IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) WJ>, ^ i.O I.I 1.25 ■u 1^ l||22 ■u •I 1^ 114^ 1.4 IIM 1.6 c^: Sp. ^M W t M C/A J>!> V>> VI rf? w ''/■ ^r * V'' '/ # Photographic Sciences Corporation .<^<%, '^ ^ # ;\ s 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. H580 (7i6) 872-A503 !f ,..'% tX.-?^ ^A CIHM/iCMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Histoixal Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques O' ^ 1981 ^ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. ^ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee ers restored and/or lai verture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Coy. I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiq jes en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents n Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion J along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure D n Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors dune restauration apparaissent dans |e texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas et^ film^es. Additional comments:/ Co nmentaires suppl^mentaires; L'lr.stitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se orocurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exigar une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couler^ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es r j Pages restored and/or laminated/ I — I Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es [71 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es n Pages detached/ Pages detachees u\ Showthrough/ Transparence f I Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de limpress-on Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checned below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 3 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks tr) the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exenplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la g§n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are t!ie best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specificationf . Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The lasi lecorded framv> on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — *- (meaning "COIV- TINUED"), oi the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be fil.ned at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivante& ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand scin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet§ de I'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte uno empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN ". Les cartes, pianches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre filmds d des taux de reduction diffgrents. Lorsqup le document est trop grand pour etre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 / '1H .'■4' . i4 *^. ' OITFIOIA.L REPORT 4 OF THE SPEECH DEUVrillBD BY Hon. Sir Charles Tupper.k.c.m.g„c.b., Muiistei" of Railways and Canals, DFRING THE DEBATE ON THE BUDGET. HOTTJ^E OF COMMONS - SESSION, 1882. OTTAWA: PrintPd by MacLkan, Rookr k Co., Wcllinnluii Sheet. ■-I #. r ,5. .S> • other side of the House questions that statemeni; but, Sir, I think I shall be able to show that hon. gentleman that the low Tariff of 1867, adopted by the party now in power, was as protective a policy as was required in the interests of Canada in that day. Eon. gentlemen may say that the Tariff of Canada had been reduced in 1866. Why reduced? Because the reduced Tariff of 1866, adopted before Confederation, was a Tariff found to be all that was necessary in order to give the protection required for Canadian iuduotries. It is well known, Sir, that the great war, which existed from 1861 to 1865, in the United States, so completely diHorganized the labor market of that country as to afford for many subsequent years quite as full and as abundant a protection to Canadian industries as the present Tariff. The hon. gentleman knows right well that, although a low Tariff was adopted at the first Session of the first Parliament of this Dominion, the policy was then adopted of fostering and protecting Cana- dian industries. Hon. gentlemen know right well that, although a low Tariff was adopted, it was accompanied by measures calculated to foster these industries. Look at the free list,and you will find that the policy was to provide for the free introduction of articles required to be consumed and to be used in manufacturing industries to a much larger extent than was subsequently the case. Then taking the great interest of shipbuilding, the policy was adopted of fostering that great and important industry by making articles that entered into the construction of shipping and that had to be imported into this country free of duty. Then the industry of sailing these ships that wore built was also fostered by adopting a policy of making the light dues which rested on the vessel a Government charge. So with regard to all othei industries, every eflbrt was made to give such protection as the industries of the country at that period required. Take the question of machinery. At that time it is well known that within Canada you could obtain but a very small amount of machinery, owing to the absence of any manufactory of machinery. The policy of the first Parlia- ment, and of the first Tariff that was enacted in this Domin- ion, was a policy of allowing all machinery that could not be manufactured in the country to be admitted free of duty for the purpose of fostering the establishment of new indus- tries within the borders of Canada. Then, Sir, wo had the question of the fisheries, one of the largest and most import- ant industries in this country. What was done for this industry ? In the first instance, every person knows that, with the abrogation of the Eeciprocity Treaty, the market which had been open to our fishermen had been closed. What did we do ? The Government of Canada decided to fosttf and protect our own fishermen, and to prevent encroachment upon our fishing grounds by fisher- men from the United States, and this gave all the protection to our fishermen that they could receive. Every person i-emembers the taunts and ridicule that were thrown from the other side of the House at our efforts in that respect. Every person remembers the taunts with re- ference to Mr. Mitchell's fleet used for the purpose of pro- tecting that industry. Not only did we do that, but we imposed a tonnage license upon American fisLermen coming into our waters, and when a license of 50 cents a ton was found not to be adequate protection we raised it to $2. Having thus shown a firm resolve to protect the undoubted rights of our fishermen in our waters, the United States were brought to the conclusion that it was desirable to have that question arranged by a treaty ; and it is well known, Sir, that the result of the Washington Treaty was not only to re-open the American markets to the fichermen of ihis country — under the policy of Protection we had adopted — but it was agreed, under that Treaty, that means should be taken to ascertain what amount of money should be paid by the United States Government to Canada for the enjoyment of our fisheries. Every person who was present in this House at the time remembers the taunts and sneers flung across the floor of the House by hon. gentlemen opposite in relation to that matter, when we were told that nothing would be obtained. But, Sir, as an outcome of that Wash- ington Treaty, and of the efforts of hon. gentlemen then and now on this side of the House to protect the interests of our fishermen, no less a sum than $4,500,000 was awo-ded to be paid to Canada; and, to-day, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, true to the policy of protecting that great and important Canadian industry, is in u position to come down and ask justly from this House that no loss than $150,000 per annum shall be contributed by this Parliament from the public funds as a bounty to the fishermen, whose fi!ahing grounds have been, to a certain extent surrendered, under the Washington Treaty, to the fishermen of another country. I mention this in order to show that the policy which animates gentlemen on this side of the House is a policy that was adopted in 1867, on the first formation of the Car.udian Government, and has continued until the present time. Well, Sir, it will also bo remembered by gentlemen opposite that we mado a very strong endeavor to secure protection for the great coal mining interests of this country and for the great agricul- tural industry. It will be remembo!-ed that the Government of that day — the first of this Confederation — brought down a policy imposing a duty upon coal coming from the United States into this country, and accompanied it by a proposi- tion to impose a duty upon grain and breadstuff's brought from the adjoining Eepublic into Canada. It will be remem- bered that, notwithstanding that that policy was maintained for a year, we were obliged ultimately i"* succumb to the united host'lity of lion, gentlemen opposite, and some of our own friends who were less advanced on this important ques- tion at that time than, I am happy to 8ay,thoy are to-day. Now, Sir, it is very well known to the House that I have always been — from the first hour I entered this House — an advocate for a duty on coal. I never could see, and I cannot now, why coal should be exempt from duty, even as a pure ques- tion of revenue, any more than any other article found in the Tariff. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House join issue with us in that respect, and the ex-Minister of Finance calls a duty on coal an odious tax, while the hon. leader of the Opposition main- tains here, as elsewhere, that it is a sectional tax. Well Sir, I can only say that I fail to see any foundation for the statement that it is an odious tax, or for the view that it is a sectional tax. What makes it an odious tax ? Why, these hon. gentlemen say coal is a necessary of life ! Yet the Tariff they propounded and maintained, provided for the imposition of duties upon other articles which are just as much necessaries of life as coal. In this cold country, hats, boots and shoes, and clothing of all kinds, are neces- saries of life. It is not a matter of choice as to whether any individual in this country will wear these articles or not J they are articles of prime necessity, and •i yet hor). gciitlemon opposite nevor discovered that, becjiiiso these articloH are abHolutoly necessary to maintain life in this country, they should be struck from the list of dutiable j^oods and put on the fiee list. Hon. gentlemen know ri^ht well that coal oil is as much a necessity of life in Canadi', as coal, and yet what was their policy with regard to it? Why, my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Colby) — I beg to be excused for mentioning him by name — aiilod by all the Conservative strength that at that time was to be found in this House, was two years fighting the battle to bring down the duty on coal oil to a figure below 150 per cent. The hon. the ox-Finuncc Minister, although now so anxious about articles which are necessaries of life, was prepared to maintain then iin odious tax of 150 per cent, on the article of coal oil, and was onl}' compelled to tturrondoi' at, discretion when he found ho was being pushed to the wall and that outsid3 0|)inion overwhelmingly sup- ported his opponents. Was the duty on coal oil a sectional tax ? 1 would like to ask the hon. and learned loader of the Opposition if a tax on coal oil is not as much a sectional tax as a tax on coal. There is no coal oil to bo found outside of Ontario. Whatever advan- tage was enjoyed by the industry, in consequence of the dutv, inurod to Ontario whore the oil was to be found. Yet the duty was not called an odious or a sectional tax because oil was an Ontario product, yet these gentlemen feel that it is quite right to denounce the tax on coal found in Nova Scotia as odious and sectional, while, at the same time, they resisted a fair and legitimate reduction on coal oil, the duty on which was, as I said before, not only equally odious but equally sectional, being four times as great as the duty on coal, as the hon. gentleman knows. I eay, too, that these gentlemen have never been able to show, here or elsewhere, any reason why a duty "-hould not be imposed on coal, the same as upon any other necessary of life. 1 may mention, as another evidence of our desire to foster and protect the industi-ies of this country, that between 1867 and 1873, when we found we had more revenue than we required to maintain the public service in efficiency, weabul- ished the duties upon tea and coffee ; nnd we did that essential- ly in the interests of the industries of this country, and with a view to fostering those industries, because it cheapened the co•^t of living, and in that way permitted the carrying on of the industries in a better and easier mode than otherwise was the case. Well, Sir, in an unhappy hour for the inter- ests of Canada, gentlemen opposite came into power — not in virtue of the express oentiment of the country, not in virtue of a decision of the people at a time when the issues between the two parties were laid before them — because ia the General Klection of 1872, the policy that had animated the CoiiHorvative party, die policy that hud been bo eminently 8ucceflHftil in the promotion of the prowperily of Canada, was heartily endorsed by the people at the polls. But, Sir, tliewe hon. gentlemen failed to Hecure the people at the polls on a policy of their own, and they adopted u system which is a favorite mode of operating with them — intrigue ; and thus they succeeded in obtaining power. I say, Sir, that this was an unhappy hour in the interests of Canacla, for I need not remind the Houhe, Sir, that from that hour down to the time when they wore dismisKcd from the positions for which they proved so thoroughly un- equal, the fortunes of Canada were snrrendercd to hands utterly unequal to the occaHion. They Huccectled to power with an overflowing revenue; they succeeded to power with the trade, the business and the lovonue of the countr}' in the highest possible state of efficiency, and I need not tell the House, Sir, what the lamentable record of that live years of misrule was, during which they sup- planted the protectionist policy which had been the policy of Canada down to that time, and introduced a policy of what they called out-and-out Free Trade — at least, to as large an extent as they could adopt it. Well, Sir, they have t^aidoa more than one occasion —I do not know, however, that the matter is very important — that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and myself, as well as other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, were formerly Free Traders. They have said, Sir — and they have endeavored to establish on various platforms and occasionally in this House the fact— that formerly my hon. friend and myself held different sen- timents in reference to this great issue from those which we now entertain. I say. Sir, that tue history of the past will fail to establish any such proposition. 1 do not, for a mo- ment, hesitate to avow that when I was in the Government of Nova Scotia, and when 1 had the honor of occup^nng a position in the Legislature of that Province, I was a Free Trader. My policy was that of Free Trade, and why ? Because it was utterly impossible for a small community of less than 400,000 people, situated as we were, without the means of obtaining a market outside of our own borders, even among Canadians, for any but a Free Trade policy to be adopted ; but. Sir, hon. gentlemen opposite know little of the discus- sions of the past if they do not know that my hon. friend and myself took our ground in our respective Legislatures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick strongly and clearly on the advantage of having all these Provinces united together in one great Confederation, and that one of the leading grounds on which we urged this change was, that it would enable a policy that ^S» of Is. at «; lat I ur >ra in- Is to I ■would protect the induHtvieH of the country, to be •doptod, and which othorwise was iinpoHwible. I Huy, Sir, that when the Rociirocity Treaty was uboli^hod by the Unitod States, an Icndor of the Government at that time. I went down to the Loj;i,~laturo of Nova Scotia and asked the LegiHlaturo to ro-impOHO all the dulioH that were in operation proviouH to ilie treaty, and which had been suspended duiirg the t outinuanco of the treaty, and to adopt the same (-yBtem in this relation, which had before exihted ; and, Sir, as I have said before, I, on all occasions pointed out to my countrymen, that while nature halo — I have advocated it from the moment I had a seat in Parliament, I have never ceased to uphold it. I defy any man who has read the discussion of this question, in the Mail newspaper, which nas been going on for the last three or four months, who has candidly and dispassionately weighed the arguments published in that journal, I defy any man who will approach this subject in a fair and candid spirit, to arrive at an}' other conclusion than that the coal tax is not paid by the people of Ontario, although paid in Ontario. T venture to state, and have sufficient grounds for the statement, that the imposition of the coal duty has not cost the people of Canada ono farthing, either in Ontario or out of it. I take this position, and shall give the House my grounds for it, that, instead of "ihe duty on coal having increased the price to the peopio of Ontario, it has reduced it. I hold that, from the hour of n the '' we i tries • the the imposition of that duty down to this hour, Canadians have paid a Binaller price for this article than formerly. It is on this point I differ slightly from ray hon. friend the Finance Minister, who seemed to think that, perhaps, half the duty might be paid in the United States and half in Ontario. I am satisfied my hon. friend had not given that branch of the subject the close and exhaustive examination which I have felt it my duty 'to give it, or he would have arrived at the opinion 1 now unhesitatingly state, that the imposi- tion of the duly has not coat the people of this country any- thing, but the reverse. Xow, Sir, my first position is that the price of coal from the United States is fixed and governed by the competition that coal has to meet with. There is not an hon. gentleman in this House who does not know, from the practical experience of every day, that the tariff in a railway changes with different seasons of the year, being governed and lai'gely cauhed by the amount of com- petition that the tariff meets with. If you are carrying freight to a competitive point, if you are carrj'ing freight to an open port where you have to compete with water car- riage, you put your freight down in oider to get the business that you would otherwise lose. If the railway is carrying freight to an inland portion of the country, where there is no such competition, you impoiMie present month the price of coal, in Toronto, was advertised at $6.50, by P. Burns, a leading coal dealer. At that price, with winter rates of freight, coal is obtained by consumers at 50 cents less than the consumers of Buffalo pay for it. At Chicago, coal retails at from $8 to 88.5(/, or an average of $8.25. The rail freight from Buifalo is $2 ; the difference in freight is 70 cents in favor of Toronto If Toi'onto paid as much as Chicago it ought to pay $8.25 minus 70 cents, or $7.55 ; if the duty is added to the cost to the consumer, Toronto, to have its coal at the same pro- portionate rate as Chicago, would have to pay $7.55 and duty 50 cents, or $8.05. It actually pays $6.50 to $7. At Detroit coal sells at retail for $6.25 ; freight from Buffalo 50 cents- The price at Toronto is $o,50, with freii^^ht $1, ought to be $6.70, to be proportionately as dear as Detroit. In lui-ther proof that the duty is not paid by the people of Ontario see following table of the retail prices in Toronto at the several dates mentioned : — Hard Goal. Soft Coal. j; 1 ill: (i ;' Oct 24, 1872 $7.00.. " 23, 1873 7.50.. •' 22, 1874 7.75.. " 30| 1875 7.00. *' 25, 1881 „ 6.50. $8.00 7.00 7.00 5.75 5.50 In 1881, with the duty of 50 cents in operation, the cost at Tor nto of hard coal was $6.50, and soft coal $5.50, the lowest price at which this table shows it to have been pur- chased since 1872. Mr. MACKENZIE. What was it in 1880 ? Sir CHARLES TUPPKR. This table does not give it. Mr. MACKENZIE. Then it is a very convenient table. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I am taking the figures in this table from the prices furnis jed by the Toronto Ghbe — a table which shows that in no year between 1872 and 1875 inclusive, when there was no duty on coal, was coal as cheap in Toi'onto as it has been in 1881, with the duty fully established ; so that the hon, gentleman will have to work at that table a good deal before he will be able to invalidate the conclusive argument which I have adduced therefrom — that the imposition of the duty on coal has been in favor of the Ontario consumer, so far as the price of coal is con- cerned. The Philadelphia Ledger, in December, said : •'' Goal demand has been in excess of the ability of the companies to fur- nish it. It is really just cause for apprehension for the future, should the trouble of want of water or other causes continue to limit production." ill w a\, in icago, If S8.25 X)St to This was said because of the drought of last season ; novor- thelosft, Toronto coal supply was cheaper to it than in full production years. Now, Sir, I have another table to which I wish to invite the attention of hon. gentle- men, as showing what the effect of the National Policy has been on this groat and important indus- trv. It is a comparative statement of the coal sales, labor, SiC, in Nova Scotia, for 1873, the last year of the Macdonald (lovernmont ; 1878, the last year of the Mackenzie rule; and, 1879 to 1881, throe years under the National Policy. It shows the decrease under the Mackenzie Administration and the inc^oas^! under the National Policy: 1873. Coal sales fiom Nova Sco- tia mines .... The number of men em- ployed Number of days worked at coal Tons of coal s! ipped from Nova Scotia to Montreal and Quebec Total imports of coal at Montre > 01 o ttt OS -J oo 4/ 00 1- li 00 00 »— . i-M a HH 341,289 1 465 1,034,800 3,600 817,593 183,705 i 268,628' 184,918 I 529,091 201,017 146,122 118,014 268,961 130,900 406,082 191,021 I give to hou. gentlemen opposite these facts and figures, which establish beyond question the fact that, so far from the people of Ontario having suflforod from the inipo.-iition of a coal duty, the very levorse has been the case. Mr. ANGLIN. By the Upper Provinces, I presume the hon. gentleman means Quebec and Ontario. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I mean Quebec and Ontario. At Cobourg, where I had the pleasure, at no very remote period, of discussing before the people — if not in the presence of the hon. leader of the Opposition — this very important question, I was able to deal with a very remarkable argu- ment which he gave in favor of reducing the duty on coal. And what do hon. gentlemen suppose it was ? And, Sir, I may say, while referring to that, that the ex-Finance Minister, the other night, gave us the same reason. Ho 2 iWi»imN(M 18 ''I !l I'M *: III! said, what a frit^htful injustice to railways. It was not the poor man then on whoso bohalf ho coraplainotl — bocaune I may sny that those " shivering wretches " to whom the hon. ox-Finanoo Minister has referred, are not known to us. I may tell the hon. gentleman that the day is not remote when there were shivering wretches Hutt'oring from want of employment, and without the comforts of life. But I am happy to know that, under the policy now in operation in this country, all that is changed. Where there was misery and cold there is now comfort and happiness. But I say that coal is not the fuel of the poor man in Canada. I say that for ninetoen-twotitioths of the poor people of Canada wood is their fuel, and the price of coal does not touch the question at all. Mr. MACKENZIE. Does the hon. gentleman say that of Toronto, wlioi-e the great consumption of coal is ? Sir CHARLES T UPPER. I say it of Canada. There are other places in this country besides Toronto, although the hon. gentleman does make it his home. Mr. MACKENZIE. The hon. gentleman knows that in the country districts the people have not the necessity nor the means of getting coal ; but whei*e coal is consumed, is it consumed by the rich or the poor ? Sir CHARLES T UPPER. I thought I mode it plain to the hon. gentleman that it is a matter of no moment to them, because I have shown that the poor man of Toronto gets his coul cheaper under the National Policy than he did efore. But I say that, taking this, whole Dominion, wood is the fuel of the poor man, and therefore it is a delusion for these hon gentlemen to dwell on the price of coal as a hardship to the poor. I have shown that it is not a hardship but a benefit to the poor. The hon. gentlemen were greatly alarmed for two classes, and who were they they ? Why, Sir, they were the railways and the manufacturers. I thought these manufacturers were bloated aristocrats, that you could not take too much out of. But, Sir, it appears that these hon. gentleman as the day appi'oaches wrten they have to be put in the balance and weighed, are becoming very sensitive in regard to the manu- facturers, and they want coal put on the free list in order to increase the enormous profits to these manufacturers. Sup- pose the manufacturer had to pay an addition of 50 cents a ton on coal, he was able to pay it, because we had given him an increased production. We had provided for foster- ing and protecting his industry against the slaughtering from the neighboring country that formerly crushed it out, and thus enabled him to pay this additional 50 cents a not 19 without feeling it. But, Sir, what about the railways? Have the railways any ground for complaint? How was the hon. the ox- Finance Minister able to make a case in respect to the railway ? By quoting the speech of Sir Henry Tyler? No ; but by misquoting i he speech of Sir Henry Tyler. The hon. gentleman put words in the mouth of Sir Henry Tyler which he never uttered. I challenge him on this point. I say more. I say the hon. gentleman, who entertains such a very low estimate of human nature as his speech the ot/ier night led us to believe he holds, ought to bo careful how he places words in the mouth of any man that the mr.n never uttered, because it is open to the imputation that the hon. gentleman's knowledge was not at fault. Now, Sir, 1 toll him, if he did not know it, he ought to have known it ; and 1 toll you why. This subject had been a matter of public discussion. The Globe newspaper had falsified the report of Sir Henry Tyler's speech. Kither the Globe's correspondent in London, or the persons ao the (jrlobe office in Toronto, falsitiod Sir Henry Tyler's language and made him say that which he never had said. That became a subject of discussion, and the Globe was challenged with the production of Sir Henry Tyler's speech, which proved the statement I have made, namely, that either the correspondent in London or the parties in tho office at Toronto were so driven to the wall to sustain their untenable position on this question, that they had to do what tho hon. ox-Pinance Ministoi', after this has been a matter of public discussion, ought not to have done, — put words in the mouth of Sir Hem-y Tyler which he never uttered. Sir ErCHA.RD J. CART WRIGHT. Produce the speech. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I have got it here, and I think the hon. gentleman will find that not only does it not say what ho has stated that it said, but the very reverse. Sir Henry Tyler, of course, like all gentlemen in his position, was anxious to show why he had not a larger net balance in favor of tho railway, and he would have boon only too glad if he could have shown that tho imposition of tho duty of 50 cents per ton on coal had compelled him to take that 50 cents out of tho earnings of the railway in order to adjust his balance, but he did not venture to say so; he could not say eo, because I happen to know that the Grand Trunk had Eurohased coal cheaper than tho company had purchased it efore, and therefore Sir Henry Tyler was not in a position to make vsuch a statement. He said : " He gives us all the reasons for the excess in the expenditure of the present half year, which you will see on page 12 — increased consumption of fuel caused by much severer weather during the past winter. 2nd, Advance in prices- of fuel, wages, and materials. 3rd. Oatlay in working; 2i I'i ;i I liii 'Ml " lit-' ■ 1 1 i'i i i 20 the extra traffic, which, of course, requires extra fuel; niid so on. A» regards fupl, I Rhould like to tell you what we are doiriR in that respect. "We are grafliinlly economizing, and using more coal and less wood." Sir Ilonry Tylor wuh made to ^ay that Inn comi):!ny was Buflbiiiig, that the Grand Trunk and all the railway.-* woie Bufforitig to the extent of tlio duty on coal. Ho tolia the people that, although he had not got as largo a balance as he deHired, ho was increasing it, occanse the company was Ubing more coal and less wood. lie naid : '«In the half-year ending June, 1880, we used 60,000 cords of wood, nod in the half-year ending June, 1881, only 48,000 cords. J'er contra, wo used in the half-year ending June, 1880, 109,000 tons of coal ; so that we had a decrease of 12,000 cords of wood and an increase of31,000 tons of conl. As wood becomes more scarce, and there are extra facilitips for getting coal, wo shall hope, in working our traffic, to effect further economy in this respect." The hon. the ex-Finance Minister put language in Sir Henry Tyler's mouth which ho never uttered. Mr. MACKENZIE. Is that all. Sir CHAELES TUPPER. Is that not enough to show that Sir Henry Tyler did not Hay what has been rej)orted ? Is it not quite enough to show that there is no foundation for that which Hansard shows the ex-Finance Minister slated, and the words he put in Sir Henry Tyler's mouth ? Is it not enough that Sir Henry Tyler, instead of saying they are sullering from the increased cost of coal, owing to the duty, and that it was increased by the amount of the duty, which the ex-Finance Minister made him say, the company are economizing by using more coal and abandoning the use of wood ? Il Jie hon. member for Lambton does not think that enough, I am afraid it will be very bard for any one to satisfy him. Mr. MACKENZIE, The hon. gentleman knows it is not enough as well as I do. Sir CHAELES TUPPEE. I think it will not be neces- sary to occupy tho at+ention of the House much longer in respect to the question of coal. I think I have disjiosed once and for ever of any foundation whatever for the imputation that the duty upon coal has increased tho cost to tho consumer in any part of the whole Dominion.. 1 have shown that whereas poverty and suffering existed before, now all is comfort and prosperity. I have shown hon. gentlemen that the groat coal-mining industry, which was languishing and dying, and would have been crushed out, has revived. We would, under the late policy, have been in the position that Ontario would have had no pro- tection, for there would have been no Canadian coal-mines that could have been brought into requisition. But all that 21 'speci. d." was woio lolls anco l.any tad boon chftngod, and now wo found not only indiifltries Hprirying up in ovory direction, but, at tlio same time, it can be clearly outabliHliod that thin Iuih boon accompliHhod with- out either manufacturers or railwayw or any pernonH being called upon to pay a singlo additional farthing. But HUj)poHe it had coHt the railways something? What have wodonefor the rail wuyH under our policy? Does tho hon. gentleman know how thoKO railways have progressed under the National Policy that he and the leaderof tho Opposition arc 80 exceedingly anxious about — those great coiporations whicli cannot be said to bo so very pooi'? The hon. gontlo- man has only to look at tho returns, and ho will find they are of a very striking and interesting character, like all other statistics relating to tho National Policy. Those prove beyond controversy the intoi-esting growth, piosper- ity, advancement and progress of this country. There is no barometer you can apply that will give you a clearer test as to tho public weal than the railway receipts of the coun- try. 'J'ho railways stretch through tho country in every direction, nnd just in proportion as tho country flourishes the receipts advance, and as the country sufl'ors they decline. Lot me invito the attention of hon. gentlemen op])osito to what the railway returns show, and then they will see whether thoro'was any cause for expressing sympathy for the railway companies, even if they paid a coal duty. The fol- lowing is a comparative statement of the tons of freight carried and of receipts ; — ■i 1876-77, 6,859,796 1877-78. 7,883,472 1878-79. 8,348,810 $ 1879-80. 9,938,858 $ 1880-81. Number of tons of freight carried 12,102,245 Receipts from pas- $ sengers i 6,458,493-6,386,325 6,459,598 7,076,340 8,198,274 Receipts from freight 11,321,264 Receipts from mails ana express Receipts from other sources 13,129,191 12,5'^9,094 15,506,935 18,616,517 744,741 795,797 217,554; 208,764 18,742,052'20,520,077 .c£),926 166,448 19,925,066 851,288 942,671 I 102,076 150,267 23,536,639 27,907,719 I Thus we have a total of $18,742,052 in 1876-77, against 4^19,925,066 in 1878-79 ; and when the hon. gentleman's policy was changed, we have $27,907,719 received from rail- 22 ■ways m this country, or an increase in 1880-81, from tho year the hon. gentleman received permission lo retire IVom the raanagoraent of public affairs, of no less than $8,082,453. So tiiat, if the railways had to pay a few cents duty a ton on coal, they could veiy well afford to pay it, considering the position in which they are placed to-day under the National Policy, compared with that in wnich they were placed before. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to carry his attention back to the occasion on which he introduced hi3 first Budget Speech. What was the prospect ho held out then with reference to the Intercolonial Railway? He led the House to believe that they might be prepared for a deficit of $1,250,000 in the working of that railway. Well, the year that they rotired from the management of piiblic affairs, t^^ deficit went up to nearly S750,000, and, had the hon. gentleman remained long enough in power, I think he would have been able to prove himself r* correct pro])het by running the deficit up to the amount he estimated, $1,2.50,000. To-day, however, we are able to say that we have incri-^ased the carriage of freight 42 per cent., and instead of having to face a deficit of $750,000, as the account stood in 1878-79, when the policy of the hon. gentleman opposite was changed, we had a small balance it is true^ but a balance on the right side of the books. The hon, gentleman may say that we increased freight 42 per cent. So we did, but what effect would that have had if they remained in power? If it had f'ost as much to carry a ton of freight as when they were in power, the deficits would have enormously increased, and the hon. gentleman would have been able to show triumphantly how accurate ho made his estimate when he estlraatcd that it would reach $1,250,000. Turn which way you like, and whix* do you find? You find, just as the railroad barometer shows, an enormous increase of traffic, progress, prosperity and com- fort, talcing the place of povex^y and retrogression. That is what you find all over this country. My hon. friend the Finance Minister had the proud satisfaction of standing here, the other night, and presenting a picture of the con- dition of this country, such as might well till with just pride the bi-easc of every patriotic Canadian. It did not seem to have quite that effect upon some hon. gentlemen who are not a hundred miles away. One would have supposed he was unfolding a record of the most disastious woe that could befall a countiy, if one were to Judge fr(nn the lengthened visage of the hon. the ex-Minister of Finance. Perhaps no man ever suffered mo^e than he, while it was his painful duty to see the hon. Finance Minister place in bold relief, though without any allusion to it, the successful results of hi:: policy in 23 lom th& |i'e from '82,453. ton on jrtg the 'ational placed [o carry •odnced held ? Ho i(i for a Well, public liad the link he )hot by J50,000. ci'oased having tood in )pposite i true^ le hon. er cent, if they y a ton 8 would 1 would contradistinction to the failure of the policy of the hon. the e^-Minieter of Finance. J need not remind you of the fact that when we adopted our policy, when the issue was joined, when the question was practically for this country whether we should have direct taxation or adopt the National Policy of protecting Canadian industries en Cana- dian Hoil. The hon. gentleman smiles when I refer to direct taxation. Does he forget that he himself stood here and admitted that he was at the end of his tether, that all his resources were exhausted, that he krow of no means of wringing any more taxation out of the impoverished people of this country except by direct taxation ? Sir EICHARD J. CAETWRIGHT, No; I did not. Sir CHARLES TUPPP^R. The hon. gentleman forgets that when a number of the members from Lower Canada were urging a policy that would favor the growth of Canadian tobacco, he loet that proposition, not by saying that it waa a bad one, but by saying that it would take 8500,000 out of thfc revenue, and that he knew no mode of replacing it except by direct taxation. The hon. gentleman referred the other night to memories. There is no one thing that he has co much reason to dread as the memory of the members of this House. His Budget Speeches have been fyled away, and have become musty, because no person wiohcs to turn up such unprofitable and unwholesome I'eading. If he could only wipe out the recoilcction of those speeches, and the positions that he assumed when he was fcobl;^'' attempting to grapple with what ho was unable to deal with — the financial interests of this country — it would be, indeed, a fortunate thing for him. Wo can well recollect when the hon. gentleman brought down his Tariff in 1874 and imposed $3,000,000 additional taxes, and came back two vp.ars later with another deficit, and asked for an additional $500,000 taxes, he told us we had reached the limit of indirect tax.ition, and that if he had any convenient mode of collecting an income tax he would be disposed to adopt it. I say that, when the right hon. the leadoi* of the Government came to the rescue, when the people themselves came to the rescue and saved the country froin the incompetent hands of the hon. gentle- mtin and his colleagues, we stood on the threshold of direct taxation ; and if we liavo it not new it is because these hon. prentlemen were deprived of the position for which they had ftiiown their utter unfitness. But what did they i:;ay when our policy was adopted, when we compelled them to admit that we had fairly and faithfully redeemed the pledges on which we had been elected, that we had carried out man- fully the assurances we had given the people ? Does the hon. gentleman suppose that the memories of hon. members i ii! 1 t 1 1 i 'i ! -.1 ; ! 1 ' Ml ■ ' i I'M 24 of this House have enabled them to forgot that the ground he took was that it would fail as a revenue Tariff"? Sir EICHARD J. CART WRIGHT. So it was. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. Does the hoc. gentleman forget that he took the grouuf'. on the floor ot this Par- liament, that the depression would bo intensiti'id instead of decreased ? .Does he forget that for six long months, he and all his followers, in and out of this House, and the Globe newtspapor, endeavored to show that the depression was deepening, and that the country was irretrievably ruined ; and it was only when right and left, before and behind, everv where in fact, evidence presented itself so over- whelming of the progress and prosperity of the country that it could be no longer concealed, that the hon. gentle- men harked back on their prophecies and tried to discbver something besides the National Policy to which our great progress might be attributed ? But, Sir, that dooi is not open to them. It was closed by themselves. Here, on the floor of Parliament, when discussing this great issue of the fiscal policy of Canada, they declared the adoption of the policy of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance would fail as a source of revenue, because it would so tax the imports coming into this country that no one could import anything. We tried, in our leeble way, to convince them that they were wrong. We tried to show them that, if wo fostered and protected the interests of Canada as they should be, the purchasing power of the people would be increased, and that the imports would in- crease in a corresponding ratio. Hon. gentlemen had other objections. What were they ? The^' said : *' The credit ot the country is gone; your policy is such an attack upon Imperial interests that it will close the money market of the world, and your loss of revenue will deprive you still further of the means of paying the indebtedness of the country." That was the hon. gentleman's ground. Where do we stand to-day ? When my hon. friend was able to stand up and toll us the revenue had shown such buoyancy, and reached the position it had never shown before, did my hon. friend attempt to show that the credit of the country had suffered ? Why, Sir, let me invite the hon. ox-Minister's attention for a few moments to the figures that I have here. If he has any doubt about the credit of the countxy, they will set his doubts at robl at once and for aver. What did he do when he was entrusted with the power of negotiating the bonds of Canada in the money markets of the world — before he re(xuired any money — the hon. gentleman rushed with hot haste iut3 the money market, and by a proccos to which wo shall perhaps !■ 25 lound ^man Par- id of aud Hohe refer more at length by-and-bye, put the securities of Canada on the market — as ray hon. friend the Minister of Finance did upon an open market, with free competition, in order that Canada might got what they were worth ? No ; ho fixed the price, he fixed the interest, he fixed the period of the bonds, and fixed the price away below what the bonds were selling for in England at the time on the open market, aud what was the result ? The result is one that will for over close that hon. gentleman's mouth on the question ol' the credit of the cr>untry. Who are the happy possessors of the four millions sterling worth of bond.s that the hon. gentleman took across the Atlantic, in 1874 and disposed of among his friends SirElCHARD J. CARTWETGHT. Who wore my friends Sir CliAELES TUPPEE. That, Sir, is more than 1 can tell. The hon. gentleman has refused us that information. If the hon. gentleman is impervious to ev.ery kind of evi- dence, he cannot be impervious to Ihe fact that the men to whom he gave those bonds are, to-day, £G00,000 sterling richer than they were bofore they saw him ; that the men to whom he gave the £4,000,000 worth of debentures are, at this moment, the happy possessors of $2,920,000 more than they paid him for the bonds. 1 do not wonder tho hon. gentleman is getting very uneas}', but there is more to come. What does the hon. gentleman say of 1870' ? He went back again there when he did not require money, and sold his bonds at a ruinous discount — 4 or 5 per cent, below what they were bringing in the market. The happy possessors of those bonds, amounting to £2,500,000 sterling are $1,825,000 richer than when they purchased those bonds at the price fixed by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance. That, I think, will settle at once and for ever, any question as to the credit of Canada. I do not say that our present position is all ildQ to my hon. frien-l the Minister ot Finant-o, 1 doubt it very much. I do ni say it is all due to tho National Policy, because had our bonds on that occasion got fair play in the money markets of the world, they would not have been sold at these ruinous figures, however satisfactory the arrangements may bo for the happy par-ties with whom the then Finance Minister made them. Well, Sir, whjit was my hon. friend the Finance Minister able to show? lie was able to show, instead of being in the unhappy position of the ex-Finance Minister, who accumulated a deficit of $7,5u0,000 in three years Sir EIC1IA.ED J. CAETWEIGHT. Hear, hear. Sir CHARLES TUPPEE. I repeat it, Sir. I say, but for the fact that these hon. gentlemen were dismissed from power ■It ; ■ ; ■ I 26 by the overwhelming fiat of the great majority of indepen- dent electors cf thia country; but for the fact that the hon. fentleman was deprived of the opportunity of continuing is mad and sensoles.s policy, on July 1st, 1879, he would have had a deficit to face, in the three years, of $7,500,000. What is the position of the hon. Minister of Finance ? He stands in the proud position of being able to show, not only remarkable progress, prosperity, happiness, comfort, and everything that a country can desire to see within its bordr^s, but, under this Tariff, in 1881, a si.rplns of $4,139,0b0 ; in 1882, a surplus of $4,450,000, and, in 1883, ho has the best reason for estimating an additional $3,000,000 of surplus. Notwithstanding that he gives back $1,500,000 taxes to the people, he is able to meet the country with the best evidence that any Finance Minister can desire : that, instead of a deficit of $7,500,0(»0 in three years, he will have a surplua of $11,500,000 But, Sir, these hon gentlemen do not like surpluses. When did they discover that a surplua was such a deplorable thing? Why, Sir, we have never ceased to hear them praising the position of the great Eepiiblic to the south of us. Do they say a surplus is A bad thing, that it is very bad iiatesraanship to wipe off the debts ofthe country by hundr(!ds of million8-$250,000,000 the year before last was wiped off ofthe debt of the United States. And yet those hon. gentlemen think a surplus is very bad. Well, Sir, they took the best means to convince the country of ihoir sincerity, for they abhorred a surplus as the greatest pestilence Ihat could invade a country, and they were suc- cessful in showing the reverse of a surplus to an extent that would satisfy the most exacting mind. But what more does my hon. friend show? He shows that we have a decreased interest — notwithstanding the great expenditure on the public service of the country — in the year of $90,000, or an absolute decrease, in the charge on int(Mest, of $2.5,000, The hon. the leader of the Opposition has exhibited great anxiety about the indebtedness of Canada. Well, he may thank God and take courage while the management ofthe financial affairs of the countiy is in the hands of the present Minister of Finance, because the Minister has shown that we can carry on the public works without increasing the public indebted- ness or the charge for interest. Then, hon. gentlemen op- posite have been greatly exercised, and have perambulated the country with doleful statements about the enormously increasing expenditure ; but we have been able to car-v on the public business at an expenditure of actually 23 cents less per capita of the estimated population than the amount expended by hon. gentlemen opposite. But, Sir, I say that the ex-Finance Minister failed, utterly failed, to grapple with this question. It is true he talked here for three hours, lepen- hon. niiing ould 0,000. ? He only , and rdr"8, ,0U0; best i'plus. o the dence of a irplus ^ like I'plus lover gi-eat U8 is i 27 and ho talked — I wan going to say to very unwilling oars ; but I will not, as there were not many ears here to listen to him. Most of them were conspicuous by their absence, and at that I was not at all surprised. After listeriing to the hon. gentleman for a weary half-hour, and finding him going over and over the same old story that he seems to have got by rote, and is evidently unable to get out of his mind, I was reminded of a witly expression of Lawrence O'Connor Poylo in the Nova Scotia Legislature. Thoi-ewas an excit- ing discussion there on the subject of pickled fish, and a great deal of acerbity had been thrown into the debate. Presently the debate toned down and it was being carried on in a subdued way, when Lany Doyle rose in his place and said : *' We had belter take the question for the picklo has run out and there is nothing but tongues and Bounds left." Now, for the first hour of the Hon. gentleman's speech wc had the pickle, but after the picki* out we had nothing but tongues and sounds left; and 1 am sure it was a relief to the House when the hon. gentleman resumed his seat. Well, the hon. Finance Minister has not only done what I have already described, but he is able to show $1,000,000 of reduction in the controllable expenditure of the country. Hon. gentlemen oppo.«ite want to know where the surplus comes from, and they say: not it come out of the people's pockets ?" I in reply, no; 3750,000 come out of the savings in the management of the Intercolonial Eailway — the saving of money you wasted before, of money you would waste aga n if you had the opportunity. The ex-Finanoe Minister made a point of the Post Office expenditure. But what do the Post Office expenditures show ? They show that w e epent more monej'' on the Post Office service, and yet that it cost Canada less than it did during the lerm of office of our predecessors, because, notwithstanding the enormous extension of the service in the North- West and the improve- ment of facilities generall}', the deficienc}^ between our revenue and exj enditure is gieatly less than when the hon. fenilemen opposite were in charge. The hon. the Finance [inistor was also able to show that we could carry our economies into eftect when we came into power, an illustration of which was found in the saving of $671 ^Qv mile in the running of the Intercolonial, meaning, in all, a half or three-quarters of a million dollars. He was also in the proud position to show that, notwithstanding the large capital ex})endituio that has been made, notwithstanding the i'act that from the time of the Union until 1878-79 the ] or capita debt increased from $29 to $34 — the per capita debt has only been increased $1 over and above the amount at which it stood when hon. gentlemen opposite "Did say '^m^jihWj^iVi^:vT; I, v,?«iir'»'M«-^ I' 5 28 left power. The hon. gentleman was also able to show that, when the great Canadian Pacific Eailway is completed, and every dollar of expenditure is provided for, the debt of this country -including the canal expenditure and everything else — would only be $203,000,000 j and that the surpluwes — the money the country' can afford to pay, as they do in the United States, to the reduction or diminution of the debt — would, up to that period, bring the amount down to $175,000,000. Sir LEONAED TILLEY. With the sinking fund ? SirCHAELES TUPPEE. Yes; the surpluses, with tho sinking fund, would bring it down to $175,000,000. So I think the anxiety of the leader of the Opposition, on the score of the debt, will be very much relieved. The hon, the Finance Minister albO drew attention to the fact— a fact which hon. gentlemen opposite will r,^« dispute — that if we sell one-half of the rich, fertile lands we have for sale in the great North-West, at $1 per aci-e — and hon. gentlemen opposite are hardly likely to question that calculation — the debt of Canada will be reduced down to $100,000,000, or to a figure, alter the great national work has been provided for, far below what it is at this moment. The hon. gentleman has shown that such was the improved condition of the people that, while these hon.geiitK-men are talking about tho pressure upon the poor man, and while the hon. gentleman says that the fiscal policy of the country has degraded the poor man, while the hon. gentleman has en- deavored to show that his comfort has been less, my hon. friend the hon. Ministerof Finance meets him with conclusive testimony' as to the fact that, in three years and four months, these poor suffering operatives have deposited no less than $13,000,000 in the savings banks of this country ; and this, too, notwithstanding the regulation which shut out and closed these savings banks against the wealthier class of the community, and the class of deposits which used to be re- ceived. And not only was there an increase of $13,0tJ0,000 in the savings, but also inci eased deposits in the other banks of no less than $23,000,000, or an increase of $36,000,1:00 in all in money deposited in the banks of Canada in three years and four months ; and this is indisputable evidence of the position which this country to-day occupies, notwithstanding the lact which it^ patent to every hon. gentleman, that, during these three years and four months, more money and more capital has been invested by the capitalists of Canada in fostering, promoting, and building up our industries than over occurred before in Canada during the same period; The hon. gentleman is, moreover, able to extend the free list; the hon. gentleman is able to take the duties oft' tea and coffee; 29 his ing -J tho hon. gentleman ib able to meet the dosiro of our friends in Lower Canada with reference to homegrown tobacco; tho hon. gentleman i^ able to Htrike off the Stamp duties to the amount of $200,000 a year ; the hon. gentleman is able to give tho fishermen of this country a bounty of $15u,000 a year, and woll we may do so. What do they do? Wh}', Sir, these hardy tons of toil, tlie:ie men who have to take thoir lives in their hands in building up tho indus- tries of the country, have created exports for Canada of no less than $6,00i',000 ])er annum. Well, Sir, the hon. gentleman says that tho estimates have boon increasotl. So they liavo. Naturally they have boon increased ; and my hon. friend pointed out the reasons why thoy have not boon increased with regard to the controllable expendi- ture, for that wo have decreased — but merely in order that the hon. the Finance Minister might properly discharge his duty to the country. Now, Sir, I think we have given pretty conclusive evidence as to the position which the countiy occupies. I think that the statements made by my hon. friend the hon. Minister of Finance will carry the con- viction to tho mind of every intelligent man in this country, that no country on which the sun shines, was ever in a position to claim greater advance in the progress that has been made in the same time, or was in a happier and more prosperous state than Canada is in to-day. 1 have had my- self tho opportunity of seeing more of Canada during tho last six months than probably any Canadian oversaw of the country during tho same time. I have travelled away up the Pacific coast, and I have gone 300 or 400 miles into the interior of British Columbia, returning through the North- West, Ontario, Quebec and tho Maritime Provmces. I passed through Prince Edward Island from end to end, and with regard to every section of the country which I visited, I am here to add my testimony to that which the hon. Finance Minister gave in such a conclusive manner, and to declare that a more united, a more happy, a more prosperous, and more progressive people are not to be found in any part of the world than are to be found in Canada to day. This, Sir, is the proud position which my hon. friend occupies ; and he was enabled to show that all this enormous increase has boon given, and v\\ this change in the trade policy of our country has been accomplished, without exposing ourselves to one jot or tittle of the danger whi(;h the ox-Minister of Finance predicted when this policy Avas introduced. It was said it was going to be inimical to Gre.J- Britain. But, Sir, the fo 3t is now ascertained from the Trr.de Eeturns that, so far from this being the case, the very reverse has boon the result. Instead of a policy, such as was in operation before, and which was eminently in tho M- ' 'i >- ]■ '" 30 interest of our friends across the border, when no Canadian could look forward to any future, excej)t the hope that he might continue to occu])" the position to whicli we wore reduced by hon. gentlemen opposite, of being the hewers of wood and drawers of water to our neighbors across the line, and instead of the trade of Canada being steadily withdrawn from Great Britain to whom mo owe so much, and transferred to the foreign coun- try to the south of us, building up that great and populous Republic, the result has been what ray hon. friend said it would be, and the Trade Eeturns establish the fact that the average imports from the Mother Country are increased, while the average imports from the Republic to the south of us have been largely decreased. My hon. friend, moi'eover, has been able to show that not only is this the case, but also without increasing the price of all those products and articles which, owing to the high prices, were going to cause so much auffering and destitution throughout the country provided tl is policy was adopted. Competition between our home industries has been such that we occupy the vantage ground of being able to demonstrate that never were necessaries of life and the things which are incidental to the comfort and happi- ness of the poor man to bo obtained in Canada at a cheaper rate than is now fhe case, venture to questioo this. Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. Yes, I did. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. No. Sir RICHARD J. CARTW RIGHT. I did so, very strongly. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. The hon. gentleman merely said that : " Assuming it to be true, the question was not \7hether all those articles were to-day cheaper than they were in 1878 in Canada under my Tariff, but whether we can buy them cheaper to-day in Canada than in Now York," and if so, he says : " You are injuring the poor man." Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he must bo hard-pressed, when he is endeavoring to controvert the fiscal policy which is calcu- lated to foster and protect the industries of Canada, and can only say, that the way in which the poor man is injured, is not because we have not reduced the cost of goods below what they 'were in 1878, under his Tariff, but because prices ai*e not as low as they are in a country where the Tariff is twice as high as ours. But let the hon. gentleman take courage and take heart. If, in a country where the duties imposed are doubly as heavy as they are in this country, you can buy cheaper, and if, under our policy, you can buy goods cheaper than was the case under his Tariff in 1878, And the hon. gentleman did not 31 ••i we of how long will it bo before you can get goods in Canaaa at priceH greatly below those now paid for them ? And the hon. fentleman will find that, while the Treasury is t*ix millions etter off, there is no industry in this country which is also not bettor off. He said — and I was not surprised to hear it — that ho labored under very groat difficulties iu getting up a case againf-t this policy. He says: " 1 cannot get the farmers to give mo any information." The farmers are so rich and happy, and contented, and comfortable, that they would not talk to, or look at, the hon. the ex-Finance Minister at all, and I am not surprised at it. He says that the farmers wore deceived. Sir, there is not a class of our people more difficult to deceive than our farmers. It is because he could not deceive the farmers of this country that the hon. gentleman is sitting where he is now. They felt that, under the hon. gentleman's policy, they did not get fair play in Canada, and they exorcised their independent influence at the polls to place the hon. gentleman where ho is, and to bring back into power the party who said they wore determined to foster and protect and maintain Canadian industries on Cana- dian soil. Well, Sir, what else was my hon. friend able to show ? These hon. gentlemen were very anxious about the amount paid to Sir Alexander Gait a little while ago. They said it was a terrible thing to have a High Commissioner, and consequently I was glad to learn, from the remarks made on the opening day of the Session,that the hon. leader of the Opposition had changed his mind on this point, and suggested that Canada had attained to so dignified a position that she ought to have a Minister at every civilized court in the world. But, Sir, Sir Alexander Gait, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance and the leader of the Govern- ment, have effected a financial arrangement, and what does it save? Why, Sir, wo save $15,000 a year in the payments which we are now required to make to Messrs. Glyn and Bar- ing, under the system which was under operation when hon. gentlemen opposite wont out of office ; and not only that, but when $;-i.^,000,000 are to be redeemed in 1885, the coun- try will save in this one transaction, under this now arrange- ment, no loss than $350,000. I, therefore, say that if ever there was a Finance Minister who had reason to be satisfied, and who was able to point to every industry in the countiy, and show that new life and vitJility weregi^•en to it, and to the }>osition of every artizan and operative n this country, and demonstrate that his position was immen'^ .ly improved ov^r what it was before, it is my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. The ex-Minister of Finance wants to know what we have done for the workingmen. I have shown what wo have done for the shipbuilders ; I have shown what we I 82 have done for the miner, and I have shown what wc have done for tho farmer, and the finherman. It has been shown that the pricoH of farmoi-'H products have been better than ever before, and tho hon. gentleman opposite (tho ex-Finance Ministor)im- paled himself on tho horns of this dilemma tho other night. Ho said you cannot improve tho price of wheat becuuHO that is regulated in Mark Liino; and yet tho lion, gentleman de- nounced tho tax in breadstuffs, including wheat, as an odious tax. I want him to establish Iho aj-soi-tion that it is an odious tax, and that under tho National Policy there is no improvement in tho price of tho products of the farm. Lot me ask him this question: ho says we have increased the farmers' burdens, and ho has gone before tho farmer with tears in his eyes to condemn our policy with this resul; : that the farmers have simply laughed at him. They have laughed at him because the}' know what ho had said hero before, and would say horo again if in power as ho said the other night, that tho laborer's burdens had been increased by the price of living — that everything ho used ho had to p.'iy more for it. How can you increase the cost of every- thing consumed by the laborer, mainly consisting of farm products, without benefitting tho farmer ? It is just such questions we had put to him. Wo told him we would benefit all classes of industries in tho country. We told him we would improve the condition of the farmer by a better home market. But tho hon. gentleman could not understand. But now when tho farmer laughs at him on account of his theories, ho will know that tho people hold that his former statements were baseless ; that tho farmer to-day gets more for every product, that is more for every product of the soil than he could have got if the policy of the late Government, of making Canadians hewers of wood and drawers of water for any other country, had boon carried out as he would still have carried it out. It being Six o'clock the Speaker left the Chair. After Recess. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. It will become my duty to r^ako a few further observations in relation to the remarks made by tho ex-Financo Minister in rei)ly to my hon. friend the Minister of P'inance on Friday evening last. But L»eforo I do so 1 have a still more painful task to perform, of referring to the mode in which the hon. gentleman replied to my hon. friend the Finance Minister. I am in the judgment of the House when I^nay that the gratuitous and unprovoked insult offered to my hon. friend who propounded tho policy of the Government in the Budget Speech, excited tho common disgust of both 88 lifivodono I) that the 'cr before, ni,stor)im- jor night. :ui8o that Innnn do- ^' wheat, (ion that i'-y there the farm, irifrcased imor with is resuli : hoy have Kuid hero said the increased ho had to of cvery- i? of farm Just such id benefit him wo ttcr home iderstand. lint of his lis former 2:0 ts more 3f the soil 'ornracnt, i of water rould still ny duty a to the n rejily inee on till more in which Finance >n -Lsay to ray ornment i of both sides of tho Ilouse. I say it to the credit of hon. gnn- tlomon on tho other sido of the Ilouse, who [ believe folt as keenly tho innult oifored to my hon. friond, and tho still froator insult offered to tho dignity of Parliament, as tho on. gentlemen of this side of the Ilouse. My hon. friend tho Finance Minister at a very early ago engaged in com- mercial pursuitH, and having, by industry, by integrity, by everything that mon value, attained tho confidence of all clasBOH of the community in which ho lived, he had tho honor at u very early ago to bo elected tho roprosentativo of tho chief city of the Province of New Brunswick. That hon. goiitleuKin ho discharged his duty as to bo olovated to tho high and honoiublo position of Prime Minister of tliat Province, and iio came to ttiia Parliament in 18(>7 0"j'>yi"g tho respect of all classes of the Province in which he was born, in this great arena he was able to take such a high position as warranted his being advanced to the olovated position he now occupies, and, at a later pofiod, ho entered upon the highest social position in Now Brunswick, amid tho hearty applause of both sides in that Province, who viod with each other in terms of friendly reception upon its being announced that ho was appointed Lieutenant- Governor of New Brunswick. The colleagues of the hon. gentleman opposite in public declared that had they had the selection of a genLlemaa to fill that high otfico, there was no man they would have rather asked to occupy that position than my hon. friend. Well, at tho close of his period of oflSco as Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, he was invited by hon. gentlemen opposite to accept a second term. Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGKT. No, he was not. Sir CEARLRS TUPPER. It would require better authority of contradiction than tho ox-Finance Minister enjoys in this House or out of it, to cast doubt on my statement. 1 say again that the colleagues of tho ex- Finance Minister, when he was Finance Minister, approached my hon. friend to induce him to accept the second term of thoGovornorship of that Province at their hands. What did ho do? Why it was a position of ease ; it was a position worthy of any gentleman in this House, or out of it, to occupy. But he looked at his country, and saw the condition of public affairs; he saw tho prostration of this country; ho saw the lamentable position to which his successor had brought the financial affairs of tho country ; and, regard'ess of his own ease and comfort, ho threw himself back into tho political field and was agair sent to this Parliament oy the chief city of Now Brunswick. Well, having been clothed with the important duties he now - discharges, bo rotui'rfedto that constituency, and, by acclama- tion, wa« again . int baclc hereto deal with the public affairs of Canada. How has ho dealt with thorn? Handling the moHt important quoBtionti that could bo confided to any member of any iid ministration, at a time the most critical in the lustory in Canada, he has boon so enabled to deal wiih those great questions as to empower him t«> ntaiid in the proud and triumphant position he now occupies, and to show the House that no (Tovornment in the country, or out of it, ever occupied a position more triumphant in relation to the questions of public policy which ho has propounded. And, Sir, that speech, one which I need not say to the lion, gentlemen who hoard it, was ot transcendant ability — a 8i)oech that would have done honor to any representative assembly in the world — that speech, I say, the courtesy of which only equalled the ability with which it was delivered, was received by the ex-Finance Minister- how ? Why, Sir, in a manner that, I have no hestaiion in saying, caused his supporters and the hon. gentlemen who sit around him, to blush with shame. Sir RICHAKD J. CAIITWRIGHT. Hoar, hoar. Sir CHARLES T UPPER. Now, Sir, suppose that, in- Btoad of the record that my hon. friend possesses ; suppose that ho had Btood in this House in the position of a man who, unable to make his own way, born in the lap of luxury, had had all the advantiige that wealth can bestow, and had been sent to a great UniverslLy on the other side of the water ; and suppose that he had come back without the honors ;;iid distinction that such a man, if there was anything in him, ought to have come back with, hjvl come back without either honor or distinction ; supposing that having returned he had undertaken to qualify himself to practice in a learned pi*ofession, and after years of strug- gling was obliged to abandon it because he was not able to reach the Bar, and suppose, making use of his wealth, he had been able to obtain u constituency, and finding that the party with which he /as associated knew him too well to entrust him with hig't and responsible duties, he had abandoned his party, turned his back upon his friends and went over to the ^nomy and made common cause with them, and by his pcdtical tergiversation obtained a position amongst his opponents of a life time that he had never been ablo to acquire among his friends ; suppose that had been the position of my hon. friend, and suppose that having obtained the lofty position of Minister of Finance, instead of discharging the high duties that devolved upon him in the way rny hon. friend has done, his first act was to put into the mouth of the Governor General a statement that wm devoid of truth cclama- c uirairs lin^' the to any critical to deal and in iirid to or out •elation uiidod. I hon. 'y— a ilative U),sy of it was how ? in- Sir RICHARD .1, CART WRIGHT. Hoar, hear. Sir GHARLRS TUPPKR. SunpoHO that for political and party purpoHen ho had ankod tno roprosontativo of Her MajoHty in Parliament aHsomblod to declare that the finan- cial condition of thin country waH Huch from the inability of the revenue to moot the oxpcndituru, that a HoriouB deficit was inovital)!o Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. So it wae. Sir CHAitLES TUPPMR. That a Horious deficit would follow unlohs increased tuxutio^i waH laid upon thoHhouldors of the people Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. So it was. Sir CHARLES TUrPER. S-ippose that after that hon. gentleman had ventured to make that 8tatemont, ho had Buppoitod it, by attempting to force a balance iji the Public Accounts, to the extent of half a million of money ; suppose that my hon. friend stood convicted — and I use iho term deliberately — stood convicted before this Parliament, of having put chargeable to revenue $545,000 that was voted by Parliament for capital account, spent by Government lor capital aocount, was transferred by the late Finance Minister to force a balance on the other side ; suppose that after all that was done my hon. friend had been unable to accomplish his object, and that it liad remained clear as noon day that after this half million had been carried over, he still stood in the position of having a proved and estab- lished surplus at the time he had declared there would bo a deficit ; suppose that would be the position Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. of it. I deny every word Sir CHARLES T UPPER. Does he deny having declared that the ordinary expenditure of the country demanded a largo increase in the volume of taxation to be put upon the people of this country ? I have, under my hand here, the hon. gentleman's own testimony, and there was not a word of truth in it. The same hon. gentleman that declared that therewould have been $1,500,000 deficit on the 1st July, 1874, the same hon. gentleman that declared that, in 1875, the ordi- nary expenditure of the country would have involved a deficit of $2,000,000, committed himself to this statement ■which I will read, and then I will leave the House to judge how far that hon. gentleman's statement will be regarded as a contradiction to any statement that any hon, gentleman may make in this House. I read from an Order in Council. What does it say ? That that $3,000,000 of taxes waft imposed to meet a deficit. 3i 36 Sir LEONARD TIL LEY. You tthonld say, were imposed. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I am much obliged to my hon. friend. 1 am afraid I shall bo charfijed with being ungram- matieal. Does it say those $3,000,000 of taxes wci '^ imposed lor the purpose of meeting a prospective deficit in the ordi- nary expenditure ? No, Sir, but the hon. gentleman here stands committed, with every colleague that he had in the Government, to the statement that every dollar of that was imposed for another and a different purpo.se, and that was to meet the expenditure thai would bo involved by the con- struction of the Canadian Pacific Jiailway. 1 will read from an Order in Council, to the truth of which every one of those gentlemen is pledged, of the 8th July, 1874, after the close of this very year in which the hon. gentleman declared that it was necessary to impose high additional taxation in order to enab'e the revenue to cover the exjienditure. On that day, this Minute of Council is signed and sent to the same Gov- ernor General that had been asked to declare, in his place in Parliament, that a large taxation was required to meet the ordinary expenditure of the country. It says : "In order to enable the Gov(?rnment to carry out the proposals which it was hoped British Columbia would have accepted, the average rate of taxation was raised, at the late Session, about 15 per cent.; Customs duties being raised from 16 to 17J per cent , and the Excise duties on spirits and tobacco, a correspondinrj rate, both involving additional taxation exceeding $3,000,000 in the transactions of the year." Now, the hon. gent4oman ventured the statement that this taxation was required to meet an impending deficit, and yet he declares that more than $3,000,000— $3,000,000 was all he asked the House to vote for the purpose he then stated — that more than $3,000,000 was votcl by this Parlia- ment for the express purpoae of constructing the Canadian Pacific Kaiiway. Sir EICHAED J. CAETWEIGHT. No ; it is no such thing. Sir CHARLES xUPPEE. Now, suppose that my hon. friend, after placing himself in that position, bad gone a step further, and suppose he had been entrusted with the public debentures of the country for the purpose of floating fi^ loan in the Imperial market, and suppose my hon. friend, instead of placing the debentures of Canada in the most favorable position he could, and by public competition obtaining the very highest price they would command, and bringing back to this country $500,000 ruore than the hon. gentleman obtained for a like amount of debentures — 1 say,suppo8e, instead of doing that, he had gone there and quietly sat down and fixed a price, below the mai'kot rate, and had sold these debentures to parties who, as I have stated before on the two occasions on which iposed. \y hon. igram- b posed |o ordi- hero in the lat was was to Jio con- Id fiom |f those iloso of J that it •doi* to It day, e Gov- place o meet 37 the hon. gentleman made this secret loan he had sold then to his friends, and had enabled them to stand in the position to-day of being richer to the extent of $4,745,000, than ther would have been Lad they not made the hon. gentleman s acquaintance Sir TIICIIAIID J. CARTWRTGIIT. Hear, hear. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. Now, 1 say if my hon. friend, instead of occupying the position he occupies in this Hou8» and country', l\aa his reputation tjirnishcd with transactions such as this Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. Hear, hear. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I say that then there might have boon some excuse for the arrogant and insolent ton© which the hon. gentleman ventured to use toward my hon. friend. Now, ho holds that the Speaker of the Senate, my hon. friend's colleague, is a very high authority, and he quoted him the other night as a great authority, as if the opinion of the Speaker of the Senate was to be accepted as conclusive, and he puts him in the Hansard as having settled that question by his ipse dixit. Now, Sir, I will quote the authority to which he pays such deference, and 1 will see what tliat hon. gentleman, known to the members of this House and the country at large as a man of the highest standing and character — known to be a man thoroughly versed in all tlu;!?e banking, mercantile and monetary transactions — has to say of the ex-Mi inster of Fiiumco, and we will see whether that hon. gentleman i;3 an ready to accept the authority of the hon. Speaker of the Senate as he was when he quoted him against me the other night: "In the increase of the debt stated above, $42,811,202.32, of course ii included the sum of §1,520,833, that being giibstantially the portion of the loan of 1876 ($1?, 106,666) which «ir Richard Cartwright allowed as discount to the lenders, and paid for brokerage, &c. " I may say that my hon. friend, the Speaker of the Senate, in using this languaj^e, is only dealing with the smaller loan of £2,500,000 sterling, and not with the larger loan of £4,000,000, which was still worse. He goes on t "While the Dominion did not receive this sum of $1,520,833, or any part of it, yet interest, sinltinp; fund, Ac, have to be paid thereof , amoupti.nr to about $70,000 a year, till the maturity of the loan in 1906. (Th© interest alone at 4 per cent, exceeds $60,000 a year). To have to pay $70,000 a year for 30 years for that which nie Dominion did not receive, seems a grievous hardship, but Sir itichard maintains that it ^vas a model loan. " An hon. MEiMBER. A muddled loan. £Si>^if.W3l(HEIliSX«^ •0^ :i » 38 j Sir CHARLES TUPPER. Well, perhaps it is a misprint for that. He goes on to say : "But, in the opinion of men who do not beloag to their model school of finance, it was an improvident and mysterious loan. " Perhaps the hon. gentleman can toll us what a mysterious Joan is ? "I say mysterious, because it was sold without competition, on terms which reduced the net proceeds which Canada received to about 87J cents on the dollar, and, further, because Mr. Mackenzie's Administration refused to make public *he names of the allottees or beneficiaries." And now we find Ihat the allottees or beneficiaries are only a trifle under one million pounds sterling better off for these two loans, which they negotiated with the hon. the ex-Finance Minister of the Dominion. Now, suppose my hon. friend stood in that position, there might be some slight ground, some show of reason, why any hon. gentleman in this House might feel that he need not be too choice in the language he was throwing across the floor when dealing with i-uch a man and under such circumstances. But, J sa^ , >;^ir, find I t^ay it advisedly, that there is not a man ia Canada who has the bad eminence that the hon. the ex-Minister of Finance has, as one who has lowered the tone of debate in this House and out of it, without the slightest cause ; there is not a man in Canada, and T say it advisedly, who has placed himself in a position of more nnen/iable notoriety than has that hon. gentleman by the coarf e, insulting and ungentlemanly language which he uses in this House and out of it, and I will prove the truth of what I say. And, oir, the hon. gentleman is not par- ticular to a shade as to the occasion on which he uses such language. What would ho have thought of my hon. friend if he had gone to London and over his own signature committed himself solemnly to the statement that all the expenditure which the Government of this country had undertaken was wise and legitimate cx])3n- diturc — an expenditure in the public interest; that it had all been admirably calculated to ]>romoto the best interests of Canada, and had then come buck with the ink barely dry on this record, on the solemn record to which ho had committed himself, had gone on a public platform and denounced the men who had incurred that expenditure, which he solemnly declared was a wise and judicious expen- diture, and one which was in the interests of the country? Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. Not a bit. SirCHARLP^S TUPPER. Not a bit? Then I shall read the hon. gentleman's own language, for I have it here : "This entire debt has been incurred for legitimate objects of publio utility." ^ lisprint pchool of terious >n ferma r>out 87J pstration is." e only off for on. the osc my (i* light nan in in the iealinf J ^Hy. m. the red the )ut the J say n more by the icli he truth ot pui-. !S such fj'iend nature that < this cxpon- hat it a best ink ch he n and tituro, x pen- try? 1 read publio Sir EICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. But not wisely or judiciously. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I am not done with the hon. gentleman yet : " The indirect advantage from these public works has been found in the remarkable rapidity with which the commerce and the material prosperity of the Dominion have been developed. The revenue has ihown a continuous surplus during each year since Confederation." Now, what will be said of a gentleman, who having signed this with his own hand as the Finance Minister of Canada, stating to the people of England that they could rely on that as being an honest and a true statement of the affairs of this country — whi shall be said of him when he comes back to Canada, and on a public platform uses the foul langnago th;\t the men who incurred that expenditure had exhibited brutal ignorance, oi* that their conduct was that of a drunken cjow scuttling the ship they wore about to leave? And what was his excuse when he was charged Avith such conduct as I have described ? He says that the exigencies of a public man are very great. Sir RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. I said nothing ofthe kind. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. Ho said that sometimes wo have to exhibit a silver shield and .«-e bou. gentle- men have not, both in their places in Parliament and on the public platform, done all that men could do to cause men to turn their backs on Canada and take up their residence in the United Slates. I will read a statement made by the ex-Fin- ance Minister, and if he can tind any advertisement published in the United States more calculated to draw people Irorn Canada to that country, where the hon. gentleman is not known but only has the refutation of having been a Finance Minister, then I should like to see it. What did the hon. gentleman ^ay here in his place in Parliament on Friday night? this with respect to his country " Whjy, Sir, I tell them to-day that Canada is a country in which no man is free to buy or to sell, to eat or to drink, to travel or to stand Btill, without paying toll to some extortioner or other." He ventured to use such language as I 44 Is that calculated to draw immigrants to Canada. That is the language that he and his friends have used in expressing their opinions of this country. I say there is no intelligent man who places confidence in, or believes in the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite, who would not turn his back at the first opportunity on this country and remove to any other country in the world. That is the position which the hon. gentleman occupies, and that is the kind of woi-k that he and those around him have been engaged in doing for years in the interest of Canada. Despite all their ort'orts, they have worked in vain. Under the financial policy of ray hon. friend the Finance Minister, enacted into law by Parliament, all the efforts of the hon. gentlemen opposite have proved to be futile, and to have only recoiled on them- selves, and they will only have the result of teaching an intelligent people, keenly alive to their own interests, who are the men in this country upon whose statements they may place reliance, and who are the men upon whose management of pubHV' n^^airs they ir\f\\r wisely depend. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman entertained us with his novel theory respecting the balance of trade. We have been accustomed to hear a great deal from hon. gentlemen opposite about the United States and the statesmen of that great country, who have proved themselves to be about as successful in the management of financial alTuirs as those of any country in the world. I know of no instance in which the financial management of the (xovernuiont has beea crowned with such remarkable results as in the United Slates. What did President Grant say on the qu( t ion of balance of trade ? Did ho say that the more the balance of trade was against the United States the better? President Grant, in his Message of the Gth of December, 18*76, said : "Taxes have been re 1 need, within the last seven years, nearly three hundred millions ot dollars, and the National Debt has been reduced, ia the same time, over four Uutidred and thirty-five millions of dollars. By re.'^unding the six per cent, bonded debt for bonds bearing 5 and 4j per cent, interest, respectively, the annual interest has been reduced from over one hundred and thirty millons of dollars, in 1869, to bat little over one hundred millions of dollars in 1876." President Grant then adds ^.he boast that the balance of trade has been changed from $180,000,000 against the United Staves in 1869, lo $120,000,000 in their favor in 1876. The hon. gentleman says that it is porfectlj' obvious, if you send $60,000 or $70,000 away and receive back $90,000, you make money by the exchange. He forgets that the balance has to be paid in gold, I need not say, with respect to England, that no comparison can. be drawn, because it is the great money centre of the world, and occupies an entirely different position from 45 X countries gonorally. The hon. gentleman says we have increabcd the cost of living, and gives the reason " that on every yard of coarse tweed the poor man uses, the Tariff com- pels him to pay 25 or 30 or 40 per cent, and perhaps more, than in 1878." Well, did the hon, gentleman not notice the Btatcment made by the hon. the Finance Minister with re8pect to the v/ool trade of this country; did he fail to perceive that the amount of wool increased was reduced and a less quantity exported, while, at the same time,a greater quantity was used in this country, and the consumption of wool was increased by nearly 3,000,000 lbs. during the year? What does that mean ? Why, it mcaiis that the wise policy of my hon. friend the Minii'^ter of Finance gives such oncourago- ment to the manufacture of these coarser cloths which the poor men require, that the amount of wool consumed in their manufacture is 3,000,000 lbs. over and above that of any previous year. That ought to bo an explanation to the hon. gentleman, that it is quite possible for a tariff to be so constructed, in relation to the industries of a country, as to foster the manufacture of these articles within the country, PO as, by competition, to furnish the people with them, as my hon. friend showed they had been furnished, at a lower cost, while giving profitable employment to our operatives and consuming the wool grown in the country. The hon. gentleman is very anxious about the lumberman ; he wants to know why we do not give the lumberman a bounty. I have passed over a great deal of what the hon. gentleman said, because it seems to require no remark. There may bo a point in it, but his sentences are so involved that it is difficult to discover any point. He wants to know if the fisherman has bounties why not the lumberman as well. Yet the lumber trade, according to his own showing, was never in a more nourishing condition than it is to-day, and the hon. gentleman will find it as difficult to get information from the lumbermen as from the farmers. The reason is, they have no such information to give as he is looking for. There is a lumberman behind me of high standing and character who is as well acquainted with the lumber trade as any man in the country. Let the hon. gentleman look at his books and he will find no cause of complaint. He will find that the lumbermen are suffering from no reverse. On the contrary, so flourishing has been the lumber trade in the past year that $12,000,000 worth were actually exported over the previous year. Aa for the farm- ers, he has admitted that they are so prosper- ous, owing to the prices of everything they raise that it is quite unnecessary to refer to them. That hon. gentleman must have another personal fling at my hon, friend. He is very anxious there should be no nepotism in 40 this country, that MinistorB of the Crown should show an uttor disregard of their own relatives, that when they make friends they should make thorn abroad. That when they wanted support of the groat companies that was all right, but no Minister of the Crown should pay any attention to his own connections. I think, if the hon. gentleman would look into the Public Accounts, he will find a few pensioners of his own name and connections entered in them. It is, therefore, not very safe for him to fling a stono in that direc- tion. TTo complains also of the mode in which the Civil Service has been dealt with in making improper promotions. I ask the hon. gentleman to t:iko up the record of this Gov- ernment and find one case analogous to the mode in which promotion was abused and the introduction of parties into the public service abused under his Gcvernraont. Let him refer to the Post Office Department, and he will find the case of a stranger, not belonging to the country at all, who was brought in and appointed over tho heads of civil servants, men of character, standing and intelligence, and able to teach that gentleman his duly. Yet this stranger was forced in over their he:ids at a salary which Lhoy could not acquire after twenty years service. Let the hon. gentle- man then go to the Customs Department, and he will find that for a supporter of one of his hon. colleagues the same operation was performed ; and gentlemen who had served long years in the public service were taught tho melancholy lesson that no matter how well they per- formed their duties they were to remain in the back ground whenever a Minister had a friend or favorite to push over their heuds. In the Public Works Department a still more flagrant and notorious instance of political favoritism occurred. A man brought in from the outside was pushed from pillar to post until he was landed, after three or four years service, in the position of Deputy Minister, when these hon. gentlemen went out of power. When the hon. gentle- man . finds three cases under this Administration to com- pare with those I have mentioned, he may fairly venture to throw his taunts across the floor of this House at the mode in which pi-omotions are made under this Government. The hon. gentleman taunted my hon. friend with having framed a Tariff most disastrous to the shipbuilding in^^^stry. Whore did the hon. gentleman get his authority? Does he not know that there has been a keen competition going on between iron and wooden ships, in which the latter have been worsted? Does he not know that all he could do himself to strike down the shipbuilding inaustry he did ; and that although we did succeed in staying his arm to some extent, it was not until we came back to power, that, by our giving a drawback to the extent of the ducy imposed on the materi- 4S als UBod in shipbuilding, that industry had any fairplay. Let mo read the hon. gontleraan a statomont from the Wind- Bor Mail, County of Ilunts, Province of Nova Scotia. That statement reads : "During the year just closed Hants County built twenty-aix vesseig measuring 19,044 tons. Never but once in the historv of the county wati there such a large amount of shipping built as during the past year. The total number of vessels on our list is 252, measuring 163,144 tons. More than half of these are barques and ships, nearlrall of which are engaged in the foreign trade. The amount of capital invested in this country during the past year alone is not far short of $600,000, and the total value of the shipping of the county amounts to considerably over $4 000,000. There was built last year in this county nearly one ton of shipping for every inhabitant, and the total amount of shipping on the list would average eevea tons for every man, woman and chilS in the county." Yet the hon. gentleman eays the Hhipbuilding industry is Buffering. He wants to know why we are going to relieve the fi^thormen. lie cannot get this bounty for the fishermen out of his mind. It seems to disturb the hon. goniloman. But I can toll him there will be no such difficulty with the Eoor and hardy fishermen. They will not whine over this ounty as the hon. gentleman is inclined to do. Ho says the Minister of P'inance proposes to relieve the fishermen of his native Province and of the Maritime Provinces. But what is he going to do with all these numerous classes of people Buch as clergymen, schoolmasters, clerks and others, whose income is to a certain extent fixed ? Let him go to any clergyman, and he will find the same difficulty as to the information he wants as he finds with the farmers. But, Sir, the clergyman will toll him that, under this fiscal policy, the congregation that was struggling, unable to do as they wished to do, to sustain the church to which they belonged, have now ample means to give their clergy- man the comforts he nnd his family requires. When he goes to the schoolmaster, the schoolmaster will tell him : *' Why, Sir, you have mistaken me it you think I am an object of sympathy. The number of children who can be sent to school now — whose parents formerly wore struggling with poverty, unable to clothe them — is such as to give me ample reward." The demand for teachers, like the demand for knowledge, like the demand for luxuries, has grown just as the revenue of the country has grown, grown just as the industries have grown, and just as everything that is in the interest of Canada has gi'own from the time the hon. gentleman was deprivec^ of the power of longer throwing his blight over all the industries of this country from end to end. In the matter of clerkfc, before, while the hon. gentleman was in power every third man you met wanted to know if you could not give him some little office that would give him $200 or $300 48 a year. IIo would say, I am an accomplishod accountant, a good writer, and have a thorough Icnowlodgo of grammar, which tlio hon. ox-Financo Minister honors so highly, but I can got no eniploymont. If you want a man {)08H0HHing thoHO attainments to-day you have to search for him, because the demand for that kind of labor, created by the indu.striet* that have grown up, has made it almost imj)ossil)!o to got Buch men who previously Hearched in vain for employment. "Well, Sir, the hon. gentleman made a very remarkable admis.-^ion the other day. lie said : " I feel much more diH- f)Orted to blush for the dogi'adation of Canada " — that is the anguago with which the hon. gentleman invites people to come to this country — " and to tremble for the cf)nso(pioncc.s hereafter." Sir, [ do not wonder the hon. gentlenuin trem- bles. I should be greatly surprised to see him blush. He is much more in the brazen shield line than in the blushing line. What is the dread hereafter he trembles to meet? It is the Hcxt election, Sir. I am told already, that not only is thei-e a revolt am(mg the hon. gentleman's supporters in this House — and I am not surprised that thoy whou'd be anxious for him to relinquish the position of tinaricial spokesman of the party — but that nis constituents are equally will'ng to let him make his bow and give them an opportunity of being better reprosentxi. I am not surprised that the outlook in h's old constituency, where he is best known and from whi jh he was dismissed by the verdict of the people at the last election — notwithstanding his boasted wealth he was compelled to abandon that constitu- ency, and ho trembles now lest he may not find it easy to get back into the House at all. The hon, gentleman may find the electors of this country share the sentiment he uttered the other night, that a Minister — and, of course, he who aims at being a Minister — should be like Cfesar's wife, above suspicion. The hon. gentleman told us that he prays some- times. Let me recommend him when ho does so to use that model and best of prayers in which ho will find: " Lead us not into temptation ; " a prayer thai he may never agam be Finance Minister, and never have tjpe chance of repeating his operation on the money markets of the world. That is a prayer in which the intelligent electors of this country will most devoutedly join. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman concluded his somewhat vague and stilted address with the following statement : — " For those men may boast of their great majoriLy here to-day, they may boast of their full Treasury, they may boajt of their devoted supporters, but I can recollect some ten years ago when these gentle- men were just as insolent, just as arrogant as they are to-day, when they had just as strong a majority behind them, just as full a Treasury, when they were prepared to be just as unscrupulous in maintaining their places as they are to-day, yet in twelve moatos after that time I saw 49 them scattered and driven into deserved i((noaiiny. The fate that betel them in 1873 mar well b* fnll them in 1883, and I ^ee Big.'i:^ and trkniR, not a few, thrt if they do aot take care, and it they do not mond their ways, that fate will assuredly befall them ap^ain." Sir, does the hon. gentloman not 80o that, jiint in proportion a» ho car sustain tho chaige of our being diHrnisHod from powoi with desorvoil ignominy, ho is heaping a greater amount of it u)x>n himself. Dkch tho hon. gentleman not see that it is bad enough ior a party, strong in power, with a great majority in this House behind them, as they had in 1878, to go to the people against a high-minded honorable set of gentle- men on the other side, and sustain an overvvhelmlng 'lefoat ? But, Sir, what shall be sjiid of men who, after tho poojilo of this country have had an opportunity of weighing thorn in the balance, say of them : " For heaven's sake give us back anything rather than lot tliem again have control of the Government." Ifweaioopon to those charges, what was the hon. gentlemen's conduct 1o induce tho people ot this country, by an overwhelming majority, to r*iiy: "Get you gone, and let better men take your places." If we are bad, what must you be, who, by the verdict of the i' olligent electors of this country on September X^rn, 1878, were consigned to the humiliating position you occupy now, and my right hon. friend and his col- leagues wliose services to the country were known, were restored to office. 1 would, therefore, recommend the hon. gentleman not to venture ui)On that line of argu- ment again. 1 would like the hon. gentleman to toll me what signs of the times he sees. I am afraid they are visions; and 1 think tho hon. gentleman must bo aslcop wh<)n those visions come over him. I do not see how any waking man can see any such signs ov tokens. As I said bcf >re, histoiy is philosophy, teaching by experience ; and what does the his- tory of that day and of this teach the people. Why, Sir, when a change of Government is imminent, when the public mind is on the waver, when a Ministry are shaken in the public confidence, there are signs of the times. There are tokens, and they are unmistakable. Do you see them now ? Let me draw the hon. gentleman's attention to portentious signs of the times that point with unerring fidelity, in free countries such as ours, to the direction the public mind is taking. What was the jjosition of the hon. gentlemen opposite when they had been in power for three years and four months? Tt is true they went to the country with a great majority ; but we told them it would be swept from under their feet, and 1 gave them the reasons why. They were plain and distinctive reasons which, under parliamentary forms of Government, have been found to be 60 conclusive upon such a quostion as this. I said : " Look abroad over the face of the country; reirieuibor the great majority you had and tell me where it is now." I showed them that, outof sixtyoneGovernmentseatsthat had bec«me vacant, they had only been enabled, including the Ministerial elections — a dozen of them or something like it — to elect forty-seven supporters. I showed them with reference to the twenty-six soatn of the Opposition that had become vacant, that we had been able to elect out of them, and out of the seats which had become vacant on the Government side, no icss than forty. So that at the ond of four years we stood in this House twenty -eight votes on a division better than when the Government was formed. These were the signs of +''e times — the unmifttahalle signs of the times; and, Sir, when the them Govcn.nent went to the country we realized them to th« fulie.st extent, the overwhelming verdict of the people con- firming the vordict of the by-elections as it almost invari- abl}'^ does. But what is the position of gentlemen opposite to-day? Tiiirty-four tseats have been vacant on the Govern- ment side, and out of those thirty-four how many have we won? Thirty-two, Sir, and hon. gentlemen opposite, out of thirty-four neats and in three years and four months have taken exactly two seats from us. What more? Twelve ^