/k 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 Delivered in the House of Commons on Motion 
 TO go into Committee of Supply 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN CHARLTON, M. P. 
 
 (North Nobfolf ^ 
 
 ON THB 
 
 PROTECTION QUESTION 
 
 IN BBPLT TO 
 
 SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD'S AMENDMENT. 
 
 SESSIO^:^ OF 1878. 
 
 OFFICIAL REPORT. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 Friday, 8th March, ISIS. 
 
 8UPPLY— THE BUDGET. 
 
 Ma. CHARLTON said he must cer- 
 tainly characterize the roaolution 
 moved the previous evening by the 
 right hon. member for Kingston as 
 being a most remarkable document. 
 It was a resolution which dealt with 
 vague generalities, which made 
 delusive promises, which took the 
 absurd position that legislative action 
 could be shaped so as to reconcile con- 
 flicting interests. When he heard the 
 hon. gentleman I'cad that resolution 
 and his statement that, by a readjust- 
 ment of the tariff, they could benefit 
 and foster the agricultural, ihe raining, 
 the manufacturing and other intor- 
 estsof the Dominion, he was reminded 
 of a story whinb he had on<'e read. A 
 candidate for Congress in the State of 
 Kentucky — whose object was the same 
 .as that of the right hon. gentleman, 
 
 namely, to get into office — in his a-l- 
 dress to his constituents promised that, 
 if they would elect him to the position 
 which he sought, he would abolish 
 taxation, he would increase the 
 revenue, ho would marry all the 
 widows in that district, become a 
 father to all the orphans, and, if his 
 constituents desired, he would provide 
 a river of brandy, water and sugar. 
 (Laughter). His promises would be as 
 easily redeemed as the promises of the 
 resolution. The right hon. gentle- 
 man, in the course of the 
 speech with which he favoured 
 the House, challenged any person 
 present to point out any nation which 
 nad risen to greatness through the 
 principles of Free-trade. He was not 
 very familiar with the fiscal policies of 
 the various nations of antiquity or the 
 middle ages, but, if he was correctly 
 informed, Protection, it would be 
 found, was a theory of very re- 
 cent growth. And, if Rome and 
 Carthago wore great commercial 
 states, if Tyro was a great com- 
 
mercial city, if Assyria was a 
 great commercial empire, those cities, 
 thos« empires, those states, rose 
 to greatness without the benefits 
 of Protection, rose to greatness through 
 the principles of Free-trade. Protection 
 eame into existence in the ITth cen- 
 tury, and it was passing out of existence 
 in the 19th century. It was not to the 
 credit of Protection that it came into 
 existence so late, and was passing out 
 of existence so s^on. It was an 
 anomaly, and a sign of decrepitude. 
 The right hon. gentleman had gone on 
 to say that England once had a tariff 
 which gave her the sole control of her 
 home and colonial markets, and would 
 never have attained her present posi- 
 tion but for Protection; that, when 
 her manufacturing interests were 
 secured, she would consent to open her 
 markets to the world, if other nations 
 would open their markets to her. 
 
 England's Growth under Free Trade. 
 
 In 1820, the exports of England 
 amounted to £36,000,000; in 1842, at the 
 end of her protective period, her total 
 exports were £47,000,000 ; but to-day, 
 her exports exceeded $1,000,000,000'. 
 England's rapid advance to the posi- 
 tion of a great commercial nation, 
 dated from the period when she aban- 
 doned the principles of Protection, and 
 adopted the principles of Free-trade. 
 Since she abandoned Protection, during 
 the briaf thirty odd years that she had 
 been a Free-trade nation, her imports 
 and exports had so increased that she 
 had risen to the rank of the greatest 
 commercial power that now existed 
 or that ever had existed, and she owed 
 that proud position to the benefits and 
 blessings of a just and proper trade 
 policy. (Hear, hear). They had been 
 told by the right hon. member for 
 Kingston (Sir John A. Macdonald), that 
 a cry was now raised in Eng- 
 land against the admission of 
 American goods. Did any well in- 
 formed commercial gentleman in this 
 House suppose that the importation 
 of American goods into the English 
 market had been able to attract more 
 than a passing notice from English 
 manufacturers? He (Mr. Charlton) 
 would venture to say that the impo'-ta- 
 tion of American goods into English 
 
 markets would scarcely supply the 
 stock-in-trade of half-adozen good- 
 sized wholesale houses. Were the 
 English trembling for fear of being 
 supplanted in their own market in 
 consequence of that small proportion 
 of the total exportation of but little 
 more than $1,000,000 worth of iron, or 
 of but little more than $300,000 worth 
 of woollen goods, which went from the 
 United States, abroad, yearly. The 
 export trade of the United States to 
 England was a mere bagacelle, and he 
 ventured the assertion that the invoices 
 of goods which had been sent to Eng- 
 land had been sent there — in regard to 
 cotton, woollen, and iron goods — by 
 American exporters at a loss, for the 
 purpose of producing political effect in 
 the United States. The right hon. 
 gentleman (Sir John A. Macdonald) 
 had indulged in a prediction. He (Mr. 
 Charlton) had no doubt that, if the 
 hon. gentleman had lived in days gone 
 by, he would have been found, like 
 Saul, among the prophets, although he 
 doubted whether he would have madg 
 a very creditable figure among the Old 
 Testament worthies. (Laughter). How- 
 ever, he had indulged in the prediction 
 that the Protection cry would carry in 
 England ; that many of them, now liv- 
 ing, would survive to see the day when 
 England would again adopt principles 
 of Protection. He had made another 
 asseveration, that no nation had 
 risen to greatness with one in- 
 dustry alone. He (Mr. Charlton) 
 was inclined to agree with the 
 right hon. gentleman. It would be a 
 very singular nation that had but one 
 industry. He had never heard of such 
 a nation ; but, if such a nation existed, 
 it was not likely to rise I'apidly in the 
 scale of national greatness. The right 
 hon. gentleman had told them that 
 Russia, a power enjoying the advan- 
 tage of Protection, was underselling 
 English goods in neutral markets 
 where they met on equal terms. He 
 was sorry that the right hon. gentle- 
 man in this case, as .'u the case of his. 
 resolution, was a little indefinite. It 
 would have pleased him (Mr, Charlton) 
 very much if the right hon. gentleman 
 had designated the markets and the 
 countries whoi-e Russian and English 
 goods met on equal terms and the Rus- 
 sian goods were underselling the 
 
3 
 
 English goods. It was true that, in tho 
 markets of interior Asia, in the coun- 
 tries bordering on the Caspian Sea, 
 where the peoples could only bo 
 reached through Eussian territory, 
 Jlussian goods sold simply because all 
 other goods were excluded from those 
 markets ; and it was probably to those 
 markets that the hon. gentleman 
 alluded. But he (Mr. Charlton) denied 
 that Eussia met England in any 
 neutral market and undersold English 
 goods; and he challenged the right 
 hon. gentleman, or any other member 
 of this House, to show where Eussian 
 goods had undersold English goods, or 
 crowded them from markets where 
 they mot upon 3qual terms. (Hear, 
 hear). 
 
 Slaughter Sales. 
 
 Tho hon. gentleman had promised 
 that the readjustment which he 
 proposed should not increase the 
 volume of taxation. He (Mr. Charl- 
 ton) presumed that any readjust- 
 ment made upon a Protectionist 
 basis could not increase the 
 revenue— in fact it was certain to 
 diminish it — and that was the great 
 objection to the Protectionist policy, 
 that it dried up the revenue, while it 
 increased the burdens of the people; 
 that it wrung pxtra taxes from them, 
 not to defray the expenditure of the 
 Government, but to increase tho hoards 
 and gains of monopolists. The hon. 
 gentleman said that not only was this 
 country made a sacrifice market for 
 the sweepings of the American market, 
 but also at times for the sweepings of 
 tho English market. It was always 
 very easy to make a general and 
 sweeping charge, but when they de- 
 scended to particulars they sometimes 
 found it difficult to establish tho^e 
 charges. With reference to this mat- 
 ter of making Canada a slaughter 
 market, let them look for a moment at 
 the productive capacity and production 
 of our various manufacturing indus- 
 tries, and tho importation in those 
 various linos, and compare the volume 
 of the one with the volume of the 
 other. Lot them take, for instance, 
 production of cabinet furniture. The 
 right hon. gentleman had drawn a 
 very aflfectmg picture of the distress 
 
 which existed last summer at the 
 establishment of Hay & Co., of Toronto. 
 He (Mr. Charlton) found, that, in 
 18T0-1, the production of cabinet 
 furniture in the Dominion of Canada 
 was $3,580,978. He presumed the 
 amount had largely increased since. He 
 presumed he would bo safe in venturing 
 tho assertion that the production of 
 cabinet furniture in Canada last year 
 exceeded $4,0f 0,000. The importa- 
 tion last year Irom the United States 
 was $276,383. The production per 
 head, in round numbers, was $1.15; 
 the importation, 7fc. He did not 
 think that an industry so firmly estab- 
 lished as this, with a production at 
 least fifteen times as great as the impor- 
 tation, was liable to bo swamped by 
 slaughter sales to such a limited ex- 
 tent. Then, if they took carriages. In 
 1870-1 we manufactured $4,849,230 
 worth of carriages, and in 1876-7 we 
 imported $91,770 worth. There waa 
 not much danger of that industry 
 being swamped by slaughter sales. 
 Then, if they took clothing, in 1870-1, 
 we manufactured $9,345,875 worth of 
 clothing. Undoubtedly, last year, the 
 production must have been from 
 $10,000,000 to $12,000,000 worth. 
 We imported last year $162,958 
 worth of clothing. We manufactured 
 clothing at tho rate of $2.68 per head. 
 We imported at the rate of 3f c. per 
 head. Was there any danger of that 
 great industry being swamped by 
 importations? Of spikes, nails and 
 tacks,we produced in 1870-1, $1,147,380 
 worth, and the importation last year 
 was $172,707 worth. Our boot and 
 shoe manufactures last year amounted, 
 in round numbers, to $20,000,000, 
 while the importation was $265,458. 
 We manufactured at the rate of 
 $5 per head and imported at tho 
 rate of 5^c. per head. In fact, avo 
 imported nothing in the boot and 
 shoe line that could be manufactured 
 here, the importations consisting sim- 
 ply of some fine work for which there 
 was very ' little demand. Of saddles 
 and harness, we manufactured in 1870-1 
 $2,469,321 worth, and imported the 
 large amount of $33,384 worth. Wo 
 manufactured at the rate of 70c. per 
 head, and imported at the rate of 1;^. 
 per head. Of leather goods, in 1870-1 
 wo manufactured to the value of 
 
$9,134,932, and imported last year to 
 the value of $249,998. \Ve manufac- 
 tured at the rate of $2.64 per head, and 
 imported at the rate of 5Jc. per head. 
 The production of woollen goods in 
 1870-1 was $5,507,540, and the impor- 
 tation last year amounted to $323,062, 
 that was, the production amounted to 
 $1.58 per head, and the importation 
 to 7|c. per head. In '•egard to machin- 
 ery, the production m 18701 amounted 
 to $7,325,000, and the importation last 
 year was valued at $262,235. Of agri- 
 cultural implements, the production in 
 1870-1 was $2,685,393, and the impor- 
 tation last year $198,825. Talk about 
 slaughter sales, talk about swamping 
 our manufactures by the importation 
 of one dollar's worth of goods where 
 we manufactured and sold $20 worth. 
 (Cheers). He had in his hand a state- 
 ment in regard to eighteen principal 
 industries of Canada, the total produc- 
 tion ot which in 1870-1 reached the 
 amount of $73,259,154, and of those 
 industries the importations last year 
 from the United States only amounted 
 to $3,623,376. The figures required 
 no comment. The cry about slaugh- 
 tered goods was raised for a purpose ; 
 fhe grievance had no existence in 
 reality. (Hear, hear). 
 
 Reciprocity of Tariffs. 
 
 They had been told by the right 
 hon. member for Kingston (Sir 
 John A. Macdonald) that reciprocity 
 of trade or of tariffs was a cry which 
 was more popular than any other 
 which could be adopted by any politi- 
 cal party. Just there the garment 
 which concealed a purpose was suffi- 
 ciently drawn aside to disclose the 
 cloven foot. There was a revelation 
 of the purposes which induced these 
 gentlemen to adopt this cry — because, 
 forsooth, it was the most popular cry 
 with which they could go to the coun- 
 try. The right hon. gentleman had 
 told them that he had been up and 
 down Canada last summer, that he had 
 been addressing picnic meetings, that 
 he had felt the pulse of the people and 
 know how they felt on this matter. 
 He (Mr. Chai'lton) had come in contact 
 Avith the people to a more limited ex- 
 tent. He hwl come in contact wit hhis 
 own constituency, which, he believed, 
 was a fair reflection of the poople of 
 
 Upper Canada. He had held twenty 
 meetings in that constituency during 
 the month of January last, and he had 
 felt the pulse of that people pretty 
 carefully, and he could tell the House 
 that, if any of his friends had 
 ever held any opinion as to the 
 feasibility of this specious plan 
 which the right hon. gentleman 
 was urging, they were cured of that 
 idea; and he could assure the right 
 hon. gentleman that, in hia belief, 
 when this matter came to be tried be- 
 fore the people, the people would lay 
 its dexter finger upon the right 
 side of its nose and would say 
 to the right hon. gentleman " too 
 thin." (Loud laughter). The right 
 hon. gentleraail had told them last 
 night a great many things that were 
 new to him (Mr. Charlton) ; among 
 ot? )rs, that very little corn was used 
 by the farmers of Canada, and, there- 
 fore, their intferests would not be af- 
 fected by a duty on corn. Well, he 
 (Mr. Charlton) lived in a corn-pro- 
 ducing county, and even in that county 
 he had known very large quantities of 
 American corn to be imported and 
 sold to farmers for consumption. This 
 had been done on occasions when, in 
 consequence of poor crops and of hav- 
 ing sold too closely in the fall and 
 winter, they found themselves short 
 in the spring; and then large quan- 
 tities were used for the purposes 
 of feed and human food. He doubted 
 whether those farmers, when com- 
 pelled to my corn, would have felt it 
 a gi"eat boon if the Government had 
 compelled them to pay higher for it 
 by imposing duties. He ileclared that 
 the assertion made by the right hon. 
 gentleman that corn was not used to 
 a considerable extent by farmers 
 in Canada was incorrect ; that 
 the right hon. gentleman was not 
 rightly informed j and that corn was 
 used to a considerable extent. Why 
 should it not be ? Farmers were 
 usually able with lib of barley to 
 buy l^lb or 21b of corn. A farmer 
 availed himself of the advantage of 
 selling his pease, barley and oats and 
 of buying corn in their place to feed 
 his stock at a price relatively much 
 lower, and any interference with this 
 business was an interference with his 
 rights and privileges. (Hear, hear). 
 
The right hon. gentleman had 
 assured them that the great advan- 
 tage of a reciprocity of tariffs 
 would be that it would secure 
 for us a reciprocity of trade with the 
 United States. If he (Mr. Charlton) 
 could be convinced that a reciprocity 
 of tariffs with the United States wonld 
 secure reciprocity of trade with Jthat 
 country, he should certainly favour 
 the measure; but he did not favour 
 the measure because he believed it 
 would have a diametrically opposite 
 effect. He believed that the adoption 
 of this principle of reciprocity of tariff», 
 while it would fail to confer upon us 
 a single benefit, and, on the contrary, 
 would injure us in every respect, would 
 put into the indefinite distance in the 
 future the realization of any desire to 
 have a reciprocity of trade. It would 
 create a feeling of bitterness and 
 estrangement, and the result would be 
 to postpone indefinitely the realization 
 of our idea for reciprocity of trade. 
 
 United States Outstripping England. 
 
 He should only allude to one 
 more point in the hon. gentleman's 
 speech. He had informed them, 
 and the same information had been 
 vouchsafed to them by another 
 eminent authority on that side of 
 the House (Mr. Tupper), that Eng- 
 land was being crowded out of her 
 markets by competition with the 
 United States. The right hon. gen- 
 tleman (Sir John A. Macdonald) had 
 told them that, speedily, England 
 would have no refuge, no resting-place 
 in the markets of the world, that she 
 would only have the markets of Africa, 
 that the valleys of the Congo and 
 ^ambe/f would be the scene of her 
 future trade operations ; that the Hot- 
 tentots, the Mokololos, the Manyuemas, 
 and othe." barbarious African tribes 
 would be her only tuture customers, and 
 that her trade would be restricted to ex- 
 changes for ivory and palm-oil and 
 cocoa-nuts. (Laughter). He had looked 
 this matter up, and he found that Eng- 
 land still had a little trade besides what 
 she had with Africa. He found that her 
 axports of cotton goods, last year, 
 amounted to $211,000,000, woollens 
 1879,000,000, iron and steel $92,000,000. 
 Her exports of manufactured goods to 
 the United States were $I?,000,000 
 
 mor.T than the total exports of the 
 United States manufactures to all the 
 world. While the United States ex- 
 ported goods to the amount of 
 $72,000,000 last year to all coun- 
 tries, Great Britain exported to 
 them $84,000,000. England's exports 
 to Germany amounted to $100,000,000 ; 
 to France $80,000,000; the I^ether- 
 lands $58,000,000 ; Italy $3.3,000-000, 
 and to Eussia, that paradise of 
 Protection, $30,000,000; South Ame- 
 rica, $52,000,000, and the United 
 States, as he had before stated, 
 $84,000,000. The total volume of her ex- 
 ports amounted to over $1,000,000,000, 
 and yet, forsooth, although she ex- 
 ported $1,000,000,000 of manufactures, 
 reaching to every town and hamlet on 
 the globe, she was speedily to be 
 driven to the interioA" recesses of Africa 
 for a market for her manufactures. 
 
 The House had been favoured since 
 recess with some remarks from his 
 friend the hon, member for Terrebonne 
 (Mr. Masson) about the subject of Pro- 
 tection. The hon. member very kindly 
 drew their attention to the fact that 
 there were two kinds of protection, the 
 one Protection afforded by the Govern- 
 ment, and another kind of protection 
 afforded by creditors. He might have 
 pursued his investigations still further. 
 He would call the hon. gentleman's 
 attention to the fact that there were 
 two kinds of protection afforded by the 
 Government ; the first was that pro- 
 tection to life and property, that bene- 
 ficent protection which the law afforded 
 to its citizens; the second, that kind of ' 
 Protection which the hon. gentleman 
 was in favour of, that Protection which 
 entrenched monoplies behind the pro- 
 tection of the law ; that Protection 
 which said to one man, wo will take 
 from your earnings and give to 
 this man who has iio right to them; 
 that Protection which favoured one 
 class to the detriment of another ; 
 that kind of Protection which the 
 Southern planter enjoyed with refer- 
 ence to the labour of his slaves. There 
 were two kinds of Protection: one 
 true, one false; one which was really 
 Protection, and one which was in reality 
 a high-handed act of robbery, perpe- 
 trated for the benefit of small and 
 favoured classes. (Cheers). The hon. 
 gentleman also stated that everybody 
 
now admitted that the depression in 
 Canada was most crashing. Well, he 
 (Mr. Charlton) at the risk of appearing 
 singular in the matter, must decline to 
 admit this ; and, later in the evening, he 
 would, take occasion to show why he 
 did decline to admit this, and he would 
 produce evidence to show that such 
 general depression did not exist. One 
 other remark made by the hon. gentle- 
 man (Mr. Masson) towards the close of 
 his speech also struck him. It was 
 that, if Protection in the United States 
 had produced over-production, some- 
 body had benefitted by it, — that the 
 workman had benefitted by it in being 
 enabled to get cheap goods. He under- 
 stood his hon. friend that they had not 
 complained of over-production in the 
 United States, in consequence of the 
 accumulation of stock which must be 
 sold at a sacrifice, and yet the hon. 
 gentleman was so inconsistent as to ob- 
 ject to the consignment of these goods 
 into Canada so that the workingman 
 here, inconsequence of slaughter prices, 
 would reap the same advantage as did 
 his brother in the United States, and 
 would be benefitted by being enabled 
 to buy his goods, in consequence of 
 over-production, for less than they were 
 worth. 
 
 Imports flrom United States. 
 
 If it were in order, lo (Mr. 
 Charlton) should allude to a state- 
 ment made the previous evening by 
 the hon. member for Caitiwell 
 (Mr. McCarthy) in which the hon. 
 gentleman sought to convey an im- 
 pression that the importation of manu- 
 factured goods from the United States 
 to Canada was $51,000,000 per annum. 
 He (Mr. Charlton) challenged that 
 statement at the time, and since that 
 time he had obtained a return from 
 the Customs Department, from which 
 he found that the total imports wore 
 $51,000,000; but that the importation 
 of manufactures for consumption was 
 only $24,000,000. He must protest 
 against the reckless use of assertions 
 not founded upon fact, which were 
 calculated to mislead the country. 
 
 Me. McCarthy said he thought 
 it would be in the recollection of the 
 House that, when the hon. gentleman 
 (Mr. Charlton) put the question to 
 
 him, ho admitted that a mistake had 
 been made. 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON said ho did not 
 understand the hon. gentleman to con- 
 cede that he was mistaken, and he cer- 
 tainly left the impression upon the 
 House that he was correct. The 
 balance of this large importation, not 
 comprised in this list of manufactured 
 goods, consisted, among other things, 
 of $12,000,000 worth of grain and bread- 
 stuffs, $692,000 worth of wool for our 
 manufacturers, $980,000 worth of to- 
 bacco leaf for our manufacturei-s, 
 also $594,000 worth of raw cotton for 
 our cotton mills, $718 000 worth ot 
 settlers' effects belonging to immigrant 
 coming into this country, $1,124,000 
 worth of hides and pelts for the use 
 of our tanneries, $3,176,000 worth of 
 coal and coke for the use of our manu- 
 facturers and as fuel for the "'tizens, 
 $298,000 worth of dye stuffs ;_10,000 
 worth of raw rubber, and $376,000 
 worth of flax and hemp for 
 our manufacturers, $663,000 worth 
 of timber, which our timber 
 merchants had bought in the United 
 States, and which was exported from 
 here to foreign countries. (Hear, 
 hear). 
 
 Deflnine Terms. 
 
 It would be well at this stage of his 
 remarks to have a definition of terms. 
 They heard a great deal said about Pro- 
 tection and a great deal said about Free- 
 trade, but they heard very little said 
 of any non-protective theory or revenue 
 tarift'. The impression that the coun- 
 try would have from the drift of the 
 arguments in this House, would be 
 that it was a controversy on the prin- 
 ciple of Protection versus Free-trade, 
 while it was needless for him to state 
 that such was not the issue. We ha4 
 no such policy as Protection, pure and 
 simple, in this country; neither had we 
 Free-trade, nor was there any party 
 proposing to adopt a Free-trade policy 
 for Canada. We had a revenue tariff 
 and what might properly be designated 
 a non-protective system. What was 
 Protection in its aims ? Not to secure 
 a revenue, but to impose duties so high 
 as to dry up the sources of revenue ; as 
 to exclude our importation and create 
 in the country a monopoly for the 
 
manufactufor of those ^oods which were 
 •excluded by those extreme duties. Pro- 
 tection practically aimed at doubling 
 the burden of a non-protectivo system 
 to the consumer without benefit to the 
 Government, because it compelled the 
 Govei'nment to supplement the sum 
 formerly collected under a non- 
 protective tariff by some other 
 mode of raising the revenue, (Hear, 
 hear). A purely revenue tariff 
 was a schedule of duties imposed 
 on articles in such a manner that 
 every cont of increased cost went into 
 the coffers of the Government ; but, 
 where ii was necessary to have a large 
 revenue and a great number of articles 
 must be taxed, it was impo^>t^ible to 
 -devise a revenue tariff which did not 
 afford, to a greater or loss extent, inci- 
 dental Protection to home industries. 
 They had a great number of articles 
 now upon the 17^ per cent, list that 
 ■could be manufactured and were to a 
 large extent manufactured in Canada. 
 They had in the present tariff a mea- 
 sure which afforded in ordinary years 
 a sufficient amount of revenue, and 
 which afforded at the same time an 
 ■extensive degree of Protection ; but, if 
 they imposed too high a schedule of 
 duties, they would be in danger of 
 ■defeating the purpose they had in 
 view of raising an adequate revenue, 
 by affording too great Protection and 
 unduly stimulating domestic indus- 
 tries to the exclusion of importations. 
 Then, as he had before stated, in defining 
 these terms, they had no issue between 
 Protection and Free-trade. They had 
 no such a thing as advocacy of Free- 
 trade, no party with Froe-trside princi- 
 ples; but they now had a party 
 advocating the exchange of the present 
 revenue tariff system for protective 
 ■duties ; a system which, while increas- 
 ing the cost efgoodstothe people, 
 would diminish the amount of revenue 
 collected by the Government, and 
 ^which would> as he believed he (Mr. 
 Charlton) would be able to show con- 
 ■clusively, have in the end a bad effect 
 upon the industries of the country. 
 (Hear, hear). 
 
 He would now refer to the charges 
 of inconsistency against himself. 
 He was charged with having been 
 a Protectionist, and with now 
 being a Free-trader. He had from 
 
 a protective standpoint at no time 
 {vdvocated a higher rate of duty 
 than 17^ per cent.; ho had said 
 nothing at any time upon the tariff 
 question which might be characterized 
 by the Opposition as a defence of a 
 revenue tariff and of the present 
 policy of the Government that advo- 
 cated the reduction of the rate of duties 
 from the point where they at present 
 stood. Was there any inconsistency in 
 that ? Gentlemen might say he had 
 talked of Protection, and that he had 
 talked of Free-trade ; he might justly 
 claim, speaking from a Protectionist 
 standpoint, that the present tariff was 
 ample for the purpose of affording 
 Protection to manufacturers in this 
 country ; he might, as a Non-Protection- 
 ist, properly and justly hold that it 
 would be impolitic and unwise to 
 change the present tariff, which afforded 
 the Govei'nment the revenue they 
 needed and did not press on the people. 
 He had been unduly criticized ; but he 
 did not claim perfect consistency 
 between his present and his former 
 opinions in this matter — consistency 
 of this kind could only exist vhere 
 there was no progression. When a 
 child was in the arms of his nurse he 
 was, perhaps, taught to believe the 
 moon was a huge cheese; when he 
 became a young man he repudiated 
 that theory ; ho was inconsistent in 
 repudiating his former belief; but he 
 had advanced from error towards the 
 truth. And, when he became a young 
 man, he formed opinions of life which 
 he was very likely to change on the 
 shady side of forty. In this he had 
 again been inconsistent, and he had 
 again advanced. (Hear, hear). A person 
 who had received the same education 
 as Inmself, who had been in 
 early life a follower of the views 
 of men like Horace Greeley and 
 Henry C. Carey, was liable to 
 form opinions which, when he had 
 examined evidence on the other side, 
 he would be inclined to modify, and he 
 had no hesitation in saying, and was 
 was not ashamed to say, that he once 
 entertained opinions which he had 
 since very much modified. He did 
 not believe .that extreme Protection 
 was a blessing to a country, but he had 
 no hesitation in saying that Free-trade, 
 as an abstract principle, was right. He 
 
8 
 
 would go farther than this, ho would 
 day that, the neai er they realized in 
 practice this abstract principle, the 
 neaz-er they were to what was best in 
 the interest of the countiy. (Cheers.) 
 
 State of Our Manufactures. 
 
 The House had had many asser- 
 tions made in reference to the con- 
 dition of many of the manufactur- 
 ing industries of this country. To 
 the extent of the depression that 
 now i;xi8ted in Canada, he proposed 
 to direct attention for a few moments, 
 and he should preface his remarks by 
 stating that in Canada, for the last four 
 years, there had been less depression 
 and less distress than there had been 
 in the United States, where they en- 
 joyed the benefits of efficient Protec- 
 tion. (Hear, hear). He asserted 
 that at the present moment there 
 was less depressson in this CQuntry 
 than in England — less depression 
 and less distress than there was 
 in that Utopia and paradise of Pro- 
 tection, Bussia. He asserted that we 
 were, in fact, singularly fortunate in 
 this respect as compared with the 
 neighbouring nation. He had entei'od 
 into a cori'espondence with a num- 
 ber of manufacturers upon this subject 
 without regard to their political pro- 
 clivities, and, in many cases, he had re- 
 ceived replies. He had received replies 
 from twenty-one extensive manufac- 
 turers established in this Dominion, and 
 in these letters he found very satisfac- 
 - tory evidence as to the condition of our 
 manufacturing industries. Taking the 
 firat return contained in this correspon- 
 dence, he found that an extensive 
 cotton mill in the west, last year, 
 eurned ten per cent., which wag applied 
 to the purchase of additional machinery. 
 Another letter, from a different source, 
 relating to the affairs of the same 
 company, stated that they declared no 
 dividend last year, thus evidently in- 
 tending to leave an impression upon 
 his mind, that, as far as this firm was 
 concerned, it had been a very bad year 
 indeed, by suspiciously neglecting to 
 state the fact that a dividend of 10 per 
 cent., though not declared, was oarned 
 and applied to increase of capacity, be- 
 cause their orders wex'e coming in 
 faster than they could execute them. 
 
 (Heai-, hear). The next letter was 
 from an extensive woollen manu- 
 factoiy, with a capital of $180,000, 
 whose gross profits during the last 
 year were ten per cent. ; thoy 
 reported the prospects for the present 
 year encouraging, and bettor than they 
 were for the last. The next was from 
 an extensive foundry, with a capital 
 of $180,000 ; those gentlemen reported 
 that they made no profit on fixed capital 
 last year, in consequence of having 
 u-nfortunately made a large number 
 of bad debts ; they also reported that 
 home competition was too keen; that 
 the measure of Protection they had 
 enjoyed had unduly stimulated that 
 industry, and that, consequently, the 
 business was overdone. (Hear, bear)^ 
 The next letter was from an ex- 
 tensive woollen manufactory; they 
 reported that the depression had 
 affected their business unfavourably ; 
 the'* saw no prospect of an im- 
 mediate improvement ; profits on 
 capital last year, six per cent. He 
 (Mr. Charlton) had noticed as a 
 remarkable fact that the affairs of 
 manufacturers who had reported that 
 they had made no higher rate than 
 legal intei-est on capital were con- 
 sidered by them to be in a ruinous 
 condition. The next letter v/as from 
 a hosierj' establishmdnt in the West. 
 The proprietor reported too much homo 
 competition ; business overdone ; be- 
 lieved a revenue tariff the true policy ; 
 profits last year, six per cent., very 
 much cut down by bad debts ; prospects 
 for this year fair to good. Another 
 letter from an extensive hosiery es- 
 tablishment reported that the trado 
 last year was fairly good ; did not 
 anticipate a great increase this year 
 profits on capital last year, eight per 
 cent. He had a letter from, perhaps, 
 the most extensive eewing machine 
 maker in the Dominion. It re- 
 ported : " Small improvements so far 
 in 1818; not running on full time§ 
 had to be satisfied last year with 
 interest on investment*, wants re- 
 ciprocity." A gentleman extensively 
 engaged in the manufacture of carriage 
 goods reported : " Business fairly remu- 
 nerative last year ; wishes for a duty of 
 twenty per cent." The next letter was 
 from an extensive clothing concern in 
 the West. They ^reported :* " Profits 
 
hardly w. groat during the last year as 
 might Imve been realized on capital by 
 loaning it on mortgage and buying 
 notes." An extensive agricultural im- 
 plement maker in the West reported : 
 •' Making reapers, harvesters and 
 various machines; past ten months the 
 busiest ever known ; exporting largely 
 to Great Britain. Australia and Africa ; 
 export trade rapidly increasing." (Hear 
 hear). 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MAODONALD : What 
 African tribe takes reapers ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON: The Anglo- 
 Saxons, north of Capo Town, who 
 have, as the hon. gentleman is, 
 perhaps, not aware, supplanted the 
 natives to a great extent. (Laughter). 
 The next was a letter from an 
 extensive sewing machine manu- 
 facturer who reported : " Running on 
 three-quarter time ; last year's profits 
 reduced as compared with former years; 
 making efforts to extend the export 
 trade ; wants free trade in iron, steel, 
 brass, coal, lumber and varnish." It so 
 happened that, those were the raw 
 materials required in that gentle- 
 man's business. (Hear, hear). An- 
 other extensive agricultural imple- 
 ment manufacturer in the West 
 reported : " Have done a larger and 
 more profitable business last year 
 than ever before; anticipate to in- 
 crease it largely this year; profits 
 tisfactory ; want no more protection ; 
 present duties afford more protec- 
 tion than those in 1869, 1870, 1871, 
 1872." A proprietor of a large 
 foundry in the west reportel: " Busi 
 ness improving ; profits last year 
 twenty per cent. ; too much home com- 
 petition." Another agricultural imple- 
 ment maker said: "Building 1,500 
 reapers ; business increasing ; profits 
 last year, twenty-three per cent. ; 
 more protection would damage his 
 business." Another agricultural im- 
 plement manufacturer sent a highly 
 satisfactory letter. Ho said: "Business 
 increasing rapidly; exporting 400 
 machines this year ; profits last year, 
 twenty per cent, on sales, forty per cent 
 on capital. (Hear, hear). Another 
 gentleman in the same line reported : 
 "Expects to do double the business done 
 in 1877 ; wants no more protection ; 
 profits on capital last year not less than 
 
 twenty per cent." Another iraplem»;Dt 
 maker stated": " Busi ness last year was 
 twenty per cent, gi-eatcr than ever 
 before, and rapidly increasing ; profits 
 satisfactory ; exporting toGreatBritain, 
 Australia and the United States ; wants 
 no more protection." A manufacturer 
 of knit goods reported : " Holding his 
 own ; others in the same line in about 
 the same way." Another agricultural 
 implement maker reported : " Profits 
 much the same as in former years ; 
 been in busi ness twenty years ; seeking 
 to extend trade in Lower Provinces ; 
 complains of difficulties in reaching 
 them, and of American competition ; 
 ha<* no faith in Tory promises of pro- 
 tection." He (Mr. Charlton) would read 
 an extract on that point for the benefit 
 of hon. gentlemen opposite. The 
 writer said : 
 
 " Id conclusion, the writer would turther 
 state th^t, he believes firmly when the 
 proper time arrives the Reform party will 
 carry out such measures as the manufac- 
 turers and the Canadian people desire ; and he 
 has no . faiili whatever in the Tory cry of 
 Protection, unless it be used as a stemjing- 
 stone to another reign of misrule and cor- 
 ruption; and when many of our Reform 
 manufacturing friends, who are so sore 
 displeased with the present Government, will 
 find out that they have been simply gulled 
 b^professions that were never intended to be 
 fumlled, if Protection would in any way 
 interfere with their lease of office." 
 
 SirJOHN A.MACDONALD: Then 
 there are many other manufacturers 
 who are dissatisfied ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said the writer 
 did not say iiow many. He would 
 take the liberty of reading a letter 
 from a gentleman whose name he had 
 permission ta use, Mr. James Noxon, 
 of IngersoU. That gentleman reported 
 that the last year's profits of the large 
 establishment of which he was the 
 president were twenty-eight per cent. 
 He said : 
 
 " The profits of this Company for the last 
 year, after making ample provision for bad 
 and doubtful debts, were twenty-eight per 
 cent, on the paid up capital stock. Our 
 usual profits were over thirty per cent., 
 but were slightly less last year, owing 
 to a defect in some of our reapers 
 that was not discovered until they had 
 been sent out into all parts of the country, 
 and which cost us a large amount of 
 money to remedy. The prospects for the 
 
10 
 
 fk 
 
 present year are good, and we expect to 
 pet our profits back to the old figures on 
 ibis year's business. • • • 
 There never was a more absurd cry than 
 that manufacturers are languishing i'or the 
 want o1 protection, while the fact is the 
 manufacturing industries, not including 
 lumber, are to-day more prosperous than 
 any other of the great industries of the 
 country, with the possible exception of 
 agriculture. It may safely be said, gener- 
 ally, that the manufaclurera of Canada are 
 as prosperous as are the manufacturers of 
 any country in the world at the present 
 time." (Cheers). 
 
 The result of the reports he had 
 received from twenty establishments 
 wan, therefore, as follows : — Six had 
 made profits of twenty per cent, 
 or upwards on last year's business; 
 two reported that their profits were 
 satisfactory, and from what he knew 
 of uhoEe, he felt justified in saying that 
 they exceeded twenty per cent., thus 
 making a total of eight out of twenty 
 whose profits equalled 20 per cent. 
 Two reported their profits at ten per 
 cent. ; six reported that their profits 
 were from six to eight per cent, last 
 year ; one reported profits reduced, as 
 compared with former years; and only 
 two reported that they had made no 
 d' "idends. He had at his hand a state- 
 mv-iit of the business of forty-eight 
 of the principal manufacturing es- 
 tablishments in the New England 
 States last year, and he was happy 
 to say that the exhibit made by 
 those Canadian firms to which he 
 had called the attention of the House 
 was a much more satisfactory one than 
 that made by those New England 
 firms, which included the chief manu- 
 facturing corporations of those States, 
 representing a capital of $52,320,000. 
 Of those forty-eight firms, sixteen re- 
 ported, last year, no dividend— in Can- 
 ada only two. Last year nine of these 
 forty-eight American firms reported 
 profits less than six per cent. ; eight 
 reported six per cent. ; and seven only 
 reported ten per cent, and upwards. 
 Contrasting the position of those forty- 
 eight establishments with the twenty- 
 one Canadian establishments he had 
 just referred to, it was evident that the 
 condition of our manufacturing indus- 
 tries was highly prosperous compared 
 with the industries of the New 
 England Suites. (Hear, hear)- He 
 had, ho thought, furnished ample 
 
 proof of his assertion, that the 
 degree of depression and distress 
 existing among the manufactures 
 of Cana^la, at the present time, was 
 less than in the united States. He 
 renewed the assertion that the condi- 
 tion of the manufacturing industries in 
 Canada, at this time, and for the last 
 four years, had been better than the 
 condition of the manufactures of the 
 United States, than the condition of ♦ho 
 manufactures in New England, than the 
 •ondition of the manufactures of Ger- 
 many, than the condition of the manu- 
 factures of Russia. 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD: I 
 ask the hon. gentleman if he has read 
 all the answers ? 
 
 Me. CHAELTON: I have read all 
 tb« answers, and I have withheld no 
 information I received in answer to 
 those letters. 
 
 Mr. ROCHESTEE: Eead all the 
 letters. 
 
 Mr. CHAKLTONsaid he could give 
 the hon. gentleman the names of the 
 firms, and he had already given the 
 Bubstance*of the letters. Many of them 
 contained information he was not at 
 liberty to use, and, in some cases, he 
 was not at liberty to give the names 
 of the writers. 
 
 Mr. EOCHESTEE: We do not want 
 the names, but simply the letters. 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON said he did not 
 propose to spend a couple of hours 
 reading a pile of letters of which ho 
 had already given the substance. 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD : Will 
 the hon, member give the answer he 
 received from Eobinson & Company, of 
 Preston and Gait ? 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON: \ have no letter 
 from Eobinson & Company. 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD : They 
 wrote you a letter, because I have a 
 copy of it. 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON said he might bo 
 mistaken, but he would look over the 
 headings of the letters. 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD : Wm. 
 Eobinson is one of the firm. 
 
 Ma. YOUNG: Does he say he has 
 been losing money ? 
 
11 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD: I 
 want to know the name of the firm. 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON : I have a letter 
 from Eobinbon, Howells & Co., of 
 Preston. 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD: 
 Perhaps *^c hon, gentleman will read 
 that ? 
 
 Mr. LYMOND said the hon. member 
 Lad already given the substance of the 
 letter. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said he had read 
 such letters as he was authorized by 
 the writers to use, and he would not 
 read any of those he was not warranted 
 in quoting. He had given to the 
 House.the information which they had 
 furnished him, and the circular he had 
 issued stated the fact that he wished 
 to know, generally, the condition of 
 business during the past year, and the 
 prospect for this year, for the purpose 
 of using the information in Parliament. 
 
 Protection to Han afactares— Benefit- 
 Cost. 
 
 Having made the assertion that 
 the extent of the depression in 
 Canada last year, was less than in 
 most other commercial countries, he 
 now made the assertion that whatever 
 depression existed in this country had 
 not been due to a lack of Protection. 
 He made the assertion that thegeneral 
 depression that had existed throughout 
 the world must, of necessity, have 
 affected the commercial interests of the 
 Dominion, and he thought it was almost 
 unnecessary to go into any details in il- 
 lustrating that matter. It was impossible 
 that the manufacturing and commercial 
 interests of this country should not 
 have suffered from the depression ex- 
 isting in other commercial nations. 
 Now, we had, in this National Policy 
 propounded by the right hon. member 
 for Kingston, a promise that prosperity 
 T«rould be conferred on Canada by pro- 
 tection being afforded to the various 
 industrial interests. They had the 
 promise that this panacea for all ills 
 was to confer prosperity upon our 
 agricultural, mining and manufactur- 
 ing interest*. Let them examine for 
 a moment into the question as t > the 
 extent of prosperity efficient Protection 
 would conter upon the manufacturing 
 
 industries of this country. At the 
 outset he asked permission to call at- 
 tention to the fact that, in any country, 
 even in highly protected countries 
 such as the United States, where 
 various interests had benefitted fi*om 
 a large degree of Protection, there was 
 an immense number of manufacturing 
 enterprises belonging to that class 
 commonly known as " natural manu- 
 factures." The gross production of the 
 manufacturing industries in Canada, in 
 1870-1, was $221,000,000 ; deducting 
 from that sura the cost of material, 
 they had a net product of $96,709,000. 
 Assuming as correct the principle laid 
 down by Political Economist^, that, in 
 a country such as this, at least four- 
 fifths of the manufactures l>elonged to 
 the class commonly knowi. iis natural 
 manufactures, such as bakers, stone- 
 masons, shoe-makers, carpenters, etc., 
 that must exist in every c >untry, let 
 them see how large a proportion of those 
 industries, existing in 1870-1, were due 
 to the Protection afforded by our 
 revenue tariff'. It would bo found, 
 calculating upon this basis, that the 
 proportion of the net production due 
 to protection would be $19,000,000. 
 They would find that 187,942 persons 
 were employed in those various indas- 
 tries, and that, at the outside, not more 
 than 37,500 of that entire number were 
 engaged, in occupations that were 
 benefitted in any degree by Protection. 
 Then they might credit to the inci- 
 dental Protection existing at the pi'esent 
 time that 37,500 individuals who were 
 in Canada in 1870. The next question 
 was, to what extent would that num- 
 ber be increased by adopting the most 
 efficient imaginable system of Protec- 
 tion ? He had gone carefully through 
 the list of imports into Canada for the 
 last fiscal year, and had checked oft' 
 the quantity and amount of every' 
 article that could by any possibility be 
 produced in Canada, and the result of 
 that classification was as follows : He 
 found that we imported last year, of 
 goods paying specific duties, and that 
 might possibly be manufactured in 
 Canada, $398,000 worth ; we imported 
 of goods paying seventeen and a half 
 per cent., that might, with the most 
 efficient system of Protection, be pro- 
 duced here, $35,209,000 worth; and 
 on the ten per coat, list wo im- 
 
12 
 
 ported goods to the value of 8508,000 
 susceptible of manufacture here; 
 on the five per cent, list, 83,883,000 ; 
 and on the free list, $3,332,000— the 
 to Lai being $42,833,000 worth ot goods 
 imported into Canada during the last 
 fiscal year, that an efficient system of 
 Protection might cause in time to be 
 mostly manufactured in this country. 
 Well, what if we were to ado])t that 
 system and impose duty so high as to 
 exclude these goods frcm coming into 
 this country, and lead to their manufac- 
 ture here, what would be the first sacri- 
 fice that we would make ? (Hear). The 
 first sacrifice would be the duties which 
 we had collected on these goods, for 
 the Government would lose the revenue 
 and the consumer would get them no 
 cheaper. These duties last year amount- 
 ed to 86,661,000. What would be the 
 second sacrifice on the part of the 
 country ? The second sacrifice would 
 be to increase the* amount of duties 
 that would be necessary to lead to 
 the production of these very goods 
 here. The duties would have to be 
 increased, perhaps 10 per cent., 
 perhaps 20 per cent. Ho had made a 
 very moderate estimate in this respect. 
 He assumed that the tariff would have 
 to be increased to about 25 per cent., 
 and that the enhanced cost of those 
 goods in consequence of their increased 
 duties would amount to a further sum 
 of $5,140,000. This was the second 
 item. Was there anything else ? Yes. 
 Many lines of goods which wore already 
 manufactured in Canada under tht. 
 stimulusof a 17i per cent. Protection, 
 would be further enhanced in cost in 
 •onsequence of the advanced duties ; 
 and the enhanced cost of those goods 
 which wo now imported, he estimated 
 — and the estimate was moderate — at 
 $2,95(1,000. What then would be the 
 total cost of excluding from Canada, 
 by means of high protective duties, 
 $42,832,000 worth of goods which were 
 imported last year, assuming that we 
 manufactured all these goods hero? 
 The total cost would be $ 14,152,000 per 
 annum to Canada. (Hear, hoar). Well, 
 there was the cost at an estimated rate 
 probably ten per cent, lower than 
 would be actually required. Now, 
 what would be the advantage of such 
 a course ? No man would den}' that 
 the manufacture of forty- two million 
 
 dollars worth of goods in Canada and 
 the creation of the various establish- 
 ments necessary for that increased 
 amount of business would bo an ad- 
 vantage to Canada. It only remained 
 for them to examine what that advant- 
 age would be, and to compare its value 
 to the country with the cost, which 
 he had shown would be not less than 
 $14,752,090. What would that advan- 
 tage be ? Hov7 many operatives would 
 the production of $42,832,000 worth of 
 goods add to the population of Canada ? 
 In the year 1870, the production of 
 goods in the United States, as shown 
 by the census returns, exceeded $2,000 
 to each operative employed ; and, last 
 year, he noticed that in the city of 
 Cincinnati the production of goods by 
 each hand employed exceeded $2,500. 
 He would estimate, from this data, 
 that each operative, under the 
 system that would lead to the produc- 
 tion of these goods in Canada, would 
 produce $2,000 worth. How many 
 operatives then would be added to the 
 population of Canada, if we produced 
 the additional amount of $42,000,000 
 worth of goods which we now imported. 
 It would add to the population the total 
 number of 22,000 operatives in round 
 numbers. (Hear, hear). Part of these 
 would be men ; some of them would be 
 women ; some of them would be boys, 
 and some of them would be girls j 
 and, for the purpose of adding 
 22,000 operatives to our population, 
 and such further number as might be 
 dependent on those who were heads of 
 families among this number, they were 
 called upon by this admirable pol-cy, 
 promulgated last night by the right 
 hon. member for Kingston, to submit 
 to a loss to this country of $14,752,000 
 per annum, and they wore to pay an 
 annual tax of $625 upon every opera- 
 tive that was brought into Canada, for 
 the purpose of producing in this coun- 
 try the goods that we now imported, 
 and that were susceptible of produc- 
 tion here. (Hear, hear). Capitalizing 
 this sum paid as an annual tax, 
 it would bo seen that it would 
 amount to $12,500, at five per cent, 
 interest, which would bo the cost 
 per head to Canada of the addition to 
 its population of the number of people 
 that would be necessary to produce the 
 goods which we now imported. Was 
 
13 
 
 not this a magnificent theory? The 
 right hon. gentleman ought to receive 
 a leather medal for having devised and 
 promulgated such an astounding receipt 
 tor securing national prosperity as 
 this. (Laughter). This was the policy 
 which was to confer upon Caiifja, 
 upon its manufacturing, its mining, its 
 agricultural, and its other interests, 
 prosperity. This was the policy 
 which called upon the people of this 
 country to contribute over fourteen 
 millions a year in bui-dens direct and 
 indire* for the purpose of adding 
 22,000 operatives to our population. 
 Brilliant beyond measure was this piece 
 of statesmanship. Well, they were 
 promised in a general way that other 
 industries would be benefitted by this 
 policy. What other industi-ies would be 
 80 benefitted ? Did the hon. gentleman 
 propose to benefit the lumber industry 
 by Protection— one of the most import- 
 ant industries in Canada, an industry 
 that found a market for its products 
 almost exclusively abroad, and an 
 industry that was injured by every addi- 
 tional advance in the cost of the supplies 
 used ? The thing was an absurdity. 
 Protection in any degree was an injury 
 to that interest. Under no possible 
 circumstances could a protective policy 
 ■ be devised that could-confer one iota of 
 benefit on that great and that important 
 industry of Canada, the lumber interest. 
 (Hear, hear). Did the hon. gentle- 
 man propose to confer any benefit upon 
 the shipping industry ot the country 
 by imposing taxes upon the material 
 which was to be used in the construc- 
 tion of vessels, by hampering the trade 
 of the country, and by drying up the 
 sources of business that had made 
 Canada the fourth maritime state in 
 the world ? The right hon. gentleman 
 might propose to do so, but he could 
 never realize it ; ho could propose no 
 restriction upon trade in the line of 
 duties that would not inflict injury upon 
 the shipping industry of the country. 
 (Hear, hear). aDid the right hon. gentle- 
 man propose to benefit the fishing 
 industiyof the country by the impo- 
 sition of protect ivedutieG— by imposing 
 duties on salt, by imposing duties on 
 coal, by imposing duties on cUth, and 
 by imposing duties upon food ? By 
 no possibility could the hon. gentleman 
 confer one iota of benefit upon that 
 
 great interest by Protection, and he 
 should proceed to show, in the course 
 of his argument, that the right hon. 
 gentleman could confer no permanent 
 benefit on cny industry, by the adop- 
 tion of the principles of Protection. 
 (Cheers). 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD : Hear, 
 hear. There is my hon. friend's speech 
 of 1876. 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON said that the 
 right hon. gentleman had unfortunately 
 come in rather late. He would not go 
 back and refer to matters to which he 
 he had already referred,and in referring 
 to which he had answered the remark 
 which he CSir John A. Macdonald) had 
 just made. He had alluded, a few 
 moments ago, to natural and artificial 
 manufactures ; and he had made the 
 assertion that in any country, and 
 especially in such countries as the 
 United States and Canada, the great 
 bulk of the manufactures belonged 
 to that class known as natural 
 manufactures, to that class of manufac- 
 tures that would exist in any country, 
 and to that class of manufactures which 
 were injured by Protection. 
 
 Protected Industries and Protection. 
 
 But even protected industries were 
 in very few instances permanently, 
 benefitted by Protection. He would 
 take as a sample the iron interest. 
 If a duty were imposed, as he 
 ventured to say the right hon. 
 gentleman would propose, on pig 
 iron, what was the effect of this duty 
 on the general iron interest? What pro- 
 portion to the entire volume of the iron 
 trade of the country did the value of the 
 quantity of pig iron made use of bear ? 
 In the tjnited States, in 1860, the total 
 value of the iron product of the country 
 was ten times the value of the product 
 of pig iron ; and, in 1870, the total 
 value of the product of the entire iron 
 trade was eight times the value of the 
 pig iron. What was the effect of the 
 duty on pig iron? It raised the cost 
 of the raw material to nine-tenths of 
 the value of the iron industry of the 
 United States in 1860, and to seven- 
 eighths of the value of the iron industry 
 of the United States in 1870. ^ That 
 duty on pig iron was not a benefit, but 
 
14 
 
 it was a burden upon nine-tenths of the 
 i on industry of that country. (Hear). 
 What was the cflfect of the duty upom 
 bar iron? Every industry in t'lat 
 cr'intry which made use of bar iron 
 as a raw malr;i'ial was injured bj' the 
 imposition of the duty on bar iron. 
 Then there was a duty levied on raw 
 steel ; and wl vt was the effect of that ? 
 Why, any manufacturer of cutlery in 
 the United Str^es would tell you that, 
 if the Government would take the 
 duty off raw steel, that would be all the 
 Protection they asked. The value 
 of raw steel produced in the 
 United States bore the proportion to 
 the total value of the products of steel 
 of 1 to 30 ; where, with the imposition of 
 a duty on raw steel, one man was bene- 
 fitted, twenty-nine to whom steel was 
 raw material were injured; and this 
 was the effect of Protection there. What 
 was the effect of duties upon dye-stuffs 
 and upon wool, for, in the United 
 States and in any other country where 
 the protective system was adopted, all 
 interests had to be protected. In the 
 United States, when they protected 
 woollen manufactures, the men who 
 raised the wool demanded that a duty 
 saould be levied on wool, and a duty 
 was given them ; and inconsequence 
 of this fact, the benefits which had 
 been derived by the manufacturer 
 from the duties on cloth, were neutra- 
 lized, and more than neutralized, by 
 the duties levied on dye-stuffs and 
 wool. What effect did the duty on 
 coal have there, and what would be 
 the efl'ect of it here ? It did and would 
 increase the cost to the manufacturer 
 of motive power. It would be an in- 
 jury to him, and an injury to every 
 manufacture,,' that used coal in the 
 generation of steam, and to every man 
 who used coal for fuel. A protective 
 duty on coal would be a burden 
 on every industry, except the 
 industry which produced coal for 
 sale. (Hear, hear). What would be 
 the result of the duty on food? It 
 would be a buiden on every operative 
 and on evejy labourer that bought 
 food. It would only benefit the pro 
 ducer of food and it would injure 
 all others. And this was charac- 
 teristic of the system, of protective 
 duties. Once attempt thus to benefit 
 any special industries, and they would 
 
 commence to rob one to benefit another, 
 and then to rob some one else to 
 benefit some other ; and so they 
 would go the round of the whole circle 
 of industries applying a system of 
 robbery and spoliation, and they would 
 leave off where they began. (Cheers). 
 Under the system of Protection, the 
 cost of the manufactured article was 
 inv,\.'iably enhanced; for, where the 
 raw material of one indus.ry was the 
 manufactured product of another, and 
 the manufactured product the raw 
 material of another, as was con- 
 tinually the case, duties and profits 
 had, in innumerable instances, to bo 
 advanced over and over again, and all 
 this would inevitably, from the nature 
 of commerce, add to the ultimate cost 
 of the article. 
 
 He wished to call the attention 
 of the right hon. gentleman on 
 the other side of the Chamber to 
 one feature of this new phase of 
 Canadian politics that, perhaps, the 
 right hon. gentleman had not contem- 
 plated. He wished to call that right 
 hon. gentleman's attention to the results 
 that were likely to ensue from the 
 making of Protection a political issue. 
 The effect of this would be to introduce 
 an element of uncertainty into the 
 fiscal and tariff legfslation of this coun- 
 try and an element of uncertainty that 
 was complained of by American manu- 
 facturers as one of the most grievous 
 ills they had to endure. In consequence 
 of having made Protection a political 
 issue in the United States, they had 
 made tariff' legislation changeable and 
 uncertain in that county, as illustraed 
 by the fact that there had been 
 thirty-five different tariff Acts. The 
 manufacturer never knew what to 
 expect ; he uever knew at what 
 moment the popular will would 
 take a shift. If the people were to 
 govern themselves intelligently, they 
 must understand the questions which 
 they were called upon to^ecide. But 
 take the intricate and compliv^ated 
 questions of Protection and Free- 
 trade, and the masses were scarcely 
 competent to deal with them, or rather 
 their opinions were ever shifting, and 
 the result was that there had been a 
 lack of stability in the commercial 
 legislation of the country. These were 
 the results of political legislation as 
 
regarded the tariff. It had proved 
 in many cases a curse to the 
 manufacturer and to eeery com- 
 mercial interest in that country, 
 and, that being so, what were we war- 
 ranted in believing would be the result 
 of the introduction into the politics of 
 Canada of the question of Protection 
 versus Non-Protection ? Suppose they 
 adopted the principl* of Protection : 
 what would be the eifoct of it here ? 
 
 How Protection Affects Agricaltare. 
 
 Let them first direct their inquiry to 
 the agricultural interest. What was 
 the natural effect of Protection in all 
 countries where that policy had been 
 tried upon agriculture ? First of all, it 
 checked the export demand for agricul- 
 tural products. The artizan aoroad, 
 who had formerly supplied his wares 
 to that market and purchased there 
 his supplies of food was, by the opera- 
 tion of protective duties, shut out 
 from the market he had hitherto en- 
 joyed for the sale of the products of 
 his own industry, and, as a natural 
 consequence, his ability to purchase 
 was impaired and he ceased to be as 
 good a customer as he had been. 
 Hence, the first effect of Protection 
 would be to check the export demand 
 for the agricultural products of the 
 country. (Hear, hear). The next eflfect 
 of it was to check the creation of facili- 
 ties for transportation. Once they check- 
 ed the demand for exportation, they 
 also checked the amount of products 
 exported, and hence, as a necessary 
 consequence, they must check the 
 demand for the creation of facilities 
 for transportation in the country. The 
 next effect was to enhance to the agri- 
 culturist the cost of implements, the 
 cost of clothing, the cost of furniture, 
 and the cost of the various articles he 
 purchased. The result, then, as regarded 
 the agriculturist, was that the export de- 
 mand was checked, and the prices were 
 reduced of all he had to sell, and the 
 prices were enhanced of all he 
 had to buy. (Hear, hear). That 
 was the result. And he defied any 
 man on the floor of the House to 
 point out that this result had not been 
 attained in the United States, and to 
 point out anything else than that 
 result to the farmer as the result of 
 
 Protection there. What was it that 
 would remedy this iraUer and that 
 would aver J this result? One thing, 
 i:nd one thing only, namely, that Pro- 
 tection should create in that country a 
 market for the agricultural surplus- 
 and lead to the necessity of the impor- 
 tation of more food than the country 
 raised. If this could have been done, 
 then Protection would have x-edeemed 
 the promises of its advocates, would 
 have furnished a home market to the 
 agriculturist, and would have compen- 
 sated him in a measure for the deple- 
 tion and taxation which he was called 
 upon to endure. Was it possible in 
 this country that a pi-otective policy 
 made so efficient as to lead to the 
 manufacture of everything that was 
 susceptible of being manufactured in 
 this country, but which we now 
 imported — namely, goods to the extent 
 of $42,000,000, with a protective 
 policy that was to add to the 
 population of the country 22,000 
 operatives and those who would be 
 dependent upon them — was it pos- 
 sible that this policy would add to the 
 population of Canada a sufficient num- 
 ber of people to consume its agricul- 
 tural surplus ? Why, an efficient pro- 
 tective system, the most efficient 
 protective system that could be devised, 
 and a system that would lead to the 
 manufacture in this country of every 
 dollar's worth of goods susceptible of 
 being manufactured here, would not 
 add to the population of the country a 
 sufficient number of people to con- 
 sume the surplus agricultural pro- 
 ducts of one county in the Province of 
 Ontario. (Cheers). No, the thing was 
 a perfect fallacy. Once they adopted 
 Protection, the effect was to diminish 
 the receipts of the agriculturist and to 
 increase the cost of all he had to buy, 
 and thus leave kirn a sufferer in every 
 respect by this policy. 
 
 Benefits of leaving the Farmer Free to 
 Buy and Sell in the Best Markets. 
 
 So much for the interest of the 
 agriculturist as regarded this policy 
 of Protection ; so much for the 
 promise of the right hon. gentleman 
 and his followers that they would so 
 adjust the tariff as to benefit and foster 
 agriculture among the other interests 
 
1« 
 
 of this country. Well, if those were, 
 so far as agriculture was concerned, 
 the characteristics of Protection, what 
 were the characteristics of Free-trade ? 
 The first characteristic of Free-trade 
 was untrammelled supply and demand ; 
 wherever the agriculturist could lind 
 the best market for his products, there 
 he could sell ; and wherever the agri- 
 cultunst could find the cheapr t mar- 
 ket for what he had to purchase, there 
 he could buy. There were no exclu 
 sions, no restrictions and no impedi- 
 ments created by legislation, such as 
 would, in any way, prevent him from 
 realizing the most he could get for 
 what he had to sell, or from securing 
 the best bargains he could find. This 
 was one characteristic of Free-trade. 
 Another characteristic of Free-trade 
 was that it led to maximum produc- 
 tion at the minimum cost. Anothy 
 characteristic was that it allowed men 
 to obey natural laws in all their com- 
 mercial transactions ; it imposed no 
 artificial restraints; it put upon the 
 Statute-book no unnatural laws; it 
 agreed with the principles of common 
 sense; it gave to mankind abundance 
 and leisure in place of that artificial 
 scarcity and increased toil which re- 
 sulted from Protection. Tha object 
 and result, he would repeat, of 
 Free-trade was to give abundance 
 and leisure — while the result of 
 Protection was to bring in scarcity 
 and necessity for increased toil 
 to supply the wants of the people. 
 Why, had not Go'^., in his unwritten 
 law, pointed out to man the necessity 
 of Free-trade ? Why did the benevo- 
 lent Creator of the heavens and of the 
 earth give us different zones, dififerent 
 soils, different climes, different produc- 
 tions, different races, and different 
 tastes ? Was this accidental ? Was 
 not the design clearly that man should 
 hold transactions with his fellow man, 
 and was it not the result of commerce 
 to confer upon one zone the riches and 
 the blessings of all zones ? Was not 
 the result of commerce to bring man 
 into contact with his fellow man 
 throughout the length and breadth of 
 the world ; to intermingle and bring 
 races together, so that they might 
 mutually confer on each other the 
 benefits of culture and learn ing.'raising 
 men by slow degrees from the con- 
 
 dition of savages to that of civilized, 
 intelligent men. Why did we make 
 railways and construct telegraphs ? 
 Why did we build ships that made 
 the Atlantic but an ocean ferry? 
 Why did we push our commercial rela- 
 tions with remote countries? We did 
 all these things in order that we might 
 advance our comfort, our happiness 
 and our learning. « Whatever legisla- 
 tion, therefore, stepped in and said : 
 " You must not do any of these things," 
 thus isolating a nation from their 
 fellow men, must necessarily injure, 
 instead of benefitting the cause of 
 progress. Commerce was a leveller ; 
 commerce was the great civilizer of 
 the world, but commerce also was 
 selfish It was selfish in its aims, but 
 beneficial in its results. A legis- 
 lation, ho repeated, which sought 
 to impose restriction on com- 
 merce, was one at variance with the 
 best interests of man . (Loud cheers) 
 
 Characteristics of Protectioc. 
 
 Let them inquire into some of 
 the characteristics of Protection. 
 Was it an advantage to diminish 
 the purchasing power of labour? 
 An anecdote was related in a 
 work on political economy which he 
 saw the other day that illustrated that 
 point. A Frenchman planted a vine; 
 he reared and nurtured it till he pro- 
 duced from it a tun of wine. In order to 
 procure some necessary goods for his 
 family, he set out with his wine, for 
 which he was offered 1.5 parcels of 
 stuff in his native land. Being, how- 
 ever, offered 20 parcels of similar etuff 
 in Manchester, he resolved to agree to 
 the proposal and take the British 
 goods. But when he endeavoured to 
 get his parcels from England, a custom 
 house officer said a tax would have to 
 be imposed upon it. As the tax in 
 question would reduce the net amount 
 which he would receive to the value of 
 only 15 parcels, he asked the Custom- 
 house officer what he should do under 
 these circumstances. "Take French 
 goods," said the officer. " But," said 
 the peasant, " why am I not allowed to 
 exchange my wine with those from 
 whom I can get most?" "Because," 
 replied the Custom-house officer, " it is 
 done to protect the interests of France. 
 
IT 
 
 Wby that is so I cannot tell you; such, 
 however, is the decree of the legisla- 
 ture, and it must be right." That was 
 the effect of Protection. Its effect 
 w&s to Jdinish the purchasing power 
 of labc to create artificial scarcity 
 and hig^ prices. It was an at- 
 tempt to create monopolies and 
 rings that would plunder the peo- 
 ple for their own selfish purposes ; an 
 attempt to take undue advantage of 
 the masses by legislative action. (Hear). 
 The first effect of Protection, pure and 
 simple, was the relaxation of morals. 
 It gave rise to the smuggler, and 
 introduced the false invoice and per- 
 jurer. The people were taught that 
 Government was a respecter of per- 
 sons ; that it gave a favoured class the 
 power to plunder the masses by the 
 
 ?ermission and arrangement of the law. 
 'he people would be led to believe that 
 the property acquired by that favoured 
 class was got by theft, and then, by 
 going a step further, they would come 
 to the conclusion that property itself 
 was theft. Protection naturally led 
 to Communism, to the opinion 
 being held that, in the possession of 
 property, there must be something 
 wrong. He regretted that the 
 right hon. memf or for King- 
 ston was not present to hear 
 his reply to the assertion made 
 by him that England acquired her 
 strength under a system of Protection. 
 If we adopted Protection in Canada, 
 what would be gained ? What did the 
 right hon. member for Kingston and 
 his followers promise them ? First of 
 all, said they, we would have increased 
 manufactures. But in reply to cir- 
 culars sent out, letters had been re- 
 ceived, not from one or two, but from 
 a large number of gentlemen engaged 
 in manufacture, pointing out that pro- 
 duction was already over-done in this 
 country in many lines. (Hear, hear) 
 If foieign goods were excluded from 
 Canada, uie measure would, at first, be 
 followed by great progress, great 
 prosperity and high dividends 
 for manufiicturers. But the result 
 would afterwards become very dif- 
 ferent. Too many persons would go 
 into business, and one of two things 
 must inevitably follow. Either the 
 manuf'atturers, becoming aware that 
 too many were in the field and that 
 
 d 
 
 the production was too great, would 
 combine to run short time and reduce 
 production at the cost of the consumer, 
 or great accumulations of surplus stock 
 would result in depression, general 
 panic and bankruptcy, accompanied 
 by a woeding-out of the supei-flnous 
 number of establishmenta. That would 
 cause great commercial loss and injury, 
 and would result in the entire ruin of 
 many of the men for whose benefit the 
 policy was inaugurated. The country 
 would lose nearly $15,000,000 a yeaar 
 for the purpose of adding 22,000 
 operatives to the population without 
 permanent benefit to those for whom 
 this vast taxation was imposed. It 
 would be a loss to the manufacturer 
 and the operative alike — to the coal 
 miner, the salt producer and the agri- 
 culturist. 
 
 Grain Datle»— Indian Corn. 
 
 Let them examine particularly 
 what would be the effect of that 
 policy on the agriculturist of the 
 country. Protection, or a protective 
 policy, would raise the price of all 
 goods he had to buy. But these gen- 
 tlemen promised the agriculturist a 
 certain boon tn the shape of duties 
 upon grain, but, if a tax was imposed 
 on grain or bieadstuffs, what benefit 
 would ho derive therefrom? In or- 
 dinary years, we exported a surplus of 
 all grains except corn, but, in ex- 
 ceptional years, we might possibly be 
 forced to buy or import from elsewhere, 
 to a limited extent, for home con- 
 sumption. -The United States exported 
 their surplus to England, so did Wfc» 
 and the prices received in England, 
 regulated the prices of the producer in 
 the United States and Canada. There 
 was one grain, and one only, which he 
 was free to admit an import duty would 
 raih« the price of; this was Indian 
 corn. He would like to be informed, 
 in the event of their ever adjusting the 
 tariff, what tax it was the intention of 
 those who advocated this National 
 Policy to impose on corn ? Som-^ years 
 ago, 3c. a bushel was levied, but he 
 presumed they would be in favour of a 
 greater degree of Protection now, and 
 he would suppose they would bo in 
 favoui* of a duty of 5c. The hon. 
 gentlemen opposite might correot 
 
18 
 
 him if lie was wron^'. (Hear, hear). 
 Asv.iinii'g, this to. bj correct, he 
 would take the case of his own 
 county for the purpose of showing 
 how the corn belt of the Dominion, 
 lying along the north shore of Lake 
 Erie, would be affected. That county 
 was one of the few in Canada where 
 corn was produced. If a calculation 
 was raade in order to show clearly 
 the probable result of the proposed 
 policy to the county of Norfolk 
 and the corn belt, it would be 
 seen that no advantage would be con- 
 ferred on the particular county or 
 belt of country to which he alluded. 
 According to the census returns of 
 1870-1 the whole amount of cultivated 
 land in the county of Norfolk was 
 192,000 acres. This would be suf- 
 ficient for 3,840 farms of 50 aci-es 
 each. He would suppose that one-tenth 
 of the cultivated area of the county 
 was, each year, devoted to the growth 
 of corn, and, as a practical fai-mer, he 
 aflirmed that this exceeded the actual 
 proportion of cultivated land usually 
 devoted, to the growth of corn in the 
 corn belc. This, would give 19,200 
 acres as the breadth of land annually 
 devoted to the gx-owth of corn in the 
 county of Norfolk ; he would estimate 
 that the average crop of shelled corn 
 
 f)er acre was 30 bushels, and he be- 
 te ved that no practical farmer would 
 say this was too low ; this would give 
 an annual crop for the county of Nor- 
 folk, of 486,000 bushels, and he ven- 
 tured to say that a crop of half a mil- 
 lion bushels was much in excess 
 of the average corn yield* of that 
 county. No doubt the farmers of the 
 county would require, on the average, 
 to use at least one-half of the crop 
 raised by them for the purpose of fat- 
 tening poi-k, feeding team8,,stock, etc., 
 this would leave a surplus for sale of 
 243,000 bushels in that county. This 
 estimate of surplus he would venture 
 to say was too large. However, a 
 duty of 5c. per bushel on corn, if 
 it resulted, as he presumed it would, 
 in increasing the price received for 
 this surplus to the amount of the 
 duty, would be 5c. per bushel on 
 243,000 bushels as the amount of 
 benefit the county of Norfolk would 
 derive from the National Policy, or 
 f 12,150 — that, divided amongst the 
 
 3,840 farmers of the county, would 
 give to each one of them the sum 
 of three dollars and sixteen cents. 
 (Hear, hear). That wafi to be to 
 each one bis share ot the plunder 
 to be obtained by th's ^proposed 
 scheme to violate the principles of 
 sound commercial policy, if not of 
 common honesty. Now, what wero 
 the farmers of Norfolk to bo called 
 upon to pay in exchange for this sum 
 of $12,150 which was to bo the share 
 of profit that county would derive 
 from this much vaunted National 
 Policy ? He had pointed out earlier 
 in his speech that the cost to '^'anada 
 of an efficient protective syst* in, that 
 would lead to the manufacture of 
 842,000,000 more goods here than at 
 present, would exceed $14,000,000 a 
 year. Grounding his calculation upon 
 the basis of "population, he estimated 
 that Norfolk's share of this cost to 
 the countrj'^ of Protection would be 
 8128,000 per annum . Were they likely 
 to submit to being plundered every 
 year to the extent of $128,000 tnat 
 they might secui-e spoils to the 
 amount of $12,150; did the hon. gen- 
 tleman propose to convince them that 
 it was to their interest to lose ten dol- 
 lars in order to gain one ? He could 
 assure them that the intelligent farmers 
 of the fruitful corn belt of Canada 
 understood arithmetic too well to be 
 duped by any such proposal after they 
 had given the matter fair consideration. 
 (Cheers). "With regard to the corn ques- 
 tion as affecting the interests of the Do- 
 minion at large, he found, by the returns 
 of the last fiscal year, that, for that 
 year, we imported corn to the amount 
 of 8,260,000 bushels, costing 51c. 
 per bushel ; that we exported of this 
 amount 4,083,000 bushels, receiving 
 for it 63c. per bushel, which left us for 
 home consumption 4,177,000 bushels 
 at a net cost to the country of 40c. per 
 bushel. Could it be shown that this 
 was a trade detrimental to the inter- 
 ests of Canada. He thought not. We 
 handled over four million bushels as 
 factors, and made a profit upon it, 
 giving employment to shipi}ing, capital 
 and labour ; and we bought over four 
 million bushels for home consumption 
 at a low rate, and were enabled to sell 
 an equivalent amount of barley, oats, 
 pease and xye, which would otherwise 
 
liave boon consumed in the' country, 
 at a much higher rate than the cosL 
 of the corn, thereby effecting a 
 great saving to the country at large. 
 (Hear, heai). Suppose a duty was 
 levied u[)on corn ; could the four 
 million bushels now imported for 
 home coHBumption under the stimulus 
 of a duty be raised in the com belt 
 of Canada? It could not. He did 
 Dot believe that anj' rate of duty 
 that might be imposed would increase 
 the produce tion of corn in Canada, to the 
 extent of 1,000,000 bushels ; what then 
 would be the practical result of a duty ? 
 It would be as follows : the ferraers in 
 the corn belt, under the stirnulating 
 <ittbcts of a duty, would increase the 
 production, say 1,000,000 bushels ; 
 three-fourths of the r mount now im- 
 ported for home consumption must still 
 be imported, and the duty collected 
 upon it would not go into the pockets 
 of the Canadian farmer, but in very 
 many instances, would come out of his 
 pocket ;» thus the country at large 
 would be taxed upon four bushels of 
 corn, three of which were imported, in 
 order that the farmer in the corn belt 
 might recover the tax upan one bushel. 
 Such a policy was too wasteful and 
 absurd to be entertained for a moment 
 by intelligent men ; and he thought ke 
 could safely assure the hon. gentlemen 
 on the opposite side of the House that 
 their bait would not be swallowed, and, 
 when farmers came to figure out the 
 matter, it would be found that they 
 would not want so small a small boon 
 at such an enormous cost. (Cheers) . 
 
 The Barley Question. 
 
 He (Mr. Charlton) would refer for 
 a moment to the barley question. 
 It had been asserted by gentle- 
 men on the opposite side of the House 
 that the American duty upon Can- 
 adian barley diminished the price 
 received by the Canadian farmer to 
 the exact amount of the American 
 duty. He should not enter to-night 
 into the discussion of this question, 
 though it was his belief that the 
 American duty was actually paid, in 
 a great measure, at least, by the Ameri- 
 can consumer, and made very little 
 difference, indeed, with the price re- 
 ceived by the Canadian farmer. %ut 
 
 2* 
 
 he would ask the meinbers of the Oppo- 
 sition how, even in tiie event of thoir 
 assertions being true, were we to 
 remedy the difficulty? We did not 
 impose that duty. We would gladly 
 take it off, but we had not the power. 
 That power was vested in the Congress 
 of the United States. Hear, hear). Of 
 what avail would it be for us to imjwse 
 a duty upon barley ? It was an article 
 which we sold to a very large extent, 
 and bought to a limiied extent. It 
 would not affect the price of what wo 
 sold one iota if we were to prohibit 
 the importation of a single bushel. In 
 1876 we imported 34,099 bushels, and 
 exported 10,000,000 bushels. What 
 effect upon this vast export trade 
 would a duty upon the small amount 
 we imported have produced? In 1877 
 we exported ' 6,587,180 bushels, for 
 which we received 69c. per bushel; and 
 we imported 369,801 bushels, for which 
 we paid 40|c. per bushel. In other 
 words, we took a small amount of 
 American barley at 40^c., and sold 
 them our own barley, of a superior 
 quality, in place of it, at 69c. Possibly 
 the larger portion of the barley im- 
 ported from the United States at 40^c. 
 was mixed in small quantities with our 
 own superior grades, and sold back to 
 them at 69c.,and duty added. (A laugh). 
 Whether this was the case or not, what 
 effect could a duty upon barley have 
 produced in that year, when, for every 
 bushel we imported, we exported 
 eighteen bushels ? Had a duty ex- 
 cluded the 369,801 bushels of Ameri- 
 can barley which we import^ in 1877, 
 at a cost of 40^c., we would aimply 
 have exported that much less of Cana- 
 dian barley, which we sold at 69c., 
 and the country would have lost the 
 difference in price between 40|c. 
 and 69c. per bushel, or 369,801 
 bushels. (Hear, hear). Fortunately 
 for Canada, the United States would 
 no longer be our only market for 
 barley. A large trade had, within 
 the past year sprung, up with 
 Great Britain. Our barley had been 
 received with great favour there, and 
 Great Britain could easily absorb our 
 entire surplus. This being the case, 
 English and American buyers would 
 hereafter become competitors for the 
 purchase of our barley. Its price 
 would be fixed, as the price of all our 
 
20 
 
 other cereals now most unquestionably 
 were, in the open markets of the 
 world, and then it would be a matter 
 of the utmost indifference to our 
 farmers whether the American Gov- 
 ernment did or did not impose 
 a duty upon barley. (Hear, hear). 
 
 HsBillng American Grain Enriches 
 Canada. 
 
 What was the purpose, he would 
 ask, which the Americans had in 
 view, when, in 1864, they abrogated 
 the R«eiprocity Treaty with Canada. 
 It wa» that they might allure Canada 
 into annexation with themselves. Had 
 it that effect ? On the contrary, it put 
 the consummation of that purpose in- 
 finitely further away than beforci. It 
 prorad in the end to have been a bles- 
 sing in disguise to us. While that 
 treat|r was in existence, the Americans 
 purdiiased our grain and our lumber, 
 and exported them for us. They acted 
 as our factors, and pocketed the profits 
 of the transactions. When the Reci- 
 procity Treaty was abrogated we were 
 forced to look around and do business 
 for ourselves. We commenced export- 
 ing our own products ; and, having 
 done so for a short time, the idea 
 suggested itself that we might, besides 
 doing our own business, act as factors for 
 the Americans who had formerly acted 
 in that capacity for us. (Hear). Why 
 not go to the Western States, thought 
 we, buy their gi-ain and export it from 
 Canada ? This would give employ- 
 ment to Canadian shioping and capital, 
 and Canadian, mills.' For the four 
 years ending in December, 1876, we 
 handled $30,000,000 worth of American 
 wheat and flour, mostly wheat, and 
 exported from Canada during the same 
 period, a total of $42,000,000 worth. 
 Practically, we exported $12,000,000 
 worth of our own and $30,000,000 
 worth of theirs. Did we lose any- 
 thing by this business ? Would it have 
 been a blessing to Canada to deprive 
 our commission men, our mercantile 
 marine, and our banks of the business 
 which this vast volume of trade gave 
 them. It was this vast business, and 
 business of this kind which had made 
 Canada a great maritime state; and 
 hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of 
 the Chamber proposed to deprive 
 
 our canals, our shipping, and our 
 business men of this great volume of 
 trade which had conferred such vast 
 benefits on Canada. The proposiiion 
 was an absurd one. (Hear, hear). 
 True, they would say they could 
 devise a plan by which, through 
 tfie bonding system, this busi- 
 ness could be retained. He (Mr. 
 Charlton) denied it. So keen was the 
 competition for the transaction of the 
 western business between the American 
 and Canadian channels, that a very 
 slight difference was sufficient to turn 
 the Ijalance of that trade one way or 
 the other ; and the effect of a bonding 
 system, no matter h&rjr liberally it 
 might be devised, would be to divert 
 the vast trade now going through 
 Canadian channels, and send it to the 
 American seaboard through American 
 channels. Why did we build these 
 canals ? Why wore we now spending 
 millions of dollars to enlarge the Wel- 
 land Canal? What was the policy of 
 the Government ? Was it to accommo- 
 date our own trade ? No ; our rulers 
 »w that to the west of us was a 
 country with unbotmded resources ; 
 they saw that the trade of that country, 
 wherever it flowed, gave bereficial 
 results ; they saw that it ^M^ building 
 up great American cities on the sea- 
 board; and it was to share in that 
 prosperity that these canals ha I been 
 devised and constructed. And, now, 
 afttfr the expenditure of the millions 
 which had been required to make these 
 channels of communication effective ; 
 new, when the Welland Canal could, 
 when the enlargement was completed, 
 bid defiance to all competitors for the 
 western traffic, wore we to step in and 
 impose restrictions which would drive 
 the western trade from our channels ? 
 The proposition was one of sheer fatuity. 
 (Cheers). As to the duty on grain, we 
 had a pamllel case, which would show 
 how little foundation the idea had that 
 any advantage could bo obtained from 
 it. The United States imposed a duty, 
 for the benefit of American farmers, 
 on Canadian grain. Did that ever 
 raise the price of the grain raised in 
 the United States one cent, or confer 
 any benefit on the American agricul- 
 turist? No; it simply drove from 
 American channels ihe business which 
 they enjoyed under the Free-trade 
 
21 
 
 eyatem which prevailed when the 
 Eeciprocity Treaty was in force, for 
 their surplus crops of grain, as well 
 ag purs, found a market abroad. (Hear, 
 hear). 
 
 Prices Daring and Since Beclprocltf. 
 
 He desired to call the attention of 
 the House to the average prices which 
 obtained for various kinds of produce 
 when the Reciprocity Treaty was 
 in force, and the prices which had 
 obtained since its abrogation. The 
 general idea was that the abrogation 
 of that treaty had reduced the price 
 of produce sold by Canada. Whether 
 it did or not, the average prices had 
 been higher since the abrogation of the 
 Eecijii'ocity Treaty than they were 
 during its continuance. For instance, 
 from 1854 to 1864, we received an 
 average of $7*7.50 a head for horses ; 
 from l866tol8t6, since the abrogation 
 of the treaty, we had received an 
 average of $94.53. During the con- 
 tinuance of the treaty, the average 
 amount paid for sheep was $2.75; 
 since the abrogation it had been $2,76. 
 
 Mr. BOWELL : How many years 
 does that run over. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON : Ten yei-\rs. 
 
 Mr. BOWELL : That includes the 
 period of the American war. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said no ; that was 
 included in the time of the existence 
 of the Reciprocity Treaty, which was 
 abrogated in 1866. Their neighbours 
 on the other side had closed up their 
 war first, and they abrogated the 
 treaty afterwards. During the con- 
 tinuance of the treaty, the average 
 amount paid for wool Avas 30c., during 
 the period since its abrogation it was 
 34^c. The average amount paid for 
 wheat during the continuance of the 
 treaty was $1.13, and since it had been 
 $1.24. What benefit had the American 
 farmer derived from duties on Cana- 
 dian gf-ain ? What bad he realized 
 out of t ae promises held t)ut to him, 
 to induce him to submit to taxation so 
 onerous as to fall little, if any, short 
 of robbery, in order that a few people 
 might amass fortunes ? What Benefit 
 could he derive from a duty on Cana- 
 dian grain, when he was a seller of 
 the very same article, and the price 
 
 was fixed in the open market of the 
 world ? The same proposal made here 
 wa« a delusion and a snare to the 
 agriculturists of this country. (Loud 
 cheers). 
 
 Mr. ORTON : Does the hon. gentle- 
 man mean to infer that a reciprocity 
 treaty would be an injury to Canada ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON : Not at all ; the 
 whole drift of my argument is in 
 favour of fre intorcoui-h©. 
 
 Mr. COLBX" : The hon. gontleTian's 
 object is, apparently, lo mHow how Pro- 
 tection has aflrc'ted the ]ir ces of agri- 
 cultural producLs in Iho Unite J States. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON^ said he was 
 pioposing to show what the result 
 had been in the country which had 
 given Protection the fairest trial any 
 country in the world had given it. 
 
 Balance of Trade. 
 
 He had one word to say in reference 
 to the much talked of question of 
 the balance of trade. If a balance 
 of trade existed against a country 
 the,y were told that it was on the 
 high road to ruin. It would be an 
 astounding fact to his hon. friends on 
 the other side, to inform them that, for 
 the last 17 years, there had been an 
 enormous balance of trade against Eng- 
 land which had averaged £113,500,000 
 in every one of those years Why was 
 not England ruined ? Because the 
 balance of trade represented her pi-o- 
 fits. He would make a familiar illus- 
 tratifi^n of the manner in which false 
 impressions were derived from Custom- 
 house entries. Suppose Mr. A. B., of 
 Halifax, sent a vessel loaded with lum- 
 bei- or fish to the West Indies ; sup- 
 pose the Custom-house valuation was 
 $50,000, and allow for freight and 
 charges to the West Indies $10,000 
 more. Suppose that the cargo sold in 
 the West Indies for 25 per cent, 
 advance on the fii-st cost, then Mr. 
 A, B, realized $72,500 on the original 
 cost, freight and profit. He invested 
 that in colonial produce and brought 
 it |to Halifax. Adding 15 per cent, 
 for freight and other charges, the 
 entry in the Custom-house, inwai'ds, 
 would be $83,375, the outwai-d entry 
 being $50,000, The booKS Avould then 
 show a balance of trade against Canada 
 
22 
 
 of $3J,375. TIad Canada lo^t that? 
 No; the ott'ect had been to add to the 
 wealth of Canada $12,50U ; the profit 
 on cargo, thi) net profit on freight and 
 charges enidi way would be, Lay $8,00§ 
 more, so that the total amount addeJ 
 to the wealth of Canada was $20,500. 
 The protitH of the merchant were the 
 profits on the outward cargo, $12,500; 
 net profit on freight, both ways, $8,000; 
 profits of sale on return cargo, say 20 
 per cent., amounting to $16,675; total 
 actual profits of the merchant on out- 
 ward and return cargo, $37,175. With- 
 out regard to the merchant's individual 
 gains, part of which were realized by 
 sale of cargo within Canada, the 
 total increase to the wealth of Canada 
 in consequence of the outwai'd and 
 return voyage was $23,500, while 
 the apparent loss, as indicated by the 
 Custom-house entries, wan $33,375. 
 Now, suppose another case. Suppose 
 that same cargo cleared from Halifax, 
 and the vessel foundered at sea and 
 nothing was heard of her aflerwai-ds. 
 Then the records of the Custom-house 
 would show $50,000 exports, imports 
 TDthing; clear gain t« the country, 
 $.)0.006. (Hear, hear). They could 
 see the absurdity of ihe calculations 
 based upon the generally received 
 opinions as to the balance of trade. 
 
 Mr. BOWELL : The richer we get 
 the more we buy. 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON: Yes. 
 
 Mr. BOWELL: Where does the 
 money come from to pay for it ? 
 
 Protection in United States. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said he felt that 
 ho did not need to ask the indulgence 
 of the House while he entered pretty 
 fully into the discussion of the effect 
 of Protection in the United States, be- 
 cause almost every gentleman on the 
 other side pointed to the United States 
 as a proof of everything he said in 
 favour of Protectionist principles. 'It 
 was worth their while to examine 
 minutely, and carefully and candidly 
 into the operations of Protection 
 in the United States, and he 
 proposed to ask the indulgence 
 of the House to-night while he entered 
 
 into that question fully, because thoj 
 had in that country a practical illus- 
 tration of the operations of Protection 
 and could leave the domain of theory 
 and judge by actual results in place of 
 speculating about fanciful conse- 
 quences. 'They could tell, by carefully 
 scanning the effect of Protection in 
 the United States, what the effect 
 would probably be in this country. 
 That system and its opposite, Non-Pro- 
 tection, had been thoroughly tried in 
 that country. No country had given 
 each of those systems a more thorough 
 and satisfactory trial than the United 
 States. There had been three distinct 
 and different non-protective periods, 
 and there had been three distinct and 
 different protective periods ; and from 
 statistics, from the experience of that 
 country in those different periods, they 
 could ascertain to a mathematical 
 certainty, what had been the opoi-a- 
 tion of Protection there, and from 
 that they could draw a very reason- 
 able conclusion as to what would 
 be the result here. (Hear, hear). 
 Their first non-profective period was 
 from 1789 to 1816, their second from 
 18o3 to 1842, and their third from 
 1847 to 1861. Their first protective 
 period had been from 1816 to 1833, 
 their second from 1842 to 1846, and 
 their third from 1861 to the present 
 time. He proposed to examine, aa 
 briefly as he could, into the working of 
 these different p3riods. He proposed 
 fii-st of all, to direc the attention of 
 the House to the astounding amount ot 
 duties and taxation wrung from the 
 consumers of the United States in the 
 last of thoi^e periods of Protection, 
 commencing with 1861, and still in 
 
 vogue. 
 
 Mr. pope (Compton; : That is the 
 highest. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said it was; but 
 perhaps he had selected it for that 
 purpose, as best illustrating the effect 
 of a thorough system of Protection. 
 The amount collected in the last pro- 
 tective period, as the Custom-house 
 books showed,had been $2,429,978,00a. 
 The best authorities in that country — 
 Robt. J. Walker, Wra. Bnrcljard, and 
 other experts in that matter — con- 
 »dered that for every $5 which the 
 Covernment received in duties under a 
 
S3 
 
 protective system, the manufacturers 
 received 914 in enhanced prices for tlio 
 domestics v.-hich they produced. If that 
 theory was correct, while the united 
 Statos Government ha<l received this 
 enormous sum from the producers of 
 food and the consumers of goods, the 
 manufacturers had received, in en- 
 hanced prices, 84,873,000,000. 
 
 Mr. ORTON : What is the hon . 
 gentleman reading from 
 
 Mb. CHARLTON: From some 
 tables I have compiled from the 
 Custom-houso Returns, and authorities 
 I have cited as lo increased cost of do- 
 mestics under Protection. 
 
 Me. ORTON : I thought, perhaps, 
 he might be reading from the speech 
 of the Minister of the Interior at 
 Feigns. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said this was the 
 result of the direct and indirect cost of 
 these duties. This represented the 
 wnolesale cost of these duties. Now, 
 it was fair to add to the amount of the 
 
 Srofits of the wholesale and retail 
 ealers, not less than twenty-five per 
 cent., thoi\ they h A «1,V00,000,000 in- 
 creased cost, in Consequence of Avhole- 
 aale and Tetail profits, or altogether 
 #8,504,000,000 as Ihe cost of that 
 precious system of Protection during 
 the last " 7 years. What had they got 
 bv it? 7 f^v had made a los-i out of it 
 1 V hfc received less for everything 
 the^ ic ^o sell, and paid more for 
 nearl^^ ■'^ '^thing they had to bu3^ 
 "What ' been promise<l to 
 
 these men induce them to submit to 
 this frigh. ^1 taxation ? They were 
 promised the same thing which his 
 non. friends on the other side were 
 promising now. They were promised 
 a policy which should benefit the agri- 
 cultural, mining, manufacturing, and 
 other industries of the United States. 
 (Hear, hear). This was the promise 
 made; and a more delusiv«; a moi'e 
 unfounded promise than this that 
 hon. gentlemen on the other eide 
 were making never was made; and 
 the same promise and policy, if ac- 
 cepted, would bring in its train the 
 disaster and loss that had followed the 
 adoption of that policy in the United 
 States. , 
 
 Et'iue Market Promised. 
 
 When Protection was introduced 
 into that country, its promoters 
 said to those interested in the agricul- 
 tural interest : " We assure you, if you 
 adopt this policy, it will create such a 
 vast consumption in the United States 
 that you will have to import agricul- 
 tural produce from abroad for your own 
 market. Although you will have to 
 pay more for your goods, the system 
 in the end will prove a great gain to 
 yourselves." 
 
 Mb. COLBY : Who said that? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said that the 
 advocates of Protection said it ; Horace 
 Greeley, Henry C. Carey, and every 
 man that wrote Projection articles in 
 the United States, from Maine to 
 Georgia and New York to California, 
 said it ; and they not only said 
 it, but they brought every possible 
 argument forward to induce people to 
 believe that Protection would create a 
 market at home for the agi'icultural 
 surplus of the Uni,ted States. 
 
 Mr. young': That they would 
 have to import into the United States? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON said tl^^y pro- 
 mised this, and yet at this vor\' time, 
 after seventeen years of rao.-t efficient 
 Protection, and with its manufacturing 
 system uuiiiily developed, that nr.tion 
 was exporting wheat, Gutter, cheese, 
 beef, cotton, wool, and all the produc- 
 tions of the farm. (Hear. hear). 
 They had paid enormous sums 
 in order to get this homo market, 
 and, although they had adopted 
 the policy of Protection for this 
 purpose, and had been trying all 
 these years to obtain a home market, 
 they had not got it, and hud not pros- 
 pered better than they would have 
 done under Free-trade, as he should be 
 able to show. The agriculturist "did 
 not get what had been promised him ; 
 he was robbed, not onl3^ on the one 
 hand, but on the other : he had to pay 
 enhanced prices for what he bought, 
 and received reduced prices for what 
 he sold. (Cheers). They had an aver- 
 age duty of 44 per cent., which was 
 sufficiently high, if the system could 
 bo made efficient The manufacturing 
 corporations, possessed as they were of 
 vast wealth, had thronged the lobbies at 
 
u 
 
 Washington, and spent money lavishly 
 for the purpose of obtaining the legis- 
 tion they chose to demand. They 
 had had efficient Protection in that 
 country ; and, if the system were capji- 
 ble of prodivrng the results promised, 
 those resultb would have been pro- 
 duced in the United States. The sys 
 tern was a fallacy there, it would be a 
 fallacy here, it would be a fallacy 
 everywhere ; and, where adopted, the 
 people would be roiibed for the benefit 
 of monopolies. (H-^ar, hear). This 
 was 80 in the Uniied States. The 
 adoption of the system led manu- 
 fiicturei*8 to rapidly extend their 
 operations. They produced a great 
 quantity of goods, and, though profits 
 were at first enormous, the result 
 of the system, which impovbvished the 
 consumer from the start, in a few years 
 brought reaction and loss of profits 
 upon the manufacturer himself. 
 
 DeTelopment of Manufactares. 
 
 Was the development of the 
 manufacturing industries of the 
 United States as much more 
 rapid under Protection than under 
 Non -Protection as . might have 
 been expected ? Let them look 
 at the returns of the manufacturing 
 industries of the country in various 
 periods. From United States census 
 returns he found that the gvoym pro- 
 duct of manufactures in 1850 was 
 $1,019,106,616; deducting cost of mater- 
 ial, the not pi-oduct was ^463,982,734. 
 In 1860, after sixteen years of ISon- 
 Protection, the gross product of manu- 
 factures was $1,855,861,676 ; net pro- 
 duct $854,251,584. In 1870. after tea 
 years of Protection, the groas production 
 had risen very largely. It had virion 
 to the sum of $4,232,325,442 ; but the 
 increase on the not jjroduction had not 
 boen so great; it wa« only $1,743,898. 
 The}'' found, then, that the percentage 
 of increase in the years from 1850 to 
 18(i0 was, upon the gross product, forty- 
 six per cent., and the net product 
 eighty-four per cent. This was without 
 
 grolection, but tiiey found on the other 
 and that the increase on the gross 
 pixxiuctH, under Protection, between the 
 yeai's 1860-TU was 124 per cent , and on 
 the net productfi 104 ])er cent. And if 
 they weie to make allowance for the 
 
 inflation of value in 1870, in conse- 
 quence of irredeemable currency, gold 
 being at a premium tf over 20 per cent., 
 the increase in the net product of man- 
 ufactures in the protective period, from 
 1860 to 1870, was about 86J per cent.^ 
 as against 84 per cent, during the pre- 
 vious ten years of Non Pro .action. That 
 was to say that, in ten yeni-s of Non- 
 Protection, from 1850 to 1860, the 
 increase in the net products of the 
 manufactures of the United States was 
 within 2^ per cent, of what it was under 
 Protection during the yeais between 
 1860-70. Now, there was one great 
 industry in the United States — the iron 
 industry — which had always made very 
 strenuous demands on the Government 
 for Protection, and argued that it had 
 peculiar claims on the sympathy of the 
 Grovernment. The hon. m amber for 
 Cumberland (Mr. Tupper> had informed 
 them that the iron industry of the 
 United States had made great strides 
 under Protection since the time this 
 industry had been established there. 
 Perhaps the hon. gentleman would be 
 surprised to hear that the iron 
 industry was established in the United 
 States in 1700, and that in 1732, they 
 exported a large quantity of iron to 
 England, and, in consequence, the 
 jealousy of English iron-masters had 
 induced them to ask the English 
 Government for protection against that 
 great American industry. What had 
 been the eflFect ofi Protection in the 
 case of this industry ? Going as far 
 back as 1832, they found that from 
 that year to 1840, in a non-protective 
 period, the total increase in ptoducts of 
 their iron manufactures of all kinds was 
 73^ per cent. From 1840 to 1850, 
 which embraced the same period of 
 Protection, from 1842 to 1846, the in- 
 crease in tlie production of pig iron vras 
 77J per cent. The production of iron 
 for 1850, was 563,000 gi-oss tors ; in 
 1860, it was 884,000 gross tons, an in- 
 crease of 60 per cent, in a non-protective 
 period of ten years. The production of 
 iron in 1870 was 1 ,663,000 gross tons, 
 an increase of 88 per cent in ten years 
 under Protection. The production in 
 1876 was 1,741,000 gross tons, an 
 incj'ease ofone-half por cent, in six years 
 of Protection, against 88 per cent, in 
 the preceding ten years, showing that 
 the development of the industry had 
 
reached its climax during the first ten 
 years of Protection ending 1870, and 
 that from that time the progress and 
 growth had almost entirely ceased. 
 
 An Hon, MEMBEE : What was the 
 duty during the period between 1850 
 and 1860 ? 
 
 Mr. CHAELTON said the average 
 duties on the entire list of imports in 
 1857 were IK^ per cent. This was 
 about the amount charged in Canada 
 to-day, and under that amount the 
 industries of the United States had 
 prospered and grown rapidly. He 
 found that in 1850, the value of all 
 manufactures of iron was $135,672,000 ; 
 in 1860, it was $256,137,000, an 
 increase of 96 per cent, under ITon- 
 Protection in ten years. The number 
 of bands employed in this industry in 
 1850, was 142,000; in 1860 it was 
 198,000, an increase of 40 per cent, in 
 ten years under J^on-Protection in that 
 one single branch of industry. The 
 value^r all manufactures of iron in 1870 
 was $500,000,000, an increase over 1860 
 of 91 per cent, during ten years of Px'o- 
 tection. The number of hands employed 
 in 1870 was 237,000, an increase during 
 ten years of Protection of 20 per cent., 
 as against 40 per cent, in the ten years 
 of Non-Protection, between 1850 and 
 1860. The number of blast-furaaces 
 in 187o was 713, and their annual 
 capacity w as 4,856,000 gross tons. The 
 production in that year was 1,741,000 
 gross tons, which showed that they 
 had created a productive capacity of 
 3,155,000 tons more than they 
 required, and had expended at least 
 $100,000,000 under the unhealthy stim- 
 lus of high protective duties, in erecting 
 furnaces in excess of the wants of the 
 country, the vast majority of which 
 would not have been wanted for fifty 
 years to come. (Hear, hear). This 
 vast investment was practically 
 thrown away. It was a 4ead loss 
 to the country; and, but for the 
 delusive inducements of Protec- 
 tion, it might to-day have been 
 invested in agricultural and other 
 interests, where it would be yielding 
 more or leso adequate returns. And 
 tUft only the iron interest, but nearly 
 -every manufactui-ing interest in the 
 United States had been overdone under 
 the uri health V stimulus of Protection. 
 
 A. few years ago, it would be remem- 
 bered, a reservoir had burst, sending a 
 deluge of water down ©ne of the val- 
 leys of Massachusetts, which over- 
 whelmed several villages and a great 
 number of manufacturing establish- 
 ments. Among those destroyed were 
 a number of paper mills, and the 
 calamity was actually viewed as a 
 blessing by the paper interest, because 
 it had reduced the productive capa- 
 city, which was too large. In the same 
 way, if an earthquake were to swallow 
 up 400 of the 713 blast-furnaces in the 
 united States, and bury in the boweis 
 of the earth the scores of millions 
 which they oost the owners of the 
 remaining furnaces would hail that 
 calamity as a godsend, because, by an 
 act of Providence, the evil of too mucii 
 productive capacity would be coiTccted, 
 So much for the condition of the manu- 
 facturing industries of the United 
 States at the present tirne. The tables 
 he had quoted showed that the increase 
 of the manufacturing industries during 
 the period of Protection from 1846 to 
 18<»0 was satisfactory. 
 
 Effect of Undue DeTelopment. 
 
 It' was true these tables showed 
 that the increase in the produc- 
 tion was stimulated and rendei'ed 
 greater under Protection in the 
 years from 1860 to 1870; but since 
 that time, business had not onlv been 
 suddenly restricted, but what was the 
 condition of aifairs there to-day? A 
 total sum of no less than $200,000,000 
 had been invested in manufacturing 
 enterprises beyond the wants of the 
 country or the power of profitable 
 employment, and might bo said to 
 have been practically thrown away. 
 The system of Protection had un- 
 duly and unnaturally stimulated the 
 manufacturing enterprises of the 
 United States, and to-day we found 
 more that two millions of idle men — 
 more idle men, in fact, in that new 
 country that possessed vast areas of 
 fertile virgin soil, inviting the labour 
 of the husbandman — than in (Treat 
 Britain and Germany. They were 
 told that in the United States to-day 
 there were one million tramps. "What 
 was the reason that there were two 
 millions of idle men and one milHoa 
 
26 
 
 tramps in that country ? It was because 
 population, by the over-stimulation of 
 manufactures, had gathered together 
 in cities and towns to the neglect 
 of agricultural interests. (Hear, 
 hear.) The agricultural community 
 of the country had relatively received 
 no increase since 1860, and the produc- 
 tion of cereals per capita was year by 
 year decreasing. One effect of this 
 aggregation of popiiation in cities was 
 shown by the jact that part of the 
 country was, last summer, laid under 
 martial law, in order to suppress law- 
 less violence. In the second manufac- 
 turing city of the United States, from 
 a pure feeling of maliciousness and 
 deviltry, a large amount of damage 
 had been done to property by incen- 
 diary conflagrations; one railway 
 company having sustained a loss of 
 $3,000,000 from this cause. Com- 
 munism had been created, and other 
 socifcl ills had followed the adoption of 
 the extreme Protection which had 
 been in vogue in the United States 
 since the year 1861, 
 
 Protection and Agricaltoral Development. 
 
 He would produce some agricul- 
 tural_''statistics, and if these figures 
 were true, they told aa eloquent 
 tale against the policy of the hon. 
 gentlemen opposite. It was impor- 
 tant for the people of this country, 
 . if they were to deal with this question 
 of Protection, that they should under- 
 stand that question in all its 
 ramifications; and he had need of 
 no further apology for laying 
 before them this information than 
 that it was necessai-y in order to un- 
 derstand the practical working of the 
 protective principle in the United 
 Btatos of America. Grosvenor's com- 
 pilations from the census returns of 
 1860 L^howed that the additions to the 
 wealth of the country for that year 
 from farm produce, increase of 
 fitock, farm betterments, etc., was 
 $2,600,000,000. Ten years later, and 
 after ten years of Protection, the 
 census returns of 1870 showed the 
 addition to the wealth of the country 
 for that year from the same soureea, 
 had been reduced to $2,448,000,000. 
 That was the effect of Protection 
 on the agricultural interests of the 
 
 country, if these tables were reliable^ 
 as they probably weie. The 
 statistics showed that the amount of 
 land in farms in 1800, was 407,212,538 
 acres, and in 1870 the amount of land 
 in farms was 407,735,041 acres, or an 
 increase of nly one-tenth of one per 
 cent, of land in farms in ten years. The 
 acreage of land improved in 1860, was 
 163,100,720, and in 1870, 189,921,000 
 acres, or an increase in ten years of 
 fifteen per cent. The improved lands 
 in 1850 amounted to 113,032,614 acres, 
 or an increase between the years 1850 
 to 1860, in a period of Non-Protection, 
 of forty-five per cent. The land in 
 farms in 1850 was 293,560,614 acres, 
 an increase from 1850 to 1860 of thirty- 
 nine per cent., as against an increase 
 in the years between 1860 and 1 870, 
 under Protection, of one-tenth per 
 cent, in total amount of lands in farms 
 and of forty-five per cent, against 
 fifteen per cent, in impi'oved lands^ 
 in farms in the same corresponding 
 period. The same statistics showed 
 the production of cereals and potatoes 
 in 1860 was forty-five bushels 
 per head; in 1868 it was forty-two 
 bushels ; in 1870 it was forty bushels, 
 and in 1874 it was thirty-eight bushels ; 
 showing a continual and regular de- 
 crease in the agricultural products of 
 the United States, based upon the popu- 
 lation of the country. (Hear, hear.) 
 In fact, these statistics showed that 
 the agricultural interest of the United 
 States was in a languishing condition 
 and had been, for some reason, the 
 very reverse of prosperous since the- 
 introduction of a protective policy. 
 
 United States— Ixports of Manufactures. 
 
 They had heard much from the 
 opposite side of the Chamber, of 
 the wonderful increase in the ox- 
 ports of manufactures from the United 
 States since the introduction of Pro- 
 tection. ' He found that, in the article- 
 of cotton goods, in 1860, after four 
 years of Non -Protection, the exports 
 amounted to $4,734,000, and that ten 
 yeai-s afterwards, during the continu- 
 ance of the same period of Non-Pro- 
 tection, the exports of cotton goods 
 amounted to 810,934,000. This large 
 export of 1 860 was in the last year of 
 a Non-Pi otective period of fifteeik 
 
21 
 
 years. In 1866, after six years of 
 ±*rotection, the amount of export of 
 cotton goods had fallen to $1,784,000. 
 After seventeen years of Protection, 
 they found that the export of cotton 
 goods was not greater than at the 
 commencement of that period ; that in 
 1877, under the pressure of over-pro- 
 duction, under the pressure of absolute 
 necessity to dispose of accumula- 
 tion of surplus stock, the ^port of 
 cotton goods had only reached 
 $10,235,000. The following table gave 
 the export of cotton goods from the 
 United States in various years, from 
 18o0 to 1877. The first five entries 
 were during a period of Non-Protection 
 — the last nve during the last period 
 of Protection : — 
 
 Exports in 1850 $4,734,000 
 
 do 1857 6,115,000 
 
 do 1858 5,65i,000 
 
 do 1859 8,816,000 
 
 do 1860 10,934,000 
 
 do 1866 1,780,000 
 
 do 1870 3,787,000 
 
 do 1874 3.56»,000 
 
 • do 1876 7,722,001 
 
 do 1877 10,235,000 
 
 If the ratio of increase from 1850 to 
 1860, in a period of Non-Protection, 
 had been maintained, the exports for 
 1870 and 1877 would have been a3 
 follows :— 
 
 Export of Cotton Goods, 1870.. 125,148,000 
 io do 1877.. 34,000,000 
 
 It was evident that tho friends of Pro 
 tection had been mistaken in stating 
 that their policy would increase the 
 amount of exports in manufactures, this 
 table plainly showed that, bj^ reason of 
 Protection, the United States cotton 
 manufactury industry had been ren- 
 dered less able to compete with foreign 
 manufactures in foreign market^ than 
 before. Let them take the total ex- 
 po) ts of ail manufactures in various 
 years as further iilustra'tion of the 
 subject in hand. In 1857, the total ex- 
 ports amounted to $31,034,000; in 18; 9 
 to $33,848,000 ; in 1860 to $42,488,000 ; 
 in 1877 to $72,677,000, against 
 $1,000,000,000, the exportation of 
 England during last j-^ear. Would the 
 hon. member from Cumberland (Mr. 
 Tupper) say, in the face of these facts, 
 that the United States was jostling 
 England in the markets of the world, 
 
 and was about to exclude her from them. 
 (Hear, hear). Now, had the ratio of in- 
 crease from 1857 to 1860, in the United 
 States been maintained till 1877, the 
 total export of manufactured goods 
 would have amounted, in round num- 
 bers, last year to $200,000,000. If 
 they had left the Non-Protection sys- 
 tem alone, if they had continued the 
 non-pi'otective policy that prevailed 
 from 1847 to 1860, there was every 
 reason to believe that, in the last fiscal 
 year, instead of exporting $72,667,000 
 of manufactures, their export would 
 have exceeded $200,000,000. So much 
 for tho blessings of this system, so far 
 as it was a])plied to the interests of 
 manufactures. 
 
 Protection and the Industrial Cii^sses. 
 
 It had been stated that the in- 
 dustrial classe>< had actually bene- 
 fitted by this Protection. This was 
 wrong ; for by the introduction of the 
 system there had been imposed over 
 $8,000,000,000 in direct and indirect 
 taxation, as he had previously shown, 
 since 1860. The census of 1870 gave 
 the number of persons employed in all 
 industries at 12,506,933. He had been 
 at great labour to ascertain the number 
 of manufactures benefitted by Protec- 
 tion, and he found that, of the number 
 of work-people mentioned,only 510,000, 
 making a liberal estimate, had been 
 benefitted by Protection. By select- 
 ing natural manufactures from manu- 
 factures belonging to protected 
 industries, he found that the products 
 of natural manufactures in 1870 
 amounted to $2,351,733,000 ; and,, 
 deducting the price of material, to 
 $942,767,000 net ; and the workpeople 
 employed in these manufactures not 
 only were not benefitted by Protec 
 tion, but wei'e actually injured by it. 
 Out of the total ihdustrial population 
 of the United States, which was stated 
 at 12,505,000 in 1870, on a liberal cal- 
 culation not more than 510,000 em- 
 plo}<'d in industries were benefitted 
 by Protection, or about one man in 
 every twenty-five of the population. No 
 better illustration of the utter absurdity 
 of the system than this could be brought 
 forward. (Hear, hear). The net 
 product of six great protected indus- 
 tries, viz., iron, cotton, woollen, papor^ 
 
28 
 
 salt and glass, in 1870,was $947,925,000, 
 and, deducting material, a net product 
 of $i04,524,000, the gross production, 
 per hand, in natural manufactures in 
 1870 was $2,322 ; gross production, per 
 hand, in six great protected industries 
 was $1,878, as per census returns. The 
 net production, per hand, in natural 
 manufactures in 1870 was $895, while 
 the net production of six great pro- 
 tected industries the same year was 
 only $801 per hand, showing that the 
 industries fostered bj Pi-otection were 
 not producing so large a net result as 
 the natural manufactures were. This 
 afforded an illustration of the absur- 
 dity of endeavouring to build up in- 
 dustries that that country was not 
 prepai-ed for oi- adapted to. ^ 
 
 Prices of Farm Products and Bates of 
 
 Wages, Under Protection and 
 
 Non-Protection. 
 
 He should bring his remarks to 
 a close by offering some tables 
 showing the relative prices of farm 
 products, labour, etc., during the 
 periods of Protection and the periods 
 of Non - Protection. These tables 
 were of the utmost importance 
 in forming an estimate of the results 
 of a protective policy. The first 
 reliable statistics relating to food 
 prices, derived from the United States 
 Treasury reports, did not date back 
 earlier than the year 182,'). Commen- 
 cing with that year, he would give 
 a table showing the average prices of 
 wheat, corn, oats and cotton in diffe- 
 i"ent periods cf Protection and Non- 
 Protection, down to the year 1860, as 
 follows : — 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 10| Protection. 
 12 Non-Protect. 
 6J Protection. 
 9 Non-Protect. 
 9^ do 
 
 1825 to 1832... 
 1833 to 1842.. 
 1843 to 1846.. 
 1847 to 1850.. 
 1850 to 1854... 
 1855 to I860.. 
 
 48i 10 
 
 do 
 
 This would give an average price of 
 wheat during all the peri(xls of Pro- 
 tection from 1825 to 1860 of $1.06J, 
 of corn 59^0., of oats ;^5|c., of cotton 
 8fc. During all periods of N'ou- 
 Protection, from 1825 to l»(iO, the 
 average prices were— wheat, $1.43f ; 
 <5orn, 74fc. ; oats, 45|e. ; cotton, W^c. 
 
 The average price of wheat from 1861 
 to 1869, under Protection, was 81.06, 
 gold. These were contra-sts of the 
 prices of the various products of the 
 soil during the periods of Protection and 
 Non-Protection. (Cheers). Did not 
 those figures show conclusively that the 
 average prices of these products were 
 less under Pi'otection than linder JSTon- 
 Protecfon. The following tabic showed 
 the con\parative prices obtained for 
 flour during different periodf^ : — 
 
 Average price last 4 years, Non-Pro- 
 tection period, 1839 to 1842 $5 45 
 
 Average price 4 years, Protection period, 
 
 1843 to 1846 4 46 
 
 Average price 15 years, Non-Protection 
 
 period, 1847 to 1861 5 86 
 
 Average price 9 years, Protection period, 
 
 1862 to 1870 » 4 71 
 
 He would only trouble the House with 
 two more tables, setting forth the aver- 
 age price of wool and the average 
 price of labour during the different 
 periods of Protection and Non-Pj-otec- 
 tion, and then he should be done with 
 his statistics, which could be left to 
 tell their own tale. He would •first 
 call attention to the prices of wool 
 under different perir Is of Protection 
 and Non-Protection. The'United States 
 Treasury report showed tho following 
 with regard to prices of wool during 
 the different periods . — 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 a 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 a 
 
 13 
 
 "3 
 
 1825 to 1832. 
 1842 to 1846. 
 
 .271 43J 32| 
 .32* 32 27 
 
 Protection. 
 do 
 
 Average 25^ 37| 
 
 2913 During 2 Pro- 
 T« tection periods 
 
 1833 to 1841 34 49 42 
 
 Non-Protection, 
 do 
 28} do 
 
 1847 to 1856 32 39* 31 
 
 1857 tf 1860 35^ 44| 28 
 
 A-rage m U^ ^^fToiVr^S 
 
 Price in 1860 av 38i 50 
 " Gold 1869 " 36} 41} 
 " in 1846 at 
 end of Protec- 
 tion period 20} 27} 
 
 Price in 185", 
 after 4 yrs Non- 
 Protection 33} 40} 
 
 29 Non-Protection. 
 26j Protection. 
 
 End of a Protect. 
 22} period of 4 yrs. 
 
 A ter 4 years of 
 34} Non-Protectj 
 
 He hold in his hands a table of wages 
 which established the fact that ia 
 the great manufacturing city of Lowell, 
 Massachusetts, the rate of wages in all 
 
29 
 
 the different employments v;^ uniform- 
 ly higher in a non-protective periods 
 than in a protective periods. Taking 
 the woollen and cotton factories, 
 it appeared that the average 
 daily wages paid at that city 
 were as follows: Cotton in 1839, 
 Non-Protection, $1.32; in 1845, Pro- 
 tection period, $1.05; in 1849, Non- 
 Protection, $1.30 ; in 1859, Non-Protec- 
 tion, $1.43. The daily wages in woollen 
 mills during the same period were as 
 follows : 1839, 94c.; in 1845, 89c.; in 
 1849, 84c. and in 1859, 90c. A com-, 
 parisoB of the average rates of wages 
 in various tra<ie8 in 1845, at the end of 
 a Protection period, and in 1860, at the 
 end of a Non-Protection period, would 
 show the following contrasts . — 
 
 1845. 1860. 
 
 Edge tools, weekly |7 50 $10 70 
 
 Hardware, dailj 1 25 I 55 
 
 Foundry and glassware, 
 
 daily 1 22 1 51 
 
 Leather, weekly 6 00 8 00 
 
 Paper wiilU, daily 1 00 1 23 
 
 Farm labour, monthly.. 9 00 14 00 
 
 Though without thoroughly reliable 
 data, he ventured to say that lal our in 
 the United States was more insuffi- 
 ciently paid after seventeen years of 
 Protection than in 1860, after nearly 
 the same period of Non-Protection, 
 and he unhesitatingly asserted that 
 it waa vastly moi'e difficult to obtain 
 employment. 
 
 He might sum up his statement 
 by saying that ho considered he 
 had produced abundant evidence of 
 the fact that the effect of Protec- 
 tion on agriculture in the United 
 States had been a disastrous one, and 
 that the effect of Protection on manu- 
 factures in the United States had also 
 in the end been a disastrous one. 
 $72,000,000 of goods were exported 
 last year, but the anuual interest at six 
 per cent, on the vast sum paid directlj^ 
 in duties since 1861 for the purpose of 
 protecting home industry would 
 amount to almost exactly twice that 
 sum, or to $144,000,000 *per annum. 
 Ho had shown that the production of 
 cereals pei- head had fallen year by year; 
 that the i utos of increase in the agri- 
 cultural population of that country had 
 diminished ; that the prices realized by 
 agriculturists under Protection had 
 been less than under Non-Protec- 
 
 tion; (hear, hear;) and that the 
 effect of Protection on manufactures 
 had been to ^involve the entire 
 system in ruin. He had shown that 
 hundreds of millions of dollars to-day in 
 the United States were invested use- 
 lessly and practically lost, and that, in 
 consequence of the evil of over-produc- 
 tion, American maniifacturers had 
 succeeded ia exporting goods to a 
 limited extent which, under the nor- 
 mal action of Protective duties, they 
 would not have been able to do. He 
 had shown that the position of manu- 
 facturers in the United States to-day 
 was more depressed than that of the 
 manufacturers of Canada or any other 
 great manufacturing country, and that 
 depression, which sat like a nightmare 
 upon their industrial interests, was the 
 direct fruit of Protection in that coun- 
 try, and that the system of Protection 
 had produced unmixed evil in all the in- 
 dustries of the United States. (Cheers.) 
 At a time when the verdict of the Ameri- 
 can people at the polls had but recently 
 decided by overwhelming popular 
 majorities that Protection was wrong ; 
 at a time when the people had declared 
 that tV policy of the country should 
 be changed; at a time when legislation 
 was pending in Congress for the pur- 
 pose of reducing by more than two- 
 thirds the list .of articles on which 
 duties were imposed ; at this very 
 time certain wise men in Canada 
 gathered together at Toronto, a 
 few weeks ago, from the east, 
 west and north, in solemn con- 
 clave, and affirmed, as the leader 
 of the Opposition had affirmed on the 
 floor of this House, that we in Canada 
 want this policy that had caused 
 disaster in the United States, — this 
 absurd policy which had led to the 
 great injury of the agriculturists, the 
 manufacturers, the commercial marine 
 and all the business interests of the 
 United States. (Cheers.) 
 
 Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD : What 
 fools tiiv Yankees must be. 
 
 Me. CHAELTON said the difference 
 between them and ourselves was, that 
 they had seen their foUj', and were 
 ' try^ing to extricate themselves from a 
 false position, while our fools were 
 trying to step into their diffi- 
 culties. (Great laughter,) Those hon. 
 
30 
 
 gentlemen 'opposite reminded him 
 of the story of Rip Van Winkle, 
 who, tradition said, after sleeping 
 for several years, woke up one 
 morning to see things very much 
 changed. Those hon. gentlemen went 
 to sleep ten or fifteen years ago, during 
 the palmy days of Protection ; they had 
 woke up, but had not examined their 
 bearings yet, or observed what the 
 results of the system had been. He did 
 not know whether the hon. member 
 for Niagara (Mr. Plumb), when he was 
 in the u nited States, was a barn-burner 
 or an old hunker Democrat ; but, which- 
 ever he was, he was a Free-trader. 
 Though under a Eip Van Winkle spell 
 now, those who ielt anxious about 
 his safety might reasonably hope that 
 he would awaken some day and return 
 to his old faith. (Laughter.? Hon. 
 gentlemen opposite were proposing to 
 give this country the Protection system 
 of the United kStates, to re-enact the 
 English Corn L .iws that wore abolished 
 thirty years ago, and to confer at one 
 and the same time the blessings of dear 
 corn, dear coal, dear salt, and dearer 
 goods. They proposed to seek the 
 prosperity of the agriculturist, 
 the miner, and all other inter- 
 ests in Canada by a process of 
 depletion, of bleeding, «f taxation, by 
 robbing one to enrich the other, and 
 then taking from the other to enrich 
 the one, by a process of plunder, and 
 passing the spoils from hand to hand. 
 They were going to adopt a policy 
 which would enrich the country very 
 much as an old Yankee once said 
 that his boys made money on rainy 
 days when he averred that each one, 
 with a jacknife, a top and some odd 
 trinkets, would commence trading 
 with the others, and before night, such 
 was their 'cuteness, each would be 
 found to have made ten dollars, though 
 
 they had ijo more knives, tops and 
 trinkets among them than when they 
 first commenced this system of domes- 
 tic commerce on a small scale. That 
 was very much the system of political 
 economy that hon. gentleman opposite 
 proposed to introduce into Canada. 
 (Hear, hear.) He had only to say 
 that the policy was a disasti'ous 
 one, that its practical results were 
 before their eyes, that it had been 
 tried in the United States under most 
 tavourable auspices ; a country with a 
 ^ast extent of fertile soil, with great 
 variety of climate and production ; a 
 country enriched with the boundless en- 
 dowments of prodigal nature, and com- 
 prising in its vast range of resoui-ces a 
 miniature world within itself, and yet, 
 under these favourable circumstances, 
 the system of Protection had completely 
 broken down, and had illustrated the 
 fact that its practical results were dis- 
 astrous, and couJd only be disastrous 
 in the extreme. The intelligent people 
 of Canada had but to have these 
 facts placed before them for considera- 
 tion, and they would reject this politi- 
 cal scheme of the Opposition, which 
 was adopted by them, not because they 
 truly believed it to be a policy thai 
 would benefit Canada ; not even because 
 they expected to reconcile conflicting 
 interests and reduce their absurd 
 theories to practice if successful be- 
 fore the people; but because they 
 believed it would be a specious and 
 delusive cry which would catch the 
 popular ear Avith its' vague generali- 
 ties and loud promises, and might serve 
 to give them a temporary advantage, 
 and lead them to that goal of their 
 prayers and ambition — the loaves and 
 fishes of oflice — to reach which, they 
 were willing to travel by any road 
 and to profess any principles. (Loud 
 cheex*s.) 
 
 MacLean, Roger & Co., Parliamentary and DepMtmental Printers, Ottawa, Oat