*'. . •;■»■ V7'w*ir aid tlirough any thin pretext of pure 'patriotism, but I thouRlit as they had ran the gamut of every possible change, political and commercial, they might be driven as a last resource to find such a refuge with the great psirty to which I have the honour to belong. It seems, however, that such is not the case, and that after a lengthened laboiir during last summer the party, after a forty- eight hours' labour, by a grand Caesai-ian operation was delivered of a child known under the name of Free Trade. We have had various bantlings brought before us of the party opposite. Now, however, they offer a clear, definite policy. They demand free trade, pure, simple and unadulterated, and the hon. member from Soutli O.vford (Shr Richard Oartwright) has told the House that if there is the vestige of a trac^ of protection left In any tariff, he would obliterate It. The cool demand Is made to us to hand over to those hon. gentlemen the virtual control of the $8.5.^,000,000 Invested In our manufac- tures. They are to be left free to be dealt \viU\ by hon. gentlemen opposite according to their own sweet wUl. It becomes us, there- fore, as guardians of the Interests of the peo- ple and those to whom the commercial wel- fare of the coimtry has been entinisted to look carefully into the antecedents of tlie hon. gentlemen who have made such a demand, and s<»e if tliey are worthy of the confidence they ask, anf' worthy of being < ntnistod with the management of the affairs of the coun- try in future. It becomes our duty, there- fore, to briefly review tbe history of the Reform party. After that it would be but right that we should Inquire what has been the histoi-y of protection and free trade so far as applicable to Great Britain ; and lastly, whether the circumstances unaer which free ti'ade was adopted by Great Bri- tain are so analogous to tliese prevalent in Canada tliat we would bo justified in agree- ing to the proposal made by lion, gentlemen ! opposite, to sweep away at one l>low our | wliole Conservative National Policy system. ■ I cannot but remember that during the re- gime of Mr. ^Mackenzie his Government re- duced the taritf on not one single item, except -"oal oil. and the' only reduction they made on tLit article was to bring it down to the point at wliicli it noAV stands in the tariff before the House. Wonderful changes must have come over the views of the leading members of the Liberal part?' when we find them ready to adopt a policy such as is now proposed by the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Rich- ard Cartwright) ; for Mr. Mackenzie, their great leader, when he raised the tariff from 15 to ny2 per cent was particularly coalitions to state : that he did it with the imderstandlng that in making this increase due precaution would be taken to give such incidental pro- tection to the industries of the country as could possibly be given. His words were : As long as tlie revenue has to be raised by a duty upon imports it sliould l)e raised 1)y placing a duty upon articles tluit we ourselves can j)roduce. That was the policy of his GovernuK'nt. but the policy of the present would-be tJovern- ment is to colle(!t revenue by duties placed upon articles which we cannot produce in Canada ; and it is the only possible nietliod, says tbe gallant knight of South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwriglit), of removing every ves- tige of pi-otection out of tlie tariff and to still raise a revenue. Such then were the views of Mr. Mackenzie in 1877. Ten years later, we find the leader of tiie same party, Mr. Blake, state : The higli rate of taxation must be maintained and the manufacturers have notliing wluitever to fear. Mr. Blake was careful to tell us at the .same time, that these views were also enter- tained by his colleague, the member for South \ Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwriglit). Well, Sir, I find that these views are variously held by different ni-nnbei's of the I^iberal party. ! I find the member for West Ontario (Mr. ' Edgar) giving, us his views in tlie following words :— The manufacturers liave nothing to fear. Tlie policy of the Liberal party is not confiscation, and in the event of their accession to power, notiiing would be hastily done. It was not proposed to do away with protection at a blow ; the change will be gradual. He entirely approved of tlie .statement of Mr. David A. Wells wlio declared in a recent article : that tlie duty on manufactured goods should not he loweretl too precipitately and that nothing should be done to upset trade. This again is a different progi-anime alto- gether from tbe programme as announcetl In the amendment proposed L^ the hon. mem- ber for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cart- wright), now before the House. The philo- sophic member for BothwoU (Mr. Mills) is ril- ways careful in choosing his language, but s'all he said : 1 aihnit we have established industries in tliis country and we ought make any changes so as to cause as little disturliance as possible. He Avas evidently not in favour of this radi- cal policy of eradicating eveiy trace of pro- tection to native industries, for he tells us that he is going to proceed on linos that will cause as little disturbance as po.ssible, and he follows the hon. member for West Ontario (Mr. Edgar), who a few moiitilis previously said : " Tliat these duties on manufactm*etl goods must not be lowereal also with wages, amoxmting to some $1(X),(XX),000 a year, when tliey ask us for pivK>fs of sucli unlimited contidenoe in liieir ability and im?grity, we surely have a right to iu(puro into tiielr pasit histoi*y, so that we may have some ass.urance as to what will be tlunr future. I think wo have seen from the opinions I have quoted that they are not in a position to come to this House and claim any vote of confidence in such a policy, in- asmuch as they themselves seem to be al- together at sea as to what tlieir policy really is. A more important point, however, is to deal witli the question of the histoiy of protection. That is a question which must stand by itself, and so, also, must the ques- tion of free trade, irrespective of the parties wlio come here and demand to be intrusted with the carrying out of the principles of free trade. I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact tliat tlie history of protectioji has indeetl been most remarkable. Fifty years ago the question seemed to have been solved. Great Britain had adopted free trade ; the United States was apparently following closelj' in her wake ; tlie wliole civilizetl world, as was expected by Cobden and Bright, seemed also to be willing to take the same step. But, Sir, fifty years afterwards what do we find ? We find that every civilized nation, with the exception of Great Britain herself, has found it neces- sary to adopt a .system of protection. Only a year or so ago the last English colony felt that, in spite of its reverence for the mother land and its desire to adopt her fiscal system, it was obliged to fail back on the system of pi-otection. What lias been the lilstory of the world during those fifty years ? It has been a time when education has been disseminated widely among the people, when political discussion has been rife, when every means have been tale4ng letense of protection ■l^ ere repealeLS (BothweU). And made no progress imdor it. .Mr. COCKBURN. I will admit, with my hon. friend fi-om BothweU (Mr. Mills), that the progress she had made at that time did not correspond with the progress she made later. But she was then preparing the road by which she has since achievetl such im- paraUeled pmsperity. The taiifC at that time had ceastHl to give any pi'otectiou to her manufacturing interests. She no longer requii-ed such protection. The one bugbear that st(X)d hi the way was this duty on corn, which was simply a tiix, making food deai'er, just as a tax Imposed on sugar makes sugar dearer. The whole crusade of IHIO was for free food. Repeal of the corn laws meant an Increase of resil wages. Repeal of tariff in manufacturing nieant nothing.. Pro- tection, in our modern sense, is never men- tioned in any of Cobden's free trade speeches. But just let us put ourselves in the position of Enghuid at that time, and ask ourselves how we should have acted. At that time the sole limit of work was human strength. Even tlie cliildreu were not spared in the sacrifice to Moloch. Shorter hours of labour were scorned by Cobden amd Bright as absurdities. As late as 1880, Bonamy Price, a great authority on political economy on the Libenul side, declared that shorter hours are a repudiation of the doctrine of free trade. Let us look at the position wlilr border, separatetl by an invisible line— a people of 70,000,000 of the brightest, most active, energetic and pushin'r that the world has ever seen Some hon. MEMBERS. Order ; oh, oh. Mr. COCKBIJIIX. 1 have no he«itiVtion in sajing so, but 1 do not for a moment say that they are superior, in any way, to our own countrymen. But I ask you, sui»- pose I'jngland had had these 70,(KR).000 peo- ple on her bordei-s ; supiiosi^ cheap freights had brought every country close to her very doors, because you can now cany freight from Liverpool to Montreal as cheap as you can carry the same goods from Mont- real to Toronto ; suppose lOngland had liiid those cheap friMghts brmging eveiytliing to her very door, anniliilaling, as the hon. mem- ber for BothweU (Mr. Mills) said tlie other night, distance, so to speak ; suppose these 70,0(K),00 people and all the Eui^opean coun- tries had had the machinery of (Jreat Brit- ain and iMiually skilled labour, and an in- dustrial system equal to here ; .suppose these countries had the command of immense capi- tal, and that money for invc^^bment in inonu- faotiu'es was to 'be had there even cheaper than in England— for recollect. Sir, that the assessed wesilth of the Unitotl States at this hour, according to Mr. Mulhall. is ,$(55,000,- 000,000 ; suppose that those cotmtries had had labour 30 or 40 pei' cent cheaper than p]ngland, and suppose tlie manufacturei"s of England, with their $3r)."..000,000,000 em- barkwl in theli" enten>rises, were ci-ying out against any cliange--do you Imagine that, with these facts existing and with that condition of things, if Cobden liaolioy of free trade. I have showTi you the iumieiise resources she had. I have shown you that she had Uie couuuuiul virtually of every market, and that it made not an iota of difference to her If you swept away eveay duty undei' heaven. She had the absolute command, and owing to her policy for 300 years she was then al>le tx> maintain that comnwmd. And wlien that tariff was swejvt away, that did not alter in (Mie iota the position of Iliehard Coi)den or John Bright, a.s manufacturers, able to com- pete with the cheflp labour of tlie con- tinent. But we in Canada are very differ- ently situateil. My hon. friend (:Mr. Mills) is apt to be can'ied awav by his sophistical turn of nund— by mere syllogisms or a mere fad. I point to the rest of the worhl, and I ask. In view of what has been done by all other civlliztMl nations in the last tifty yeiU'S, are you prepared to take the ground tliat tlie only seiLsible country in the world is England, and that all the others are fools ? 1 might also draw yom* attention to the fact that during tliose Ufteeu years ill wliich we have had tlie National Folicy, our progress has indeed been rapid. I can- not understand what our frieiids can want. With wages rising, witli prices of manu- faetureil goods falling, with lessening hours of labour— what on earth more do they want for tJ'c workingman tliuii what we are offer- ing .' But 1 am told. fors(M>th, look at our Con.idian farmers. The lion, membor for Botliwell (Mr. Mills) says tlu»ir farm lands i;:ive fallen 25 to 30 per cent. Well. I re- l)ly, look at English farms. They have fallen 50 per cent. The hon. gentleman says yes, but the English farms liad been raised to an abnormal price tlu'ough tJie com laws of two generations ago, and they liave been reduced in value btx-ause they have been bi-ought nearer to the point of distribution, and to the points in which these gi'eat coi'n crops are ralsetl. Well, have we not been brought nearei' to the point of dis- tribution—to tlie poiut of supply ? What lias the Canadian Pacilic Bailway done V What have we given $(jO,00*t.0 cents. 1 They say that the price of land has fallen. I j will show them land within fifteen miles of the oity of I^ondon for which you cannot j get any more than for lands fifteen miles I from the city of Toronto. Are we so situat- ! ed that the laws that govern the rest of i the human race are to have no effect I with us ? Are we to have millions* of lares opened up in India, Russia, the Ar- ; gentine Republic and the great North-west and not find the prices of oxu' farm pro- I ducts fall ? j Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). That is what ' your friend said in 1878. Mr. COCKBURN. No, Sir. Our friends I propliesied magnificent results from their i policy, and the da.v will come when their prophecies will all be fulfilled. Sir Charles [ Tupper's 040,000,000 bushels, the product of the North-west will come. They have not come I yet, but they will come in time. And, if gen- tlemen opposite onl.v would have more con- fidence in their country, if they could see ' these* ()4(>,0(M).000 bushels, as I see them coming, in my mind's eye, tliey would have a warmer place in the hearts of their coun- I tryiuen than they have now. j Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) How many trains a I day would you require to haul that ? 1 Mr. COCKBURN. When it comes, we will \ run the trains. Then comes this plaintive cry i of the farmer, who of late has become the 1 object of anxious solicitude to both parties in this House. The poor farmer ; the de- pressed farmer ; the farmer who is over- loaded with taxation. The poor farmer now is changing his loan from 7 per cent to 5 per cent. That poor farmer is keeping In his garner the fruits of the last two years of his labour, a thing that very few mer- chants would dare to attempt. That poor farmer— thousands of them— are holding the j last year's crop. Why ? Because they are speculating in it in a manner, and they I think that, owing to European complications or other causes. Instead of 55 cents a bushel ! they will get 85 cents or a dollar. I am : told that these men are suffering almost I past human endurance, but these men in Ontario last year, with $100,000,000 bor- rowed from the loan companies, were in default only 2 per cent ; whereas, twelve years before, shortly after gentlemen oppo- site hay class, and demand of UH : Wliat are tliese people to the whole population of the Dominion ? Tf you add these fom* tiiousand and live thousand and fifteen thousand together, and so on through the test, you will find you are approacli- ing very close to the five millions of con- sumers. Hon. gentlemen opposite have tried to draw a false line which would place every man upon one side or the other, making him either a producer or a consumer. Why, Sir, these oper- atives are the very men who are freely spending their money ; they are the men who are our great consumers. And here I would like to say a word or two for tmr manufac- turers, who seem nowadays to be forgotten in this intense new-born love for tlie farmer. Our manufacturers and their operatives number 3G7,000 soul-?, representing probably nearly one million and a quarter of population. Their wages are over .$100,000,000 ; they are working a capital of .$353,000,000 ; they have products of some $475,000,000, and profits of $00,(X)0,000. The products of tliese manu- factiu-ers are equal to the products of the farmer, and I think tliese people entitled to equal consideration with the farmers. Perhaps, for certain reasons, 1 should say they are entitled to more con- sideration, because they produce wealth more readily, and tho possibilities of pro- duction with them are illimitable. Sir, let me draw yoiu- attention to the fact that the value of the cotton raised in the United States last year, as it left tlie flold, was $300,000,000, and the same cotton, when it left the mill was worth .$1,750,000,000. This shows how vast is the wealth that may bo accumulated by manufacturers when duly directed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like, before resuming my seat, to say a word or two with reference to some of the misstate- ments which were made by gentlemen oppo- site, and which have not been corrected— at least not during my attendance in the House. I was astonishetl to hear the hon. member tor South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) say, with reference to the debt of Canada : It is equal, I believe, to the debt with which the United States emerged from their great and des- perate civil war. air. MILLS (Bothwell). Oh, no. | Mr. COCKBURN. These are his words as reported in ' Hansard,' and I do not wonder that my honest friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) on hearing them is astonished, and says : " Oh, no." I find from the American official retm-ns that the debt of the United States in 1805 was $2,750,000,000, making ' an average for tho population oi' that time i of $78.25 per head. And I find our own : debt to be $241,081,000, an average of $49.50 ' per liead— or, as tho hon. member for South I O.xford puts it, $50 per head. The total is $241,000,000, which Is less than the deposits in tlie banks and loan companies, and less [ l)y $8,000,000 than the amount carried as ! life insurance. I was tlie more astonished I tf> find the lion, member for South Oxford I pay so much attention to these matters i when I found how little he seemed to re- ! gard figures. In fact, this seems to be a j failing with hon. gentlemen opposite. When ; they get hold of a few thousands, they do not i hesitate to run them up into the millions. I was rather astouislied to hear the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) declar.j that savings bank deposits wei ; rather an evi- dence, not of wealth, but f>f our inability to know wliat to do with our money— an evi- dence of poverty of Intellect, if not poverty of purse. Our genial friend from Prince Ed- ward Island (IMr. Davles) was kind enough to inform us that the savings bank deposits in tlio single state of Maine were greater than the deposits of the savings banks of the whole Dominion of Canada. Well, I do not wish to dwell long on the point made by the hon. member for Botliwell, but I will confront him with the declaration made by lils friend the hon. member for South Oxford, in mak- ing his Budget speech in 1877, when he had j all responsibility of a Finance Minister on ' his shoulders, and speaking under a strict j sense, I suppose, of official responsibility. He I said : i 'I'iie liaiiks do uiiiloiilitedly atfoid ii« certain standards l)y wliidi we may estimate with toleral)lu precision tiie inci'eased x'olnme of l)UHinesa tlirougli- out tile country. Tliese standards are usually con- siilered lelialile signs of tlie advance of tlie poiiulu- lion in woaltli. VVIiat arc tlif)se signs V Increased circulation. That we have. , Increase of l)ank deposits. I That we have. j Increase in depcsits in ( Joverninent savings banks. I Tliat we have. Tliese deposits in savings l>aiiks are specially 1 valiiaiile. i j My hon. friend from Bothwell thinks they are i not. i Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentle- man Is aware that, In consequence of the re- duction in the rate of interest by % per cent, the deposits in the savings banks were dim- inished by $3,000,000. Now, does the hon. gentleman think that the country was that i much poorer ? i Mr. COCKBURN. I understand the ques- I tion to be, that there had been a decrease In \ the deposits. Mr. MILLS (Botliwell). Yes. Mr. COCKBUHN. Thoro hiul boon also a •lofroaso In the rate of Interest. Mr. MILLS (Both well). Yes. Mr. OOCKBIIUN. And some money. I un- derstand, was withdrawn and transferred to tlio chartered banks, who are paying — - Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). We do not know. Ur. COCKBUIIN. I know. I am a bank director, and I speak of what I know. I am not taiking simple otHcial i)liititudes. I say tliat I went to the (Sovernment myself, and strongly objected to their entering into this competition with the banks ; 1 did not con- sider it to be tlieir spiiere. I said : Vim are otfering 4 per cent for money, and yon are forcing tlio banks to olTi>r tiie same, and the result is that we are obliged to charge mer- chants and manufacturers a larger amount for our discounts, and by tliat means you are impeding tihe progress of the country, and putting a burden on commerce. They lowoiHifl the rak> from 4 to 3Vi per cent, and immediately some people withdrew their money from the savings banks and put it into the chartered banks, because some of the chartered banks were offering a half rer cent more. A good many people wlio have tlieir little savings in those banks, think a great deal of a half per cent, and the banks were very wide awake and opened savings departments to catcli all tliose men who had withdr.awn their money from the Gov(>rnment banks. Tliey put that money back into the banking interest of tiie country, transferring it merely from the Government Savings Bank account. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). T\,'} hon. gentle- man lias not answered my q.iestion. My ipiestion is, wiiether the diminution in the amount of the savings l>anks deposits is a certain evidence of a diminisluxl prosperity, or a diminution of tlie wealth of the country ? Mr. COOKBUKN. If there were a diminu- tion in the deposits in the chartered banks of tlie countiy, and a diminution at the same time in the otliers, I would say that the money was less. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Then, I infer from tlie lion, gentleman's statement, that tliese are the only two ways in which people can properl.v invest their money, and this money could not have been invested in any other form. Mr. COCKBUUN. By no means ; I do not see liow such an inference could be drawn from my remarks. However, I was residing a portion of the speech of the hon. member for South Oxford, where lu; states that these de- posits are a specially valuable indication. Now, I was a little surprised that my hon. friend from Queen's (P.E.I.) should iiave taken it upon himself to say that the deposits in the savings banks in the state of Maine were greater than tlie deposits in the whole Dominion of Canada. I may say, nltJiough I do not accu.se my lion, friend of any disingenu- ity. I think tluM-e was a siighl quil)l)le iiv lils statement, if I may use so unparliamentary a term. 1 lliink he is ]>resident of a bank la Princ(! Edward Island, and he ought to know, surely, that there is not tlie .slightest analogy between the savings lianks of tlie United States and the savings banks of (3anada. The savings banks of Canada are Institutions pro- vided by tlie Government to receive, u)» to a certain small sum, the savings of working- men and otlier classes. Tlio (Jovoniment in- stituted tliese to encourage thrift, and because it was felt at the same time that tlie moneys this class of p(>oi>le possessed, might lie lodg- ed up in old stot'kiiigs, or old drawers, or lilddon away, whereas they might be put into banks and used to oil tlie wheels of com- merce. Our savings banks are not dealing in money ; they are not discounting ; they give but a moderate rate of Interest. Now, savings banks in the Uniteil States are for another purpose. My lion, friend ougliit to liave told us yesterday, in ail honesty and sincerity, that thei'e was no analogy. Taking tlie rejiort of the Controller of tlie Currency, he says that in Maine there are dojiosits to tlio amount of $."):{,00(),3()7. Tliat is true, but, if hi- had onl.v looked at the preceding page, showing the liabilities and resources, he would liave seen what the liank does with this money. It lias loans on real estate, for instance ; it has loans on collateral security and otlier real estate ; it has large discounts to merchants ; it has United States bonds ; it lias city, coun- i ty, municipal and other bonds, amounting to I seventeen millions ; it has railroad bonds and stock, tif teen millions ; other bank stocks, three millions ; other kinds of bonds and stocks, four millions ; it has got real es- tate, so much. Surely, ray hon. friend must confess that there is not the slightest analogy between wliat we uuderstinliini(<'(l (•onii on liu> jiart <»f tlic lion. in(>ni1)fr from Sonth Oxford (Sir RichaiMl Cart Wright), as to this (■(►mpctiMicy which hnl him to malic a romack which I shonhl like to (jnotc, and to in iicicH o^ liiiiil uiKltT cultiviitioii. ll in not a matter of ii]iiiiion tliiit if tlie policy of unrestricted reciprocity with tlie United Stiites v,-ii« carrieil out, eiieh in;rc would he wortii SU) more, or .t-'-'O.OOO.OdO of gain in wealtli in land in Ontario alone. The hon. gentleman further slated : We had in Ontario ahout l,2")(),0(M) horses. Unrestricted recijirocity would n'ake eadi luti'se worth $'Ai> more, or a total gain of S>:{7,.'),'MH>. I ask In the name of common sense why did this hon. gentleman ever abandon the policy cidled imrestricted reciprocity, when by a mere stroke of his pen he coulS mon*^^!^ liabilities of another remark made by the hon. member for South Oxford when the Finance Miidster drew attention to our hirgely increasing (>x- IK>rt.M, " Surely yon do not consider .$4,0(M).(K)0 worth of '.iiilion a very desirable or vei'y Viiln.ible asset." I when bank after Inink in Slates was tottering, when institutions s\ispended, \\i1h $170.2!)r>, to their aid wltli .$4,000,000 of gold, we may all rest a.ssured tliat if our banks favoured the United States financial institution'^ with that stun in tlielr dire hour of neel, our baid{s got a fair return for eveiy dollar they advanc(Ml, .and no asset was more productive at that time tlian the .$4.0:K),(l0 ) sent over to our neighbom-s. I may be asked, What are yd(^l reform, Luckily some leading members of th(> Grovern- ment expressed similar views, and I Avas re- leastHl from durance vile, and ouch? more ad- mitted to the company of the faithful, for which I f(>lt duly thankfid. It appears to me that the one great fault in the tar'ff is apparently the non-fixity of its character. I thiidc above all things it is important that changes made in our fiscal system must be gradual, and I feel, rightly or wrongly, that the opinion has gone abroad that this tariff is not a tariff to remain in force for the next fifteen or twenty years, but is a tariff which almost one-half of tlie members of this House ai'e trying their Iiest to chang.', alter or modify. So long as this feeling ex- ists, it will be a very dittlcult matter to induce capitalists to come to our aid, to help in developing our r<>sources. The reductions proposed I am unable to speak of, as I have not had time to rwluce tlie ad valorem to spe- cific duties, and oalculate tin? effect. It is un- fortunate for the Government that at such a time as this the change has to be made from ad valorem to specific duties, for when goods are so low in price, the duties according to their value must bo correspondingly low. ; And there is accordingly for the time being. , only temporarily, I hope, a stronger strain i put upon our manufacturer, and he has not j the same protection which otlierwise I should 1 like to see him have. If I might say a word : for Ontario— altlu,..gh I do not wish to speak ! from a sectional point of view, and have al- I ways taken the ground that we must look ' at the Don)inion as a whole — I should like I to see some considerable modifications in the I duty upon bituminous coal. I think that we Imvo in Ontario ii pretty heavy burden to meet in this respc't. hiasniiieh as out of the $!t(!l.8!>;{ duty paid on bituudnous (oal that we import Into (Janada, we have no less a sum to pay in Ontario in tlie sliape of duty, dian .$iH»l,!Mi(;. I thinlv dial considei-- \i\fi Lh-i dlfllciiUies inin reduced, while per- lia|)s no w)rri>.spondiiiK reduction has been luado in the raw 'material ; it would Ite well worthy the consideration of i.lie (iovernment to ccmsidiT fully if some iiiMlerial ohaug-e cannot be nuidc in lli(? duty on this artlcl(>. I cannot by any means call llie tarilT perfect as a wliole, but tlie ])rin(iple which u.derlies it is one which <()iiuuends Itself to me and therefore I have uo hesitation whatever In KiviuR my vot»« in favoiu" of the tarH¥, as oppostnl to the pnn- ( iple of absolute free trade announced in the amendment of the lion, meinbor for Soutli Ox- ford (Sir llichard CartwrlRht). I feel this: That lower priced labour could conii»et(> with our laboui", whether that lower priced labour is in (i Ii It (' 2 the form of Imported goods or imported Chinamen. My dcHlre has been to see urow n\t in tills (ountiy a race of workmen worthy of the jiosilion of fri-emen. We are at pre- s(>nt tryinj: In iliis country, the (xperimcut, whether under (Jod's favour, with llie bles.s- int,'s of rel'Kiou and (Hlucation and lii-e gov- «>rninent and unbounded resources, we can liavc a country where every man will be born to the possibility that he can ri.sc to a life of culture, and not be; condemned from his birth to a life of unending, mechanical toil or hopeless drudgery for the mere comforts and necessities of existence. That Is tlio prayer of oiu* party. That is Xlm reason why we desire to give such full protection to labour. That is the I'cason why we desire to see, if possible, this country a cheap country to live in and ii country in which e^'cry nuin will lind sulH- cient for tho comforts and culture of life. I hope that our friends of the Liberal party n^.ay take a broader and more patriotic view of tho situation and Join hands in securing each comforts as the necessities of modern civilization demand for our workingmen.