I / (g£j < £ , II '///^.ARIFF RE-ADJUSTME^" • ^. ^ »r Jk^^±- TO WWICH IS ADDED AN OPEN LETTER FROM MR. COLBY AND THE AMENDMENT MOVED BY SIH JOHU MiLCDOlTAriD On a (Re-adjuslmerJ of ike (t)ominion Tariff' With the Division Thereon. GovcTLXMBvrra or '^' » • . r Ti- t. i (* f. Mr. OPEN LETTER FROM fi MR. C. C. COLBY, M.P. -♦#♦- Ma. r. II. MACKTXTOSir, Ju/itor Ottawi Cifi:in :— 71/// Dear Sir, — Boliovc; mo, I appi'cciato your kind and conijjlimen- tary letter, more particularly, as I lully cstiinuto the ellortM your journul h;n pit, fortli in'advocK'y of a Natioiuil Fiscal Policy. Tlio sjicuch upon Tariti' lievision, lately delivered by me, in the House ot CommotiH, you ai'o quite at liberty to uso in any way you deem j)i-oper. Had I antici- pated the extensive publication you propose ,i^ivin<^ it, I should have arraniijcd it with. t,n'oater care. You will recollect, I entered the Hold of debate aw a tardy :i;leaner, havinij little reason to expect that I would bo able to gather oven a respectable sheaf. Ah the Tariff question must cxeiTiso a largo influence at the cominff election, J thirdv it important that there should 1)9 an accurate de- finition of respective party belief-!. No one of the Conservative party having dissented from any exposition of its platform, and the Pinanco Idinibtor and the Hon. Mr. ^lille having manifested their assent, ai«, stop, by step, I laid down what I understood to be the Ministerial plankH, the country may, I think, accept my definition a.s substantially cor- rect. 1 cndeavoied lo ])rove that t!io declaration of Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, ** that, if a pai-licular trade or industry were to be protected it could only bo done at the exprnse, of some other trade or inilastrj " is historically, and in ftc.t, untrue. The above declaration is the niajur ])remiscs of the Free 'ft-ado argujnents, as applied in Canada, li it \\\\U, the superstructure ^n^i fall. I ondeavorori to show that the carofnlly stated announcement by tho Iiance Minister, in bis Budget speec'i, of tho mode of taxation, in vindica- n of which ho and his associates arc " propane 1 to fight to tho death" id when analysed, a pointed and emphatic declaration that oven the lldoat form ot Incidental Protect on is '' legalised I'obbory." Neither Finauco Minister, the Hon. Mr. Mills nor any other member of the (lovornmont, m11Iioui;1i challoiiiA-ed, pru.^unuHl to tlcny thai tho I'oUowinp;^ dit^tuin ot Joliii Siuai-t iMill, is u tnio exi»().-,ili()!i ol' tliiMuode ol taxation for tlu^ adoption oC which tho (Jovorninoiit is '• pieparod to fi<,dU to tho death." Mr. Mill says :—•• Custom duties arc, fw/em ;>ar; event the adoption in ('annda of this mode of raisin;^' revenue— if Ministers are i-etaincd in power and havo the comao-o of their declared convictions — hut that its adoption would cause the immediate oveithrow of nearly all the maniifacturinu- industiios. I endeavored to show that the vaunted Free-Ti-ade i)<)licy of lOo'rland, is a nood and most injcninus form of ProtcrfiDn, and that it was so inten Jed, and that it was <;iven to Kni^lish intuuif.iclurers at a tiino when ((hey havini; entire control of the home marUei) i)rotoclivo duties were nuga- tory, and whon the removal ot duties from raw material and hreadstutlri afl'>>rdcd thom tho most efficient aid and prottction that Parliamant had power to give. I endeavored to prove, that tho lahoi'cd statistics ol' Mr. ('harlton arc utterly valueless as evidence, either of the actual condition of our own manufactures, or of the ti-uo results of a Protectivo ]\)licy in tho United States. I ondouvored to nhow. that an attempt to build up King Wheat in Ontario on Free-Trado toundations would bo as futile and disastrous as was a similar ctVect to build up King Cotton in tho Southern iStatos, and that tho true interests of the farmers would not bo served « y breaking down thoir best mai'ket, diminishing tho number of consumers and increasing tho number of producers of farm products. I pointed to the serious loss occasioned by the inactivity of tho Gov- omment in 187(1 in tiio matter of relroleum duties, and tho inconsis- tency and " legalised robbery" involved in their legislation of 1877. I endeavored to show, tiiat wo stronghien tho hands of our enomifVi and weaken the haiids of our friends in tho United vStates on the liocjiprcv- city question, so long as wo tolerate the existence of trade relations whioh have the efTeet — 1st. To diminish our trade with England; 2nd. To diminish tho ratio of exports to imports in our trade with tho United States; ;jrd. To add ao per cent, in threo years to the value of our importt^ of manufactured goods from tho United States, in tho face of diminished exports and diminishing cost of goods. Siicli is Iho cxiiiliif shown in Iho Tj-udo aivl Xavi;;atioti Roturrn this year. With that exhibit in hand, ovory foo to liocipiocii v liviriir jn tho Ui. 1(0(1 SLatoswill su('co.-i>('aily ui-,i;'o that " thiscoruiition is h^'ttcr than JJcci- prority, \vc? havo our own and half tho Canadian niarkol, while the Cinii- dian has only half his (»wn. and no portion oj" om- market. Wo havo only t<> wait a little until l''i-ee Trade ])rin''i])les take root thei-e, and we will wholly occuny the Canadian market as well us our own." Luniheiinen Bhoiild make a nolo of* this. r holievo, Hir. that Canaession of our own markets— an abnormal condition, equivalent in its practical cftoot upon us, to a hii^^h protective tarilK I boliovo a'so, that if hostile ini^renuity woro to ctujtrivo a s\-siom for us ' u-idor which we could not be oxpoctod to pros or, it would verv nearly rof-omblo iho unequal and unfair ouo which now subsists between ns and our noi,£,Hibors, to which the present administration seemsdcvoiedly attached. The C(mditions in 1878, are so ditforont from the conditions which existed in 1808, that a judicious reaw it.s inapplicability to a new and tected nuinu- facture in the country, (the coiKlition and needs of the farmer bein^ thorouj;-hiy understood l»y the mechanic who neives him) larj^ely con- tributo to the Amei-ican and Canadian tarmer's ability to compete in cereals with the cheap farm laboi* of Muiope. If the farmer complains that he i)ays a profit on the needed implements, he should also recollect that, but for the sy,-.teni ol'whi -h 1 speal<, the inipleujents might not havo been produced or bo procurable at any j)rice. Hon. Mr. Mills, at IVr^-us. and ]\[r. Charlton in the Uouko of Com- mons, havo attempted to make Canadian fiinicrs happy by the idea that tho American consumer pays the duties upon farm pi-oducts exported to tho United States. Thev marshal a lon<>- arrav of lii»;urcs, borrowed from United States Custom House returns, which, if correct, show a very con- siderable J) ranee in the prices of horses, h cxpei-icd to feel when the (lov- ornm.cnt which shapes (ho fiscal jtolicy of I'lc country lacle three ^-reat soui'ees named ahovc." If tho Fitnou'o Minister lacks failh in the succe-H of tho (e. !»>• such discouraijiMnent, to ehill tho hoj)0 and oner,i^ie.s of our jn'ople. Such words, even were they true, do not tond to make a nation Lri'oal and pro-jx'rous. Mr. (!.irtwri;^ht seems alwuyH to i;L;noro that fi'uitful soureo of wealth anter. clearly indicate what must follow the adoption of such a ])()iii'y. No one having the remotest conlidonco in their honesty and cunsislency, can believe that they intend to practice Protection, while ihvy profess Free-Truih'. Such a belief would be an imputation of insincerity and duplicity. It would, in ctfecl, charii:o them with tho delib- erate ]iur|)!)so of i^iviu'j; counteiiance to Free-Trade views in seotiontt where l-'rce-Trade doj^intis are ])o])ular and at the sam(^ time reserving to themselves the advaiitai'-e of bein:^ able to state in other sections that, as in the past, so in the future, the exi<^euciesof the Uevenuo will neeoHHilato a lii-h TarilV. Tlu'ir Fn^ectionist followers must indeed cherish a dismal hope, \Tii h!i8 no better foundalion than a belief in the insincerity of their leaders. I have the honor to be, sii-, ^'our obedient servant, CilAH. C. COLIiY. IIOUSK OK ('o.MMoNS, ) Ott.vwa, March libih, 1878.) SIR JOHN MACDONALD'S AMENDMENT. [On till' I'Jih oI'Miu'cli, 1S7S, tlio lloiiso rosiinicil (ho Jidjounu'd Drhato on Me. <\irtirri'/ht's inopo-iod motion: — • Tliut .Mr. SjK'iilvor do now Ic.'vvo " tho ('liuir, foi' Till' House to <,'<) jij^uin into CotnniiKci' (>d ; will ])revenL Canada from " boini; made a sacrifice marlcel ; will enc(>ur:i!j;e and develop an active in- '' terpiovincial ti-ado : and moving (;is it oui^Hit to do) in the direction of " n reciprocity of Tarills with our nei_!^hI»oui-s, so far as tho varied intero->tH " of (Canada may demand, will trroatly tend to procure for this Countiy, '' eventu:illy, a reeiproeit}' of Trartant. livinirand vital issue, upon which they can fairly and honestly di\i(le and -upon whicli they can rest their I'espei'tive claims to puhli(^ confidence. I thiid< I am not wrotii^ in sayiivj;, tliat foi- tlu! lirst time since we bficame a Dominion, lias such an issue arisen. In tlu; main, tlic two i^rcal, political parties liave hecn in unison upon llinsi; !)litical waiiaiv, have not 8 found bolter and gi-eator (juestions upon wliich to exorcise their ability As a f'onHofiuenoo of thi.s, our polities often «lescended to persona) issues and to unworthy attacks on the eharaet(!rs of public men, for which neither of the j^reat parties is entirely blanielej^s. The New Parly Issues. But wo have at last a great (question, an economical (piestion, a ques- tion upon the solution of which will largely depend the future of the Dominion. It is not, I believe, as was stated l)y the Hon. the Min- ister of the InUnior, in one of those pie-nic speeches, of which we have a voluminous record, a contest between knowledge and ignorance ; it is not a contest between a generous s[)irit and selfish- ness ; it is not, us had been stated by the flon. the Premier, a qucH- tion in which the views of one party savoured ot barbarism and the l)arbarous age, but it is a (piestion upon either side of which the best minds of all civilised countries have boon, for very many years, engaged. It is a question on which a certain class of thinker.s, able, intelligent, acuto, thouglitful men, I admit them to be, hold to certain theories and views which they btjlieve are applicable to all conditions ot affair,-;, in which I will freely admit they are fortified by the prestige of the great manufactuiing and commercial success ofEiigland, since she started upon the policy which they so loudly applaud. Bui on the other hand, it must be remembered that while the doctrinaires are so strengthened by that illustrious example, they are opposed by the statesmanshij) f)f every country with the exception of England — that the leading public and intlueniial men who controlled the fortunes of France, Cermany. Russia, the United States, and every other civilized country, so far from having accepted the views of those; doctiinaire.s, have acted upon adilibrent policy, ujxm the j>olicy which is recognized as that of the O])position in this House to-day, the poliey which is allirino;! by the amendment proposed by tlu; Right Hon. JMembcr lor Kingston. Sir Jolni ^racdoinild's Ainondniont. It is not true that the pro])Ovition bolore tlio House is, as it has been termed by son)e one, a vague, Uiuueaning pronosi'ion. I maintain tliaf this amendment is a eleav, V)ol(l, distinct and intelligible declaiation cl a positive poliey, and that tlioe who support the views therein expressed abilitv of l>ecomiii"- a successful manufacturing nati'^n; and more than that, we should consider thf ca[>acity and aptitude of the people, and aim at framing the tariff so as, ni the largest degree, to developo tlie varied ])0\vers of all the [)eople, and giv;istj(l upon r, coiTi.ct estimate and appreciation of all t!,e varied resomves and capabilities of tlie country, and sliould sha])e them in the direc- tion of their best possiljli* development. I'he general views afllrmed in this ameiulment, ha\(' been more than once stated in this Housj, by many nl)l , and thoughtful nicndiers, clearly and distinctly ; yet the House will ])ardon me for stating that the exposition of my honoral>le friend the member for North Norfolk (Mr. ('harltonj in l^H'y, then a Pjotectionist but now an avowed Free 'I'lader, was the clearest and be.'^t that has been given. I do not purpose troubling the House 10 ■with a rocifcal of tlin lioii. a;cntl':'in!in's speech, but will .submit an analysis i)t' its main |)i-()j)()sitii);\s iu their consecutive order. I aim ai perCect fairness, aiif] be,L:j tiie lion, j^-entleman to correct me if I make a mis^latement. This reference to the s])eech is not made for the pur- pose of ])laeitif^ niv hon. friend at anv di.sadvanta of the United States, under a protective j)oliey, wa,s a clear aiulii marked ilhistration of the benefits of protection. If this was trucfcl whi'U the hon. gentlemin s > stated it, it is ecpially true now ; and bet'orcH 1 siL down I will adduce a lew fa3ts in corroboration The hon. g^ntlore man ne.xt said fd) that the ten dmicv of nrotecition was not to increascrK but cheapen piices to thj consumer. This is an incontrovertible |)robi ])osition. Prot.'ction is merely ad jfence of th;- mirket.s of a nitio iboiii tiie people of that nation. It siniiily give a fair fijld to comoetibiviis skill, industry, and eipital, wli;'re ih,' highest prizes are f »r those v/iUT( produce the best and sell the c]ieai)est products. Thti hon. memhtiriii for North Norfolk cited the iron and cotton m inufe.ctnres of them 11 United States jis iiuli.sputaltlo pi oof of tho fact that the toii(h?Tioy of protection is to clieapcn prices. And lie went furtlier even tlian tho anjondment. He .stated tlie fait, whieli I tliink he v. as justified in st.itin*) ju-oininently. That was the lirst note, 12 but my lion. friend was cautious not to place liimself in a position whir it would 1)0 impossible to retract, provided that it should be fouiv he Ind gone too far. But that proposition was followed up by othe hon. gentlemen who spoke with more authority. It would not be fan* t judge of a ])arty platform by the utterances of any of that party's su), porters alone, i am aware that sup])orters of eveiy l)arty differed i their views with regard to these things. Home gentlemen on both sick; of the House told them that the issue b'»tvvecii ))arties was a qujstio of Free Trade or rrotection,and others that it was not a question of Fre Trade or Fi-otection. The Corner Stono laid by the rremier. One would not b^-* justiHed in fixing the responsibility of aii j aot of views u))on a i)arty based upon the utterances of any individu; •upporters of that party, however high they might stand in tl. ; party's ranks. 1 fiml the Hon. the l^remier, however, making uao < these words, and they may be accej)ted as aiithoritive : — " Th(! mciv passage of an Act of P.uliannnt \v.)iiloa which these hon. gentlemen Q the Treasury Benclies, and those wiio do not concur in th(>ir vii{)er policy in it« mt<3ivst.s, ho wrote from England to Huni|tlii<'y Marsliall in the foUowiuLj lan^^uago, wliii-h T (juoto in ilhistration jukI in cunliniiation of the helit'f of tlic o|>|)o.sitioii in the sistcrliood of tiiu iiuhisli ir.s, and io their hi.'iiii,' unitually lielpful to one anotlior : — " Kvny m.intifiiutiiro rin.'our.ii: ''i in our coiiutry iiriki's put of tlic iiiuiki t for pro- rlrions witlun om ■; •Iv.'H, ;uv\ sav's si> ui ii'li m ui •>■ t p.iy iov tin- nianiil'.ii.turc.s or supplies.'' lie was then .speakiuL^ of liis own ouutry : of England, he .s;mi] : — " If T.: in Knj;liin.l it is wi-ll luDwn aul unl -r-it x)! that wlinvviT a luariiif.ictiiry is esta'ili-iliLMl, wluoi) fin;)! lys aiiuin'ir of lian h, il lais.-sth • valiM' of tlif laud in tho nBiKlil'oriii.:? loiuitry ail aiouni it, partly l)v tlu' .irr 'alT (l.iuind near at liatiii -y c-rty of (pioting it to the House. The Premier's rroposition Historically, and in iaet, untrtio. When tlie hon. the Premier stated that if a particular trado iior, industry were to be fostered it could only l>e done at tlio I expense of some other trade or industry, he made an assertion, ; which ho will pardon me for saying is unsupported ;( by argument or proof. The hon. gentleman will therefore pardon rme i^', in answer to that asset tion, I make a counter-assertion ; ; it' I declare that it is historically and in fact, untrue. It is not true , that in England during the period which tenninated at tlie adoption j,of what is termed the iree trade jiolicy, the fostering of her great industries or manufaciures whi(;h were fostered by ^he Government iWith all the ability that was within the competence of the 1 Government — which were fostere*! hy heavy protective duties, in '.many instanctes by actual piohibition of im]>orts— which were lifoiStered ])y ex}iort bounties, and in every other possible way — 1 it was not true, I sav, that the success of the manufa(!turinLr in- , iustry was brought about at the expense of the mining industry ■,, or of the agricultuial industry or of any other great industry ,,)f that country. But it is true, contrary to the assumption . i — ^^10 false assumptiim unsup{)oited by proof — made in the hon. the Prtniier's proposition that during all that [teriod of tlu; growth under ihe fosteiiiijj: care of the Uov.Mnment of the mamdacturers in Eno-land, ).Dd in cimseipiencc ot that growth and by reason of it, agriculture ^'' Jltteperod more than it had ever done liefore. It is e({ually truo thai '" !uiitry; ior tliat is thi; very basis and essence of the ])()licy to wliirh the Hon. tlie P'inanec. Minister plcdg-s his adhesion. I will take another instance: Nor i.-s it tiaie as to France, where the special industries of thf country have been nurtured by tlie Government, where tliey liave been protected by the Goverinnent, and been brougl.t to a deu^rec of ])erfeetion and excellence unetjualled in the world — that ihe fosterin^jf care of the Government, in creating thcHo industrii's, has rcsidled in the destruction of other industries T UKiintain that aijjiicailture and all the other industries in France, as in Eu'dmnl, have i-n-own concuirentlv with the growth of the maaufacturinijf industries, and have kept pace with tluun. Tf France has lisen from her ash((s like the I'hdjnix aftei- the late war. and stands out before the woidd a marvel of recuperative enei'gy, it is for the very i-eason that, by a eontiinions policy of that kind, the farmers of that country had been able to hoard their savings, in large sum-^, whioii thev were abh; to iriv^ to the Government in its hour ot need, thus redeeming the himor of France, and saving the credit ol France, and vindicatin*'- the intem-itv of France, notv/ithstandini,' the great blow that had almost stricken hei- to the earth If we apply that rule to Englaiid, it is historically untrue; and if vv'e apply it to Fiance, it is liistin-icaily untrue. If, also, we .'ipply it to Germany, t;) llussia, to the United Stafces, to any other country where the .system had been wrought out, we will find th.it it is historically untrue. This was assertion against as.sertion, but I will give ])roof.->. I will go further. I will give proofs of industries that have ilourished, that have admittedly flour- j ished, that have been buiit up by a protective policy, and have been of , inestimable advantage to the countr}'- in which they existed : < The Bot>t Root Snf?ar Industry in Europe a clear Refutation. , I b^g to refer the tlon. the Premier, for an instance in confirmation < of this view and to the overthrow of the hon. gentleman's own view, to " the beet root sugar industry of France and Germany. I will hardlj , venture to attempt to pi'ovo a fact in refutation of a principle so em- i ])hatically, not to say dogmatically laid down, and rest upon any ' other than recognized Free Trade authorities. I will cite an authority which the Hon. gentleman and every Free trader will recognize as being a good one —the works of J. R. McCulloch who was as keen a free trader as the Hon. the Minister of tho } Interior (Mr. Mills) himself. Ihis was his statement with regard to { beet root sugar. This gentleman would not be disputed as a froc trade authority ; he was sound ; he was Gospel in this respect : i "Itbjganin Franco during tho exclusion of Colonial produ.-ts in the roign ol | Napcljun, and recewed a severe clieck at the reluiti of peace bg Ihe admission of }fe»i i 15 liiJin }!)i;/ii):i a' n nuvmnl.lr ifiit!/. It is picl'uMc, irnlci d, (Init it woiilil lorij: sinco liMV(! lii-in t'liliri'ly ixtinyiiislu d Imt for tl,,' . vhih' m ilu- IkiI-h o't cu/niu,,! uu.i fio^niin ,vif)nia in i82(J and 18"J2. At'ti r tin- iiist niciili(iiu podi bftwi-t-ii tl.c \,vo- duiiioii (it li'ft root siiLCiu Ic ;(iiii ia|)itrv. Th'- Hi.st y froffiiion : — In !!^G:', IT'i.fiO'i tons of snuar wvrn nnfldc in Kranci-; in 18fi8, 275,000 tons ; in 187.'!, :j'JG,iulat' d her taiiiffiH to tlo a r. lininu; Inisiness in foreit^n sn^ais as well as to prodneu and nfitie Wlgars of her own. The whole is refined in France is 22 J, 000 tons, are anualllv corisum- ed iind the balance of about 437,000 tons is exported 'J'iie cariyin;^ trade in suL'ar alon(\ ihoiif/h pro/If-)- pniteclion to this home indu-tr'/, has therefore inert astd in 46 years from ;ir),0()0 tons to HG2,000 tons, this is con itin.LC the importation and exportation of'BUfijar. added to the local consumption. To thi.s enormous trade thus created must lu; adilud thu consumption oftw) million tons of coil ripiirid for tli ; m i nif.i_tiu-,! of beet •agar alone, besides the innumerable beiulits to commerce and stitl i/nater henfits to apiculture obtained by the creation of such a stupendous indu>try In lact it is well •aceitained that Fratno would never have suivived from the di.sasters of her late war had it not been tor the immense ai/ricu/ivrnl icealth created and hoardetl all over tho oountry either through its beet sugar factories or its wine culture." A Well Established Leading Industrial Pni-suit. I will now quote again from Mr. McCulloch, and perha|>s the hon. the Premier will bo able to reconcile it with his assumption to the contrary : — •' Hence it would appear that what was long consideied as a sort of oxolic indus- try, introduced when colonial .sugar was excluded Irtrni the C'ontinmt, and depending m grtat measure on Custom Home Kegulatione, will probably become a icelL estabttsheJ, lead- ing indnstruil pursuit^ 10 Here was tlie caso of an ccotic industry plankid in ])rotecti()n y prot(Jction, wliicli had W J "omo, on tin,' atliuis-;ion of a lvco^mi/e I iVfC-trade authority, a wl! esta)>lislied leading indnsh'ial ])ursuit. 1 think the Ilonso niay ^ considiM' tliis a pi"tty fair refiitatiou of th'.3 asscro'oii that oim tralo is noc;'ssarily fostoreu at tlio oxpensc of scmo otln- trade. Indeed Wi- n-vd not go so far as France to liim , other evidenecs. Wis have hail evidences in onr own country ; IJoot null Shop Miinnrju'tnri's-a llrfulalion. ,t We liave the b )ot and sh te in;histry, wliich was ono dj. the industries favored by a lar'j;-er amount of j)rotection tliu'^i nny otlier industry at that tinic, except ono, 1 believe, an the object of tliis hi;^''i ])r "taction \\';is to create this induslivjir and give it a footjiold in Canada. What his V)een the result ? '^''"ta^ ._(])at we now have a b )ot ."iid shoe industry of great iinj)oi't;itii ' in Canada as the re-ult of that protective measure. An industry [j^^ great magnitude and great usefulness has thus grown up in thi.s couiip^, try, under and as the direct resnlt, of protection. It has grown tosinf * dimensions, that, according to the statement of the lion, nieniber ii ^^ North Yt)rk, and also to the statement of the hon. member for Nort'^g. JNorfilk the other evening, boots and shoes arc now made in Canaii^j^ to such an extent that Canada, in this respect, controls her o\v ^^j market, and fears no competition from abroad. True, it was sai,jm that a lew were brought in, but tlhcse were kinds that are nob manu.^^ factured or riUich required in this coutjtry. Here was an industijg^^ that had been ])lanted in protection. It had grown up in ])rot<'.jj^ tion, and it liad succeeded, through protection. I ask au^jj^, practical man in this House— and they all knew something aboii^mj leather, as they all wear boots and shoes — if any gentlemen couIqU^ claim that this industry has been built up at the expense of any othtm^ industry in this country? Is it not true that boots and shoes ar^j^^ as cheaj) in this country as could be reasonably asked 'f Wc iii-)t q told that if ])rotection was entirely removed — if we had Free Traiilieg in this matter — our manufacture is f*f such excellence, and sir ^ cheapness, that it won hi not be injiired by tlic free importation q American boots and shoes. Then, if that were the fact, th y^ result had not been injurious to the coinmunity ; but, on tiitem contraiy, had it not been beneficial '( Had it not done anotliiig • j thing, besides chea))ening the price ^. Were not other industries creabr pi, by it ( L(K)k at the mann'facture of leather. The tanning of leather kj ar grown u]^ side by side with it, as a sisti'r industry, and what did this ii»tec< volve ? it involved a benefit to the farmer ; it involved the purchase <> fig} an cirticle that is only marketable and only has a value for tannirjitrj purp:)ses, that is the bark that grows on the hemlock tree. It fna Wi nishes the farmer with a maik.;t for his hides ; it furnishes work twef a large number of men, and profitable employment for capital, 'fh. #f boot and shoe business and also furnishes employment for many jxieict Hons. Will any gentleman in this House, then, assert that tbtivt 17 protective duty of 2-") per cent., wbicli lias Imilt this iiuhistry, has not bcnetitted the coiisuiner Jiiid the laniuM-, aiid evory other person in this country, either directh' or indirectly :' But T will not dwell longer U])on this. I have endeavoured to make it clear that this assmni)tion, which is the chief corner stono of tlu^ free trade edifice, is historical!}' untrue. The Premier's Proposition at Variaiu'o wUh His I'ast History. But, whether true or false, it is in direct opposition to that jiolicy umler which this country attained its greatest ))rosperit} It i^ in practical o])position to the policy of the hon. the Pieinier himself which he hai carried out during the wliole period of his tenure of oIKce. We ai-e told by tlie hon. the • Minister of Finance that {)eo}de could not he enriched by being taxed. I would draw the attention of the government to tlie canal 'policy of this country. Now what did it mean ^ We have been expend- ing millions upon millions year nfter year, we have been taxing the rate- ' payers of this country, we have been issuing bonds and imposing burdens *.'ipon the |)eoplc, that u'M not be wiped off till a very remote period " )f Canadian history, in order to divert and control the carry- ' ng trade of the West. Still, thai policy has been vindicated by ''ill the public men of this country and by no gentleman '^^ Qore effectively and sincerely than by the hon. the Premier ^' dmeelf. Now what did that policy mean 1 What did we desire to ''"ttittn by it ? If I understand it right, it is a policy intended to ''^'bst^r and ])romote the great commercial industries of this country, t^'nd by artificial means to direct the trade of the great West of the ^^Tnijbed States, through Canadian channels, in order that Canadian >'*"3]^nerce may have the benefit thereof Now, if thac is not a )u!p||By of protection, I do not know what protection means, and if th^iatfe is not done by taxing the people, I do not know what J a^iXjMiion means. If, ttierefore, this enormous expense for canals does 5i^)ti,,(6nrich the country, then the hon. the Premier has to account for rai't^vy sin to the people of tiiis country, for having taken money out tsui' Aeir pockets and piled up a huge national debt without doing n Q nation any service. That policy, though a jirotective one tlv i||ie great connnercial industries of this country, is con- i tlitetotly or inconsistently justified by every free trade member of oth Is 'Hou.se. Why did we build our harbours, our lighthouses and eatr piers away down the coast ? We did so for the purpose of foster- 'X 5j'7 fnd protectiny the commerce of this country. We did so to afford lis H)ti^tion to the lives and property of our fishermen and to foster asc'i rash ing industry. The wliole policy of the Public Works of this nniinjtey is essentially a protective one, and if it is a wrong policy, [t b>a%-e have been doing a great injustice to the people. Why, again, fk t we exempt from taxation those articles required for the manufac- '1 h of ships, down on the sea board i We do it in order to y p*iet5t this branch ot industry, for protection may be given as tt tl^tively by a system of exemptions from duty as in any other manner. , B 18 When thon'f.uv, .mr exponents chava.-tcnse our policy a^ be it^ an ol»solet. i<,nu)rant and Larl.arous one, they are ayin,- Selves open to «dt- eonden.nation for they have been e|.Mslatir.g .u t at ireetio I ever sinee tlu-y took oftiee. Sonie l.j^ht as to the lu urc lolt of t^^ I'as 1-en ,,iven in a port...n ot the speech ol [he hon. the Finance Minister, to Avhieh I ^vlll now reter :- The Finance Minister (!lniraoteri/es Fnelrtental Protection as ** Legalized Robbery." Tlu- I'ina.uT Minister cxplaiiicl the i..ocle by whicl. revenu,. s1,ouM ..■ raiscl l-nr tl.o ,.uMic servioo i.. tonus w „.•!. an' cloar an.l mm ta ,.lu. Ho sai.l tl.at taxation, h„wovor a,s..u,se.l. ,s a los, Z"r 1 at it is tho ,l„ty uf tl,e (lovonnnont t.^ako „nly iron, tl,.- ^oonlo\vl at is ne«.ssarv to t1,o ,.ro,,or disobargo ,.1 tl.o ,mbl,o «>™ cc 17, hat Uuation in an,j olher nunl., issnnply u, ono sbapo or o to •• lo.ra[i/od rubi .orv." Tlie nroposition was clearly stated ami ol tmis. bas a dist m-t and dotinite Inoaning. Tbat nioanrng is, tbat dut.o. Znti variably be iu.pusod for revenue alone tbat no otber co,,- lection tban the bare 'nestion ofrevonno sl.onld 'l^t^l'^X I'bZ • of raisin..- revenue ; tbat wlu-nover a eustonm duty is m tbe sl.ghto. . decree p^tective. and by reason of the pr„te,-t,ou > Save t^rkes fro thSi>coplc indircctiv any nu.ney wbicb does not go into the litaaury y o that extent '" legalized robbery." In vmdieation ol tins pos.- tion which .su6«W. ,he whole .,,s,nn<.{ '".'f'f," «/ /™ 'j'^l'I^",' declares tbat be and bis associates are wdhng '■ to hgbt to tbe death The views of the Hon. tbe Finance Minister are laid down ma eminent free trade work, no less an authority, indeed, than John Stuau Mill who expressed the following opinions, wnich, no doubt would !>.■ listened to with gratitication by gentlemen who entertain his views .. I„ coimtries in which the rrotcction theory is J"''''''J: ,!;"'""' rt If c'ompT .iich as the United States, a iloctrine has come into notice " ''<^'' '* » »°'VS' J""'';,, ^v'enuo'is received only on the quantity imported, but that *'- tax .s paid^^^^ entire Quantity consumed. To make the public pay much that the ^^icasury ma. rec ve a mtlefis not an eligible mode of obtaining a revenue. In tl- case of man • factiledarticleH the doctrine involves a practical inconsistency. "Ih*^ «bJ«^* f ^ dutv as a mmns of revenue, is inconsistent with its afTordrng, even incidentally, ai troLuon It c'x o^ly operate as protection in so far as it prevents importation ; an. to whatever degree it prevents importation, it aiYords no revenue. From their manifestations of assent, I understand that hot! the Finance Minister and the Hon. Minister of the Inteno' accept the foregoing extract from Mill's Political Economy as explana Ly of the position for which they are willing " to fight to the death Mr. Cartwright endorses Stuart Mill's mode of Raising Revenue. Now if they took a high authority to assist them in making « diagnosis, Ministers should have confidence in the same authorit a with r<\Lrar(l to tlic roinedy to he .ij)|)lio(I. I will therefore, aj^^ain (|Uoto tVoiii .loiiri Stuart Mill : — " Cimtom duties are, rutrrm jxirihun^ much \cm olijtv tioTml)lo timn pxtiso : but they must W Idiil only on tliingM wliidi citln r rannot, uv iit h'UHt will not, bo produotMl in the ((Hinlrv itsulf ; or /'/,««• thir fn'oliirli'm Ih'rc must lir prohUnt'd (hh in KiiKland i8 the (;ii8i' witli tobacco), or subjcrti'd to an excisk di'Ty of era^'; it nicans nothing ; if it im)KS mean anything they would out down hy one fell blow every industry wliich hat* any start in this country. Otherwiso it is more buncombe. Free Trade still bat a Thorv. I do them the credit of believin<^' that the Hon. the Minister of the Interior is as honest a free trader as ever broke the bread of lif(.' — from John Stuart Mill, or any other .sound authority on that doctrine. Tlie hon. gentleman bcjieves the doctrine, and J think the Hon. the Minister of Finance believes it also, and will (;arry it into cHeet, if the country gives him the opportunity. Now the (Gov- ernment has invited th'scountiy — a new community — to embark upon the sea of experiment. No two nations in the world have ever accepted this view. 1 am quite willing to admit that among the doctrinaires of Free Trade, there iire many able, intellectual men, men df sharp, bright intellect, who have thought out this (piestion very thoroughly. I do not underrate them. They are called theorists, and properly so, because their views at present are theories ; they have not been tried, but they are very able and acute men who were preaching the doctrine in these day.s. Tyndall and Darwin were able ami acute men — none more so — but I am not prepared to accept their views simply on the ground of their acuteness and ability. Swedenh bourg, Fourier, and others were acute men. Many of them were like the inventor of perpetual motion, who ex})lained his theory to mavans. The theory seemed all right, and it was a long time before any one could find out the error in liis «al- culations. They went over his figures and tried them several times, and last some one blundered upon the fact that he had omitted the element of friction in his calculations — a very important thing to omit, as all must admit. In the same way, there may be some- thing lacking in the calculation of these gentlemen. It is claimed that free trade is the adopted theory in England and very great capital is made from that. My hon. friend, the Minister of the In- terior, nodded very approvingly when I said that free trade was claimed by the free trade schools generally, as the rule ol the commercial policy of England. Now, if the commercial policy of England is free trade, I do not understand the meaning of terms. It is not free trade, in the sense of being reciprocal trade with any other country. I believe that this boasted free trade of England, of which we have heard so much, is the most ingenious, the most thorough, and the most effective system of pro- teotion that ever was initiated on the face of the earth. [Some hon. members — " Hear, hear."] Free Trade \n England, is Protection in Disguise. Yes, it is protective, and I will endeavor to convince my sceptical friends that it is an effective system ot protection, and as such — designed to protect and foster 21 tlio manufacturing' imlustrics of EnL;laii in that distant planet. That being the hon. gentleman's explanation, 1 suppose the House will, in a Parliamentary sense, be bound to accept it, and to believe that he was under lunar influence when he favored us with that formidable array of figures. But I will not so far dis- parage the intelligence of the lion, member as to think that he desire*! the House to believe that in so short a period of time, from a well- grounded and thorough Protectionist, he had entirely changed his whole views and become a settled and confirmed Free Trader, I am sure the hon. member would nc^t desire that the House should have such a con temptible opinion of his judgment, as to suppose that in that shon apace of time he had entirely changed the settled opinions and convic- tions which had grown with his growth and strengthened with hi;^ strength, and which were honestly entertained when he made his speech in 1876. The hon. gentleman was not a silent Protectionist then. There was no one so active in })romulgating his views none so active in promoting the committee relating to depressed industries moved l»y the hon, member for Hamilton (Mr. Wood) and making it a success, Hon. members can not sho\v such contempt for his judgment as to suppose that in su(^li short time, whether by miracle or otherwise, that the scale> fell from his eyes so that he saw things entirely diflferent from what he had done belore that date. The hon, member found himself placed in the same position in which other men had lornd themselves befon' to-day. He was in the position of Alexander H. Stephens, when in 18(11 in Georgia, he made that very memorable and eloquent speech denounc- ing secession and lirought the whole weight of his ability and eloquence upon the people of his State, to keep them from joining tlif secession movement; but the moment that movement wa> determined upon, he, who had fought so strenuously against secession felt it to be his duty to the party of secession to draw the sword in favor of the party and against the country, to accept the Vice-Precii- dency of the Confederacy, and to give all the weight of his eloquence and influence to a cause which he had just previously denounced. It LS a bad position for the hon. member I'rom North Norfolk u occupy, yet bad as it is, self-condemnatory as it is, it is a positior he has deliberately chosen, as did the distinguished gentlemai; referred to. The honorable member, no doubt, felt, although ^ his action was grossly inconsistent, it was still preferable, to '■{ the unenviable position occupied by the hon. members from Hamilton * and other protectionist supporters of the Government, from whom he felt it at that time his duty to sever himself If ho was to serve his party at all hazards, he determined he would serve it in the livery of his party, and that he would sail under his true colors, ,, and take the consequences of that first break ; and he has done vso Mr. Cliarltoii's Special Pleading-. The hon. member having accepted that jjosition, we might expect from him that extraordinary zeal and fervour usually 25 chaiacteristic of new convorts ; and lie lias given marked evidences of it. I do not desire, and would not if I could, follow that lion, gentle- man through the mass of figures which he jnvpared with sueli eare and labour, during many weeks and months of industry, to illustrate the point he desired to make, but will say, if there over wa.s a specious, ingonious and laborious piece of special })leading, the liiiures which that hon. member had massed together and directed to a particular end, was a most noticeable instance. What was the character of the figures which the bon. member for North Norfolk gave to the House ? I assume for the moment that the figures are all correct. The hon. gentleman, although he told the House in 1870 that [)rotection was beneficial to a whole country, and especially to the agricultural interests, found it necessary, inasmuch as that was a very potent interest, to reconsider and reverse his views upon that question. The hon. gentleman attcunpted to convince the House aud the country that agriculture had been unprosperous in the United States by reason of the high jirotective duties which had been adopted there. And how did he test it :* That is one of the points respect- ing which I will show that the hon. member by the .sj-stem of special pleading which he adopted, had attempted, I will not say unfairly, but ingeniously, to steal a favourable verdict from the House and country. How did he attempt to make the ' i)int that the farmers had been injured by the protective policy (jf the LTnited States i Did he give instances of sales of farm ])roducts during that period? No. He made the (juantity of products exported from the country a test of the [)ros|)crity within the country, not stating any particulars as to the prices, — a factor whicli he seems to think is of no importance. What period did the hon. member select in order to convince the House and the countrv that agri- culturists liad been unpros})erous in the United States, for the reason that their exports were less during the protection than during the free trade period { He selected the period from lS(i() to 1870. Has hon. members no recollection of what occurred in the United States from 18G0 to 1870 ^ Docs the lion, gentleman think that hon. members in the House and the people in the country have forgotten that during that decade there had Ijeen a civil war in the United States ^ Does he think they have forgotten that during part of that period the cotton export, which formed the princi})al article of general export, had l)een almost nil ? Does he forget there was a desolate South, and that instead of billions of pounds of cotton being exported, only six million pounds were ex])orted, for instance, in tho year 1803, and that it drop])ed to an inlinitesimal amount ? Does he forget that for years and years the great ]n'oductive region for ex])orts pwr excellence, the exporting region of the entire Union, was desolate anorts during that decade showed W\o extent to which a^'ricuiture has been injured in the United States by protection. The honorable gentleman was fully aware when giviiiL- those tlauros to the House th:it if he had taken another dec-ado, reaching past some of those disastrous years, it would liave told an entirely ditfercnt story. He well kn >w that in 1807 the exports of the United States were Ji!^41,04"j,0'H, and ran up in tlii following nine years of the ])rotectionist ])eriod, until it readied $75,8,0!),()08 in 1870, and tliat tlie imports of British home produce into * th .'J.dted States decreased from S21,S2.5,7<).'3 in 1807 to $10,833,517 in 1870. Did he not know that during the whole decennial period from 1807 to 1870, the exports from the United States to Great Britain increased at tho ratt of 85 ]ier cent whili^ the imports of Britisli home jiroduce to the United States, though never above half the vahie of the exj)orts, decreased at tlie rate of 25 per cent ? These , are facts which should fairly have been stated, if the exports < v/ere to V)c considered a test. Yet the hon. member for Nortii j Norfolk desired to steal a lavorable verdict from the House by entirely ^ ignoring those facts and retui-n.s, and simply stating the ordinary statis- tics ior tlie decade from IhGO to 1870, without calling attention to the abnormal condition of that jisriod. If the returns provetl anythini: it was that the ex])orts iiad increased 85 per cent and the imports dimin- ished 25 per cent, during ten years of high protection. Thi> is the logic of facts, but it does not suit the hon. member i for North Norfolk. Tiiu hon. membfr lor Centre Toronto (Mr. | Macdonald) in a s})eech wliich was very much admired for tlif \ clearness with which he made his ])oints, declared that Canadians Aveiv < suffering from depression in consequence of the diminution of tho i circulation. That because the discounts had diminished in two | or three years 10 |)er cent., this shrinkage of cuirency pro- <, duced such a startling efi'ect on the countrv as to account, in i: the hon. member's mind, for much of the depression. But ^ did hon. gentlemen, v/hen considering the question of Protection j across the lines, speak in that manner if Did they attribute the present t condition of the United States t(^ the ex{)ansion of circulation and * discounts, the creation of an irredeemable currency, the era of infia- ^ tion and high prices and of sj^eculation, of madness, I might say. b the direct result of that most inordinate overissue and the consequent « depression that must naturally be felt in returning to the noi-^ 27 mal coTidition ? All the ills that have befiillen Canada could be accounted for on that theory, but when tliey como tn consider the tn)ul)lets that have befallen the United States, it v,•.•;^i Pro- tection alone tliat had brought all ill.s upon that country ! Sjieaking of the United States, we have hoard highly colored accounts from sereral hou. u'ontlemen as to the condition of the industries of that country. The hon. the Finance Mini^ster i-ead to the House the other day from a document signed by the Governor of the State o\' New York about the great distress; it Was full of glittering generalitieti. Now, if 1 did not think I was able to throw some light on the condition of the industries of the United States, by reading what 1 am about to read, 1 would not trouble the House to listen, but I have information from a source which all will recognise as trustworthy. (xoveruor Rico upon the Industries of Massaduietts, ]\rassachiissetts is tlie leading manufacturing State in that • country, and the hiofhest functionary in that State, Governor Rice, in his official a by my hon. friend because there were so many conditions to derail, it. The propositions my hon. i'riend (Mr. Cliarlton) has adopted hf!° 29 and just put before the House he (Cairnes) declares to be entirely fallacious ami unreliable as arguments. He went on to say : — " For, assuming tliat we have taken accurate stock of the present industrial cob- (Iltion o^ tlie United States, as well as of that which was in existence previous to 1861. rto long as we confuK^ our view to the more statistical aspect of the rasf, ichoL warrtmi have w ,/or atfribiitini/ anij portion of the ckanyj that has taken placr to one caua* rather than to another. Manifestlu ivc have none." • .The ingenious compilation of my hon. friend, does not prove a 'single ]X)inl whicli ho desires to prove. His statistical data, according to the high authority of Piofessoi- Cairnes, were unquestional)ly not entitled to weight. We may attempt to mea-f letters, which he 'vhich we have not seen — but the substance of which the hon. gen- ' Icmacn might have fan-ly stated. The hon. gentleman said he had mtten a number of letters to manufacturers enquiring what they thought (jf the state of trade, and he had twenty-one answers. He l80 informed us that he had written a number of letters ,0 •^hich he had received no reply. Well, on a p )int sif ttiis kind, the man whose business is unprosperouK. "'iroidd not l»e likely to reply and expose the condition of that '"tusfiBtess, and the hon. srentleman miofht have calculated upon this era winding out the letters. Not every man cares to expose the .stat« jii'.f tiliB business in these critical times, and tor aught the hon. '' "entleman has told us, he might have sent three or four hundred t,,3tt«rB to v.^hich he had received no replies. He did not state that (iny one of these letters had been sent to the Province of ^^'iuet^c. 1 do not know any manufacturer in that Province who ',"j3iijj have given information that either he or any of his neighbours loiire hi a prosperous condition. There might be such a vara avis there, • Ut I would not know where to look for him. ^ Agrricultural Implement Manufactures. ^i- ' I notice that about half of these replies sent to the hon. gentleman ere' from manufacturers of agricultural implements. Just look at th» i^^.lnfi^rness of his conclusions and see how protection was illustrated in 30 the condition of tlie agricultural implement manufactures of Westoih Canada. What is protection i" It is merely the preservation t)f the hoini> market for the liome manufacturer. Now, protection, that is the pre- servation of the home market to the home manufacturer, may be tin.' result of tariff legislation, or it may be the result of any accidental cause which produces the same ])ractical effect. Wo had pretty fair protection, a.s against the American manufacturer from 1862 to 1872, owing (mtirely to uiuisual causes, with whicli the tariff had nothing to do. X believe my hon. friend is acquainted with the fact that the over-production in Amcirican manufactures has not occurred in the agri cultural implement branch. I am suie the House will be surprised to learn that a leading American manufacturer has stated that no le.s.> than 1()(),0()0 Jiew harvesting machines per year are rcMiuired to re j)lace old worn-out machines. There have been such great improve- ments in reajiers and harvesting machines of late that new machines are purchased before the old ones are worn out. There is a ma- nufactory in the State of New York, not very far from Upper Canada, where somerhiug like 2o,0()0 machines are made a year ; and another manufactory in which 15,000 arc made a year ; and others in which 10,000, 12,000 and 15,000 are made each year, and yet alto- gether they have not been able to keep up with the demand in the home market for these implements. They did not send their machines to Canada, and why i because they had better markets there and their own prices. Thus the agricultural implement manufacturers here are in a situation precisely similar to that which existed dur- ing the American war in regard to all our manufactures. These manufacturers, and certain foundrymen, from several of whom replies had been read, had a de facto protection m Canada, because their rivals in the United States at present have an ample field in their own market and in new markets which have been established in England and on the continent of Europe for a certain class of reapers and mowers that are made in the United States. I can tell my hon. friend this — that whenever the consumption overtakes the production in the United States, Mr. Noxon, had better look out for his business ' That gentleman would not be coming to this Legislature and saying he had protection enough when implements made by the manufacturer in the United States, who made 25,000 machines a year, and who had systematized his business by a division of labor so that he could make these machines at the slightest possible cost, giving to every man a particular department of work to do, came in here to compete with him (Mr. Noxon) in Canada in this class of implements. He would then fiad that a protection of 17| per cent, was no where ; and that the United States manufacturer with his larger capital, larger experience, his more skilled hands, with all the facilities he has for manufacturing, and for doing a larger business, would over-ride alT^ percent duty as if there were no duty. It would then require 30 or 33 per cent to protect this happy Mr. Noxon, who now is contentedly enjoying his little pa- 31 vadisc ii}) at Oxford, Imving it all to liiinsoll', and conttjiitcd now because ho lias no competition. To select that class of indus- tries to make out a case, that there are no sutferinn- industries in Canada, is unfair. There are sulfcriiio- indu.stries in Ca- nada; industries that the hon. the Finance Minister once had the power to protect and the p(jvver to save from destruction, and from being overwhelmed l)y the unfair (Competition, by the unjust com- petition, b}' the slaughter prices which have been systemati- cally thrust upon us from the United States ; and the fact that the agricultural implement ])usiness and a few foundrym(;n in Upper Canada, who have written like letters, have not been so overwhelmed, results from reasons I have just explained, i.e., that in the United States the production has not, as yet, exceeded the consumption in that ])articu- lar line or department. When the lion, gentleman selected his men to write about an industry which ho knew was i)rosperous, and an industry which had to-day an adcipiate de facto })i-o- tection, although not a legal protection, and desired this House and this country to draw the inference that the manufaef.urers of Canada were in a happy or pros|>ei'ous or even a to'o'ra- ble condition — he attempted fi most deliberate fallacy. It was an attempt to prove what did not exist by a condi- tion of aftairs that does not truly represent or by any means re- present, the general condition. Protection and Free Trade in the United States. I have not yet got through with the United States. While persisting in the statement 1 first made, corroborated by the extract read from Prof Cairnes, — that reliable results could not be arrived at from these statistical compilations, there are yet general facts coniiuth, wliich believed in its two ijjo Is — Kin;,' Col ton and Free-Trade. These v;ero the two Kinu'-. which the Soutii had deitiod, and soo.whero that idolatry ot'and lh;it devotion to a lallaey. had led them It had lured them to destruction. The New L'ii;?hui(l Policy, tho Trup Policy lor Cniindn. Tho v.)piiosiuon wanted to see the peo])lo of Canada have amont; thcniscdves, for the devel(»penieut of her resource:'', self- reliant met), bi-ouii;!)! up in tho schools of toil, broui^ht up to di;iio to say to tho farmei'S of Ontario — hero is a lesson i<)r yon. consider it. Year after \-'>ar, you are impf)vei'isbin!^ your farms b}- Li-rowinn- your wdieat •: .., :V'^ it to England. Year after year tho Ihcililies jbr entering- 1k< Xori »vesi and brinii-inii; its pro- ducts down to tho ^eaboaul, arc int. • -'•^";, year after year in the future tlicre is i^oin;r to be a sU^adily incieasinL( agricultural population in the ^Ve.>t, who are to be your rivtds in the markets of tho world. While your lands are beino- o;radiially worn out and impoverished, those iields aio bciiii!; brou_<;-ht under cultivation. There is to be the ,i(re.it _ii-ian:iry of tlie continent. Can we believe that 2j or oO years hence the farmer of Ontiirio would lo able to go on competing with tho farmer of Saskatchewan in the raising of wheat or thoso products which had to go to a foreign market? Tho condition of tho Ontario farmer is grov.-ing worse year by year, and tho condition of the Western farmer is boing betteied in the samo ratio. Tho contest is an unequal one and the Ontario farmer will probably find himself in the long run in the same position as those who leliedon Carolina cotton. For the Ontaiio farmer to j-aiso his wheat, to ship it to England and to buy his goods in ihe cheapest market, would just l;o to kill the goose that laid the golden Q to tho £>;reat \\ estern States. Tho Finance Minister opposed to the (.irowlh of Tottiis .iiui Cilios. 1 have been amazed to hear the lion, tho Finance Min- ister, not only in his budget speeches, but also on the btump in Ontario, preaching tho doctrine that the aggregation of peeplo in great cities i» 55 injurious to a coiuitry. Ilow, I would ask, could a,',n'icultural commu- nities l.)u injured Uy the lorinalion of lartju towns ? It is in sucli that thrniors tliid thoir host market. Jt' fai-nuM's tako an int^;lli^'ent view, fiioy niu>t .ront«j as hw^ii as riiilailidpliia, and when otlu'i' lai-i^o cllios liavo ari>on amon/^.st u.->, would it not l»o all tlio boltor I'or tlio tai'niiii_LC connnunilios nil I'oimd about tlioin ? Would it not onhanoc) tho valuo ot lUfms and tlio )uico of farm |)i-odu(ds ? It \< true, as has I)oon indic-alcd l>y the I'uiant'O Minister, that in irrcat centres of j)oi)u!ut ion is lo he io'und a i,'roat deal of wickedness, a ;,n'rat deal that is wron.^•, but much also Ihat is ;,^ood and licnelicent. But if these .i?rout centres woi'e broken down ana t!io po|)iiIati')n thoreoi" disperse I amoii;^: the ay-riciiltui'al pojr.ilations with whom they would enter into competition, tho con^mninj^' po|)ulati(m would be so much docroasel, ati I the produeini,' population rs. I'ctrokMim Dutios, Before sittinf;- down, I wish to make reference to a matter with which my name has been associate;! in this JTouse — that is. t!u' action of the (Jovern-ncnt on the petroleum duties. The late (rovernment, in ti.\- in.i? tho tariiV of the Dominion in 18(J8, thou/i-ht it wi.-e to -place what seemed to be a very lii^'h duty on oil — 15 cents per ,ij;;i.l!oti, v/ith 5 cents excise duty. ' I do not think that was objec ci to at the time by atiy person in tho House; but .-omo time subsequently, licw and extensive discoveries in oil were made, bcUer means lor extraclini;' it were also adopte 1, and the price had under<;one a change since tho time the dut^'' was imposed, and that duty, which had formeidy been a ve;'y fair one, afterwards beeame a yovy onerous one. Whether the Government at that time acted wisely or unwisely, I do not propose to discuss, but would merely state the fact. Inaction of the (i!;)verumpnt in 1S7<5. In ISTG, I felt it niy duty to pi'0])o. That was an ilhisti-ation of tho views of those gentlemen, and of iheir idea as to what a revenue tari {Fought to bo. Did it put every dollarof the revenue into the Treasury ? Did they not Icnow that every gallon boughtof aCaniidian refiner had ])aid him, not the Treasury, an additional six cents? J)id they not know that two-thirds of tho oil consumed is manufactured in Canada, and that every gallon paid Bix cents more than it ought to pay in consequence of the policy of the liorcrnmcnt ? If they are pi'oud of their inaction in 1S7G and of their legislation in 1ST7, they are welcome to any satisfaction which they fan derive from tho contemplation of it. So much fur the oil question. Keciprocily with tho United States. There is only one other sulject to which I dcsij'O to allude. I should not be doing iiistico to mv own convict ionr, of what mv duty is in addressing the House upon this que.-tion, if 1 did not make reference to the following proposition contained in the amendment: "And moviii":, as it ought to do, in tin; (iiroction of Rociprocity of TarilTs with onr noiuhhors, so far lis tlR- varied intcri'sts of (.'anadii may demand, will greatly tend to Iirocurc for this country eventually, a reciprocity of trade." If every other member of this House should go back on tho proposal contained in this amendment of tho right hon. member for King- ston, I certainly could not do no, without very glaring incon- sistcnc}'. On the first occasion tliat it was my privilege to address this Parlijiment as a nevr member, as early as 18g8, the doctrine which is there announced was urged by me upon tho attention of the Gjvornmont of which that right hon. gentleman was then the head, aiid upon Parliament, for consideiation. 1 U'.'goil that a duty of 5 cents a pound should bo placed upon hops. 1 pointed out that while tho American hop growor had free acce.ss to our market, the Canadian hop- grower had to meet a five cent duty in the United Slates; and asked Lho House on every consideration of fair play to grant the imposi- tion of 5 cents a pound on hops. It is not done at that session, but it was at a subsequent session, and it is now on tho Statute Book.* I know something about tho Americans, have lived among them a good deal, was educated among them, and have always lived near them. 1, at that time, expres>od my ^fettled belief, though it had not then tho weight with tho leader of tho Goven.m.ent that I had hoped it would have, that Just so long as we were prepared to p)ermit this unequal sy;>tcm by which we were oxckided from tho American maikets, w'hilo the Americans had access to ours, thoy would consider it better than reciprocity and would not give us reciprocity. That was tho view 1 then took and still hold, and J then made uso of tho expression which had been so much htnued and so much abused — '• reciprocity ol tariffs, if not reciprocity in trade." I believe tho reasons I then urged wore sound. I believe one n'.'od only know tho American character, their shrewdness, their practical way of treating such sub- jects, to bo convinced that so long as they have fi-eo access to our markets, and we are excluded from theirs, they will consider that they have tho best of the bargain. I desire to draw attention to ono thought which eeems to mo to bear etrongly on this question. 39 Reciprocal Dalies are defoaco - not Eotaliatl^n. I know tho idea that wq can cocrco tho xYmerioanj?, that ibui* millions of peopio can coorco 40 millions, is often sneorod at, anil likened *'to tho tail wagging tho dog." Tho Americans had found it necessary for tho n.aintainenco of their credit to put on high duties. That imposes upon us a corresponding necessity to protect our manufacturei-s and farmers, so long as this unfortunate t^;tate of things exists on the other side. There is no necessity for irritation. It will not be considered a retaliatory policy. I think it might safely bo said that to two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the people of tho United States, this question of reciprocity is today a matter of total indifiorenco. If we went below the northei-n tier of Slates, probably if we went to the Middle States, certainly if wo went to tho S )Uthern, tho Southwestern, or tho Pacific States, if we aske of some 30 per cent.? Does tho House believo that under that i^tato of things we Avill get their co-operation ? Let them, however, feel ihemselves excluded and embarrassed in getting to that market which they had heretofore used as their own market, and then wo would fuid that they havo a little feeling in favor of reciprocity. So long as the Americans continue to possess all tho advantages thoy now enjoy, they will not give us reciprocity of trade. The sound and politic course then, to adojit, is, to put up our duties to whore they were before the Ileci])rociiy Treaty was tiaincd ; to put ourselves back t<) where wo were then, to place ourselves in a position where we can pinch some classes in tho United States and deprive them of some of tho n advantages which tliey now so freely enjoy. I thank tho IIou.^o for the indulgence extended to me, and beg to apologize for this abrupt termination of my tpcech, a circumstance which is duo to tho lateness of tho hour. [The honorable gentleman ronniod his seat amid pro- longed applause.] THE VOTE. The followiiiijj Members voted FOR the Amendment : — Yeas : Messieurs Babv, Flesh er. Mousscau, Benoit, Fraser, Orton, Blaiichct, Cfibbs (Ontario North), Ouiraet, Bolduc, (libbs, (Ontario South), Palmer, Bom beau. Gill, Pinsonneault, Bowell, Ilaggart, Piatt, Brooks, Ilarwood, Plumb, Brown, Ilurteau, Pope, (Compton), Bunster, Jones. (Leeds), Pope, (Queens, P.E.I.) Cameron, Kirkpatrick, Robillard, Caron, Langcvin, Robinson, Cimon, Lanthier, Robitaille, Colby, Little, Rochcstei", Costl^an, Macdonald (Cornwall) Rouleau, Coupal, Macdonald (Kingston), Roy, Currier. McDonald (Cape Breton), Ryan, Cuthbert, McDougall (Three Rivers) ^ , Schultz, Daoust, McKay (Colchester), Short, DeCosmos, Macmillan, Stephenson, Desjardine, McCallum, Thompson (Cariboo), Dewdney, .McCarthy, T upper. Domvillc, McQuade, Wade, Ponahue, Masson, Wallace (Xorfolk), Dugas, :Methot, Wright (Ottawa), Farrow, Monteith, Wright (Pontiac). 77. Ferguson, Montplaisir, The following Members voted AGAliNST the Nays : Messieurs ! Amendment:— Appleby^ Flcinliig) Mclntyi-C) Arclilliahl) Flynuf Mclsaav) Aylmei-) ForlicC) Mc\ab, 41 Duin, BarfUc) Becliai-fl) Dcrniev) Bertram) Biggar, BIniu, Borden ) Boi-roii) Boiirassn) Bowman ) Boyer« Broiiapj Bnellj Biirk) Bnrpce (St, Jolui}) Biu-jice (Siuibiiry)) CarnilchRcI) Cartivright) Casey) Casgrahi) Charltoii) Chcval) Christie, Church) Cockbiiiii) Coffin ) Cook) DavleS) Da^vsou) De St. CcorgcS) DcVeber) Dyinond) PfrrlS) Fisct) Xays : Messieurs. Frechette) GalbrRl(h) Geoffirion) Gibson ) Glllies) Glllinor) Goudge) GrceuM'ay) GnthrlC) XladdoM) Ilagar) Hall) Hlginbothain) llolton) llorton) Huntington) Irving) JettC) Jones (Halifax}) Kerr) Klllnni) Kirk) Laflaniine) Lajoic) Lautlerkin) LangloiS) Laurler) Macdonald (Toronto)) MacDonuell (Inverness)) Macdougall (Elgin)) McDougall (Rcnfre^v)) MacKay (Cape Breton)) Mackenzie) McCraney) McGregor) Malonin) Metcalfc) MillS) NorrlS) Oliver, Fatersoii) Perry, Pettes) Fickard) Ponliot) Po-iver) Ray) Richard) Roscoc) Ross (Durham)) Ross (Middlesex)) Ross (Prince Edward^ , Rymal, Scatclicrd) Scrlver) Shibley) Sinclair) Skinner, Smith (Peel), Smith (Westmorclp.nd)) Snider) St. JeaU) Taschcreau, Thompson (HaUlimond)f Thompson (Wetland), Trow, Wallace (Albert), Wood) YeO) Young,— in. Thu following members "p.nired For Amendment : Agaiust Amenilmcnt ;— White (llenfrew), Hon. P. Mitchell, White (Hastings). Delorme (St. Hyacinthe), D. A. Smith (Selkirk), Hon. E. Blake (S. Bruce). 42 The following members were absent: — Ontario : Messrs. Hlake, .1. Wliilo. P. AVhitc, .Inn., II. lilacUburn < Quebec : Messrs. Mcdiucvy, Workman. Devlin. ]i. I)«.*lorme 4 XitvA Scotia : Mr. C. Cnmi.bell 1 Manitoba : ^res.srs. Smith, Hanalyni" - Xew Brunswick : lIoD.r.Mitdielb Mr. MfJ.eoil. lion. T. An^-iin (.SpoaUor. no vote) :j British Columbia : Mr. Cunnincrham 1 '&' 15 SL^NBfAKY. Tor. Ayiiiust. Ontario :2H 50 Quebec :i.') -'G Nova Scotia 4 1(» New Brunswick •> 10 British Columbia 4 1 Manitoba "-' Pi'ince Edward Island 1 5 i I 114 (iovcrnmcnt majority ."57 MA.IOIMTIES BY Pr.OYIXCKS :— Against. For. Ontario 28 maj. Quebec * i^ Nova Scotia 12 '^ (I New Brunswick T '• British Columbia (» ."J Manitoba (i 2 I'rince Eilward Island 4 '• U Mr. :^[cCrREKVv. M.B., for Quel)cc West, was in favor ot the Ameml- ment ; but his " pair" lapsed before the vote was taken. Messrs. Devlin and Workman, of Montreal, were ab.scnt — the g-reat Commercial City of 3[ontreal being thus virtually unrepresented — Mr. Jette, M.P., for the Eastern Division, voting against the Amendment. Messrs. AVood and Irving, of the great Manufacturing City of Hamilton, also voted ogainst the Amendment. 43 The Mationnl j>olify. as in-oclained l)y Sir John A. ^[ai'douald (7)— New party issues in Canada (S)— Xaturo of Sir John A. Macdonald's motion (S)— IJcvenue not the sole object of a tariff' (0)— National policy, as defined l)y Mr. Diarlton in 1870 (0)— Ministerial policy, Free Trade declared to be the policy of the "Tieform"' Party, by Mr. Dymond in 1S7G (11) — The Free Trade corner-stone of the Premier, and his declara- tion of the evils of Protection (12)— Benjamin Franklin's remarks on tiie necessity of Protection in a young country (12)— The Premier's assump- tions historically untrue (13) — History of Pi-otection and its results in Kngland and France (I'i)— Statistics of the sugar industr}- in Europe- statement of Mr. J. U. McCulloch rU)~Manufacture of boots and shoes ill Canada, its successful growth under protection (10) — The Premier's present attitude and past Jiistory (17) — The Canadian Public Works pol- i<'y virtually protective (17) — Incidental protection declared by tiie Finance Minister to be -'legalised i-ol-.ibery" (IS)— John Stuart Mill's dcti- nition of incidental protection (IS) — His views endorsed by the Finance Minister flS) — Free trade is still but a theory (20; — Free Trade in Kngland is protection in disguise (20) — Pj'otective policy fosters manu- factures and commerce (21) — The tirst Free Trade Act in England. 1842 (22)— In 1S53, Mr. (iladstone refused to reduce silk duties (22)— Mr. Charlton's change of opinions since 1876 (23) — Ilis special plead- ing and arguments respecting United States refuted (24) — Mr. John Macdonald on Canadian depression (26) — Governor Ilice upon the indus- tries of Massachusetts (27) — Mr. Charlton's statistics valueless (28) — Professor Cairues' comments on protection in U. S. (28) — Mr. Charlton's unfuirneas respecting Canadian industries (29) — Agricultural implements. no competition from U. S. manufacturers, their home demand exceeding supply (29) — Protection the preservation of home market for home manufactures (30) — History of protection in the U. S., North and Soutli, cotton and sugar interests, why the Southern States favor Free Trade (31) — Comparison with Canadian situation, "King Cotton " and "King Wheat" (33) — The prosperous manufactui-es of the North beneficial to the whole Republic (33) — The policy of New England the true policy for Canada (34) — The farmers of Ontario, future competition of the North- West (3i) — The Finance Minister's opposition to growth of cities (34) — Growing cities enhance the value of farming districts (35) — Coal oil, refusal of Government to reduce duty in 1876 (35)— Loss of $2,000,000 to the country (36)— Legislation of 1877, legalised robbery (37)— Petroleum rJDge rcoi'ganized (37) — Remarks on Reciprocity, defense not retaliation. J^cciprocal trade or Reciprocal tariff (38—0.) INDEX Agriculture : — PAOR In United States— Mr. Charlton refuted, 25 Implements of — No competition from U. S. manuliictur'jrs, from excess of their home demand 20 Ontario— Future competition of North-west 34 Growth of cities enhances value of farming districts 35 BEtT SUGAU :— History of the industry in Europe 14 Boors AND Shoes : — Manufacture, growth in Canada under protoctioH IG CAinsES, Pnoi". : — Comments on protection in U. S 23 Canada's Policy : — Should be present New England policy 34 Cautwright, Hon. Mil :— See " Finance Minister," CiiAHLTON, Mn., M. P. : — National policy, as defined in 1876 9 Change of opinions since 1876 23 His special pleading refuted 24 Arguments respecting II. S . fallacious 25 His statistics proved to he valueless 28 His unfairness respecting Canadian industries 2U Cities ; — Growth of enhances value of farming districts 35 Coal Oil:— See ««Oil" CoLBV, Mr., M. p. :— Letter to Editor of « Citiaen," 1 Speech on Sir John A. Macdonald's amendment , 7 CoTTOX : — Interests in the Southern States ?} i " King Cotton " and " King Wheat " 33 CrsT0M8_:-^ See << Tariff = ' 45 Dymond, Mn., M. P. :— Declaration of Free Trade rolicy, lS7 7 ( >f agricultural implements, Canadian, no conii)etition from U . S 2i) \J. S., success beneficial to whole Repnl)lic ;<,i Of oil, formation of "Rings." 3(5 Ordinary manulactures, " Rings " ImpossiMe 30 Massachusetts: — Governor Rice's report on industries of. 2" Mu,L, J. Stl'art : — Definition of incidcntiil protection ] H Views on Excise and Customs Revenue 10 National : — Policy — See " Policy.'' Oil, Coal : — Duties — Action of lato Government — Comments ;!.'> Refusal of Government to reduce duty in 187G 3r. Facilities for formation of oil " rings " 36 Loss of $2,000,000 to the country :-Jf» Legislation of 1877, legalized robbery 37 Petroleum, " rings " now re-organised 37 Ontario : — Farmer's — future conipetilion of North-west 34 Pauty Issues : — New, in Canada • ■ • • 8 Pktuoleum : — See "Oil"' Policy, National ; — Of Sir John Macdonald 7 Defined by Mr. Charlton in 187(> y Poi.icT, Ministerial — As defined by Mr. Dyinond in J 870 11 PoLiCT, Nkw England : — The true policy for Caua Necessity of, in a young country (Franklin) 1 j Of the sugar industry in Europe 14 Of b(X)t and shoe manufacture in Canada \r, Public Works, policy is protective 17 I'olicy of, fosters manufactures and commerce -j I 1 842, the first English Free Trade Act 'j'2 185.'J, Gladstone still protected silk interest .• 22 In United States, Prof. Cairncs's comments 28 Is preserving home market for home manufacturer 30 IlcHults of, in United States, North and South 31 Plblic Wohks : — Canadian, polii y of^ is protective 17 IvEOirROCITY : — With U. S., remarks respecting , • ;iS Reciprocal Trade or Reciprocal Tariff ;iS Reciprocal duties arc not retaliation 3'J Kevexue : — Not the sole oliject of tariff 9 Rice, Governor : — Report on industries of MassachU'ctts 2 _ I SuoK.s AND Boots :— Manufacture, success in Canailu, umlor protection Id S[ GAU, Beet : — History of the ludiistiy in Europe II Si(iAn Interebt :— In the Southern States 'M r\j Tariff : — Readjustment — Sir John A. Macdouald's motiou 7 Nature of the motiou 8 Oil, action of late Government, comments 3.") Oil, Govt, refuse to reduce, in 1876 '',:> Legislation of 1877, legalized robbery :j7 Reciprocal, is defense, not retaliation 'is UxiTED States : — Mr. Charlton's arguments respecting, refuted 2.') Gov . Rice upon Massachusetts industries 2 7 Protection in, comments on 28 Agricultural implement manufacturers do not compete with Canadian 29 Protection and Free Trade, North and South 31 "King Cotton" and "King Wheat," 33 New England policy true policy for Canada 34 Reciprocity M'ith, in Trade or in Tariff : < Reciprocity, U. S. have no desire, while unequal tariffs fjivor theiu :',.( / Wheat : — " King Cotton" and King Wheat,'' 3 J NO ONE SHOULD BE WITHOUT IT ! TH E PARLIAIIi'TARV Price, SI 50. If hat the J'rcss S(((/s : 'I'lio rnrllamentiiry Coinpauion irf ail indispensablo racle mccinn lor every stmlcnt of Canadian jtolitics. — Toronto Globe. M(ir(! useful than, ever as a liandl)ook of reference. — London Adicrtiicr, II is far superior to tlie old Companion in tlie extent of its information. — Kingston Whi;/. No man wlio wishes to linve a correct knowledge of public men and public proceeding, can do so, tliornughly, without a coj^y of this invaluable work. It ought to be found everywhere — IMiJaxUerald In its preparation it manifests that tlie utmost care has been taken, and altogether wo recom- mend it to those V, ho debi-e to be posted on a variety of matters, upon M'hich otherwise it is difficult to obtain information. — Montreal Ilerdld. A vast amount of information of a political and general charac- ter is given. — Woodstock Sentinel. No public man can afford to be witliout this last edition of the Companion. — Montreal Star. It is a great improvement over any of its predeces.sors, and con- tains much more and varied in. formation under the usual heads, than formerly. — Hamilton Times. Ad tires 1 .— €. Hi MACKINTOSH, rublisher Companion, P.O. Box, r?or., Ottawa. ' CANADIAN 'C? ('AXA'.)IAN 11 urliam cilia III -() — 1ST8. -()- 420 Pages. Sixteeiitli Year. COMPANION. Price, $1,50. WItaf the J'l'css Sftf/s : A standard authority on Can- adian alfuirs. — (Quebec Mercury. It comprises a vast amount of information relating to public matters and public men, not to be foinid elsewhere, forming a standard authority, witliout which no library or public office can be said to be complete. — London Free Press. Mackintosli's Parliamentivry Companion for 1878 is a valuable book. The issue is greatly su. jierior to any of its predecesaor.s. Some of tlie matter in previous editions thftt was of no pai'ticular value has been expunged, and an improved running index, a sketch of the general routine of the Elec- tion Courts, rulings on legal points, history of the Halifax Fishery Commission, amended digest of Parliamentary procedure and the decisions of the Speaker during the session of 1877 added. — Jfamilton Times. The Parliamentary Companion for 1878 has been issued, and fully sustains its established char- acter as a sessional handbook. Two useful additions have been made this year, v:"z : a Summary of the Fishery question and a digest of the award. Also an elaborate digest of Election Trials and practical points connected with Parliamentary practice, all shoAving care .ind labor on the part of the editor. — Toronto Globe. Address :— C. H. MACKINTOSH, I'liblishcr Companion, P.O. Box SO."-., Ottawa. ^^ A gents Wanted in every Town and City of the Dominion.