«il % ^. ^^■^ ■^^^' .0. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) // h *, l/x V, 1.0 I.I ■A&|2.8 ISO *^™ " BiS ilO 25 L25 III 1.4 1.6 P n m ^p}. ^J ^. ^^' ^j, ^em /A O Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WeST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 873-4503 1 "ci^^ \ ^ ,''-^ "^^.^^ ^^\ ^^ \j V «il Cp. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques ;\ \ iV Zv Tachnicai and Bibliographic Notas/Notac tachniquas at bibliographiquas Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy available for filming. Featuras of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction, or which may significantly chsnga tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. D Colourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur □ Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommag^ □ Covars restored and/or laminated/ Couvartura restaur^ at/ou paiiiculAa n Cover title missing/ Le titra da couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ □ n n Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches at/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr^e peut causer de I'ombru ou de la distorsion l« long da la marge intirleure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutias lors dune restauration apparaissent dans la texte. mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mantaires; L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a itt possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-itre uniques du point de vue bibHographiqua, qui pauvent modifier una image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de fllmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies p~| Pages restored and/or laminated/ Q Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolorimn, tachaties ou piqu^as I j Pages detached/ Pages ditach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti Inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprand du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seuie idition disponible r~y| Showthrough/ I j Quality of print varies/ j I Includes supplementary material/ rn Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalamsnt ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont M filmies A nouveau de facon it obtanir la meilleure image possible. The to tl The POS: Oft film Ori( beg the sior oth< first sior oril The she I TIN whi IVIai diff( enti beg righ reqi met This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X JOX y| 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X u 32X The copy filmed here hat been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Douglas Library Queen's University L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grAce k la gAnArosit* de: Douqias Library Queen's University The images eppsaring hero are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in iteeplng with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images suivantes ont 6t* reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de l'exemplaire f ilm6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage. Lee exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont filmAs en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiimis en commen^ant par la premlAre page qui comporte une empreinite d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniiro page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded f.ame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —»- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or tho symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". IVIeps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est fiimt d partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche i droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 w s * House of Commons ©ebatcs* /.?«^--. THIRD SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT SPEECH OF SIR RICHARD CARTWRIGHT, M.P. ON THE BUDGET TUESDAY, 14th FEBRUARY, 1893. d Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. At any time, and under any possible circumstances, the smiual exposition, or even tlie annual re- affirmation of the financial policy of the Gov- ernment, is a matter of considerable Inter- est to all classes of Canada ; and, on the pre- sent occasion, when, as the Minister cor- rectly told us, there is an extraordinary feel- ing of unrest and disqvdet pervading the masses of the community, there is no doubt that it is an occasion of more than usual in- terest. I am not quite sure that I can cor- gratulate the hon. gentleman on having en- tirely risen to the level of the occasion ; but to those who will take the trouble to read between the lines of his speech, the speech was undoubtedly significant enough. To us who have been in the habit of listening to that hon. gentleman and his compeers for a great many years, there was a rather re- markable absence of what I must call the braggadocio with respect to the National Policy, which has heretofore characterized utterances from that side of the House. There was also an almost complete absence of those taunts which used to be fiung across the floor to gentlemen on this side, bidding them bow to the will of the people, and as- suring them that the National Policy was so rooted in the innermost instincts of the people of Canada that our pimy efforts to disturb it were hi vain. Sir, a change has come over the spirit of the dream of my hon. friend. He has had a vision. Possibly he may have dreamed that he heard the pres- ident of the young Conservatives of Toronto declaring that they were being annexed in job lota. Possibly he may have heard a gentleman who was whilom designated as the brains of the party, blaspheming the holy tariff, and speaking evU words even against the sacred gerrymander Itself. Pos- sibly the hon. gentleman Is aware that the farmers' histitutes, from one end of the coun- try to another, are kicking against the wise and merciful provisions of his tariff. Possibly he Is also aware that there is hardly a siib- sidlz^ed newspaper, or. perhaps. I should say, an insufliclently subsidized newspaper, that is not helping to swell the chorus. Under these circumstances, I can well understand that our political Vicar of Bray might be a good deal puzzled as to what wa& the duty of a conscientious public man. Of course, the hon. gentleman knows that it is his duty to obey the powers that be, but, on the present occasion, the hon. gentleman is not quite sure who are the powers that be. Mr. POSTER. We know who are not Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I do not think the hon. gentleman does. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, I hope the hon. gentleman won't take It amiss if I suggest that if he has not looked to Washington ex- actly, ho has certainly looked to that high- souled American statesman immortalized by Lowell, whose policy, very like the hon. gen- tleman's, was summed up in these beautiful lines : There may be men of greater talents. Who can't sit stiddier on the fence. Although, looking at the hon. gentleman's performances, I may remind him that while a fence may be a steady seat, a tight-rope performance of the rather acrobatic character we have seen to-night, is not apt to be so. Sir, there is a sort oi. resemblance, if I may say so, between the hon. gentleman and his policy. If I may make the remarlt without offence, I beUeve the hon. gentleman com- menced his career as a professional philan- , throplst. Now, I understand that the business of a professional plilianthropist is to make everybody else better, as it was the business of the National Policy to make everybody richer. Sir, I wonder if the hon. gentleman ever heard his late lamented leader give hia opinion of what a professional ptiilautliroplst Is ? If he has not, I must gratify his curiosity on the prosont occasion. It is tmown to some hon. gentlemen in this House that in my green and salad days, evfr so many years ago, I was In the habit myself, sometimes, of sitting at the feet of that estimable Gamaliel, and I am bound to say that I have been the re- cipient of not a little useful, and a great deal of very entertaining, knowledge from that hon. geniieuiaii. Now, Bii', I I'ecoUeot one n \ ^ oocasion when a question came up for dis- cusaiou touching professional philantliropists, I rememlxir also that I spoke inadvertently and somewhat slightingly of that valuable class of men. Sir John took me up at once. Professional philanthropists, lie assured me, were an exceedingly useful set of people. He, himself, always Uked to have one or two pro- fessional philanthropists in his cabinet. They were useful, he said, for the pui-pose of keep- ing up the average of respectability, whicli, he remarked— and I entoely agi-eed with Liiu — was sometimes quite a desideratum ; but he went on to observe, and I remember the words well— possibly the hon. gentleman may have heard them— that he had noticed tliiii men who went in to get a living by making other people better were apt, in course of time, to rei-y man can apply, and the tnith of which no human being who knows anytlilng of the position of the country will ever venture to dispute, and that test before I sit d wii I propose to .ipply to the hon. gentleman's argu- ments. We have to-night sundry fallacies to deal witli, wt> have sundry, I will not call them falsehoods, but statements without foiuidation In fact to expose, and sundry con- spiracies, I fear, to lay bare. Let us tjike up the long Ust of broken pledges by means of which hon. gentlemen opposite carried tlie cotmtry against Mr. Mackenzie and his Ad- nnnlstrathm hi 1878. Sir, I remt'inber wel, perhaps the Minister of Financi> does nut, because his parliamentary Ufe is rather short compared with mine, how the people were told that give tliose hon. gentlemen the right to control the destinies of Canada and they ^^'ould stop the exodus, ihoy would pr vi le a home market for everything our farmers could raise, they would restore the bal- ance of trade— they laid great empliasia on restoring the balance of trade in those days— they would enrich our people, they would raise the value of land and raise the value of farm products (but the hon. gentle- man has got new light on that question since that time) they would fill the North- west from end to end with a teeming pop- ulation, and, lastly, they would obtain reci- procity with the United States. The bare recital is enough. All those pledges and pro- mises may weU match with Sir Charies Tupper's famous declaration that in a few brief years, and ten years have elapsed since then, we would export 640,000,000 bushels of wheac from Manitoba, and on 31st Decem- ber, 1890, !i;58,800,00O would be paid into our treasury, as profits from the sale of our pub- lie lands, and the Canadian Pacific Railway would not cost the people a sou. 1 shall make a short review, and a very short one of the way in which those promises have been fTilfilled, I regret not to see the hon First Minister in his place, because the First Minister's view and mine with respect to the exodus differs slightly, and there would be given an opportunity on this occasion for the .1.!.. -,, .1... ,,.„,, ,.^ leuccm Uiu pienge ne partly gave that he would review and con- d i^ ^ 3 .4 trovert the argiimeots I advanced on a re- cent occasion In opposition to some of his statements. With respect to the exodus, I want to call tlie attention of the House to this fact : I am prepared to prove that so far from stopping the exodus, the exodus during the Inst ten years was double, and more than double, the exodus between 1871 and 1881, and it was three times as much as tlic exo to Canada. Of those. 12,000 a year were required to make up the death rate, to keep up tlie nu..iber of hnmigrants to Oanida at its former strength, and even If wo lest all the remahider they would merely aggre- gate 88,000 people. We have the Auier- ican statistics for 1874-75-76-77 and 1878 For 1874 and 1875 they group all the Americans together, north and .south For 1876-77 and 1878 they give correct figures. in 1876 the total Canadlan-ljom Immigrants from Canada to the United States amoimted to 22,471 ; in 1877, 22,116 ; 1878, 25,518. So rar as it is possible to ascertain, the number waa about 25,000 in 1874 and 1875, maMng a reasonable deduction for the numb(>r of hnmigrants from Mexico, the West lufil -s, fcouth America and other countries included mth the Canadians who went to the Unite 1 States. I do not ailege that that was due entirely to the policy of Canada at the time, for the snnple fact that during those five years emigration to the United States had almost entirely ceased, as any hon. gen- tleman can see if he exambios the United btates statistics. But how does that com- pare with the emigration nnd.>r the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite V As I have Sidd, the maximum immigrntlon hi Mr. Macken- zies s time was very little over 40,000 souls, putthig together the foreign-bom immigrants who came to Canada and tlie native-born Canadians who left. What was the number under the Admhiistration of hon. gentlemen opposite ? Our own census returns prove to a demonstration mat we have lost 440,000 of our own native-born population, and the hon. gentleman's own statistics prove, unless tiiose statistics are a lie, a fraud and a .sham, ttiat we have lost of foreign immigrants 727,- 000 more. Put these two figures together and you will find the loss to Canada of native- born Canadians, by far the most valuable class, and of foreign immigrants, amounts to a total of 1,167,000, being at the rate of 116,000 per annnm during the last t(^v. voars as against, hi Mr. Mackenzie's time, an ex- treme number, an over-estimated number, of 40,000 a year from both those classes. Those hon. gentlemen made every hustlugs ring In 1878 with their declamations as to how. if thoy were only permitted to enjoy the control of this country, u home market would be provided in every town and village for everything the farmer could raise. Our villages were to become towns and our towns were to become cities, and our cities were to become Svimetiiing hardly ever dreanned of in this country before. We were to have at our farmers' doors, markets which \i'ould consume every vege- table, every cereal, and every head of cattle and poultry that they could possibly raise, r do not think the hon. gentleman divre prate to the farmers of their home market to-day. They were to restore the balance of trade. Well, to my poor Judgment, that was a silly proposal, but what is the fact ? Do hon. gentlemen want to know the figures ? Why, .since 1878, the gross balance of trade Is $.308,000,000 against us, an average of more tlian $20,000,000 a year, and that was the way the hon. gentlemen fulfilled that promise. The hon. gentlemen were to enrich the people, they were to raise the value of farm products ; but tlie present Finance Minister, havhig obtahied a little more wisdom than his predecessors, tells us that no Government can raise the price of farm cereals. I appeal to all my hon. friends. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite themselves who took part in the el2ction of 1878, if, from one end of Ontario to the other, and, I beUeve from one end of Canada to the other— although the price of farm products were double tlieu what they are now— I appeal to them and ask if the cry of hon. gentlemen opposite was not that they could and would raise the price of every- thing that farmers had to sell. They were to fill the North-west with population. Well, Sir, if ever there was a miserable exhibit on the face of the earth. It is the exhibit which is made to-day in that fine coimtry, under the policy of these hon. gentlemen. Why, at the present time, we have positively not got one famUy to the square league of the fertile lands of the North-west. We have spent $100,000,000, more or less, In the last dozen years, and I doubt. Sir, if we can be shown to have added 10,000 familios to the popula- tion of the North-west during the last dozen years, by reason of that enormous expendi- ture. But, above all, they told us that they would obtain reciprocity ; as Sir John Mac- donald put It : reciprocity of trade, or reci- procity of tariffs. That, also, I miut deal with hereafter. It would take me altogether too long at this present moment to do Justice to the strenuous efforts made by these hon gentlemen, and by the Minister of Fhiance In particular, on two memorable occasions, to obtain reciprocity for the people of Canada. Now, I notice three fimdamental errors hi the speech of the Finance Minister, errors which affect his whole policy and the wliole pohcy of hfs GoTetuinoui and his party. That hon. gentleman lays down, or did lay down, as a / proposition, that It was possible to Increaae our collective wealth by Increasing our taxes. I beg leave to tell the hon. gentleman that I regard such a proposition as about the ne plus ultra of folly in a country like CnnaOa. When the hon. gentleman is able to pour water into a sieve and keep it there, when the hon. gentleman is able lo leap from one of these bxuldlngs and sustain liim- Belf in mid-air, by grasping his waistband, when the hon. gentleman can take snow in hlB hand and hold it before tlie fire without its melting ; then, and not until then, will the hon. gentleman increase the col'fcctlve wealth of the community by hicreasLng their taxes. Sir, we do not look for grapes from thorns and we do not look for figs from thistles, but we had better do that than look for prosperity to a policy, the veay key-note of which Is to enrich one or two special classes at the expense of the great bulk of the com- munity. I tell the hon. gentleman that his Government and his policy may indeed dis- place wealth—that they have done to a large extent— but they are helpless and powerless to create it Then, Sb*, the friends of the hon. gentlemBJi, and I think the hon. gentle- man himself, although he alludecJ to it but lightly, gave us to understand that because protection had brought prosperity, as he thought, to the United States, therefore that protection would bring prosperity to Canada also. I never heard that argument used by anybody without putting down the man who used it either as a charlatan who does know better, but who desires to delude the people, or as a man who is utterly and hopelef»8ly ignorant of the very primary geo- graphical conditions iu which tliis country is placed. I have said often, and I repeat it here— because the hon. gentleman has made it necessary for me to go into some details in dealing with these general propositions— I repeat, that if an economist were called upon to select two countries in one of which the protective system would do the maximum of mischief, and another in which it would do the minimum of mischief, he would select as the one which was best able to bear a protective system without injury, the United States of North America, and he would also select as the one in which a protective system would assuredly do the maximum of mis- chief to the whole inhabitants of the coun- try, the federation of this Dominion. In the United States you have met together every condition which would counteract the evil ef- fects of a high protective system. You have a huge country, containing a population equal to two flrst-rate European nations, produ- cing every article, I believe, which any nation can require to produce, having every variety of climate, from the tropic to the pole, and enjoying In itself a vast and most perfect system of free trade among twenty-flve or thirty nations called states. You have, on tyjia sjfia of the border-, a- .'?rovin of countries se- parated from each other by physical obstacles of a very formidable kind separated from each other by large tracts of inhospitable country, producing almost identically the same articles ; not a homogeneous people by any means, with u veiy small population, comparatively speaking ; and, in one word, you have combined in Canada every possible combination of circumstances which can I make a protective system a huge and vicious mistake. The hon. the Finance Minister and his friends are In the habit of telling us that we need not complain, forsooth, of the amoimt of the taxes they levy upon us for the benefit of the manufacturers, because, he told us, the manufacturers are now able to produce in Canada as cheaply as in any other country. I doubt If a more impudent claim was evei advanced- If they are able to produce as cheaply in Canada as any- where else, what right or what need have they of protection at all ? But the fact is, that as to many articles, it is impossible, ' hi rerum nat\u^,' that you can produce them in Canada at all as cheaply as you can hi other countries. I take Issue in the most distinct fashion with the hon. gentleman on t'>at question. I may tell him that Canada at present if essentially an agricultural country, and next to that, it is a mhiing, flshhig and lumbering country, and while I am not in any respect disposed to depreciate the great im- portance of the manufacturing industries that exist, neither can I for one moment allow the hon. gentleman to mislead this House or to mislead the people into sup- posing that Canada has any peculiar apti- tudes for a great many manufactures. There are certahi manufactures which may develop naturally and fairly here, and if so. Sir, they wlU need no coddling by a protective tariff or in any other way. If our manufactures need anything for the purpose of their full and free development, what they need, and what the best of our manufacturers know that they need, is a larger market than they at present po8ses&. I am well aware. Sir, that It Is the habit of hon. gentlemen opposite to support these false contentions by Impudently claim- ing for themselves, in the first place, the benefit of all the natural improvement which must talce place in a gi-eat country like this, and In the second place, of claim- ing the benefit of all these wonderful scientiflc discoveries Avhich from day to day, I might also say from hour to hour, are cheapening the process of manufacturing. Sir, science, I grant you, has partly undone the enormous mischief that protection has caused ; but, Sir, what protection does Is this : it Intercepts the compensation which is due to our fanners and the other classes I have named. The prices of all their manufactures, their wheat, their beef, every article that they produce, have been falling heavily, and still more heavily, from year to year, until this year, us the hon. Minister admitted in his speech, the prices of most of our cereals have touched the lowest figure known for I d T in M nearly half a century- The Ctovemment may not be able to mitigate that ; but what our Govermnent does Is at the same time to enable our protected manufacturers to de- prive our fi»rmerH of the benetit which they oiight to derive from the proase in the savings bank deposits. Well, Sir, where Is the money ? The hon. gentle- man has not got it. If a run were made on the savings baidi, he knows, as he tells us In his own report which I hold In my hand, that he would have to go to England to borrow money to meet It What does the Increase In the deposits in the savings banks prove ? It proves that the people of Canada owe the sum of money so deposited to a few Individuals. Where Is that money ? A part of it, we know, is hiterrebt upon the people of Cnnadii— have fnorinously In- (irensed llkcwlso ; luul tluit prlvati" Indfbtcd- nc'HH, as represented by moneys borrowed by our loan oonipanlos and Investwl In niort- KaB(>s, has likewlso iiioreaseil <'iiormously ? I would like the lion. Kontleniau to tell UB Avhat Ills estimate Is ot the lndebtedne«H of our pc'ople to outsiders on all these various scores. One of his coIUnikucs, the hon. uieni- bor for Cardwell (Mr. Wlilto), some years n«?o submittal a calculation to this House, according to which he (>stlniat<>i-y nuich dlspost other, more particularly when he and I know that all over Canada to-day a vei-y large class of the very best of our population are dally and hourly being degraded from the position of free and Independent landowners to that of mere tenants at will or hopelessly mortgagetl men? Let us compare for a moment the pro- gress we have made In this last decade with the progress we made In other decades. The hon. gentleman made a very great point of the enormous increase which the census shows in manufactures. Well, I have also taken the trouble to look through the census returns, and while I am glad to see there has been a considerable increase, I am son-y to be ol)llged to tell the hon. gentleman that he is utterly mistaken, and is misleading the House gravely wlum he declares that there Is a greattn- proportionate increase in the most hnportant respects between 1881 and 1891 than between 1871 and 1881. I take these census returns and look to two very important particulars. I look. In the first place, to the number of men employed. The increase In that respect amounted to 44 per cent ; the in- crease between 1871 and 1881 amounted, I be- lieve, to about 3!) per cent. All the alleged gain that has been obtained has been a rela- tiv(! increase of some 4 or 5 per cent. And I turn to another Item, to which the hon. gentleman directed special attention, the Item of the amount of money employed. I do not consider that that is a very favourable show- ing. It requires to-day, $353,000,00 of money to I produce $475,000,000 worth of goods, accord- 1 ing to the hon. gentleman's census returns. I Now, In 1881, It required $105,000,000 to pro- duce f?309,000,000 worth of goods. Conse- quently, whereas before we were able to pro- duce by the employment of $1 of capital nearly |2 worth of goods, now It requh-es $2 worth of capital to produce $3 worth of goods— a very distinct alteration, and an alteration for the worse In that Important respect. And so on for a very considerable i numlier of other Import-ont matters. As I have told the hon. gentleman, I do not con- sider that, in a coimtry like Canada, there is anything to boast of in the fact that tliere Is a reasonable natural Increase from year to /) [*■ M yenr. Dopb tJie hon. gentleman pay so very bad a coniplltnont to his own policy ns to think thoro would bo no natural IncrouHe at nil 1 Let us look nt the rate of Increase and compare It with that In the mother country, and let us return to that test which I have always pointed to as ofTorlnK the best pofwlbli? guarantee for a nation's real progress. 1 pointed out the other evening that In old Canada, that Is to say in the five old pro- vinces, oiu- total Increase during the last ten years had bceti barely 7,' per cent. I turn to the rc^tuniH for lOngland and Wales, and I find that while, with our idmost imllmltcd amount of vacant land In Ontario and Que- bec, at any rate, and also some of the Mad- time provinces, nil we Increased in that de- cade was 7 ; per cent, In England from 1801 to 1871 the increase was 13 1 per cent, and from 1871 to 1881 It was 14', per cent, and for this last period the Increase Is ns nearly as possible 12 per cent. So that, practically H|)eaking, the increase In England and Wales— an old country, a eoinitry which loses a great many of Its population by emi- gration—has been in some decades twice as much as that which took place in our old provhices from 1881 to 1891. I nollcAi that when tlie lum. gentlemen opposite are coii- fi-ontod with the facts of the census, or with the facta of tlie enonnous depreciaticm of property in town, village and farm liinds, their course has one meiit— it lias always been perfectly consistent. I wlU recall to the minds of my hon. friends behind me the numerous occaslon.s in which, during past years, I have clialleuged the accuracies of the hon. gentleman's sbitements as to the growUx of this country, and I nsk them if the course of the Govenmient was not on ail occasions precisely tiie same. First of all, there was an Impudent denial of the fact That was usiially followed by frantic abuse on their part, and on tlie part of their supportei-s ami their hireling press, of myself and the other gentlemen who brought tlioso unpleamut facts to their notice, and when the facts bec^vme too clear to be gainaiid or denied, Uieu the hon. gentleman took refuge— in what ? In the assertion, and often the very incorrect assertion, that it was a matter of no con- sequence, becau.se in some hole or corner of the United States, In some little sUite of the Union, a similar state of thhigs prevnllenun- ciated by the hon. gentleman is, briefly, to fling a tub to the whale. The policy of the hon. gentleman reminds mo very forcibly of an anecdote which I once heard of aii Am- erican gentleman who, at an ejirly period of this century, wis sojoundng at an Kng'.lsb country house. Th)s was at a time when the great American nation had not Iwoii »'du- cated on the subject of tips, and thl» fnifral party was seriously exercised as to what he ouglit to do. So he took one acqiuvlniauce aside and a.Mkends to proceed. Sir, if ever tJiero was a case in which the saying ' Parturiunt montos, nascetur ridiculus mus ' was ver!fl<'d it has been veriflod by the hon. gentleman this nft<>moon. Two and a half mortid houi-s the lion, gentleman consumel in telling us, first, that tlie Goveniment did not know what to do about saw-logs , second, that the Government will allow us to Import oil in tanks instead of In liarrels ; and, third, that the lion, gentleman will make the duty on liinding twhie 1 cent liLstead of 2 cents. But Sir, that is not all, that is not all by any means. Over and above all this. Sir, the hon. gentleman hius been nood enough to say that a grand progress Is about to be instituted. Is it to bo by caravan or by Jamaica car, Mr. Speaker ? Four Cabinet Ministers— no, two Cabim t Mlnistera and two apprentice boys will peddle olil tixes for sale about the Dominion. Old taxes for side ! That positively is the policy of clio lion, gen- tli-man. Now, Sir, if tlie hon. gentleman really means it, he has Ix^en monstrously in- Judicious. I recollect perfectly well ho.v the \1als of wmth were poured out on my de- voted head because, son^e eighteen years ago, in tho course of a speech made by Ills Ex- cellency, I ventured to hint in the mildest way i that witliin a month or so there would X.Q ! some tariff changes. Sir, it seemed to me ! tliat the heavens and the earth were coming ' together. What I had done was uncon- stitutional ; I was destroying trade, paralysing 1 manufactures. But tiie hon. gentleman pro- '■ poses during the whole year, if he really ; means what he says, to unsettle all trade, to unsettle all manufactures. Nobody is to know I where he stands until the hon. gentleman and his colleagues have completed tlieir pil- grimage and until a sufficient number of the old taxes have been sold. But, Sir, if the hon. gentleman does not mean it if all th".s is simply a device to gain time, if tliere has been a private arrangement with certain pro- tected manufacturers that they need not dis- I turb themselves, that this will all come out right, that It win be managed In Huch a w&j^ that thoir lut««rfHta at any nito will not Buffer, then, I vonturo to say, n greater farce was never played off on any couiitry than the pro- l»oMltlou of the hon. Kentleinan to tako a whole year to carefully conslilor what he, ; m Fluanoo MlnlHter, ou^lit to bo able to , advlMo tills country on to-day. As I have Bald. Sir, there Is one fact which, oner fifteen long years, has dawntxl on the hon. g(>ntleman (I wonder Iiuh It dawned on any of his friends aroiuid hlin), and that Is, that the (Jovemnient cannot ralHe the price of cereals. 81r, you will recollect, and the House will recollect, that wo were told by the hon. KenHenian time and again that only denuigogues would dare to say that the (}ov- omment could ral.se Uio price of cereals, and yet my memory goes back to the time when this country, In 1878, was flooded with dema- gogues prencldng that Identical doctrine. The hon. K<'ntleman tells us that our trade In agricultural products with (Jrcat Britnln has Increased by fifteen millions. Well, Sir, I am glad that, bad as the markets are, our farmers have a market at all, but I can tell the hon. gentleman this, that, as regards a large part of that fifteen millions. It Is simply the numsure of our loss, it Is simply the amount of unprofitable trade which wo have transacted In place of a much more profitable trade with our natural market. Sir, he was good enough to tell us that the Glovernment came to the help of the farmer In 188U, when they put on a lot of taxes on American products, and got for him, I be- lieve, a million or so of additional markets. And, Sir, he might have added that by that ill-timed and injudicious act he stuck the fanners of Canada for the McKlnley tariff and all the mischief It has done them. Had he and his fronds pursued, as they were advised from this side of the House, a wise, conservative policy, had they, knowing what was In contemplation from the United States, abstained from putting weapons into the bands of our opponents, the chances are a thousand to one that the most obnoxious portions of the McIClnley tariff would never have been enacted. But when he chose in April to defj- the American people and to put on taxes which he knew must bring retaliation, he and his Government stand convicted before this coimtry of having, more than any other men, con- tributed to saddle the McKinley tariff on the farmers of Ontario and the rest of the Dominion. Sir, the hon. gentleman says that the Government lowered the sugar taxes. No doubt the Government, at the dictation of the aforesaid Mr. McKlnley, did lower the duties. Did we hear one word of the remission of the sugar taxes until the American Govern- ment had made it Impossible to keep them on? And when they did reduce them, they did It so as to reduce the amount received by the community In revenue, but not so as to dis- turb the profits of their refining friends. The utmost amount that could be taken was taken out of the pockets of the people ; but the smallest possible amount was taken out of tlie pocket of tlielr friend, tho chairman of tho Oonservatlvo comndttco In MontreiU. Sir, tho hon. gentlemanV Ideas are ex- cellent ; but I am l)ound to sny his prac- tice Is detestable. Now, I come to r, consldori!i>l« c^ counigoment In tho matter of preferonu-' trndo. I will also tell the hon. gontlciimn that I have no doubt tho P'tnanoe MlnlHtor rcKHrdH proforentUil trade aa an excellent hhI horrinj? to draw a(!ro8« tho track ; and bo far, lui Is anro of tho aynipathy of the Mlnlnti-r of Finance if ha will aid and aBslst him In that benevolent purpose. Now, the hon. gentle- man dwelt at length on tho porcontages o* lncr(«a«o In the volume of trade, and with groat discrimination ho scleototl 1878, tho worHt of a prolonged period of deproBsion, oa tho Htnrtlng point. Well, Sir. I can do. If I Uko— thojigh I do not often take the trouble— a little In tlio matter of percontageH, and I will toll him how they come out. I will begin at 18((8 and go to 1878. In 1!*18 the grand total of our Imports and exports was 130 millions ; In 1878 It was 172 millions. The grand total had Incroast'd In tJioso ten years, 42 millions, being at tlie rate of a little over '.i per cent per annum, compounded. From 1878 to 1888 tlio sum total had Increased from 172 millions 1 about 201 millions, being less than 2 per cent per annum during tlioso ten years, and 60 per cent less than tho Increase from 1808 to 1878. If he chooses to add the other flvo years, It would only make, all told, an Increase of about 2 ' per cent during tho whole foiu^een years from 1878 tol892,a8 against the Increase from 18G8 to 1878. WeU, it is satis- factory to know there is some increase ; but I am bound to say, it does not strike me as being such an overwhelming increase for a country in the position of Canada. If we come to the hon. gentleman's favourite per capita argument, and tf we take the trade of twenty years ago, we find that in 1873 our grana total of exports and imports was $217,811,000. This year it is $241,000,000. Now, our popu- lation in 1873 was under four millions, and our trade amounted to $57 per head. In 1892, when our population is about five millions, our trade per head is $48. Our trade today is $» per head less than it was nineteen years ago, and $45 a family leos than it was at that time. As I have said, I do not depreciate tne Increase, I am very glad to see it, but, at tne same time, let the hon. gentleman do his— what shall I call it ?— his roaring with some discretion, and not select facts that any school boy who has access to the Trade and Navigation Returns con turn upside down with five minutes' attention. Sir, the plain fact of the matter is this— and the Minister of Finance ought to understand it, and if he does not understand it, it wdl be our more or less painful duty to make it plain to him— the position of the greater part of Canada to- day, the position, at any rate, of the older provinces of Canada, is that of a country wtiich has imf ortunately fallen to a stationary or retrograde condition. There has lieen an enormous shrinkage in values, a shrinkage which largely overbears all the increases wMch the hon. gentleman has enumerateft. Canada, moreover,- and this Is a serious con- sideration for a Minister of Finance, with or »r!thout a diploma - Oanada, moreover, U largely a tribute- paying country. Wo nre ob- liged every year, either on ac(!bunt of indivi- dual or general indebtednesB, to pay a sum of about 20 to 30 mllllonH to our Kngllsh cred- itors. Further than that, Canada la an enor- mously taxed country . FlrHt of ail, there is a tax of 80 millions which goes into the Fed- eral treasury ; next to that, there Is a tax, as I believe, of an amount about or quite equal, which goes Into tho pockt^ls of the protected manufacturers ; and thirdly, there Is a very heavy tax paid to the ITnlted States (lovemmcnt »mder the operation of the McKlnley tariff. Now, although T do not want to depreciate the value of Kngllsh markets, I must tell tho hon. gentle- man, I nmst tell his followers, that tliey are leaning on p broken reed If they hope t<) Induco the people of this coimtry to believe that tlio English markets are going to compensate us, as regards the great majority of farm products, in any shape or way for the American markets we have lost. We may 8<>nd cheese, we may send wheat, we may send beef, we may send dairy products generally to the English mar^ ket and do well there ; but for almost all other articles, for ahnost all the vegetables we raise, for our iiorses, for our barley and for our eggs, I toll the lion, gentleman that it is an absurdity, 'In ronim natura," to sup- pose that the Knglish market, under any circumstances, will ever bo ono-half as fav- ourable to us as the American market is known to be. Now, Sir, I spoke Just now of the amount which we paid to the protected manufacturers. This is an Important point, bearing largely on the whole argument of the hon. gentleman. Now, I think those In the House on either side who have paid any attention to economic questions, wUl agree that the measure of a tax is of neces- sity tho difference between the cost of the article consumed under such a sys- tem, and the cost of the same article in open market I will apply that test to a very few manufactures. First of all, we will take the article of cotton. Now, Sir, from cotton last year we obtained a revenue of $1,114,000. What was the tax tliat wo paid on the article of cotton ? There is a difflculty here, because there is some dispute as to the exact value of the cotton consumed in this country. Various figures have been given to me. Some persons put it at $4 per head, some put it at a Uttle less ; but having made a carfflful examination into the amount for- merly Imported and the amoimt of raw material now consumed, I believe that I am well within the mark In saying that the total value of the cotton goods now consumed in Canada, ranges somewhere between $17,- 000,000 and $20,000,000, includhig what is imported and what is produced In this couatry. Sir, It is known to all hon. gentlemen here that our taxes on cotton, especially on the coarser varieties go into high figures ; but I 10 l\ assume for the purpose of this argument, and only for this purpose, that the taxes average 30 per cent. In that case our taxes on the cotton goods consumed In Canada would amount to consiileraljly ovoi $;),(KM),- 000, and the amoimt that goes into the trea- sury is only $1,100,000. In the case of sugar, of which the hon. gentleman has boosted so ranch, while I agree with him that Ihe con- sumption is about H44,(K)0,000 lbs., the tax la -,\ of a cent per pound, and tliough it may be quite ti-ue that the i-eflner was not able to ex- tract the uttermost of his pound of tlesii. but the people are compelled to pay at least $2,000,000 a vear for tlie benelit of the rctlner, while only about .i;80,000 goes into the public treasuiy. I take the case of binding twine, which the hon. gentleuuvn has graclou&iy been pleased to reduce from 2 cents to 1 cent. What was the amount of tax last year ? It was shown to be 2 h cents, or 20 pe'* cent, on 10,0' <<».<((«) lbs., meaning a tax oi" $250,000 a year, of which the revenue only recfc'.v-xl $12,000. I take the ca.sc of rice, and in regard to that article his calculations differ from' mine. We imported of cioan rice about 3,000,000 lbs., and of paddy or uncleaned rice about 20,000,000 lbs. I do not know ex- actly the loss ill the conversion of unclean hito clean nee, but all rice consumed in Can- ada paid Ij cents per pound, that being the tax on the cleaned articles. That means that the neople paid somebody, though not into The treaisury, a tax of at least S250,000, while the revenue received is only $SO,0(X). I will not dwell on the results r£ this oppressive system as regards coal oh or iron, which enters so largely into the consumption of all agricul- turists, or binder twine ; but taking chose arti- cles together, the taxes on the four wiiicii I have enumerated amount to from $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 a year, while all that is received by tbo revenue if omy $1,250,000 I liavo paiduo attention whatever to the well-known fact tliat In many of these cases the tax is enor- mously increased by the middleman's charges. It is well known to everybody that if you put a tax on an article and it passes, before It reaches the final consumer, through two or three hands, the +ax is enormously increased. I have left that wholly and entir'>ly out of the questiou. I have merely called attention to the '.jnonnous amount which, under the operation of rny protective tariff is taken out of the people's pockets over and above the sum whleh goes into the revenue. On most of those articles the taxes are imposed BO us to luu-t the farmer more especially, and you must I'eiuemliei that ov(.>r and aliovc this liigh taxation, over and above tiie high bonuses given to protocted manufacturers. tlu3 condition of things is such that almost the whole weight falls on the farmers unler the McKinley Eiil, liecause, aLhough it may not benefit the United States consumer, it does Injure the Canadian producer. You will find my other stiitement; is perfectly correct, that under thp combined operations of these three heavy systems of taxation, taxation for Gov- ernment purposes, taxation for the benefit of protected miuiufacturera, and taxation under the McKinley tariff, every acre of land now imder cvdtivation in any poi-tlon of Canada is practically subject to a heavy rent. In fact, in many parts of Canada that rent Is, I believe, after a careful examination, fully equal to the outside rent that is paid hi any part of England for ordiuf^.ry farm lands. Sir, the hon. gentleman was good enough in a re- cent discussion to tell us that after all Siild aud done it was really a law of nature, and tluit people nowadays will rush from the coun- try to the towns, and there is no help for it. In ottier words, the policy of the Government may be defined as follows : They are aware there is a detennination of blood to the head, and 't is their policy by overtaxing the farn:ers, by making agriculture unproduc- tive, to do even-thing in their power to in- crease it. That is practically their policy so far V -J the farmers are concerned. I turn to the manufacturers, the hon. gentleman's special protege., and frienda. I am vei-y du- bious indeed if the great bulk of Uie manu- factui .'s, iis contradistinguished from a few specially pette^l interests, have gained any- thing under this tariff, and I r\ake this as- sertion boldly. I think there is very strong reason to believe that the great bulk of the manufacturers in Canada would ha-e pros- pered much more under the revenue tariff of 1878 than under the present system . Sir, those census statistics on which the hon. gentleman relies are essentially, I might almost say, on the face of them, statis- tics on which no thorough dependence can be placed. The hon. gentleman alluded some time ago to the veiT large increase in the number of industrial stablishments. Well, Sir, that statement had attracted my eye also. I took eleven towns in Ontario which I Imew best, and examined the list of industries, or rather industrial estabUshments whk^h were credited to tliose towns, and I recommmd hon. gentlemen in this House and my friends out of it to pay special attention to this list I find that In Bowmanvine, with a population of 3,377 souls, there were 8(5 industrial estab- lishments ; in Cobourg, with 4,829 souls, there were 83 industrial establishments ; in CoiliUg- wood, M-ith a population of 4,940, there were 78 industiial establishments ; in Napanee, of AA'hlch I know something, with a. population of 3,434, I was happy to leai-n. for the lirst time in my life, that it possessed 84 tndusirial (\srabllshm"eiits ; Osliawa, wllh a population of 4,060, had 94 industrial eslabllshments : Trenton, wicii a p'.pulatiou of 4,.300, tuul 02 industrial esUtl/lishment'i ; WTiltby, with a population of 2,780. had 92 iinlustrial establishments ; Port Hope, with a population of 5.042. had 140 Industi-ial establisliments ; Stxaithroy, with a pcnulation of 3.316, had 132 industrial establishments ; Mount Forest, with a population of 2,214, had 92 Industrial es- tablishments ; in other words, in all those favoured places undeT the itifluence f)f the National Tollcy every five, six or seven faml- '/! # n :t lies had an industrial establishment between them. I believe If the hon. gentleman's census commissioners had counted every tinlier, tailor, oobbier, carpenter, blaclismitli and sewing girl in all those places they would not have made up the Hat. When I look at what they call manufactures, if T am to judge from tlie census talien under the auspices of hon. gentlemen onposite in 1881, althou;th they may be technically correct, there Is not the slightest doubt that a very false impressioii wUl be created in the minds of the people by tlie grandiiotiuent statement tluit so many himdred millions of dollars worth of articles are manufactr.red. I have not the de- tails for 1891, although the Minister of Finance may have them, an(! we will probably I'welve them in due course ; but I have those for 1881, and I desire to call the special attention of the House to the way lu which tlie lltt of mauufact ring industi-ies it Canada was made up. We iiad $.309,000,000 W(>rth of mauufaotured articles in that year. Of these there was fiour to Uie value of $42,- 000.000 ; bakeries, $9,500,000 ; tanneries. $15,100,000 ; boots and shoes, $18,000,000 ; sugar, $9,000,000 (It took TOO lianrls to produce that value in sugar) , meat, $4,000,000; chee.se, $5,500,000 ; clothes, $15,000,000 ; dressnialiers' piwlucts, $5,000,000; hatters' goods, $3,300,000; (iarpenters were $3,900,000, blacksmitlis were $7,200,000, carriage-makers were $0,500,000, saw mills $38,000,000, 3ash and door fac- tories $4,800,000, printing otHces were $2,700,- 000 — what particular description of manufac- ture that is, I do not exactly see— paper mills were $2,400,000, pulp mills $4,750,000, sliip yai'ds $3,557,(K)0, and shinjile mills $770,000. In other words, out of tlieir $309,000,000, there were $202,000,000 which, to say the truth, could have been in no possible respect benefited by the Nationiil Policy, or a policy of protection, except, possibly, the single article of sugar. I do submit, that in calling these things manufactures, tlie hon. gentle- man has parted, not, perhaps, from teolinical accuracy, as his predecessors did, but he must assuredly contributed to convey a very false opinion to the majority of the people as to the extent of our manufactures. I, suspoat that when tliese $470,000,000 of alleged manufactures come to be examined, that you will tlnd in ever.v case as In this, that an enormous mnss of these so-called manufac- tures are hardly things that would be called manufactures at all, and that, in any case, from tlie vei-j' nature of the fact, they could derive no possible l)enefit, but rather the re- verse, from a protective policy. I noticed amongst the $7,00(i,000 worth of manufac- tured goods which the hon. gentleman .lioasteil of having exported, one Item for which I give the National Policy full credit. I notice tliat among thesq $7,000,000 worth of goods, tliere was over $1,000,000 worth of settlers' goods belonging t,o emigrants leaving this country for the United States. As to manufactures generally, I desire to say most explicitly, that I neither overrate nor under- rate, nor wish to overrate their importance. Every man knows perfectly weJ' that manu- factures must have a place, and a very im- portant place, iu any country at all civUlzed. 1 have not the slightest wish to underrate In any shape or form the great Importance of manufactures, but, Sir, for all that, I con- tend that tJ-j hon. gentleman is wholly wrong in endeavouring to convey to the peo- ple of Cnnada the idea that Canada has special advantages for becoming a gr 'at mami- facturing country. I say that Canada Is, above all, a great agricultural country ; next to its great agricultiu'al resources stands Its mineral, its lumbering, r.nd Its fishing re- sources, and next after these, and T admit they are very Important, come Its manufactures. lUit, Sir, It Is not In our time that Canada Is likely to become a great manufacturing coun- try, unless seme very extraordinary sclentlflo discovery occurs, and unless the conditions of manufacturing are totally altered, the very circumstances in which we are placed would appear to forbid It. Neither in age, nor climate, nor in density of popu- lation, nor from our products, nor our geogra- phical situation, do we possess the advan- tages for becoming a gi-eat manufacturing country which other nations possess, and the Government, I beUeve, have been doing a veiy Ul service to the manufacturers of Can- ada, by Inducing many men to embark their capital and to risk their whole fortunes in manufactures for which this counti-y was not well suited. There are manufactures which Canada might develop to an enormously greater extent than it has as yet done, and were the United States markets once thro^vn open to us, and were there free trade from one end of tills continent to the otlicr, I woidd look to see vei-y great development of \nxy man.v Important Industries In Canada. As It Is, Sir, we resemble men who, hav- ing an inexhaustible gold-fleld at their feet, have chosen to devote themselves to the manufacture of artUiclal tiowers, or, to bor- row a metaphor from tlie hon. gen+leman opnosite, we seem to be at the i^iesent mo- ment nice men who, poSvsessuig the tinest and most fertile wheat region of the world, choose rather to grow oranges In hot houses than to devote themselves to the proper ex- ploitation of the soil. What are the remedies which are offered by us on this side of the House ? The hon. gentleman desires to know our policy. I will tell the hon. gentle- man what has been our policy from first to Inst. Our policy from first to last lias been lpulation, set the current and form the standard of public opinion, and infuse a healthy moral vigour into their nation. In Ireland for three or four generations such men were steadily weeded o\it. Can we v/onder tha., the standard of public morals and of public spirit should have declined ? But not only were the healthiest elements driven away : corrupting influences of the most ix)werful kind infected tliose wlio remained. Sir, place Ireland for Canada, and you will have a very excellent illusti-atlon of what the policy of this Government for the last four- teen yeai-s has heen employed in effect- ing. Sir, in the early part of the eighteenth centm-y, to which these woi"ds refer, it may have taken five or six decades to do what, under existing conditions, has been done in Canada in ten or twelve years. And one of the chief counts I make against the policy of which these hon. gentle- men are so proud. Is that, from first to last, the hiavltable tendency of their policy has been to organize poUtical corruption of the very vilest kind. The danger is vastly in- creased in such a countiy as ours by the exportation of the best of its youth, so that, while the danger increases, the resistance to It is diminished. In the United States it is different. There, whatever be the evils of their poUcy, at any rate the youth of the population remaiu, and .it is to tliat fact very largely the success of the American people in emancipating them- selves, as they have done, from the shacldes of protection is to be ascribed. I hiive not time to-night to review our scale of expenditure. I will simply say that our general scale of expenditure for a population of 5,000,000 is monstrously extravagant. Our clothes are far too big. They were cut out lor a population of 20,000,000 or 30, iOO,000. I need look no fm-ther than the benches op- posite to illustrate this. What possible use can there be in a country like Canada for a Cabinet of fifteen Ministers, besides the De- puty Ministers ? Why, Sir, 50,000,000 of people might be administered with the same staff. Look at the cost of administration and legis- lation. We have practically $14,000,000 to expend, exclusive of charges for collection of revenue and interest, and it costs us every year $2,000,000 to spend that amount. Turn to oiu- Estimates, and review tlie number of clerks these gentlemen require. In Mr. Mackenzie's time, to do the same work, his Cabinet only required 480 ; hon. gentle- men opposite employ 826, and u whole regi- ment of extras besides. The hon. gentleman spoke very lightly of the consequences to Canada of the United States revising their tariff. I cannot agree with him there. If the United States do very largely reduce their tariff they wlU very largely cheapen the cost of living in that country. They will very laifiely cheapen the cost of production. The United States farmers have to^ay a very great advantage over ours In many ways. They get more for what they produce, and with the single exception of the article of woollen clothing they are enabled to purchase what they require' at much lower rates, and even if we are fortunate enough to get our raw products admitted free, we will still be oomparatlvely at a serious disadvantage com- pared with them. What Is the part of true statesmanship, and what would be wise poUcy under such circumstances V Not, as these hon. gentlemen are doing, looking to Washing- ton, ar