IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ '»^ 1.0 I.I 1M 111 III 2.5 - IM 12.2 i:!,4 12.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 •^ 6" — ► y,. % ut, withal, she still lives. Yea, she not only lives, she is also really far richer and far more prosperous than either France or the States ; and, according to the best authorities, could pay off a French Indemnity, or a Yankee National Dobt, every other year, out of her peoples' surpluses merely, and without trenching at all on their previous investments. Neither the States nor France ever did, or couhl do, anything like so well as that. I would therefore venture to say that, on the whole, any argument on the subject of Protective duties, drawn from references to other countries, is very much more likely to tell against such duties than in favor of them. But I do not see that any such argument should be employed at all. The question is one which admits of being reasoned out upon its own abstract merits. Eeasoning from analogy (unsatisfactory under all circumstances) is, under these circumstances, totally uncalled for and inexcusable. The United States may, in fact, have pros[)ered under Protection. They could hardly have failed to prosper more witliout it. England may be suflering somewhat under Free Trade. She could h;ndly have failed to suffer more without it. So also with Canada. She has prospered, and (now that the tide of immigration is setting in in her direction) she may probably continue to prosper, in spite of half a dozen N. P's, or other shortsighted enactments. I argue against the N. P., not as if it were an essentially disastrous sort of policy, but merely as it entails a much less solid sort of progress than would naturally result from leaving the country's resources to be developed, and her manufactures established, strictly in their natural order. If farming be the most profitable trade in Canada, then, by all means, let us all be farmers, until it becomes evident that some of us may do better as scribes, or weavers, or miners, or something else. 5 or So long as a farmer can l)ny liis hoots cheaper than lie can make them, it would be intolerable tyranny to forbid him to buy them, or to coJiipel him to make them. And yet, that is precisely what the N. P. does to the country as a whole. The time it takes the farmer to luake one pair of boots, he might earn enough at his own trade to buy two pairs. Just in the same way, the time it takes ten men in Canada to produce a hundrud pieces of cotton cloth, they might produce enough wheat, or iish, or lumber, to buy a hundred and forty pieces ; clearly therefore the country as a whole is forty pieces of cloth the poorer through the operation of the miserable National Policy which interferes so tyrannically with the pursuits of the people. Look at the mother country — the most prosperous of all nations. She is content to buy much of her bread abroad, simply because it is cheaper to do so than to produce it at home, although it is well known that a moderate protective duty would load to her own farmers finding her all she wants. No doubt, if she were to adopt such a policy of protection, she would increase and strengthen her agricultural class immensely ; but then she knows that she would to a still greater extent, weaken and kill her naanufiicturing and exporting industries, and thus, on the whole, become vastly less wealthy. In her wisdom, therefore, she gives a fair field and no favor to all classes, so that every trade is conducted only to such extent as it may prove profitable on its own merits. England has thus no unprofitable trades weigl.ing down upon those that are profitable ; and as every unit of the nation is thus occupied profitably (or as near it as possibly may be) the whole is essentially prosperous. The Canadian N. P. forbids this healthy state of things ; and ordains that only a portion of the people may work at the essentially profitable tr:ules. The country may, and probably will, grow rich in spite of this sort of thing ; but to say that it may grow rich hy means of it (as is often audaciously done) bespeaks either a very low order of intellect, or a very hnv order of morality surely. And yet, such .' the National Policy of Canada ! a daughter of the wisest nation the .vorld has yet seen ! Poor Canada ! She is the victim of one of the irregular [(assions of youth. She dotes on isolation. She is enamoured of weavers and hermits. She will not allow all her sons to labour to the best advantage, although, in her case, by the favour of nature, the most profitable trades are also the most healthy and the most manl}'. This is all wrong. This policy of isolation is not only financially a mistake : it is also morally a misfortune, for is not commercial intercourse favourable to peace and goodwill among men 1 Let Canada then cease to abandon the well reasoned and well tried policy of the mother country, and cease to agree with those who perfer to adopt the discarded isolationist policy of the " Heathen Chinee." I venture to predict, indeed, that the time is coming when nations so silly as to adopt such pernicious practices will have their ports bom- 6 barded, and their liberties taken from thotn, for they are essentially a curse upon the earth. Tf they are to have their way, and if all nations are to he self-supporting, we may as well sink all our ships, and let our civilization drift bacl' again to the dingy condition of the middle ages, each several zone and hennsj)here destitute of all the several products of the others. This would he the N. P. carried out to its logical result ; for, of course, as no man will export gratuitcnialy, but oidy in exchange for imports, tlie restriction of imports necessarily means also restriction of exports. The opponents of free trade ought to bear in mind that their policy not only hurts their own nation, hut also hurts others; for it is a natural condu «n of every free transaction that both buyer and seller are benefitted. The nation which restricts commercial transactions is thus a nuisance, and an obstacle to the common good of mankind, and is therefore clearly deserving of such punishment at the hands of the civilized nations of the earth as may speedily bring her to a less self-impoverishing and a less world- impoverishing style of existence. IT. Let us descend to a few points in detail, to see how the supporters of the present National Policy of Canada are in the habit of relying upon irrelevant circumstances to recommend that policy. When such arguments come from the responsible ministers of the Crown, they are hardly excusable, surely. P.ut still they come. For example, quite recently, the Minister of Finance jjraised the National Policy, on the ground that it had increased our trade with England, and diminished it M'ith the United States. A moment's reflection might have sufficed to satisfy him that the oxAy reason for the transfer of our purchases to England is that we find the English market the most favorable. No really intelligent and honest man can say that our N. P. has had any- thing to do with making the U. S. market worse, or the English one better, than formerly. Certainly not. The real cause of the change lies, in fact, in the existence of these abominable protective duties in the States, and in nothing else. Protection in the States has made living so very dear there that they cannot sustain the competition with England to the same extent as formerly. Protection in the States, in fact, is gradually killing the export trade of that country, and com- pelling Canadians to transfer thuir purchases to the more economical markets of free-trading England. Again, Sir Charles Tupper says American coal is sold as cheaply in Toronto (duty paid) as it is in the States, and infers therefrom that the N. P. does not affect the price to the consumer. This statement has since been denied on apparently good authority, but, even if it had been true, it would only have proved that the people of the States were being made to pay 50 cents a ton too much, — a not at all impro- bable occurrence in any country, like the States, where free trade is not allowed. In short, both Sir Chavles Tuppci* and Sir I. Tilley were in these cases using the misfortunes befalling the States, fhroiif/h Protection there, in a way fitted to make Canada seem, to the super- ficial observer, to suffer notning from the operation of the same unfor- tunate i)olicy. As a matter of fact, however, while intending to shew that Protection was not hurting Canada, these gentleman really only showed that a sinn'lar policy was proving seriously hurtful in the United States, — a very damnifying argument with n spect to the N. P. surely 1 In short. Sir L. Tilley ought to have said, not that Canada's protective tariff was leading her to transfer her trade from the United States to England, but that the U. S. protective tariff was driving that trade away from the States to free-trading England. So also it ie the want of competition in the States which admits of the Pennsylvania producer selling his coal as high at home as ho does in Toronto, duty paid. These poor Yankees are still blind to the injustice they thus suffer from restricted --om petition, and their misfortunes are utilised by responsible Canadian Minist<;rs to persuade their constituents that they, the Candians, have nothing to complain of! The spectacle is wholly humiliating. Again we hear a great deal made of the fact that many of the persons engaged in our pampered industries are prosperous. But, indeed, thoy well may be so. Suppose, for a moment, dear reader, that you were empowered, by Act of Parliament, to scrape half the butter from tiiebread of every farmer, fisher, lumberer and laborer, in the Dominion. The men would not miss it very strikingly, while the result to you would be very striking indeed. You would grow rich at that sort of trade, dear reader, anarty favouring the trick. For the moment it must be admitted that a certain measure of success attends the favored few who are benefitted by this sort of thing, and they have been only too successful also in their efforts to hoodwink the wronged classes into believing that they are not being wronged at all. Consequently, these classes, the farmers, fishers, etc., etc, — whose power would be absolutely over- whelming if they tvere united — are for the moment divided sufficiently to admit of these Protectionist robberies being committed with impunity. In connection with this subject, it is very common for the sup- porters of the N. P. to tell the farmers that they will be compensated by the possession of " local markets" and that these will bs better than the foreign. This latter statement is simply absurd, because the moment the local market proves better than the foreign, exports will cease until the local becomes glutted, when the prices there will 8 naturally fall to a level with those obtainaLle aLroad. 80 long aa tliero is any surplus for export, in fact, the one sarket is necessarily equally as gnud (ju Uu; aver«jvly of such stuff happens to be under the demand ; but that state of things never continues long in the case of cabbages ; and, on the whole, I feel safe to say that cabbage gardening is a less prolitable and a less pleasant trade than ordinary farming. ISo, no, dear reader, that cabbaging proposal of tlu; supfjorters of the iS"". P. will not do. The farmers of Canada must, lor many a generation, have a surplus for export, and must therefore make up their minds to have their prices regulated by foreign markets. I say from {personal knowledge that hardly any of the farmers in the immediate vicinity of the largest city in Scotland ever think of growing an ounc» of garden stuffs lor sale. They can do better with other things. In fact they are now looking on New York (as they have long looked on London, though 400 miles distant) as a legitimate market for large portions of their produce. What then is the use of any ^linister, or any Government supporter, dangling a prospective city at the door of every farmer in the country, and telling him he is to grow rich by , rowing garden stuffs ] Really, there is quite too much stuff in tha*^/ idea, dear reader ! It is sheer quackery ! It is of a piece with the favorite trick of crediting the National Policy with all the good that has been reaped during its existence, whether it has had anything to do with it or not. How long can an idea, or a policy, or a government, live that is supported by such rubbish 1 How loiig ? How long 1 III. While admitting that a few of the fanciful industries which have been fostered by the National Policy are yielding handsome profits, we may find, on looking a little below the surface, that investments in these favored industries are more than ordinarily unsafe. These favored industries are, in fact, beset by two very groat, and exceptional, and utterly inevitable dangers — one from tc/thovt and one from within — which cannot fail to overwhelm them sooner or later. The danger from without is the very patent one arising from tlie fact that, as all protection accorded to one set of indvxstries is necessarily accorded at ingpi' IS all 2d at the expense of others, it must, therefore, naturally fall to be withdrawn so soon ns these others become fully alive to the injustice of the thing. When that time comes, as it certainly must, the farmers, fishers, lumberers, laborers, etc., etc., of (Janada, will no doubt throw off the very unueces.sury })urden which the Protective Policy imposes upon them, and, in doiuj,' so, they will of course cause ijreat loss fo those icho have Invested in the protected industries, lint that danj^er, great as it certainly is, is only one of tiirj dangers to which tlie.«e abnormally favored industries are exposed. Investors in these favored industries are exposed to yet another extraordinary risk. The danger already referred to is from without. What I now wish more i>articu- larly to draw attention to is the fact that the protected trades also contain a great and exce[)tional element of decay tvithin themselves. I refer to the impossibility of their counteracting the naturally ruinous effects of over j)roduction. No National Policy, nor any other known law, can possible save us from the occurrence of periods of over production. These periods are probably the most trying of all the experiences of the ordinary manufacturer ; and as their advent, in Canada as elsewhere, cannot l)ossibly be averted, our only prudent .. mrse is to provide as many ways of escape as possiblo from the attendant evils. Now, that is just what the National Policy does not do, and it is just what free trade does do. Let us look into this weakness of the National Policy a little more particularly. The object of the National Policy, as we all know, is to give certain favored trades an artificial command of the Home market. It is admitted that, unless favored with such artificial support, these trades could not be carried on in Canada. In other words, it is admit- ted that they can be more profitably carried on elsewhere. Consequently the Canadian producer of these things cannot hope to find a niarket anywhere else than in Canada. In the long run, therefore, i. e. as soon as the protected trades produce more than Canada wants, it is easy to see that this inability to compete in outside markets will be such a misfortune as will more than counter balance any advantage there may be to the favored producer in having the Canadian market secured to him. Competition amoiig themselves will assuredly force down the profits of these favored producers to the ordinary living point, while over production will force them below that point altogether, owing to the fact that, as the outer world can i)roduce the same things still more cheaply, the unfortunate Canadian producer will be unable there to find any tolerable outlet for his surplusage. He will, in fact, require to '* slaughter " his surplusage at the least. Our neighbors in the States have already had a taste of this mischief; and our first experience of over production will, no doubt, give us a taste of it too. The producers of protected goods will then realize that, although it may be a good thing for them to have the Home market secured, it is an intolerably awkward and ruinous thing to produce an article with which 10 tliey cannot compe^^^e also in the open markets of the world. They "vvill tlten see how much better it would have been for them to have invested their capital in the naturally profitable trades of the country, which need no protection to give them the command of the Home market, and which, in a time of over production, can spread their surplusage over all the open markets of the world, and thus greatly mitigate their losses. They will thci see, in fact, that to produce an article which cannot compete in these markets, is a huge misfortune, for which a monopoly of our own little Home market is no sort of adequate compensation, and they will curse the " policy " which induced them to do it. The thing is inevitable, though of course it cannot be practically realized until times of over production set in. Even the favored few who momentariiy flourish under the artificial protection of the National Policy, and at the expense of all who are engaged in the naturally profitable industries of the country, will thus one day find that the National Policy is really a wretched delusion — a piece of gross quackery. These favorites will then find that they have been like v^orkmen fed on whiskey, which may have rendered them very happy and vigorous for a time, but which must soon undermine their constitutions, and leave them very miserable and poor. The National Policy is thus essentially a bad policy, even to those whom it favors. It only lures them on to ruin. It is in fact just like all the blessings of Satan. It is like rohb'mg one man, to hrihe another to enter upon a course of self-destruction. Truly, the mere possibility of such a policy is enough to make one feel as if the country were Godforgotten. However, it is to be hoped we may look for a better state of things bye and bye. Quackery and Corruption may be our chief Ministers of State for the moment ; but it is simply impossible to believe that they may manage to keep themselves in power for any length of time ; for, as we have seen, even their present favorites must become their enemies, so soon as the true tendency of their operations becomes manifest. In the meantime, of course, the country suffers. Capital largely shuns even the favored industries ot. account of the exceptional dangers to which we have seen such investments to be exposed ; and it equally tends to shun the naturally profitable trades (especially farming) both because of the actual abnor- mal burdens to which they are now being subjected, and me probability that these burdens will be added to from time to time, so long as this vile National Policy may continue, and so long as the patient burden bearers may be able to stand an additional impost. The National Policy thus tends to keep capital out of the country. Especially does it drive it away from agriculture, which, but for these most unnatural and unwarrantable burdens, ought to be a far better trade here than in England, instead of, as it assuredly is, an incomparably worse one. It is of course a great pity that such a state of things should continue even for a moment. But it is at least some comfort to know, that even if it bo impossible for the agricultural classes to comprehend their own 11 interests and the interests of the country in this matter, we may still hvope, that the inherent weakness of the doctrine of Protective Tariffs will doom it to destruction at the hands even of its own favorites, so soon ap they shall have been made to feel the strains and miseries of over production. IV. Those engaged in the agricultural and fishing trades, being compa- ratively hard to reach, and proverbially slow to discern the far reaching effects of political principles, and the government having apparently decided to seek a renewal of their powers before the ill effects of iheir National Policy can become fully developed, I would humbly venture to suggest that the opponents of that shallow and prejudicial policy should decline to Join issue on it all ; and should endeavour to put an end to the present unfortunate ascendancy of quackery and corruption on the ground of the sacrifices of the peoples' interests, which have been made in the matter of the Eailway properties of the country. The expediency of thus leaving the free trade question m abei/ance, for, say, the duration of one Parliameni, must seem manifest from a few moments reflection. The duration of such period of abeyance may, of course, be anything under five years. The occasion for it is to be found in the fact that the government certainly deserves to be displaced on the railway question, independently of the N, P. alto- gether, without a moment's d(day. To this necessity the country can hardly fail to be fully alive, whereas many still labour under the delusion that the N. P. is a good thing. On this account, these might incline to support the government, notwithstanding their want of confidence in it in relation to the railways. Consequently, unless the question of the N. P. be placed in abeyance for a short time (as indeed the goverment promised it would be) it may be the means of securing for that government another lease of power, and for the country a period of railroad tyranny and spoliation, Avith all the ill effects which such misfortunes must bring to bear upon immigration, and upon the development of the country generally. Let us therefore, in order to make sure of putting an end to the greater eril, agree to postpone for a fixed period every attempt to deal with the lesser tjvil involved in the so-called N. P. In adopting this course, let it not be sujjposed for a moment that our views of the N. P. have undergone any change. The terrible decline in the trade of other Protectionist countr'es — notably in that of the United States, during the last four months of the year— while free trading England continues to reap the fullest benefit from every wave of commercial activity, must render any such change of opinion utterly impossible. In suggesting that the opposition to the M. P. should remain for one Parliament in abeyance, we merely realize the fact that the country has not yet had time to study the question in all its bearings. Farmers, fishers, and lumberers have had 12 good times, l>oth as to seasons and markets, so that the ill effects of tiie McDonald nostrum have been neutralized. In these circumstances it is in no degree to the discredit of these worthy people that the real tendency of the N. P. should not yet have become manifest. In England it took ten long years to educate the public mind on the same question ; and that too notwithstanding all the eloquence and assiduity of IJright and Cobden, and a host of others, equally zealous, and little less talented. It is hard to arouse people to any sense of injustice when their stomachs are full. It was so in England, and it is so in Nova Scotia to-day. But the injustice is there, all the same. It is there, and its baneful effects would have been felt 'ere now, but for the bounteousnoss of providence, coupled with experiences of an opposite character in many other lands. If all the people of these Provinces were students of Political Economy, actual experience of the bad results which Protection is fitted to bring about would, of course, not be necessary, in order to convince them of the essentially unnatural and unprofitable character of the doctrine. But such universal mastery of Political Economy is not to be found in Canada, nor in any other countr}' ; and so, it would oidy bespeak us imprudent if we were to trust to anything but actual experience, to convey the necessary lesson to the people generally. In coming to that conclusion, we have also to take account of the plausible mistakes, or possibly misstatements, by which the advocates of the N. P. have unfortunately ventured to crave support for it. In a manner bold enough to make an honest listener weep, they have claimed credit to that miserable policy for prosperity in trades which it necessarily taxes. They have also seemed to wish us to believe that the opinion of England is wavering with respect to the beneficient effects of free trade, althougli the idea is unmistakably scouted by every statesman in that country with any j^retensions to authority on economical questions, as well as by every writer on Political Economy, and in fact, by every disinterested person whatsoever. Then again there re many shameless men who advocate the N. P., and who, when ( riven into a corner, arc wont to make a very ingenious pretence to thv. effect that they only want this policy for 20 years or so, until their " hifant indmirics" get nursed. Now, I would venture to submit that that plea is sheer rubbish. Ask any factory owner in England, and he will tell you that if a mill is ever going to pay, it will be in its " infancy," when its mathinery is equal to the best, and when depreciation has not yet begun to set in. It is not in " infancy " that these industries want nursing : it is rather in old aije, when many repairs become necessary, and when newer appliances have rendered competition difficult. But, hollow as all these plausible pleas may be, they have been so industriously circulated that I fear it would be hopeless to expect to eradicate their effects within the very short space of time which is to elapse before the General Election. I would therefore, on that 13 additional ground, venture to suggest again that the ojiponents of tlio IN". P. should decide to place the question of Protection almohdehj la abeyance, for the space of one Parllampvt, so as not to jeopardize their chances of destroying a government which seems bent upon inllicting still more serious anil irremediable ills upon the country, in connection with the Railway building and the development of the Great ]S'urth West. Probably no man in Canada is more firmly attached to the princi- ples of Free Trade than the writer. But he also hap])ens to have hod exceptional opportunities of familiarizing himself willi the capabilities of the North- West ; and would now humbly endeavor to show that the railway monopoly inflicted upcn that vast territory by Sir John McDonald's Government, is so gigantic a misfortune that the ill eflects of the National Policy sink into insignificance in comparison with it ; and that, therefore, all Liberals, and all well meaning Canadians whatsoever, should for a season agree to leave tlie National Policy as it is, so that they may unite to save the North-West, (as far as it may yet be possible to do so) from .the tiglitening grip of the monopolist. This tightening grip the present Government Inive heretofore strengthened and encouraged so persistently that it seums utterly hopeless to expect any consilified in his railway management in the State of Minnesota, the l)rospect of reasonable rates from the Canadian North West to the outer world is, thus, far from hopeful ; and the developement of the Territory cannot fail to sutFer accordingly. I remember the Govern- ment used to endeavor to ward off criticism, on this matter of freight rates, by (]fuoting the condition that no rate whatever could be levied until autho4-ized by the Governor-General in Council. But methinks such a condition is of very little value, with such a very facile Government as the present in power — a Government which authorizes a rate equal to elijld cents a bushel, whore, by its own declarations, made verbally to the Agricultural Delegates from Great Britain as well as in the Government Handbook for emigrants, one cent would be fair and reasonable. But in fact it is well enough known to be practicable for the Company under present circumstances to levy what rate they choose, whether authorized by the Governor in Council or not. This and other pretended safeguards arc in fact mere delusions. Of course 17 many ©f ilie thouglitless ones of the earth may drift into the JJ'orth- ^Vest, notwithstaiidiiig the infaniotis arrangement whicli has been made for their consignment to practical serfdom. ]Uit tlie more prudent classes — those who could make the best of the land, and shew the world how good it really is, and thus ensure an everincreasing volume of imnn'gration — these, I say, must certainly incline to shun it, for the present at least. All this is, of ccurse, very unfortunate, and very disheartening to those who, like the writer, take a really intelligent and friendly interest, alike in the development of Canada, and in thu welfare of those who desire to leave Europe. That it would hare been well with them if the railway outlets had remained in the hands of the responsible government of the country, there can, I think, be no manner of doubt. Now, all is in doubt and danger. For what inscrutable reason, tho government destroyed the splendid prospect, I fear the world may never fully know. It seems quite incomprehensible that, with the evils of railway tyranny in the neighbouring republic constantly before their eyes, they should have deliberately prepared for Canada a more aggravated degree of such tyranny than any of the States have ever experienced. That the favoured men to whom our government have made over all our railway interest in the North West, throwing a monopoly of outlets into the bargain, will become billionaires (if allowed all their own way as they have been hitherto,) there can hardly be a doubt. They will be in a position to take all the cream off that vast country, leaving the settlers merely the ordinary bare living necessary to induce them to remain there at all. In the name of intending immigrants, I respectfully, but most emphatically, protest against this villainous arrangement. It is as bad as " Landlordism'' at its worst; and greatly Avorse than "Land- lordism " generally is, in point of fact. Landlordism, in fact, is really seldom a bad sort of thing at all. It involves no essential injustice. The tenant is a perfectly free man, and perfectly at liberty to emigrate to America, and take up land there, if he thinks it preferable to a leasehold in the old country. But, if he elects to prefer a tenancy in the old country, he has, of course, no more right to complain of injustice when called upon to fulfil the terms of his lease, than a mortgaging farmer in America would have to object to making payment of the annual interest duo to his mortgagee. Failure to pay rent in England results in eviction ; failure to pay mortgage interest results in a foreclosure sale ; and I have yet to learn that the former involves more hardship than the latter. For my own part, I would say, commend me a hundred fold rather to the tender mercies of the average old country landlord than to those of the average new world mortgagee. But, really, neither the landlord nor the mortgagee is an essential drawback to agriculture, for, in arranging with them, the f\irmer knows what he is doing. He knows exactly how much his landlord, or his mortgagee can claim 18 from him, ami he knows that everything he ca,n make over and above that is his own. There is no nncertainty about these arranpfenionts. Each party is perfectly inihipeudent, and tlie law protects their respec- tive ri<^dit.s under the contract with j)erf('ct impartiality. ]'>ut the unfortunate aj^aiculturist of the Western States, and most particularly of the Canadian North West, enjoys no such certainty. His produce is valueless unless the Railway Company will carry it to market fur him. He is thus entirely at the mercy of the Railway Company ; and. in the words of a leading railroad manager, the policy of the railroatl monopolist is to exact Just as much ax the trade of his cnstomar will stand, merely taking care not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I say without qualification that no tenant-at-will even in England, Scotland or Ireland, could possibly be so badly off as the Western American or Canadian farmer, so subjected to railroad bondage ; for while the tenant-at-will can always dispose of his stock and move off, the other is tied to his place by ownership, and must therefore find it much more dilRcult to realize his property, or to remove to a less unfortunate neiglibourhood. In a word Sir John McDonald's Government decreed a far more real, and a far more severe, form of vassalage, when they chartered tin; Canadian Pacific Railway Company, than did the Sovereign of England when he parti- tioned the land amongst his nobles. I make that statement fearlessly, as a hard and incontrovertible fact. But it is not the grants of lands or monies made to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that I desire to indicate as involving so large a sacritice, though, doubtless, with the knowledge which we now have of tht country, these conces- sions also appear to be of a somewhat staggering character. P>ut the fact to which I would desire most earnestly to crave special attention is that the carryiiuj monopoly granted to the Railway Company is really of more value to that Company, and a greater burden to the country, than would have resulted from letting the Company have a free gift of the entire territory iol.th.out that carrying monopoly. Let us calculate the matter. We have official and other authority for saying that 20 cents a bushel is the fair rate for carrying wheat from Manitoba to Moutraal, and, as it can be grown to an ample profit at 50 cents, and is worth at Montreal, say, $1.20, it follows that there is a 50 cents margin of profit for sonuihodij, on every bushel exported. Who is to have itl Is it to be the producer, the Railway Company, or the Con- sumer 1 No doubt the producer can live without it, but still, I firmly maintain that he ought to have it, either to put in his pocket, or to enable him to undersell all other growers and thus enlarge his market. I maintain that the Railway Company has no right whatever to any part of that 50 cent margin. But still, with the powers and privileges conferred upon them by our too accommodating Government, there can be no doubt they, (the Railway Company,) are in a position to secure every cent of it ; and, in every respect, it would pay them to do so. Now, just look what these 50 cents a bushel come to. Assuming the 19 average produce to be 30 bushels to the acre, 50 cents per bushel ot a swindle would mean a tax on the farmers and on the country, of $15 per annum on every acre's produce exported. So, thcroforo, if a farmer exports the produce of even lialf his laud, tliis excessive and unneces- sary Eaihvay char^'o will amount to $7.50 per acre, per annum, on his entire holding,'. Is it not clear from that calculation (and I defy any man t(j call its accuracy materially in (juestion) that the jiowcr which the mono])oly of Kailway outlets gives the Company is worth fur more than the freehold of the territory would have been? In fact $7.50 ])er acre is more than any freeholder coidd sell the territory fur, but the monopoly is absolutely fitted to enable the liidhvay Comi)any to take that out of it every year, in so far as they may g(;t it settled and put under cultivation. Talk about the liberality of the liailway Com- pany in the matter of the disposing of its lands ! I tell you it would pay that Company most splendidly to give the lands away for nothing, and pay the expenses of people from the very Antipodes to come to them, on the sole condition that they would \)\\t them under cultiva- tion, and thus give this monopolist Coiupany the outrageous ju'oiit from freightage which their infamous contract with the Government permits them to extort. l)ear reader, there is nobody in Canada who abominates the essen- tial quackery, injustice and impoverisation involved in your 2S'ational Policy, more than the writer does ; but still, he would ratlwr endure the National Policy till doomsday than tolerate that Railioay monopoly for ten minutes. III. It is the very essence of Liberalism to have the wealth or the poAver of the community as evenly spread as possible. It is the very essence of Toryism to roll it as much as possible ivto lumps. These are really the most fundamentally distinguishing features of the two policies. As to which of these principles is the better suited to the development of the personal qualities of the people, and of tiie natural resources of a nation, every person Avho has studied History aud Political Economy will agree, that, under some circumstances the one principle is preferable, and under some the other. I need not attempt, in this pamphlet, to discuss the respective merits of these principles, as I believe it may fairly be assumed that the public sentiment of this continent, generally, is in favor of giving the principle of Equality a fair trial at least. I think that such an inference is justihed by the unreasoning sneers of new world wiseacres at the aristocratic founda- tion of the distribution of wealth in England, even if there were no more solid grounds for the inference, which however, I doubt not, there are. Now, assuming that the spirit of the new world favors equality, rather than diversity, of riches, I fancy it must be admitted that the 20 neighboring Republic 1ms misorably tailed in the acoomplisbmcnt of its objects, for it is veiy certain that the distribution of pecuniary power among the citizens of the TInited States is not a whit more evenly than it is in Aristocratic Eiiglaiid. The Homestead Law has thus very practically failed of its most essential purpose. In fact, I feel safe to say that the tendency of wealth to roll into abnormal lumps, and to abolish nial equality, is even already far ^'reater in the States than in England. Vanderbilt is wealthier than either the Duke of Westminster or Rothschild, and his wealth has been rolled up at a rate that the old world millionaires never kiu'W anything at all about. Canada seems bent upon following the same course, having given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company powers, and privileges, and concessions, selle Isle and to canal the Isthmus of Chignecto. That these works would confer imtnense advantage upon the Maritime I'rovinces, there can hardly be a doubt ; for, by keeping out the Arctic current and ice, and by possibly letting in a portitin of the Gulf stream, the seeding season in New Hninswick, Kova .Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Anticosti, would naturally bo lengthened and moderated to an extent worth sul)stantial millions of dollars to tho inhabitants. Other canals and roads might no doubt also have been made, and perhaps also numerous educational and scientific institutions established in all these older Provinces out of the flush of prosperity in the new, thus compensating them for the favors bestowed by tliem towards producing that prosperity, and for the bjsses incurred by reason of it. But the Government did nijt want to servo the older Provinces. They even refused Oiitario what would have been a fair slice of com- pensation fo her, viz : an acquisition of territory fitted to yield tho Province an amount of revenue sullicicnt to reduce her taxation very substantially indeed. There could hardly have been a more satisfactory way of compensating Ontario for the depreciation of her people's properties through the development of the North-West. Put the Government would not allow it. The only interest which the Govorn- ment seems to care about is, in fact, that of the monopolists, the understanding doubtless being that the monopolists are in turn to servo the Government. Pydintof this incredible mauoeuvro, these precious parties contrive to serve each other, and tlie cvnntnj is their common victim. It may not be immediately practicable for even a well disposed Government to undo the mischief which has been brought about 23 tlirou^'li the near si;^ht('(inc3s (or worse) of the party now in power in this unfortunato country. Jitit wb may at least take a little comfort ill tlio fact that a measure of prosperity piohahly awaits Canaihi, no matter what parly may he in j)ower. Canada, in fact, can staml a lot of bad governiii},', — but would, no doubt, be better without it. Displace those who are addicted to quackery and corruption — the perpetrators of the J'acitic Hail way Scandal of 187"2 — the (Jmlerdonk scandal — and the overwhelmin<,' monopoly. Any change may very readily result in an improvement, though of course i: may take a long time to bring about that full and unprecedented prosperity which wo were well entitled to expect, and which we might assuredly have been reaping 'ere now, but for the subserviency of the existing CJovernment to the wishes ami interests of a crafty monopolist. » Lt't that governmental suhscrvieucy cease. Let U8 have a government which may not possibly prove subservient to the monopolist, but which may be depended upon to deal with him strictly in the interests of the people, and in a manner adequately severe. Thereby let us h"ne that we may even yet liuu in Canada a place of settlonent as faiioral)le as her natural resources fit her to be, and as favorable as the emigrating millions of Europe may at all reasonably desire. The issue is indeed a great one. The possesion of all tho Eailroad gateways of the North-West Territory gives the Canadiim Pacific Itailway Co. the almost absolute command of everything within that territory, througli giving them the command of its most vital interest, viz : its trade with the outer world. The present Covernment favours this excessive power to an irresponsible, and possibly a wicked monoi)olist, — thereby ensuring that the millions who are to come to that great territory, in search of the peace and plenty which nature has fitted her to bestow, shall find themselves the denizens of a verit- able house of bondage. With my whole soul, I protest against the villianous arrangement. Loth a«> a {mtriot, and as a person commis- sioned to look after the interests of intending immigrants, would I most earnestly pray that Canada may now cease to forget the millions who are yet to inhabit her vast fertile plains, ai:d that she may now cease to employ Ministers who are evidenty defemilncd to forget these interests, in their desire to serve the interests of a would-be Despot. No doubt the Government and the liailway Company — shameless conspirators — will endeavour to make out that tho possibilities of the moiKjpoly are not intolerable. Beware of being deceived. Dutter is plentiful with these people. Never forget that the Government has granted the liailway Comi)any such monopolous powers as may enable it to tax the holders of, possibly, a Iinndred hiUlion acres, to the extent of $7.50 7J«?' acre, 2^^^' anman. If that is a proper privilege to grant to anybody in tliis the XlXth century, then, I say, by all means, let the ])resont Canadian Government remain in power, and grow in glory, for I am suie there is none other under the sun capable of duplicating tho feat. But it is surely absurd to suppose for a moment that the 24 people of Canada can think of endorsing the existence of any such abuse? Or of renewing the suffrages of the ministers who perpetrated it, and wlio either blindly or criniinally continue to defend it? The thing cannot continue. It is reactionary beyond the briidc of barbarity. I for one will not be induced to believe that the really well-meaning people of Canada may so far forget what is due to themselves, and to their i^rospectivo fellow-subjects in the N^orth West, as to neglect the present opportunity of taking the destinies of the country out of the hands of ministers who have so conspicously favoured a gigantic monopoly' — a raonopc>ly, evidently capable of appropriating to itself the most of the riches of well nigh half a contiueut. ^ any such rpotrateil it? The )arharity. ■meaning s, and to gleet the It of the gigantic, to itself ; V v^