raw products, further tended to alienate the two nations, and in 1893 the Liberal National Convention contented themselves with emphasizing the advantages of a reciprocity treaty and the impossibility of obtaining one from a Government controlled by monopolies and combines. The Liberal party was prepared to enter into negotiations with a view to such a treaty, including a well-considered list of manufactured articles, and was satisfied that any treaty so arranged would receive the assent of the British Government, without whose approval no treaty could be made.

When the Liberals came to power, in 1896, an attempt was made to give effect to this policy. The joint High Commission, which met in 1898, considered, among various other questions, the trade relations between the two countries. Whatever chance there was of agreement was wrecked in the failure to come to any settlement of the Alaska boundary question. But, in any case, the temper at the time of the American Republican party was not such as to make the prospects of any settlement bright, and, further, the rule of the American Constitution, requiring treaties to have the assent of a two-thirds majority in the Senate, is at all times an obstacle to their ratification. In this state of things the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was able to gain general approval by a new departure in fiscal policy. As we have seen, he had always described himself as a moderate Protectionist, and it was not likely that a moderate statesman of his type would attempt ruthlessly to attack the vested interests which had grown up under the tariff. The new tariff introduced by the Finance Minister, Mr. Fielding, in

to Great Britain.

April, 1897, did, however, in several directions, modify the Preference protective duties in force; and on that ground won the approval of that strict Free Trader, Lord Farrer. The feature, however, which most attracted attention in the new tariff was the preference given to British goods. This preference began at 121 per cent. and was to be raised to 25 per cent. on July 1, 1898. In 1900 the duties on British goods were further reduced to 33 per cent. below the duties imposed under the general tariff. In 1897 the matter was complicated by the provisions of treaties of Great Britain with Belgium and Germany, giving to the imports from these countries 'the most-favoured-nation treatment'. It was sought, but without success, to meet this difficulty by providing that the minimum tariff should apply to any country which gave Canadian goods equally favourable treatment. These treaties were, however, denounced by the British Government in 1897, and the preference was afterwards openly given to Great Britain. Under the tariff of 1907 the details of preference have undergone some modification, but the principle, except so far as modified by the intermediate tariff offered to foreign nations, still holds the field. It has not only arrested the decrease of British exports to the Dominion, but has apparently greatly stimulated Canadian export trade to the United Kingdom.

AUTHORITIES

On Tariff question, T. S. Willison, op. cit. vol. ii, chapters xix-xxiii and xxvi.

Ross and Buckingham, op. cit.

Life of George Brown. By Alexander Mackenzie.

J. Pope, op. cit. vol. ii, chapter xxiv. Appendix xxviii contains Macdonald's last address to the people of Canada.

On Riel, see Willison, op. cit. vol. ii, chapters vii and viii, and The Remarkable History of the Hudson's Bay Company. By Dr. George Bryce.

Canada under Lord Dufferin's Administration. By Dr. George Stewart.

Houston, op. cit., sets out new instructions to Lord Lorne.

Canada and the Canadian Question. By Goldwin Smith. Toronto and London. 1891.

CHAPTER IV

STRUGGLE BETWEEN CENTRAL AND PROVINCIAL
AUTHORITIES

Constitu- THE tariff issue once raised is an Aaron's rod, which tional views of swallows up other questions, inasmuch as it appeals to the Macdonald. private interests of men. Nevertheless, behind the clash of the tariff controversy other tendencies were at work. It has already been noticed that Sir John Macdonald was in favour of a legislative rather than a federal union, but that he had to yield to the will of the majority. It is therefore not surprising that in the years during which he was the powerful Prime Minister we find a tendency to exalt the powers of the Central Government as against the provincial authorities. Canadian political history in the years following confederation will perhaps be best understood by grouping together some examples of this struggle between the central and provincial powers.

Dismissal of Mr. Letellier.

We have already noted that the relations between the Dominion and provincial governments required the exercise of tact and of restraint. Towards the close of the Mackenzie administration Mr. Letellier de St. Just, the LieutenantGovernor of Quebec, summarily dismissed his Conservative Ministry, practically for the reason that he did not like them. His action was generally recognized as arbitrary and unfair; but it was so far endorsed by the people of the province that they gave the new Ministry a majority of one at the next election. The Liberal Dominion Government had refused to interfere on the broad ground that it was a matter exclusively relating to provincial constitutional rights. When, however,

Sir John Macdonald again became Prime Minister, under strong pressure from his French Canadian supporters, he recommended to Lord Lorne, the Governor-General, that Mr. Letellier de St. Just should be removed from office. The question seemed a difficult one, and, with the approval of his Ministers, Lord Lorne sought the advice of the Colonial Office. In reply it was pointed out that a provincial Lieutenant-Governor had an indisputable right to dismiss his Ministers if from any cause he felt it incumbent upon him so to do. At the same time he was bound to maintain impartiality, and was directly responsible for any action he might take to the Governor-General. But the latter could only act 'by and with the advice of his Ministers', so that the conclusion was reached that there was practically no appeal from the verdict of a hostile Federal Ministry. At the same time the home Government suggested that the Dominion Ministry should. reconsider their decision. The latter, however, persisted in the dismissal. Though apparently within the law, the dismissal of Mr. Letellier de St. Just was a high-handed proceeding, little to be expected from a statesman of the type of Macdonald. It is, moreover, noteworthy that the episode is not mentioned in Sir John Macdonald's authoritative 'Life.'

bution Act.

The same tendency to exercise from Ottawa a super- Redistriintending jurisdiction over provincial affairs was shown in the Redistribution Act of 1882. The representation of Ontario, by the result of the Census, had to be increased from eighty-eight to ninety-two, and opportunity was taken of this to alter entirely the character of the constituencies. The measure ignored the principle of representation by counties. and their subdivisions, which Macdonald himself in 1872 had declared to be most valuable. It was, he had said, a grand principle that the people of Canada should have the opportunity of choosing for political promotion the men in whom they had the most confidence. All that advantage was lost by cutting off a portion of two separate counties and adding