IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 7 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 // 
 
 / 
 
 o 
 
 <' MP. 
 
 >■' m?- 
 
 <. 
 
 ^^' M 
 
 s 
 
 W- 
 
 W.r 
 
 m. 
 
 V. 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 /5 '™^= 
 
 12.5 
 
 iM IIIII2.2 
 
 IIM 
 
 IHO 
 
 12,0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 <4 6" 
 
 
 ► 
 
 
 
 */ ^ 
 
 c/^, 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
Q, 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques at bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy wnich 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. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 □ Covers damaged/ 
 Couvertura endommagee 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de conleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured f. ' <s and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches e u illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli^ avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interiot margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la 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^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas et6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplementaires. 
 
 □ 
 
 n 
 
 7 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de coulaur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculees 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tach^es 
 
 HShowthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualite inegale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Sei)le 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 partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de facon ^ 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed st the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est fil-nd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 lOX 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
3 
 
 Stalls 
 3 du 
 odifier 
 ■ une 
 mage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 Les linages suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont if* couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et &n terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenqant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ♦- signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 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, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque \y document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 irrata 
 to 
 
 pelure. 
 
 □ 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
House of Commons 3Pe(iate$* 
 
 "iHlRD SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT. 
 
 SPEECH OF MK. LAURIER, M.P. 
 
 ON 
 
 THE BUDGET 
 
 TUESDAY, 28th FEBRUARY, 1893. 
 
 Mr. LAURIEB.. I promised yesterday to 
 my hon. friends opposite that we should come 
 to a division upon this question this even- 
 ing. Therefore it will not be out of place If, 
 at this stage, before we reach a conclusion, 
 I should endeavour to review the situation and 
 see exactly where we stand. When, the other 
 day, the hon. member for South Oxford 
 opened the debate on this side, he stated, 
 and statM ti-uly, that great and unusual 
 this year had been the exception 
 with which the Budget speech had been 
 awaited, but that greater still had been 
 the disappointment which followed. It 
 would be a misnomer, however, to call 
 the speech with which the Minister of 
 Finance moved the House into Committee of 
 Ways and Means, ilie Budget speech. The 
 hon. gentleman, I am sure, will agree with 
 me that it had none of the characteristics, 
 none of the essentla^d of what we xmderstand 
 by a Budget speech. There was nothing in 
 It of the flD'nclal condition of the countiy; 
 thero was noialng of the proposed expendl- 
 tm*e for the coming year, and there was cer- 
 tainly no estimate whatever of the probabla 
 revenue. It was not a Budget speech, but a 
 special plea. It was a carefully prepared 
 apology for the National Policy, and when 
 the hon. gentleman concluded by stating, that 
 apart from two small modifications, no change 
 would take place in the tariff, but that the 
 people would have one year more to drink 
 at the cup of the National Policy and taste 
 to the dregs of its blessings, great was the 
 disappointment, not only throughout the land, 
 but even on the faces of some of the hon. 
 gentlemen opposite, who had begged and 
 prayed the hon. gentleman that this cup 
 might pass away from them. Indeed, so 
 great, so loud and so persistent had been the 
 demand for reform of the tariff, not only 
 from all parts of the coimtry, but even from 
 the ruiks of hon. gentlemen on the other side, 
 
 that my hon. friend was forced to notice it, 
 but he noticed it simply to say that he could 
 not accede to it. He promised, however, that 
 ho would do so some time, perhaps next year 
 —but be was not sure— but in the meantime 
 he would cogitate, he wotild ponder, he would 
 consider, he would inquire, and his inquii-lng, 
 his considering, his pondering, might perhaps 
 take shape in some definite form of action, 
 at some indefinite time. In the meantime, the 
 yoke of taxation is to remain as heavy as it 
 was upon the shoulders of the people; in the 
 meantime, the blessings of the National Policy 
 are to weigh upon the people. What else was 
 to be expected from the. hon. gentleman? 
 What else is to be expected fi'om him in the 
 future Why, Sir, three-fourths of the speech 
 of the hon. gentleman was devoted to the ar- 
 duous task of con\Tncing the people that they 
 are prosperous. Rachel of old would not be 
 consoled because her children were no more ; 
 and the people cannot be convinced because 
 that prosperity, of which they hear so much, 
 is not there. As to my hon. friend, I do not 
 doubt his sincerity whatever. I am quite 
 sure he believes the people are prosperous. I 
 am quite sure tbat, by dint of repeating and 
 again repeating that the people are prosper- 
 ous, he has become the victim of his own 
 preacliing and has convinced himself of what 
 he has failed to convince others, and if he is 
 really sincere, as no doubt he is, in thinking 
 that the people are prosperous, why should 
 he make any change? It would be madness 
 and folly for him to changa a state of things 
 which has brought about this prosperous con- 
 dition of the people in which his own imag- 
 ination delights. When hon. gentiemen op- 
 posite talk of prosperity, they argue much 
 as James the Second did. According to Ma- 
 caulay, you remember, James the Second 
 commenced by asserting a proposition, and 
 aa often as wiser men showed him that It 
 was erroneous, he asserted It again, con- 
 
colring that thereby he had dispelled ul! 
 objections. It is very much the same with 
 hon. geiHl'Mnen. They assume that the coun- 
 try is prosporous, and as often as wiser men 
 tiudeavoiu" to show them that their position is 
 erroneous, they simply repeat that tlie coun- 
 try is prosperoiui. The fact that so many 
 thousands of Canadians eveiy year turn their 
 backs on that prosperity gives them no con- 
 cern whatever. They ignore the fact, or, if 
 driven to the Avail iiud forced to deal with it, 
 they have the most Ingenious theories to ex- 
 plain it away. On a fonner occasion, 
 the Minister of Finance accounted for 
 the exodue from this -ountry by saying 
 that there was a great movement of po- 
 pulation from tlie east to the west 
 According to this theoi-y, there must bo, 
 somewhere in the west, a centre of gravi- 
 tation towards which the people of the east 
 are fatally attracted. I will not discuss 
 that theory. The ancient.s believed that 
 on the Mediterranean Sea ships were 
 fatally attracted to the wlilrlpool of 
 Charybdis or the rocks of Scylla. But 
 the ancients did not know what we know, 
 that there was such a thing as gi'avita- 
 tion. Perhaps, after all, my hon. friend 
 is another Sir Isaac Newton r.nd has lis- 
 covered some hidden law of nature. Gravi- 
 tation is a thing which not only applies uni- 
 versally but there are many modifications of 
 it. We know, fov instiince, that the waters of 
 tlie ocean are attracted by powerful currents 
 towards certalr centres. In certain countries 
 at certain periods of the year the wind blows 
 in certjiin directions. And so perhaps, after 
 all, there may bo in tiio west a centre of 
 graAitation which a t tracts the people from the 
 east and miconsciously impels tliem to aban- 
 don their comfortable homes and all the 
 wealth piled around them by tlie National 
 Policy. Well, Sir, if we really have to battle 
 against some unknown force of nature, in all 
 conscience, in all justice, the National Policy 
 must be held free from blame. If tliere is 
 in the west some new centre of gravitition 
 which attracts people from the east, it 
 is aU in vain that my hon. friend 
 the Minister of Finance and minister- 
 ial orators and newspapers vie with each 
 other to paint the enchantments of the 
 National Policy ; people will go away from 
 their homes, perhaps to have their fortimes 
 shattered, as in the days of old ships were 
 shattered on the rocks of Scylla. But my 
 hon. friend, since he has given attention to 
 that tlieoiy, must have observed that it does 
 not apply unlfonnly upon this continent. It 
 may bo that south of the forty-fifth pai-allel 
 the attraction is from east to west, but, Sir, 
 this does not apply north of that line. 
 North of the forty-fifth parallel, attraction Is 
 not from east to west, but from north to 
 south. If the attraction was from east to 
 west, we should have a displacement of popu- 
 lation, but no loss, but actually we have a 
 loss of about 1,000,000 people, who are at- 
 tracted, not from east to west, but from 
 
 I north to sotith. And the hon. gentleman 
 ' may have observed that his law of 
 I gravitation does not apply to all classes 
 I of the population ; that one class is exempt 
 i from It — the recipients of ministerial 
 : favours, those who directly or indirectly live 
 ; upon the pubUc treasury. Buf tliose who 
 j work hard for a living, the tillers of the soil 
 especially, upon tliose it is that tills attrac- 
 : tlon acts. Consideration of these facts must 
 I convince my hon. friend that his theory is too 
 fantastic for an assembly composed of men of 
 average common sense. The hon. gentleman 
 must admit, that If there Is a movement of 
 popuLatlon, it is not due to some mysterious 
 [ agency, but to the weU-known law, exempli- 
 j fled in all ages, that when people are op- 
 I pressed by the conditions under which they 
 ; live, they will seek relief in emigration, when- 
 ever they can emigrate. It is an appalling 
 i condition of things when a young countiy 
 I like Canada, which could afford food and 
 shelter for 100,000,000 of men, cannot keep 
 its paltry population of r),000,000. It is an 
 : appalling condition of things, but we are 
 told by gentlemen opposite that there is an 
 offset to this, and we are asked to look at the 
 wonderful development of our mamtfactur- 
 ; ing industries under tho National Policy. Well, 
 ! Sir, here we become the prey of the statis- 
 ticians of Canada. And the statisticians of 
 Canada are a body of most positive men. 
 I For them there is nothing doubtful ; 
 ; they undei'toke to solve eveiy prob- 
 i lem that comes in their way. LaBlche, 
 in one of his most amusing comedies, intro- 
 duces a statistician, who is an enthusiast in 
 Ills science, but who at least does not pretend 
 to solve every problem with unimpeachable 
 accuracy. He undertakes to calculate the 
 number of widows who on a certain day 
 ; cross the Pont Neuf. He very nearly 
 i reached perfection, yet not quite absolutely. 
 He calculated tiiat on the day in question the 
 number of widows who passed over the bridge 
 i was— if I remember the figures— something 
 like 967, and one doubtful. As to this one, 
 he would not be precise in declaring whether 
 she was a widow or not. He confessed his 
 I honest doubt. Our statisticians have no such 
 ■ doubts whatever. They have undertalcen to 
 : calcidate to the last cent what is the capital 
 Invested in our manufacturing industries, and 
 I according to their calculations the amount 
 I so hivested is $183,582,827, an increase, as 
 i they say, within the last ten years, of ?92,- 
 ; 664,127. Now, the object of this, the im- 
 pression sought to be conveyed by these 
 figures, is that the national wealth of Canada 
 Is hicreased by .<F&2,000,000, a very large 
 figure, I admit But the statisticians of Can- 
 ada have not told us what proportion of 
 [ water tlier© is in these stocks, nor have they 
 i told us what amount of money was really 
 sunk in those investments. For it is a matter 
 of notoriety that a vei7 large proportion of 
 the money wliich has been invested in manu- 
 facturing industries luider the National 
 Policy, has been absolutely sunk and lost 
 
 -X sxMhMNwifMMiR > 1 , Mtimsm^m.^i&. . 
 
But the Impression they seek to convey Is, 
 that the national wealth of Canada is greater 
 than it was ten years ago by $1)2,000,000, in- 
 vested In the manufactui'es In this countiy. 
 Sir, for my part, I have very greiit hesitjxtion in 
 accepting these tlgures. As we have seen, the 
 Government refuse to give us the particu- 
 lars of these census rcsturus ; *ivery 
 cue lias a right to feel doubtful as to whether 
 we havo been told the (-xaot tiiith. But, Sir, 
 even if we have the exact truth here, even if 
 the njitional wealtli is ncreased by $'.)2,000,00i), 
 InveKted hi the nianuc'acturiiig iudustriL's of 
 Canada, I say, -without fear of successful con- 
 ti"n diction, tluit tlie amount lost by the 
 fanners in tlio depreciation of land far ex- 
 ceeds tluit amount. It cannot be disputed, 
 Sir, that -svithln tlie lost ten years every farm 
 in Canada has lost in value at 
 least 25 per cent of Its former value, 
 perhaps 80 per cent, perhaps 40 per cent. 
 This fact cannot be successfully disputed. 
 Now, Sir, there are In Canada to-day 000,000 
 men engaged in agricultural pursuits. There 
 are on this side of Lake Superior, at least, 
 500,000 farms. Now, hi Ontario, as far as I 
 have l)een able to read the statistics of that 
 province, the average value of farms is 
 $2,500. If the average value of these 500,- 
 000 farms is placed at $2,000, and if there is 
 a depreciation of, at least, 25 per cent, we 
 have an actual cost to the farmers of Canada 
 of not less than $125,000,000, by which amount 
 theso men are poorer than tliey were ten 
 years ago. Now, Sir, no one can dispute that 
 that is an actual loss. My fi'iend from Grey 
 (Mv. Sproule) the other day addres.'5ed hiiu- 
 self to tills view of the question and staled 
 that the loss was not felt, iifter all, beciiu»se 
 ^eiy few fanners wanted to sell, and it Ls 
 only the farmer who wishes to sell his farm 
 that feels this loss. But if there is a depres- 
 sion in the price of land, if the loss on the 
 price of fai-ms is at least 25 per cent, as 
 compared with ten years ago, what is tiie 
 cause ? lliere must bo a cause for it. Sii', 
 the cause of the fann decreasing in value Is 
 that the profits of tlie farm have decreased 
 in. amount. The capital of the farmer is not 
 invested in bank stocks or railway secm-ities, 
 or other securities, but it is Invested in his 
 farm, in his laud, and that capital is In- 
 creased or decreased in value as the 
 profits of the fann increase or decrease. 
 Therefore, when, to-day, we find that the 
 farms all around have decreased in value, 
 we have also the fact that the farmera of 
 Canada have been falling behird in the 
 amount of theii" wealth. I know what will 
 be the answer to this. I shall be told that 
 this decrease in the value of farms is not to 
 be attributed to the National Policy. I shall 
 be told that It is not due to the National 
 Policy, because the statement has already 
 been made that there is a similar deprecia- 
 tion in the value of farm lands in the United 
 States. My hon. friend the Minister of 
 Finance, a few days ago, laboured hard to 
 prove that farms In the Unite ^. States had 
 L 2 
 
 I depreciated in value as much as they h.ive 
 
 1 in Canada, that the farmers of the eastern 
 
 I states, instead of going forward, had actu- 
 
 i ally retrograded. Sir, my hon. friend might 
 
 I havo spared himself the labour of proving 
 
 I that statement, because I admit It. I admit 
 
 i fully that farmers In the United States are 
 
 i In the same condition as the farmers of Cou- 
 
 : ada, and ttiat their farms have depreciated 
 
 In value like the farms of Canada ; and I say 
 
 to my hon. friehd that, in making that state- 
 
 \ ment, ho has made the most powei-ful 
 
 ! arraignment that ever was made of the 
 
 1 National Policy. By that statement the 
 
 National ToUcy stands condemned by its own 
 
 friends, because it Is an admission that the 
 
 same cause has produced the same result In 
 
 both countries. Sir, I ask hon. gentlemen 
 
 opposite : What is the National Policy ? Is 
 
 It anything else but a servile copy of the Am- 
 
 i erican tariff of protection ? What was the 
 
 I cry upon which they went to the country In 
 
 j 1878 ? Was it not reciprocity of trade, or 
 
 I reciprocity of tariff ? For fear that hon. 
 
 ' gentlemen may have forgotten their own hls- 
 
 \ tory, I will refresh their memory by a sen- 
 
 ; fence extracted from the speech of Sir John 
 
 ' A. Macdonald, delivered In Hamilton, In 
 
 i 1878 : 
 
 j I want the Canadians to say to the Americana : 
 
 I We will have free trade, fair trade, reciprocal trade, 
 
 1 if you like ; but if you will not have reciprocity in 
 
 trad ^ we will not have reciprocity in tariff. What is 
 
 sar JO for the goose is sauce for the gander. 
 
 This sentence of Sir John A. Macdonald 
 was repeated by him in all Ills speeches, 
 and echoed by all his followers In the 
 press and throughout tlie coimtiy. Upon 
 that cry they won, and, after they had 
 won, as they could not obtain reciprocity, 
 well, thoy adopted the American tariff. 
 They proceeded after the manner of Chinese 
 duellists. You know in Cliina they have a 
 peculiar code of honour. If a m.an receives 
 an insult, hr sends a challenge to the tnsulter, 
 which Is invariably accepted. But the 
 parties do not meet on the ground. The In- 
 sidted party disembowels himself with liis 
 own sword, and the insulter also plunges his 
 own sword into his bowels ; and so the In- 
 Jury Is avenged by the death both of 
 the Insulted party and of the in- 
 sulter. So did hon. gentlemen opposite ; 
 when they found they could not obtain re- 
 ciprocity of trade, they adopted reciprocity 
 of tariffs, that Is to say, they punished the 
 Americans by adopting their own tariff. At 
 that time the Americans had the war tariff. 
 They were taxing their people mercilessly, 
 and our Government proceeded to adopt 
 theh" tariff and tax our ovvn peoy'e merci- 
 lessly likewise. The Americans wei oluck- 
 Ing the American goose, and our Govei^-nent 
 proceeded to pluck the Canadian gander. 
 The American tariff was ruining American 
 agriculture, and ever since the Canadian 
 tariff has been ruining Canadian agriculture. 
 Sir, it Is well known to-da;r that agi'iculture 
 is la a transient condition. The opening of 
 
Vf 
 
 new wheat fields In diverse parts ol the 
 world, the Increased facilities for transport 
 have revolutionized the price of cereals. 
 You romember that when the National Pol- 
 icy Wiis adopted in 1878 tlie price of wheat 
 in Canada, on the average, was $1 a bushel. 
 The purpose of the National Policy, avowed, 
 maintained, reiterated, was to raise the price 
 of wheat to $1.50. It is now 60 cents a 
 bushel. It is at this time, when agriculture 
 is less able to bear the burdens than ever, 
 that the argiculturalLst Is loaded and over- 
 loaded by the policy of the Government. At 
 this very moment when from caases over 
 which, I admit, legislation has no control, 
 the Government steps In and, by legislation, 
 places upon the Canadian farmer an lutoler- 
 able burden of taxation. Everything that 
 he has In his house, in his bam, in his field, 
 is subject to an. iimiimerable list of taxation, 
 and so, at this moment, when, from 
 causes over which legislation has no 
 control, the revenue of the farmer is 
 decreasing, the Government steps in and 
 Increases his expenditure. The result 
 is that at this moment agricultui'e is 
 more than ever deserted as an occupation ; 
 and the further result is, that, to-day, apart 
 from the new wheat fields, land is a drug hi 
 the market, and cannot find a purchaser. I 
 have heard the question discussed in this 
 House as to which of the two, the Canadian 
 farmer or the American farmer, was in a better 
 condition. Sir, I look upon this discussion afs 
 absolutely useless. Tlie American farmer and 
 the Ca adlan farmer have been treated In 
 the same way, and the result has been the 
 same ; sa"e, perhaps, that the Ameri(!an 
 farmer, having a much wider market, does 
 not suffer so much. If you desire to know 
 what is the fate of the American farmer, I 
 cannot do better than quote to the House 
 an article from the Chicago "Herald," pub- 
 lished last summer during the presidential 
 campaign. I select it from a series of most 
 admirable articles which have since been 
 published In pamphhit form. The editor 
 says : 
 
 Thirty years of protective tariff taxation li.avo 
 reduced American agriculture to a po.sition so ignoble 
 that in some places it does not even retain its self- 
 respect. A generation ago tlie American farmer was 
 the proudest and most indepei.dent workingman on the 
 eartii. To-day ho cannot persuade his own son to 
 remain on the farm. 
 
 Very like Canada. The editor goes on to 
 say : 
 
 It was the prosperityand independence of the Ame- 
 rican farmer that first excited the cui)idity of protec- 
 tionists. They wanted to rob him and they invented an 
 excuse. They told him that ho needed a home niarlcet, 
 and tliat tliey would give it to him in return for the 
 privilege of taxing him. When the home market 
 swindle was exposed they beguiled him with the idea 
 that tliey could and would share their protective tariff 
 plunder with him, and, while going through the 
 mockery of putting a tariff tax on foreign agricul- 
 tural products, they took occasion to increase their 
 own share of the plunder. The one was a pretense. 
 The other was real sftid tangible. The home market 
 
 confidence game has been laid liaro in Pennsylvania 
 anfl New England, the seats of the groat tariff mono- 
 jwlies, where fine famis, once tiio homes of several 
 generations of Americans, are now abandoned and 
 cannot be sold for oven the vr.lue of the buildings. 
 
 More and more Uke Canada. The editor goes 
 on to say : 
 
 The protective tariff is a tax upon consumptior.. It 
 rests upon nearly everything that the farmer uses or 
 wears. It is en tlie lumber of his house^ on the glass 
 in his vvindows, on the implements with which lie 
 makes his crops, on his dishes, tinware, f\irniture and 
 carpets, his cutlery and lamps, his clothing, his 
 blankets and his harness. It enhances the price of 
 nearly' everything that tie buys. It does not add a 
 farthing to the value of anything that he has to sell. 
 
 Apart from the tax on lumber, it Is abso- 
 lutely like Canada. Sir, is it to be won- 
 dered at that in the year just elapsed, dining 
 the last presidential elections, the American 
 farmers made a supreme effort to free 
 themselves from the grasp of the octopus 
 which, for so many years, has had them fast 
 in its arms and has been feeding on the best 
 of their blood. The American farmers 
 I joined all other classes, outside of the pro- 
 ; tected manufacturers. In a crusade against 
 : the voracious monster. Now, we were told 
 i a few days ago by an hon. gcntieman sitting 
 I on the other side of the House, that land has 
 I also depreciated In value In England. So it 
 has ; but. Sir, the condition of land in Eng- 
 land Is not to be compared with the condition 
 ] of land in America. Land In England has 
 : always been held as a monopoly by a priv- 
 1 ileged class. For centuries and centuries 
 j a privileged class had legislation in its own 
 ; hands. It is only a few years since the ad- 
 [ vance of democratic ideas has displaced the 
 I source of power in England, and now it 
 rests in the hands of the whole nation. And 
 so long as that privileged class had it in. Its 
 power to legislate, they did the best they 
 could to enhance the value of their mono- 
 poly. What was tlie object of the com laws V 
 Their object was simply to increase the price 
 of land to the land-owners, and the cliief 
 reason which was advanced against the ab- 
 olition of those laws was this, that it would 
 j decrease the price of land and lower the 
 ! standard of the aristocracy. Undoubtedly 
 1 of all men who defended the com laws, the 
 I ablest was Lord Stanley, and, in the very 
 last debate which took place in the House 
 of Lords, when speaMng of the rack-renting 
 landlords of England and Ireland, he used 
 this very significant language : 
 
 My Lords, these are the true aristocracy of the 
 country. If you reduce these men in the scale of 
 society, you will inflict an irretrievable and irrepar- 
 able injury upon the country. 
 
 Lord Stanley was right, und'^^ibtedly. If an 
 aristocracy is Indispensable to a nation. But 
 such views we do not hold on this continent. 
 On this continent we hold that all men are 
 free and equal before the law, and that there 
 ^ould be no privileged class ; but the idea 
 wliioh underlies the language of Lord Stanley 
 
yr 
 
 was, according to liis view, tiiio. Freedom of ho buys ; a tax upon liis clothing, a tax on hla 
 trndo would eudimger tlio fate of the aristo- cottons, a tax on Wa woollens, a tax on the 
 cracy. At the time of the discussion of tlie iron he uses, a tax upon the sugar ho euita, 
 com laws tlie i-ental of land wjis $12 per acre ; for though the fanner and the oonsiimer no 
 Lut che price of rental has been re<luced until, longer pays a liix Into the treasury on sugax 
 after forty yeare of free trade, it is $0 or thei-e- ho still continues to pay a tax for tlie benoflt 
 abouts ; ajul tills condition of things ■n'lll go of the sugar rellnorles of Canada. But I will 
 on. The price of hind will continue to decline undoubtedly bo told : Gi-antod that the 
 until It has reached Its nomuil standard. Just Na/tiouiii Policy has not benelited tJio farm- 
 as in this counti-y and In the United States, ers, surely you will not deny that it has de- 
 if we had freedom of trade, tlie price of land voioped several industries. I am free to 
 would increase to Its normid sumdard, be- admit that the National Policy has developed 
 cause in laud na Lu everything else there is a a few industries into monopolies, into suckers 
 normal standard which can be moved up or which extort inonlioato prolits from tlie people 
 down by artificial causes for the beueftt of of Oamula ; but I question very much whether 
 a privileged class ; but so soon as these ' the National Policy has beuolited the great 
 obstacles are removed the price will i-each its body of iiianufacturors, tlie snuUlor manu- 
 norimil sbuidard, its o\vn level, and its level is facturers and those who have invested a small 
 and always must bo based on the relative , amount of capltjil in their own business, be- 
 proflt that can be obtabied by those who till aaiise it Is obvioiis that the moment an article 
 the soil, jind that is the only standard. I is tjixed for the benefit of one special manu- 
 may remind the House of this, tliat when facture Ufat manufactm-er is of couree pix>- 
 the National PoUcy was Introduced In Par- tected and beueflted ; but while one manu- 
 Ilamcut a mighty attempt was made to cap- facturer may be so protecteil and l)enelite<l, 
 ture the farmers. It was represented to the two, live or ten manufacturers may be 
 farmers that they would be greatly ben^.- I hampered by the tiiriff, because the articles 
 flted if such a policy were adopted. Of j prmluced by that one mnnufaoliiror may be 
 course the National Policy must increase : the raw material of the two, five or ten 
 the taxation of the farmera ; but it was others who have to use It and are hamper- 
 represented to ttiem that they must submit ed thereby. Take the iron duties. Every- 
 to the increjised t;uca tion, because tlie liigher ; l)ody remembers the gri^at flomlsh of timmpeta 
 duties would be the moans of establisliing with which Sir ChiUles THipper introduced 
 In this counti-y manufacturing industries his policy with respect to pig iron, in 1887. 
 which woidd afCord a home market and in- My hon. friend from Queen's (Mr. Davies) 
 crease prices for tlieir products. Let me - a few days ago alluded to this subject, and I 
 quote here a speech dehvered by Sir John need not go over the same ground ; but let 
 A. INIacdonald, which was the text-book at ! me simply i-enuirk this : that at the time Sir 
 that time of his party. Addressmg a meet- ; Charles Tupper iutivxluced his policy respect- 
 ing of farmei-s at Buiy, he said : I lug pig iron, it was already protected by a 
 T . ,wi f . 11- . .■ . \ duty of $2 per ton and a boiml^ of $1.50, and 
 I tellthe manufacturer unleHslm gives protection to ^ •[ ^ I the bounty WilS increased after 
 the farmer, tlie farmer will not give protection to iinii. I "■> ^'"' puui-O' luo uuilu.,j .. cio "t , 
 I say the same thing to the farmer. You must nut tliree years to ?2, and the duty was in- 
 grumble, if perliapa you have to pay a few cents more i croaseti from that moment to !t>4 per ton. 
 for anything we can produce in this country. You | So at that time vve gave the producer in pig 
 must not be hungering for strange marlvets to get i iron a boimty of $2 per ton and a duty of 
 goods at bankr>ii)l, sacrifice prices. No ; you must j 84,^ j^^j gj^ Charles Tupper used— 1 believe 
 encourage manufactures at our own doors. Who are ! ^^^ ^^^^ friend quotetl his language, but 1 
 those artisans and skilled iabourers to whom you inustjjj ^^ j^ j^ because these facts are 
 pay^perhaps a few cents more for the produce of their ^g'^^J.ti^e-these words : 
 
 Now, Sir, the result is that by the adoption of tliis 
 policy you will give jiermanent employment to an 
 army of men numbering at least 20,0()0, increasing 
 our population from 80,000 to 100,000 souls, and 
 affording the means of supporting them in comfort 
 and prosfierity. I say. Sir, that if there is anything 
 in the National Policy, if we liave not V)pen all wrong 
 from the very start, if the history of Canada shows 
 that this National Policy has achieved for Canada 
 what wo said it would achieve,— and I have given 
 the most abundant and irrefragable evidoiioe on that 
 iwint,— if tliere is any question on which there ought 
 not to be any doubt in the mind of any lion, gentle- 
 man, it is that the application of the .same sound 
 policy whicli wo have found so admirable and 
 successful in relation to all other industries, will have 
 tlie same result in regard to the great iron industry 
 of this country. 
 
 Well, Sir, this Language is simply ludicrous In 
 the face of what followed afterwards— ludi- 
 crous is the word. I show to what extent 
 a man of ablllt^y can go when he undci-takeB 
 
 fa 
 
 ands ? 'they are your brotliers and sons, bone of 
 your boms flesh of your flesh, and in return for your 
 giving only, iierliaps, the real value to these men of 
 their products, you have at t'ome — at the next village — 
 your reward, Ijecanse you have purchasers for every- 
 thing you can raise, not only for the larger crops, but 
 for the egg that the hen drops, and tlie hen herself, 
 God bl(;8S her. 
 
 How false lihis language sounds in view of 
 actual facts ? Where is the home market to- 
 day ? Where is the nearest village to which 
 thj farmer can take his eggs ? Whether he 
 taltes his eggs to tlie reai'est vlUage or the 
 neai"est city be will be glad to get 10 cents a 
 dozen for them, and he will not always be 
 sure of getting tiiait. The home market is 
 a delus^an which has long vanished into thin 
 air ; but what is not a delu.sion is the hard 
 fact that remains to the farmer to-day, that 
 though he has not a home market, though 
 ho cannot t.ike his eggs to the next village, 
 yet he has to pay a toeavy tax on everything 
 
 «*W" 
 
BWtl 
 
 >y 
 
 to talk protection, aa Sir Oharlea Tapper 
 undertook to talk It n.t that momont. AlthouKh 
 the people of Canada have been saddled wltli 
 euoriiious ilutles tlie result li.aa bccu thiit the 
 production of pig Iron instead of lucreiisln;; 
 lias decreased all ailoiiR, and the result has 
 been that, though wo have not reaped any 
 iMJueflt such as Sir (/liarles Tupl)er promisod, 
 yet lut the same time all the inanufacturi'vs 
 who use Iron, and they are legion In this coun- 
 try, have been haniperod, and seriously liam- 
 pered, by these duties, and if th(^ Minister of 
 Finance were to brhig down to the House th(( 
 petitions and memorials whlcli I luidoralaiid 
 the Government have received against tli(> 
 duties on pig iron, they woidd open the eyes of 
 hon. members of this House for I have It on 
 good authority that for a long time petitions 
 liavo been sent in bogging the Minister of 
 Finance to remove the duties that have 
 done no good to anybmly, but h.ave 
 seriously hamporo<l the Iron trade. Well, 
 Sir, what Is at present the condition 
 of the country ? This question can be 
 looked upon from t'wo different stand-points— 
 from the stand-point of the Government, and 
 from tlio stand-point of tlie people. The Gov- 
 ernment tell us that the coimtry Is prosper- 
 ing, but what do the people say ? What 
 Is their opinion and what Is their action V 
 The people. Sir. one portion of them fly 
 from that prosperity, and tJiose who remain 
 In the coimtry are bogging and petitioning 
 the Government to free them from the 
 National rolloy. What is the conclusion 
 to be derived from this state of things ? The 
 conclusion is : that tax.atlon by whatever 
 name you call it, taxation however you may 
 disguise it, taxation is an evil whicli never 
 can produce prosperity. It is an evil, and 
 no good can come from evil. Taxation l)y 
 whatever name you call it, whether disguised 
 or imdisguised, is always an abridgment of 
 the lights of the citizen. It is a toll levied 
 iipon his earnings and upon his property. 
 I know very well thai taxation by Customs 
 can be so arranged as to divert the proceeas 
 from the public treasury and put it into the 
 pockets of a teWi favoured individuals, and 
 can therefore have a semblance of pros- 
 perity ; but. Sir, that prosperity for the few, 
 is always at the expense of the many. Free- 
 dom is the normal condition of trade, and 
 freedom is the goal to which we are aspiring. 
 That is the policy of this side of the House. 
 I know veiy well, Sir, that we cannot tor 
 many years have freedom of trade, such as 
 they have in England. I know th.at for 
 many years we must raise our revenue by 
 Customs duties, but I tell tlie Finance Minis- 
 ter, that the difference between him and us, 
 is this : That whereas he forms his tariff 
 for protection, and with revenue as merely 
 an incident ; we will frame our tariff, not for 
 protection, but for revenue, and we will im- 
 pede and interfere with freedom of trade 
 only in so far as is absolutely necessary for 
 the purposes of a revenue, and for notliing 
 else. Sir, T stated on another occasion, and 
 
 in another place, that during the last election 
 in tlie United States, the people of timt 
 country liad most emphatically decided for 
 tiio principle of free trade. My hon. friend 
 the Finance Minister, in opening this debate, 
 cliallenged tills statement, and not only chal- 
 lenged the statement, but actually denuHi it 
 He is strong at denying, I admit, but if lie de- 
 nies that tlie American peepie, at the last pre- 
 sidential election, practically d(>cldiHl in fa- 
 vour of freixlom of trade, I am prepared to 
 h(^ar tliat the hon. gentleman will deny every- 
 tlilng. that he will deny tliat there are twelve 
 months in the year, that he will deny that 
 tlie sun rises in the cast and moves towards 
 the west, or that he will deny that there is 
 such a thing as an exodus. But, as the 
 hon. gentleman is of a skeptic nature, I 
 will (>nde!iv(mr to give him proof which 
 ought to bo sufticient in Itself. I will quote 
 to him from the platform adopted by the 
 Democratic party a.t its last convention in 
 Chicago . Hero is how it reads : 
 
 We tlciiouncc l{ciml)licHii i)roti>ctinn us a fraud, a 
 icililiory ()f till' Ki'Ciit Tiiajority of tlie .Xiiicrican i>e()]ilo 
 fovtliolM'nctitdf tlio few. Wo doolaro it t()l)c a funda- 
 Turntal |)iiiici|il(' of tlii' Dfiuoir.atic party that thi' 
 Fcilinii (jovcrniiicnt liaR no coiistitiitioiial jiowcr to 
 impdsi' and cdllcut tarilT duticH except for the purposo 
 c if rcviMiuc only, and demand that tlie collection of sucli 
 duties .Hliail lie liniiled to tlie necessitioH of the Gov- 
 ernment and lionestly and economically administered. 
 
 Sir, denouncing protection has always seemed 
 to me as promoting free trade. Does the 
 lion, gentleman believe the rever.se, or does 
 he think differently ? Well, if he does, let 
 us go a stop further. The hon. gentleman 
 is aware that during the last election the 
 fiuestion which was fought upon every hust- 
 ings in the United Stjites, the question which 
 was discussed in evei-y newspaper, was tue 
 merit of protection, on the one side, and tlie 
 iiuM-it of free trade on the other. Is this not 
 sufficient to convince my hon. friend ? 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. No. 
 
 Mr, LAURIER. Then, this is not sufficient, 
 lot us go a little further. The hon. gentleman 
 is perhaps aware— I am sure he heard it, 
 but If he heard it perhaps he will choose to 
 forget— the hon. gentleman is perhaps aware 
 tliat during last session of Congress the Dem- 
 ocratic party in the House of Representatives 
 organized a scheme whereby they circulated 
 as their own literature, the whole of Henry 
 George's book, " Frotection or Free Trade," 
 and there never was a stronger plea written 
 in favour of free trade tlian that book con- 
 tains. When the Democratic party in the 
 House of Representatives went so far as To 
 organize a scheme to circulate a whole book 
 written hi favour of free trade, will tlie hon. 
 gentleman, in view of all that evidence, still 
 believe that the issue which was fought at 
 the polls during tlie last election was not an 
 issue between freedom of trade and protec- 
 tion ? If the hon. gentleman still denies that, 
 I am prepared to believe, as I said a moment 
 I ago, that he will deny anything whatever. 
 
V 
 
 But, Sir, I know very well that, though tliolNiiy, more, Sir, I dofy iiiiy Kcntlcmiiii, In 
 
 prtnclph) of frf'u trade tins trliiiiiplicd in Hh- thlH HoiLso or out of It, to prove tliiil th« 
 
 Uult(Hl States— luid pei-linps tills Is the little Atnorlwiu miUiorltles ovor wimtx^l to iwsliul- 
 
 fltriitiJSoui which tlio hou. gentloiniui wantH Into the Caimdlan tariff to l;ho Aiuerlfiin tariff, 
 
 to employ upon this oceaslon, jierhnps this \h an tho pilr-o of unrestricted recli»rocity. 
 
 tho refufco ho wants to tnk(» for himself— I 
 
 know verj' well, as well as the hon. gentle i Some hou. MEMBERS. Oh. 
 
 man knows, that, although thi; priufiple ofi jyir. j^ADlUElt. Who says "no. 
 
 IS 
 
 freo trad(^ has been adopted In the Uidted ^jj^j.^ ^^y ,„j,n j^ ti,iy House who will dial- 
 States, that freedom of tra(h> will not be ] jj.yg,, i„y Htatement V Ministers have assert- 
 applle<l In tho tjiriff this year, or next year. |j,Q j(.^ j jinnw, but let tliem brlnn tho 
 or tho year after. F know that for a Ki'<'iif i evidence. Let Uiem brluK tlu. correspond- 
 many .vears to come, the American pe(iph> will I .^.y ^iiioU they have Ui ilieir own po.sses- 
 continue to levy their revenue by a CiiHloms y[pj, ^^, ^£i,u(,,,,i.s uero made that stuu- 
 tJiriff, but T say this to the hon. Kentlo- ^j,.jjj_ Tvnaisters on the other .side have said 
 man : That hencefoi-ward, not only as umf,' ti,^, y^ry reverse; ami sinc(> th(! corres- 
 as the Democratic party ar(> in powei-, (out | pondence has not been brouRlit down, I ror 
 I bellove, also, that wiienever fho Republican ' |j^y .^ ^.^^^^^^^^ ^^^ believe the stalcment, 
 party cornea bade to power), that no uiore , ,^,j^jj gj ^^ nsslmllatlntj the Canadian tariff 
 shiill revenue be levied for the purpose oti^^^ ^j^^, American tariff. It would bo very 
 protection, but that It shall be levied only i gij„ci,i,,j,, „f (.om-se, to hou. gentlemen on the 
 forthepurposesof a^ revenue, and for uothlnK:^^,^^,^. ^,,,^. ^,f ,„,. jj„^, ^,^^ ji^y,, ^ot 
 else; because, "« J I'iivo said to the hnn. , ,, ,,^.5 ^^^^ ,^,,(,1,, i,^„i ^f the 
 
 Kentleman. the tarllf of protection Has been ^^ ^.„^,.f %^^^^ ^„, statute-boou-lt 
 denounced by the American people as a fraud ^^^^ ^,^ .shocking to them If tho 
 
 and a rol)bpry. Sir, T have stated, and I ro 
 pe.'it It here, that our tariff is simply an iml 
 
 Liberal party were now to assimilate} tho 
 Canadian taiiff to tho American tirit'f In tho 
 
 tation of the American tariff and, as tnoj ,^^ ^.j^^j^ ^j^^j.,, j, „^,i, „ .liscrei- 
 
 AnuM-icau tariff was denounced, so now I rt';- ^ -jn,.y them.selves can do It, and do 
 
 nounco tJie Can.adlan t/irlff as a fraud, I / ^ the cloak of loyalty. Loyalty, Sir. 
 
 denounce It as a robbery of the great j^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^.^ ,,„o,y ,,,,^y things 
 
 majority of the Canadian peoplf for the bone- 1 ^,^j^, j^ ^.,^^y,.^^ ^j„,l^jj. ^he 
 
 fit of the few. I denoimce It In the name otl 
 
 my 
 
 form the tariff. Wliy, Sir, the Finance iMin- 
 Ister cannot do it, because he will 
 never dare to extirpate from It tlie vicious 
 
 fully admit that if there wore between the 
 American tariff anu tho Canadian tariff a 
 great divergence in regard to some articles, 
 
 uevei uure 10 exurpaie iniui lu uie vicious ■=--- ■ ^, „„it„i„„ t,„^,.i,i v^r> nlm/^a^■ 
 
 principle which is Ibe bane and evil of it. ^^^^i:^ ^.^^' ^:^^:!^^l^'S. 
 
 I know what he will do. He will tinker 
 his tariff ; he will i)atch it ; ho will polish 
 tho siu'face of it so as to give it tho apiiear- 
 ance of reform, but as to jiny measure of 
 reform in the tariff, it will, and must be as 
 hollow as the fniit of the Dead R(\a. Mr. 
 Speaker, I come now to an objection which 
 I have not heard in tills House, but which 
 is commencing to be circulated in tho Gov- 
 ernment press. T have seen it stated in th^- 
 ministerial press, not only in one paper, but 
 in several, that tlie Liberals cannot be sin- 
 cere In tlieir policy of tariff reform. It is 
 stated th.at they cannot bo sincere when they 
 profess to be In f.avour of alleviating the bur- 
 dens which press upon the majority of the 
 people, because, forsooth, only a few months 
 ago, they wanted to assimilate the Canadian 
 tariff to the American tariff, under the guise 
 of unrestiicted reciprocity. I denounce this 
 statement as an absolute falsehood, and I 
 defy any man, either In this House or out of 
 it, to quote an expresion from any Liberal 
 that hvj ever attempted or wanted to assimil- 
 ate the Canadian tariff to the American tariff 
 
 impossible. There are two reasons for that. 
 The first is tliat if there were a great differ- 
 ence between the two tariffs in regard to 
 some article, a similar article would be Im- 
 ported from abroad into the country having 
 the lower tariff, with the view of smuggling 
 it Into tlie country with the hlglier tariff. 
 There Is another reason which I will state, 
 and which will commimd itself to hon. gen- 
 tlemen opposite. If there were a groat dis- 
 crepancy between the tariffs in one article, 
 the manufacturer in tho country with the 
 lower tariff would have a great advantage 
 over the manufacturer in tho country with 
 the higher tariff. But let mo say that we 
 have always been in f.avour of rociprocity. 
 No one would suppose, because we were in 
 favour of imrestricted reciprocity, that if 
 we could not obtahi that we sliould not take 
 anvthlng else. Again .and again wo have 
 said that if we could not obtain ledprocity 
 along the whole line, unrestricted, unlimited, 
 we should be wilUng to take reciprocity In 
 natural products, or in natural products with 
 manufactured articles included. But when 
 
 mu»M 
 
8 
 
 :3: — :..— - 
 
 Retinriicity— thn kinrl of rooipmcity that thftt did- 
 tiiiKiiiHlioil K<'"tl<'nian, KriwtUM Wiinaii, advocutcH, 
 i« Homi'thiiiK- Tliiit kiiul of inciprooity ivotiially iiit^auH 
 HdiiictliiiiK, luioaiiHc that iiifaiiM that you Hliall take the 
 |(ro(hi(;t' vi Htatdii iHlairl whnthor thiiy Im of tho farm 
 or of th(i workHhop, and tako thfiii to hoiih' groat 
 country with wliiuh yo\i liavo a lari<(' trade, liko the 
 provinucH north of iiH, tlio Dominion of Canada, and 
 oxthatign thi'm fri'oly for all tho jirodnctH <)f that 
 country with cfpial freedom. If you had reciprocity, 
 rho Mclilnley Bill showed [ actual reciprocity with the nnt.iiiM of the world, what 
 
 would you havoT 
 
 A voice -" Froo Trade," 
 
 A gentleman nays " Free Trade,'' Why, it ix no une 
 for me to come all the way from Oiiio to tell you atiy- 
 thiii({ about thcHituation artto reciprocity. Tliere you 
 havi' it in two wor(l«. Jf you had reciprocity itwo\dd 
 nimply mean that you co\dd f,'o<lown to the harlniur of 
 New \<nk with iinything you have, lay it on any 
 vesnel there and send it to any part of the earth and 
 trade it for anything' you wanted and liriiiR thone 
 j,'oodn liack and hcII them whenever you pleased. 
 
 I HoMietimes (;ive a definition .i( ii'ciprocity which 
 is a hit lunuonius, liut which titK the case exactly. 
 It is tills : iMaude and C'huule are a couple of young 
 
 knows rh7i1-"fl"u> I 1"'"1''''- 'l''"''''" l''i« lieen a K'vat deal in the neWH- 
 t^"^^/ /"'7 "^<*ii>apers .about reciprocity, and Maude is like moHt 
 party now lu power ni-o not only la favour , ;,,„',„„„ she has not Inkhercd much abimt politicn. 
 of frw trailo as a genoraJ piinclplo, Imt In j , she had to pet several new .Iresses i'i., -ntumn and 
 particular arc In favour of rcoiproolly with 1 has been i)rettyb\isy generally, and she -ays : "Claude, 
 
 Canada. Now, Sir, of nil tiie speeches I have [ T have been loading about reciprocity '^' ''-^ " 
 
 listened lo (luriii)^ thl.s deb;ite, thei'o was one i iccipidcity ?" 
 
 ■wo adopted tho policy of unrestrloted ri>cl- 
 proclty lu 1888, the tender, -y of the Ameri- 
 can tariff was a downward tendency. There 
 were many Indlcntions of that. The first 
 wiw the Mesaago of I'rwident Cleveland, 
 otldressed to Congress In tlio fall of 1887, In 
 which he had directly iittackoil tlie system 
 of protection. 
 
 Mr. SPROTTLK. 
 It more, 
 
 Mr. liAUIlIER I will come to Uint. It Is 
 true, shortly afterwards a wave of protec- 
 tion passed over the United SUites, which rtv 
 siUtwl In tho McKlnloy IMU ; but tho M(y 
 Klnley Hill was tlio last spasmodic effort of 
 a system which was about to full to pieces 
 and which o.\Ist.s no nior(>. The hon. 
 gentleman knows that the McKtnloy Bill has 
 l)iH>u ctmdemned In emphatic terms by tlie 
 American people Lu tlie last election, and he 
 knows that It ^ /ill be repealed at the next 
 session of Congress. Ho 
 
 s'ow, what is 
 
 Why," ho says. " Don't you know? Now, if I 
 kiss you and you kisn mt^ back, that's reciprocity." 
 To which she retorted that siie always supposed it 
 was Homethiug nice. 
 
 1 am in favour of that kind of rcciiirocity between 
 US and tli{^ country wo trade with. If we arc going 
 to kiss tlieiii, wo want to be kissed back a little in ve- 
 tin'u, and wiieu we pick out the girls w(^ are going to 
 kiss, instead of picking out the black ones of Kouth 
 America, 1 would pick out the white ones of Canada 
 and Kurope. 
 
 It's a matter of taste, and I believe that the Demo- 
 crats would just as soon that it would bo white. 
 
 Now, If my hon. friend will only persuade 
 tho hon. INIinlstor of Finance to go back to 
 Washington and offer his cheek for a chaste 
 osculation, the thing will l)e done at once. 
 But, Sir, it may be said to me : Wliat is the 
 tise of having reciprocity, even in natural 
 favour of reciprocity. He hoped It ; he was i products. If the contUtlon of the farmers In 
 not sure ; neither am I. I think they a^e the United States Is worse thtin the condition 
 not ; but if they are, then they have an op of our own farmers ? I am sure that I need 
 portimity of getting reciprocity. They ctin not give an answer to this question to my 
 have it. I stated a moment ago tJiat tlie i hon. friend from East Durham, because he 
 Democratic party were in favour of reclpro- ! Is in favour of reciprocity ; neither need I 
 city with Canada. I have the proof in my ■ give It to my hon. friend from Richmond 
 hand, and I will give It to the hon. gentle- i (^Ir. GUlies), because he is in favour of red- 
 man. The hon. gentleman is aware that j proclty. But there may be some other gen- 
 one of the most Impoi-tant members of the ] tlemen on the otlier side of the House who 
 Democratic party to-diiy in tlie United States ' are of the opinion of a former President of 
 is Mr. Campbell, the ex-governor of Ohio. In the Council, Ji". Colby, who was against 
 
 to which I listened with peciUlar pleasure. 
 That was the speech of the hon. member for 
 East Durham (Mr. CraJg). It was almost a 
 Liberal .speech. It Is tnie, It was still 
 tainted with some Conservtitlve heresy, but i 
 on tlio whole It was a very good speech ; and 
 when I listened to the hon. gentleman speak- : 
 lug iis ho did, It seemed to me that he was 
 very much In the position of Ivlng Agrlppa 
 iiir the preaclilng of St. I'aul, when lie 
 exclalmcl : " Almost thou persuadest mo to 
 be a Chi'istlan." I presume that the hon. 
 goutleuiiiu Is almost a Christian— I mean 
 Liberal ; he Is trying to lift his party up to 
 n. high«r sphere ; he is in ftivour of tariff re- 
 form ; he Is even In ftivour of reciprocity ; 
 and he said— I marked the sentence— that he 
 hoped that the Government were also In 
 
 the month of December last Mr. Campbell 
 delivered a speech on Staten Island, In which 
 he refen'ed to this very question of recipro- 
 city with Canada. Mrst of all, he i-eferred 
 to the policy of reciprocity put forward by 
 the Republican party In the clause of the 
 McIOnley BUI, containing a standing offer of 
 reciprocity to tlie tropical and seml-ti-oplcal 
 countries of South America. Then Mr. 
 Campbell spoke as follows : — 
 
 reciprocity even in natural products. The 
 
 t iidvimtage we should have in reciprocity, 
 
 j even In natural products, would be this, that 
 
 protection Is one and the same thing on both 
 
 1 sides of the line ; and If we had free trade 
 
 only In natural products, the condition of the 
 
 I farmers on one side and the condition of the 
 
 farmers on the other would be benefited to 
 
 that extent. But I know that besides the 
 
 hon. member for Bast Durham and the hon. 
 
 I 
 
member for Richmond, thero are many hon. ! 
 gentlumon on tlio otlior slflo of tlio IIoiwo 
 who aro In favour of rwJproclty ; nnd If so, 
 I am It a Iosh to undorettuid Uio reason 
 •why thoy havo jUwayH Krootwl tho 
 offorta of the I.lbonil party for n>- 
 clprooity yviih such torronts of ai>'.iHe. 
 Thpy havo stafeKl, njjnln and n.T-iii', 'UJit uu- 
 re«trlotod i-eclproclty would load ic annox- 
 atlon. My hon. fHoaid from ll)er'.ll<> (Mr. 
 B6chard), alludod to tliat UiIh ovpi .ik. and 1 
 can alludo to it aj,'aln. For my irnrt, I nover 
 imdorsio.Ml liow uni-ostrlct^d reciprocity 
 would load to anuoxatleu. Will any oiio toll 
 m« how it AVill V Will any ouo toll mo liow 
 , It Is, that If tlio Gauadlau pooplo Avoro to ha\ e 
 reciprocity with tlio I'liitod Stjitos, rostrictod 
 or imi'ostrlotod, aunoxation woidd follow ? If 
 wo had a'comuiorc'ial troity %viUi tlic States, 
 whothor ri'stricted or imrestrictod, tlie hisil- 
 tutlons of our country would coutiniio Just 
 Iho same as tlioy aro toKlay ; tho country 
 would contimio to lio Knvonicd imdor tho same 
 British parllamentjiry system as It i.s to-day. 
 Every man entitled to it would have a 
 vote as ho has to-day. Therefore, how can 
 it bo said that uurestrlctod reclproolty would 
 lead to amioxatlon ? i.s It to ho supposed 
 that if tJie Canadiiui people were to Cdnio iu 
 contact witli tho Amerlain people, our loyalty 
 would f." 1( ■wny? Do hon. KentJeraen op- 
 posite suppose that, even if we had closer 
 trade relations with tho Americans, tho loyalty 
 oi die Canadian p(H>ple would vanish into 
 tldn air ? If lion. KcnMem(^n opposite hold 
 any such opinion, I liold tliat the much 
 vaunted loyalty of the Conservative party la 
 hollow and uni-eal, and Is brou;?ht forwaril 
 only to do service for party purposes and for 
 nothing else. I have heard it stated many a 
 time by hon. pentloraen on tlie other side, and 
 In the press, that they find nn ar^niment for 
 tlielr contention in tlie letter of tlie Hon. Mr. 
 Blake. Mr. Blake gave it as his opinion, and 
 we hear It quoted from time to time en the 
 floor of tMs House, that tm restricted reci- 
 procity would lead to annexation. I discuss 
 this question fairly, and I will quote the 
 words of Mr. BlaKO : 
 
 The tendency in Canada of unrestricted free trade 
 with the States, higher duties V»iiig maintained 
 agair.st the United Kingdom, would bo towards 
 political union. 
 
 But I ask hon. gentlemen on the otlier side, 
 whether Mr. Blake did not, upon that oc- 
 casion, conflne himself simply to reciprocity ? 
 Did he not also give his opinion as to tlio Na- 
 tional Policy ? 
 
 Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh. 
 
 Mr. IxA.UIlIER. Does any one deny it ? I 
 am sui-prised at the power of denial of some 
 hon. gentlemen on the other side. I am sur- 
 prised that tliere are gentlemen on the other 
 side who will deny that Mr. Blake said also 
 that tihe tendency of the National Policy was 
 direct to annexation. Allow me to quote his 
 words a^ain : 
 
 The Canndian Cnniwrvative pnrty ban failed to oo- 
 
 coniiiliMli the prixlieflon of itH nroinotiTH, ltd real 
 tentlcncy haM iM-eii, aw foretold twelve vcarM go, toward! 
 (liNintegrationnnd annexation, inNteanof coiiHoIidation 
 anil the inainti'uant^e of that Hritish connection of 
 wiiicli they claim to be the H|)e(!ial giiardianH, 
 
 This is tho languajro of Mr. Bliiko. Two y(>ar8 
 afKu-wards, wo hear hon. gontlemon on the 
 other shl'i <leny that Mr. BLiko gave It as 
 his opinion that tlie National I'olicy directly 
 hnl to annexation. If you are, on tJio other 
 Hide, ag!\inst unri>strio(ed rocipi-oclty, Ixioauso 
 Mr. Blalie said that it would lead to annex- 
 ation, how Ls it that y(ni still relaiu tlio .Va- 
 llonal PoUcy, which. In the opinion of Mr. 
 Blake, is lH)und to produce the very same 
 result ? Dt^itroy the National Policy at once, 
 put it away at onc<>, lKH5aus<i every moment, 
 every day you keep It on the Statule-l)oolc, 
 U another Ht(>p tiik(»u towards annexation. 
 There \a, however, a mont serious objection 
 than thia to unrestricted reirlproclty. Tills 
 objection of nioxatlon 1 do not treat im'tI- 
 ously. I do not affiHit to treat It seriously, 
 I diinl.sM It altflgi ther ; but I say, wltliout any 
 hesitation, that tiiere is rioro serious olijec- 
 , tlou to i':nvstricti>d reciprocity, And that '3 
 : tlio dlf /•iuihmtlon again-tt En^'iimd. TlUs la 
 an objeotlon, which, lor my part, I havo al- 
 ways troat(Hl rtitli respect. I resjiect the 
 feeling of gentle luon on tiio other jide, who 
 from motlw, wiildi I will not discuss, would 
 liesitate to discriminate agahist England ; but 
 I tell hon. gon'^lomen opposite that wlien 
 they take up that qui^stion of di.scilmination 
 against England, they are raisin,' against 
 reciprocity an objeotion wlilch ICngland long 
 ago abandoned. My hoi. friend 'x^side me 
 from Prince Edward Island (Mi . Da vies) 
 proved the other day most conclusively, that 
 In the Brown treaty England had abandoned 
 that objeotton in the most foi-mal maimer. 
 It is true that his statemont was denied by 
 genUemen on the otlier side. It is true tliat 
 they pretended to prove, by tho hinguiige of 
 Mr. Brown, that England had never aban- 
 doned its objection to discrimination. WeU, 
 [ that is a question we caJi discuss atrain. I 
 grant that when Mr. Brown wont to Wash- 
 ington, as plenipotentiary of tiie C;iuiidlan 
 (Jovemmont, to disciuss it^jiproclty, he had It 
 In h's mind not to discriminate against Eng- 
 land, and he Icept that In his mind, not only 
 at the outset, but throughout the whole nego- 
 tiation. I will quote from his speech, deliv- 
 ered In the Senate In 1875 : 
 
 I come now.hon. gentlemen, to the objections which 
 have been iirged against the treaty from such quar- 
 ters as entitle them to formal answei. The first of 
 these is the allegation that tho treaty discriminated 
 against (Jreat Britain in favour of tho United Strtes. 
 Notliing could be more unfounded than this. It was 
 perfectly understood from the opening of the negotia- 
 tions, that no article could be free from duty in regard 
 to the United States that wa-s not also open with 
 regard to Great Britain, and nothing else was ever 
 contemplated for a moment. 
 
 I am not "surprised at this, and no one will 
 be surprised at It, when I rtvfer to the first 
 
 mvmm mi^m ' itm" 
 
10 
 
 I 
 
 proposal rruade by Mr. BroTvn and Sir Edward 
 Thornton, his co-plenipotentiary, to the Am- 
 erican commissioners. It was this : 
 
 In regard to the addition of certain classes of nianu- 
 factures — said the British coniniissioiier — to the free 
 list under the old treaty, we reminded Mr. Fisli, that 
 the revenue of the Canadian Dominion was largely 
 obtained from a 15 ])er cent ad valorem duty on 
 manufactured goods, and that any articles made free 
 in Canada under agreement with any foreign country 
 must bo made free to Great Britain. 
 
 Now, at tho same time the English plenlpoton- 
 tlai*y gave a list to the American commis- 
 sioners of the articles which they proposed 
 should be Included in the treaty. They were 
 OS follows :— 
 
 Agricultural in)i>loinents, to bo defined. 
 
 Extracts ()f bark for tanning purposes. 
 
 Bath bricks ; bricks for buildin;:; purposes. 
 
 Earth ochres, gromid or unground. 
 
 Hay ; lime ; mult. 
 
 Manufactures of iron and steel, to be defined. 
 
 Manufactures of iron or steel [and wood,jointly, to i 
 be defined. " 1 
 
 Manufaot\ires of wood, to be defined. 
 
 Mineral and other oil. 
 
 Plaster, raw or calcined. 
 
 Salt and straw. 
 
 Stone, niarl)le or granite, partly or [wholly cut or • 
 wrought. " i 
 
 Now it is to be remarked that, with the ex- 1 
 ception of iron and sleel, all these other : 
 artick>s wore such as we did not Import i 
 from EnglaiKl, so tliat there could be no com- ' 
 petition from England, and, therefore, no dis- 
 crlmlnatiou. The only articles as 1o which 
 there might be dlsciimination were the 
 articles of iron and steel, and as to these, 1 
 they were to Ikj defined. Undoubtedly the 
 British commi.ssioners had it in their mind | 
 to define those articles, so that there should ' 
 be no discrimination against England. But 
 these proposittoiLS were not admitted by tho ; 
 American comiuissionei's. So another was ' 
 made and the following Ust was finally ' 
 decided upon. Now, I am calUnu: attention \ 
 to the list which was finally included In the 
 treaty : | 
 
 Agricultural inii)lenionts, all kinds. 
 Axes of all kinds. 
 
 Boots and shoes of leather. ' ' " 
 
 Boot and shoe making macliines. ' 
 
 Buffalo robes, divssed and trimmed. i 
 
 Cotton grain bags ; cotton denims. • 
 
 Cotton jeans, com])Iete. 
 Cotton drillings, unl)Ieached. 
 Cotton plaids ; cotton tickings. 
 Ooltonades, unbleached. 
 Cabinetware and furniture or parts thereof. 
 Carriages, carts, "-agons and other wheeled vehi- 
 cles and sleighs or parts thereof. 
 Fire engines or parts thereof. 
 Felt covering for toilers. 
 Gutta jjercha belting and tubing. 
 Iron, bar, hoop, pig, puddled, rod, sheet or scrap. 
 Iron nails, spikes, bolts, tacks, brads or springs. 
 Iron castings. 
 
 India ruV)i)er lielting and tubing. 
 Locomotives for railways or parts thereof. 
 Lead, sheet or pig. 
 Leather, sole or upper. 
 Leather, harness and saddlery. 
 
 Mill or factory or steam-boat fixed engines and 
 machines or parts thereof. 
 
 Manufactures of marble, stone, slate or granite. 
 
 Manufactures of wood solely, or of wood nailed, 
 boimd, hinged or locked with metal materials. 
 
 Mangles, washing machines, wringing machines and 
 drying machines or jiarts thereof. 
 
 I'rinting papers f(jr newspapers. 
 
 I'aper-niaking machines or parts thereof. 
 
 Printing tyjie, presses and folders, paper cutters, 
 ruling machines. 
 
 Page-numbering machines and stereotyping and 
 electrotyping apparatus or jjarts thereof. 
 
 Refrigerators or parts ther-jof. 
 
 Kailroad cars, carriages and trucks or parts thereof. 
 
 Satinets of wool and cotton. 
 
 Steam engines or parts thereof. 
 
 Steel, wrought or cast, and steel plates and rails. 
 
 Tin tubes j'.nd jiiping. 
 
 Tweeds, of wool solely. 
 
 Water wheel machines and apparatus or parts 
 thereof. 
 
 Now, it is to be remarked that, whereas the 
 first list submitted to tho Briti.sh commis- 
 sioners, ail'. Brown and Sir Edward Thornton, 
 contained no article (with the exception of 
 iron and steel, which was to be defined) which 
 we uuported fi-om England, the latter list 
 contains a large nmnber of articles which we 
 imported from England, such as cotton, iron, 
 steel, woollen tweeds, &c. Now, Sir, after 
 having read the statement; of Mr. Brown, 
 it seems that ho had in his mind all 
 the time tiiat the Canadian Parliament 
 would not dlscrimtuato against Great Bri- 
 tain in these articles, and that the 
 same course would, undoubtedly, be fol- 
 lowed in regard to the treaty of 1874, 
 if it was passed and ratified as in tiie treaty 
 of 1854, that is to say, all the articles in the 
 treaty which we imported from England 
 would be placed upon the free list when 
 coming from Britain. But before the 
 treaty was signed— when it was com- 
 pleted, but not signed— it was referred by the 
 Canadian Government to Lord Derby, who 
 roferi-ed it to the Board of Ti-ade for its 
 opinion upon tho question of discrimination, 
 and it is to this I refer the attention of the 
 House. Let m« first give the statement of 
 Lord Derby : 
 
 Renewal of treaty of 1854 for twenty-one years, 
 including the fisheries, witli the addition of the free 
 admissio:i of salt, manufactures of wood, iron or steel 
 articles, or of these jointly, agricultural implements 
 and a few other trifling articles. 
 
 And here is tlie answer of the Board of 
 Trade : 
 
 To this no objection can be taken, whatever criticisir 
 may have been made on the original reciprocity 
 treaty, on the ground that Can&da was setting up 
 differential duties in favour of the United States, both 
 against tliis country and countries with which we 
 have most favoured nation treaties. No such objection 
 can be taken now- 
 
 Now, Sir, th.at is the answer of the Board of 
 Trade hi 1874 : That if Canada entered into 
 a treaty with the United States which In- 
 cluded articles Imported from England, there 
 would be a discrimination against England, 
 
11 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 whereas In 1854 objections would have been' 
 taken, in 1874 the same objection would not 
 have been taken. Why, Sir, England realized 
 that Canada had progressed ; that Canada 
 has Interests distinct from England, and that 
 Canada, having been given tlie power to 
 govern itself, should be allowed to exei-dse 
 that power in its entirety. And mark, Sir, 
 the road that liad been travelled from 1854 
 to 1874. In 1854 all the articles included In 
 the treaty, and they were many, were placed 
 upon the free list of Canada. The fv^Uowtng 
 are the articles includetl in the treaty of 
 1854:- 
 
 Grain, flour and breadstuflfs of all kinds. 
 
 Animals of all kinds. 
 
 Fresh, smoked and salted meats. 
 
 Cotton wool, seeds and vegetables. 
 
 Undried frnits, dried fruits. 
 
 Fish of all kinds. 
 
 Products of fisii and of all other creatiires living in 
 the water. 
 
 Poultry, eggs. 
 
 Hides, furs, skins or tails undressed. 
 
 Stone or marble in its crude or unwrought state. 
 
 Slate. 
 
 Butter, cheese, tallow. 
 
 Lard, liorns, manures. 
 
 Ores of metals of all kinds. 
 
 Coal. 
 
 Pitch, tar, turpentine, a.shes. 
 
 Timber and lumber of all kinds, round hewed, sawed, 
 nnmanufactured in wliole or in part. 
 
 Firewood. 
 
 Plants, shrubs, and tvees. 
 
 Pelts, wool. 
 
 Fish oil. 
 
 Kice, broomcorn and bark. 
 
 Gypsum, gro\ind or unground. 
 
 Hewn or wrouglit or unwrought burr or grindstones. 
 
 Dye stuffs. 
 
 Flax, hemp, and tow unmanufactured. 
 
 Unmanufactmed tobacco. 
 
 Rags. 
 
 As soon as tlie treaty had been signed and 
 completed and ratilied by the Senate of the 
 United States, and ratlfle<i by the Legislature 
 of Canada, all these articles except one were 
 placed upon the free list. That one article 
 was dried fmits. Now, of all those articles 
 which were i>laced upon the free Ust, and 
 thus miule free to Britain, we did not Import 
 from Britiiin any except one, that is coal. As 
 to coal, there could be no discrimination 
 against England to a large extent for the 
 reason that coal cannot come by vessel fm'ther 
 than Montreal, and cannot come much in com- 
 petition with American coal west of Montreal. 
 And what was the reason dried fruits was 
 not placed on the free Ust ? Shnply to dis- 
 criminate in favour of the Americans. The 
 Americana at tliat time produced dried fruits, 
 and therefore we discriminated in their favour. 
 It is true, we did not import dri^ fruits di- 
 rectly from England; but we did Import them 
 from Greece, with which country we had, at 
 that time, a treaty on the most favoured 
 nation basis, so that in 18r-4 England con- 
 sented to our discriminating against nations 
 with which she had treaties of commerce. 
 In 1874 she consented to discriminate agrJnst 
 her own goods. What is the objv^ tloa raised 
 
 by hon. gentlemen against reciprocity, limited 
 or xmllmlted, when England hei-self has agreed 
 and consented that Canada should discrimin- 
 ato against her if Canada found it to her ad- 
 vantage ? ■ Now, Sir, upon this question I 
 cannot do better, I think, Qian quote to the 
 House an article which I extract from a news- 
 paper, an independent newspaper, the 
 " Week," of Toronto. The " Week " speaks 
 thus in its issue of the 27th January last : 
 
 But is free access to the markets of the United 
 St.ates attainable on any conditions whicli Canada 
 could accept without sacrifice of duty or self -respect ? 
 Singularly enough, this is a question in regard to 
 wiiich we have directly contradictory testimony from 
 the only two parties who are in a position to know. 
 According to the version of the late conference given 
 by Messrs. Blaine .and Foster, the ex-Secretary, and 
 the pres nt Secretary, resjjectively, of the TTnitcd 
 States Governmen*', the conditions offered were such 
 as most persons would pronounce fair and reasonable, 
 viz., that the list of goods to come under the treaty 
 of reciprocity must include manufactures as well as 
 natural [iroducts, and that thetaiiffs must be mutually 
 preferential. This would have involved discrimina- 
 tion to a certain extent against tlie mother country in 
 common with all other nations, but such discrimina- 
 tion is of the very nature of reciprocity treaties and 
 could not be objected to by Great Britain, wlio would 
 be only too glad to see a revival of Canadian prosper- 
 ity and progress upon such terms. On the other 
 hand, according to the recollections of Sir John 
 Thompson iuid our Mr. Foster, reciprocity was offered 
 only on condition of C.'inada's adoption of th<! United 
 States tariff, which is of course a very different 
 matter. This matter should be fairly faced and dis- 
 cussed during the session, not so iiiucli to settle tlie 
 question of correctness of memory, whicli would be a 
 delicate and unjirofitaVile business, as to prciK)unce 
 upon the desiraliility of now taking the American re- 
 presentatives at their word, and seeking a renewal of 
 negotiations on the lines which thoy have distinctly 
 laid down. It is scarcely conceivable that the inoom- • 
 ing Washington Administration will be less favour- 
 able to such an arrangement than the outgoing one. 
 What attitude will our Government take, is one of 
 the test questions. 
 
 Why, Sir, who does not know that if we had 
 a reciprocity treaty with the United States 
 the prosperity of Canada would be increased 
 to a very large extent ? Hon. gentlemen on 
 the other fidde c;innot dispute it. for they 
 admit themselves to be in favom* of recipro- 
 city. Therefore, Sir, if our prosperity were 
 increased, our pm-ohasing power would be In- 
 creased, and if England might suffer In one 
 direction she would benefit still more hi an- 
 other direction, and. tlierefore, instead of in- 
 juring England, as is contended by hon. gen- 
 tlemen opposite, we would actually confer 
 a benefit on England, on Canada and on the 
 United States as well. This is the reason 
 why we are in favour of that poUcy. Sir, 
 there is another question to which I want to 
 allude, that is, on issue of fact which waa 
 Tfdsed the other day by my hon. friend from 
 Norfolk (Mr. Oharllon), who said tJiat when 
 the Government dissolved the Hoiise in 1891 
 they asserfyed to the people of Canada that 
 they could and w^uld obtain a reciprocity 
 treaty for theui witli the United States. The 
 hon. gentlemen oppo^te denied that ; but. Sir, 
 
12 
 
 I wish now to afflrm that every word spoken 
 by my hon. friend from North Norfolk Is true, 
 and I afflrm as a fact, to which 'I challenge 
 tlie contradiction of the hon. gentleman, that 
 when Parliament was dissolved in 1891 Uy 
 His Excollency upon the advice of the Oanar 
 dlan Government, they did It under a false 
 pretense In the eyes of the Canadian people 
 aud with deceit la their mouth, by stating to 
 the people of Canada that they were induced 
 to dissolve Parliament because they had re- 
 ceived from Mr. Blaine and the American 
 authoiitles an invitiition to negotiate a re- 
 ciprocity treaty. Sir, the fact was that it 
 was} not" Mr. Blaine or the American authori- 
 ties who had sought for a conference with a 
 view to reciprocity, but it was the Canadian 
 Government who had sought for a conference 
 at Washington with a vie"^ of obtaining a 
 reciprocity treaty. Let me call tlie attention 
 of the Hoi^se -to a state nai>er which was 
 pafised in the preceding month of December, 
 and which was communicated to the press 
 at the .same time that the dissolution was an- 
 nounced. It was a Minute of Council, which 
 I'ead as follows :— 
 
 The Committee of tlie Privy Council having learned 
 that the Honourable the Secretary of State for the 
 United States had expressed to Her Majesty's Minis- 
 ters at Washinj^ton his readine.ss to negotiate for a 
 reciprocity treaty on a wide basis and particularly for 
 the protection of the mackerel fisheries, and for the 
 fisheries on inland waters, and had subsequently 
 stated to Her Majesty's Minister his great desire to 
 conclude a reciprocity treaty, they desire to take the 
 ojiportunity afforded by the.-ie intimations from Mr. 
 Blaine of suggesting the expediency of taking early 
 steps to adjust the various matters that have arisen 
 and now exist, affecting the relations of Canada with 
 the United States. 
 
 Now, Sir, you have it la plalu language ; here 
 is a s(tate paper, a Minute of CouucU for which 
 hon. gentlemen are respon^uble to this House. 
 stating that it was Mr. Blaine who had in- 
 vitod a conference, that Mr. Blaine had mani- 
 fested a gi'eat desh-e to have a reciprocity 
 treaty. What was tlielr object V It was 
 simply as my hon. friend from North Nor- 
 folk (Mr. Charlton) stated a few days ago, 
 in oi-der to convey the Impression to the Cana^ 
 dlan people that they would obtain a reci- 
 procity treaty. They desii-ed to make the 
 Canadian people believe that the Canadian 
 Government could obtain a reciprocity treaty, 
 and that Mr. Bhiine had manifested a gi-eat 
 desire to have such a treaty. Yet, Sir, far 
 from tills being the case, when those gentle- 
 men attempted some months ago to have a 
 reciprocity conference at Wasblngton, before 
 they could enter into negotiations, Mr. Blaine 
 wanted an explanation as to the extraordinary 
 IK>sitlon in which he had been placed in the 
 eyes of tlie C^inadlan people. Before he con- 
 sented to receive the Canadian delegation, he 
 addressed a letter to Sir Julian Paunoefote, 
 in which he said : — 
 
 In view of tiie fact that you had come to the State 
 Dppartm.ent with the proposals, and that the subject 
 was then for the first time mentioned between us, and 
 in view of the further fact that I agreed to a nivate 
 
 conference as explained in my Minute, I confess that 
 it was a surprise to mo when several weeks later during 
 the Canadian canvass. Sir John Macdonald and Sir 
 Charles Tupper both stated before public assemblages 
 that an informal discussion of a reciprocity treaty 
 I would take place at Wa.shington after tlie 4th March, 
 I by the initiation of the .Secretary of State. 
 
 ! Here we see Mr. Blaine protesting against 
 
 the position in which he had been placed by 
 
 the false representations which had been 
 
 made to the Canadian public tliat he had 
 
 \ sought for a reciprocity treaty. Now, Sir, 
 
 j upon this occasion, I put the question to the 
 
 I hon. gentleman: Which statement Is true? 
 
 I Was it the statement of Mr. Blaine that 
 
 I It was not ho who had sought for a confer- 
 
 [ ence, or was it the statement of hon. gen- 
 
 j tlemen that it was Mr. Blaine who had sought 
 
 ifor a conference? Sir, upon this point we 
 
 I have the evidence of Sir Charles Tupper 
 
 ' himself who went to Washington before he 
 
 ' went to England, and going to Washington 
 
 • in order to have a conference, he was placed 
 
 in the humiliating position that he had to 
 
 confess that the Impression which had been 
 
 conveyed to the Canadian public was a false 
 
 impression. We have a letter of Sir Charles 
 
 Tupper, addressed to the late Sir John A. 
 
 Macdonald, explaining his interview with Mr. 
 
 "31alae, In wMch he said : 
 
 I told Mr. Blaine that I wished, in the outset, to 
 recognize the accuracy of the statement contained in 
 his letter to Sir .Julian Pauncefote, which I had seen, 
 in reference to the initiation of negotiations regarding 
 reciprocal trade arrangements between the two coun- 
 tries. 
 
 The first thing which he had to do was to 
 lell Mr. Blaine that what he had been stat- 
 li^g Id Canadian assemblies, that the impres- 
 sion which had been conveyed, was false, and 
 he had to make a recantation before he could 
 be heard. No man in the position of Mr. 
 Blaine, having the respect, not only of his 
 own nation, but the respect of himself, 
 would have consented to treat with a man 
 who had thus misrepresented him In the eyes 
 of another nation, and so when the men who 
 had made the false representation wished to 
 treat with him at Washington, they first had 
 to retract their statement. Now, I ask why 
 was this humiliating falsehood resorted to? 
 Simply to convey the Impression to the Ca- 
 nadian people that the Canadian Minister 
 could obtain a reciprocity treaty .' Washing- 
 ton. Sir, this is the extent of the dograda 
 tlon to which a party can descend who wants 
 to obtain power and retain It. We do not 
 fight with such weapons. We have a legiti- 
 mate ambition to obtain our share of pub- 
 lic favour, but by such means we avIU never 
 seek to raise ourselves. We will fight an hoa- 
 esi, and an open battle. Sir, po^^er has no 
 attraction for us If it has to be purchased at 
 such a price, and at such a humiliation. Sir, 
 the condition of the country is a grave one, 
 but It is not a desperate one. That the peo- 
 ple suffer is evidenced by their action, when, 
 by thousands at a time, they leave the coun- 
 try for a foreign soli; by their action, when, 
 
 
13 
 
 by fhousanda they knock at the door of this 
 Parliament in order to obtain redi-ess from 
 the position in which they find themselves. 
 Sir, a remedy could easily be found if the 
 Government would consent to listen, not to 
 the voice of passion and greed, but to the 
 voice of reason and Justice; a remedy could be 
 iound in the decrease of taxation and in the 
 extension of oiu* market. Let the Canadian 
 public, let the Canadian farmera and toilers 
 be reUeved from the load under wlilch they 
 are now groaning; leave them an open field 
 
 for their energy and their courage, and at 
 once all the discontent which now prevails in 
 the land will disappear, and then, and net 
 until then, wUl we enjoy in this country a 
 satisfactory prosperity, substantial and real, 
 and recognized by the people themselves. 
 
 OTTAWA 
 
 Printed by S. E. Dawson 
 
 Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty 
 
 1803 
 
 i:. 
 
 'i^^Y-