^^^

v>. #

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

6
w

I.G

Ui»2A |I25
•- 1^ III 2.2

l.i

|1.8

1.25

1.4 1.6

'/W

'cm

^ '^^ ^M S

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

(/a

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions

Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Note* techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui p^uvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
fnodification dans la m^thode normale de filmage
sont indiqu^s ci-dessous.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

D
D

Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e

□ Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque

□ Coloured maps/
Cartes g6ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than '^lue or black)/
ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other materia!/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film6os.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires:

D
D
D

D
□
D
D

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagies

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piqu^es

Pages detached/
Pages ddtachdes

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quality inigale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t^ film^es d nouveau de fapon 6
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

SOX

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce A la
g6n6rosit6 de:

La bibliothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetA de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en
papier est imprimAe sont film^s en commen^ant
par ie premier plat et en tarminant soit par la
derniire page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commen9ant par ia
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
ia derniire page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboies suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
film6s A des taux de reduction diff^rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, ii est film6 A partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

WIL

si>eeos:es

ON THB

Public Enpesiure afil lational Folicj,

BT THB

HON. D. L. MACPHERSON,

SENATOJi OF CANADA,
■ DBLIVBRBD IN JUNE, 1878,

DURING HIS VISIT TO THE COUNTY OF BRUCE,

(PART OF THE FORMER SAUGEEN DIVISION,)

PUBLISHED BY

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION OF BRUCE.

'* Tlxt ruin or proiperity of a State dependil lo muoh upon the Ad-
^ miaiitratioii of its Oovernment that to he aoquainted ^th the
" merit of a Ministry we need only observe the oondition of the
'* people. * * If -we see a nniyersal spirit of distrust and
" dissatisftMtion, a rapid decay of trade, * * we may prononnoe
" without hesitation that the Ooyemment of that oountry is weak,
" distraoted, and corrupt." -Junius.

WILLIAMS, SLEETH & MACMILLAN, PRINTERS, 124 BAY STREET.

1878.

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION

OF THE

HOUTH HIDING OF BRUCE,

TO THE

HONORABLE D. L. MACPHERSON. *

Walkerton, 17th July, 1878.

Dear Sir, — I am requested by the Liberal Conservative Association
of South Bruce, to ask your permission to publish in pamphlet form
a report of your recent progress through this County and of the
speeches which you delivered on that occasion.

The Association is anxious that the matter contained in your speeches
should be placed within the reach of every elector.

Your exposure of the incapacity and extravagance of the Adminis-
tration as a whole, as well as of the recreancy and cupidity of its
individual members, must contribute in an important degree to con-
vince the people of the Dominion of the unworthiness of the present
Government.

I am also directed to convey to you the thanks of the A.ssociation
for having visited Bruce on its invitation.

I have the honor to be your obedient servant,

A. B. KLEIN,
Secretary L. C. A. South Riding Bruce.

The Hon. D. L. Macpherson,

Senator, Toronto.

HEI'L

Toronto, 20th July, 1878.
Dear Sirt, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 17th
of July, and cheerfully grant the request of the Liberal Conservative

AsHociation of South Bruce for pemiiaaion to pulilish the Speeches
lately delivered by me in your County.

I could have wished they had been n»ore worthy of the compli-
ment that has been paid me in desiring their publication. At the
Hame time I shall be glad to see them wi<lely disseminated. I have
examiiHMl into the administration of public afi'aira, especially of the
financial afi'airs of the Dominion, and I should like the result of that
examination, as di.sclosed during my tour in Bruce, to be read not only
by every resilient in my old constituency but by every ( *auadian,

A I*Jational Policy for Canada being the chief (piestion of the day,
the one on which both political parties challenge discussion — although
1 speak only for myself — I shall be well pleased to have the views
which J enunciated to my old constituent" placed before the country
at large.

Unless my unimportance in the State protects me, I .«hall probably
be accused of having al)andoned my free trade principles. Such an
accusation would be unjust. I have always been in favor of free trade,
but the conditions on which nations trade nuist necessarily be a matter
of arrangement either by treaty or reciprocal legislation. We have
been asking our neighbors of the United States for years to enter
into a commercial treaty with us in the general direction of free
trade, and, so far as the natiral productions of the two coun-
tries are concerned, on t le basis of entire free trade, but they have
refused, and, more than refused, they have legislated against our
industries. These are patent facts, and shall we, acting like unreason-
ing, way ward children, neglect and refuse to advance our own prosperity,
although we see our neighbors advancing theirs, simply because they
will not agree to take common ground with us ? Shall we in.sanely
persist in starving oui-selves to death because our neighbors refuse
to eat with us ?

Two statesmen, whose devotion to free trade principles will not be
questioned, the present and the ex-Chancellor of the Excheijuer, Sir
Stafford Northcote and Mr. Gladstone, have recently spoken words of
much significance in respect to industries which may be unfairly pressed
by foreign competition. In reply to a workingmen's deputation
asking for protection on behalf of the British sugar refiners against
the competition of the bounty-supported French refineries, Sir Stafford
Northcote is reported to have said :

" He could assure them that this was a question which ha<l given
" the Government a great deal of anxiety, and they did not at all
" wonder at the representations which had been made' that day, follow-
" ing up other representations which had from time to time been made.

given
at all
)llow-
made.

' He knew it had been said HonietinieH, he had seen it put strongly in
' the journals, that, if foreign countries chose to pay bounties or any-
' thing in the nature of bounties on the sugar which they exported
' and they thereby supplied us with the article cheaper than it other-
' wise would be, we as a nation ha<l nothing to <lo but to take advan-
' tage of their folly an<l we need not trouble ourselves as to the
' effect it had on this or that particular trade. He wished to say he
' entirely dissented from that view. He did not think we o\ight to
' comfort ourselves with arguments such as these. In gen«'ral he
' agreed in principle with what had been said by so many there
' present. He agreed with what had been so well said by Mr. Sampson
' Lloyd, that we ought not by any legislative enactment to interfere
* to j)revent other countries making use of their natural advantages to
' supply us with the products which they could supply more advanta-
' geously than we could. But that principle did not apply to a case in
' which by legislative action on the part of a foreign Goverment, by
' any artificial action on their part, they could supply us with an
' article which, if things were left to their natural course, we could
' supply as cheaply or more cheaply ourselves."

Mr. Gladstone was addressed on the same subject an<l in his letter
of reply he gave expression to views substantially similar to tho-se
of Sir Stafford Northcote, and condenmed not only the French sugar
bounties but everything in the nature of what he described as " con-
" cealed subsidies." It is clear from what both gentlemen said thafe
they consider it their first duty to guard and protect British
interests, even if to do so effectually should require them to discard
some of the free trade principles which they have long held and which
at one time they may have regarded as immutable.

The system of " concealed subsidies " would seem to admit of vast
extension, and, unless it be nipped in the liud, a serious blow may be
struck by means of it at the prosperity of England. It has served
already to injure very seriously the sugar refining industry. ( 'ould it
not be directed effectively against the woollen, the cotton, and the
iron industries ? Extreme free traders maintain that a nation has
no concern with, no interest in the condition of each trade or manu-
facture which may be carried on within its borders, and that the suc-
cumbing of particular industries before foreign competition, only
proves that the people are being supplied with the foreign commodity
at a lower price than the home manufacturer can supply it, and that
the nation is a gainer thereby — a gainer by the ruin of its industries.

Carry this argument to its legitimate conclusion, and suppose the
principal industries of Great Britain falling before unfair foreign com-
petition created by " concealed subsidies," and laid prostrate as the
sugar refining interest now is, what then would be the condition of the
nation ? Who in England would be gainers by having offered to them in

▼i

their markets foreign goods made artificially cliea]»er than similar homo
made goods? Who would have money t() buy the cheap foreign goods?
Wliat would have become of the capitalists — what of the workingtnen
of Kngland ? They must have remove*! to foreign countries to find
employment for the capital and labor whicli could no longer be profit-
ably employed in England, because the people of England had thought
it sound national policy to allow her industries to perish rather than
to pnjtect them from the unfair — from the "concealed subsidy" — sup-
ported competition of foreign countries.

I shall not proceed further witli the argument. England is too wise
and too piactical to allow any theory, how^ever plausible, to interfere
permanently with her material interests. She will awaken to the
fact that her industries are mend)ers of her body j)olitic, and that she
cannot lost; one of them without suffering in national vigor and
vitality. She will reject the counsel of those who advise her not to
car(j for the withering of certain of those members, and who tell her
that on the whole she will be a gainer by allowing them to wither
and drop off and by providing herself with artificial substitutes of
foreign manufacture. It will be well for Canadians to ponder over
these matters.

In our own case the United States has by legislation virtually
excluded our productions from hei' markets and, by a vicious counuer-
cial practice the producers of that country are seiiously injuring the
prcjducers of ( 'anada. 1 consider the .selling of goods systematically
below cost a vicious practice. It should be called commercial Thuggism.
li' it were extended by the Americans to theii- home tiade as well as to
their Canadian trade, it would, of course, t|uickly result in ruin to the
American ])roducers. If we allow the Canadian manufacturer or pro-
<lucer to be aimihilated by unfair comju'tition, the Canadian con-
.sumer will then be at the mercy of the American producei-, who will
make him pay for the sacrifices, made in destroying the Canadian
producer. The state of affairs which I have described inflicts, in my
opinion, a deep wrong upon the Canadian people, consumers as well as
prctducers ; and calls for legislation to save our industries from destruc-
tion. If «)ur free trade theorists should pronounce this opinion to be
conunercial heresy, J hope they will answei- the arguments of the
English statesmen to whom 1 have referred and in whose opinions I
fully concur. It is noteworthy that sugar refining, the injury to which
by unfair competition is arousing England, should have been one of the
industries whicii our present Government allowed to perish in this
country. Our direct tea trade with China was stifled by their
legislation.

fit

1 avail niyst'lf of this opportunity to oxpresH to the peopK' of Bruce
my warnie.st ackiiowle<l;riu«'nts, my deepest thanks tor the cordial and
friendly reception which they recently accorded to me. The circum-
stances were unicpie, and I must recall them. I ceased to he the repre-
sentative of the Saufjfeen Division eleven years ai^o, when at Confederation
I was appointed a Senator of tht^ Dominion, and 1 ha<l not visited any
part of my former constiturncy from that time until the other day. Per-
sonal ties must have Keen weakened l»y the lapse of time ; loit 1 was
welcome*! with a warmth which jM'oved that I was not for<i;otten
amonj^st them, hut was rememhered and regarded as a friend.

I accepted, in the spirit in which I am sure it was tendered, the
kindness which, irrespective of party, was extended to me by the people
of Bruce, as a reco<.^ition of my efforts to serve them faithfiilly,
when I was their representative in the Legislative Council of
Canada, and of my continued fidelity to them and to the people of the
whole Dominion.

I remain, dear s: ,

Your very obedient servant,

D. L. MACPHERSON.
To A. B. Klein, Esq.,

Secretary Llheral-Gonmrvative AnHOciation, Wdlk^rton,

County of Bruce.

SENATOR MACPHERSON'S VISIT TO BRUCE.

Senator Macpherson, having been invited by a number of his old con-
stituents in Bruce, (formerly part of the Saugeen Division), to vi.»it them and
address them upon the questions submitted by him to the public in his
place in Parliament and in his pamphlets, accepted the invitation and, on
June 24th, proceeded by rail from Toronto to Kincardine.

PALMERSTON.

On arriving at Palmerston station he was presented with an address by the
Liberal Conservative Association and a number of the leading residents of the
village and vicinity, to which he replied briefly, thanking them for the unex-
pected and gratifying manner in which they had expressed their appreciation
of his services in behalf of the public.

LISTOWEL.

On reaching Listowel a large number of the residents, accompanied by a
brass band, welcomed the visitor. An address was presented to him by
the Liberal Conservative Association, to which he responded. He pointed
to the extravagance of the present Government, and the disastrous effects of
their incapacity and wastefulness upon the country, and advised the people to
exert the power which they will soon enjoy to effect a change in the adminis-
tration of public affairs.

KINCARDINE.

The reception at Kincardine was a splendid demonstration. He was met at
the station by an enthusiastic crowd, many of whom, it was obvious, were old
friends. He was escorted through the town at the head of a long procession
of carriages, a band of music and a Highland piper enlivening the march with
music. The procession halted at the Town Hall, where an address was pre-
sented by the Liberal Conservative Association of the town and vicinity, to
which he replied, assuring his hearers that the hearty manner in which they
had expressed their appreciation of his efforts to secure an honest and
economical administration of public affairs would stimulate him to renewed
exertions, and should encourage every public man in the Dominion to pursue
a similar course.

A meeting was held in the Town Hall at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 25th,
Capt. C. R. Barker presiding. Mr. Macpherson was greeted with enthusiastic
cheering as he arose to :iddress them. When the applause ceased Mr.
Macpherson said :

Mk. Chairman anu Gentlkmen, my Old Friends and Kormer
Constituents ok the: Sauijeen Division :

It gives me very great pleasure to accept your invitation to visit you once
more and to address you upon the public affairs of the Dominion, especially
upon the finances of the country and their management.

The subject you have asked me to address you upon is not an inviting
one to a general audience. On the contrary, it is very difficult, even for
those who have the gift of oratory, which I have not, to make financial subjects
interesting. Public speech-making is not my vocation, and I am quite aware
I do not excel in it. All I can hope to do is to place before you plainly
and truthfully the actual state of our public finances. If I cannot entertain
you with figures of rhetoric, I will give you figures of arithmetic, and while
they may be less entertaining, they certainly bear more intimately upon your
interests.

NON-PARTIZAN.

I may remind you, gentlemen, that, when I sought your suffrages, I told you I
should be non-partizan, that I did not think it would be proper to introduce
party politics into the Upper House of our Parliament, and that I should
always endeavor to support or oppose measures as I might think best for the
public interest. I have endeavored to do so strictly. I stand before you
to-day and state that 1 never gave a vote that I did not believe to be for the
public interest, regardless of what the effect might be on parties. (Cheers.)
You must be aware thai while I accorded a general support to the Government
of Sir John Mai:donald, yet there were important questions upon which I differed
from that Administration. There was one — an alteration of the tariff in
1870 -to which 1 moved an amendment and very nearly defeated the bill.
On their Pacific Railway policy 1 differed, as you know, from the Government,
and I stated my reasons in Parliament and elsewhere. The Oi)position
of that day commended me very highly for having done so. They said
my course was exceedingly patriotic and just what it ought to be,
coming from a non-partizan member of the Senate. Sir John Macdonald
did not revile or traduce me for opposing him on that question. He
respected my right and recognized my duty as a member of Parliament
to express my opinions, whatever they might be, and to lay those opinions
before the public in whatever way I conscientiously believed to be right.
(Cheers.) When Mr. Mackenzie's Government succeeded to power, I be-
lieved at the time that the change would be beneficial, and I accorded them
a general support.

WHY HE WITHDREW HIS SUPPORT.

I supported their measures almost as a matter of course until I
had reason to believe that they were not keeping faith with the country —
until I had grounds for believing that they were violating their
pledges of economy and purity in the administration of pul)lic affairs
and were squandering the public money. I called the attention of Parlia-
ment to these matters three sessions ago. Two sessions ago 1 looked
more closely into the administration of public affairs, and found it even
worse than I had before supposed. I called the attention of the Government
in Parliament to it several times, and then, in the following summer, I addressed
to you, my old constituents, my views on the mal-administration and wasteful-
ness of the Administration. I ask you, gentlemen, if that were stepi)ing
beyond my duty ? Did you not i)lace me on the watch-towers of this
country, and was it not my duty to tell you, when I discovered that the (iov-
ernment, your servants, were wasting your substance and mal-administering
the affairs of the country? (Hear, hear, and cheers.)

STATEMENTS INCONTROVERTIBLE.

That is all I did, and for having done so you know how I have been
attacked by members of the Government, how I have been vilified and
traduced by their organs ; and yet, gentlemen, they have not been able to
disprove one of the charges contained in the financial statements which I
submitted to you. (Cheers.) Mr. Mackenzie himself, with unj)aralleled
hardihood, said at one of his political pic-nics that there was a falsehood on
every page of my first pam))hlet. Mr. Mackenzie should not have said that
of another member of Parliament, or of any one, unless he could prove it,
and could have adduced his proof on the spot ; but he did nothing of
the kind. I called uj)on him to prove his assertion or retract it. He
attended many picnics and repeated his general denial of my state-
ments, but not one tittle of proof of their inaccuracy d'd he adduce. We have
had a session of Parliament since, but neither Mr. Mackenzie nor any ot his
supporters in Parliament refuted one of my statements. I sat opposite
to members of the Government for three months in the Senate, and
none of them disproved the facts I submitted to you. (Cheers.) Mr.
Brown, one of the few days he was there, replying to a speech of mine,
held up my pami)hlet and gnashed his teeth over it, but that was all he did or
could do. (Cheers and laughter.) It is the truth contained in my i)aniphlets
that stings the men whose incapacity, extravagance, and hyi)ocrisy 1 have ex-
posed to the country. (Cheers.)

A PETTY INSULT.

Then they adopted another line of insult towards me. When they found
themselves unable to refute my charges they said, " Mr. Macpherson
"did not write the pamphlet at all; another man wrote it." (Laughter.) I

took no notice of this until Mr. Mackenzie, forgetting what was due to his office
and to himself, made that statement. I then addressed a letter to Mr. Macken-
zie through the Press denying the paltry charge, and called upon him to prove
or retract it. Prove it he could not, and he has not had the manliness to retract it.
(Cheers.) On the contrary, within the last month, when addressing a body of
his own constituents, he said, "The man who wrote Mr. Macpherson's
" pamphlet made a mistake in the figures." It is scarcely possible to imagine
a piece of more contemptible impertinence. (Hear, hear.) There are men
in the country, no doubt, who could have done, more clearly and forcibly,
7/hat I did. I did it, however, and whether well or ill done, it was all my
own. (Cheers.) I doubt very much whether Mr. Mackenzie can say as
much of all he submits to the country. (Cheers and laughter.) It is very
well known that Mr. George Brown is the head of the Government of this
country ; that Mr. Mackenzie is merely his substitute —
A Voice — Prove that !

€1

<(■
«l

((I

vil

((

la|

A VICARIOUS PREMIER.

Hon. Mr. Macpherson — The fact that Mr. Mackenzie imagined what
he stated is strong presumptive proof that he himself is in the habit of
doing what he imputed to me. (Cheers.) Mr. Mackenzie is simply a sub-
stitute — a vicarious premier. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) His policy is fur-
nished to him by Mr. Brown, and he has to carry it out according to Mr. Brown's
dictation. There is no doubt of that. It would not suit Mr. Brown to be at
the head of the Government. He is not available ; he is a " governmental
impossibility."

A Voice — No, no.

WHO IS THE REAL PREMIER?

Hon. Mr. Macpherson — I do not use the term offensively, or as a reflec-
tion upon Mr. Brown ; he has stated it himself. As the proprietor of the
G/ode newspaper it would not be possible for him to be the nominal head of
the Government, but there is nothing to prevent his being the real head.
(Cheers.) He called Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues into political
existence. No one will deny that, if Mr. Brown should blow upon those
gentlemen, and turn upon them the fire of the GMe, they would
fall from their positions more rapidly than they ascended to them,
and would disappear from the stage of public life forever. (Cheers.)
I om rather amused that even one gentleman should dissent from the
opinion I have expressed on the relative positions ot Mr. Brown and
Mr. Mackenzie. Their positions recall an anecdote of the late Mr.
Seward, who was Secretary of State in the Administration of President
Lincoln. At one time he was Governor of the State of New York, and
Mr. Thurlow Weed, who is still living, was and is, like Mr. Brown, an
influential journalist. Governor Seward was one day travelling in the
interior of the State by stage coach, and sat beside the driver, with

whom he conversed. Something was said which induced the Gov-
ernor to speak authoritatively, and he said, '* Well, I ought to know
" for I am Governor of the State." The stage driver replied, " No, you
" aint. I know the Governor, and 'taint you." "Well," said Mr. Seward,
" you will see when we come to the next stopping place." At the next
village Mr. Seward stepped down and was addressed by several friends as
Governor. The stage was ready to start. Mr. Seward resumed his seat
beside the Jriver and said, " Now, who's right ? are you satisfied that I am
" the Governor?" "No," replied the driver, " you're not the Governor. You
" may be Bill Seward, but Thurlow Weed is Governor." (Cheers and great
laughter.) Mr. Mackenzie may be Alexander Mackenzie, but George Brown
is Prime Minister of Canada. (Renewed laughter.)

CONTINUED EXTRAVAGANCE.

In the first pamphlet which I addressed to you, I submitted statements of
the finances of the country down to the close of the financial year ending
June 30th, 1876, which was as far as I could then trace them. The Public
Accounts for another year, to the 30th of June, 1877, were submitted to
Parliament last session. In my investigations of these accounts the evi-
dences multiplied of continued mal-administration, extravagance, waste-
fulness, and, I grieve to say, of general faithlessness to their pledges on
the part of the Government. Before touching on the grosser acts
of their mal-administration, I shall call your attention to the increased
expenditure in their own departments and in their own offices, the expenditure
in which is just as much under their control as the expenditure in your
respective households is under your control. The Government are in
the constant habit of saying that they were committed to expenditure by their
predecessors, but that cannot be true of the expenditure in their own offices.
Their predecessors did not impose obligations upon them in respect to their
departments and offices, and it was their duty, if the business of the country
diminished, or if the revenue fell off, which it did, to have retrenched, even
if they had not been pledged to a policy of retrenchment and economy.
But they were pledged to the very lips to curtail the public expenditure and
to pursue a system of rigid economy. Notwithstanding their promises and
the falling off of revenue, they increased the expenditure. I deny altogether
their right to absolve themselves and to cast the resiJonsil)ility upon their
predecessors for their own mis-management of the finances of the country.
If a new Government has no power what is to be gaineil by a change of
Government ?

INCREASED EXPENDITURE.

In my first pamphlet I submitted a statement which showed the increased
expenditure charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1875 over 1873,
and in 1876 over 1875. I submit it again and I add to it the sum at which
I estimate the increased controllable expenditure of 1877 over 1876, as
follows : —

■

STATEMEITT SBOWIlTa UTOBEASES OF EZTEITSITTTEE Charged to
Oonsolidated Bevenue Fond for 1876 and 1876 over 1873. and for 1876
over 1876, under the following heads, beinor Items which are larerely
within the Control of the CNivemment, and also showinfir the Increase
in the Oontrollahle Expenditure for 1877 over 1876. (Puhlic Seht
Charges not included.)

Defartments.

Civil Government

Administration of Justice

Police and Penitentiaries

Legislation

Geological Survey

Arts, Agriculture, etc

Immigration and Quarantine

Marine Hospitals

Pensions and Superannuations

Ocean and River Steam Service

Fisheries and Light-houses ,

Inspection Insurance Go's., etc

Subsidies to Provinces

Public Works

Miscellaneous

Indian Grants and Manitoba Surveys .

Mounted Police

Boundary Surveys

Customs and Excise

Weights and Measures

Public Works, Including Railways . . .

Post Office

Minor Revenues

Increase 1875! Increase 1876
over 1873. I over 1875.

$158,391

98,439
71,682

29,199

15,402
10,871
38,724

829,562

159,462

18,329

131,513

333,583
121,741

142,457
69,969

643,388
452,995

$ 46,686

54,957
3,226

47,416

83,075

1,950

70,874

93,057

97,191
8,914

191,866

91,537
108,639

35,935
12,364

57,441
29,816

101,966
3,1"

Net increase of Annual Expenditure (largely within
the control of the Administration) in 1875 over
1873 $2,960,336

Net increase of Annual Expenditure (largely within
the control of the Administration) in 1876 over

1875 7j7,o62

Net Increase of 1876 over 1873 3,677,398

Less Expenditure authorized by Statute in Session;
1 87 3, $1,500, 000, and allowed for probably neces-
sary increases, $377,398 _JA77»398

Making the net Increase of annual Expenditure
on items largely within the control of the present
Administration to 30th June, 1876

Increase of annua' Controllable Expenditure in 1877
over 1876, after expunging decreases which were
not effected by retrenchment, $513,527, say,
at least

Total Annual increase of Controllable Expenditure

for which the present Government is responsible

Increase 1876
over 1873.

$ 91,121

145,125

4,968

12,743

32,425

9,488

98,477
12,821

109,598

90,339
75,778

7,847
768,956

351,328
109,866
212,549
369,518
134,105
199,898

99,785
548,312

554,961
2,778

$i,8oo,ooa

500,000
$2,300,000

This sum of $2,300,000 is the interest at 6 per cent, on $ 46,000,000

,000
),000

[,00

[ooo

WHY THE YEAR 1873-4 IS OMITTED.

I have omitted the year 1873-4 from my comparisons. You may
have seen that I have been very much blamed by friends of the Govern-
ment for having done so, but the more I reflect upon it the more convinced
I am that I did right to omit that year. Neither (iovernment was respon-
sible for the whole expenditure. One was in office for four months, the other for
eight, and it was utterly impossible to discover the share for which each was
responsible. The last complete year of Sir John iMacdonald's Government
was 1872-73, and the first complete year of the present Administration was
1874-75. A largely increased expenditure was authorized by Parliament in the
session of 1873. I do not hold the present Government responsible for it,
but after endeavoring, by every possible means, to ascertain how mu«:h they
were responsible for, I came to the conclusion that the late Government was
responsible for $1,500,000. I credited Mr. Mackenzie's Government with
that amount, and with a further sum of $377,398, and held them responsible
for the balance of the increase- — $1,800,000. I have no doubt you are all
familiar with these facts, and I shall not go into the details more fully, although
I have them before me.

1877 COMPARED WITH 1876.

I will tell you how I arrived at my estimate of the increased annual
controllable expenditure in 1877 over 1876. The expenditure on certain
public works was $1,810,840 less in 1877 than in 1876, but there was an
increase of $474,802 on certain other public works of the same class
and a further sum of $343,591 charged, in error, to " Intercolonial
Railway Renewals Suspense Account," making altogether $818,393, ^"^ leaving
an apparent decrease of $992,000

1 sought for evidences of retrenchment but found none. There was
a reduction in expenditure upon public works, such as buildings which
were finished. Now, when a building is completed the owner deserves no
credit for discontinuing to pay the contractor as if the work were going on.
Expenditure had been reduced in this way, but the reduction was not in the
nature of retrenchment. (Hear, hear.) The item for Militia and Defence was
reduced $478,000. If that had been a bona fide permar ent reduction, it would
have been in the nature of retrenchment, but it was not so, and I had
evidence that it was not, because in the following year the estimate was increased
$250,000, so that the diminished expenditure of 1876-7, under that head, was
of a temporary nature. So also in respect to the item for " Dominion Lands
" Surveys in Manitoba." No surveys had been made. A large quan-
tity of land had been surveyed in former years, and none was needed in
1877. But the lands which remain will have to be surveyed, and an item
for the cost thereof will re-appear. On the whole, I make the actual increase
of strictly controllable expenditure, after expunging decreases, which were
not effected by retrenchment, $573,527 for the year ending 30th June,
1877 3 I call it in round figures half a million of dollars That amount

added to the sum of $1,800,000, makes the increase of the controllable
annual expenditure, largely in the departments and within the control of the
■Government, $2,300,000 for which the present Government is responsible.
I think you will agree with me that that is an enormous increase in the con-
trollable expenditure, especially to be achieved by a Government which
promised to be par excellence the Government of retrenchment, economy, and
reform. (Cheers.)

SALARIES AND CONTINGENCIES.

The next statement is one showing the amount expended for Salaries and
Contingencies in the public offices at Ottawa and for Legislation. There is
no man in this room, I venture to say, be he a supporter or an opponent of
the Government, who did not expect retrenchment from Mr. Mackenzie. I
supposed that economy with him was an instinct, and expected that he would
practice and enforce retrenchment in every branch of the public service.
Probably no one here to day is more disappointed than myself. Where we
looked for retrenchment we found extravagance; where we looked for
economy we found waste ; when we asked for explanations we were laughed
at. Remember the support the people gave to the Government in the House
of Commons. No Administration that ever held office in this country had
such a majority sent to its support. The Government were all powerf^il,
and they might have redeemed their pledges of retrenchment and purity had
they chosen to do so. The people left them without excuse for not doing
so, but they were faithless to the country. The following Table shows the

Total Expenditure for Salaries and Contingencies, in the Public
Offices at Ottawa, and for Legislation.

TJnder Sir John Macdonald's

Under Mr. Mackenzie's

GOVKRNMENT.

Government.

Folio* Year.

Folio*

Year.

93 1870 Salaries and

1875 Salaries and

Contingencies. $631,558

Contingencies $909,265

52 1871 do 642,300

1876 do 841,995

rS 1872 do 655,598

1877 do 812,193

$1,929,456

$2,563,453

109 1870 Legislation . . 379,753

IIO

1875 Legislation.. 572,273

65 1871 do 356,205

102

1876 do 627,230

65 1872 do 392,830

Expen

1877 do 596,006

Expended by Sir John Mac-

ded by Mr. Macken-

donald's Government in

zie's

Government in three

three years, 1870, '7 1, '72 $3,058,244

years, 1875, '76, '77 • • • • $4,358,962

■- ■

Increase $1,300,718

*lhe Folio refers to Public Accounts — Official return.

The years 1873 and 1874 are excluded, as, owing to Gene al Elec-
tions having been held, the expenditure in those years was abnormal.
The above table shows that in three ordinary years Mr. Mackenzie's
Government spent, in Salaries and Contingencies at Ottawa, and for Legisla-
tion, $1,300,718 more than Sir John Macdonald's Government spent in three
ordinary years, or at the increased rate of $433,572 a year. A large part of
this increased annual expenditure of $433,572 was within the control of the
Government, and is the interest at five per cent, on $8,671,440, and is five
cents a bushel on 8,671,440 bushels of wheat.

I think you will consider this a remarkable specimen of economy, — or
rather of corrupt extravagance. We did not expect to have had such an
exhibit from this Government ; but it is only the index to larger wasteful
expenditure which cannot now be traced in tbe Public Accounts. These state,
ments which I am submitting are important in amount, it is true, but much
more important as indicating, I fear, the extravagance of the Government in
the larger spheres of expenditure. Large sums have been expended practi-
cally without audit. In some cases audit is nlmost impossible. Such expen-
diture should be made with great care, and entrusted only to men of the
highest character. If a large expenditure is made in the North West, for
instance, how is it to be audited? During last year $198,000 was dis-
bursed there by Mr. Nixon, whose name is familiar to you, no doubt,
in connection with the Township of Proton, in the neighboring County of
Grey. It was a large sum to have been expended practically without audit.
An effort was made last session to enquire into the working of Nixon's purveyor-
ship, but the Government used its great majority to obstruct and defeat the
enquiry.

LEGISLATION

has been most costly. A session of Parliament costs now, in round figures,
$600,000, and the five sessions of the present Parliament, cost $3,000,000. I
ask the people of this country, the people I am addressing, if they believe they
have got value for $3,000,000 in legislation from Mr. Mackenzie ? I ask them
if they consider the expenditure at all justifiable or excusable in the present
condition of the country ? (Cheers.)

MR. MACKENZIE'S RECKLESS STATEMENTS.

Mr. Mackenzie, in a speech which he delivered on the 28th of May last at
Lindsay, cast some reflections on the Senate, which I shall now refer to. He
complained that the Senate had rejected some of his measures, and charac-
terized that House as generally obstructive. He said :

" It mattered not whether a measure was good or bad, it would be opposed
" as a matter of course ; and some measures which passed our House without
" a division were thrown out of the Senate by the action of the Conservative
" party in that brajich of the Legislature, which has, I hesitate not to say,
" become a mere political committee of the Conservative party organized
" for party purposes. (Cheers.) I regret to have this to say of the conduct
B

^m-

*' of the gentlemen of the Opposition in the Senate, but truth compels me to
" speak plain words regarding the action of a body which does not represent the
" people of this country. (Renewed cheers.) And I say this with all the more
" regret, and with all the more grief, I may say, because I was one of those
" who, at the time when Confederation was under discussion, took the ground
" that it was desirable that the Senate should be constituted differently from
" the Lower House, and that it was perhaps the best plan to have its mera-
" bers nominated by the Administration of the day. But when I found that
" out of thirty-two men, I think, nominated to the House after its creation
" by the late Administration no fewer than thirty-one were strong political
*' partizans, and that consequently the succeeding Government was bound to
" appoint political partizans also, I cannot help expressing myself in this way.
" As matters have turned out it seems that we have no power over the legis-
" lation unless we have a majority in both Houses, — that is, we have no
certainty of legislation. I think the Senate should be a body which would
exeicise a careful supervision over the legislation, and that it should be a
House governed as little as possible by the strong party influences which
may happen to prevail in the country at the time ; but if it is to be a pure
party organization like the Lower House, then it must have the same origin
as the Lower House, and you and I must have a voice in constituting it.
(Cheers.) It is tolerably evident that this must be the end of the thing,
unless there can be some change of tactics. (Cheers.)"

THK SENATE.

Would \f)u not suppose from this thnt Mr. Mackenzie never had had an
opportunity of appoint ig Senators, and that the Senate had rejected a great
many of his measures ? What are the facts? The Senate consists of seventy-
seven members, twenty-four of whom are from Ontario. W'hen it was constitu-
ted twelve Liberal Conservatives and twelve Reformers were appointed from
Ontario, and Mr. Mackenzie, since he succeeded to office, has appointed
fifteen Senators, and there are two vacancies at present, one of them
since the boginnfng of last session, which he might have filled. I should be sorry
if the Senate became partizan, or pursued an unfair or illiberal course to the
Ministry of the day, no matter what their politics may be, and I am sure it
will not do so. Could anything be more inaccurate than Mr. Mackenzie's re-
marks on the constitution of the Senate ? On seeing Mr. Mackenzie's obser-
vations upon the alleged obstructiveness of the Senate, I obtained a list of
the bills which the Senate had rejected while his Government has been in
power, and I hold it in my hand.

THE TUCKERSMITH BH.L.
In 1874 the Senate rejected a bill to readjust the representation of the
County of Huron. The object of the bill was to detach the Township of
Tuckersmith from one riding and attach it to another for the purpose of
changing, it was understood, the political complexion of the county, and doing
what our neighbors call a little "gerrymandering." (Applause and laughter.)
The Senate considered the proceeding unconstitutional and rejected the bill.
I have never heard even Ministerialists say that the Senate did wrong on that
occasion, and it was the only Government measure defeated or amended
in 1S74.

the
ip of
of
oing
ter.)
bill,
that
ided

THE ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO BILL.

In 1875 the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Bill was thrown out. It
would occupy too long a time to enter into the history of that measure. The
Opposition as Mr. Mackenzie would call those Senators whose proclivi-
ties are supposed to be Conservative, thought it was not a proper bill to
pass, but they were not sufficient in number to defeat it. It required the
votes of two of Mr. Mackenzie's supporters to reject it. I have never
heard it alle;,'ed that that was an improper or unwise exercise of the
constitutional power of the Senate. On that occasion your member — -Mr.
Blake — agreed with the Senate. He was not then in the Government, and
voted against the bill in the House of Commons.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES' SALARIES BILL.

Another measure was rejected, or rather postponed for a year, in 1875. The
Nova Scotia Legislature had established County Courts for that Province, and
the rejected bill was to assign salaries to the Judges. From what was stated
in Parliament it seemed that the people of Nova Scotia did not desire the
measure and that it might be repealed at the next sitting of the Legislature.
It was not repealed, however, and an act granting salaries to the Judges
was passed during the next session of the Dominion Parliament, so that no
harm was done.

The Senate rejected no Government measure sent from the House of Com-
mons in 1876.

THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AUDIT BILL.

In 1877 the Senate rejected only one bill — the Auditing of Public Accounts
Bill, the chief object of which was to change the fiscal year. The Senate thought
it that were done it would be impossible to institute comparisons of the expendi-
ture for several years to come. The bill, on my motion, was rejected. Some
of the supporters of the Ministry voted against the measure.

BILL CREATING OFFICE OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

In 1878 the bill for abolishing the office of Receiver-General and creating
the office of Attorney-General was rejected. The Senate was of opinion that
the change was not a wise one to make. It considered that there were legal
offices enough in the Government and that the finances of the country should
be carefully watched. For that reason the bill was rejected.

THE PEMBINA BRANCH LEASE BILL.

Another measure was rejected, — that authorizing the Government to lease the
Pembina Branch Railway without submitting the conditions of the lease to
the Senate. Senators contended that the Pembina Branch should be
built, and that American Railway Companies should be invited to connect
with it, but that to lease the road as proposed to what is practically the pre-

sent monopoly, would be to rivet the fetters of that monopoly upon the people
of Manitoba for the term of the lease. The Government threatened to post-
pone the construction of the road if the Senate persisted in its amendment.
The Senate said : " Make the lease, submit it to us, and if we approve of it
" we will pass it, but we will not authorize you to make a lease affecting the
" commerce and prosperity of the North-West and of the Dominion at large
"which the Senate is not to have an opportunity of passing upon." This the
Government refused to do, and the bill was lost. I am glad to see the Govern-
ment has taken the advice of the Senate and is completing the Branch, and
that there is also a prospect of a second American railway being extended to
our frontier at Pembina. The Government wanted to lease the Branch to
the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, and if that Company had got it
they would have taken the whole trade of our great North-West to St. Paul
away from our own channels, and it would be difficult, perhaps impossible
to bring it back. The measure was opposed in the Senate on the ground
of public policy. Another Company, I see, has now taken authority to
extend its line to our frontier, as I find by the following paragraph :

" The President of the Northern Pacific Railway Company has been
" authorized to survey for a railroad from Fargo, Dakota, down the Red River
" of the North to the Canada line, 150 miles, for the purpose of opening
" connection with the Canada Pacific Railway."

This is good news, because if we can get a connection with the Northern
Pacific Railway the freight may be brought down to Duluth, and thence it
may flow into Canadian channels, which practically it would not do if it were
taken to St. Paul. In respect to the Pembina Branch Lease Bill the Senate
did good service to the Dominion at large, and especially to Manitoba and
the North-West. I have now gone over all [the Government measures from
the House of Commons which the Senate rejected, and I believe in every
instance our action had the approval of the people.

Mr. Mackenzie at Lindsay further said,

" Now with regard to the legislation generally which has taken place under
" this Administration, I think we have fair reason to congratulate ourselves
" that during the five sessions which we have held we have managed to carry
" through almost every measure of importance which we promised at the
" commencement of our career. It is true that during last session we were
" defeated on one or two of our bills in the Senate. We were obliged to
*' abandon some other bills because of the determined obstruction which was
" offered to our measures, but I say now, and I say it with some pride, that
" we have been able during our term of office to carry out our entire pro-
*' gramme of measures, and that with reasonable despatch and in such a
" manner as will meet with the approval of the country at large. We are not
" afraid to stand a comparison with our opponents with regard to the legisla-
" tion which we have carried through." After referring to the Contro-
verted Election Law, and the Act relating to the members of the House of
Commons as among the measures which had been given to the country by

were
d to
was
that
pro-
ch a
e not
jisla-
Intro-
of
ry by

the present Administration, Mr. Mackenzie went on to say that he would
not address them much longer, but would make way for Mr. Laurier.

I think it was a great pity that Mr. Mackenzie did make way for Mr. I.aurier,
that he did not go on and explain to the people the legislation of his GovernJ
ment. The only acts he mentioned were the Controverted Election Law, and
the Independence of Parliament Act. The principal amendment which he
made to the former act was to allow Members who were unlawfully and cor-
ruptly elected to sit for one session — that is, their case could not be proceeded
with during a session of Parliament. It was much to be regretted that Mr.
Mackenzie did not go on further and describe, at length, his

WHITEWASHING BILL.

(Cheers.) By a series of corrupt proceedings on the part of members
of th House of Commons and of the Government, that act was rendered
necessary. It is well known that the Speaker of the House of Commons
was a contractor ; that he sat for four sessions while a contractor ; that he
received as a contractor very nearly $20,000. Now, the Speaker says he did
not know he was a contractor — did not know he was violating the law.
Whether he knew it or not, well did the lawyers in the Government know that
no member of Parliament could be receiving money for services performed,
without being a contractor and vacating his seat. In the face of these
facts Mr. Mackenzie said at Lindsay, " He (ti. ^ Speaker), by the mere acci-
" dent of having done some printing for the Government, at the ordinary rates,
" in the office he owned or controlled, was found to have violated, technically,
" the Independence of Parliament Act, and he was obliged to resign in con-
" sequence." As a matter of fact Mr, Anglin had not the facilities to do the
printing, and " farmed" out the work ; and yet Mr. Blake has said that Mr.
Mackenzie is accurate, and that his statements are to be relied upon. The
Speaker's matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections,
of which Mr. Blake — then Minister of Justice — was one of the prominent
members. He unfortunately was ill at the time. The committee sat for a
number of days, and would not act until they had Mr. Blake's opinion. It
finally was decided that Mr. Anglin's contract was illegal and that his seat
was vacated, but by an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Govern-
ment, the report of the Committee was not read in the House of Commons,
because the members were summoned to attend at the bar of the Senate at
the moment the report was presented, and the prorogation stopped all pro-
ceedings. Mr. Mackenzie might also have explained, at Lindsay, the position
of some of his colleagues, and the violation by them of the Independence
of Parliament Act. He should have told of the late Minister of Militia, Mr.
Vail, who was a contractor, and got a very large sum from the Government —
his share, whatever it was, of $25,000. He fell a victim to the heat of the
fiery furnace of re-election. His partner, Mr. Jones, however, was re-elected.
He retains his share of the Vail-Jones printing contract, and is now Minister of
Militia. Mr. Mackenzie might have told of probably twenty other colleagues

^ii

and supporters, in whose eyes the Whitewashing Bill — the bill which relieved
them from enormous penalties — was the most import.int bill of the Parlia-
ment. When the people read all that Mr. Mackenzie had to say in support
of his Icf^isl.'ition, — after boasting that his Clovemmcnt had carried out their
legislative programme, — they will really believe that his Reform Government
had found nothing to reform, and that the people have got but little in return
for the $3,000,000 of their money expended by Mr. Mackenzie on legislation.
$3,000,000 is equal to ten cents a bushel on thirty millions of bushels of wheat !
I shall now submit to you a statement of the

CONTINGENCIES AND GENERAL EXPENSES of the Depart-
ments at Ottawa and of the House of Commons.

Undkk

Undkr Sir John Macdonald's

GoVKRNMENT.

Year.

1870,
1871 .
1872,

,,,,,,, .. I Salaries of

''!.^.L!;:??l!"J!.!"; Kxtra Clerks, in-
eluded in Con-
tingencies.

cics and (loneral;
Kxpenses.

Mk.

Mackenzie's Govern-
ment.

Year.

T , I ,- ,■ Salaries of

Total Contintron ^^ . ,,, ,

1/. •» , Kxtra Clerks in-
cies anddencral ■ 1 i- ,•
1.. eluded m Con-

Lxpenses. 1 ,.

•^ I tmj^encies.

$353. 'SO
294,177

309.30^
$956,635

$3,624

4,055

9, '5°

$16,829

i«75'
I.S76,

1877,

Expended in Contingencies,
&c., by Sir John Mac
donald's Government in

$3«3.5i5
410,026

367.210

$38,821
31.651
30.237

$1,160,751 $100,709

Exjiended in Contingencies,
&:c., by Mr. Mackenzie's
Government in their first

three years $956,6351 three years $1,160,751

1 1 Increase $204,116

The Mackenzie Government, in three ordinary years of power,
spent $204,116 more in Contingencies, at Ottawa, than was spent
by the Macdonald Government in three ordinary years of power,
the increase being at the rate of $68,039 a year, and which is the
interest, at 5 per cent., on $1,360,780.

Of this increase $83,880 was for Extra Clerks, being at the

annual rate of $27,960

Now, considering all that was alleged about the appointment of super-
numeraries by Sir John Macdonald just before he went out of ofifice, I think
the facts disclosed in this statement are extraordinary. I stated in my place
in Parliament that, so long as there were any supernumeraries on pay, no extra
clerks should be appointed, and if there were no supernumeraries, what
became of the charge against the late Government? We have heard nothing
since about unnecessary appointments having been made by the late Govern-
ment. We have evidence, in the statement I have read of waste, corrupt
waste, because I fear the increased expenditure is owing to the unnecessary
employment of favorites — the sons, nephews, and cousins of political sup-
porters at the public expense. I called your attention a few minutes ago to
the fact that I was very much blamed for having omitted the >ear 1873-4 from

my comparative statements. 1 think I tan prove that I was ri^ht in doing so
by no less important a witness than the Honorable (Jeorge Brown. I should
not have alluded to Mr. Brown's Senate speech if it had not been industriously
circulated in this constituency under the following attractive heading : —

'* Aead and Sand to your neighbor, Senator Brown'i Spoeoh In the Senate.

" Senator Maophorson's Fallacy and Sffisrepreeentations Szposed."
My statements contained no fallacies or misrepresentations, so that Senator
Brown found nothing of the kind to expose, but his own speech was full of
errors and misrepresentations, .vnd I shall proceed to expose the most culp.ible
of them. Speaking in the Senate of the Contingencies, Mr. Brown said : —
" The hon, gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) then passed on to the item of
" Contingencies— and I wondered what he would say about it: for I had
" analysed this item for six years past— three of them under the reign of the
" late Ministry and three under the present, and I found that in the old
" reign the amount ran rapidly up every year, and in the new reign it ran as
" rapidly down. Here are the figures:

Tory Reign 187 1-2 $'53.-93

i«72-3 i«9.W4

" 1873-4 222,803

Reform Reign 1874-5 208,707

1875-6 172,548

1876-7 '57.479"

Mr. Brown omitted altogether the Contingencies of the House of Commons.
Now, the Government are just as much responsible for the Contingencies of
the House of Commons as they are for the Contingencies of their de])artments.
They are supieme in the Lower House. Therefore they are wholly respon-
sible for the Contingencies of that House, and why Mr. Brown should
have omitted that item I cannot understand. The effect of it was to con-
ceal the amount from the public. I hope that was not Mr. Brown's object,
but that was uncjuestionably the effect of his omission. Mr. Brown was
guilty of great injustice in calling the year 1873-4 a year of the late Govern-
ment. There could be no stronger evidence that I was correct in omitting
that year from my comparisons than that Mr. Brown, in dragging it in,
should have charged the late Government with the (Contingencies for the
whole of that year. Could anything be more unfair and absurd than to
charge a Government which had been only four months of the year in office
with the contingent expenses of the whole year ? Their successors disbursed
those Contingencies during eight months of the year, and yet Mr. Brown said
that the late Government were responsible therefor. You know what Con-
tingencies are— daily disbursements made at the discretion of ministers. I
am amazed that Mr. Brown should have been guilty of such manifest
injustice as to hold the late Government responsible for the daily contingent
disbursements of his friends for eight months. In the following table Mr.
Brown's erroneous and delusive figures are contrasted with the entries in the
Public Accounts.

The year of the largest expenditure, 1873-74, was that in^which Mr. Brown's

friends disbursed — lavishly disbursed — the Contingencies during eight months^
I think I may assume that the retrenchment in 1876-7 was due to the atten-
tion that had been called to the wasteful expenditure of the Government.

Contingencies and General Expenses oi the Departments at Ottawa
and of the House of Commons.

AS ERRONEOUSLY STATED BY HON.
GEO. BROWN.

Tory Reign

Reform Reign

((

1871-2..
1872-3..
1873-4..

1874-5.-
1875-6..

1876-7..

$153,293
. 189,174

222.803
, 208,707
, 172,548

157,479

AS RECORDED IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

1871-2 $309,30*

18723 345,001

1873-4 425,330

1874-5 383,515

1875-6 410,026

1876-7 367,210

If there were time I would speak of the absurdity of talking about
" Reform roign" and "Tory reign" in a matter of this kind. No one
knows better than Mr. Brown does that such expressions are mere clap-trap^
without significance in the politics of the country ; that since the death of
the lat^ Robert Baldwin, the patriot who was driven broken-hearted from
public life by the self-seeking wing of his party, the Reform party as a
party had no share in the legislation of the country until Mr, Mac-
kenzie's accession to office, except on the measure of Confederation^
and that measure was jeopardized by Mr. Brown retiring from the Govern-
ment in a huff before the foundations of Confederation were securely laid.
The matter on which he resigned would have been unnoticed in the
histo'.y of Canada except for Mr. Brown's resignation. All the legislation
and all the reforms of the preceding twenty-five years had been carried
by the Liberal-Conservative party. Many individual members of the
Reform party bore a useful and honorable part. They joined Sir John
Macdonald in perfecting useful legislation, until now, when the condition
of the country is such that Mr. Blake taunts his own party with being
" Reformers with nothing to reform."

And such really is the condition of the country to-day. If you will look at
the legislation of the expiring Parliament you will scarcely find a measure
of national importance. The Government have taken the extraordinary
ground, and have asserted it in Parliament, that they have no control over
the destinies of the country, no power to promote its prosperity. As the
Minister of Finance put it, they are mere " flies on the wheel," — (cheers and
laughter) — with no more power to guide the destinies of this country than
the fly has the power to guide the wheel 'on which it is but a powerless
insect. (Laughter.) Gentlemen, this is not my simile, it is their own. It
is a description of them by the Minister of Finance. It is a just one, however,
for they have not done anything to benefit the country ; they acknowledge
their own inability, and the suffering industries of the country proclaim their
incapacity.

ook at
leasure
dinary
)1 over
A.S the
rsand
y than
verless
n. It
wever,
wledge
a their

INCREASED SALARIES OF CABINET MINISTERS.

The next statement which I come to is one which will surprise you as
much, probably, as any that I have submitted — it is, the increase in
the salaries of Cabinet Ministers themselves. You know how jealous they
professed to be, when out of office, of the expenditure of ever)' shilling of the
people's money, and I shall now tell you how they have acted up to those
professions where their own interests were concerned, when in office. In
1873 the salaries of the whole Civil Service' were increased. The civil servants
represented truly that the cost of living had increased enormously since
the time when the salaries had been fixed, and that they were not able to live
upon their salaries. Sir John Macdonald's Government resisted these peti-
tions for years, but at last, in 1873, influenced by their justice, by an over-
flowing revenue, and by surpluses recurring year after year, the Govern-
ment consented to increase the salaries. I may say there was no opposition
to that act. The present Government, then in opposition, were as much
in favor of it as the Government of the day. To show you that the matter
was thoroughly discussed, and that it was as I say, Mr, Mackenzie, when the
resolutions were before the House of Commons, moved an amendment
to the effect that the salaries of the Cabinet should not exceed $75,000,
and that they should be graduated according to the responsibilities and
duties of the offices. After debate, Mr. Mackenzie asked leave to withdraw
his motion. It was withdrawn and the measure passed unanimously. Both
parties were, therefore, equally responsible for it. The following is the state-
ment : —

SALARIES OF CABINET MINISTERS.

Mr. Mackenzie's Administration :
The Prime Minister (Hon. Alex. Mackenzie) a year, $8,000 00

Do., for Sessional allowance ... . 1,000 00

Twelve Cabinet Ministers at $7,000 a year each .... 84,000 00

Do., Sessional allowance 12,000 00

$105,000 00
This amount for five years is $525,000 00

Sir John Macdonald'' s Administration :

The Prime Minister (Sir John A. Macdonald) a year, $5,000 00

Do., Sessional allowance 600 00

Twelve Cabinet Ministers at $5,000 a year each .... 60,000 00

Do., Sessional allowance 7,200 00

$72,800 00
This amount for five years is 364,000 00

The Salaries of Mr. Mackenzie's Cabinet for the five years, from
November, 1873, to November, 1878, will exceed the
salaries of Sir John Macdonald's Cabinet for the five

years next anterior to 1873, by the sum of $161,000 00

The Increase for each year is $32,200, which is the interest, at
5 per cent., on $644,000, and 5 cents a bushel on
644,000 bushels of wheat.

I think it must surprise you to learn that Mr, Mackenzie and his col-
leagues, after all their professions of economy and retrenchment, and of deep
consideration for the people's money, will have taken during five years ending
on 7th November next $161,000 more than Sir John Macdonald and his
colleagues took during the five years anterior to 1873. (Sensation.) Then, too,
the cost of living has declined very much. You know that everything you pro-
duce is very much cheaper than it was in 1873. A change that every
man feels, I do not care what his position may be, has come over this
country. An unaccountable, an incredible shrinkage in the values of all
produce, commodities, and property has taken place since 1873. Notwith-
standing this change, not a word was said in Parliament during the five
sessions which have been held under the auspices of these professedly economi-
cal and pure patriots. They took their salaries without protest, yes, without
murmur. (Cheers and laughter.) If they had not control over anything
else, they certainly had over their own salaries ; they need not have drawn
the full legal amount, or they might have returned a portion, or they might
have reduced them by Act of Parliament. Their excuse for every short-coming is:
" We are bound by our predecessors ; we are doing just what our predecessors
" did." They do not seem to be sensible that a change has come over the
condition of the country. They are now, in a time of great and universal
depression, administering public affairs with a prodigality that did not
characterize their predecessors in times of great plenty and prosperity.

MR. BLAKE'S SALARY.

Mr. Blake when at Teeswater, boasting of the economy effected by him
in his department, omitted to mention his own salary of $7,000. It was a
large sum to omit. The omission was serious ; I hope it was unintentional.
He understated the cost of his office by the amount of his own salary,
($7,000.) Mr. Mackenzie draws $8,000 a year for salary and $1,000 for
his sessional allowance, while Sir John Macdonald's salary anterior to 1873
was $5,000, and sessional allowance $600, making a difference between their
emoluments of $3,400 a year. Mr Blake drew $7,000 a year as Minister
of Justice, and, drew the same salary as President of the Council, an
office which he himself had pronounced a sinecure. And in addition to
his salary he received his sessional allowance of $1,000.

A Voice — And he was sick, too.

THE PREMIER'S SALARY.

Hon. Mr. Macpherson — Sir John Macdonald discharged the duties of
Prime Minister and Minister of Justice at the same time, for $2,400 a year less
than Mr. Blake received as Minister of Justice or President of the Council,
and $3,400 a year, including sessional allowance, less than Mr. Mackenzie
receives as Prime Minister and Minister of Public Works. In five years end-
ing 7th November next, Mr. Mackenzie will have received of the people's money
$17,000 more than Sir John Macdonald received for five years anterior to

his col-
of deep

ending
and his
en, too,
rou pro-
Lt every
ver this
s of all
^otwith-

the five
conomi-

without
inything
e drawn
:y might
jming is:
lecessors
over the
miversal

did not

1873, and yet these gentlemen have the shamelessness to speak of Sir John
Macdonald's cab hire. It is truly contemptible. Mr. Blake mentioned it at
Teeswater, and it has been taken up by Ministerialists and by the Ministerial
Press with so much warmth and zest that, having regard to "the eternal fitness
" of things," they may yet make it their question of National Policy, the ques-
tion on which they will appeal to the people for a renewal of their confidence.
I find in the leading organ of the Government in Montreal, a long article,
headed " A remarkable political statement." Well, what do you think this
remarkable statement is which is brought solemnly before the country at
this time of general and extreme depression, when a cry is going up from the
people for legislation which will lead to a revival of their drooping indus-
tries? It is a statement reported to have been made by Mr. Ross, M.P.
for West Middlesex, upon the cab hire of some of the departments
of the late Government in 1872-3, compared with similar charges in
1876-7. Mr. Ross says the cab hire of the Department of Justice in
1872-3 was $1,035. I can only find $456 charged in the Public Accounts.
It does not seem possible that one in Mr. Ross' position would intentionally
mis-state the amount of Sir John Macdonald's cab-hire, and represent it as
more than twice as much as it really was. I hope, for Mr. Ross's sake,
there are items in the Public Accounts which I have failed to find. It would
be base indeed of Mr. Ross to mis-state this item. The following table shows
the amounts stated by Mr. Ross, and those found in the Public Accounts : —

by him

It was a

entional.

salary,

000 for

to 1873

en their

Minister

ncil, an

ition to

uties of
ye.a.r less
Council,
ickenzie
ars end-
s money
terior to

Cab Hire Charged in i

872-3.

Cab Hire Charged in 1876-7.

According to Mr. Ross, as reported
in Montreal Herald, June i8th, 1877.

As in Public
Accounts.

A^ in Montreal Herald,
June i8tJi, 1877.

As in Public
Accounts.

Privy Council $ 107

Department of Justice. 1,053
Militia 187

$107

456
188

335
113
337

$50
14

$51
14

Finance 335

Inland Revenue 115

Customs 472

$2,249

$1,536

$111

$112

I find other items charged in Public Accounts under head of " Contin-
" gencies Civil Government," for Cab Hire, Petty Cash, and for Contingent
Expenses, of which no details are given. For the years 1873, 1875, ^^l^t
1877, they were as follows :

1873. 1875. «876. 1877.

Cab Hire $1,938 $ 510 $ 673 $ 839

Contingencies, including

Petty Cash 3,858 5,782 5,417 4,711

Totals $5,796 $6,292 $6,090 $5,550

For 1876-7, the year referred to by Mr. Ross, these items were only $246
less than in 1873, and for 1875 and 1876 they were considerably more than
in 1873. I mention this not because of the importance of the amount, for
it is comparatively insignificant, but on account of the error or mis-
statem.ent involved. On the whole it looks as if the " remarkable poli-
" tical statement " might have to be rewritten.

The next statement I come to shows the

EXPENDITURE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

1873. 1875- 1876. 1877.

$398,966 $497,405 $544,091 $565,597

Increased annual cost of Administration of Justice under Mr.

Mackenzie's Government $166,631

This Annual Increase of $166,631, is the interest, at 5 per cent.,

on $3,332,620

Before commenting upon this statement, I will read a few words from Mr.
Blake's reply the other day to the deputation from Souih Bruce who requested
him to allow his name to be used as a candidate. Mr. Blake gave Mr. Mac-
kenzie a character in the following words : —

" Our leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, * * * whose known
" accuracy of statement is such as to render any announcement he makes
" one to be relied upon."

Mr. Blake is known to be a master of sarcasm. (Cheers and laughter.)
I shall nov read to you what Mr. Mackenzie said about the Court of

Appeal for Ontario. I find it in the report of his speech at Lindsay, published

in the G/ode of May 30th : —

" So with regard to the administration of justice, they say, ' How was this

* * cost increased ?' It was increased, in the first place, the year that we

* came into office by the establishment of a new Court of Appeal in the Pro-

* vince of Ontario, which necessitates an expenditure of about $21,000 every

* year. The late Government had paid the first instalment, or the first quar-
' ter's salaries, before they went out, but we have had the annual charge upon
' us ever since of $21,000."

Now, could there be the least doubt in the mind of any one who heard those
words, that the Judges of the Court of Appeal had been appointed by the late
Government, and that that Government had paid the first quarter's salaries of
those Judges? (Hear, hear.) The words do not admit of two meanings,
and yet what are the facts ? Mr. Mackenzie's Government came into office
on the 7th November, 1873. The new Court of Appeal for Ontario was
not then in existence. It was created by the Legislature of Ontario ; and the
Act establishing it became law on the 24th March, 1874, four months and a
half after Mr. Mackenzie's Government succeeded to office ; the Act author-
izing the appointment of the Judges and the payment of their salaries
was passed by the Dominion Parliament in the session of 1874,, at the
instance of Mr. Mackenzie's Government ; the Judges were appointed in May,
1874 by Mr. Mackenzie, and their salaries from the day of their appointment
were paid by Mr. Mackenzie's Government. (Cheers.) Now, how is Mr.

says

ly $246
jre than
unt, for
or mis-
)le poli-

:iE.

597

166,631

,332,620

rom Mr.
equested
Mr. Mac-

ie known
[le makes

hter.)
I Court of
3ublished

was this
that we
the Pro-
300 every
irst quar-
ge upon

ard those
the late
alaries of
neanings,
nto office
tario was
and the
ths and a
;t author-
r salaries
at the
i in May,
lointment
w is Mr.

Mackenzie's marvellous mis-statement to be explained? And yet Mr, Blake
says Mr. Mackenzie's accuracy is so great that his statements can always be
relied upon. After this I think we should not be told again of the responsi-
bility of the late Government for the whole of the expenditure of 1873-74.
Truth and decency forbid it. (Renewed cheering.)

THE COURT OF APPEAL
for Ontario is a costly court, and the $21,000 a year which appears
in the Pubhc Accounts is the smallest part of what it costs the people.
The former Court of Appeal was one which cost the country next to
nothing, and so satisfactory were its decisions that very few cases were carried
to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. The position
of Ontario is peculiar and exceptional among all the colonies. I believe no
judgment of the old Court of Appeal was reversed by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, and the entire people of the Province were satisfied
with the decisions of the old Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court was
created by the Dominion Parliament at its first session under Mr. Mackenzie.
Cases are carried from the Superior Courts to the Court of Appeal, and from
it to the Supreme Court. No lawyer will be content to let his case rest
until it goes through all the courts, and the cost to the suitor will be enor-
mous. I am within the truth when I say that the Legislation of the present
Reform regimes in Ontario and in '.he Dominion have increased the law costs
to the suitor more than fifty per cent., altogether apart from the enormous sum
of $565,597 paid by the public for the administration of justice. If these are
reforms I confess I do not admire them. In the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council we had lor our Court of Last Resort the most learned Tribunal
in the English-speaking world, and it was maintained without cost to us.
Whereas our own Supreme Court costs the country upwards of $53,000 a year.
The legislation under the Reform Governments has been highly favorable to
the lawyers. Costs have been greatly increased, and a large amount of business
has been distributed. When leading barristers are made judges their
business is divided among the practising lawyers. The Reform regime has
been a glorious one for the members ot the legal profession.

THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.
There is no Department, I am persuaded, in which there is more room for
reform and economy than in the Post Office.

POST OFFICE.

Total Revenue. Cost of Collection. Yearly Loss.

1873 $ 833,657 .... $1,067,866 .... $234,209

1877 1,114,945 1,705,311 590.366

Increased Revenue in 1877 over 1873 $281,288

Increased Cost of Collection in 1877 over 1873 637,445

Increased loss in 1877 over 1873 $356,157

To collect $1.00 in postage cost $1.28 in i873,and $1.53
in 1877.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

The extravagant, and, I fear I must add, the corrupt expenditure in the
Customs is perfectly alarming. It is impossible to account for it except on
the presumption of favoritism, which is but another word for corruption. You
will agree with me when you hear the following statements : —

CUSTOMS.

Year. Total Revenue. ^^^f, S°'* "^ Percentage Cost

Collection. of Collection.

1873 .... $12,954,164 .... $567,765 •••• 4-38

1875 .... 15,351,011 .... 682,673 .... 4.45

1876 12,823,837 721,008 5.62

1877 .... 12,546,987 .... 721,604 .... 5.75

Decrease of Revenue from Customs in 1877 compared

with 1873 $407»i77

Increastd Cost of Collecting the Revenue from Customs

in 1877 over 1873 153,929

If the Revenue had been collected as economically in
1877 as in 1873, the saving to the country in 1877 would
have been $172,046

AT MONTREAL CUSTOM HOUSE.

•Year. Total Revenue. ^Tf Percentage Cost

Collection. of Collection.

1873 .... $5,011,154 .... $87,733 •••• 1.75

1877 3,865,410 117,989 3-o8

Decrease of Revenue in 1877 compared with 1873 $1,145,744

Increased Cost of Collecting the Revenue in 1877 over

1873 30,256

If the Revenue at Montreal had been collected as
economically in 1877 as in 1873, the saving to the country in
1877 would have been, at that Custom House alone $50,352

The Revenue from Customs at Montreal in 1876 fell off $1,570,416 and
the cost of collecting it was increased $17,452. Among the new items are
wages to extra clerks, extra lockers, and extra services at Examining Ware-
house — extraordinary additions to the charge for collecting a diminished and
declining Revenue.

AT \VAy ltlM!X!»>VI€K iirSTO.Il HOUSES i

, -r ^ 1 o Cost of Percentage Cost

Y-a.; lotal Revenue. r-' n t- r r^ n ^•

Collection. of Collection.

J.;.,'; .... $1,246,238 .... $73,353 5-8o

1877 .... 1,091,018 .... 96,171 .... 8.90

Decrease of Revenue in 1877 compared with 1873 $155,220

Increased Q.Q'?X of Collecting the Revenue in 1877 over

1873 22,818

If the Revenue in New Brunswick had been collected
as economically in 1877 as in 1873, the saving to the country
in 1877 would have been, in that Province $32,893

The per centage rate of cost of collecting the Customs Revenue in the
United Kingdom for the year ending 31st March, 1876, was $3.37 (;^3 7.^.
6d.) per cent. The average cost for ten years from 1867 to 1876 was only
$3-38 {jQz 1^- 9^') P^r cent,, although the many ports round the coast must
make the collection and protection of the revenue exceptionally costly. The
Customs Revenue of the United Kingdom for the >ear ended on 31st
March, 1876, was $118,115,000 (^23,623,003) (including ^3,266,534
collected on behalf of the Inland Revenue), and the average amount for
ten years from 1867 to 1876 was $118,138,085 (;!^23,6o7,6i7).

There cannot be stronger evidence of extravagance and corruption than I
have submitted in this statement. In New Brunswick the increased cost of
collecting the revenue would be incredible were it not shown in the Public Ac-
counts, I think our friends down in New Brunswick must think that the Onta-
rio milch cow, as this Province has been called, gives a large quantity of milk
and a good deal of cream also, (Cheers and laughter). Since Confederation,
of course, everything from the other Provinces of the Dominion enters New
Brunswick duty free, which accounts in a measure for the revenue not in-
creasing. Before Confederation New Brunswick had to watch her coast from
smuggling from Nova Scotia, Prince PMward Island, and Canada, as well as
from the United States, making the cost of protecting the revenue much
greater than it should be now.

EXCISE.

Total Revenue. Cost of Collection, Percentage Cost

of Collection.

1873 $4,460,681 $171,704 3.80

1875 5,069,687 199.253 3-9°

1876 5.563.487 218,359 3.90

1877 4,941,897 211,157 4.28

Increased cost of collection, 1S77 over 1873. . $39,453

Increase of Revenue, 1877, over 1873 $481,216

If the Excise Revenue had been collected in 1877 as economi-
cally as in 1873, the saving in 1877 would have been $23,361

THE COST OF IMMIGRATION,

I now come to the only statement of mine which has been seriously
questioned — the cost of immigration. It is as follows : —

Immigration and Quarantine for 1873, 1875, 1876, and 1877.

Items.

Total expenditure
Quarantine items.

Transport of Mennonites .
Loan to do.

Total number of Immigrants by the
St. Lawrence route for 1873 ... .

Total number of Immigrants by the
St. I-Awrence route for 1875

Total number of Immigrants by the
St. Lawrence route for 1876 ....

Total number of Immigrants by the
St. Lawrence route for 1877 ... .

1873.

$277,368
11,871

36,901

Cost per head in 1873 $7 76

Cost per head in 1875

1875-

$302,770
13,768

16,038

$18 90

Cost per head in 1876 *$26 55

1876.

$385,845
12,233

38,761
57,670

96,431

10,901

Cost per head in 1877

1877.

$353,951
44,598

309,353

20,237
79,700

99,937

7,743

$27 04

When the cost of Quarantine in 1877 and the amount advanced to
Mennonites are deducted from the total expenditure of 1877 there remains
$209,415 to be divided over the 6,785 Immigrants who landed at the Ports
of the Dominion and at Portland, intending to settle in Canada, making the
per capita cost $30.88.

To the above expenditure should be added a large share of the salaries and
contingencies of the Department of Agriculture and Immigration, at Ottawa*
They were as follows: For 1873, $44,063; for 1875, $48,733; for 1876,
$49,455; and for 1877, $45,080.

* The cost per head is based on expenditure, less the amount paid to the Mennonites.
Adding cost of transport of Mennonites, but excluding the loan to them, the cost per head
of all immigrants for 1876 was Thirty Dollars and Ten Cents, and for 1877 was Twenty-
nine Dollars and Sixty Cents.

Yll.

1877.

553.951
44,598

309.353

20,237
79,700

99.937

7.743

Ordinary quarantine is a part of the immigration charges, but in last year's
accounts there is an item of $21,733 ^of small-pox quarantine at Keewatin
and so I struck out the whole sum charged for quarantine for that year. I
take as the basis of my per capita division the number of immigrants
who came by way of the St. Lawrence, Halifax, St. John, and Portland.
I maintain that they are the only immigrants who have been induced
to come to this country by our agents in Europe, and therefore the only
ones we can regard as compensating us for our expenditure. ^'iS'Conse-
quently our expenditure must be divided among them to ascertain the cost
per head. The only question that can arise with respect to this statement is as
to the basis upon which it is made. I have taken, as I tell you and as I stated
in Parliament, the arrivals at Dominion ports and at Portland, The Govern-
ment, finding the expenditure enormous and unjustifiable, took the extraordi-
nary ground that all persons coming into this country, no matter from where
or under what circumstances, should be included \i\\.\\t per capita division, and
claimed that twelve thousand and odd persons who came in by the Suspension
Bridge and reported themselves at the Custom-house with settlers' effects
should be considered as immigrants. I contend that that is perfectly absurd.
These people came to seek employment on the Welland Canal and other
works, and by reporting themselves as settlers they were allowed to bring in
their effects duty free, but they cannot be regarded as immigrants. They are not
of the class to induce whom to come to this country we maintain an expensive
establishment. (Cheers.) I think you will agree with me that my basis is correct.
I do not think the people will say that a Department costing about $400,000, in-
cluding the cost of the Department at Ottawa, should be maintained to encour-
age people to come from the State of New York to seek employment here, and
unless they do so, my basis is correct. (Cheers.) The department should be
called

$27 04

inced to
remains
le Ports
king the

ries and
Ottawa*
)r 1876,

ennonites.
iper head
Twenty-

THE ANTI-IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT.

In 1875, when Mr. Mackenzie was in England, Mr. Jenkins, the Agent-
General, issued a circular which was printed all over Europe declaring there
was no opening in Canada for any immigrants except farm-laborers. In a
letter written by Mr. Mowat last winter to Senator Skead of Ottawa the
following appeared : —

" Immediate!} after my return from Ottawa, I caused enquiries to be made
*' on the subject of employment for farm. laborers. As I stated to the de-
" putation at Ottawa, the demand for this class has hitherto exceeded the
" supply, but I am sorry to find that this year the case is otherwise^ and it is
" doubtful, indeed, if work could be found here for the unemployed at Ottawa,
" who may be suited to farm-labor."

This shuts the door of Canada against all immigrants. The Agent-
General closed it against all but farm-laborers, and Mr. Mowat has now
closed it against that class. Why are we paying $400,000 a year to maintain

a useless 'department ? I leave it to you to say whether you approve of it or
not. (Applause.) The immigration agents of other countries are unfortu-
hately proclaiming to the world that there is no opening in Canada for immi-
grants, and are doing so without expense to us.

MR. BROWN IN ERROR AGAIN. .

Mr. Brown questioned the accuracy of my Immigration statement, and he
submitted one taken from what he called official returns. He said : —

" And first as to the annual nett expenditure for emigration : —

According to Mr. Macpherson.

1872-3 $277, 36«

i«74-5 302,770

'' 1875-6 385.845

1876-7

And now as to the cost per capita : —

According to Mr. Macpherson.

1872-3 $ 7 76

1874-5 >8 90

1875-6 26 65

1S76-7

According to Official Return.

$296,617

241,600

228,077

110,670

According to Official Return.

$5 90

8 82

8 85

4 08 "

Where Mr. Brown found his "official rfturri" I cannot discover. It is not in
the Pul)li<: Ai;c(junts, and 1 do not find it in the report of the Minister of
AgriculturL. It was a bogus return, and the correct figures are those which I
gave. The amounts I stated for 1877 are exclusiveof quarantine and of the
large sums expended in the department at Ottawa. In the Public Accounts
the amount charged as the total "expenditure on account of Immigration" for
1877 is $229,652, being $20,237.33 more than I have divided per capita.
Mr. Brown calls the per capita cost $4.08, upon an expenditure of about
$250,000 (including the department at Ottawa); this would give 61,274 immi-
grants. Do you know where they are ? Are they in this country ? No,
and every one except Mr. Brown and the members of the Government knows
that they did not come to the country. Is this not proof that my estimate
of the cost is correct, and that that of the Minister of Agriculture and of Mr.
Brown is inaccurate, delusive, and absurd ?

THE COST OF TELEGRAPHING.

I will submit to you now the charges for telegraphing. Mr. Blake, at Tees-
water, gave the cost of telegraphing in his own department, and said there was
a very large reduction. That induced me to look into the figures, and I
showed in the Senate that in 1874-5, the first complete yem nf the Mackenzie
Government, the expenditure for telegraphing, according to the Public Ac-

counts, amounted to $38,507.62, against $24,875 for the last complete year of
Sir John Macdonald's Government.

Mr. Brown said : —

" Well, this did appear to me a very large sum, and so I dropped into the
Finance Department, and asked an explanation of it from one of the
officers of the r3epartment. He went at once and looked into the matter,
and 1 am sure the hon. gentleman will be relieved and delighted when he
hears the explanation. Of course he has no desire to prefer unfounded
charges against the Administration, and he will be rejoiced to find that he
can conscientiously withdraw that frightful castigation he gave them for
that $38,000 of telegraphing. It turns out that in 1873-4 there were only
three-fourths of the year's telegraphing included, and that in 1874-5 there
were five quarters charged. It so happened that the quarterly bill of the
Telegraph Company was delayed so long, that the Government accounts
for the year were closed before it could be certified, and it had, of course,
to go to the next year's account. The effect of this correction of the hon.
gentleman's figures entirely changes the aspect of the telegraphic complaint,
and I call the hon. gentleman's attention to the great economy effected by
the present Ministry on the lavish disbursements of his own friends. The
contrast now stands as follows :

1873-4 $32,107

1874-5 19,326

1875-6 19.421

1876-7 15,255-"

This statement is grossly inaccurate and audaciously misleading. Mr. Brown
charges the late Government with the whole of the telegraph bill of their suc-
cessors for eight months of 1873-4. Every one will see the scandalous
injustice of this. Here are men held responsible for the telegraph bills of
their successors. Surely they were no more responsible for the cost of transmit-
ting than they were for the contents of those messages ! (Applause.) Since the
close of the session I have looked thoroughly into this telegraph expenditure,
and I find it was very much more than Mr. Brown stated, and more than I
stated. When Mr. Brown went to the Finance Department to ascertain
the correct expenditure for telegraphing he should have been careful to
have got the accurate amount, and it is difficult to understand how an inaccurate
amount could have been honestly given to him. Mr. Brown should have
remembered that he had described the chief official in the Finance Depart-
ment as "a mixer and muddler of figures," and certainly a very "muddled"
statement of the cost of the Government telegraphing was given to Mr. Brown
and by him given to the public. The expenditure under this head has been
as follows : , . , ,

1^
r

I 3G

',1

Items Charged in Public Accousts for Telegraphing.

[ Department.

1872.

1873-

$ cts.

2.039 57

330 33

2.256 03

1874.

1875.

$ CIS

3.876 93

957 50

725 08

1.326 57

2,288 88

442 26

5.399 94

1,909 62

690 49

754 51
3.009 43
4,151 20

310 18

1876.

$ ct>

3.004 17
358 93
791 60

1,588 27

1,154 84

270 73

1,164 67

653 78
210 50
113 10

1.977 83
2,344 60

2,688 19

1,946 66
2,002 18

1877.

Governor-General ....

Privy Council

Secretary of State

$ Cts.

2,865 24

747 66
77822

$ cts.

2,942 85

523 03
846 60

374 83
1,721 44

879 49

2,929 58
J.095 15
863 61
843 20
2,062 71
3.281 20

4 SO

$ cts.

2,842 61
220 95
458 03

1,647 87

753 >4
443 75
500 37
446 90

iii

' Interior

528 96

539 16

Justice

2.538 84
i.35« 64
1,332 61

1,686 81
1,967 49

4,371 88
I 039 27
1.529 61
323 19
2.655 42
2,479 96

Militia and Defence. . . .

Do
Finance

1,926 62
«.7i9 39

1,984 86
1,178 46

Public Works

Do charged to
Capital

Do Subsidy, An-
crln- Amerirnn Co

1,706 56

36 28

200 61

2, 164 65

Marine and Fisheries . .

2,635 76

1,488 76

2,165 62

Receiver-General

Customs

242 86
2,392 09

414 75
1,604 57

1,127 37
6,277 24

87 50

698 38
1,695 88

244 34
2,241 31

Or.pan ,ind River Service

184 41

589 72

4 31
687 05

Inland Revenue

Lighthouses

A^culture, Arts, ±c . .
Do. Immigration

and Ouarantine

1,193 03

47867

1.908 43

583 92

709 13

1,196 79

632 33

870 64

994 66

614 33
50 10

Do &c..

614 23

732 09

271 34

1,018 47
954 77

1,248 34

21,475 08

Census

268 57

1,100 82

290 12

267 62

1,583 '6

1.256 56
802 52

Post Office

1,082 29
2,074 30

40 00

839 71

North- West Territories.

General Departments &
Miscellaneous

36 57

1,146 81

21,298 19

28,421 84

23.862 55

41,623 59

27,034 06

And if Mr. Brown were correct in saying that the expenditure of three
quarters only of the year 1873-4 was charged in that year and five quarters

li'l in 1874-5, the amounts should stand $31,916 for 1873-4 and $33,669 for
1874-5. The discovery of this error shows how easily the entry of a
portion of the expenditure of one year may be postponed and made to appear
in the Public Accounts of the succeeding year. Mr. Brown waxed very indig-

r: nant with me for suggesting that such a "cooking" of accounts was possible.

■ He himself proved that it was not only possible but that it had occurred.

I see the departments, especially the Public Works Department, have got
into the way of dividing their telegraph accounts and putting ihem under
sub-heads, thus making the departmental expenditure appear smaller than it
had been. I saw that Mr. Mackenzie had stated that among the retrenchments

ilil;

1,178 46

244 34
2.241 3'

709 13

6i4 33

50 10

271 34

,oi8 47
954 77

,248 34

.475 08

three
uarters
69 for
of a
appear
indig-
Dssible.
d.

ive got
under
han it
iments

37 •

effected by him was the item for telegraphing. I do not find proof of this in
the Public Accounts. On the contrary, I find the expenditure inc; eased and
items actually charged to capital account. I suppose he would say that tele-
graphing in connection with the Pacific Railway and other works paid for out
of capital might be charged to capital. It was never done before, and when
Mr. Mackenzie thought proper to introduce a new system, he should have
explained that items were hid away in an unusual manner. Instead of a
reduction as claimed by Mr. Mackenzie the expenditure for telegraphing in his
own Department has been largely increased, and yet Mr. Blake Hays Mr.
Mackenzie's known accuracy of statement is such as to render any announce-
ment he makes one to be relied upon.

PACIFIC RAILWAY.

I now come to a very important statement, which is as follows : —
Total Expenditure on Pacific Railway as per Public Accounts,

to 30th June, 1877 $ 7,975,578

Estimates voted for the financial year ending on 30th June, 1878 1,814,000
Supplementary Estimates voted for the financial year ending

on 30th June, 1878 823,900

Total Expenditure to 30th June, 1878, may be assumed ai $10,613,478
Estimates voted for this work for the year 1878-79 2,949,700

Total amount voted by Parliament $13,563,178

Two sections of this Railway are being constructed — one of 1 14
miles running westwards from Lake Superior to a point in the
wilderness knownas English River,and one of 1 14 miles running
eastward from the Red River to another point in the wilder-
ness known as Rat Portage, the crossing of the Winnipeg River.
Between these two ends or sections lies an intermediate section
of 180 miles, which has not yet been placed under contract.
Until it is built and until by means of it the two ends are connect-
ed the whole will be utterly useless — there will be no way traffic
between Lake Superior and the Red River. The Government
do not propose, so far as is known, to have the middle section
of r8o miles completed in less than five years. By that time
the end sections — much wood being used in their construction
— will be far advanced in decay.

Notwithstanding the large expenditure of $10,613,478 upon
the Canadian Pacific Railway, not one mile of it is open for
traffic, nor likely to be so, for practical use, for five years or
more, except the Pembina Branch.

Interest will be fairly chargeable on the outlay upon the two
ends of the Lake Superior section, from the date of their com-
pletion until they are connected, which they are not likely to
be in less than five years.

Interest for five years at 5 per cent, per annum on the
Government estimate of cost, $5,750,000 will amount to. . . . $862,500

I contend that when the Government decided upon building an all-rail
line from Lake Superior to the Red River, they should have begun at Lake

Superior and built westward, taking the rails and other material with
them as they advanced. Instead of doing so, they are building at both
ends, and leaving a gap of i8o miles in the middle, which is not yet
under contract, and which the Government, as late as last session, did not
seem to have made up their minds what to do with. They spoke of trying
to get a company to take the Lake Superior division. They spoke also,
in the event of their failing to get a company, of going on with it as a
public work, and they took a small vote to enable them to do so. The
country between Thunder Bay and Manitoba is a barren, howling
wilderness, which will never furnish any local traffic for the railroad,
except some kimber. Of course, there will be through traffic for it
when it is completed, but until then it will be useless. The Govern-
ment originally intended to have built that line by a route which would
have allowed the use of what Mr. Mackenzie called " the magnificent
" water stretches." They intended to have gone by rail from Lake Superior
to Sturgeon Falls, which is on an arm of Rainy Lake, and thence by water to
Rat Portage, a distance of about i8o miles, and thence by rail to Selkirk, on
the Red River. When that was their scheme, they commenced constructing
the Fort Frances Lock. That Lock was intended to overcome the principal
obstruction to the navigation between Sturgeon Falls and Rat Portage. Unless
that route were adhered to. Fort Frances Lock was not required. The Govern-
ment went on with its construction, notwithstanding that they had changed
the line of the railway, and located it where the water stretches could not
be used in connection with it. The moment they adopted the northern route
the Fort Frances Lock became entirely useless, but the Government did not
stop its construction, and it is to be finished this year. I asked for a Com-
mittee of the Senate to enquire into the matter. One was appointed, and the
information was elicited which I have submitted to you. The report of the
Committee declaring the work useless was adopted by the Senate.

ANOTHER " WATER STRETCHES " POLICY.

One of the witnesses before that Committee, Mr. Sutherland, the superin-
tendent of the construction of the lock, propounded a scheme for utilizing
the water stretches. He proposed to carry freight in small cars which could
be ferried by steamers across the lakes, and run from lake to lake on tramways,
over nine portages, which he proposed to reduce to six, between Port Savanne
and Rat Portage. Mr. Sutherland estimated the cost of the improvements neces-
sary to adapt the route to transporting forty tons a day at $i 50,000. Mr. Mor-
timer, the engineer who surveyed the route for the Government said the
improvements necessary to enable ten tons a day to be transported over the
route would cost $350,000. I do not care what is expended upon it,
the scheme is not practicable, and I will tell you why. The lakes on the route
do not open till 25th May and close early in October, about a month after
harvest in Manitoba. Forty tons of wheat per day would be less than 1,500
bushels, and the two ends of the railway would get no more freight to carry

ipenn-
ilizing
could
In ways,
lavanne
neces-
r. Mor-
the
^er the
ion it,
route
II after

1,50°
carry

than could be carried over the portages. Forty tons a day would only load one
train of 24 cars a week, so that the freight of one train a week on each end
of the route, would be the utmost capacity of the connecting link. The sea-
son of navigation on the water stretches lasts only 1 20 days, and during thirty
of these in the Fall, after harvest, 45,000 bushels of wheat of the crop of
Manitoba could be moved ! No passengers would go by the route. They would
govidDuluih. The expense of carrying freight would be greater than by the
Northern Pacific Railway from Duluth, so that the freight would go by Duluth.
But suppose wheat could be conveyed from Manitoba to Thunder Bay by the
water stretches and the Canadian Pacific Railway at the rate of 1,500 bushels
a day for a month, the whole quantity, 45,000, would not be enough to load
one schooner of the size of the locks of the enlarged Welland Canal. I think
I have said enough to condemn and ridicule the scheme. (Applause.) Mr.
Mackenzie, speaking of the Pacific Railway at Lindsay the other day, said : —

" Now, Sir, what is the case ? We have not attempted to carry out an
impossible bargain, (the arrangement with British Columbia.) We said at
once it was an impossible bargain, and we entered upon negotiations
with a view to the reduction of the terms of the engagement, but we did
not hesitate to proceed with the initial parts of the undertaking which
were peculiarly essential to the progress of the country. We have to
look to those far western countries —those vast fertile plains designated
by Mr. Butler as 'The Great Lone Land'— as a land where our child-
ren are to find homes for themselves in the future ; where we are to
direct a vast immigration from the old countries of Europe ; whence we
are to supply the manufacturers of Ontario and the Eastern Provinces
with much of what they are to consume in the future ; while the other
Provinces send their goods to the west ; and we have, without any extraordi-
nary effort, already nearly completed one-half of the distance between
Lake Superior and Red River in the construction of that Railway. (Cheers.)
We have constructed the road in every respect — ^except as to bridges, and
there are not many on the line — equal to the Intercolonial, and we will
manage, by a wise system of contracts and an upright system of manaee-
ment, to build it at a cost scarcely more than half that of the Intercolonial.
(Cheers.) I give these as results of the system ot administration which
was initiated by the present Government."

Would you not suppose from Mr. Mackenzie's words that he was building
a continuous line ? What he says is sadly misleading but not strictly inaccu-
rate, because about one-half is being constructed, but it is in the way I have de-
scribed to you, leaving an intermediate section of 1 80 miles untouched, the two
ends of the line remaming unconnected. The Canadian Pacific Railway ought
to have been a work of very great advantage to this country, but from the way
in which it is being carried out it is involving this country in very serious
peril. A recent English writer says : —

" As things are, the line will be in ruins probably within five years of the
" date of its completion, and it may yet be the instrument which will rend
"the Dominion asunder."

I have told you about the Fort Frances Lock; you know as much about

11:?

the Kaministiquia terminus and the Neebing Hotel as I do, and I shall not
detain you by saying anything concerning them, except that both transactions
are disgraceful to the Government. (Cheers.)

You may understand what Mr. Mackenzie meant by the following bit of
grandiloquence. I confess I do not :

" We have to look to those far western countries — those vast fertile plains
" designated by Mr. Butler as ' The Great Lone Land ' — as a land where our
" children are to find homes for themselves in the future ; where we are to
" direct a vast immigration from the old countries of Europe ; whence we
" are to supply the manufacturers of Ontario and the Eastern Provinces with
" much of what they are to consume in the future ; while the other Provinces
** send their goods to the west."

Mr. Mackenzie's mode of inaugurating his great scheme of immigration is
remarkable. He and Mr. Mowat together have closed Canada against all
immigrants.

THE STEEL RAILS.

I next come to the steel rails. They were purchased years before they were
wanted. It was not necessary to have imported any of them before last year,
and had the purchase been delayed until then, fhey could have been bought
for one-half the money they have cost the country. Mr. Mackenzie, speaking
at Lindsay last month, said :

" A good deal was said a little while ago by some gentleman near me
" about steel rails, and nothing rejoices me more than to hear some of our
" good Conservative friends foolish enough to bring that subject up."

Can you believe that Mr. Mackenzie was sincere ? He proceeded to state
that he had bought steel rails last year for ^7 13^. which is $37.58 per ton.
The price paid for the 50,000 tons of steel rails was $54 a ton, and the extra
charges, interest, extra wharfage, storage and handling must have brought the
present cost up to $76 at least, and now they are old rails. I prove, there-
fore, out of Mr. Mackenzie's own lips that he could have bought steel rails
for the Pacific Railway as early as they were required at one-half the price
he made the country pay for them. Mr. Mackenzie's condemnation of him-
self for this transaction was complete, yet he said " he rejoices when a
Conservative is foolish enough to bring that subject up." I ask again, da
you believe Mr. Mackenzie was sincere when he spoke those words ? Mr.
Mackenzie went on and said : —

" Let me give you a few more figures. When we came into office we found
" that they (our predecessors) were paying on the average for coal $3.73.j we
" are now paying $1.7 7)^. They were paying out at that time for ordinary
" bar iron $4.32 ; we are now paying $1.80. They were paying for cut nails
** on the average $5.32 per keg ; we are paying $2.80 ; for clout nails $15 per
" keg, we are paying $7, etc."

Mr. Mackenzie does not say anything about the fall in markets which had

41 • *

taken place. He does not say the late Government paid more than the
market price, or that they bought before the rails and other materials
were needed — to the country's loss. He almost takes credit to his Govern-
ment for the fall in markets. A more illogical statement than his
could not have been made. The chief charge made agamst Mr. Mac-
kenzie is that he bought the rails before they were required ; and he
proved at Lindsay that if he had waited until they were required, he could
have bought at one half the price he paid for them. He further said, " It is
" a very much easier thing for our predecessors to show their capacity for
" shovelling out the public moneys in this wholesale fashion, than it is for us
" to be constantly quarrelling with contractors in order to get the work done at
" the lowest figures, and giving out nearly all our contracts to those who are
•' our political opponents." It is certainly astounding that Mr. Mackenzie
should speak of any one "shovelling out the public moneys," standing
convicted as he does of an appallingly profligate waste of the people's
money.

I don't know who the contractors are with whom Mr. Mackenzie has
quarrelled, — certainly not Cooper, Fairman & Co., or Foster, of the
Georgian Bay Branch, or Norris, or Neelon, or Hope, or the Red River
Transportation Company, or Moore, of Goderich Harbor, or Carpenter, of the
Dawson route, or Oliver, Davidson & Co., of Fort William Town Plot and
Neebing Hotel notoriety, and also the contractors for building the Pacific
Telegraph from Lake Superior westwards, or Mr. Jaffray, the grocer, of
Toronto, or his contracting and purveying friends who hail from the County
of Lambton.

HOW THE RAILS WERE PURCHASED.

Mr. Mackenzie further said : — " We purchased by open tender in the
" market all the rails we did purchase, while the late Administration purchased
" them by giving an order to a near relative of a Minister. * # *
*"' I wish to say further that everything that could be obtained by contract the
** present Government have obtained by contract."

This was an extraordinary statement for Mr. Mackenzie to make, and yet
Mr. Blake said Mr. Mackenzie was so accurate that his statements were
to be relied upon. There are several errors in his statement. So far
from having purchased all the rails in open market, as Mr. Mackenzie said
he had done. Cooper, Fairman & Co., who supplied 25,000 tons of steel rails,
only tendered for from five to ten thousand tons, deliverable at Montreal and
five to ten thousand tons deliverable at Duluth. The latter were not taken,
yet Cooper, Fairman & Co. supplied 25,000 tons, of which 15,000 tons
appear to have been without competition. They supplied 5,000 tons for
Vancouver Island without competition, and not only that, but 5,000 tons

were taken from another firm also without competition at ten shillings per ton
below Cooper, Fairman & Co.'s price, and it is difficult to see why that
purchase was made, unless to get the cheaper rails out of the way of Cooper,
Fairman & Co.

This same firm of Cooper, Fairman & Co. got the freighting of 5,000 tons
of rails from Montreal to Duluth for which they did not tender at all, and were
paid a higher rate than others tendered for the work. Mr. Samuel, of
Montreal, who was the lowest bidder, was refused the contract, although he
offered security for its performance, on the ground that he was not a steam-
boat owner, while Cooper, Fairman & Co.., who were not steamboat owners
and had not tendered, were invited to Ottawa to confer with Mr. Mackenzie
on the subject of this transport, and were given the contract at a higher rate
than was asked by Mr. Samuel, and in the month of June following the
contract was increased by 5,000 tons at the same rate without competition,
though freight is generally lower at that season than earlier in the spring. Yet
Mr. Mackenzie says, " everything is put up to tender." I am surprised at
Mr. Mackenzie speaking as he did about a purchase of rails by the late
Administration, through a relative of one of its members. The Government
was not guilty of any wrong-doing in that transaction as Mr. Mackenzie well
knows. The agent wronged the public, but no member of the Government
was compromised. Mr. Mackenzie should not have forgetten that his brother
was a me:iiber of the firm of Cooper, Fairman & Co. I am very far from
saying that that was a reason why they should not have got contracts from the
Government, but it was a reason why they should not have got contracts
imless they were the lowest bidders ; it was a re;ison why Mr. Mackenzie
should not have telegraphed them to Montreal to go to Ottawa to confer with
him about a contract for which they had not tendered, and it was a reason why
they should not have got that contract ata rati 'ligher than another had tendered
at. Cooper, Fairman & Co. got altogether upwards of $1,500,000 of the public
money, and so far as I can discover they only tendered for what amounted to
about one-third of that sum. The rest — about $1,000,000 — they got by private
arrangement. The Red River Transportation Co. received $206,850 for trans-
porting rails at rates which made the service cost $45,000 more than it would
have done had the lowest tender been accepted. The Hudson's Bay Co. for
supplies, rents, &c., got about $150,000: for that, I presume, there was no com-
petition. A great deal of money has been expended in the North-West, much of
it unnecessarily, for which there could have been no competition and no audit.
I have never accused Mr. Mackenzie of personal corruption. I would not
charge any Minister with that crime, unless there were the clearest proof of his
guilt, but I will say this, that no man was ever more unfortunate in his friends
and favorites and surroundings than Mr. Mackenzie. They seem to have
been self-seeking, greedy, insatiable men. (Cheers)

C
T

The Profit and Loss Account of the Government Steel Rails speculation
may be taken to stand about as follows, viz.: —

Cash paid in England for steel rails and fastenings $2,938,900

The same quantity could have been purchased, delivered in

Canada in the Spring of 1877, for 1,800,000

• Loss on first cost $1,138,900

Interest to 30th June, 1877, on ascertained payments 271,365

To this must be added the cost of 4,000 tons laid upon the
Truro and Pictou Railway, a line that would not have
been steeled had not the rails been on hand 235,120

(The Government has taken authority to transfer this Railway
to Nova Scotia as a gift to a private Company.)

Ascertained loss to 30th June, 1877 $1,645,385

Interest is running on at the rate of about $13,500 per month
and is increasing — I estimate the further loss by interest
before the rails are used at $419,169

FAVORITISM AND WASTE.

I will now submit a statement of loss upon

Additional Items of Public Money Lost Through the Apparent
Favoritism of Mr. Mackenzie's Government, Brought to Light
Last Session.

( Vide Page 6y8 Senate Debates,^

1. Loss on 5,187 tons steel rails bought without competition from

Cooper, Fairman & Co., for which 10/ more per ton was

paid than was paid at the same time to another house. . $12,604

2. Loss on railway bolts and nuts, for which Cooper, Fairman & Co.

were paid over the lowest bidder 1.365

3. Loss on transport of 10,000 tons of rails, for which $2.04 per

ton was paid to Cooper, Fairman & Co. on behalf of
themselves and of Norris & Neelon, St. Catharines, and
Hope & Co., Hamilton, over the lowest bidder 20,400

4. Loss on transport of 15,141 tons, for which $3.30 per ton was

paid to Red River Transportation Co. over the lowest

bidder ($49,965 U. S. currency) 44,969

5. Loss on Goderich Harbor contract 30,000

Loss on these Five Transactions $109,338

I will now read a statement of

The Revenue and Expenditure of each Financial Year since
Confederation, was as follows :—

Year.

1867-8 .
1868-9 .
1869-70.
1870-1 .
1871-2 .
1872-3 .
1873-4 .

1874-5 .
1875-6 .
1876-7 .

Expenditure.

$
13,486,092
14,038,084

14,345.509
iq,*^ %o8i

i/jj*- .468
19,1/4,647
23,316,316

23,713,071

24,488,372

Revenue.

Total Surpluses from i

$
13,687,928

14,379,174
15,512,225

19,335,560
20,714,813
20,813,469
24,205,092
24,648,715
22,587,587
22,059,274

1875.......

Surplus.

$
201,836

341,090

1,166,716

3,712,479

3,125,345
1,638,822

888,776
935,644

Deficit.

$12,010,708

Total Deilcits lr«. "STC and 1877

1,900,785
ti,8o3,6i8

$3,704,403

The item pl.aced ;/. : ? 'nterc .1 Renewals Suspense Account was for

an expenditure actually muae. .-iv «•, charging it to the work as ought to
have been done, it was entered in a Suspense Account. Anyone who under-
stands book-keeping will know that that was a piece of " cooking." The late
Government are constantly charged with having engaged in the construction
of works which involved a large expenditure from revenue, but absolute silence is
observed upon the fact that they had an overflowing revenue and a yearly
surplus. Under such circumstances they were bound to go on with works
required in the public interest. Even Mr. Brown, when he spoke in the
Senate of the expenditure of the late Government, said : —

" The Macdonald Government was formed in 1867, and controlled the
" public finances until the 30th June, 1874; let us see then how the annual
" public expenditure increased in their hands. They were :

In 1867-8 $13,486,092

In 1868-9 14,038,084

In 1869-70 14,315,509

In 1870-1 15,623,081

In 1871-2 17,589,468

In 1872-3 19,174,647

In 1873-4 23,316,316

" It will thus be seen, that in the four years from 18 67-8 to 1870-1, the

* The item $23,862,89215 made up as follows : —

Expenditure as in Public Accounts, official return . . $23,5^9»30'

Add item of expenditure wrongly placed in Intercolonial Railway

Suspense Account 34.3>59^

Actual Expenditure, 1877 $23,862,892

t This deficit is made up as follows : * ^

Deficit admitted in Public Accounts $1,460,027

Add item wrongly placed in Suspense Account as above 343»S9J

Actual Deficit, 1877 $1,803,618

a
((

since

icit.

,900,785
,803,618

704,403

was for
ought to
10 under-
The late
istruction
silence is

a yearly
ith works

e in the

lolled the
lie annual

170-1, the

}18

** annual expenditure rose two millions of dollars ; that in the succeeding two
" years it rose three millions and a half more ; but that in the next succeed-
" ing year — that of 1873 4, which the hon. Senator (Mr. Macpherson) so
" indecently seeks to fasten on the present Government — the annual expendi-
** ture went up at one jump, the enormous additional sum of $3,768,300."

Examine the flagrant disingenuousness of Mr. Brown's statement. He
only gave the expenditure. He said nothing about the revenue. He
was silent about the millions of surpluses under the Macdonald Gov-
ernment, and silent about the millions of deficits under the Mackenzie
Government. Mr. Brown concealed also the fact that Two Millions of taxes
had been repealed by the Macdonald Government in 1871 and 1872.
Why did not Mr. Brown carry his contrast of expenditure beyond 1873-4?
Can it have been to conceal the fact that the expenditure under the Mac-
kenzie Government was greater in every year for which we have the returns,
down to 1876-7 than it was in 1873-4, and that too in the face of a declining
revenue (except in 1874-5), in the face of two deficits amounting to nearly
$4,000,000 ? The correct figures will be found in my table. Mr. Brown
charges me with " indecently seeking to fasten on the present Government the
^'increased annual expenditure of $3,768,300." Most of you have read my
pamphlets. Mr. Brown has their contents at his finger-ends, and he knows
that I only hold the present Government responsible for $1,800,000 of the
increased annual controllable expenditure that took place between 1873 and
1876. I have repeatedly stated this in Parliament, correcting Ministerial
mis-statemenls on the subject. I defy Mr. Brown to show that I ever held
the present Government responsible for an increase of $3,768,300, or any sum
larger than $1,800,000 of the increase between 1873 ^^^ 1876. You will
thus see that the indecency Mr. Brown speaks of lies at his own door, not
at mine.

Why do Mr. Brown and the Ministers labor so hard and so dishonestly to
gloss over the mal-administration, to conceal the extravagance and to misre-
present the expenditure of the Government ? It cannot be done in the
interest of the people. It must be done to promote some interest which is
opposed to the people's interest.

The Finance Minister at Lindsay the other day was as unjust as Mr. Brown
was to the late Government. The difference between the two Governments is
just this — the Macdonald Government had cash in hand from revenue to pay for
the works which they carried on, the Mackenzie Government, without cash in
hand, have gone on spending money as if they had annual surpluses instead
of annual deficits, and have plunged ihe country into debt. The Finance
Minister overstated the expenditure from revenue in 1873-4, and unfairly
charged the late Government therewith. He charged against ihe revenue of
that year items amounting to $1,273,907 expended upon undertakings
which had theretofore been charged against capital, and which the present
Government have sin e charged against capital or which were for exceptional
purposes. He did so to make the expenditure from revenue of the late
Government appear larger than it really was.

. PUBLIC WORKS PAID FOR OUT OF REVENUE.

Another statement is persistently made by the gentlemen at present in office
(and I think I saw that a Minister o*^ the Crown stated it in the County of
Bothwell the other day), that the present Government did not commence any
new works to be paid for out of revenue, but only completed those which had
been commenced by their predecessors. A list of works of this class com-
vienced after i8yj and the expenditure upon each, charged to revenue, will
be found in my pamphlet of June, 1877, pages 41 to 45. The expenditure
according to the Public Accounts was as follows :

Total amount expended in 1874 upon works not commenced in 1873. $327,552
Total amount expended in 1875 upon works not commenced in 1873. 203,546
Total amount expended in 1876 upon works not commenced in 1873. 556,596
Total amount expended in 1875 ^^^ 1876 upon works not com-
menced in 1874 621,669

The present Government is, of course, alone responsible for this expendi-
ture, as they succeeded to office on 7th November, 1873.

I do not admit the plea which Ministers constantly put forth that their hands
were tied by their predecessors, and that they were powerless. Do they mean
to say that the Government of this country is not under the control of the
Ministers of the day, and that they are not to be as prudent as ordinary
individuals would be — that their expenditure is not to be governed by the
revenue? The pretence is perfectly preposterous. If what they state is
true, the Government of this country is like a runaway coach, and the
Ministry simply throw down the reins and let the coach go to destruction —
and we are going towards that goal very fast. (Cheers.) It is not the right
to govern and control that is wanting in our Government, but it is the requisite
skill and capacity that are wanting.

A CHALLENGE.

What I have stated to you touching the increased expenditure is
taken from the Public Accounts, It is unseemly to have members of
the Government and myself standing up before the public, the one
denying what the other asserts. To put an end to these charges of mis-
statement and to stop recrimination, I am perfectly willing to leave the audit
of my statements to gentlemen who are qualified for the work, and who
are strictly non-partizan. I will name the General Manager of the Bank of
Montreal, Mr. Angus ; the General Manager of the Merchants' Bank, Mr.
Hague ; thefGeneral Manager of the Canada Life Insurance Co., Mr. Ramsay,
and the General Manager of the Permanent Loan and Savings Company, Mr.
Mason. I am willing to leave it to any two or three of those gentlemen to
say whether my statements are corrector not. (Prolonged cheering.) If it
were a matter of politics, those gentlemen would not act, but it is not.
They would simply have to deal with matters of account, to see
whether such of my statements as the Government may ques-
tion are correctly taken from the Public Accounts. Two or three ' ' my

statements are estimates, but all the others are from the Public Accounts.
Unless the Government are willing to coire before the tribunal 1 have
suggested, and prove that my statements are incorrect, let them forever be
silent upon the subject of inaccuracies so far as I am concerned, and unless
they be silent, I hope that fair-minded people will not listen to them until
they accept my challenge. (Renewed cheering).

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.

I will now show you the amount of Capital Expenditure during each finan-
cial year since Confederation. The members of the Government and Mr.
Brown name $125,000,000 to $130,000,000 as the amount of obligations
which this Government had to face when they ' uccceded to office. The
whole amount that has been spent on capital account, during the four years
which they have been in office, is $26,931,732. I had been curious to see how
they would explain this $125,000,000 to $130,000,000 of obligations. Mr.
Brown tried it in the Senate, and Mr. Cartwright followed him at Lindsay.
The following is a statement of

Capital Expenditure for £ach Financial Year Since Confederation.

Folio.

C
3

•-H

t/3

-1

Year.

1867-68

1868-69

1869-70

1870-71

1871-72

1872-73

1873-74

1874-75
1875-76

1876-77

Canals and
Miscellane-
ous Works.

Pacific
Railway.

Intercolonial
Railway.

$
524,126

325,127
281,630

461,969

552,998
1,526,811
2,731,482
2,808,560
4>904,S24

North -West
Territory.

Totals.

30,148

489,428

561,818

310,224

1,546,241

3,346,567
1,691,149

$ $

50,0811 1

169,782! 19,113
1,567,5861 1,821,887;
2,866,376; 773,871

5,039,063,
4,827,183}
3,417,661!
2,645,460'

1,004,057;

241,888,
63,238!

574,208

514,023

3,671,104

3,670,396

6,232,349
6,005,240

5,254,698

6,9-'3,i8s

7,154,118

7,599,731

14,^17,231 7, 97 5,57-'' 22,586,245 2,920,000

Total Expenditure on Public Works since Confederation,

charged to Capital

Provincial Debts

Paid with borrowed money — proceeds of Loans ,
Paid out of Surplus Revenue

47,59 9,055

47,599,055
20,452,340

68,051,395

57,480,053

$10;571.342

Of this sum of $10,571,342, no less than $10,186,288 accrued under
the Administration of Sir John Macdonald. ,

Mr. Brown in the Senate said,

" Sir John A. Macdonald's (Government pledged the credit of the country
" for public works to a vast amount ; aad It^tt the burden of carrying them

*' through as a legacy to their successors. Here is a list of engagements the
" new Ministry found awaiting them when they came into power : —

Canals $43,800,000 ^

Intercolonial Railway 10,000,000

Pacific Railway 30,000,000

N. S. and N. B. Railways 2,000,000

P. E. I. Railway 2,500,000

Minor works. 4,500,000

Improvements, St. Lawrence 2,500,000

Advances 1 ,000,000

$96,000,000
" In addition to these enormous undertakings, the new Ministry found $35,

** 000,000 of Public Debentures maturing immediately, for which no provision

" whatever had been made b^ their predecessors."
Mr. Cartwright at Lindsay remarked :

" What have the Government done that they should be entrusted with a
" new lease of power ? In reply to that he would say that, having faced a
" series of entanglements such as no other Government in Canada had ever
" confronted — (hear, hear) — having provided for engagements amounting to
** over $130,000,000 incurred by their predecessors, and having faced the
" necessity of incurring enormous additional expenditure for interest on capital
" sunk in works which these gentlemen had undertaken — having done this,
" they had reduced the annual expenditure to a figure which did not exceed by
" one dollar the amount they had found when they entered office, if they would
" deduct the amount of their permanent investments as he had a right to ask
" them to do."

In his Budget Speech of T875, when speaking of the $125,000,000 engage-
ments, he said : " There were twenty-five or thirty millions of dollars, which,
" for many reasons, it was desirable to pay off, if possible." What do you
suppose this " paying off" meant ? Simply renewing loans at a lower rate of
interest. (Laughter.) Suppose any one of you owed a $500 note at a bank
here and got it renewed or borrowed $500 at another bank to meet it — what
would be thought of you if you were to go swaggering about the streets
boasting that you had paid it off, while you had only renewed it? (Cheers.)
Mr. Cartwright's statement was misleading and ludicrous. Some $35,000,000
was in the form of maturing debentures and was renewed at a reduced rate
of interest, reducing to some extent the annual expenditure from income.
The other items which Mr. Brown and the Finance Minister enumerate have
not been expended, and the country was never committed to their expendi-
ture. It is quite true that a portion of it has been spent upon the canals
and upon the Pacific Railway, but the present Government did not feel itself
bound by the engagements of their predecessors in respect to the Pacific
Railway. They ajjandoned the scheme of their predecessors and adopted
one of their own, which involves the sinking of a large amount of money
hopelessly in the wilderness between Lake Superior and the Red River : but
so much has been done that it must now be completed. No Government
was committed to the other schemes named, and no prudent Government
would have gone on with as much as the present Government has proceeded

nts the

ind$35,
rovision

with a
faced a
lad ever
nting to
iced the
m capital
Dne this,
xceed by
ey would
It to ask

3 engage-
s, which,

do you
;r rate of

a bank
it — what
e streets
(Cheers.)
,000,000
jced rate

income,
ate have
expendi-
le canals
eel itself
e Pacific

adopted

f money
iver : but
/ernment
/ernment
roceeded

with in the state in which the finances of the country have been in since 1873.
The pubhc resources and credit would not have permitted the country to have
borrowed $125,000,000 or $130,000,000. The amount has not been wanted,
and it is absurd and dishonest to speak ot it as the suni of inherited engage-
ments. I hold that no (lovernment would be bound by the engagements of
their predecessors to |)roceed with public works, irrespective of the condi-
tion of the finances of the country. The doctrine is monstrous.
It was especially unpardonable in the Government ot which Mr.
Cartwright was Finance Minister to continue the public expenditure
on an extravagant scale.

Mr. Macpherson then briefly exposed the delusiveness of Mr. Cartwright's
estimates of 1874 and 1875, which he did more fully at Port Elgin. (See his
speech at that place.)

THE VVELLAND CANAL HUNOLE.

If there were one thing more than another expected of Mr. Mackenzie, it
was that he would administer his own department carefully and intelligently,
skillfully and efficiently. I have described to you his mode of constructing
the Pacific Railway, and I think you will agree with me that that has not been
characterized by much skill or judgment. The way in which the Wclland Canal
enlargement has been proceeded with marks, if possible, still greater mal-
administration and incapacity. One of the objects to be accomplished by
enlarging the canal is to obtain the water supply from Lake Erie, "i'liere are
twenty-five locks between Lake Ontario and Thorold. Twenty-four of these
may be said to have been completed last year. The guard lock and other
works near Port Colborne, including a barrier of rock containing 500,000
yards, were only put under contract last year, after the locks between Lake
Ontario and Thorold were almost completed, so that those twenty-four Locks
lie useless and worse — deteriorating for want of water. The following is the

Expenditure on the Welland Canal.

1874 $ 746,420

1875 1,047,119

1876 1,569,478

1877 2,199,962

$5>562,979

Estimates voted for year ending 30th June, 1878 2,000,000

Supplementary Estimates for year ending 30th June, 1878,

also voted and expended it may be assumed 138,500

$7,701,479

Interest on this sum at 5 per cent per annum is $385,074;
for three years it will amount to $1,155,222, which
amount at least, I am assured, will be lost to the country,
in consequence of the injudicious order in which the
works have been proceeded with. The enlarged canal
is not likely to be completed before the spring of 188 1,

I will now submit a statement of the

Increase of Annual Charges under Mr. Mackenzie's Oovernment,
many of them Caused by Mismanagement, Extravagance,
or Favoritism.

1. Increase of annual Controllable Expenditure $2,300,000

2. Increase of Interest on debt, Management of debt and

Sinking Fund 2,032,812

Total $4,332,812

The above sum of $4,332,812 capitalized at 5 per cent, amounts to
$86,656,240; that is, the increased amount of annual burdens since 1873,
for which the present Government is responsible, would pay the interest at 5
per cent, per annum on $86,656,240. It amounts to 10 cents a bushel upon
43,328,120 bushels of wheat, or a larger quantity of wheat, I apjjrehend,
than is produced in the Dominion. Now, gentlemen, you know how much
toil and anxiety it costs you to raise and market 1,000 bushels of wheat. T'.ie
increased taxation imposed upon you by the present Government will take
from you annually one tenth, or 100 bushels of every 1,000, that you raise,
assuming the price of wheat to be $1 a bushel. These facts are as incontro-
vertible as they are appalling.

Among the items included m the increased annual controllable expendi-
ture, for which the Government of Mr. Mackenzie is responsible, are the
following :

Salaries and Contingencies in Public Offices at Ottawa and

Legislation $433,512

Salaries of Cabinet Ministers 32,200

Administration of Justice 166,631

Post Office 356,157

Customs 153,929

Immigration and Quarantine 54,850

Excise 34,453

Superannuations 51,807

Weights and Measures 60,661

The Government will, of course, say that my estimate of $2,300,000 as
the amount of the increased annual expenditure for which they are responsible,
is excessive. It is an estimate, and like every estimate open to question.
But I believe it to be fair and liberal to the present Government.

I now come to my last statement, which is as follows : —

.512

,200

,631
.157
.929
,850

.453
,807

,661

GENERAL SUMMARY OF LOSSES.

Loss by purchase of Steel Rails (estimate) $2,000,00 j

Loss of interest on Lake Superior section Canadian Pacific

Railway (estimate) 862,50

Loss of interest on Welland Canal expenditure (estimate) 1,155,222

Loss by Fort Francis Lock 250,000

Loss by apparent favoritism i09»338

Loss by Fort Pelly Buildings, practically abandoned 29,320

Loss by amount paid to relieve Mr. Foster of his contract for

Georgian Bay Branch Railway contract 41,000

Loss by amount paid for purchase of K.aministi(iuia Terminus

more than was necessary, estimated at 30,000

Estimated Loss upon these Items $4,477,380

It occurred to me when looking at your harbor to-day that, if the $30,000
overpaid on (loderich harbor, or even a portion of it, had been expended
here, it would have done better service than it did by enriching a favorite of
the Government, the friend of your representative, at the expense of the public.

MR. CARTVVRIGHT'S LOANS.

Late as it is in the evening, I must say a few words on Mr. Cartwright's
loans. I have taken great e.xception to his mode of borrowing money. He
has done it in this way. He insisted ",i borrowing at a lower rate of
interest than capitalists in England wc willing to lend on Canadian
securities. Mr. Cartwright said in effect to the capitalists, *' I want to gel
«* money nominally at four per cent. ; I want to show the people of Canada
*' that I have borrowed from you by showing to you the silver side of
" my shield, while I show 'them the brazen side. They will not under-
" stand the sacrifice involved, and I will issue the loan at a handsome dis
" count." The amount lost, in round figures, on the last loan, as near as I
can ascertain, was 12)^ per cent., or one-eighth of the whole amount of the
loan. He sank that amount of capital in order to get the interest
nominally lower than the market rate. While we got only 87 J/^ cents in
the dollar, we have to pay interest on too cents, and have to repay
100 cents in the dollar. Mr, Cartwright has had the credit of borrowing
at four per cent, interest, while the capital he sunk will bring the
rate of interest well up to five per cent. ; and yet in the face of this fact I
observe that leading Ministerialists are actually stating at public meetings that
the rate of interest is only four per cent. What can be the explanation of such
a mis-statement? Can it be that the gentlemen do not understand the cjuestion,
or are they guilty of wilful misrepresentation ? His system involves an enor-
mous loss of capital to the country, and what we want is capital to carry on
our public works. Under Mr. Cartwright's arrangement about one-eighth of
the capital was sunk in advance for interest. It is just as if one of you
borrowed $700 but gave a mortgage on his farm for $8co, for the sake of get*
ting money at a nominally lower rate than it actually did cost him.

«n'

- QUEBEC . .

1 intended to say something to you on the constitutional question in
Quebec. Many think the Lieut.-Governor of that Province made a fiUibuster-
ing raid upon the Constitution. Every Province in the Dominion is deeply
interested in the question. Ontario is as much concerned as Quebec, for it
affects our constitutional rights and privileges. It was, therefore, unfortunate
that your representative, the only constitutional lawyer of repute on the Gov-
ernment side of the House, did not take part in the debate. His opinion was
anxiously looked for and it was expected that, if he approved of the conduct of
the Lieut.-Governor, he would have advanced strong constitutional arguments
in support of his opinion, or that, if he looked upon the aC: of the Lieut.-Gover-
nor as an act of dangerous usurpation, he would have had th.; patriotism to
have condemned and denounced it. But he neither spoke nor voted on the
question. Unfortunately the Ministerial party one and all seemed to think
that what had been done in Quel)ec might serve them in the coming elections,
and they suppressed their indignation (if they felt any) at the overthrow of
the Constitution as they had done their professions and principles and pledges
when the assertion of them might have weakened their hold on office.

I intended also to have said something upon the political recreancy of the
Government. It is, however, known to you all. You remember how Mr.
Blake and Mr. Mackenzie denounced coalitions, yet, when they first went into
office, they formed a coalition, and tempted men to sell themselves and their
principles for place and pelf (Cheers.) Disregarding their pledges, they
coalesced with their opponents from Cartwright to Cauchon. All these things
are written in the history of the country, and I fear will have an evil effect on
the very morals of the people, because it will enable men to justify political
misconduct and corruption by pointing to what leaders of public opinion
have done. The incapacity and extravagance of the Government are also
chronicled ir; the history of the country. The consequences of these will be
felt grievously in the pockets ot the taxpayers for many years to come. Their
farms are mortgaged for the amount of the increased expenditure and they
must pay it out of the first fruits of their labor.

CONCLUSION.

I have felt it my duty to expose the deficiencies of the Government. My
object, as I have told you, is to see the Government of this country placed in
the hands of competent, true, and honorable men, who will conduct the
public business ably, honestly, and economically, for the benefit of the people
of Canada, and not for the enrichment of political parasites. It is to me
personally, except as one of the general public, a matter of indifference who
may govern the eountry. I occupy the same position as yourselves, that of
a tax-payer. It is in the interests of the people alone that I am exposing the
Government, and doing it at the sacrifice of much of my own ease and comfort.
I shall conclude by giving from an American writer upon a former American

• <

Administration, words which, as paraphrased, may. be applied with justice,

I think, to Mr. Mackenzie's Government: —

" Mr. Mackenzie has parenthesized in history five years which will be marked
" hereafter as the era of vicarious Government and the jieriod of greed — five
** years of such official incapacity and reckless extravagance, such selfishness
** and shamelessness, such low aims and base purposes, such grasping avarice
" and eager over-reaching, such speculation in official information, and such
" degradation ot all things which the Dominion has held to be high, and holy,
" and worthy an honest pride, that to-day the country hangs its head, and holds
" its nose, and waits for this Administration to pass."

Mr. Macpherson resumed his seat amid prolonged cheering. A vote of

thanks to him was carried unanimously and the audience dispersed.

be
leir

It of
the
"ort.
can

THE BANQUET. '

A splendid banquet was given to Mr. Macpherson in the evening. Every
seat was occupied and many who desired to be present were unable to gain
admission.

Mr. Macpherson, in response to the toast of his health, expressed his
appreciation of the very cordial manner in which he had been welcomed by
his old constituents. He was delighted to see the progress which the beauti-
ful town had made, and to know that a new industry — the manufacture of
salt — had sprung into existence and had flourished for a time since his last visit.
He had visited the large establishment of Mr. Rightmeyer, but he was sorry to
learn that it was not as prosperous as it had been or as it should be to give a
fair return to those who had invested their money in it. He regretted to
hear that some of the salt establishments had been closed — that the salt
industry, like many other interests in Canada, had been overborne by the
large importations from the United States, and that the town, like others
throughout the Dominion, was suffering from the slaughtering of its indus-
tries. (Applause.) He hoped there would soon be a return to a more
prosperous condition of affairs, and it rested with the people to say whether
it should be so or not. Within a few months they would have an oppor-
tunity of choosing representatives either to support the present (iovern-
ment, which declared their inability to do anything to restore the
prosperity of the country, or to support the party which advocated a national
policy. (Cheers.) He then proceeded to show that without such a policy
manufactures could never be established in Canada. The F'inance Minister
had expressed the hope that Canadian manufacturers would seek markets in
other and more distant countries in place of in the United States, from which
they were unfairly excluded. That was as unreasonable as the command
of Pharaoh to the Israelites, to make bricks without straw. How could
Canadian manufacturers extend their trade to foreign countries when they were
not allowed to exist at home. Would he have them go to foreign coun-
tries and say, " If we establish such and such a manufacture in Canada, will
" you buy from us and what price will you give us?" Manufacturers must

be firmly established in a home market before they could compete in foreign
markets. (Cheers.) Designing men had endeavored to mislead the public
by representing that the adoption of a national policy meant increased tax-
ation. Nothing could be more fallacious. Only a certain amount of revenue
was required, and that must be obtained under any circumstanecs. Under
a national policy the duties would be imposed mainly upon such articles as
could be produced in this country instead of upon those which must
always be imported, (Cheers.)

TIVERTON.

On Wednesday morning Senator Macpherson and party drove to Tiverton,
where he addressed a meeting of his old friends. He expressed regret at
finding the harbors along the coast of Bruce, especially the harbor of Inver-
huron, little better than they were fourteen years ago. If a small proportion
of the money which had beei' wasted had been judiciously expended on the
harbors of Bruce, the public would have benefitted. He might mention what
was well known, that about $30,000 had been paid to the contractor for the
Goderich Harbor Improvements in excess of the price at which an
experienced contractor tendered for the work. That was a scandalous case of
favoritism, and a large amount of money had been lost to the country,
while the harbors on the coast of Bruce were left unimproved. Here, as at
Kincardine, he exposed the fallacy of supposing that a national policy meant
increased taxation, and showed that it would involve not an increase in the
amount of taxes, but simply a readjustment of the tariff. At the conclusion
of the address a vote of thanks was carried unanimously, and the meeting
separated with cheers for Senator Macpherson and the Queen.

UNDERWOOD.

A rapid drive through a fertile rolling country, rich with luxuriant crops,
brought the party to Underwood, where they were met by a party of friends
and a band from Port Elgin, ten miles distant. The party proceeded to the
Town Hall, where Senator Macpherson was presented with an address, to
which he replied in a brief speech, dealing principally with financial matters*
He also advocated a national policy, and pointed out the absurdity of the cry
raised by its opponents that it meant increased taxation. He concluded by
referring to Mr. Cartwright's insult to the Highland race, and amid cheers
called upon them to resent the insult at the polls. A vote of thanks was
carried unanimously, and the party, headed by the piper and the band, drove
to Fort Elgin.

PORT ELGIN.

This thrivi- g town, one of the most beautiful, enterprising, and prosperous
of the many thriving towns of Bruce, was all astir ?,s the party drove through
its streets. Flags and bunting fluttered from scores of houses, and evergreen
arches and mottoes of welcome testified to the hearty and generous greeting
which its inhabitants accorded to their visitor.

'■*©

the

ers«

cry

leers

ous
ugh
een
:ing

At the Town Hall, which was handsomely decorated for the occasion,
addresses were presented on behalf of the citizens of Port Elgin and the
Liberal Conservative Associations of Port Elgin and of the Township of
Arran, to which Mr. Macpherson replied at considerable length. He
expressed his gratification at the warmth of his reception, as well as at the
fact that it came, not from one party merely, but from the citizens
of Port Elgin generally. There were circumstances which made that
peculiarly gratifying to him. In that town he had been vilified by a member
of the Government, the Minister of Finance, for the fearlessness and truthful,
ness with which he had exposed the extravagance and shortcomings of the
Administration. Ministers could not disprove any one of his charges, and
had resorted instead to coarse personal abuse of himself. This splendid recep-
sion, this glorious ovation, was a fitting rebuke to his traducers. (Cheers.)
He was glad to see the interest which the young men of the country were
taking in public affairs. On them devolved, in consequence of their greater
advantages of education, the duty of investigating public questions for their
fathers as well as for themselves, and of removing the prejudices which bound
their seniors, traditional prejudices which had no longer any bearing on or signi-
ficance in the public questions of the day. (Cheers. ) A more manly and
thoroughly honest people than the inhabitants of Ontario did not possess the
franchise in any country, and furthermore they were more advanced in
intelligenr^ than almost any other people of the same number on this
continent. Regard for consistency was a creditable and honorable feeling,
but it might be carried too far, and it was carried too far in parts of
Ontario, and in that very township. (Hear, hear.) He regretted to learn
that the harbors on th coast of Bruce had been neglected by the
Government, while they had put $30,000 into the pockets of a favorite
at Goderich. He attributed that neglect to the fact that the people
in certain parts of the county had so blindly and slavishly adhered
to one party that they had lost their individuality and their political
importance as communities. The result was that their interests were
neglected when public improvements were in contemplation or public
money was to be expended. The present Government could always count
upon the support of certain sections of Bruce, and consequently they
made no effort to deserve it. So long as that state of affairs continued,
and until the people asserted their independence of self-constituted
conventions and of self-seeking politicians, their interests w^uld be ne-
glected. (Applause.) The young men should, therefore, devote themselves
to searching for the truth and placing it before their seniors, who
would cease to be deceived by traditional cries of Reform and Conservative^
now that those cries had ceased to have any significance. (Applause.)
Mr. Blake had taunted his own party with being " Reformers who have
*' nothing to reform." It was true, and a very happy condition it was for the
country to be in. A country without political grievances, without civil or re-
ligious disabilities, was in an enviable condition ; and the people of such a

I : ■;

country should put aside everything of an unimportant or only traditional
character which was calculated to divide them, and should unite in promoting
the development of its resources and in educating and elevating themselves and
their children. (Cheers.) There was not one question, except the com-
mercial policy, that need separate the people of this country, not one
that honest representative men of the old parties could not sit down together
to discuss and solve in the common interest. The cries of " Reform "
and " Conservative " were now kept up by those who desired to per-
petuate divisions and heart-burnings among the people, not in the interest
of the people but of themselves, the self-seekers of the country. (Cheers.)
The mission of the young men should be to seek the truth, and having
found it, to place it before their seniors that they might no longer be
influenced by designing men who would divide the people for the purpose
of enriching themselves. Let the people accord their support to honest,
patriotic men, and to able administrators, uninfluenced by ejife party names.
He then replied to the address of the Liberal Conservative Association of
Arran. The meeting dispersed with cheers for Senator Macpherson, Colonel
Sproat, Sir John Macdonald and the Queen.

In the course of the afternoon the Senator was driven to the harbor, which
is in a condition that is far from creditable to the Government, considering
that about a quarter of a million bushels of wheat were shipped from it and
were subjected to extra insurance in consequence of the condition of the
harbor.

BANQUET AT PORT ELGIN.

In the evening Senator Macpherson was entertained at a banquet in the
Town Hall. The large room was crowded with the representative men of the
town, and among those who had assembled to welcome the Senator were many
gentlemen who had fought the battles of the Reform Party when there were
reforms to be fought for, and when Reformers were more than placemen.
The Hall was very tastefully decorated by the ladies of Port Elgin, many of
whom graced the banquet with their presence. After the usual loyal toasts
had been cordially drunk, the toast of the evening was honored with great en-
thusiasm, and the piper played a stirring martial air. Senator Macpherson re-
sponded, dealing with the finances of the country. Referrmg to Mr Cart-
wright's speech at Port Elgin, he said it was almost wholly devoted to abuse
of himself (Mr. Macpherson) — unprovoked and wanton abuse, for be had not,
before the delivery ot that speech, uttered a discourteous word about Mr. Cart-
wright. Mr. Cartwright's speech was insulting to the intelligence of his
hearers, and the delivery of it was an abuse of their hospitality. (Cheers.) But
he (Mr. Macpherson) would not return railing for railing. The people
of Port Elgin had vindicated him. They had avenged him, and if
he were to retaliate on Mr. Cartwright with vituperation, he should be
lowering himself to his level, which self-respect as well as respect for
them would prevent his doing. (Cheers.) Instead of explaining the
finances of the country, Mr. Cartwright had devoted much time to Mr. Tilley's

estimates, and that he must have done for the purpose of deUiding and mis-
leading his hearers. I'he extravagance or economy of a Government must be as-
certained not frc'"^ estimates, but from expenditure. Governments should
act as prudent individuals would act. When enjoying an overflowing revenue,
improvements might be entered upon, and expenditure incurred which would
be highly imprudent under different circumstances. Notwithstanding the
serious and continued decrease of revenue, the present Government persisted
in lavish expenditure. All would remember the professions of economy
which had been uttered so profusely by Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues
when they were in Opposition, and the people expected when they raised
them to power that retrenchment would have been practised. He had sup.
posed that in Mr. Mackenzie's case, considering his professsons and habits,
economy was with him an instinct, and that he would watch the expendi-
ture of the people's dollars and cents just as faithfully and conscientiously as
he would watch his own. Probably no man in Canada was more disappoint-
ed with the administrative failure and poUtical recreancy of Mr. Mackenzie
and his colleagues than himself (Mr. Macpherson). He was surprised that
Mr. Mackenzie should have taken into his Government so extreme a Tory
as Mr. Cartwright had always been, but he supposed it was a matter of ne.
cessity, and an admission that there was no man in the Reform ranks qualified
to take charge of the finances of the Dominion.

MR. CARTWRIGHT'S MISCALCULATIONS.

He would call attention to Mr. Cartwright's estimates of revenue and their
deplorably fallacious character. Estimates of revenue were much more important
than estimates of expenditure, and the former should govern the latter. Esti-
mates of expenditure were always largely within the control of the Government
while estimates of revenue depended mainly on the prosperity of the people. By
watching how the revenue came up to the estimate, the Government had an
unerring guide to the expenditure. He would read the estimates of revenue
made by Mr. Cartwright in 1874 and 1875. He would read Mr. Cartwright's
words, not his own, and would also place the returns of revenue before them
that they might contrast the revenue with the estimates.

In 1874 Mr. Cartwright imposed taxes vvhich he estimated would yield
$3,000,000. In his Budget Speech, delivered on 14th April of that year,
he said : — " The total amount expected to be derived from these new sources
" of revenue is about $3,000,000, which is about the amount we require over
" the $22,000,000 already estimated for, in order to meet the enormous addi-
*' tional expense which we must expect during the next four or five years."
He also said : " I do not think that any greater increase of the tariff than ive
" suggest now would be wise. I think we have gone to the limit beyond which it
" would be impossible to pass without resorting to direct taxation"

The following is an extract from Mr. Cartwright's Budget Speech, delivered
on i6th February, 1875: — " I think that drring those ten years (1874 to
" 1884) we shall probably borrow from our own people, through the medium
" of Savings Banks, or receive from miscellaneous sources, about One Million
" of Dollars annually, amounting in all to Ten Millions."

In the same Budget Speech Mr. Cartwright further said : — •' If the House
" coincides with me in the opinion that it will be wise and prudent with these
" heavy engagements, to maintain a steady, moderate surplus, we shall probably
" have another Million per annum from that source, amounting to Ten Mil-
*' lions more."

The following table exhibits Mr. Cartwright's Estimates compared with the
actual results: —

Estimated Revenue afier the Tariff was Increased in 1874.

Estimated Revenue.

1875 $25,000,000

1876 25,000,000

1877 25,000,000

$75,000,000

Actual Revenue.

1875 $24,648,715

1876 22,587,587

1877 22,059,274

$69,295,576

Receipts of Revenue in 1875, 1876, and 1877 less than estimated

by Mr. Cartwright in Budget Speech, April 14th, 1874 $6,704,424

Estimated Surpluses of Revenue.

Estimated Surpluses.

In 1875 $1,000,000

In 1876 1,000,000

In 1877 1,000,000

$3,000,000

Actual Deficits.

1876 $1,900,785

1877 1,803,618

$3,704,403
Less Surplus, 1875. 935.644

$^,768,759
Amount of Surpluses in 1875-76-77 (see Budget Speech Feb,

i6th, 1875) estimated to be 3,000,000

Less than estimated by Mr. Cartwright in his Budget \

Speech of Feb. 16, 1875 $5,768,759

Estimated Increase of Deposits in Government
Savings Banks.

( The amount on deposits in the Government Savings Banks at
the end of the fiscal year before the date of his speech [30th June,
1874], was $6,078,678, and this sum must have been Mr.
Cartwright's standard.)

Estimated Annual Increase of Deposits
in Government Savings Banks.

1875 over 1874 $1,000,000

1876 over 1874 1,000,000

1877 over 1874 1,000,000

Estimated Increase for 1875-6-7. $3,000,000

Decreased Amount on Deposit
in Savings Batiks.

1875 less than 1874... $267,390

1876 •♦ •• .. 841,114

1877 " " ... 351.879

Total decrease of De-
posits in Government
Savings Banks in
1875-6-7 $1,460,383

Add estimated Increases $1,000,000 a year for three years... $3,000,000

Amount of deposits in Savings Banks less than esti-
mated by Mr. Cartwright in his Budget Speech,
i6th Feb., 1875 '

$4,460,383

he House

vith these

probably

Ten Mil-

l with the
1874.

,704,424

,768,759

Senator Macpherson continued :

Let me compare the receipts with the estimates. Mr. Cartwright estimated
the revenue at $25,000,000 a year at least. The amount received into the
treasury for the three complete years of Mr. Mackenzie's Government, for
which we have the Public Accounts, amounted only to $69,295,576, or an
average sum of $23,089,525, being in round figures $2,000,000 a year less
estimated. The exact falling off was $5,704,424, and the discrepancy
between the estimates and the actual revenue increased annually.

Again, Mr. Cartwright estimated that there would be an annual surplus of
$1,000,000. Had this been realized it would have amounted for the three
years to $3,000,000, but instead of this surplus Mr. Cartwrighi has been
confronted with a net deficit of $2,768,759 for the three years, making the
actual discrepancy between his estimate and the result $5,768,759.

Then, again, Mr. Cartwright estimated that the revenue through the Gov-
ernment Savings Banks would amount to a million a year over the amount of
the deposits in 1874, but instead of that the deposits in the Government
Savings Banks have not since 1874 reached the amount they stood at then,
and the discrepancy between Mr. Cartwright's estimate of revenue from this
source and the result for the three years is no less than $4,460,383. The
Government had thus early warning of a decreasing revenue, early intima-
tion that Mr. Cartwright's estimates were fallacious to the extent of millions
a year, and surely it was their duty to have checked expenditure and enforced
the most rigid retrenchment throughout the public service. But instead of
retrenchment, the Government continued to distinguish its reign by extrava-
gance and waste. What can be said in defence of a Government that could
have been guilty of such recklessness ?

Nothing indicates the condition of the poorer people more clearly than the
deposits in the Savings Banks. Here they have been decreasing every year
since 1874, and in the face of the great falling away from Mr. Cartwright's
estimates the expenditure was continued on a prodigal scale. (Cheers.)

ANOTHER OF MR. CAR TWRIGHT'S MISTAKES.

60,383

There is another matter in which Mr. Cartwright is concerned to which I
wish to call attention. At Lindsay, less than a month ago, speaking of
his supplementary estimates of last session, he said : —

" Moreover it was the extreme of absurdity to suppose that other Govern-
" ments did not find it necessary to bring down very large supplementary
" estimates. Why, no longer ago than the year 1869-70, he found that under
" the late Administration in one single year supplementary estimates were
" brought down to the tune of $7,346,541. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He
" did not say that any blame was to be imputed to the late Government for
" that ; the greater part of the expenditure was in many cases chargeable to
" capital account, and in no respect to the income of the year But great
" blame was to be attached to experienced men — men trusted by their
" fellow countrymen — at any rate, by a considerable number of them — for
" making it a charge against the Government that they had brought down

(iO

" estimates on (■ai)ital account amounting to $2,000,000 for thu last year,
" without any mention of the $7,346,000 brought clown by these gentlemen
"themselves. (Hear, hear.) That was not a fair thing to do. It was per-
" fectly fair tocrilici/X' these estimates, but it was perfectly fair at the same
" time for the honest opponent to take the opportunity of admitting that, so
" far from being unusual, it was the customary course which all Governments
" had pursued."

This statement surprised me, and I turned up the supplementary estimates
for 1869-70, and discovered that the Minister of Finance had committed an
egregious error, one, considering his high office and his facilities for procuring
accurate information, which was altogether unpardonable. He included the
sum of $1,460,000 twice in the statement which he made at Lindsay. He
misrepresented the Government of 1869-70 by that large amount; and I ask
you if that were " a fair thing to do." It may have been only a blunder, but,
coming from the Minister of Finance, it was an unpardonable blunder. I
think it has become evident that neither his estimates nor his statements can
be relied upon. I now dismiss Mr. Cartwright, and I hope the people, for
their own sake, will dismiss him also.

SOUTHAMPTON.

A rapid drive brought Senator Macpherson and party to Southampton at
an early hour on the morning of Thursday. They were met by a number of
the residents, headed by the Saugeen Indian Brass Band, and escorted to the
Town Hall, which was decorated with flags for the occasion. The streets
were ornamented with graceful arches.

An address was presented to Senator Macpherson by the Mayor of South-
ampton on behalf of the people of the village, to which he replied in a man-
ner that evidently produced much satisfaction among the audience.

A most pleasing incident was the presence of settlers from Amabel and
other portions of the Indian Peninsula, who expressed the obligations which
they were under to Senator Macpherson and Col. Sproat for the justice and con-
sideration they had obtained for them in respect to the revaluing of their
lands, the necessary steps to secure this having been taken before the
change of Government.

The party were then driven down to the fine harbor of Refuge, formed
partly by Chantry Island. It is a lovely, charming locality, and must become
a fashionable rescn for the people of the Dominion. The party remained
enjoying the cool breezes from the lake till the whistle of the train summoned
them on board.

PAISLEY.

On the arrival of the train at Paisley, Senator Macpherson was met at the
station by a vast crowd, and presented with an address by A. McNeil, Esq.,
President of the Liberal Conservative Association. Senator Macpherson having

.«1

responded, a procession of carriages was formed and, headed by a band, drove
through the streets of the town to the leading hotel, where he was entertained
at a banquet. From the dining-room the party adjourned to the Town Hall,
where Senator Macpherson addressed a meeting. He spoke at considerable
length on financial and national policy questions, and then referred to the
changes which had fken place in Bruce since he had last visited the county.
He rejoiced to see the improvement which had taken place in Paisley. With
its splendid water power it ought to be one of the most flourishing and rapidly
growing places in the county, and all that was necessary to make it so, he be-
lieved, was the adoption of a true national and patriotic policy. (Cheers.)
With fair encouragement to capitalists, Paisley would soon become an impor-
tant manufacturing town, benefitting not only its people but the farming com-
munity in the vicinity by furnishing them with a home market for their pro-
duce. Under the mistaken policy of the present Government capitalists had
no inducement to invest their money in Canada. Investments in Canadian
industries were practically prohibited, even in a town like Paisley where the
facilities for manufacturing were great While Canadian manufactures were
excluded from the American markets by high or prohibitory duties, they
were overborne in their own markets by American manufactures. There was
no opening for successful enterprise, and the fine water power of Paisley
would be comparatively unused until their rulers adopted a national policy.
(Cheers.) He told them it would rest with themselves at an early day to deter-
mine whether to continue the present pauperizing policy or to change it for one
that would restore prosperity. He addressed his brother Highlanders and told
them that he had resented, so far as he could, the insult hurled at him, at them,
and at the memories ,af their fathers by Mr. Cartwright. It rested with them
to punish it through the ballot-box.

at the

Esq.,

having

Note. — Mr. Gillies addressed a meeting at Paisley after my departure for Walkerton. I see
that he accused me of political inconsistency in that I in 1864 had represented myself to
be a Baldwin Reformer, and had not consistently acted the part of one since, ll is
quite true that I did so represent myself. I was and am one still — Baldwin-Reformer
and Liberal-Conservative are now synonymous terms. When accusing me of political
inconsistency Mr. Gillies should have proved his charge by my votes in the Senate. I chal-
lenge him to do so. It is political blasphemy in members of the present Ministerial party
to take the name of Robert Baldwin upon their lips. The unselfish and pure Baldwin
would have repudiated them with scorn I may define my (.-olitics in the following words
of the large-hearted Scottish divine, the late Rev. Norman McLeod. D.D. :

" All true politics should be in the line of making all the good possessed by the nation or
" in the nation, as much as possible a common good. No institution can be righteou.sly
" defended unless it can be proved to benefit the country more than its dectruction could do."

Mr. Gillies further asserted, following in the footsteps of his unscrupulous leaders, that my
financial statements were untrue and that he could prove them untrue from the Public
Accounts, but, like his leaders, Mr. Gillies was careful not to produce the Public Accounts,
and I much fear that to him the book of Public Accounts is a sealed book. — D. L. M.

WALKERTON.

The drive from Paisley to Walkerton was through a rich and splendid agri-
cultural country — one of the finest wheat growing districts in Ontario. The
party were met about a mile from Walkerton by a procession of carriages,
headed by a brass band, and escorted into and through the town to the Drill
Shed, where the Mayor presented Senator Macpherson with an address, to
which he replied at considerable length. The Liberal Conservative Associa-
tion, by its President, also presented an address, to which the Senator suitably
replied.

THE BANQUET.

In the evening Mr. Macpherson was entertained at a banquet in the Opera
House, which was brilliantly decorated. The usual loyal and patriotic toasts
having been duly honored, the Chairman proposed the toast of the evening,
which was received with prolonged cheering. Senator Macpherson responded
as follows : —

Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, — I thank you very sincerely for the
cordial and hearty manner in which you have received the toast of my health.
It is but following in the way in which it has been received throughout the
county, wherever I have gone, and for all of which I feel intensely, deeply
grateful. It is gratifying to me to see the banquet graced with the presence
of so many of the ladies of Walkerton. Their presence is always a guarantee
of good order at assemblages such as this ; and, furthermore, we are ban-
queting under the Dunkin Act, as we have done at all the banquets which
I have attended in the County of Bruce.

THE NATIONAL POLICY.

The words that I propose to address to you this evening will be on a sub-
ject which I consider of vital importance to the country. It is what is
know as the National Policy. (Applause.) I may tell you that I myself have
been a Free Trader. I would be so to-day, if our neighbors would recipro-
cate. (Hear, hear.) If they would reciprocate fairly with us, I would prefer
such an arrangement to any other. We had not to consider the question of
our commercial policy until within the last few years. Free trade and pro-
tection were merely theoretical questions in Canada. From 1854 to 1865 we
had a Reciprocity Treaty with the United States. That gave us free trade
with our neighbors in all natural productions. When that treaty was
abrogated, the war prices which ruled in the United States secured to us all
the advantages, all the protection we required.

OUR INDUSTRIES.

It was not until prices fell in the United States to a level with our own
that our producers and manufacturers found themselves at a great disadvan-

idid agri-
io. The
carriages,
the Drill
[dress, to
: Associa-
ir suitably

:he Opera
tic toasts
; evening,
esponded

;ly for the
ny health,
ghout the
ly, deeply
presence
guarantee
are ban-
ts which

on a sub-
what is
self have
recipro-
d prefer

lestion of
and pro-
1865 we
ee trade
aty was
to us all

our own
lisadvan-

tage, found it impossible to compete with the producers and manufacturers of
the United States, even in our own markets. Our manufacturers found it im-
possible, manufacturing for a limited home market as they had to do, and
with their products excluded from the larger markets of the United States
by a prohibitory tariff, to compete with their rivals from that country who were
permitted to bring their products into our markets at comparatively low
duties, and crush our industries. The manufacturers of the United States have
thus had, so far as the Canadians are concerned, a monopoly of their own
market of forty millions of people, and a slaughter market in Canada for their
suiplus products. It is not surprising, therefore, that Canadian industries
should have succumbed one after another, until now but few of them remain,
and that these few are languishing.

THE NATIONAL POLICY OF 1870.

In 1870 the Government of that day introduced into Parliament a tariff of
a protective character — a tariff intended to promote a national policy. I
considered it premature. I thought the i\mericans should have had
a little more time allowed them to get over the war irritation under
which they had abrogated the Reciprocity Treaty. I thought if we, in 1870,
enacted a higher tariff, and one which would be represented as, to some extent,
retaliatory, it might postpone the renewal of a Reciprocity Treaty, and that
that would be unfortunate and undesirable.

So anxious was I that nothing should be done to postpone the renewal of
the Reciprocity Treaty with free trade secured in that way, that I moved an
amendment to the Tarifif Bill in the Senate, and came within four votes of
defeating that measure.

A CHANGE OF TARIFF IN THE UNITED STATES IMPROBABLE.

Every article that we produce is subject to a high duty when taken to the
United States, while almost the whole of their natural products are admitted
into this country free of duty. Our tariff on manufactured goods, such
as cottons, woollens, hardware, &c., is 17)^ per cent, ad valorem. The
American tariff is very much higher The tariffs of the two countries on the
articles most in use are as follows : —

Canadian Duty

Wheat Free.

Rye and Barley Free.

Indian Corn and Oats Free.

Wheat Flour Free.

Rye Flour and Corn meal Free.

Oatmeal Free.

Potatoes 10 per

Live Animals 10 per

Coal Free.

American Duty.

20c per bushel

15c per bushel

IOC per bushel

20 per cent.

10 per cent.

^ cent per lb.

cent 15c per bushel

cent 20 per cent.

75c per ton.

Canadian Duty. Amkrk an Dtirv.

j In packages 1 2c per

Salt Free. . . . . ■ loo lbs.; in bulk Sc

I per loo lbs.

Wool Free. 25 to 50 p.c.

Fig Iron Kree. $7 per ton.

Bar Iron 5 per cent 35 to 75 per cent.

Plate and Boiler Iron 5 per cent $25 and $30 per ton.

Iron Rails Free. ....

Steel Rails Free. ....

Bricks Free. ....

$14 per ton.
$25 per ton.
20 per cent.
Trees, Plants, and Shrubs 10 per cent 20 per cent.

Fla.x, dressed Free.

Flax, undressed Free.

Flax Seed Free.

Starch 2c per lb.

$40 per ton.
20c per bushel.
$20 per ton.
ic. per lb. and 20
cent, ad valorem.

The following articles, all of which in our tariff come under the general
figure of 17)^ per cent., are, by the American tariff, charged with the rates
undermentioned : —

Screws 56 to 60 per cent.

40 to 50 II

«5

Wood

Saws

Cars and Locomotives

Machinery

Stoves and other Iron Castings

Woollen Cloth 66

Flannels and Blankets

Ready-made Clothing 35

Carpets 50

Alpaca Goods

Heavy Cottons

Finer Cottons 50

Cotton Yarn 46 to

Spool Thread . 47

Silk Cloths 50

Linen Cloths 30

Rubber and Leather Goods, Fur Goods, Glass Bottles and
Lamp Chimneys, Clocks, Furniture, Carriages, En-
velopes, Writing Paper, Room Paper, Felt Hats of
wool. Guns, Rifles, Pistols, Umbrellas and Parasols. 35

Only last session of Congress a bill was introduced to modify the t. .f and
adopt as nearly as p-ssiblea uniform rate of 35 per cent. — just double ours.
Well, gentlemen, that bill was scouted by Congress.

It was rejected with scorn, so that we have no ground to hope for a modifi-
cation of the tariff of the United States, and yet here we are adhering to our
own low tariff and allowing our industries to be extinguished.

THE CANADIAN TARIFF.

It is the habit of Ministerial theorists to tell the manufacturers of this
country with a sneer, that they have a protective tariff of 17}^ per cent.

icAN Duty.

es I2C per

in bulk 8c

>s.

.c.

cr cent.

30 per ton.

)n.

It.

nt.

)n.

ushel.

)n.

(. and 20 ¥

i valorem.

;he general
h the rates

3 per cent.

O H

5
5

O 'I

o "

M
M
II

I and
loubic ours.

)r a modifi-
bring to our

lers of this
per cent.,

and should be content with it or close their establishments. But it
should be borne in mind that while the rate of protection is nominally un-
changed, the amount is changed very materially since the tariff was enacted in
1874. The duties under our tariff are levied on the ad valorem principle —
that is, the duty upon every $100 worth of cotton say is $17.50. In 1874
the price of American standard sheetings was ten cents and eighty-hundredths
of a cent (twelve cents United States currency,) per yard, the duty on which
was one cent and eighty-nine hundredths ot a cent per yard. But the
price of similar American cottons, (the goods which, I understand,
enter into aompetition with Canadian cottons,) has fallen to seven cents
a yard. The duty of 17^^ per cent, on seven cents is only one cent
and twenty-two and a-half hundredths of a cent per yard, so that the pro-
tection enjoyed by the Canadian manufacturer in 1878 is sixty-six and a half
hundredths of a cent (say two-thirds of a cent) per yaid less than it was in 1874,
when the present tariff was pas:;ed. To have maintained the protection
at one cent and eighty-nine hundredths of a cent per yard, (the rate of
1874), the duty would now require to be 27 per cent, ad valorem instead
of 17}^ per cent., and if the consumer had to pay 27 per cent in 1878, he
would be paying no more dtity per yard than he paid in 1874. I fancy
I hear a Ministerial theorist say, True, but the consumer saves the two-
thirds of a cent per yard on his purchases of cotton in 1878. My reply
to the theorist is that there is much in the intricate fabric of modem society
not dreamt of in his philosophy. I would remind him that the consumers are
also the taxpayers in this country, and that they must pay in one way and ano-
ther, and sooner or later in revenue an amount equal to the annual expendi-
ture of the Government. Now the deficits of late years have been largely owing
to the fall in value of our staple imports. The deficits had to be covered with
borrowed money, on which the country, which means the consumers of
the country, is paying interest and must ere long pay the principal —
the deficits. It will thus be perceived that the consumer has not saved
two-thirds of a cent per yard on his cottons, but has gone into debt through
his 1 -nt, the Minister of Finance, to that extent. Would it not, therefore,
h Deen wiser and more for the advantage of the whole people to have paid
o ay as we went along, to have avoided the national discredit of deficits,
ai It have maintained this protection on our cotton and other manufactures at
the same rate per yard or other quantity as was given to them in 1874. I
have taken the cotton manufacture as an example. What applies to it ai>
plies to all or industries. The country is concerned to know whether the
Minister of F mce is still prepared to say, as he did in his Budget speech of
>t think that any greater increase of the tariff than we suggest

h; wise. I think we have gone to the limit beyond which it
lossible to pass without resorting to direct taxation." If he is,

enzie's Government is sustained at the general election, it is
difficult to see how direct taxation can be postponed beyond next session.

1874, " I f'
" now wouj.
" would be i
and Mr. Mac

SHOULD ADAPT OUR POLICY TO OUR CIRCUMSTANCES.

It is useless in us, and folly, to attempt to set up a policy of our own which
is entirely opposed to that of our great neighbor. Compared to that neighbor
we are as a boy to a man. We cannot dictate a policy to them ; we must
be governed by their policy. (Hear, hear.) If we disregard their policy,
as we have done for years, and endeavor to set up a policy of our own which
is at variance with theirs, we must take the consequences, and, unless we are
very blind, we must foresee what the consequences will be. Our persistence in
our present policy has brought adversity U|,)n the country, and it is to be
hoped we shall have wisdom enough to change it and adopt a national policy.
(Cheers.)

CAPITALISTS WILL NOT INVEST IN CANADIAN INDUSTRIES.

It is obvious that, as long as the present policy is allowed to continue, our
industries will remain prostrate and our prosperity will lag. (Hear, hear).
There is no inducement for capitalists to invest money in Canadian in-
dustries. Our market is limited. The market in the United States is
large, but the Canadian is practically excluded from it by the protec-
tive tariff of that country. Now, if capitalists contemplated establishing
manufacmres on this continent, would they not be more likely, under exist-
ing circumstances, when the cost of the raw materials and of the elements that
go to make up the cost of manufactures, including labor, is about the
same in both countries — would not thoughtful, prudent moneyed men be
more likely to establish their industries on the other side of the line in the
midst of forty millions of people, and from whence they could enter when
they chose the more limited Canadian market at comparatively low rates of
duty and trample upon the Canadian manufacturers ? Would they not rather
do so than invest their capital in this country, in the midst o "only four millions
of people, knowing that, if they wished to take their manufactures to the larger
market on the other side of the line, they would be met by duties so high
that, when they paid them, tney would be unable to compete with the
manufacturer in the United States; and in addition to this would be
exposed to crushing competition in the limited home Canadian market.
(Cheers). You will all see, gentlemen, the disadvantages of investing
capital in this country, disadvantages so great that no prudent man would do
it, and, therefore, while we remain under our present system, and the tariff of
the United States continues what i*^^ is, there is no prospect of manuf-^cturing
industries being established in Canada, because there is no possibility of their
prospering (Cheers). One of the greatest evils of our present policy is that it
virtually prohibits the investment ot capital in reproductive industries. There
is no investment for capital except in mortgages, and the interest on these
is largely sent abroad, to the impoverishment of Canada. T venture to say
there are few, if any large manufacturers in Canada who, if they could, would
noi remove their establishments to the United States.

JCES.

m which
neighbor
we must
r policy,
m which
ss we are
stence in
t is to be
il policy.

5TRIES.

Under present circumstances our importations are so large that all we
produce and export is insufficient to pay for them and for the interest
on the public debt of the Dominion and on other indebtedness —
loans, provincial, municipal, ard individual. The amount of obligations
for which the country has to provide is greater than its products
are sufficient in value to meet. The consequence is, we are going
heavier into debt every year. The balance of trade against us, that is, the
value of our imports over the value of our exports for the ten years between
1868 and 1877, amounted to the enormous aggregate sum of $236,000,000.
Now, gentlemen, it is surprising that the country is not more depressed than
it is to-day, under these circumstances. Debt rolling up against us, deficits
rolling up against us, the balance of trade against us, the policy of the Govern-
ment against us.

;inue, our
r, hear),
adian in-
states is
I protec-
:ablishing
der exist-
lenis that
Dout the
men be
e in the
ter when
rates of
ot rather
millions
he larger
so high
ith the
ould be
market,
nvesting
ould do
tariff of
cturing
of their
is that it
There
Ion these
re to say
Id, would

HOW THE BALANCE OF TRADE IS ADJUSTED.

The balance of trade, like many commercial questions, is one about which
much is written by theorists, and these gentlemen would have us believe that
our prosperity is not affected by the fact that our imports largely exceed our
exports. I contend that that is a dangerous fallacy in this country. It is
different in England, where, according to the official returns, the imports are
larger than the exports, but England carries on an enormous indirect foreign
trade ; English capital \z invested in every civilized country, and the interest
on foreign investments and profit on her indirect trade, items which do not ap-
pear in the Trade Returns, are more than sufficient to adjust the balance in her
case. (Hear, hear.) We have little or no indirect trade, no foreign investments,
and no means of meeting our engagements — no means of paying for what we
import, except with the products ot the soil, the sea, the forest, and the mine.
We have nothing but our natural products to export, and, therefore, if what
we produce in that way is insufficient to pay for our importations and the
interest we have to remit to our creditors, then we are rolling up a debt
against ourselves. There can be no doubt upon this point. Theorists and doctri-
naires cannot disprove it. Our country is in a state of heavy indebtedness
and in a state of depression and suffering. It may be asked, " how do we
" get on at all, owing such large amounts as we do ?" It is done largely by
increasing loans. The Government is paying the interest on our debt, to a
large extent, out of loans. Thus the evil day is postponed, but it is only
postponed. The day of settlement has to come ; it is inevitable. Then, indivi-
dual indebtedness is largely extinguished through the insolvency courts,
and a depldrable way it is of extinguishing debts. We know to what an extent
it has been the case in this country of late years, and that a system of honey-
combing is still going on. Unless we can check this and restore prosperity
— and I maintain we can only do so by an entire change of our commer-
cial policy — the country will be thoroughly depleted of its means. (Hear,
hear. )

'< 68

A MORK SERIOUS LOSS.

And not only is the country being depleted of its money, but it is
being depleted of what is more important — its wealth-winners — its young
men. The last census of the United States, showed that nearly
500,000 native bom Canadians were settled in that country. How
many have gone there since, you can estimate as well as I can. I
have no doubt the number is very large. Is not this a deplorable state
of things, and can we expect this country to rise in importance and
wealth while it continues ? Without wealth we know it cannot rise in import-
ance, and how can wealth be created when the more enterprising of the youth
of the country are leaving it. (Cheers.) What can prove more convincingly
that the policy of the Government is unsound and unwise than that "it is
driving away the youth ? What can be more condemnatory of the Govern-
ment than that it persists in a policy which is expatriating our youth and
pauperizing our country, which is sapping the happiness and prosperity of the
people ?

VARIETY OF OCCUPATIONS REQUISITE.

Young men, especially men educated as your sons are now, have more
enterprise and more intelligence than their predecessors had, and many of .hem
are not content to remain tillers of the soil, honest, honorable, and independ-
ent though that occupation maybe. (Cheers.) The professions are overstocked
with them, and they seek their fortunes in foreign countries in occupations
which they ought to find at home. (Applause.) Young men, furthermore,
vary in their tastes and reciuire varied occupations. The tilling of the soil is the
primitive industry and conduces to independence perhaps with more certainty
than any other, but it is attended with great toil, and young men who are
highly educated are, as a rule, unwilling to incur such labor. And besides
their unwillingness men's tastes differ with respect to occupations — differ
just as much as their characters and appearance ; differ just as much as the
color of tiieir hair— and, unless they can find in their own country congenial
occupations, they will forsake it, no matter how painful it may be to leave
their homes, their parents, and their friends. (Cheers.)

WHAT AN ENGLISH WRITER THINKS OF OUR POLICY.

I read recently the opinion of an able English writer on the trade of
Canada. He ta a'S a gloomy view of our prospects under existing circum-
stances. I shall give you his words : —

" Canadian trade figures, taken generally, have for long given unmistakable
" signs that her business on the whole was not following its natural course.
" Canada has been importing beyond her means year after year, or at all events
" much beyond her exporting capacity, and no doubt she has been able to do
" so by reason of the mone\ which we had so freely lent her. A new, raw,
'• unopened country, can have no margin to trade upon in this fashion, except

" by borrowing, and it follows, therefore, that so far as our business with
" Canada has been based on money lent beyond the true capacity of the
" country to pay the loans, it has been misused, and must be reduced. Since
" 1873, ^ process of reduction has been going on, which is, therefore, so far
" healthy ; but the limit is, I am persuaded, not yet reached, especially as the
" exporting capacity of the Dominion has, at the same time, been on the de-
" cline. What the healthy basis may be it would be hard, in view of the facts
** I have indicated, to predict ; but it is quite clear, when we consider the large
" sum which the country has yearly to find for interest on Government loans
" and on dividends in companies working with foreign capital, there can be no
" safety till the export figures are in excess of the import. * * *

" Wait till the tide has well turned, and then we shall see what the wealth
" of the farmer means. He stands to be ruined by a big crop in Europe
" and America. What Canada has most of, beef, pork, corn, wood, and wool,
" the United States has a great deal more of herself, and what the United
■' States seeks to supply in the shape of manufactures, Canada wants to make
" at home. There is hence no good scope for a large development of reci-
" procal trade between these two countries at present, least of all a good out-
" look for the farmer in the event of a succession of splendid harvests."

Now, I should be sorry to say anything to alarm or discourage the farmer, but
it does seem to me that we may be on the eve of just such a state of affairs as
this writer foreshadows.

THE DANGER OF A BOUNTIFUL HARVEST.

The crops are very promising in Europe, and it is known the prospects in
the United States are that the harvest will be greater than it ever was before.
The Bureau of Agriculture at Washington, which furnishes valuable infor-
mation to the people, estimates the wheat crop of this year at 400,000,000 of
bushels, of which, it is believed, there will be 100,000,000 bushels to spare for
export. Now, I just put it to this audience, many of whom are farmers, or
connected with farming, what would be the condition of the farmers of this
country if a considerable portion of that great surplus sliould be poured into our
markets ? (Cheers). There is, as I have said, a prospect that the crops in
Europe will be very large, and that the markets will be very low.

THE ADVANTAGE THE AMERICAN FARMER POSSESSES.

Then, it must be remembered, that the crop is harvested in the United
States much earlier than in Canada, and that the high prices which may be
anticipated early in the season, go to the American farmer because his wheat
gets to market first. By the time the Canadian farmer gets his wheat to
market he finds it glutted with wheat from the United States. This is almost
an annual occurrence. (Cheers).

THE HOME MARKET THE BEST.

Now, there is no market, so far as the farmer is concerned, eijual to the
home market, if it be fairly secured to him. Not only does he find sale there
for the great staple products, but also for the smaller articles which, in the

aggregate, go far to pay the expenses of his farm and home, and which enable
his wife and children to contribute largely to the family prosperity.

ENGLAND AND FREE TRADE.

England is spoken of as a free trade country, and free trade opinions have
certainly made greater progress, and have been carried into practice to a greater
extent in that country than in any other, but, at the same time, England is
very far from being a free trade country. She collects from customs duties
upwards of $100,000,000 a year. That proves to you that she is not altogether
a free trade country.

ENGLAND'S POLICY, PROTECTION TO MANUFACTURES.

I think I can also prove to you that England's free trade policy, or what
is called her free trade policy, was really an exceedingly able and profound
policy of protection, and that the avowed object of the British Government
and Parliament was to protect their own industries, and to secure to
their manufacturers a monopoly of the markets of the world. (Cheers.)
That may be a somewhat novel view to many of you, but I think I shall
be able to prove its correctness, and to do so in the words of the great
statesman who introduced England's free trade measures into Parliament —
the late Sir Robert Peel. In 1846, when he introduced his bill to abolish
duties on raw materials, including breadstuffs, he said :

" In the year 1842 it was my duty, as the organ of the Government, to pro-
" pose a great change in the then existing customs of the country. The general
" plan upon which I then acted was to remit the duties upon articles of raw
*' material, constituting the elements of manufacture in this country. The
" manufacturers of this country have now, therefore, an advantage which they
** have not hitherto possessed. They have free access to the raw materials
" which constitute the immediate fabric of their manufactures. They wished
" to establish the prosperity of that great staple manufacture of this country —
** the cotton manufacture — on some sure and certain foundation.

" Sir, 1 propose, in taking the review of duties still existing to which we are
" invited by Her Majesty, to continue to act upon the principle which this
" House has sanctioned, and 1 take in the first instance those articles of raw
" material which still remain subject to duty. I mean to deal with them in
" order still further to enable me to call on e manufacturer to relax the
" protection he still enjoys. Sir, there is hardly any other article of the nature
" of a raw material which is now subject to duty. I propose, without stipula-
" tion, that England should set an example by a relaxation of those heavy
*' duties, in the confidence that that example will ultimately prevail ; that the
" interests of the great body of consumers will soon influence the action of the
*• Governments, and that by our example, even if we don't procure any imme-
" diate reciprocal benefit, yet, whilst by a reduction like that we shall, in the
" first instance, improve our own manufactures, I believe we shall soon reap
** the other advantage of deriving some equivalent in our commercial inter-
" course with other nations.

" I do hope that the friends and lovers of peace between nations will derive
" material strength from the example which I have advised, by remitting the

" impediments to commercial intercourse. But observe, if that be the effect,
" I think in all probability that the continuance of permanent peace will expose
" us to a more extensive and more formidable competition with foreign coun-
" tries with respect to manufactures. During war we commanded the
" supply of nations. Peace has introduced not only new consumers, but also
" formidable manufacturing interests. In order that we may retain our i)re-
" eminence, it is of the greatest importance that we neglect no opportunity of
" securing to ourselves those advantages by which that pre-eminence can be
" alone secured. Sir, I firmly believe that abundance and cheapness of pro-
" visions is one of the constituents by which the continuance of manufacturing
" and commercial pre-eminence may be obtained. You may say the object of
" these observations is to flatter the love of gain, and administer merely to the
" desire of accumulating money. I advise this measure on no such ground.
" I believe that the accumulation of wealth, that is the increase of capital, is a
" main element, or at least one of the chief means by which we can retain the
" pre-eminence we have so long possessed."

It is quite clear from this that Sir Robert Peel's object was to place the
manufactures of his country on a secure basis, on such a basis as, he thought,
should give them the manufacturing for the whole world.

MANUFACTURES A BASIS OF WEALTH.

Sir Robert Peel recognized that nothing contributes so much to the wealth of
a nation as pre-eminence in manufactures, because a nation that manufactures
even enough for herself retains within her own borders the wealth produced and
Cxeated there, except so much of it as she must give in exchange for what she re-
quires and cannot produce or manufacture, and must in time become rich under
moderately prudent and economical government. The money which changes
hands for what is produced in the country remains in the hands of the people
of the country, and is not sent abroad to enrich other lands. When Oreat
Britain opened her markets to the world, her far-seeing statesmen expected
that other nations would accept the principles of free trade, follow her example
and abolish their protective duties. But the statesmen of France, Germany,
Belgium, Switzerland, and other European countries were far-seeing
also. They recognized the fact that without manufactures they could not
become wealthy and powerful, and they adhered to a protective policy. The
United States did the same. The result has been that the manufacturers of
those countries have not only retained a large share of their own markets,
but have been enabled to compete with the manufacturers of Great Britain
in the other markets of the world, and, latterly even to compete with them at
home, to some extent, and now we find many of the British manufacturers
looking for protection from the competition of their foreign rivals.

I shall read a short extract from the speech of another member of the
House of Commons, Sir Howard Douglas, delivered in the so-called Free
Trade debate of 1846. He was arguing against the abolition of protective
duties, fearing that the competition of foreigners would be too great (or the
English manufacturer. He said :

" But when the sphere of competition is extended and unprotected British
" (Canadian) labour is made to run against protected foreign labour, foreign
" competition must further beat down the efficacy and value of British (Cana-
*' dian) industry, and of British (Canadian) labour, its main element, in
" relation to foreign labour, not only to, but beneath, that level."

Now, gentlemen, that is just the position we occupy towards the United
States. They have protected labor, we have unprotected labor, and to com-
pete with their prices our prices must be not only as low as their prices for the
commodities we take to their markets, but must actually be lower to enable
us to take them there, because, before we can enter their market we must pass
their custom house and pay their high duties, which it is impossible for our
unprotected manufacturers and farmers to do and live. Sir Howard Douglas
goes on to say :

" Import duties imposed upon one side, deprive the country against which
" they are adopted, of the increased market, and consequently of the increased
" productive industry which international intercourse would create if fairly
" reciprocated ; and the due equilibrium can only be restored by imposing
" retaliatory duties.

"Smith expressly says, Book IV., Cap. ii: 'To impose duties upon
*' ' foreign, for the encouragement of native industry, when burthens are laid
" ' upon it by foreign nations, is one of the cases in -.vhich it is advantageous
" ' to protect in this way the home productions. For to lay suitable duties
" ' upon the productions of the foreigner who lays burthens upon yours, does not
" ' give the monopoly of the home market to the home producer, nor turn
*' ' towards any particular employment more capital and labor than would
" ' naturally go there. It only hinders that amount of those actually engaged,
" ' from being turned away into a less natural direction, and leaves the compe-
" ' tition between foreign and domestic industry upon the same footing as
" ' before the protecting duty so laid and retaliated.'

" Adam Smith's observation is obviously true. Protecting duties on one
*' side destroy the equivalent expression ; it is like expunging a value from one
" side of an equation, without compensating for it on the other.

" There cannot be two prices for the same article in the same market. The
" foreign consumer will not pay more for a British than for a domestic article
" of equal quality. The exporter cannot pay the rival duty, for, if so, he
" would sell at a loss, or be undersold by the foreign rival ; and therefore, to
" compete with foreign protected markets, British articles must be produced
*' so much cheaper as to enter into this competition. The cost of production
*' must therefore be reduced. This is most immediately and readily done by
" reducing the wages of labor, and it is most important to remark that it is
" precisely in times of pressure, when profits are most bare, and labor most in
" want of employment, that this takes place, and that mechanical labor is
" most extended : this not only displaces manual labor in times of pressure,
" but by so much, precludes it from participating in future prosperity."

I think those words are peculiarly suggestive, and that it behoves us
to weigh them, and to see to what extent they do bear upon our condition,
and to be influenced by them, and by other evidence, in determining the
commercial policy which we shall adopt. "

Messrs. Cobden and Bright, those able leaders of the free trade movement

in England, were manufacturers, and whoever will read their eloquent speeches
will discover that their whole and sole object was to have the factories of Eng-
land run on full time and at the lowest possible wages; to establish England as
the workshop of the world. To accomplish their object it was necessary to obtain
all raw materials free of duty, including breadstuffs. Without cheap bread
cheap labor could not be had. The repeal of duties on British manufactures
did not involve any sacrifice, did not at the time jeopardize the home market.
Cheap capital, cheap labor, skill, and experience, protected the British manu-
facturer then against foreign competition. Circumstances are changing in the
most unlocked for manner. The foreigner not only competes with the British
manufacturer in foreign markets, but has become a competitor in the
British home market, and the British manufacturer is now beginning to call
out for protection, British free traders were, and are ardent protectionists,
of their own trades. Their national policy is protection for their own manu-
factures.

, FREE TRADE THEORISTS

do a great deal to bewilder the ordinary thinker. They confine their own read-
ing to works written exclusively on one side of the ciuestion, and they adhere to
the views of that side, and insist upon carrying them into practice in the trade of
a country like this, to which they are altogether unsuited. I believe there are
men in the Government, who are influenced in this way — -visionary men — who,
I am sure, have no desire to do the country harm, but, on the contrary, desire
to benefit it, but whose minds are fixed in favor of free trade by reading works
on that side of the subject, — and a very fascinating side it is — and, although
they have no practical knowledge of commercial matters, they insist uiion
carrying their theories into practice to the serious prejudice of the country.
(Cheers.) They insist upon giving free trade to their neighbors, while they have
failed to obtain it in return for their own country. Trade, to be of ec^ual
advantage to two countries, should be carried on between them on
€qual terms. Free trade, pure and simjile, would mean a reciprocity of
trade such as we enjoyed with the United States — an untaxed exchange
of commodities. If that cannot be got, the next best thing would be
a reciprocity of tariffs, so that the exchange of commodities might be
effected upon e(iual terms. If the cost of commodities in two countries is
about the same — and it is so at ])resent in the United States and Canada —
then, if one country imposes a higher duty than the other, it taxes the industry
of that country more than its own industry is taxed by the other in return. It
is obvious, therefore, that the industries of the country which has the lowest
tariff are prejudicially taxed by its neighbor.

Iment

A PRACTICAL POLICY REQUIRED.

While I should like to continue to be a free trader, I am satisfied that we
shall not have free trade with our neighbors— that they will not give it to us. I
am, therefore, prepared to throw aside theoretical opinions and to be guided by

practical statesmanship in the conduct of the aifairs of the country. I believe
men who are charged with the administration of public affairs are in duty
bound to do this. If a country is large, powerful, and wealthy, it can afford
to adhere to piinciples which it may believe to be sound, but a country like
ours must do the best it can under the circumstances in which it finds itself
placed. It must compromise. We are like the mariner, we must trim our
sails to catch the wind from whatever quarter it blows, and endeavor to use it
to promote our advancement. The mariner cannot command a fair wind, but
has to tack and get on as he best can with the aid of whatever wind may
blow. This is very much oui condition.

PRINCE BISMARCK ON FREE TRADE.

The last great convert to a national policy of whom I have heard is Prince
Bismarck. Here are his own words as they are reported : —

" I have given free trade a trial, and it does not seem to have benefitted
" the country commercially, industrially, or financially. I am overwhelmed
" with lamentation respecting the decline of trade and the decay of manufac-
" turing enterprise, and with assurances — from people for whose judgment in
" such matters I entertain the highest respect — that partial and moderate
" protection will remedy those evils as if by magic. Therefore, I also pro-
" pose to give protection a chance of ameliorating the condition of the
" manufacturing and operative classes, and of lightening the load which the
'* budget unquestionably lays upon the shoulder of the nation. As certain of
" the Ministers with whom I have hitherto worked on my former platform will
" not range themselves by my side on my new platform, I must rid myself of
" them, and put others in their place who will carry out my resolves."

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no more practical and successful statesman
in the world than Prince Bismarck. These are his views, and I think we can
well afford to profit by them.

TAXATION FALLACY EXPOSED.

It is often said that, if we were to adopt the national policy, taxation would
be increased. That assertion is sent abroad as a sort of bug-bear by those who
are opposed to a national policy. The Government fixes the annual
expenditure, and then has to provide the revenue to meet it, and the com-
mercial policy would merely govern the mode in which the revenue should be
raised, the articles upon which it should be levied, not the amount. No one,
I fancy, would propose that a revenue exceeding the wants of the country
should be raised. The question is whether we shall continue to raise a revenue
by imposing duties upon what we do not produce, or by increasing the duties
on articles which we do or can produce. Therein consists the difference between
the existing policy and the proposed national policy. The aggregate amount
of ta- uion would not be affected, but the tariff would be readjusted, and
that is well known to many of those who circulate a different tale to deceive
again those whom they have already deceived. The adoption of a national
policy would lighten the burden of taxation.

WHO PAYS THE DUTY ?

Another point upon which there is much misapprehension, and upon which
a great deal of learned discussion has taken place is the (juestion " Who pays
the duty ?" The free traders, especially purely theoretical free traders, contend
that the duty is paid by the consumers ; that it matters not to the producer
what duty is imposed by the consumer, because he must pay it himself. There
is a very simple rule by which every man can ascertain for himself who pays the
duty on almost every article. If we produce that which our neighbors have not,
and which they must buy from us, we can put our own jjrice upon it and
leave them to pay the duty imposed by their Government. In that case
the consumer untiuestionably pays the duty. But our neighbors and ourselves
produce similar commodities and our producers have to compete with their
producers. On their way to the American market our producers have to pass
through the American custom house and pay the American duty, and
when they reach the market they can obtain no more for their commodities
than the American producer who pays no duty. (Api)lause.) In that case
the Canadian producer pays the duty upon what he takes into United States
markets.

A FAMILIAR ILLUSTRATION.

Let me illustrate this in a manner that will make it plain to every one.
Suppose a farmer in this county takes five horses, valued at $ioo each, to De-
troit to sell. The duty on horses in the United States is twenty per cent.,
which the Canadian farmer must pay before he can enter the Detroit market.
That is, he must pay $20 a horse, and on his five horses $100, or the value of
one horse, at the United States custom house before he can take them to
market. There he will get no more for them than a Michigan farmer will get
for five equally good horses. Suppose that he and a Michigan farmer each
sell five horses at $ioo a horse, each gets $500 for his five horses. The American
farmer takes his $500 home in his pocket, while the Canadian farmer takes
home only $400 He had topay$ioo for duty. I do not think the Canadian
farmer would be in any doubt as to who paid the auty on his horses. So it is
with barley, wool, and in all cases where the Canadian producer comes into
competition with the American producer in the markets of the United States
— he receives the same price as the American producer, and has to pay the
daty, whatever that may be.

A POLICY ANNOUNCED.

In adopting a national policy it would require to be what the words imply.
All interests would have to be justly considered — Agricultural, Manufac-
turing, Mining, Lumbering, &c.

I may say that my own policy would be this : I would adopt the tariff which I
believed to be for the interest of Canada, making it generally reciprocal with
the tariff of the United States. We cannot compel them to adopt our policy,

and 1 would say something like this to them, if I said anything: We have
offered to exchange with you, on a free basis the commodities which we both
produce ; we would prefer that reciprocity to any other, that is, an absolutely
untaxed exchange of commodities, but, as you refuse to enter into such a treaty
with us, then we will adopt your policy. As you will not give us
untaxed reciprocity, we will reciprocate tariffs. (Cheers.) That is the
language I would use to them, and I would not do it in a spirit of retaliation
at all — I would do it simply in the interest of Canada.

I believe furthermore that a national policy is indispensable to the interests
of the whole people. It is recjuired to unite and weld them together with
bonds of material interest stronger than any that exist at present. If our
Confederacy is to take the place it ought to take in the hearts of its children,
its widely separated Provinces and diverse peoples must be bound together by
something purer, stronger, more unselfish, more patriotic, more national than
" the cohesive power of public plunder."

INTER-BRITISH TRADE.

I would further endeavor to create and foster what I will call an Inter-
British trade, that is, 1 would offer to England and to our sister colonies
differential duties. I would discriminate in favor of British products.

Looking at our trade returns we should see what we import from foreign
countries, and I would put certain duties upon those commodities. I would
put lower duties u])on what we import from Great Britain and our sister colonies
— if the Mother Country and the other colonies would discriminate in our favor.
(Cheers.) I feel satisfied that a reciprocal Inter-British trade might be estab-
lished in that way which would raise the prosperity of this country and of the
whole British Eni])ire to a higher pitch than the most sanguine of us imagine.
I believe it would lead to increased commercial prosperity, to a closer union of
the British possessions, and that it would increase the warmth and strength of the
connection which subsists between the various parts of the Empire. I do not see
why we should not trade with the British West Indies on more favorable terms than
with foreign countries, just as the States of Maine and Massachusetts trade with
Louisiana. 1 do not know why we should not carry on such a trade with
India and Australia as the Eastern States do with California. I believe
if representatives of the Mother Country and of all the colonies met in Lon-
don, they would discover that an Inter-British trade, such as I have lightly
touched upon, might be inaugurated with the promise of great advantage to
all parts of the Empire. At all events I think it would be worth trying, and
that the present would be an especially favorable time to make the attempt.
The present Prime Minister of England, the great Lord Beaconsfield, is pre-
eminently the man to grasp and develope such a scheme. (Cheers.) It is
possible that some theoretical free traders in England might object to Inter-
British trade conducted on the principle of differential duties, in favor even of
their own country, but I believe the practical business men of Great Britain

77 ,

would view it with favor, esjiecially when they read our trade returns and saw
that our im|)orts from Great Britain, which in 1873 were $68,522,776, fell in
1877 to $39,572,239 ; while our imports from the United States for the same
period increased from $47,735,678 to $51,312,669 ; and that, in re
spect to our exports, while in 1873 we exported to Great Britain
$38,743,848, and in 1877 $41,567,469, we exported to the United States in
1873 $42,672,526, and in 1877 only $25,775,245. In 1877 our imports from
the United States were double the value of our exports to that country, whereas
our ex])orts to England exceeded in value the value of our imports from that
country by two millions of dollars in round figures. This should give the
people of Canada an idea of the amount of gold we are sending to the
United States, in addition to sending them multitudes of our children.
The subject of establishing an Jnier-British trade is unquestionably a great one,
and worthy to be taken in hand by Lord Beaconsfield. We must all admire the
patriotic and masterly way in which his Lordship has discharged his duty to
his country in the present grave crisis. Standing resolutely in the councils
of the nation he, by the force of his character and his great wisdom, has raised
Great Britain to a jjosition which she has not occupied since the battle
of Waterloo was forgotten. (Cheers.) He bearded the Russians, and
insisted that the Czar should do justice to the Turkish Provinces, and
should respect the rights and interests of Great Britain. He compelled
Russia, at the close of a successful war, to relax her grasp upon her conciuests.
It had become the habit to sneer at the military strength of England,
and to count it as naught against that of the military powers of Europe,
but Lord Beaconsfield has shown that the title of Empress of India
is no empty title, and that the Empress of India can bring into the field
forces of indisputable bravery to match, if reed be, the great armies of Europe.
Lord Beaconsfield has reached a position of greater eminence than
has been attained by any British Minister during the present century,
for it has been attained without the shedding of one drop of British blood.
(Loud cheers.)

THE QUESTION OF THE HOUR.

I do not know whether I should call the subject on which I have addressed
you a dry one. It may be, as I have discussed it, but the subject itself is
of the deepest importance to every one of us. It rests with yourselves, gentle-
men, to determine whether we shall continue the policy which has existed for
; years, and under which we are going on from bad to worse— a policy which,
if persisted in, I am satisfied, will lead us to disaster. It is for you
to say whether you will permit that to continue, or whether you will brush from
the wheel of State the flies that declare themselves to be powerless to guide it
to prosperity. (Cheers.) The only great ([uestion which separates political
parties in Canada to-day is our commercial policy. The importance of it can-
not be overstated, and it is for the people of this country, within the next few
months, to determine whether the present policy shall be continued for years

to come, or whether it shall at once be changed for a national jjolit y, which
may restore prosperity to this country, as Bismarck believes it will do to his.
He has determined to change his colleagues in order to give protection a
fair trial. Let Canada change her Ministers and do the same. (Prolonged
cheering.)

Senator Macphf.rson pro])osed the health of the Mayor, the Chairman of
the Ban(iuet, and in doing so referred to a gentleman present who said he
had been told that Sir John Macdonald and those who professed to support a
national policy, if they should succeed to power, would disregard their pro-
fessions and not change the commercial policy of the country. He (Mr.
Macphcrson) believed the gentleman who had said so must have been a
supporter of the present (lOvernment one who, in conseciuence of the viola-
tion of pledges by Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues, had lost all confidence
in the professions and promises of public men. He (Mr. Macpherson) would
assure them that, if there should be a change of men, there would be
a change of policy. That what he feared was that the present Ministry,
when they discovered that the country was in favor of the adoption of a
national policy, would declare themselves ready to carry it out. If
Mr. Brown believed it to be necessary to keep his nominees in power,
he would not hesitate to declare himself in favor of a national policj,
and, if he did so, we should immediately thereafter find Messrs. Mac-
kenzie, Cartwright, Mills, and other professedly extreme free traders and
theorists perambulating the country, advocating a national policy. (Cheers.)
He regarded this as cjuite possible, as office, he believed, was the only
object of those gentlemen. But, even if they should pretend to change
their opinions, he advised the people not to trust them. They would
not know how to inaugurate a national policy. Besides they had betrayed
the people once and should not be trusted again. (Cheers.)

TEESWATER.

On Friday morning the party were driven to Teeswater, where Senator
Macpherson was cordially received by the Liberal-Conservative Association of
the Township of Culross, who presented him with an address. He replied at
considerable length, and when speaking on the national policy he mentioned
that, when returning from Manitoba last year, he saw a cjuantity of furniture
on the way to Winnipeg, and took for granted that it came from Ontario, but
to his surprise learned that it had been manufactured at Cincinnati, and that
almost all the furniture imported into Manitoba was from the United States.
He encjuired why this should be? Furniture was manufactured as well and
cheaply in Ontario as in Ohio, and the transport could not be less from Cin-
cinnati than from Toronto. He . lid it seemed unreasonable and unjust, while
the taxpayers of the Dominion were spending millions of dollars in Manitoba

and the North-West, that the profits of the trade of that country should be all
reaped by the Americans. Mr. Macpher.son was afterwards entertained at
dinner in the leading hotel of the place.

FORMOSA.

The party were then driven to the village of Formosa. The residents, who
are, with few exceptions, Germans, turned out en tnasse to welcome their
former representative. Of all the hearty receptions which had greeted Senator
Macpherson, none was more cordial and hearty than this from the honest and
independent men of Formosa. The Formosa band, one of the best in Bruce,
accompanied the party through the village. The stay was necessarily brief,
and, as Senator Macpherson drove off, he was followed with "three cheers and
a tiger" from the inhabitants.

MILDMAY.

The village of Mildmay was reached late in the afternoon. It is a new place,
but the centre of a fine farming country, as the evidences of prosperity in the
village indicate. A large crowd and a band had assembled to meet him. He
addressed them on the national policy question, ai?d then returned to Walker-
ton, arriving there after sunset.

DEPARTURE FROM BRUCE.

On Saturday morning the Mayor, Mr. Shaw, and other leading citizens of
Walkerton were invited to meet Senator Macpherson at breakfast at Colonel
Sproat's. At noon he was accompanied to the railway station and took the
train to Toronto.

The progress through Bruce was one continued triumph, and at all the towns
the leading men of both parties joined in extending a welcome to the former
representative of the Saugeen Division, whose faithful and unselfish services
all seemed anxious to recognize.