IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 mm Ui Ui m MAO 12.5 2.2 1.4 6" 2.0 1.8 1.6 ^. v. ji comporte une talle empreinte. The laat recorded frame on each microfiche shell contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever appliee. Un dee symbolee suivents apparaitra sur la damlAre imege de cheque microfiche, selon le cae: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Mapa, plat(M, charts, etc., may be filmed at di'f wrent reduction ratioa. Thoee too large to be er"^ « »« upper left hend comer, left to right ai.^ )p tr, bottom, as many framee ee required. \l\9 foCfowing diagrama illuatrata the method: Lee cartee, pianchee, tableeux, etc., peuvent itre film^e i dee taux de rMuction diffirenta. Lorsque le document eet trop grand pour itre reproduit en un seul ulichA, il eet film^ A partir da Tangle supMeur gauche, de gauche i droite. et do haut en baa, en prenant le nombre d'Imagee niceesaira. Lea diagrammas suivant^ iilustrent la mithoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 r > ■1 Vi THE MEW TARIFF: Delivered in the Canadian H^use of Commons, April 2nd, 1894, by NICHOLAS FLOOD DAVIN. M. P. V I' \ uv I ih » ^ m PREFATORY iNOTE. ^ 'Ivr At the request of my late reVered FHend, Rev. Dr. Ryerson, I have assumed the duty of preparing for future publication a Personal and Historical Narrative of events connected with the founding and administration by him of our Educational System. The Narrative will, however, include not only the period of Dr. Ryerson's incumbency of the office of chief Administrator of the Education Department, but also that of his late successor, the Hon. Adam Crooks, the first Minister of Education. My materials are rich and ample. Not only did Dr. Ryer^- son entrust me with the whole of his private correspondence with Public Men and Ministers of State on educational matters, but I have also had a voluminous correspondence, from time to time, with him myself on several important subjects connected with our School System. These, with various memoranda and other information, will be available for the Narrative. They will the more clearly illustrate than did The Story of My Life the great ability and statesmanlike qualities of the late Chief Superinten- dent of Education* as founder and administrator of our School System. Although the Narrative may be prepared in the course of a year or so, yet it is not intended to publish it just now. I be- lieve that such a personal record will likely be of more interest to the next generation than it would be to the present — espe- cially as so many storms and personal conflicts marked the era * In The St'^ry of Wy Life I have only incidentally referred to Dr. Ryerson's connection w th our educational system, and have given no particulars, as I had proposed to do so in this Narrativt See note on pa^e 351 ot that book. m 2 THE NEW TAEIFF. Mr. MuLOCK. Does the hon. gentle- man say that, under the present tarifif, the neceaaaries of life are free ? Mr. Davin. I Bay that, under the present tarill, what are commonly called the necessaries of life are free, and I shall be glad, when the hon. gentleman speaks, if he will show how, as the hon. gentle- man who proposed this motion, lias not done, he could get the revenue needed for carrying on the business of Canada with- out taxing articles which, according to his interpretation of the phrase, ** neces- saries of life," would come within that category. I will go further than that, I will promise *^o vote with the hon. gentle- man, when it comes to a division, if the ablest amongst them will rise and show how the wit of man could raise the reve- nue necessary for carrying on the affairs of Canada at this moment by customs and excise, without having in tLe customs tariff, as my hon. friend the Finance Minister suggested, some of the elements of protection, (Cheers). At the first glance of this tariff, thone of us who advo- cated reductions in the interest of the farmer, were disappointed. We had hoped that, for instance, agricultural im- plements would be free, that one or two other articks would be free ; but, when I came to examine the tariff as a whole, I came to this cor -elusion, and I will endea- vour to show that is the case before I sit down, that those for whom we agitated last Session and the seaaion before, have received a great deal more than if we had been successful last year and had induced the Finance Minister to give us that com- paratively contracted measure of reform which we urged upon him at that time. The Finance Minister, and the Govern- ment generally, instead of doing what we asked then, took a course of which, at the time, I did not approve. They said : " We will not do that ; on the contrary, we will postpone this matter for a year ; some of our members will go and see the manuf':iicturers and the farmers, and we will make ourselves acquainted with the exact condition of affairs." There were excuses, I confess, for their taking that course, because those who spoke, as repre- sentatives of the people, uttered a divided voice in the House. Some said they wanted a tariff reform in the direction embodied in the motion which I had the honour to place on the motion paper. Others said they did not think such a re- form was needed, that the farmers were perfectly content. Under those circum- stances, it was perfectly natural that the Government should say that they must come into direct ooncact with the people of the country. Another idea, evidently, came into the minds of the Gcvernment. It occurred to them that, if they made any move, and it was so stated by the Prime Minister, I think, there must be a general revision, that the time has come to revise the tariff, and a general revision should be made, and the only way that it could be done was by doing, but more thoroughly, what Sir Leonard Tilley did in 1879, go about the country, come into contact with the various industries dnd ascertain exactly how they were progrefs- ing, and how much reduction could be made with loyalty to the principle on which hon gentlemen stood, as a Govern- ment, and with justice to the industries that had been called into being by that policy. The hon. Minister of Finance ani Senator Angers came weat ; and, from the moment they touched the west, there was one universal voice in favor of cer- tain reductions or certain abolitions in re- gard to duties on articles used by the farmers. The result of their coming west was, that one of the papers opposed to me attacked me, as if the coming west of those gentlemen showed that the Govern- ment had no confidence m what I repre- sented in this House. But I pointed out to those who attacked me, as I point out now, that it was most natural, aeeiug that the voice coming from the west was divid- ed and the Ministers should take the course they took. We had a meeting at Regina, and Mr. Bole, a prominent far- mar, spoke at it. The hon. Finance Minister was so struck with the ability and exhaustiveness of the speech made by Mr. Bole, that he turned rou" d to me and asked who he was, and expressed the opinion, which he holds in common with all who heard that gentleman, that the speech was a thoughtful one, and that, evidently, he was well posted. Mr. Bole asked for a reduction in certain directions. Ul ^ I \ THE NEW TARIFF. 1 8 Ut.^ I. V he asked for certain duties to be awept away ; and this is what, he said in the hearing of the Finance Minister: — As to Implementa, there la a great dilferenoe of opinion, but lie believed the time had come when the duf y should be reduced. 35 per cent, was a protection duty. It Rhould be reduced to 16 or 17^ per cent. It waa all right to protect them when they were infant industries, but the day had arrived to reduce the duties. I think I remember that the hen. gentle- man who leads the Opposition in this House, stated, when he discussed this question, that any reduction which had to be made should be made gradually ; and, in fact, I stated to the hon. gentle- men on the Reform side of the House, in discussing this very tariff, that if the parties had crossed the House, if the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) stood in front of the chair occupied at this moment by the Finance Minister, he would not, he dared not, have brought down duties lower than those embodied in this tariff. Here is a book writteu by F. W. Taussig, Assistant Professor of Political Economy in Harvard University. It is written against the tariff in the United States ; it is written from a free trade point of view ; yet here is what he says : — Certainly it is to be wished that changes from a system which has been in force for 95 years and to which the industrial organization has more or less completely adapted iteelf, ought to be mode slowly and with caution. It would be a great mi-take, fortunately not one likely to be comniitied, if a headlong reduction like that of 1883 were aKain to be attempted, and were aigain to overshoot the mark. A great change in the character of our industrial system, m order to be safe must be gradual and tentative, and is not likely to be fully carrici out in less time than has elapsed since the present system waa begun. Mr. Fawcett in his book on " Protec- tion and Free Trade " makes the same general statement. Now, Sir, that being so, in the interests of the country at large and looking at it rationally from the local standpoint that I looked at it last year, I oaunot but eay that this measure of tarin reform which has been given us by the Government is indeed a very large step in the right direction, far larger than we anticipated as I will show, and far larger I think than my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition anticipated. I remem- ber well when Sir Leonard Tilley propound- ed the policy of the Government in 1879. At that time there used to be a seat on each side of the Speaker, and Sir John Macdonald had Viroui4at m ■ in to sit on the right, and I waa able to see the face of Mr. Mackenzie who used, I th|pk, to occupy the chair which my hon. and learn- ed friend the leader of the Opposition, occupies at the present moment. And, as Sir Leonard TiUey unfolded the scheme of adequate protection .as it strack him, as he showed that the Government were determined tq^ carry out fully its pledges made on the busting'^ in 1878, there waa disappointment written ou the iioo of the then leader of the Liberal party. I waa one of the humblest of the little propa- ganda ^hat went about the country in 1878, and the hon. member for south Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) was ungraoioua enough to say : That we went about like a lot of quacks telling the people that we were about to do things that had never come to pass. The Liberal party thought in 1879 that the Government would not dare to carry out these pledges, and my hon. friend from South Oxford has been giving us revelations, or soi-disant reveia- tioiiS of what occurred. How Mr. Mac- kenzie went over to Sir Charles Tupper and said : Were you not going to do ao and so if our policy had been different ? Why, Sir, I have been assured on the very best authority that Mr. Mackenzie had a speech in his desk, and that the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Rich- ard Cartwright) had a speech in his desk full of denunciations against Sir John Macdonald's Government for want of faith in not carrying out the policy that they had promised on platform after platform. And I dp think, that in those musing!>, and those rhetorical dreams that bear such excellent fruit, when the loader of the Opposition discourses in golden accents to this House— I cannot but think, that many a happy sentence and many a caustic epigram were evolved that are now wasted and gone ; epigrams attack- ing the Government suggestions that they would give us tariff reform. My hon. friend from South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) dealt with the tariff question ; my hon. friend from Wel- lington (Mr. McMullen) also dealt with it ; and although my hon. friend fr^m THB NSW TARIFl*. Huron (Mr. McMillan) hps not yet spoken on this matter he spuke in anticipation of what was going to be done, and he rather let (he cat out of the bag as to what the expectationa of his party were, for he aotuaily complained that certain things were not done in regard to iron which we now find are done in this tariff. I rem- ember reading in Oharles Lamb about his school days in the' Blue-coat Hospital school, that Coleridge, an exceedingly handsome youth, when walking out with him, played a prank on a fishwife, and you know that fishwives in London or elsewhere are not the most polite. Coleridge played a prank on the fish- wife, and she turned around to maledict him — I cannot exactly say what she said In such polite ears as this assembly over which you preside, Mr. Speaker, or what she wanted to say — but instead of blast- ing, she blest the beautiful face of Coleridge when she saw it. And so my hun friend from South Oxford (Sir Rich- ard Cartwright). who is certainly not given to blessing, who deals out his maledictions in all directions and gives vent to his wild and severe opinions about all and sundry on every possible occasion, has not cursed this tariff ; on the con- trary he has givsn it a grudging benedic- tion. In fact the only class of persons that the hon gentleman has never exer- cised his dreadfully black judgment upon are those who sit behind him ; and when he is, so to speak, cursing the Conservative party and all its members, I long some- time that in a moment, in one short moment of frenzy he would turn around and, forgetting the bonds that bind him to the party behind him give us his can- did opinion of his friends (laughter). Sir, if the hon. gentleman would only do that, I am persuaded that strong as the opin- ions have been that we have heard as against ourselves, they would prove to be mild compared with those that have been harbored so long in that thundrous bosom against his own party. The hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cart- wright), however, has told us that there good points about this tariff. He says that he freely acknowledges that, and my hon. friend from Wellington (Mr. Mo- MuUen) says : It is a move in the right direction ; and my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) puts on it the highest eulogy possible, for he says : It is a child of his own. As I, Sir, greatly approve of this tariff as a whole, I am constrained to say that we are about to dispute the claim of fatherhood made by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charl- ton). I am not going to waste the time of the House by discussing the question as to whether these gentlemen have any such claim as they make out. They say, and the 'Globe' also speaking of the tariff says : That the good points in it^ the reductions were all suggested by the Liberals. Why, did not some of the Conservatives advocate some of these things 1 and before ever my hon. friend took up binder twine, and before ever we heard particular changes advocated from the Liberal side of the House — and we have only heard of one or two — the Con- servatives in other parts of the country advocated these changes. I shall not discuss that question for it is a small one; it is lighter than dust in the balance compared with the practical question for us to discuss here : is this or is it not a good tariff? (Cheers). If it is a good tariff, or if it is an approach to a good tariff— just to take the standpoint of my hon. friend for a moment — surely the proper thing for us to do is to go into committee and like business men discuss it point after point, and see wherein we can improve it. I stated that the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright), was not only inconsistent in his motion but inconsistent in his apeech. What did he say 1 In one part he said: Tou have the maximum of disturbance with the minimum of relief ; in another part he said : You only ha7e made trifling changes. If you have the maximum of disturbance in the tariff, you must have made great Inroads on the protected manufacturers ; and if so, my friends, the farmers, must have fared pretty well. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, I complain a little of what the hon. member for South Ox- ford said, though, mark you, it was really a eulogy of the tariff ; but I com- plain still more of the fact that his re- marks were echoed by a more conscienti- ous man — my hon. friend from North I ncB row TABon. S 3- Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). lam not con- strained to weigh nicely what the hon. mem bar for South Oxford aays ; heoauae, aa Mr, Disraeli said of Lord Salisbury, he is a ^retki master of gibes and flouts and jeers ; bat my hon. friend from North Norfolk is a man who weighs his wordfi, not merely in the nice balance of the apothecary, but in the balance of the sanctuary (laughter) ; and yet my hon. friend, echoing what was said by the hon. member for South Oxford, says that he does not think that the government will carry out this tariff. I doubt very much says the hon. member for South Oxford, if the government will carry out this tariff ; it is so good, it goes so far. It does so much for the farmer. He tries to in- fect the farmers with that notion. That suggestion is unworthy of this House, and unworthy of the hon. member for Sonth Oxford and the hon. member for North Norfolk [hear, hear] It is a suggestion that the men who occupy the foremost positions in this country are ready to commit one of the bassat, most dastardly, and most treacherous acts possible. And, Sir, it suggests more than that ; it sug- gests that some thirteen or fourteen men would go spontaneously crazv, almost — that, having got themselves once more entrenched in power by appealing to the people they would turn round and bptray and abandon the men who placed them in power, and show themselves damned in the eyes of the historian for all time. Why, sir, the thing is preposterous. I believe it is not unfair, under these cir- cumstances, that I should ask, how persons with a croas-fishing motion like this intend to legislate 1 Examine the motion ; you canviot get at the kernel of it. One paragraph says one thing to on» set of men, ^nd another paragraph an other thing io another set. In fact, the hon. member for South Oxford, in one part of his speech, seemed to say to the manufacturers : The government have gone too far ; your friends have betrayed you ; you have been wounded in the house of your friends ; I have been abus- ing you for years like pickpockets, but if you turn to me I will do something for you. But the hon. gentleman c&uld hardly maintain himself in that mood very long, because in a short time he said the government did not mind throwing over the minor thieves if they could keep the greater ones on their side. I rem* ember that George Lord Littleton Myi, "love will hope where wisdom would despair." Well, sir, ambition wUl hope where reason would despond, and it !• quite clear that all this fighting is not at all in the interest of the farmer, or In the interest of the country, but is car- ried on solely in the hope that the hon. member for south Oxford should ono« more have his finger in the pie of out finances, and the Reform party should once again be in power. That is the whole object. But we may well aak, and I will ask the country : Suppose they did come into power, what guarantee have we that they would carry out the princi- ples enunciated in this motion ? A well known jingle of a popular poet tells us that when the Whigs are out of power they are very noisy, but that As bees on flowers alightine cease to hum. So BettllQR Into office Whj«(s grow dumr.— (Cheers.) Now, sir, the present leader of the Reform party used to edit a paper called *Le Defricheur' ; and I need hardly nay that he did so with such skill as we should expect from a man of his literary feeling and scholarship. He will remember that in 1854 the Rouges of Lower Oanada laid down a platform, that in 1872 that plat- form was adopted in the very country which, at the time, he represented in the local House, and that he was advocating the various planks of it in his paper. What were those planks 1 I will not read them all ; I will read only the most interesting — only those that remain still nbw, shinipB mm «MU9nr. colonized ; »nd the eleventh waa — what do ynu think 1— protection to home in- duBtries [laufjhter And oheers]. My hon. and learned friend shakes his head. To borrow a joke thac was made by Daniel O'Oonnell, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, well versed as you are, in all sorts of parliamentary and forensic lore— that when arguing before a jury, and the presiding judge shook his head in dissent from the law as expounded by the learn- ed counsel he said, "Oentlemen, His Lordship shakes his head ; but when His Lordship shrtkes his head, there's nothing in it " flauKhter.] My hon. friend en- tered the House of Commons in 1876 and in 1877 became minister of Inland Rovenu} in Mr. Mackenzie'u government; but did we ever hear a word of these refcMrms from the Mackenzie Government while my hon. friend was a member of it? I neod hardly tell you that they did not touch the question of the election of Senators ; they did not reduce the num- ber of cabinet ministers nor the Governor General's salary, nor the number of pub- lic employees, but added $300,000 a year to the public burdens under that h*>ad ; they did not recognize the militia ; they had no policy with regard to the St. Lawrence or any other route ; and they began to build the Pacific Railway before there were three farmers in the ^orth- West. During that time my hon. friend never spoke one word in regard to those things that his eloquent pen was dilating upon in 1872. Mr. Laubigb. If the hon gentleman will pardon me : my paper was dead in 1872. Mb. Davin. I may be incorrect in saying that he advocated them in 1872 in his paper ; but he did advocate them in his paper and in 1872 in his speeches. I may say this, that it shows a failure of medical and surgical skill on my part > from a literary standpoint not to know that it was dead, and it is a wonder that it lived even as long as it did flaughter, cheers and renewed cheers.J What happened, actually 1 Going aside a little, and yielding, so to speak, to the spirit of this debate up to the present moment, I ask : What was done for the country during those four years "i and what could we expect to be done if they had remain- ed longer in power ? I was reading the other day the speech made by thw hon. member for South Oxford in 1878, when he was Minister of FitiMnoe. It is i ot necvBsary for me to infiioi a long quota- tation from it on the House ; I do not, af> a rule, you know, quote much. But I will say this, that a!l you have to do is to take up the speech made by the hon. member, when he was Finance Minister in 1878. That speech was one note of despair in regard to doing anything for the North- West or for the Dominion. When Mr. Tilhy, afterwards Sir Leonard Tilley, brought in his Budget speech, what did the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright] say then? What he did say then shovfs the value of his oriticijioi on the present budget. He told the manufacturers that they would have competition a hundred times worse, under the tariff of Sir Leonard Tilley, than they had under the tariff it was to supersede. Not only that, he said they would have the most vehement domestic competition, and he described the ruinous financial evil con- sequent on the protective tariff of Sir. Leonard Tilley. If you go westwurd, he said, you have a very long stretch of country which for many years, cannot be bridged over by railway, and we are dependent for the means of keeping up communication with the North-West, at best for several years, on the privilege of passing through a foreign country. He had no anticipation then of seeing the completion of the Canadian Pacific Rail- way, which, three years later, was com- pleted by the Government of Sir John Maodonald [cheers.] Su';h a thing as the feasibiiity of that enterprise never enter* ed hie head ; and if the hon. gentleman had continued in office we should have no Pacific Railway to-day and the North- West would still be an unknown region, and unknown quantity, so far as the Dominion is concerned. Therefore, when he denounces this tariff, when he says it gives the maximum of disturbance and the minimum of relief — when he prophesies all sorts of evil results from the tariff— all we have to do is to remem- ber his doubts at the period to which I \ 1 A TH» Mw T'Kirr. • i> S}' /* s 4 refer. The hon. f^entleman i« a doubter who haa never had ground for hie doubts. He ii worse than Thomas, for Thomas, when he aoi grounds for belief, believed. He is worse than Cassandra, for she prophesied the truth and was doomed not to be believed. But* my hon. friend is not only not believed, but time mocks at his prophesies [oheers ] Therefore when he tells us this tarifif may not bo carried out thht fact alone — even if we did not know the men on the Treasury benches ; even if we did not know that no rational men could propose the policy which the Minister of Finance has proposed, and then after an election no back on it — the bare fact that it is the hon. member for S 'Uth Oxford who doubts is sufiBcient to warrant us in coming to the conclusion, safe and sound that carried out it will be in every detail. I appeal to my hon. friend from North York [Mr. Mulock], who took an interest — it is true he came late in the day into the field of labor, but late as he came, we acknowledge his ex- ertions and he will have his reward as though he came in at an early hour — I appeal to him whether we have not got a good deal. I asked myself, when I be- gan to analyze this tariff, what does the farmer get 1 First, he gets a reduction of 16 per cent, on his implements. You have therefore at present a duty of but 20 per ctnt. on these and with the prospect uf chf&p iron in the States, I believe it will be found that the competition from there will probably be juat as free and just as strong as if the dury had been en- tirely removed. I will come to the reasons by and by why no rational man could have expected the entire removal of that duty Then we have lumber free, which IS a tremendous bo'm to the North- West and Manitoba. We had a com- bine there We h»».d 20 per cent on lumber, which was paid by every man who built a house. Now, that lumber is free, and that is an immense boon. Not only that, but the laths and tar paper and everything that goes into the build ing of houses — which, from the stand- point of the hon, member for North Yjrk (Mr. Mulock), is of course a neces sary of life, though not what is usually called^ necessary of life among political economista — have had the duty entirely taken off. What has been done in the matter of sugar is, I believe, also a great boon to the farmers of the North- West. I will not trust myself to disoass that qaestion, hut will do what I believe I have never done befoio in this House. I will read from a nnwspaper article to strengthen my position. In making this exception in this case, I shall tell the House the reason why. The newspaper is the Mail. It so happens that Mr. Bunting, who used formerly to have a seat in this House, and who manages this ^aper, is, we all know, an authot-lty on sugar. What he does not know about sugar is not worth knowing. That he is thoroughly posted, I have personal knowledge, because I was once on the editorial staff of that newspaper, before and after Mr. Bunting was connected with it. In this article, Mr. Bunting suys that the greatest advantages to the consumer will result from these sugar duties, that yellow reCned sugar cannot fail to be cheaper, that the trader will have a great advantage under it ; and he goes on to show that a great boon has been conferred on consumers, and that the changes should have an expanding effect on the consumption of sugar during the coming fruit season. I have given these as some of the larger items. There are twenty-seven items in the tariff relating specially to the farmers — tar paper, axle grease, whips, axes, scythes, hay knivep, threshers separators, buck- thorn fef cing, hubs and spokes, felloes, etc., and for the cowboys, jiggers, stirr- ups, saddle trees, cheap Morgan trees, etc., etc., free instead of 10 per cent. So that, sir, when you add to that what has been done, you already have a set off' to the 20 per cent, that remains on the implements and for the half of the old duty that remains on barbed wire. Lumber free; barb wire 1^ to |c; tarred paper from 30 to 20 per cent, (old ^c. per lb.); axle grease from 27 to 25 per cenl. (old Ic. per lb.); whips from 46 to 35 per cent, (old 60o. per doz. and 30 per cent.); axt'S, scythes, hay knives, from $2 per dozen and 20 per cent, to 36 per cent. ; portable machines, threshers and sepata- tora from 35 to 30 per cent. ; buckthorn k. J 8 THE NEW TARICT. fencing from Ij^o. per lb. to ^c. per lb. ; hubn, spoken, fellows, hewn and sawn, irom 15 to 10 per cent.; pailo, tubs, ohurns, from 26 to 20 per cent. ; farm ar.O freight wa^tf^ons from 50 per oent. to 25 (this is the Globe's calculation, including all clerical errurs); fertilizers from 20 to 10 per cent.; guns and all connected therewith from 35 to 30 per cent,; flax fibre ai.d flax tow free, instead of Ic. and 2c. per lb. ; saddle jiggers and stirrups, saddle trees and cheap moshan trees for cowboys' saddles, including pack saddle trees free, instead cl 10 per cent. ; laths free ; shingles free. But I go further than that: The farmer^ as i\ rule has a wife» or he ought to have — ever^ man ought to have. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have here a list of fifty odd articles, all touching the domestic life of the farmer. I shall not read this list, but I will say that the duty upon every one has been cither lowered or abolished, and that thbse changes will materially lower the cost of living to the farmer of the North-Weit. For instance, the hon. member for South Oxford may in future have the consolation of knowing that he is washing his hands in cheaper delf and that when hd comes kO be buried, he can be buried in a caskec that comes in under the lower duty. Feathers, undressed, ostrich and vul- ture, a slight reduction from 15 and 25 to 20 per cent.; other feathers from 35 to 30 per cent. The duty on common soap reduced by nearly 35 per cent., l^c. per lb. to Ic per lb.; condensed milk and coffee and milk foods, sweetened, from 47 to SO per cent. — old 11^. per lb. and 30 per cent. ; unsweetened from 35 to 20 per cent.; oatmeal from $2-70 per barrel to 60c — old 1^0. per lb.; cleaned rice from IJc. per lb. to Ic ; biscuits, sweetened, from 35 to 25 per cent. ; macaroni, vermioella from 36 to 25— old 2c per lb; starch, in- cluding i'arina, from 4c to l^c per lb; starch, unsweetened, from 2o to l^c per lb; mustard cake from 20 to 15 per cent. ; ■weet potatoes, from 15o to 10c per bush. ; tomatjes from 30o to 20c per bushel, the «d valorem the same ; pickles from 38 to 35 per cent ; sauces and catsups from 40 to 35 per cent ; soy from 42 to 35 ; yeast cakes and baking powder from 8 to 6c per lb; blackberries, gooseberries, raspberries and strawberries from 3 to 2o per lb ; raisins from 40 to 26 per cent ; oranges, lemons and limes in bulk from $1.60 to $1.60 per 1000 — a very slight reduction. I could wish it were greater, and I am quite sure the revenue woufd not suffer and it would be of advantage to the health of the people. Fruits in cans reduced from 3 to 2c per lb; jellies and jams from 5c to 3c per lb; we have tea and coffee free ; impossible under a rev- enue tariff— and coffee not directly im- ported reduced from 3 to 2c per lb, ad valorem being the same ; coooanuts from $1 to 50c per 100; nutmegs and mace from 25 to 20 percent; barrels containing petroleum from 40 to 20 cents; shoe- blacking from 30 to 25 per cant; china and earthenware from 35 to 30 per cent. Now Sir, I do not wish to deny the hon. member for South Oxford the conso- lation of knowing when he performs his ablutions that toilet utensils have, owing to the persistency of himself and party, been reduced in price to the people of Canada. Glass jars reduced from 35 to 30 per cent. The spectacles of the old lady and the eye glass of the young man of fashion from 30 to 20 per cent; clothes wringers from $1 and 30 per cent to 25c and 20 per cent; sewing machines from $3 each and 20 per cent to 30 per cent; corset clabj^s and steels from 30 to 20 pnr cent, the specific duty of 5c remaining ; enamelled iron ware from 35 to 20 per c<^nt; plated cutlery from 58 to 36 — old 50o a dozen and 20 per cent; clocks from 35 to 26; furniture from 35 to 30; coffins — is this domestic ? from 35 to 25 ; fibre ware from 30 to 25 ; sugar candy from 45 to 35 per cent — old l^c and 36 per cent; cotton balls, batting and sheet wadding undyed and dyed, from 2c and 3o per lb and 16 per cent to 22^ per cent— Globe calculates old equal 25; cotton warp and cotton yarn dyed from 34 to 25 per cent; unbleached cotton fabrics from 26 to 22^ — old lo per square yard and 15 per cent; bleached cottons 25 instead of 2o per square yard and 15 percent; shirts — poor man's shirts — costing less than $3 per dozen, from 75 per cent to 26o — old $1 per dozen and 30 per o^nt; all cotton s ^>. THK NEW TAHIPt. 9 liK^ clothing and other manufactures from 35 to 32^ ; lamp wicka from 30 to 25 per cent; Chaplin's unfinished leghorn hats and manilla hoods from 20 per cent to free; coke from 50o per ton to free; cotton yarn, finer than No. 40, from 2c per lb and 15 per cent to free ; fire bricks free instead of 20 per cent; prunella, free instead of 10 per cent; salt, free; flaxseed free; shoebuttons free instead of 5c gross and 20 per cent; eyelets, hooks, etc., free instead of 30 per cent; nitrate of Goda frea instead of 20 per cent; woolen and worsted yarns finer than 56 and mo- hair yarns free instead of from 10 to 20 per cent. Then, Sir, when you come to the indus- trial portion of the community, I have here a list of sixty-six articles, the reduc- tion of duties upon which will cheapen production and will therefore re&ult in a reduction of the cost of living to the far- mer of the North- West. And when you put these into the scales, the 20 per cent, on implemenis and |-cent per pound that remains on barbed wire, kick the beam. Glue and mucilage each reduced from 30 to 25 per cent. ; gum and sizing from 25 to 10 per cent, (old Ic. per lb.); muri- atic anc' nitric acid from 25 to 20 p.c. ; on sulphuric acid a slight reduction and on acid phosphate from 3 to 2c. per lb ; essential oils from 20 to 10 per cent ; lub- ricatmg oils from 7-one-fifth to 6o. per galion; crude petroleum from 7-one fifth to 3 three-fifths per gallon ; ochres and dry colors from 30 to 20 per cent. ; oxides, dry filters, umbers and burnt siennas from 30 to 25 per cent. ; painca and colors ground in oil from 30 to 20 per cent.; spirits of turpentine from 10 to 5 per cent. ; varnishes, lacquers, Japan, driers and the like from 25 to 20 per cent. ; the specific being the same ; putty from 25 to 15 per cei.t. ; plate glass, less than 12 sq. feet, from 6 to 4c. per ft ; show casts from 59 per cent, to 35 (old $2 each and 35 per cent.), duty specific entirely re- moved ; plaster of paris from 32 to 15 percent., old 10c. per 100 lbs.; P. P. calcined from 27 to 20 per cent., old 15c. per 100 lb ; rcmgh marble from 25 to 20 per cent ; leather board and leatheroid from 42 to 20 per cent., old 3c. per lb.; leather Japanned or enamelled from 25 to 22^ per cent. ; belting from 25 to 20 per cent ; India rubber clothing from 39 to 35 per cent., old 10c. pf-r lb, and 25 percent.; composition nai>s from 20 to 13 per cent. ; cut nails from Ic. to |o. per lb. ; out tacks under 16 oz. from 2c. to Ic. per 1000 ; cut tacks over 16 oz. from 2c. to l^c. per lb. ; wood screws of certain lengths brought down from 6c., 8c., and lie. to 3o., 5o. and 8o. per lb.; other screws reduced from 35 to 30 per cent. ; Iron and steal nuts from 25 to 20 per cent. ; chopping adze^i from 35 to 20 per cent.; picks from 40 to 30 per cent., old ic. per lb. and 25 per cent.; matlocks and hammers from 35 to 30 per cent. ; surgical and dental instruments from 20 to 15 per cent. ; safes, vaults and scales from 35 to 30 ; engines, boilers and machinery from 30 to 27^ per cent. ; brass and copper wire from 15 to 10 per cent. ; gas fixtures from 30 to 27| per cent.; bells from 30 to 25 per cent. ; brass nails and rivets from 35 to 25 per cent. ; cop- per nails and rivets from 30 to 25 per cent ; gold and silver leaf from 30 to 25 [teeth stuffing] ; cane or rattan from 25 to 12j^ per cent ; veneers of wood from 10 to 6 ; picture frames from 35 to 30 ; mouldiugs, plain wood, from 25 to 20 per cent ; gilt, from 30 to 25. Oordage — new, 30 per cent., old, equal 1|3. per lb. and 10 per cent.; twine and cotton cordage from 30 to 25 per cent. Nitro-glycerine from 70 to 25 per cent. ; dynamite from 52 to 25 per cent. ; blast- ing powder from 40 to 25 ; acids used for medicinal, chemical and manufacturing purpose i, not specially provided for, from 20 per cent, to free ; brass-scrap, etc., free ; brass in strips for printers' rules from 15 per cent, free ; coal dust from 10 per csut. to free ; emery wheels and emery In block, crushed and ground from 25 per cent, to free ; jute, rough, not colored, bleached or calendered, free instead of 20 per cent. ; lampblacks, ivory black, free instead of 10 per cent. ; oil — cocoanut and palm, carbolic or heavy oil, oil of roses, including otters or attar, free instead of 10 per cent.; platts, chip, manillas, cotton, mohair, free instead of 30 percent.; potash free instead of 10 per cent. Hammocks and lawn tennis nets and 10 THE KBW TARIFF, other like articles manufactured of twine from 35 to 30 per cant. ; jute cloth dyed or bleached from 25 to 10 per cent.; women's and childrens' dress goods, etc. , ranging from 25 per cent, to 32^ per cunt, down to 22^. Is this no advantage 1 Floor oil cloth, matting and carpets from 40 to 30 per cent. ; buttons of hoof, rubber, vulcanite or composition from 5c. a gross and 20 per cent., equal 33 per cent, to 4c. and 20 per cent. ; other buttons cheaper. Now, Sir, I come to a point on which I congratulate the Minister of Finance Bpecially. I am not aware whether I can make the claim with certainty, but I think I was the first man in the House to move in the matter of bringing before the Minister the necessity of allowing books for universities, previously taxed, to come in free. 1 think the placing of these books on the free list is a great concession to higher education. I shall n t now discuss the general question of the duty on books, but in regard to this particular matter, on behalf of those who take an interest in higher education, and those who take an interest in university life, I thank the hon. Minister for the conces- sion. Now, Sir, I m&y be permitted to ask a question of the Opposition who have been discussing this matter of tariff reform. The whole tone of what they say is this : That a tariff somehow is responsible for any want of prosperity that may exist in the country at the time when the tariff prevails. They cannot deny that such is the tone of their speeches. Yet, in the saAit breath with which he conveyed that idea the hon. member for South Oxford will tell you that it is an absurd proposition. And, Sir, it is absurd, it is demonstrably ab- surd. It is demonstrable that tariffs have nothing whatever to do with what are called commercial crises. Mr. Lauribr. Hear, hear. Mr. Davin. I do not know whether that is a cheer of assent or a cheer of deri- sion. Mr. LAURirR. That is a recantation. Mr. Davik. On your part ? Mr. Laurier On your part. Mr. Davin. No, I will not say I never recant, but I will say I never have any need of recanting. But, as I pointed out in the earlier part of my remarks, luy hon, friend must have recanted. Some hon. Member, Hear, hear. \ Mr. Davin. If tlie hon. members on the Opposition s'de agree with it, why then is the arguraent stated in such a way as to suggest th%t if there is a low price for wheat, the tariff must be responsible. Take the remark of my hon. friend from Wellington (Mr. McMullen). He would have us believe that when there is a low price for any given commodity such an wheat the tariff is responsible for that. But if you had absolutely free trade, such as they have in England — or, for I will not discuss the technical point, such as they aim at in England — we should have the same price for wheat. Why then should the hon. gentlemen take the tone they do ? Is it for tne want of something to say, or is it to throw dust in the eyes of simple people ? I do not know ; but, as I say, it is deuionstrable that a tariff has nothing to do with financial crises. Take, for instance, the years between 1874 and 1878. You had depressions during those four years over the whole world. There was depression, stringent and strong, in England, a free trade coun- try. You had depression in Canada You had depression very severe and dras- tic in the United States. Well, in the United States you had the highest tariff ever imposed up to that time in any coun- try ; in England you had free trade. My hon. friend from South Oxford talks as if the present depression that has swept over the United States, is due in S' against the rest, takes a narrower view than is con- sistent with even local wisdom, above all, consistent with patriotism to the country in which he happens to live. We must rise above that. As one of our most fas- cinating writers says, it is not Cape Bre- ton, it is not Nova Scotia, it is not New Brunswick, it is not Quebec, it is not Ontario, it is not Manitoba, it is not Bri- tish Columbia, it is not the North-West but all these together, the Dominion of Canada, that we must think of when we are considering what is best in a matter of this kind ; because you cannot have a tariff for the North- West, you cannot have a tariff for Quebec, you cannot have a tariff for the lower provinces, but you must have a tariff' for the whole Domin- ion. Sir, I believe that under the cir- cumstances this tariff approaches as near as possible at the present time to that organic harmony in which if one member suffers, in the language of the great Apos- tle, all suffer, and if one member rojoices all rejoice. From that point of view, I feel that this tariff we are discussing to- day, this tariff that we have been asked to condemn by a motion introduced in a speech which declares that it has some good points, a motion supported by speeches which yet say the tariff has gone a long way in the right direction, a mo- tion supported, also, by a leading paper that has emphatically declared that a good deal has been well done in that tariff — I say. Sir, that tariff is one that it is impos- sible for me to condemn, as I am asked to do by the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford [Sir Richard Cart- wright], Speaking as a North-West man, looking at what has been done in the direction of easing the burden upon the farmer, and making living cheaper to him, easing the burden upon the mechanic, and making the domestic life of both classes easier — looking it all that, I say that the tariff placed before us goes he- yond what I had anticipated, it goes be- yond what I believe the member for South Oxford [Sir Richard Cartwright] wor" have darod to attempt if he had bt m power and taking into account not only the interest of any one locality, but the interests of that locality combined with the interests of the Dominion at large, you have here a tariff that is one of the boldest and sngest that has been pro- posed in my memory, in Canada ; it is one of the boldest things that have been done in the history of tariffs— and I recall what has been done by Mr. Gladstone ; it is a bold, sage and a liberal measure, and it will have my undivided support. (Loud cheers). « .:H\.:.:-::' -V ■..,•';