IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I |50 '"^ = Z2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 -< 6" ► % *» .^* •V' Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 Ifi i/j CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques \ \ iV Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additionel comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or fox:i( Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualitd indgale de I'lmprer-sion Includes supplementary materia Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or fox:id/ ["Tf Pages detached/ r^ Showthrough/ \7^ Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ D D Only edition available/ Seule ddition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meitleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X / 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X aire details ues du : modifier gar una filmaga The ^opv filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Thomas Fiiher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire fllmd fut reproduit grice d la gAnArosit6 de; Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto Library Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire fiim6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. 6es Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commencant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d''ltustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —»> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". re Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, p!anches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction difi,§rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichi, il est filmd d partir de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. y errata id to nt ie pelure, gon d Tl 1 2 3 32X t 2 3 4 5 6 :d^ ■■•r THE ta.i^i:k:f. -«-4^^-^" SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS I , : f Jt*" 1' ^ ' f T 1 .^X^3*ll 7-st, X870, BT -t>jm-s HONiJ^^ MILLS, M.P. I • • ,'.J I'ii •■: :miij'7^_ j'^>^ •!,.!*' vol ,i ■ til''' i'i> ^ .ffe^ •»■? i.-^i'. /•lit *; • lis ^- (From t/ie Official Report of the Debuooa.) il . Mr. mills : It is not my intention to answer the observations addressed by the speaker'who has just preceded me. T may, however, say, with regard to the hon. member's expressed surprise, that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, who went to the country on a revenue tariff, expressed themselves in opposition to the system of Protection which these gentlemen had seen proper to dignify by the title of the National Policy. I was returned to this House as an exponent of the principles of Free-trade, as far as our circumstances will permit us to adopt that policy, and I would be recreant to my own convictions of public duty, and to the views of those who saw proper to support me, if I y^vQ to adopt the views and support tlie policy of the Govern- ment, simply because tht.y had secured a majority at the election'?. I have a very great respect for the system of popular government. I have no doubt •whatever that it is decidedly the best, not only for the people of this country, but for every people who are suflSciently advanced, morally and intellectually, to give it a fair and independent trial. I never supposed that the system of 1 popular government was a system of political infallibility — that the majority were always right and the minority always wrong. If a Government were composed of a select few, if the standard of qualification for the electors were greatly raised, so that we had experts as electors, more ad- vanced opinions might be adopted than with a broader franchise ; but the sys- tem of popular government was itself a powerful educator, and even should the people occasionally go wrong, and the Government be less efficient than a Go- vernment under a more arbitrary or 4 more restricted system, I would still prefer the present, as it was the one which contributed most largely to the moral and intellectual progress of the people. It was better that we should occasionally go wrong — that we shoultl occasionally blunder, tbaii to go always right by force or by coercion. I am not going to discuss the question of an irre- deemable paper currency. The hon. the Finance Minister has not put that forth as one of the principles involved in the so-called National Policy. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has dxltiu^. s Bubscribed to the views of tl)e Speaker of the Senate and of some of his sup- portei-s behind him, who hold that it is possible for a Government, by mere Act of Parliament, to give value to paper ; that all that is necessary to make a na- tion wealthy is to employ an engraver, and use p paper mill. It had been well obser many years ago by a distin- guishc-i j^Jnglish statesman, Mr. Pultney, that the leaders of a Government were like the heads of snakes, — propelled on- ward by the tail, — and although the Go- vernment may not subscribe to the paper currency views of some of their supporters, if hon. gentlemen behind the Treasury benches could accumulate suffi- cient amount of force, they might propel the hon. gentlemen who occupied them in that particular direction. Like many hon. gentlemen who have pre- ceded me, I regard this as a very grave question. I cannot congratulate hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches on the fulfilment of their promises. The most important of these pledges cannot be kept. The hon. the leader of the Government promised the peor,ie of the Maritime Provinces that there should be na increase of the tariff, no additional taxation. Has that promise been kept 1 The word of the hon. gentleman was pawned, and it has not been redeemed. It has, in fact, been forfeited. This is, on the whole, a thirty-five por cent, tariff. Last summer when a Wa&tern journal, the Advertiser, charged tha hon. gentle- man with proposing what we now have before as, what did he say ] Why, that ** it was an absurd falsehood ; neither at London nor elsewhere had he gone beyond his motion in Parliament ; that ho had ' never proposed an increase, but only a re- adjustment of the tariff." How were these words understood by the people of New Brunswick? How are they now being keptl In the Toronto Amphi- theatre, that arena where the intellectual ^gladiators of the Tory party assembled, the hon. gentleman also appeared, and declared himself in favour of the free importation of sugar, tea, coffee, tobacco, and silk. The loss of four and three quarter millions to the revenue was to be made up by better times, and the consumption of more whisky. Has this pledge been kept 1 The hon. gentleman has a majority in this House — which he calls a mechanical majority — why, then, does he not remit these taxes 1 why does he not keep this promise to the working- men 1 We heard a great deal here last year about a free breakfast table. How has this hope of the poor man been real- ised ? How earnestly you have laboured to fulfil this pledge ! Look at what you have done for .the labourer ! You tax his cooking stove, you tax his kettle, you tax his fire, you tax his table, you tax his chair, you tax his table linen, you tax the dishes upon the table, you tax his tea, you tax his cofioe, you tax his sugar, you tax his salt, you tax his bread, you tax his meat, and when he returns thanks to his Maker, what is it for 1 Why, that your tax has not yet been extended to the pump and to the hen-house. This is the way you have kept your promise to the poor about a free breakfast table. What now do you tell him ] " Why, bless you, my dear sir, you do not know what is good for you. Do you not know that the way to make you prosperous is to take the money out of your pockftt 1 People are made rich by what they pay. You have been well nigh ruined by get- ting too much for your money. Cheap tea and cheap sugar, cheap coal and cheap furniture, cheap food and cheap clothing have well nigh made you a beg- gar. They are infinitely worse than the cheap labour of the ' Heathen Chinee,' or any other man who may come hither from abroad. Here is our i-emedy : ' Be ye warmed, clothed and filled, not by meins of coal, cotton, and food, but by a tax of thirty-five per cent, on what you consume.' " I am sure the workingman will understand thic. The Finance Min- ister explains his new system of political economy in this way. He says : " My friends, the Conservative party under- stand what is best in this matter, but they do the contrary. I do not belong to that wild and vieionarjl class of theorists called political economists. I am a prac- tical statesman, and must look at things as they are. You know that human nature is perverse ; that men know what is right, yet they ar6 inclined to do the opposite. We. on th'u ^,1 le, all know that Canada is a sacrifice market. The foreign producer \ xys a part of the price of our cottc.ia, and the United States Government tax their own people, and take the money from the National Treas- % - ury to j)fiy pnrt of tlio pric-e of tlio sutrar consuinetl by our jioojjle ; iind liefonut^rs are blindly enticed on to their ruin l)y getting too nnich for their money. We Tories who know better, I am sorry to say, do the same thing. When you tind out where you can get most dry goods or groceries for your money, there you fool- ishly go. You should go to the man who a«lcs much and gives l\^tlo. This may ruin him if he should find customers ; but I am not considering his case, but yours. We propose to put an end to this state of things by an Act of Parliament. We propose to impose taxes, not simply for revenue, but to chock trade and commerce, and by this moans ' diminish the volume of our imports from all parts of the world.' " This is the doctrine proclaimed from the Treasury benches. How will this help the depressed trade 1 How will it pro- mote the prosperity of your shipowners ? The Finance Minister and his friends promised a home market for everything. If successful whpt became of the revenue ? The hon. gentleman complained of the balance of trade. Up to the 1st of July last there was a balance of $200,000,000 against this country. Had the lion, gen- tleman brought himself to believe that this repre.sented the indebtedness of the mercantile community of Canada, to the English and United States merchants, and manufacturers 1 Men do not get credit in that way, for a long series of years for large sums beyond what they were able to pay for. The evil of over-trading was one that, if left alone, would correct it- self. I could, without difficulty, show that the seeming balance against us, re- presents mainly the pi-ofits and earnings upon our commerce. I am opposed to this policy of restriction. I say to the Fin- ance Minister that I do notagree with him. The people of this country are, in buying and selling, pursuing their own interests, and they ought not to be hindered or im- peded in doing so. Each is seeking his own welfp.re in what he is doing. Why should he be restrained 1 I think that each man is more likely to judgo rightly than w« are to judge rightly for him. If no one buys there will be nothing sold. We have a law empowering a court to take care of the estates of those who are incapable of taking care of them. This tariff is a general com- miRsion of lunacy lor the whole nation. -A- commission to keep people from ruining themselves by buying at too low a rate, and in the wi-ong market. Let me propose a compromise. I say to gentlemen opposite, you feel that you cannot trust yourselves in the conduct of your private affairs. We have no such misgiving. You take your own course as to your own affairs. You feel, with- out the interference of the State, that your folly or your perversity will surely make you go wrong. It may be so. We have no such weakness. Leave us free. Wo are ready and willing to take the risk. Enlarge the jurisdiction of Chan- cery, and empower itt« exercise its juris- diction on your behalf, that restraint upon your liberty and supervision of your private allairs, which you feel is necessary to your mateiial prosperity ; but let us alone. I have said that this is but a mere instalment of the National Policy. The so-called National Policy professedly covered the whole ground. It dealt with every branch of industry. It pi'omised to the capitalists a larger market and higher prices. It promises to tho labourer constant employment and higher wages. It proposed to add to the wealth of all. This measure attempts but in part to fulfil these promises. What steps have you tnk«n to preTent the market, to which the labourer brings his offer of toil, from being made a sacri- fice market 1 You promised that Canada should be kept for Canadians, This is the policy you broadly avowed. When do you propose to redeem this premise 1 Or is this, like others, to be dishonoured ] As you are dealing witli the manufac- turer, so did you promise to deal with the workingman. You have prohibited the importation of British and United States goods in order that you might pro- tect the home producer. Do you pro- pose to prohibit the foreign labourer from com- '; in and bringing down the price of laboui", or will you allow the Ip.bourer to remain unprotected 1 Do you propose to keep this promise ] You know that the exclusion of foreign ir lastrial products will not accomplish this result? The condition of the workingraen of Lowell, Boston, Springfield, New York, Pater- son, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, 'and other United States cities, conclusively settles tfaii. You know that prelection to the manufacturer promioeH no certain reward to the labo>irer. You propose ta take from him thirty-five dollarH out of every hundred dollars that lie spends on food, furniture, and clothing. How ar» you going to compensate him for this system of l^'galised blunder 1 Nothing has been established by n wider induction than this — that the cost of living may bo in- creased without any increase of wages — increased frequently when wages are falling. Now, what is your policy of helping the working man 1 You dare not say to him that the price of labour is regulated by the law of supply and demand, and that you cannot prevent labour becoming cheap when it becomes abundant ! You denied this. You called those who held to such theories, flies on the wlioel. You belonged to a different class in political zoology. We ask you now to toll the House and the workingmen what you proj)Ose ? This Parliament, you declared, could be made, in the hands of wise men, such as yon yourselves modestly claimed to be, a benevoUnt institution for the relief of general distress, without any charge upon the Natio'ial Treasury. I know, Mr. Speaker, tliat this is a part of the Na- tional Polioy platform ui)on which gen- tlemen on chat side stood at tae last elections. It is a part about which thej now do not care to hear. It is, no doubt, a dispgreeable subject. It was most unhealthy food to give the poor man, but let me say to gentlemen on the Treasury benches, you gave it. You profited by its use, and now I ask you what do you propose to do ? You brought crowds of labourers to the doors of Par- liament last Session to demand work. You traded upon the misfortunes and the sufierings of the poor. You told the country that, if you were put upon those benches, you would untie your bag and exhibit your " ready relief." It is not yet forthcoming. When is it to be exhibited t It is, Sir, to me a matter of astonishment to find gentlemen still at large advocating the interposition of Parliament, not to remove the shackles of a darker ags, but to imi)ose new shackles upon industry, upon commerce, not for reasons of Statt, but to contribute to the production of wealth. Do hon. gentlemen propose to fix tlie price of | comraoditics by Act of Parliament t Do they projMJse to take into consideration the advantages or disadvantages of locality, and vary their protection ac- cordingly 1 When I speak of gentle- men being at large, I did not mean to in elude the Minister of Finance. We know he is not. lie may not hivo been confined, but he is, and has been, in the custody of a self-constituted national l)olice. They have taken possession of liim, and he sits here as their hostage, and as the exi)onent of their demands. They have put him and his colleagues where they are. They have made these lion, gentlemen ollicially what they are, and ti.ey a-e bound to perform the work iissigned to them by their masters. This body is distinct from the Tory party. They will support Ministers jus^, so long, and no longer, than it is their interest to do so. We know, Sir, the Tory party. They are .under the guardianship of the Premier, and aie whatever ho may desire them to be. They are his people, the goats of his pasture. They follow him. When ho favoui's Free-trade, so do they. But they have instinctive preferences, and, when he proposes a Jingo policy, even though it be in a small way, they are npacially jjleased. It is true the hon. gentleman has a large majority in this House, but when we look at the electoral vote, we know that the lion, gentleman has not a large majority outside ; we know that, upon the policy of Protec- tion, tho country is nearly equally divided. Nearly one-half have pro- nounced against the course which gentle- men oiijiosite vaguely proposed to take. Wo see how far yor. have gone, and what you have still to undertake. I know. Sir, it has become fashionable on that side of the House to deride political economy. Smith find Mill, Cairnea and Fawcett are regarded asvisionaries whom men of <;omnion sense, whom real states- men, w»uld never consult. Well, Sir, T am afraid but few of the raeu, who, in England have, for the past forty years, been regarded as statesmen would escape this ban. I look at the speeches of Huskisson, Villiers, C. P. Thompson, Sir James Graham, Sir Robert Peel, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Palmer- ston, and Lord Russell ; and, in the dis- cussion of financial subjects, I find them everywhere inteisperseJ with quotations .'om Smith, Kicardo, and other writers upon political economy. Tliey would be clasHed by gentlemen opposite amon^ the visioaary and speculative membei-s whose habits of mind excluded theni from the domain of practical statesmanship. I know, Sir, that hon. gentlemen on that side look with contemptuous pity on that deluded nation across tho Atlantic, with which we are politically united. They turn away with loathing from the expo- sitory and argumentative siatements made by those incompetent and imbecile men, such as Sir Robert Peel, Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Gladstone, by whom the peojile of Great Britain have been blindly guided for a third of a century. These gentlemen declare tliey dislike political economy ; that Butler understands questions of finance better than Gladstone, and that the political atmosphere of Washington is more in- vigorating than that at Westminster. We must not, upon the fiscal policy of this country, think for our8el"ea. Tliat, Sir, would be presumptuous. Standing with our heads uncovered, we will not dissent from the superior wisdom of our august neighbours. They are wise. We will walk in their footsteps. We will imitate Congress. Whatever they do at Washington, at Ottawa we must do like- wise. Gentlemen opposite mingle menace with worship, bluster with adu- lation. To this the Pi-eraier has edu- cated his party. I congratulate him on his success. Let us se'i from what and to what the Tory Dorty have been led. Sir, we all remember tbe great Civil War in the United States. We know, in one-half of that Republic, four millions of human beings were held as property. That war became a struggle for freedom upon the one side, and for oppression upoii the other. The hon. leader and his party, true to their party instincts, took the side of the oppressors, — for what peo- ple or what cause ever had the sympatliy of that party unless they or it were op- posed to freedom and to progress 1 Every success of Southern arms was cheei-ed. To emancipate the poor negro was re- garded as a calf? mi ty. And above all things, and before all things, they desired that the mighty Republic, which had stood for ninety years a visible testimony to tho capacity of man for solf-govom- ment, should bo broken up. They were doomed to disappointment. The spirit of freedom was unchained by the execu- tion of John Brown. It called all the North to arms, and tho Northern volun- teers marched to the battle field to the music of his name. The South was sub- dued. The Union was restored. Slavery I)erished. The cause of popular freedom triumphed. During the struggle of nhe Oivil War high taxes were imposed. The spirit of avarice followed in the footsteps of the spirit of freedom. Abuses grew up. Oppressive monopolies were estab- lished. Rings were formed as power- ful in the State as were the great barons of the medi»val period. There was now another system of servitude only less hateful than the one I'l'ovideuce liad forced the nation to destroy. Well, Sir, this was something with which the Tory party could sympa- thise ; and the Government, which fif- teen years ago, was an object of insult, has committed a folly that has made it an object of worshii). We see the Tory parhy, in changing the language of abuse and insult for the language of praise, have not travelled very far. Upon ques- tions of trade and taxation our Ameri- can neighbours lag far behind the states- men of the United Kingdom. The Jioq. the Premier and his party dislike thi^i onward march of Fatherland. It wearies tliem. It may be sweet to dream of th« sea-girt isle ; but on the whole they prefer the company of those in the rear. Their island home is far beyond the wave, and the profound thoughts, wise maxims and generous sentiments of her statesmen, which, for a time, were stumbling blocks, have now become fooliahne j to gentle- men opposite. They have fallen in with another peoj)le by the way, for whom they have learned to entertain the high- est admiration. The hon. gentleman, in his educating process, has, in some re- spects, metamorphosed the Tory party. W« rememt>er the Tory of former years, who loudly proclaimed his resolution to stand by a united Empire at all hazards. He waf a wholly different person from your To:y whose loyalty is measured by 35 per cent., your dealer in pinch-beck and the second-hand clothing of Congress, who is ready to stand by his own pocket if given a share of the contents of his neighbour's pocket. It is true thiit ho is ■till noisy. He still dislikes that any dissent from his lender's views should Itfe tolerated. He still dislikes the trouble, the labour of seeking for truth, itnd ho still cherishes an unreloiiting animosity (igainst whatever and whoever shakes his faith in the infallibility or public im- peccability of his chief. Fortunate lender ! Contented party ! Unfortunate cotmtry ! The hon. gentleman and his friends have taken a new departure. Tlioy have asked the people, for the first time as a matter of choice, to put them in a posi- tion of commercial antagonism to the Mother Country. There have been times when the Tory party confounded thoir interests with those of the Crown, and sought to bully the Sovereign's represen- tative into becoming an instrument of in- justice and oppression in their hands. There have been times when, in the heat of passion, they threatened the connec- tion. But this is the first time that, while profiting by the free markets of the United Kingdom, they jjvoposetl a j)olicy of prohibition in return. Hon. gentle- men had denounced the commercial policy of the United States as narrow, illiberal, grossly unfair to Oanada. Be it so, I am not going to dispute the ac- curacy of this statement. Canada had not lent its credit to the ^Jnted States. Canada incurred no expense to give se- curity to the commerce and shipping of the United States. There is illiberal ity. There are very mistaken and short- sighted views of public policy exliibited towards other nations in the fiscal legis- lation of the United States, but there was not ingratitude. We can say to them no more than King Lear said to the storm ; but England may say of us what King Lear said of his daugl-.t'^rs. England has adopted a Fic 5-trade policy. Her Government pu*- no barriers in the way of your trade. Tier people take millions every yea- of tbo products of your industry. They offer in exchange goods cheaper and bet- ter than you can make for yourselves, and how do you deal with them 1 You propose to erect fiscal barriers that will prove insuperable. You tax her iron, you tax her cutlery, you tax her calicoes; you tax her carpets, you tax her porce- lain. It is true, if these goods are pur- chased, the tax is paid by the people of this country. But they do not com- plain that you tax them. They under- stand the quobtion too well to make tuch complaint. But they do complain that you made it impossible for your own people to buy from them. You say that for twelve years this country has been on its knees to the authorities at Wash- ington. That you have been praying for more liberal trade relations with the United States. You have abased your- selves to no purpose. You now raise yourselvw! from the dust, and by the superior wisdom of your leader you are going to evolve from his head all that is necessary to make you great and wealthy, and also the moans of making them your tributaries and dependents. This, we know. Sir, is the merest gasconade. But suppose it all true, you have been all wrong before. If Protection is a good thing, why did you seek for freer tiade with them 1 What maile you go on your knees to them t Why did you so earnest- ly strive for more unrestricted trade with a people whom you say sell you goods at ruinously low rates after their goods are burdened with costs of carriage and nh per ;ent. duty 1 Not ruinously low to the producer, for you hare grave- ly assured us that it is one of the ele- ments of his prosperity, but ruinously low to the consumer. How strange is this gospel of Protection ! This world of the Protectionist is a new world of thought. Twice two will not make four in it. Men are made wealthy by what they pay out. They are made poor by getting too much for thoir money. I again revert to this effort to secure reci- procity. Why did you seek more inti- mate trade relations 1 If Protection, as you say, is necessary to vary your indus- try ; if a whole people are forever doomed to till the soil without Protection, why did you so long, so earnestly, so impor- tunately, so unwisely, strive for Free- trade upon the basis of recipi-ocity, or upon any basis ? Let me here read the motion of the Prime Minister when he was leader of the Opposition last year. The hon. gentleman's motion reads as fol- lows : " That this House is of opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of the National Policy, which, by a judicious readjustment of the tariff would benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturing and the ) not com- ley under- tnake such plain that your owa 11 aaj that has been at Wftsh- iraying for witli the asocl your- now raise ul by the or you are all that is d wealthy, them your This, we nade. But } been all is a good reer tiade JO on your so earnest- !ted trade Y sell you ifter their of carriage ruinously aye grave- )f the ele- ruinously strange is s world of world of make four r by what 9 poor by noney. I ecure reci- more inti- ^ection, as our indus- er doomed jtion, why so impor- for Free- )i-ocity, or s read the r when he last year, ads as fol- )f opinion quires the jy, which, ' the tariff ricuUural, ; and the other interests of the Dominion ; that such a policy will retain in Canada thousands of our fellow-countrymen now obliged toexpatriiito themselvus in search of the employment denied them at homo ; will restore prosperity to our struggling industries now so sadly depressed ; will prevent Canada being made a sacrifice market ; will encourage and develop an inter-provincial trade, and moving (as it uughc to do) in the direction of a reci- j>rocity of tariffs with our neighbours, so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for the country, eventually, a reciprocity of trade." This, Sir, is the National Policy in the germ. We have before us a part of the monstrosity, after thirteen months' gestation, by the hon. leader of the Gov- ernment. What does tliis mean ? What does tho hon. gentleman moan by foster- ing inter-provincial trade ] For what rea«on is it to bo fostered ] If it is profit- able, it does not require to be fostered. Self-int«rest will keep it alive. For what reason, then, is it to be fostered ] Is it on grounds of public policy, wholly apart from economic reasons ? I admit that inter- provincial trade, mutually ad- vantageous to those who engage in it, is of great political importance. But the political importance of our inter-provin- cial trade is not diminished by Free-trade with our neighbours. If it is a political necessity that Ontario should use Nova Scotia coal, and that Nova Scotia should use Ontario flour, why do you wish to divert the coal trade to Boston and the flour trade to New York by a treaty of reciprocity 1 The fact is, the resolution is made up of mutually destructive pro- positions. If inter-provincial trade in all things produced in the Dominion is necessary, why should you seek a reci- procity of trade with our neighbours, when you know it will greatly diminish our inter-provincial trade ? If Ontario ought, for reasons of Stjite, or for occult reasons of political economy, hidden from Free-traders and Englishmen, but revealed to the Premier and those who follow him, to purchase Nova Scotia coal, why seek to bring about reciprocal Free-trade in coal] The resolution of last year affirms that Protection is necessary to stimulate and vary the industries of the country ; that it is necessary to keep up inter-provincial trade ; that both are necessary to national unity and to diver- sified industry. Ho far your course iscon- sistent, your aim intelligible, but you in- timate your desire to eventually secure a reciprocity of tmdo, not with all the world, but with the United States. And what is to be tho effect of this ultimate blessing 1 According to the doctrine of this resolution, it is to stop tho growth of manufactures and diminish inter-pro- vincial trade. ITon. gentlemen will find that they have surpassed tho public ex- pectation. I say to these hon. gentle- men, you pointed out to the people of Canada what an illiberal policy the Con- gress of tho United States had pursued towards this country ; you aroused their indignation ; you told them that they paid some millions of dollars yearly into the United i" jority had too but — no matti might bo — the> because they v and illiberal c* ites treasury. The ma- uch sense to believe you j consequence vt the ready to retaliate fended at the tmwise Ul hich Congress had pursued. They favoured retaliation, but they were not converts to the j)olicy of Protection. We, Sir, took a different view. We were not disposed to engage in a Japanese duel with them, because we knew well that it was gi-eatly against the interest of the people of this country, and we preferred being the victims, rather than the instruments, of public folly. Our part was the part of honest men, and I rest contented, notwithstanding the taunts of hon. gentlemen opposite, being perfectly confident, when passion has subsided, what the public judgment will be. But I say. Sir, to these gentle- men upon the Treasury benches, and to those behind them, you have exceeded your authority, you have fallen short of your promises. Much that you promised you have not undertaken. Much that you have undertaken you dared not have promised. You profited by the indigna- tion that you aroused against the United States. You won by it. It was a foul success. How have you used it '? Why, Sir, to make war on the commerce of the United Kingdom. You told the farmers that you favoured reciprocity (although we knew the contrary) — that you did not want a one-sided reciprocity. Why, then, do you level the shafts of your malignant policy against the commerce of the British Islands 1 Why do you m make our trado with tliom k one-sitletl rtoiprocity ? You know that fiia in a part of your policy that you concealcid — that you ueiiied ; for we told tlie pflople that the inatnuneutfl of f;;iiiii iubo whotw bands you had fallen would l«3ad you irrofliHtibly forward into a policy of the daepeat coiiHuquence. lUit you vtdiein- «ntiy proteHted your innoconoo. That policy is now upon us. Tho Finance Minister informed the lloimo that, under thd system of taxation adopted, a largo portion of the taxes were to bo raised u|KJU imports from the United Htiites. He said that this was the proper courae to pursue. Ife said that this House would not object to taking a larger pro- portion of the additional taxation out cf the people of the United States than out of the United Kingdom. Why ? Bo- cause the )>eople of England receive everything we send them without tax- ation. In my opinion the hon. gentle- man, by thi.s scheme, taxes neither. Ho proposes to burden moat heavily the peo- ple of Canada. It 'h we, and not they of England, or of the United States, who will have these taxes to pay. Yea, Sir, aud millions more, for I shall show that by this fell measure many millions will be taken from tiic ]>ocket8 of the jwoplo that will never reach the public treasury. This measure imposes a tax upon the entire trade of the country — domestic and foreign. But I deny that the hou. gentleman has, by this measure, placed his burdens mainly upon our trade with the United States. Let me, for a moment, examine the scheme of taxation here submitted for our approval. The hon. gentlemen, I suppose, does not claim the tax imposed upon wheat, flour, corn and oats, which are re-shipped for the Euroj)ean market. These taxes, if paid, are to be returned, and if hon. gentlemen are right, most improperly returned to the exjwrter. There may be serious impediments in the way of trade, but they are not sources of public revenue ; and, therefore, must be left wholly out of the calculation. On the quantity of brandy imported last year the present tariff will impose $84,173 additional taxation. Of this sum, $23,018 will fall ujion English and $1,162 upon United States trade. U(:)on gin you impose an additional tax of $42,400, $12,800 of which falls upon Knglish trade, and $247 u|K)n tlie trado with our neighboura. Upon whisky, $13,800 additional taxation, of wkich $12,800 will fall ui>on the trade with England, and $1,000 upon that with th* Uuitetl Stati'H. At your proposed rat« of taxation, we woultl have paid on iron and other mettils imjiorted from the United States hut year, $10#,000, in- stead of $10, r)00 ; and upon similar im- ports from England $656,000, instead of 180,000. You would have im|)ONed upon metallic im|)orts from the United States $83,500 addiiioaal taxes, and upon me- tallic imports from Kngland $569,000— nearly twenty-live per cent, of the whole sum that you projwse to raise. Last year you crjilected a Customs tax of $108,500 upon woollen goods imported from the United State-s. You, at the same time, collected $1,410,000 upon woollen goo(is imported from the United Kingdom. You have changed u taritf of 17^ per cent, into a tariff varying from 20 per cent, to nearly 40 per cent. You have scrupulouHly ])rovided that the best goods shall j)ay the smallest tax. I assume that you did this in tlie interest of the workman, since you have proceed- ed uj»on the theory that it is the man who is most burdened that is most bene- fitted. As you have put these burdens on, not to meet the ])ublio necessities, but to promote the private interests of the population, it is plain that you have not overlooked the j)oor man, the widow, and the orphan. You have carefully provided that they shall feel the weight of your paternal hand. I find that if wo should import from England and the United States under the new tariff the same quantities of woollen goods that we did last year under the old, that $57,000 of additional '^'ation would fall upon the imports from the United States, and $614,000 u})on woollens imported from the Mother Country. Ijot me now. Sir, refer to the tax upon cotton goods. Last year we collected upon cottons imported from the British Isles a tax of $770,549, and upon cottons imported from the United States $470,185. Under the proposed tariff you would have imposed upon the same goods from England $1,491,000, and upon those from the United States $828,000. How, then, does your tariff stand so far ? HriKliili importii p«y of the addU tioD'tl tnxntioii iipuii itrontf Uquom, braii.ly, kIii, rum ana whUky f 60,000 Upon mctaU afl9,000 l'|)on woolldiiH 614,000 Upon cottunH 7 30,46 1 Milking a total of $1 ,963,46 1 When jou foot up the Hclditional tax upon thoHO name oIiihhor of itnportH from the United HtatoN, you hiive a very dif- ferent roHiilt upon tliotn : The additioniil tax would be, on Ilquom I 2,500 rpon motaU 83,600 Upon woollcnH , 67,000 UpoDcuttouH 368,000 Making a total of $601,000 I nnoil not pursue this part of tlie sub- ject further. I have said onouj^h toHhow this Houm) and tho country tliat the new burdfln does not fall mainly upon our coramorce with tho UniUfd Htatea. The hand of tho Finance Minister is raised, like thn hand of Ishniael, against all who have tlie temerity to trade with us ; but the chief blow is aimed at the j)arent State. Last year, Sir, we imported into Canada raw materials — products of vari- ous kinds— to tho amount of $31,423,000. Under the present taritf upwards of two-thirds in value of these free imports would have been subject to taxation. But why not tho whole ? Why not tax raw cotton 1 Vie object because wo think it adds to tho price ; but you hold the contrary. ' A'^hy, then, do you not compel the southern planter to pay something on the cotton wool 1 Upon this there will be nothing to re- mit. You know that much of these im- ports which you pretend to tax really do not enter into consumption, but are manufactured, or partially manufactured, and sent abroad; the money collected upon them on the plan proposed, will bo returned to the par- ties by whom it is paid. From much the hon. gentleman expects no revenue. Why, then, does he impose the tax to the great injury of commerce t Tho Minister of Finance and his colleagues have entered upon a ywlicy that will pro- duce untold mischiefs to the prosperity of this country. We imported last year cotton to the value of $7,104,517. Upon that we paid $1,248,000 duty. The new tariti will add $1,100,000 more. Then, we maiuifaoture in Canada about 20,000,000 yards of cotton. The tariff will advanco the price* of this home pro- duction by not less than $270,000. The cotton that now eoHts tho wholesale dealers $10,000,000 will cost them, under the new taritr, $11,400,000. If we sup- pose that tho population retained the same power of put'chasing under the new taritf that they jjossessed under tho old, they would not be al)le ti) purchase as mucii cotton as before by nearly 16,000,000 of yards, or 1H| yards less ♦o every family of the Dominion. Your moasui-e is not ono to clothe the tuikod, but to denude the poor. IJut this. Sir, by no means repre- sents what must be the actual results. This measure re-distributoH annually the profits upon industry. It will diminisli the prohts of not loss than 70 per cent, fcf the population by not less than 15 ^l» cent. You are inflicting a double wrong upon the poorest part of the people. You incroasf your being tax comes you remit they export :ted ? You rrier to buy labour has I his wages do this to b| employed alist larger case, how »f what you your canals see how e you have 11 now pro- a. la this burden the Wal the en dressed and is the )ur sober, think the ou. I am regard this on genera] 1 on social e greatest alien this a another connected i that the '' far from people of lem an in- :. It will •om sugar, iuperseded : in 1868. years. A in April, 3 of raw ids. The orted into when the cisely the who pur- ever been ugar im- 3 is very I is very »,000,000 •t to this ds, and to all other countries not much more. Of the 1,500,000,000 of pounds imported, not more than 80,000,000 are •xported — about one pound in twenty. It will be seen from this statement how very slightly, indeed, any excess of drawback that it would be possible to give could affect the general prosperity of the re- finer. I pointed out to the House in 1876 the only way in which it was pos- sible to receive a bounty at all by im- porting superior grades of I'aw sugars, degraded according to the coloured stan- dard by the uae of aniline dyes. In so far as the duty upon sugar is regulated by the colour, it is always capable of being diminished by the introduction of dyed sugars. A sugar dealer going from Canada or the United States to the West Indian sugar market, and finding very dark sugars ofi'ered for sale, some of which are very dark on account of their impurity, and some because they have been coloured, will buy whichtiver proves most profitable. In calculating the probable profit from each, the ques- tions of duty and remission of duty be- come elements in the calculation. Now, there was a chance of paying less, and receiving more upon sugar re-exported under a tariff based upon the Dutch standard. A larger quantity of superior refined sugars were made from those coloured sugars, and for a time some bonus was secured upon a part of what was re-exported. But the snail percentage of exports shows that this applied to but a small quantity of United States refined sugars The people of the United States have imported, for some years, abo«t 1,600,000,000 of pounds of sugar, and their exports amount to about 90,000,000 of pounds. Their tariff, as I have already said, induced their refiners to im- port superior low sugars to refine for ex- portation, and we had accordingly received from the United States refined sugars of a very high quality. This is the conclu- sion to which we have been led from the {jrobabilities of the case. Let ua here again refer to them. The American tarifi is based, to the extent of 37^ per cent., upon the Dvitch standard. The dyed sugars are of a very high quality intrinsically, eontaining from 95 to 98 y.r cent, of crystallisable sugar. They contained but little glucose and very little ash. They, being eoloured, paid in part the duty of a low standard, and received, as a drawback, the duty they wotild have paid if undyed, and when tested they were found to contain no- thing but pure cane sugar. So far then as the consumer was concerned, it was his interest to obtain the United States refined sugar. Now, what is to be the effect of this tariff? It would be simply this : to exclude every pound of sugar from our markets, except the lowest grades of raw sugars from the West Indies or South America. Last year wo rmported sugar — he left melado, molasses and syraps out of consideration —to the value of $5,982,078, which paid a tax amounting to $2,515,655, being about forty-two per cent, ad valorem. What we imported below number 9, Dutch standard, paid a duty equal to 39 per cent, ad valorem, which showed that the assertion that the lower grades of sugar, under the former tariff, paid a higher duty upon value than those of a superior quality, is not well founded. What I now wish to point out to the House is, that this tariff is especially arranged against the consumer, and against the interests of commerce, but in the interest of the refiner and the refiners alone. Let me take in the first case, the American refined sugars. These averaged, last y«ar, $6.26 per hundred pounds, say 6|c. a pound. The account under the new tariff will stand as follows : — 100 pounds '. $6 25 U.S. Custom tax 3 16 1 cent per pound specific tax 109 35 per cent 3 29 Total cost, freigLt and charges ex- cluded, is $10 54 Under the old tariff the cost would have been $6 25 1 cent per pound specific duty 100 25 per cent, ad valorem 1 66 The totkl cost $8 81 or $1.73 less than under the new tariff. This would be additional tax paid upon United States sugars, or upon any sugars of the same quality. Mr. TILLEY : You stated we would not get our sugar from the United States. - . ,. "^ m 14 Mb. mills : I do not think we will in legitimate trade. I am of opinion that the hon. the Finance Minister will discover by and by that the p*oj)le along the border will consume sugar that, gome how or other, does not appear in the GustoH House returnbi. Now, the inom«nt a refinery is started, the impor- tation of United States sugars would be at an end. Ta^e English and Scetch sugars : They average per 100 pounds $6 20 Specific dut^ 1 00 36 per cent, ai t>a/or«fn 1 82 Total |8 02 As against $7.60 under the old tariff, being an increase of duty of 52c. on every hundred pounds. Mr. TILLEY : We do not collect it from England that way. Mb. mills : The hon. gentleman col- lects a tax on all imported sugars. Mk. TILLEY : There is no duty in England. Mr. MILLS : I speak of the tax here. Would the hon. gentleman contend that this advance of 82c. a hundred in tie price of English and Scotch sugars would not bring sugars re£ned in Canada up to the price that would barely exclude foreign sugars to a price above that which sugars now command in the Cana- dian markets ] The moment refineries were started in Canada, these sugars would be fts efiectively excluded as those of the United States. Let me call your attention to the operation of this tariff upon the better class of raw sugars. Since sugars have ceaaed to be refined in Canada, our West Indian imports have been mostly of this class, Hid they have cost : ' '■• • Per 100 pounds $4 36 Ic. per pound specific duty 1 00 Ad valorem 1 30 Making a total value of $6 66 These higher grades of raw sugar will also be shut out of the Canadian market. Now, I have before me the prices of three cargoes of sugar purchased in Cuba this year, and they are as follows : — 10th March, 812,900 ponnds gross, 716,383 nett, $18,226.86 = $2.54 ; 24th January, 389,742 pounds gross, 342,973 nett, $8,14.5.60 = $2.37; 3rd March, 226,600 pounds gro«8, 199,408 nett, $5,047.51 = $2.53. Now, if we take $2.50 as the average price of ordinaiy refining sugar, we hava this result : 100 poimdB $2 60 Specific duty 80 Ad valorem 75 Making a total value of $3 75 I assume that the freights will not vary much. What results, then, have we ] We have these sugars imported, leas the freights, at $3.76. The refiner has then to cover the cost <^f refining and waste the following sums : — As against United States sugars, $6.79 ; as against English and Scotch, $4.27 ; as against superior raw sugars, $2.91. If $3 per hundred pounds were paid, we would have : 100 pounds ..$3 00 Specific duty 50 Ad valorem 90 $4 40 And if you suppose the price paid would reach the high sum of $3.50 a hundred, the tax would only amount to $1.65. Would the hon. gentleman say that this will not at once call into existence estab- lishments for refining sugar in this coun- try, and if it does, what must be the effect upon the revenue *{ In 1875, we collected upon every hundred pounds imported from the United States $2.26 ; from Great Britain, $2.26 ; from the West Indies, $1.80. In 1876, we col- lected from the United States, $2.11 ; from Great Britain, $2.12 j from the West Indies, $1.67. During these two years the Montreal refinery was in opera- tion, and a large portion of the West India sugar was of low grade. In 1877, we collected upon every hundred pounds of sugar from the United States, $2.43 ; from Great Britain, $2.28 ; and from the West Indies, $2.02. Last year we col- lected $2.19 per hundred upon West Indian sugars; $2.26 per hundred upon English and Scotch sugars; and $2.54 per hundred upon United States sugars. Your duties averaged $2.39 upon all you imported. You propose a very much higher tax, which will result in what 1 Why, within a few months in bringing down your revenue to $1.25 per hund- red, ort at most, $1.55. Now, this sum upon 120,000,000 of pounds of sugar 'Wu 10 226,600 ,047.61 = 50 as the ing sugar, ....$3 SO .... .10 .... rs ....$3 75 not vary Have we ? d, less the r has then ind waste ist United st English superior r hundred ive : ...$3 00 50 90 $4 40 aid would , hundred, to $1.55. r that this nee estab- this coun- st be the 1875, we )d pounds es $2.26 ; from the , we ool- 8, $2.11 ; from the ihese two 1 in opera- the West In 1877, )d pounds >8, $2.43 ; I from the r we col- on West Ired upon nd $2.54 ES sugars. )n all you ry much in what i bringing ler hund- this sum of sugar gives a revenue of from ,$1,500,000 to $1,880,000. Well, this is a very serious inroad upon the revenue. How does it affect the consumer? I think I can show hon. gentlemen that it must largely increase the price to him. If they took the Trade and Navigation Returns for 1878, thev would find that 93,490,878 pounds were imported for consumption at $5.79 per hundred pounds. Under the old tariff there was collected upon this sugar a customs tax of $2,289,840. Under the new tariff this sugar would have paid $2,735,543— an excess of $445,703. There was also imported 10,624,336 pounds of sugar, upon wMch there was paid, under the old tariff, $209,066, but upon which the new tariff would have imposed a duty of $286,857 — an excess of $77,791. Upon all the sugars imported last year the new tariff would have imposed upwards of $550,000 more than the old. If we take, the*, these two classes of sugars, we find that they comprise 104,115,214 pounds, costing $8,436,149, that is the increased price with the duties added. I have omitted all estimates for freight, assuming that these will be much the same in both cases. Under the new tariff, the cost would have been $8,988, 149. Now the inferior raw sugar, necessary to produce this samn quantity, will cost in the West Indies $2,780,000, and the duty will amount to $1,450,000. Cost and doty amounts to $4,200,000, leaving a margin to cover the cost of re- fining and the excess of the cost of transportation of $4,788,000. What is, then, to prevent refiners in this country asking this sum 1 You have had an active competition among importers in your markets. You have been told that you have bought American sugars below their actual cost. You cannot ex- pect to g«t foreign refined sugars for mur!i less than you hfive purchased them heretofore. The tax paid will be greater. It is only necessary for your refiners to keep a shade below the figures I have mentioned, and your door is closed against refined sugars from Glas- gow and from New York. Tnere is no industry giving so little employment to labour. If we refined as efficiently as in England, 266 men would refine all the sugar consumed in Canada. I have no hesitation in saying that in the sugar trade wo sliould consider nothing but the interests of the consumer and the public revenue. Under this tariff you have done neither. You have excluded the best sugars of every class, whether raw or refined. You have made special pro- visions for refining here inferior yellow sugars. You have specially provided that your people shall have an inferior article at a high rate, and you have pro- vided for dividends of IC per oent. a month upon capital invested in the busi- ness. Kedpath's refinery at Montreal will, if putin operation, refine 60,000,000 pounds a year. It* capacity may be easily doubled. With your limited mar- ket, you provide for a monopoly. The hon. member for Stanstead last year un- dertook to defend himself from the charge of inconsistency for taking an anti-Protectionist view in the matter of coal oil refining. How did he do it ? Why, he told us that, wnenover Protec- tion produced monopoly, it was mis- chievous, and ought not to be granted. He knows that this tariff will create a refining monopoly, and I trust he will be prepared to vote on this as he voted upon coal oil refining. This is a tariff to make a few very rich and the many very poor. Better extend your list of pensioners, and leave your trade unfettered. Why do you not imitate the oligarchy of the old republic of Venice — let them write their names in the golden book, and draw their money direct from the National Trea- sury 1 This tariff does not favour Free- trade, but it does favour freebooting. The hon. member for Centre Toronto is no doubt pleased with the tariff, but he will remember now that, whenever he re- ceives $100,000 for furniture under the new tariff, he has $35,000 that rightfully belongs to someone else. What an agree- able thing it will be to know that your debtors will feel that tha only way that they can be even with you is by cheat- ing you out of 35 per cent, of what they have promised to pay. The Finance Minister has, in the tariff he has sub- mitted, leaving out all grain but corn, increased the taxation upon the present amount of imports by nearly $7,500,000, which, added to the existing tariff, amounted to $22,300,000. But the Finance Minister expects to produce such a diminution of imports as will reduce this this sum by $5,400,000, a diminution of 16 about $22,000,000. How does the hon. gentleman expect to accompliBh this ! There is but one way — by producing goods at home like those excluded by the tariff. Now, as these have not been produced under a tariff giving a protection of 17|^ per cent., it is obvious they will sell for the natural price plus the tariff, or very nearly this much, so that the hon. gentleman will succeed in adding, by this Customs tax, not less than seven and a half )uiUions of dollars, although, but a small portion of it will find its way into the Public Treas- ury. A few years ago, in addressing this House upon a like question, I pointed out what an enormous tax the people of this country were paying be- yond the sum received into the Public Treasury. There is much to be said in favour of indirect taxes if properly levied. They are paid when convenient, and when the consumer has the means ; but, they should be confined either to articles not produced in the country, or, if this is found impossible, they should be met by a corresponding excise duty. I do not nay that this is possible at this moment, but I do say that, besides the tax that the hon. gentleman succeeds in taking from the iieople, not less than $20,000,000 yearly will pass from the pockets of those to whom it rightfully belongs to a small number of the population, whom hon. gentlemen upon the Treasury benches have taken under their special favour. Mr. Mill has been quoted in favour of Protection. Mr. Mill admits that so long as Protection is necessary, the coun- try is sustaining a loss. He favours it for a limited time, until the necessary ^kill may be required. Longer it is not to be continued. Not one of his conditions here exist. Do gentlemen opposite ad- mit that while this system continues that the country loses ? T)o they admit that this is a burden upon the industry of the people, to be endured for the benefits to come ] I say to the hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches, that you are never tired telling us how great and prosperous Protection has made the United States ; how they are driving the products of British skill and Britiih industry out of, not only the markets of the world, but out of their own. What are the facts 1 I will take the two most advanced indus- tries of the United States — the manufac- ture of cotton and of iron. From 1866 to 1875, inclusive, the iron manufactories of the United Kingdom, sold to the peo- ple of the United States $248,318,243, notwithstandingtheyhada protective duty of not less than 60 per cent. What are the facts as to the cotton trade 1 Let me read the United States imports of cotton goods from England, and her exports to all the world : 1865 $ T,324,438 .... $3,451,501 18G6 27,652,413 .... I,:81,n6 18fi7 22,817,923 4,608,235 1868 11,928,461 .... 4,871,054 1869 16,474,036 6,874,222 1870 18,845,518 .... 3,787,282 1871 24,790,648 .... 3,556,136 1872 29,855,924..,. 2,303,330 1873 29,752,116 ... 2,947,528 1874 23,672,610 3,095,840 1875 22,790,377 .... 4,071,882 1876 18,042,727 .... 7,722,978 $253,647,250 $48,074,223 This did not look as if the Protection of the United States was triumphing over the Free-trade of the United Kingdom. Hon. gentlemen seemed never to weary of repeating tlie preposterous theory that a Protective system was necessary to diversify industry, and prepare a country for Free-trade. They might as well arguo that we should begin our astronomical studies by believing in astrology. During the three years ending 1842, England ex- ported nearly 84,777,886 yards of linen ; during the three years anding 1874, she exported nearly 316,808,525 yards. Dur- ing the first of these periods, she exported yearly 760,181,073 yards of cotton ; during the second period she exported yearly 3,543,679,647 yards. The ex- ports of woollen goods increased more than fourfold; and ajprogress equally won- derful was va&CK in every branch of mSnufacturing industry. I know. Sir, there are gentiemon who seem afraid that this country will be without a diversified industry, itnless a system of Protection is adopted. I do not subscribe to this.view ; it is founded upon totally erroneous views of the production of wealth, and the growth of a diversified industry. I do not desite that isolation from the rest of mankind which Protectionists call inde- pendence. I feel sure it would not con- tribute to our material prosperity, or to our mental enliglitment. I cannot do / ^N 17 are me tton to I better than to quote from a npoech marie by I'Oril Palmeiston, tbirty-six years ujfo, on a similar siil'jeot : Lord Palmerston said, " But, Sir, there are larjjer ^(roiiiids on which this doctiine ought to be re- pudiated by this House Why is the earth on which we live divided into zones and climates 1 Why, I ask, do different countries yield different productions to peo|ilH experiencinfif siniihir wants'? Why are they intersected with mighty rivers — the natural highways of nations] Why are the lands the most distant from eiich other brought into contact liy that very ocean which seems to divide them 1 Wliy, Sir, it is that man may be de|)endent ^ipon mar. It is that the exchange of commodities may be accompanied by the ^^ extension and ditlnsion of knowledge, by tht' interchange of mutual lienefits, en- gendering mutual kind feelings, multi- plying and conKrming friendly relations. It is that conmierce niay freely go fortii leading civilisation with the one hand and peace with the other, to render man- kind hapfiier, wiser, better. Sir, this is • the dispensation of Providence ; this is the decree of that powei which created and disposes the universe ; but in the face of it, with arrogant presumptuous folly, the dealer in restrictive duties fly, fetter- ing the inborn enei-gif-s of nran, and set- ting up their miserable legislation in- fitead of the gi-eat standing laws of nature. Sir, I am convinced, whatever may be the result of this night's debate, that reason will prove more power- ful than error. I am satisfied that the truth i ( strong enough to sweep away the cob .vebs of fallacy, by >Thich it is at- tempt;;d to entangle it." But it is not more certain that day aucceerls the night ' '~- • ' .an it is cen un that the dishonest anil barbarous policy upon which we have this Session enteted will be overthrown. Look at France before the Revolutio ■. Society was segregated into orders. The rich ground down the poor. Those who possessed most of the nation's wealth were wholly exempt from taxation. Car- lyle has drawn a vivid picture of the «tate of society ; of the attempts to giow rich l)y acts of Parliament ; of the vision- ary schemes of the practical men. We know how the privileged cjlasses — those who ruled — strove to tui'i the people into beasts of burden, and they became beasts of prey that devoured their adver- saries, and distributed their estates. Why 1 Becau'-e heaven Is i>ot mocked ; what nien sow that shall they also re>»pt Propei-ty, tlirouith privilege, had become robbery, and the robiier was despoiled. What was the history of the United Kingital w.is enormous- -more than was ever gaineil by the unpaid labour of the slave. Another at)use — that of Protpction — has takoa its place. It has brought in its traia niischiefs, industrial, moral and political^ of enormous magnitude. It has c.mtral- ised wealth. It has [tlundered the poor. It has doomed thousands of the most in- dustrious to a cheerless life of severe toil, with no prospect, but increasing 1 overty with increasing years. This is but anotlie'" phase of injustice and op- pression, which is doomed to perish by quiet means — possibly, by violence, if necessary. W'li the cause of justice and humanity triumph] What is now over- taking them will certainly befall you. There is a power in the world, says Mat- thew Arnold, which makes for righteous- ness. Against this power you have set your faces, and you have attempted to found your system of taxation and the industrial pursuits of your population in a system of injustice. It cannot endure. It ever has been so — it must continue to be so — to the last syllable of recorded time, that every such effort is but the continuance of those follies, which, after much dist8t«r, peacefully or by revolu- tion, a progressive people will certainly destroy. /