«^,

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^O
/^A^

.V^

4^.4^

1.0

I.I

1.25

■ 4i

ISO

••8

l«

2.0

■yui.

U. 11.6

■»

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

1«^V*

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

I/.

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

^9>^

Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notes tachniquas at bibliographiquas

Tha Instituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy available for filming. Faaturaa of thia
copy which may ba bibliographically unique,
which may altar any of the imagea in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

D
D
D
D

Couverture endommagia

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurAe at/ou pallicuiie

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

Cartas gdographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or bhck)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autras documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serr6e peut causer de i'ombre ou de la
distortion la long de is! marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^as
lors d'une restauration apparaissant dans le texte.
mais. iorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 fiimies.

Additional comments:/
Commentairas suppiimentaires:

Thee
to th(

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaira
qu'ii lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage
sont indiquis ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag^as

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurdes et/ou peliicul^es

I — I Pages damaged/

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

Thei
possi
of th
filmii

Origi
begir
theli
sion,
othei
first I
sion.
or illi

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color4es. tacheties ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages d^tachdes

r~3 Showthrough/

D
D
D

Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quaiiti indgaie de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partieliement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure.
etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meiileure image possible.

Thei
shall
TIKU
whic

Mapi
diffai
entir<
begiJ
right
roqui
met^

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmi au taux de rMuction indiqu6 ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

aox

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed h«r« hat b—n r«produc«d thanks
to the ganarosity of:

ThofiM* Fifhtr Rir* Book Library,
Univeraity of Toronto Library

Tha images appearing here are the best quelity
possible considering the condition end legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce i la
gAnArosit* de:

Thomas Fiihar Rare Book Library,
University of Toronto Library

Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de le nettet6 de l'exemplaire filme. at en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Originel copies in printed peper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover end ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated imprea-
sion. or the beck cover when appropriate. All
other originel copies are filmed beginning on the
first pege with a printed or illuatratad impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on eech microfiche
shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON-
TIMJED"). or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

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 exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier oet imprim6e sont film6s en commencant
per le premier plat et en terminant soil par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmAs en commenp ant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la derniAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le
CBs: le symbole — »> signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
film6s A des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd i partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche h droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m6thode.

32X

Mons^ of Commons Betiate$

FOURTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT

SPEECH

HON. WILFRED LAURIER, M.R

THE BUDGET

OTTAW\, THURSDAY, 12th APRIL, 1894

Mr. LAU&IBR. Mr. Rv 'a^sr, I do not rise
OD this occasion with tht hope nor even with
the intention of affording anything new to
the discussion which has talien place in this
House for some two weeks past. My object
Is simply to review the arguments which luire
been offered from this side of the House
against the policy of the Government, and in
:his respect, perhaps I might rest content
with the effort of an hon. gentleman who
does not belong to the Opposition (Mr. Mc-
Carthy), who, in what I consider oiio of the
most remarkable speeches ever delivered in
Parliament since I have been here, has ex-
posed what Is, perhaps, the fullest, the most
detailed and the most comprehensive arraign-
ment of the policy which has been piursued
by the (Jovemment for the last fifteen years.
With regard to the debaite so far as it has
gone up to the present moment, I may be al-
lowed to remark, that to the extent that it
has been participated in by members and
supporters of tlie (Government, It has been
charaoterlstio that one and all have expressed
their unbounded satisfaction with the proposed
amendments to the tariff. It may not be
uncharitable to suppose, and perhaps to say,
that, If there had been no amendments what-
ever, the satisfaction of the supporters of the

Government would have been just the same,
because all their arguments — we have all
heard them--were In support of the tariff as
It existed and as if It had not been amended
at all. At all events, there is this satisfac-
tion *, and to the members of Her Majesty's
loyal Opposition it is a satisfaction which
might be termed pride: that at last, after many
efforts and many assaults, the Government
have been forced to capitulate, forced to
come down from their position of hide-bound
protection, forced to yield to the determined
protests and remonstrances of a long-
outraged people. Whether the amend-
ments proposed to the tai-iff, whether the
concessions offered by the Grovernment, are
sufficient or insufficient to meet the just ex-
pectations of the people, is the question which
at present Is the Issue before this House and
before the country. Whether the measujre of
relief offered by the Government, If Indeed I
may use such a dignified expression as
" measure of relief "—Is adequate or not ade-
quate. Is a question which may be held to de-
pend very largely upon the views entertained
by those who offered it as to the necessity of
any reform at all ; and, judged by that rule,
it must be found upon examination that the
measure presented by the Government is

stamped with the atamp of inadequacy and
Insufficiency. Why, Sir, it is within the
recollection of evei-y one here, that tlie wholj
of the speech of my friend the Finance
Minister, wherein he introduced his amend-
ments to the tariff, was in favour of the
proposition that there was no necessity, and
no need for any reform at all. He told us
that the formation of the tailff was perfect
in itself, that this country was enjoying
an unbounded measure of prosperity, and
that tfhis was all duo to the principle under-
lying the tariff, that is to say, the principle
of protection. For three hours, at least, the
hon. gentleman piled up facts upon facts
with the object of making us believe that
the country is prosperous ; for three
hours, at least, he wrestled, desperately
wrestled, with facts and logic, with the same
end In view. Why, Sir, you heard the hon.
gentleman driven to the expedient of giving
it as an evidence of prosperity, that dmring
the last fifteen years which the country has
been under a pi'otective regime, the finances
of the country balancea year after year by
surpluses which now aggregate t)ie enormous
sum of $20,000,000. This fact, which I do
not hesitate to say to the hon. gentleman. Is
nothing short of a disgrace and a shame for
the Administration, was treated by him as a
boast. I assert that such a condition of
things Is a shame and a disgrace to any Gov-
ernment. In England the aim and the pur-
pose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is
so to calculate the expense and the expendi-
ture as to make them balance evenly, and
the reputation of the Chancellor of the Ex-
clhequer would be lost for ever if, year after
year, his calculations were found to be
wrong. If, Instead of having just the rev-
enue which is wanted to meet the expendl-
tm*e, it was found that there was such a dis-
crepancy in his calculations as exists In Can-
ada, the reputation of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would; I repeat, be lost for ever,
unless he were able to show that the discrep-
ancy arose from a sudden disturbance In the
condition of business. What Is the truth
about these surpluses ? Twenty millions of
dollars, says the Finance Minister. The truth
is, that these surpluses represent $20,000,000
of unjust taxation, which have been wrung
by the Government from the consumers of
he country ; twenty millions of dollars which
would have been left in the pockets of the
people for the piu*pose of their own business,
for instance, to be applied to the redemption
of the mortgages with which the country has
been plastered during that term of years.
What Is the truth about these surpluses ? If
it is an evidence of prosperity that we should
have surpluses, why. In the name of common
sense, is the hon. gentleman to-day proposing
a reduction of duty, which places him, as he
says himself, in the face of a deficit ? The
truth Is, that if the hon. gentleman is now re-
ducing the duty, it is because the people have
seen the true inwardness of these surpluses ;
it is because the people are in earnest ,; it is

because they are determine<l to be relieved of
a system of taxation which Indeed produces
surpluses in the pockets of the Government.
Init which takes millions of money out of
their own pockets. But, Sir, even while my
hon. friend was indulging In these loud
boastings, which constituted— and I say it
without offence — the main part of his speecli ;
even at the moment while he was exhibiting
for the admiring gaze of his friends tliese
glowing pictures of prosperity, it was evident
that his vision was haunted by a pursuing
shadow. Even at the moment wliile he was
making use of liis exti'avagant language in en- '
comiums of the National Policy, the thought
must have struck him, that It was, after all, a
singular thing that one million of Canadians
had deserted this land of plenty. The thought
must have struck him, because he paused In
his laudatory refrain to notice that fact. He
tried to explain it away anyhow or some-
how, and the explanation whicli he gives, I
commend to both friend and foe ; I commend
it, not on accotmt of Its novelty, because there
was no novelty in it. We have often heard
it before ; we have heard It since. The expla-
nation was that If, after all, one million of
Canadians have ileserted this land of plenty,
this prosperous country of om-s, it was not
because their native land, wliich God had
made fertile, bad been made barren for
them by a vicious policy ; it was because the
Grits were decrying the country. But, Mr-
Speaker, I submit that If the Grits have
been decrying the country for the -last fif-
teen years, the Tories have not been mute
dogs by any means. They were extolling
the Naitional Policy to the skies. And yet,
in spite of all their assertions, the people
rather believed the Grits, who were decry-
ing the country, than the Tories, who were
proclaiming the country to be prosperous.
If I notice an argument of this kind, it is
not for the pm-pose of giving any answer
to it. It is simply to notice the great com-
pliment paid by my hon. friend to the policy
of the Liberal party. If my hon. friend
and his friends beside him are sincere, if
they believe that the country was as pros-
perous as they say it was, and if they be-
lieve at the same time, that, prosperous as
the country was, the people believed the
Grits who said it was not prosperous, what
a tribute that is to the hold that the Liberal
party have upon the people of this country.
Why, Sir, I do not wonder that the hon.
gentlemen opposite trembled in their boots
ast the Idea of the fate that would come to
them if only we could meet them at the
polls on fair terms, free from the gags of the
Geri'ymander Act, and the gags of the
Franchise Act, with the people in such a
position as to be able to give their opinions
at the polls as they have them in their minds
and hearts. Let me come to the speech of
my hon. friend, after this digression. There
was but one logical conclusion to that
speech ; it was to maintain in its en-
tirety the National Policy, which had

• ^ k. r

done 80 much, as ray hou. friend claimed,
to pi'omote the prosperity of the country.
And yet, strange to say, after having ex-
tolled for three lioiu's the National Policy
and the principle of protection, my hon.
friend concluded by announcing that the
Government had determined to lay sacri-
legious hands upon that sacred ark; though.
It Is true, my hon. friend proceeded at once
to give an excuse for such a sacrilege. The
excu.so was that since 1878 the conditions
of trade had somewhat changed, and it
was to meet tlie new conditions now exist-
ing that the amendments were offered. But,
Sir, I am within the judgment of every
man in this House when I assert that in
not a single instance, so far as any par-
ticular item was concerned, did he say any-
thing which would support his contention
that the change was necessitated by the
altei-ed conditions of. trade. No, Sir ; that
is not the true spirit whicli has moved my
hon. friend in making these changes. It
w^as not because he was convinced that the
conditions of trade had changed ; but, as
the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom, the fear of the people may be the
beginning of some wisdom on the pai't of
my hon. friend. It was simply because he
had the fear of the people before his eyes
that he determined to do something to
alleviate their discontent. But, Sir, my hon.
friend was between fear and fear— fear
of the peojjle on the one side, and fear of
the monopolists on the other side. Tossed
to and fro by those two conflicting inflnences,
thrown on one side and then on the other
— on one side to reduce the tariff, and on
the other side to maintain and even in-
crease it — between those two conflicting in-
fluences my hon. friend was not able to
come to a decision to propose a substantial
measure. He simply proposes a mei-e per-
functory measm-e, in which there Is not
enough to disturb, but not enough ^to afllord
to the people the measure of relief which
they had reason to expect at the hands of
the Government. But, Sir, I suppose it will
be said by hon. gentlemen on the other
side, what else are we to expect from the
Opposition ? We could not expect that they
would be satisfied ; and they are naturally
playing their own role in expressing their
dissatisfaction. I will presume, for the mo-
ment, Mr. Speaker,— though, perhaps I shall
not be pardoned for taking such a liberty—
to speak not as a member of the Opposition,
but I will endeavom" to place myself in the
position of those who, in 1878, were of
opinion that a change was necessary, and
that i)rotection should be ^ven a trial.
Placing myself in that position, I say that
if there were, in 1878, reasons for trying
the system of protection, there are now
overwhelming reasons why the policy then
adopted should be abolished— not changed
or altered, more or less partially, but abol-
ished in toto, and the principle thereof
wholly rooted out of the tariff. My hon.
friend, in the course of his speech, stated

i that the conditions of trade had changed
; since a878 ; but, so far as 1 remember, he
specified no such conditions in his comments
I on the alterations. But I will point out an
I alteration which has taken place since 1878
^ in the trade and production of the country
j —an alter.itlon of the gi'eatest consequence,
I which, in my judgment at least, is nothing
I short of an absolute revolution in the history
I of political economy. I refer to the enor-
I mous decline which 1ms taken place In the
\ price of wheat, and In the price of all cereals
i and agricultural products, since 1878. In
1878, and for some time afterwards, the
price of wheat was about ii!1.20 a bushel.
Of course, there were fluctuations and
variations, the price being sometimes above
and sometimes beJow that flgiu*e, but never
! very far from it. What is the price of
wheat to-day ? About 55 cents a bushel.
There have been jumps up and down, but
from year to year the price has shown
a steady decline until It has reached that
low figuie. Nor is it certain that it has
yet touched bottom, though there may be
reason to suppose that for some years to
come the present value will remain the
standard value. Now, before I proceed any
fm-ther I must remind the hon. gentlemen
on the other side that one of their objects
in adopting the protective system in 1878
was to Increase the price •f wheat, and
the price of cereals generally. It was con-
tended at that time that the cultivation of
wheat was not profitable, even at the price
which then ruled ; and it was their boast
that by the adoption of protection the price
would be increased to the producers. It
Is true, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen
opposite have chosen to forget that page of
history ; but, if they forget it, it only proves
that, apart from their other falliu*es, they
are afllicted also with a very deficient mem-
ory ; and you will find a deficiency of mem-
ory, even in quarters where you might least
expect it. There is my hon. friend from
West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) whose bril-
liant gifts we all admire. It is sad to re-
flect that those eminent gifts of his are
marred by an absolute want of memory.
The hon. gentleman looks at me with aston-
ishment. I was no less astonished when I
read the other day in the Montreal ' Star,'
an interview with him, in the com-se of
which he makes use of the following
language :—

In that year we never did what Sir Richard Cart-
wriglit on Friday night accused us of doing — say
that by duties we could raise the price of wheat in
a depressed market.

Wliy, it is true that In 1878 my hon. friend
from Western Assiniboia (Mr. Davln) was
not a member of this House, but he was
then, as he is to-day, a distinguished mem-
ber of his party. He defended its caUse with
pen and tongue ; he defended it in the press
and on the hustings. He was even a candl-

i date, though an unfortunate one, in 1878.

1 The position the hon. gentleman then took

he has since forgotten. He nas forgotten
the arguments which, I will not say Le made
use of, but which certainly he must have
heard In the mouths of his friends. Has
he forgotten that at that time it was pre-
dicted—probably by himself-thait if we had
a protective system, the land would he dot-
ted with tall chimneys, there would be labour
for the sons and daughters of Canada, and
not only that, but for the large Immigration
which would pour into our land from abroad ?
And t' .t the increase of labour would bo
mand un lnci*efl8ed production of food, and
that the price of wheat would be incroaaed
axjcordingly. If my hon. friend has forgotten
these arguments, I must conclude that, as it
is natural to man to readily believe what
he desires, it may be natural for him also
to forget what is unpleasant. AVhy, Sir, I
had the curiosity some few days ago to look
over the debates which took place at that
time, and I found a speech delivered then
by a gentleman who represented one of the
Hurons (Mr. Farrow), who repeated the
story told year after year in 1876, 1877 and
1878, that the price of wheat would be in-
creased by protection and dimlnislied by
free trade. And this sentence I found in one
of his speeches :

The following figures would sliow the relative
prines obtained under protection and fiee trade.
From 1849 to 1S61 — !i free inide period compara-
tively — the farmer obtained .§1.20 per bushel for
his wheat ; from !S()2 to 1874, a period under pro-
tection, he got an average of .§1.37 Jter bushel. "H

"Hiat was given as an evidence that if we
had protection, the price of wheat would be
increased. Well, shortly after the adoption
of the National Policy, the price of wheat
jaiaped from $1.20 to $1.40 per bushel. In
those days Mr. Rufus Stephenson repre-
sented the county of Kent, but has been taken
since to his reward— and in saying that, do
not imagine that I say he has been taken to
another world. On the contrary, he has re-
ceived the reward which very often awaits
a good supporter of th.. Government. He
has been provided with a good berth iu the
Civil SeiTlce. But Mr. Stephenson, finding
that the price of wheat liad Jumped from
$1.20 to $1.40, gave that as an evidence that
tlie National Policy had increased the price.
And in one famous speech which he delivered
in the province of Ontario, looking back to
what he had predicted and at the exlsnini;
facts, he imagined that he had been more u
prophet than he intended, more of a political
economist than he supposed ; and in a mo-
ment of exultant triumph, he exclaimed : I
am going to vote for the Govwnment which
has brought up the price of wheat' to $1.40.
Now, If Mr. Stephenson had not been taken
to his re,«vard, if he were still a member of
this House, with a parity of knowledge he
would have to say : I am going to vote
a^inst the Government which has lowered
llie price of wheat to 55 cents. I doubt very
iDuoh that he wotild do so. Perhaps, like

the hon. member for As.siniboia (Mr. Davin),
; he would rather take refugo against his
fonner record In the vacuum of his memory.
' But what is the cause of thia decline la the
price of wheat ? In the days of old, when
I Imperial Pome had a population of four mil-
lion souls, when it held sway over tlie whole
: then known unlvense, when It was not only
I the political, but the commercial centre of
' the world, It drew Its food supply from the
t lands washed by the basin of the Minllter-
I ranean, from Spain, Egypt, Sicily and even
that part of Africa now known as Timisia
and Algeria— lands which have long ago
ceased to be wheat-growing countries. In
the present day, England Is the great com-
mercial centre of the world, and llk(^ Rome
she cannot produce wheat enough for her
own consumption. She has to import It from
abroad, and for many years, apart from
what she got from her own territory, what
she wanted was obtained from tlie continent
of North America. But of late years, with
the facilities of transportation, to these for-
mer sources of supply have been added
others— chiefly the vast plains of southern
Russia, the numerous valleys of India, and
even the valley of the Plata River in South
America. Now, having so many sources to
draw from, It is not perhaps surprising that
wheat should have reached in England a
lower price than at any period Imown to
history. And at last we have the acknow-
ledgment— we had it even yesterday from
the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr.
Cockbum)— that the price of wheat In Can-
ada is regulated by the demand in England.
How often have I heard that proposition
contested in the days of old by the advocates
of the National Policy ? How often have I
heard it stated that the Government would
not be flies on the wheel, but would by their
policy, increase the price of wheat to the
consumers. Now, at last they are forced
to acknoy^ledge that all their pretensions
were pretensions only, that it Is not in their
power to increase the price of wheat, that
the price is regulated by the demand in the
English market. What is true of wheat is also
tnie of all other agricultural products, with
the exception, perhaps, of cheese and butter.
What is the conclusion we must arrive at ?
It la this, that to-day the price of wheat and
other cereals h;is been decreased to tlie far-
mer almost one-half, and that his profit has
been decreased to one-half what it was in
1878. Such being the case with regard to
tlie position of the farmer, his income being
diminished by more than one-half, how is it
with what he has to buy ? Hon. gentlemen
opposite are strong i'l denial, but they will
not longer deny, that the primary object of
protection was to increase the price of
commodities— to increase the profits to the
manufacturers on the articles tlie farmer has
to buy. It is true that the farmer was pro-
mised that he would be recouped, even if he
had to pay a little more for his commodities,
by the Increased price of wheat. But such
has not been the case, the tariff has not in-

<i .^k «

■ '*-••.'-■ •r,-,, ^ f?^ iT.'T^'^'^'' "

oroasGtl the price of wheat and other cereals,
because Canada produces a surplus of agi"i-
cultural prodttcts, and the price Is regulated
by the Eaf^llsh market. Xot so, however, with
manufactured goods. Though I admit that
the price of manufactured goods, even la
tills country, must be the price in England,
still to this muBt always be added the cost
of trauspoi'tatlon, which Is imavoidable, and
the amount of duty which Is avoidable.

Mr. FOSTER. All avoidable ?

^Iv. LAURIER. Yes, when it is ralsml, as
you gentlemen are raising it, not for revenue,
but simply to favour special Interests.

&£r. FOSTER. Then It is not all avoidable.

Mr. LAURIER. But a protection tariff
is avoidable. Cf course there Is a limit,
and that Is the neot^ssity of the revenue.
That, however, is not the limit set by the
hon. gentleman. But we are told also that
the prices of manx^factured goods are being
decreased. I have no hesitation in ad-
mitting that the prices of manufactured
jioods have decreased ; but, even ?_ the
lines in which they have most decreased,
the cost of transportation and the amount of
the duty cause them to be, as I have stated,
from 30 to 40 per cent more than the price
of these goods In England. Now, Sir, If the
tariff had operated the same all round; if
it had affected the prices of agi-lcultural
products and manufacturing products alike;
If It had either increased or decreased the
prices of both, the position of the farmer
would be better than it Is. But, It Is not
so, as I have ah'eady said. The produce of
the farmer has been driven to the lowest
point, but what he has to buy Is sold to
him at an Increased price as compared with
the price In England. What Is the lesson to
be deduced from this state of things. It is
this: (and this Is the proposition we rely
upon on this side of the House) as the price
of agricultural products has been reduced
to the lowest point, it should be the aim
of the tariff to reduce the prices of manu-
factured goods also to the lowest point. The
farmer is bound by his circumstances to
sell In the freest and cheapest market; so
also ought he to be privileged to buy In
the cheapest market consistent only with
the Imposition of such duties as are neces-
sary for raising the revenue of the country.
That Is the proposition on which we stand,
and it Is a proposition perfectly fair, per-
fectly just, perfectly equitable— so fair, so
just, so reasonable and so equitable, that
the Government dare not attack It openly.
And yet they cannot adopt it. Why? Be-
cause they are chained and yoked to a sys-
tem which is the reverse of just and fair
and equitable. Why, Sir, I will take the
policy of my hon. friend the Minister of
Finance as set forth by himself. He. said
there were three methods of raising revenue:

_^Oue is to have simple fi-c<; trade, iiiuler whicli
you have no oustoms imposts at ail. the revenue

iieeeHS.iiy foi [tlie ct>uiitry lieing raLseil by direct
taxntiiiii.

We had supi)osed up to the time the hon.
gentleman spoke that this was the English
system. We supposed this upon the author-
ity of Sir Robert Peel. Richard Oolxlen.
Bright and Gladstone. But, my hon. friend
says, all these authorities are in error, that
they have not free trade In England— that
they have what he calls a revenue tariSf.
I shall not discuss that with my hon. friend.
I shall accept the opinion of the English
people that they have free ti'ade. But,
whatever system they have In England,
whether It Is free trade or revenue tariff,
my hon. friend and the Government will
have none of It. And why? They give us
reasons. One of their reasons Is that Eng-
land Is going down all the time under such
a system. The hon. Minister of Marine and
Finance gave his reasons. I hope his opin-
ions are not shared by all the gentlemen on
the other side, but. If they agree with him,
I do not wonder that they say we should
not imitate the example of England. He
gave his reasons In plain language. He toM.
us that the British nation under free trade
Is no longer able to compete with the civil-
ized nations of Europe, but that she is driven
to spend raillions upon her army and her
navy in order to force her trade upon un-
willing savages in the uncivilized countries
of the world.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.

Mr. LAURIER. Yes ; here is the language
used by the hon. gentleman :

Driven from the eivilizod markets of tlie world,
steadily and every year finding tlieir output to those
markets decreasing, tlicy spend millions on their
navy, and millions on tlieir army, to force then-
wares, and tlieir goods, and tlieir merchandise, into
the uncivilized markets of tlie world.

Sir, I never yet heard the fair name of the
great nation so slandered and insulted. At
least I never heard the name of England
so insulted by a man of English blood. The
charge was not new to me; I had read it in
the pages of continental pamphleteers; but
I am stu'e we were not prepared to hear it
from the mouth of a man of English blood.
And such a man! A Conservatiye; a Tory; a
member of the Imperial Federation League;
a member of the Canadian Privy Council;
an aspirant, perhaps, to the British Privy
Council; a K.C.M.G.. and a preacher of loy-
alty in season and out of season ! And is
this really the estimate of hon. gentlemen
on the othar side, is this really what they
believe to be the commercial condition of
England? Po they really believe, as stated
by the hon. Mlruster, that England is no
longer able to hold her own with the civilized
nations of the earth? Do they believe that
the soldiers and the sailors of England,
whose banners bear the proud inscriptions of
Malplaquet and Ramilles, Aboukh* and Tra-

falgar, the Noldiers who once met the steel
of the mo8t fainuuin troops of the v/orld,
under the greatest general of modern times,
perhaps the Toatoat general of all times, are
now employed in forcing upon helploss l)ar-
barlaus the wares and products of Sbeflield
and Mnnctiuster. It is a slander. There was a
time indeLHl when England, then having a higli
tariff, found closoil against her trade, by the
power of Napoleon, the hai'bours of France,
Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, and even of
a part of Germany. These harbours she
opened by the strength Of her arms. And
the hon. gentleman would tell us now tliat
the great nation whose motto in the modern
world seems to have been borrowed from that
of the ancient Romans— "Debellare suporbos"
— nmst retire before the competition of other
nations and use her army and her navy to
force an undosirod trade upon helpless
savages and inferior races. I say that to-
day England is armed to fight the liostile
tariffs of Europe. She has a weapon more
potent by far than tlie weapons of her most
valiant warriors. That weapon Is the prin-
ciple of freedom of trade, which enables her
to manufacture at a cheaper rate than any
nation In the world, and to overcome all
the diiSculties tliat are placed in her way.
The hon. gentleman spoke of Prince Bis-
marck and said that Bismarck, having the
choice between the English system and the
American system, chose the American sys-
tem of protection. So he did, and a great
service he rendered to his counti'y In doing
•so ! Look at Germany to-day, torn by the
factions of Socialism, which Is the direct
outcome of protection. It Is true, I admit,
that some industries In England have
at times been injured by the hostility
of foreign tarlflfe. But the Injury aimed at
England redounded with ten-fold force upon
the nations which inflicted it. You have
spoken of Bismarck. Yes; we have greater
Blsmarcks and smaller Blsraarcks in this
world. Prince Bismarck wanted to create
for Germany a national Industry, a special
Industry, that of beet-root sugar. He com-
menced to do what was done by gentlemen
opposite— he placed an enormous customs
duty on foreign sugar; and. not satisfied
with that, he Induced the German Parlia-
ment to vote considerable export boimtles
upon German sugar. And thus, one day,
the English market was flooded with Ger-
man sugar, which was sold there at a price
lower than the English refiners could pro-
duce It for. There wa.s naturally some
commotion among the English refiners. They
went to see the Government and represented
that It was impossible for them to compete
with the German refiners, fed as these were
by boimtles. If the Government In England
had been composed of the school of
hon. gentlemen opposite they would have
said: What! German sugar coming to Eng-
land! Englishmen are too patriotic to eat
German sugar. England for the English-
men! We will have none of It! But they

said nothing of the kind. On the contrary.
' they said: Well, if the German Government
is willing to tax the (Jerman people in order
to supply the British people with sugar at a
dumper rate than it can bo produced for
Ijerc, we cannot see that it Is a very great
injury to the English people. If the Ger-
innns are foolisli enough to prefer such an
arrangement, why should we complain?
The refiners were not daunted. Tljey pur-
chased all the German sugar that was in tho
market, they converte<l it into Jam, into
jelly and Into preserves, wlilch they sent
back to the Germans at an increased profit;
and it has been proved that there were
nu)re people employed In England in pro-
ducing jams, jelly and preserves than there
had been in refining sugar. The hon. gen-
tleman tells us that he wants neither a
revenue tariff nor a free trade policy, but
that he wants a protective tariff. Let me
again quote his language :

The other ami third luetliotl is tiie protective
tiiri6F, l)y which yon select a certain list of articles
and y)lace upon them certain rates of impost with
a \ iew to raiding a certain amount of money for tiie
services of the co\intry, but nmro especially with
this view, that whilst you raise the amount of
money that is necessary for the country, you sliall
stimulate the <levelopment of the resources of tiie
country, you shall nuike ito industrial life liroad
and diversitieil, and progressive.

Sir, this sounds very well, and as a mere
assemblage of words It can hardly be ex-
celled. If the object of the hon. gentleman
Is to develop the Industries of the country
by a policy which will give favour to no
one and which will hinder no one, I am
with him with all my heart, but that is
not the policy of the hon. gentleman. He
wants to develop the industries of the coun-
try, but In what way? By Increasing the
cost of commodities, by compelling tlie peo-
ple to purchase at a higher price at home
than they could obtain the same goods
elsewhere. Well, I admit that with such
a system he might develop special indus-
tries, but I assert that he will stlfie the
growth of the country. What has been
the experience of oiu* north-west country?
Surely no one will pretend that Manitoba
and the North-west Territories have realized
that amount of prosperity which was expect-
ed for them at one time. It was expected
that In the year 1894 Manitoba and the
North-west Territories would have a popula-
tion of 600,000 souls at least, and you know
what a beggarly number were found there at
the last census. More than that, you have
developed the east at the expense of the
west. Why Is It that the growth of that
country has been stunted? It Is simply be-
cause In order to favom: certain industries
In the east you have prevented the people
In that country from acquiring their goods
at as cheap a rate as they could get them
under a freer system of trade. But there
Is another objection to the system of the

hon. gentleman, and perhaps a more serious
objection In a certain way. One of the
most serious objections to the protective sys-
tem followed by the hon. gentleman is this:
that It Induces the investmont of capital in
industries wliich are not congenial to the
soil, whicli cannot stand by themselves,
which have to be sripported at all times
out of the taxes of the people. I can
point out to the hon. gentleman a number
of instances of that kind ; T will only take
one or two. Take, for instance, the coal
oil Industry. Coal oil is taxed in this ooim- 1
try 7Vi cents a gallon. Last year we im- 1
ported $430,000 worth, and we paid just as i
much In duty as the value of the goods, that
Is to say, we paid a duty of 100 per cent. ;
Well, as a revenue tariff, this would be out-
rageous; in fact, If the duty were decreased !
by one-half or two-thirds, we would have i
more revenue than we have now on coal j
oil. This Is not, therefore, a revenue tarifl".
It has been Imposed altogether for protection, i
and for nothing else. Even yet, though ;
there is a duty of 100 per cent on that }
article, that Is not all. Other obstacles j
have been put In the way of the Importation i
of coal oil, amounting to as much, perhaps, i
as the present tariff. It is calculated upon |
good authority, that the protection afforded
to coal oil Is 200 per cent, at least. Well,
Sir, It is a fact well kno^vn, that Canadian
oil cannot be produced as cheaply as Am-
erican oil. But what has been the effect
of all this? Why, that by the protection
which has been given against foreign oil,
you have Induced the Investment in the oil
regions of a million dollars In capital, and
now It Is said that you cannot remove that
protection because that capital will be wiped
out. That may be true, but If It be true
that Canadian coal oil cannot maintain itself
against American competition without pro-
tection, I say it Is all the more an. evidence
of the pernicious effect of a protective sys-
tem; the pernicious effect is this, that you
cannot remdve the protection without, to
some extent, endangering a large portion of
the capital of the country. Well, I admit
that is always a gi-ave Issue, and a thing
which has to be carefully considered. I
am clear upon one thing, and that is that
such protection, such taxation as this. Is
unjust; but, at the same time, I am also free
to say that, though the tariff in this respect
has to be reformed, it has to be reformed
cautiously, so as to effect the minimum of
injury, and, if possible, no injm'y at all. I
would not be the man to say, much as I
deprecate the protective system, much as I
believe It to be injurious to the well-being
of the country— I would not be the man to
say that It should be wiped out at one fell
swoop.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.

Mr. LAURIER. I am surprised at these
exclamations. I say that protection should
not be removed at one fell swoop ; but the

difference between the hon. gentleman and
myself Is that they are not prepared to re-
move it even at a gradual swoop. I would
have no fault to find with these amendments
to the tariff so far as they go ; I would
have no fault to Ilnd if the Government
did not toll us that they are going to main-
tain the principle of protection. If they
were proposing gradually to remove -or
abolish the principle of protection, I
would be wltli tliem, but that Is not
their policy. As the hon. member for West
Assiniboia (Mr. Davln) knows very well, this
is not a system of scientific protection, it is
protection without any science In it at all.
Vvhat I say about coal oil I also say about
the Iron duty. How many years Is It now?
Six or seven years, since the Iron duties were
remodelled, remodelled to be Increased by 50,
60 and sometimes 100 per cent. Now, with
what object ? With the object of develop-
ing in this country the manufacture of pig
iron and of bar Iron. No one has forgotten,
I am sure, the great floiirlsh of trumpets
with whloh those duties were heralded into
the world; no one has forgotten, I am sure,
the language of Sir John A. Macdonald and
Sir Charles Tapper on that occasion. We
know how Sir Charles Tupper rolled flgm'es
off his tongue, but he never rolled them off
as he did on that occasion. Why, we almost
heard the roar of the smelting fui-naces, we
almost smelt the smoke of the charcoal that
was to be used In them. There were to be
200,000 men employed in that industry. Well,
after six or seven years, what has been the
result? The same company who received
that amount of protection are again com-
ing to the Government, and, like Oliver
Twist, they are asking for more. It has
only whetted their appetite. If you in-
crease the tariff, as I hope it will not be In-
creased, the consequence will be that in a
few days, in a lew years, you will have
more capital invested In this industry, and
you will not be able to remove that protection,
because they will come here and say: Don't
touch us ; if you do, you will wipe away all
the capital we invested in these industries.
Now, I want to prevent these consequences
to om-selves. I say that a system is false
which can produce such results as these.
But that is not all. There is something
worse than all that in a protective tariff.
We charge upon the protective tariff— and no
one knows it better than the hon. the Minis-
ter of Finance— that It Is base and degrading.
Under such a system the Government de-
liver themselves into the hands of masters
who are stronger than they, and who hold
them fast in submission ; and whenever
the Government moke, some attempt at re-
bellion, Immediately their masters take them
by the throat and force them back into bond-
age; and then when they have been forced
back into bondage, covered with confusion
and shame, they wotild have the
people believe that their attempts at
freedom were not genuine, not sin-

core, but mere "clorlwil crroi-H." Cleri-
cal «>rror. forHooth V I tell the hon.
guntlcniiin that the country rn'os throiiKli the
pbrnao. uiitl will not ucoept tiio bus*' ix-
plnnntlon and tlie fri.'tleHs huinllintlon. Cleri-
cal error I Wuh It a clerical cr^jr wlilrli lii-
dncod tho hon. ^eutlcman Hume iVw tlays
ago to reduce the duty on denuKTiitlc wajfous
from !15 per cent to 2.') per cent V 'I'hat re-
duction In tho duty waH pn>i)oHed in a iiii»-
ment, not of weakneHS, but of fairness ; but
Immediately he lienrd the eraek of the min-
isterial whip over hfS head the riiiance Min-
ister was forced Into the humiliating c(»ndl-
tlon of condnjr hack and placiu); a«aln on
the farmers' HhoiUders the duty which he
Intended to remove. WaH It a clerical error
also In regard to teu, I want to know, or
what Is It ? The hon. jjentlenmn the other
day brotJKht down his tariff respiK'ting tea
in such a ndld and xmobtruslve manner that
no one uotlcetl the departure from the old
policy. For the last twenty years tea and
co£Fee have been fi-ee, with the exception
that when Imported from tho UnJtetl States
they have been subject to a duty of 10 per
cent, and from the manner In which the
hon. gentleman made the announcement I,
for my part, supnose<l he was re-enactlnj,'
the old policy without any chanpe. ,But
what are the facts ? As the tariff Is now
constituted, It Is Intended to levy a tax uf
10 per cent on the tea and coffee which
oom^s from Eu};land. For what object,
1 want to know ? According to the figures
of last year's importations, such a duty col<
lected on tea and coffee would yield a re-
venue of over $140,000. Is that the object,
or is it not ? We have been told by some of
the ministerial organs that the object is not
to levy a duty on tea coming from England,
but that the object is simply to build up a
trade with the east, to import om* tea direct
from Ghlna and Japan. I want to know, I
ask the Finance Minister, or any man in
his senses, what object can we in th^s coun-
try have In destroying an industi'y only to
build up another, to prevent a man from
bringing in tea from England and compel
him to buy it in China or Japan. What ob-
ject can we have In compelling our tea to
be purchased in the east or rather the west.
I very much suspect that there is a nigger
in the fence, and that he will be discoveretl.
The Finance Minister has taken some pride,
and I do not blame him, for he has been
showered with compliments, for having re-
moved specific duties. I do not think, how-
ever, he deserves all of them. I confess
that the hon. gentleman has removed the
most iniquitous duties, the infamous duties
upon woollen and cotton goods ; but the
hon. gentleman has still left in the tariff
that iniquity called a specific duty. He has,
moreover, introduced in the tariff some of
specific duties, which he passed over very
gently, but which I suspect will press with
tb.e greatest weight on the consuming class.
ITiere was a duty on syrup last year of 1%
cents per gallon on the lower grade, which

Is worth 10 centH a gnllon. this duty amount-
1 Ing to ahotit l'» i>er cent. N«)W the duty on
Hyrup Is placed at Vj a cent \h;v pound, not
per gallon. I want to know what Is the
rtMiHOii that has induced the (Jovernmmt lo
chaime till' specUlc duty from gallon to
potuul V What is concealed underneath V In
a gallon there are 14 pounds, and at % a
! cent per pound the duty will bo equal t«i
' 7 cents |)er gallon, and on syrup worth 10
cents per gallon this will be equivalent to
a duty of 70 per cent, which the poon-r
classes of tho consumers will have to pay.
i So I say that though we are removing a good
Ideal of the anomaly connected with the
; specific duties, yet there Is a great deal yet
to be removed, and which I ho|)e will be re-
moved before we have concluded the re-
vision of this tariff. But I am aakeil per-
haps, what is your own policy on all these
matters, what Is the policy of the Liberal
party ? The policy of the lilberal party Is
not ft'c(? trado absolutely, as In England, I
am sorry to say. This Is the Ideal, this Is
the goal which we will reach some day. u
long time perhaps, but towards which we
are turning our eyes and are directed at the
present time. Itut while we must for a giKul
many years still continue to levy revenue
by customs duties, I say even at this moment
while levying duties fi-om customs. It Is pos-
sible to do so upon the principle of free-
dom of trade. I challenge, we challenge,
as completely and absolutely false and vic-
ious, the prlncii)le adopted by hon. gentle-
men opposite, that duties should be levied,
not for revenue, but simply to favour special
Interests. Om- policy is to levy duties, not
for special interests, but for the general good
of the community. I say this, that under
such a tariff even mantifactm*ers will have
a better field than under the present .system.
"\\'Tien manufacturers know tiiat duties are
Imposed for revenue and are not therefore
raised oh revenue at the caprice of tiie Gov-
ernment, and are not liable to be removed
from one day to another, they will have a sta-
bility In business which they have not un-
der the policy pm-sued to-day. Take, for
example, the agricultural Implement manu-
facturer. He has his protective duty ; he
knows what it is. He knows what the cost
of production will be, but a man comes to
the Finance Minister and says : Mr. Fin-
ance Minister, I want to establish a special
industry, to develop a great trade, and 1 de-
sire to have a duty on a certain article. We
all know the ordinary phrases used. I will
employ so many hands, give increased em-
ployment, develop the resources of the coun-
try. The result may be that the duty is
increased, and 40, 50, or 100 industries are
thereby placed in Jeopardy, When we have
a tariff for revenue only there will be, as
I have said, a security which does not exist
at the present moment under the policy of
the hon, gentlemen opposite, I desire to re-
fer for a short time to the hon. member for
West AsslniboUi (Mr, Davin), who the oiber
day in his speech fired a shot at me, by

i)MHi>rtlux Unit utice upon ii tinio aH a yoiuiK
iniiu I hud iH'en a i)rote(!tl(>nlHt. Well, I niu
iilwnyM uverMo to (lIsfUHHluK my owu persoutil
oplnlous or my |)(>rMoiml iiffiilrH on thu Hour
of riirllunu'iit, but I havo too much roHpcct
for the word8 of tlie hon. nicmbi'r not to
KlTo nil niiHWor to which ho In t'lititliHl ut
uiy hitiuls. Let mo suy ut once th:it I iiin
Bomcwhiit Hui'prlHed to hcu tlie hon. Kenlle-
iniin iu hl8 prc'Bent position. Only a few
numtliH uKo my hon. friend announced to
thu world that be wnti entering Into a cini-
Hude In favour of tariff reform, his objeet
beluK to Hecuro sclentlllo protection. IIus he
found it ? The hon. Kcntlcman did not tell
us HO the other day, ho foimd protection, but
uo science In chauging the tariff. The hon.
Keutleman only shows after uU tliat a man
may be great In learning In certain direc-
tions, Imt his heart may fall him when he
comes to curry out his projects. The hon.
gentleman also shows that a man may be
good at preaching and poor at practising.
He Is the Teter the Hermit of the new
crusade. Peter the Hermit aroused the whole
of Western Europe against the east, and
raised an army to accompany him to rescue
the holy sopulchre. But he weakened before
he reached the goal. After leaving the con-
fines of Europe, when his army was In
straightened circumstances, and suffering
from famine, he lost his head, he grew faint
at heart, and deserted the camp and sought
a hiding-place. The crusaders followed him
and brought him back to camp, and made
him swear not to desert the cause he had
preached. Shall we not bring the hon, gen-
tleman back into camp and make him swear
he will not again offend V I am afraid, how-
ever, we shall have to perform the duty
without him. The hon. gentleman has made
the charge against me, that in my young
days I was a protectionist, a charge as to
which I have to offer neither denial, nor
defence, nor justification. If it be a crime
as you advance in life to think and reflect,
and by thought and reflection to review the
ideas of younger age, and to substitute for the
Inexperienced views of youth the more calm
and more deliberate opinions of mature a'j;e,
I have to plead guilty of many crimes of that
kind ; because apart fi'om political economy
many are the subjects as to which I do not
hold now the views which I held twenty-flve
yea re ago ; and if I had to commence ray
career anew, In the light of the experience
which I have acquired many I hope are the
mistakes I would avoid. I have to say to
my hon. friend from West Asslnibola (Mr.
Davin), that if In this respect he has beeJi
more fortunate than I have been, I do not
envy his good fortune at all, but I hold that
I have not grown older in vain, and that I
am wiser to-day than I was twenty-flve years
ago. If I wanted to Justify myself there
are the moat illustrious names of the world
that would come to my lips : the name of
Robert Peel, the name of Gladstone, and
what more could I want. But, Sir, 1 do not
stand upon this ground at all. I stand upon

w L 2

the gnnmd of principle and the condition of
tlie eoiuitry. What in It that Is wanto«l to-<lay
111 Canada to develop Oanada as she ought
to l)t> develiiprd ? It h iiojiulaiion and
nothing elHc. Then* liav(> Iteen a Herlen of
letters published In the Ijoiuloti 'Times,'
which perhaps members (»f this House have
all H(H.'n, but ther(> Is u H(«ntenc(> to which I
shall specially call their attention. Speaking
of Canada It says :

Hor u(iuiim)(<nt for intorniil dovcloptncnt U ox-
culluiit, lint I thu greati'Mt wiiiit tthu liiut in luck rtf
population.

Population is our greatest lack ; what we
want Is population. And, Sir. when I con-
sider that once I was a protectlunlst In ray
younger days, and when 1 coiislder that
during a decade from 1871 to 18SI under n
revenue tariff the incrwise of population In
Canada was 1.3 per cent, and that during the
decade from 1881 to 18))l undc'r u protective
tariff, this increase of population fell down
from 13 to per cent ; I also remember the
fatuous words of Victor Hugo, when he said :
The absurd man Is ho who never chang<?s ;
and I leave it to gentlemen on the other sliie
of the I f ouse to remain, protectionist In the
fsice of these facts.

Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend has not met
my charge.

Mr. DEVLIN. Your charge is discharged.

Mr. LAURn<]R. Mr, Speaker, the hon.
gentleman also stated that in 1872

Mr. .DAVIN. Mr. Speaker, may I rise to
onler ?

Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.

Mr. DAVTN. I am In perfect order. Tlio
hon. gentleman professed to state a charge
that I made against him. If he will permit
me to say so— of course it was unintentional
on his part—he has not stated ray charge,
and I think it is in perfect order that I
should say what the charge was, ITie charge
was not that in the course of twenty years
he changed his mind ; but that a few years
after proclaiming himself a protectionist ami
in favour of a number of other thlu'-^s, he
went into Mr, Mackenzie's Government and
was as silent as that desk.

Mr. LANDERKIN. It would bi> a ble8.««ed
thing if you could got into some place like
that.

Mr. LAURIER. Well, Sir, I am sorry to
say that there Is not anything more to the
charge as amended, than as it was preferred
before. The hon. gentleman (Air. Davin)
stated that in 1872, the Liberals of liower
Canada while they were assembled in Mont-
real laid down a platform and adopted as a
basis of that platform the policy of protec-
tion. I deny the charge in toto. I deny the
charge wholly. I am sure my hon. friend
has nrtt gone into the records. He must have
it from the pickings of newspapers in Lower

Oanada, but be never found it amon^' the
real faots. On ihe oonti'ai7, the Liberals of
the district of Quebec bave always been in
favour of free trade, and as far back as
1847 the Liberal Association, which at that
time wns presided over by a gentleman who
left an honoured name among us, Hon.
B6n6 Garou, afterwards Lieutenant tJovei--
nor of Quebec, issued a manifesto in whlcii
I read this :

What tli^ firmnew and wifidom of tiie Liberal
party liave accomplished wi.,h regard to these
matters, as well as tlie adinissinn of the respon-
sibility of the executive advisers, must he for all
L'ljerals an indication of what they will be able to
achieve through a more active organization and a
more vigorous expression of public opinion in
favour of these reforms now required by the pre-
sent condition of affairs.

And the third article of the maulfeeto was
this:

Free trade with all the world and the free navi-
gation of the St. Lawrence.

This manifesto was issued by the Liberals
of Quebec, who were of the school of Mr.
Lafontaine. I am free to admit that in the
district of Montraal the ideas of Mr. Papl-
neau prevailed, and there was a marked
tendency In favour of protection, and In so
far as I am concerned, I admit that I have
been brought up in the school of Mr. Papl-
neau, but time and again for twenty years
at least I have declared in Lower Oanada
that I was a disciple of Mr. Lafontalue.
Why should I not hear the whole truth as
to this. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davln) ac-
cuses me of having changed my views upon
protection. He said a moment ago that 1
wi.>te protection in the newspaper 'Le De-
f rieheur.' I never wr. ; a word about pro-
tection In 'Le Defrioneur,' but I made :«
speech once, I remember, in 1871 in the L -
glslature of Quebec. That was the only
speech which I ever made upon that ques-
tion in which I brought up the views held
by Mr. Paplneau and wLlch I had derived
from him ; and I am surprised, I must say,
that the loyaJ gentlemen who support the
Government should reproach me for not now
holding the views which I held then. Sir,
it Is a well-known fact in Lower Canada,
and to those who know anything of the
history of Canada : that Mr. Paplneau.
prior to the rebellion of 1837, laid down as
his doctrine that we should buy nothing from
England. And when I spoke in the Legis-
lature of Quebec, coming flush with youth
and victory, I stated that at that time there
was as much reason to adhere to the policy
of Mr. Paplneau as in the yt«ar 1837. But,
Mr. Speaker, what did I find ? When I went
to th: ff.cts I found that Mi-. Paplneau had

not introduced that doctrine for any reason
of political economy, but simply for political
reasons to fight the British Oovernment and
to force them to give us that protection for
our liberties which we required, or else to
force the country into independence. Shall
I read the resolution moved at the famous
meeting held on the 7th of May, 1837 ; a re-
solution which was not moved by a French-
man, but by an Englishman, Dr. Wilfred
Nelson. It was as follows :—

That the measure of Lord John Rur-iftcll, which
takes away from the Asaembly all conti'4)l over tliis
revenue, is a flagrant violation of all the rights
granted to Lower Canada by the capitulation and
the trt ! ty.

That he Government which can adopt such
violent measures and thus destroy right, by force
and violence, is a contemptible Government un-
worthy of respect and even of allegiance.

That the people of Lower Canada will refrain as
much as possible from the consumption of imported
articles, and will make use of products manufac-
tured in the country so as to deprive the Govern-
ment of the revenue which it is its hope to obtain
by collecting the duties imposed on foreign goods.

Now, Sir, that was a political object as I
said, and not an object of political economy,
and now that we have obtained all the Uber-
tles which we were striving for then, I
leave it to gentlemen on the other side of
the House to pursue the policy of buying
nothing from England, a policy which to-day
they are pursuing with a vengeance. Hlrher-
to their policy has been, not to buy any-
thing from England ; and their defence h is
been : that they applied this policy only
to such goods as we p'-oduced In this coun-
try In order to force their production hei'e.
But to-day they have gone a step further,
and when they tax tea, it Is not for the
purpose of promoting the growth of that
article. This is the defence which I have
to make on that point. Now, Sir, I have
only this more to say : Speaking here in
the maturity of my years and in the maturity
of my convictions, formed, as I hope, by
deep reflection and thought, I say this— and
in sayhig it I am voicing the sentiments
of all the Liberals in this coimtry— that what-
ever may be our future relations with Eng-
land—whether wo remain as we are to-day,
or whether the bond between us becomes
closer or looser— it shall always be our aim
and pm-pose to cultivate and maintain and
promote, not only the most friendly senti-
ments, but also the most ample business re-
lations with the great nation which, not-
withstanding all that may be said by hon.
gentlemen opposite to the contrary, is to-day
by all odds the foremost commercial power
that the world has ever seen.