IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. / / % (/. i/x 1.0 I.I 1.25 150 ^= t 1^ M 2.2 LI IIIIII.6 ^ ^ ^a / VI 7 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical Notes / Notes techniques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Physical features of this copy which may alter any of the images in the reproduction are checked below. E Coloured covers/ Couvertures de couleur L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Certains ddfauts susceptibles de nuire d la quality de la reproduction sont notds ci-dessous. D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Th( PO! of filr Th( COI or api □ D D Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqudes Tight binding (may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin)/ Reliure serr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure) □ D Coloured plates/ Planches en couleur Show through/ Transparence Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Th( filn ins Ma in I upi bol foil r~T] Additional comments/ Iv I Commentaires suppl^mentaires Original copy restored and laminated. Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Plates missing/ Des planches manquent D D D Pagination incorrect/ Erreurs de pagination Pages missing/ Des pages manquent Maps missing/ Des cartes g^ographiques manquent >/ Additional comments/ Commentaires suppliSmentaires Pages 13 - 16, and 21 - 24 have been bound in twice, Those appearing lighter on the microfiche are photo- reproductions from another copy. 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. Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de fa condition et de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain tha symbol —*' (meaning CONTINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la der- nidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: (9 symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". The original copy was borrowed from, and filmed with, the kind consent of the following institution: Library of the Public Archives of Canada Maps or plates 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: L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce 6 la g^ndrositd de l'6tablissement pr§teur suivant : La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les cartes ou les plant hes trop grandes pour dtre reproduites en un seul clich6 sont filmdes d partir de Tangle supdrieure gauche, de gauche d droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant illustre la m^thode : 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^oaBSiassassi !^i^' D h'^- jeriN eriARLTGN, M. P. -ON — UNRESTRICTED REGIPROt}ITY WITH THE UNITED STATES. Delivered in the Ho/t^c of Commonfi, Fridity, March 16//<, 1888. House resumed adjourned debate on proposed motion of Sir Richard Cart- wright, and on the proposed amendment of Mr. Foster. Mr. OHAKLTON. Mr. Speaker, the consideration of the question now before the House is a matter of great import- ariiio to this country, and it may truly be said, that no question has been debat- ed in this Chamber since the date of OoTi federation of as great importance as that now under consideration. It is a quostion, Sir, which has attracted A very large amonni: of attention in the country ; it is a (juestion which to- day occupies in the public mind u more prominent place than any other ))ubl"''; quostion. It is also a (piestion, which haa been discussed and consideied for some montlia past not as a Jiarty question ; it has been a political qu<\stion indeed, but it was not a party question. Either of the great parties in this country were at Jiberty at any time to make this propo- sition a plank in their platform, or both of the gieat parties were at liberty to act in concert on this matter for the pur- pose of procuring what we believe would prove a very great boon to Canada. It is a question, Sir, that can only be said to have assumed the position of a party question, yesterday. It only a.ssumed that position, Sir. when the Minister of Mnvine introduced his amendment to the motion made by my hon. friend at my vii»ht,(Sir Richard Cartwright) declar- ing that in the opinion of this Hou.se reciprocity with the United States ought only be souglit for upon conditi'tn? which would permit us to re- tain unini[iared the features of the Na- tional Policy, orj in other words, that it phould only be sought for upon conditions that \^'e are certain would be refu.sei. That Sir, makes a plain square issue and makes the question a party question, (cheers). My hon. friend from South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) has in- troduced his motion, declaring that un- restricted reci[»rocity between Canada and the United States would prove to be a boon that we aie warranted in seeking to obhiin ; and the Government meets that j)i'Oposal by a counter proposition declaring that we will not seek for it — that we will not accept iTcii)rocity with the United States except upon conditions which the Government and the people of that country have distinctly informed us, time and again and for years ))ast, were inadmissable, and conditions upon which thoy would not grant it. (Hear, hear.) It now, Sir, becomes a party question, and it is the party ques- tion of the drty. It will be a party ques- tion in all probability for some yeara in the future, aud, Sir, in my belief it is a principle that Is bound to triumph in this country. In my belief, the hope of this countrv is intimately connected with the triumph of this principle. In considering this question it is well at all times to bear in mind our peculiar position, our peculiar environments and our surroundings u])on this continent at t)io same time. No less than G 5,000,- 000 of people speak the English tongue on the continent to-day, and at this moment North America is the grf^at seat of Anglo-Saxon power. Some weeks ago 1 stood upon the plains of Abraham and looked upon the inscription of that Kimple shaft erected to the memory of General Wolf : 'Here ilied Wolf victorious, ."Sept. 17, 1759.' Well, Sir, 129 years have passed away fi'ince that event, and the two and a half millions of Eoglish-speaking people that then dwelt upon this continent have in- creased to 6.'), 000,000. When we come to make computations as to the probable increase in numbers and wealth of Eng- lish speaking ])eoplo on this contineul, and are guided in these computations liy the experience of the past, the result of such computations would lead one to doubt whether he is waking or dreaming. It is certain, Sir, that in the near future there will he 100.000,000 of English- speaking people on the continent of North America, and i'^ all human prob- ability that number will be living on this continent when we reach the vear 1910. It is morally certain that there will be 65,000,000 in the United States at the next census in 1890, as certain almost is it that there will be S0,000,000 peo]>le there in 1900, and that there will be 100,000 000 in 1910. New, Sir, this being the case, and the fact being api)aront that this continent is to be the grandest theatre of Angle-Saxofi achievements and development of Anglo-Saxon power, it becomes us to consitler our position as Anglo Saxons living upon the continent of North America, We should ap])rnach the consideration of this question not in a partisan spirit; we should approach the consideration of this (piestion with a'view desiring to promote the best interfsts of this country. It is a question which, above all other questions, reijuires in its treatment and in its co\isideration the exer- cise of patriotic impulses and motives. Mr. LANDRY. Hear, hear. Mr. CHAKLTON. My hon. frien.l says "hear, hear." 1 hope. Sir, he will never lose sight of this st.'Utiment when treating this question. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have torty-tivo Anglo-Saxon commonwealths and fifteen territorial organizations, besiles the commonwealths upon this contiD(>nt. Part of these avo under one Hag and part of them are under another, but they are to-day, and they will be in all the days of the future, in- timately bound togethei-. The fate of OTie will intluenco the fate of the other, and it is inevitable such will be the case. Their geograjtliical situation is such that they must necessarily have commeroiul and social relations of the most intiniate character, the one with the other. Now, Sir, in dealing with the question of a proposed cjmmercial treaty with the tlnited States, we have to take into consideration and we shall tind that at every turn of the argument that view of the case will crop up — the relative public bui'dens resting on .'he two coun- tries, the amount of the necessary taxa tion in one and in the other, th(! , burden of debt resting on one and on the other acdthe expenditure of one andof theothei. We shall have to enter into a process of self-examination to ascertain exactly what jur position relatively to that of the United States is OUR FINANCIAL CONDITION STATED BRIEFLY. To state the case brieily, we commenced in 1867 with a net debt of $75,7:28,000 • on the 1st of March last our del it amounted to $229,409,000, an increase of .fl58,fi00,000 in round numbers, or 203 per cent., while our population did not increase more than 40 per cent. TIk^ increase of our debt in that time has l»een live times more rapid than the increase of our population. (Hoar, hear.) We commenced in 18G«S with au expenditure dt' •*! 8,486,000, and last year our expen- diture was $35,058,000— that of the pre- ceding year was much higher. 'J'hat was an increase of i$22,l 72,000, or 161 per cent., an increase of expenditure four times more rapid than the inci(!a«o of p jpulatioij. Our taxation trom Customs in ISficS was ^8,578,000, and in 1887 it was $22,378,000, an increase of $13, ^00,000 or IGO per cent., au increase four times more rapid than the increase of population. (Hear, heai.) Now, you will see that the increase in debt has out- stripped the increase of population in a tivefold ratio, the increase of ex))endi- tiire has outstrippt'd the increase of po[)U- Intion in a fourfold ratio, and the increase of taxation lias out- fit rip|ied the increase of popula- tion in a four-fold ratio ; and the only peiiod in the history of Canada Avhen tliiy course of thin^j.s has not marked the adinini::,tration of the affairs of this ountry, was durinj;' the administration of my lion, and most hi«,ddy honored friend at my right (Mr, Mackenzie). Under his administration, thougii lie- was com.peHcd, in order to carry out oh- li^ations incurred by his predecessors, to iiiorease the debt of this country from 1^74-75 to 1878-71), so that the burden of interest was increased .fG04,00(», he diminished thi- taxation from customs from !$1 5,35 1,000 in 1874-75 to $12, 1)00- OuO in 1878 9, a decrease in taxation of .S2, 151,000. Althou«,'h the expenditure cliargeable to consolidated fund insre ased during his administration, by a careful computation, almost exactly $852,000, the controllable expenditure was diminished by $1,782,000. I say, Sir, that period fur- nished the only instance in the history of I'anada since 18G7 when the affairs of this country Lave been admmistered in other than a reckless manner and a manner contrary to the the dictates of economy and prudence. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, one result of this extravagance, and of other ciicumstances to which I shall shortly allude, is to bo seen in THE KXOUUJ OF THE roiTI.ATION OF THIS COUNTRY. I am aware, 8ir, that hon. g(;iitleajen ou the opposite side of the House seek to belittle this loss, t am aware that the accuracy of the statistics furnished i)y the United States is-impugned by them. I am aware that they deny that any un- usual movement in that direction ha.s taken place in late years. The hon. Minister of Marine stated yesterday that no unusual movement of late has taken ,/.ace. The hon. member for We.st Huron (Mr. Porter) stated that there was a mov^eineat to a certain extent, and that the movement from his section was cf young men who went to find homes free and untraTumellcd and romised to the farmers oi Canada that American productions should be jjre- vented from coming into competition with Canadian productions, by the duties im- posed on the former. That also was a delusion ard a snaro. Jt promised that competition between manufactures in Canada woukl lower the price of goods, and the truth is that to-day there is no civilised country in the world where the producer buys tlearer and sells cheaper than he does in Canada. Mr. HICKEY. It is not so, you cannot prove it either. Mr. CHARLTON. It is so. In some cases goods may be absolutely somewhat lower in pi ice than they were ten years ago ; but ttiere is no case in which goods are not relatively higher in consequence of the National Policy than they were then. There is iio class of goods that it will not pay to smugg'e into this country. There are no goods that are not sold in this country almost up to the limit at which similar goods could be imported with the duty paid, and I rejjeat that Canada is of all civilized countries the one where the great pro- ducing classes buy dear and sell cheap. That is the result of tbe National Policy, and one of the fruits of that policy is to drive from this country hundreds of thousands of its citizens. The hon. Minister of the Interior assured us the other niglit that THE FARMERS OF ONTARIO were in a happy condition. Well, 8ir, I leave the farmers of Ontario to judge, and to say whether that is not en- tirely destitute of every element of truth, and whether it is not a cruel insult to that class of people. He proceeded to make a comparison between the prices obtainable for certain productions of ther soil in Butfalo and in Toronto, and he succeeded in making a comparison in some articles that w.ih favorable to Canada. Now, since the year lf^7i>, when the National Policy went into opera- tion, there never has been a time, in my opinion which is baaed ujton the market reports, when agricultural productions of all kinds were not rated higher in price in the United States markets that in cor- responding Canadian markets, until, since the last harvest when for the tirst time since the National Policy was adopted, it has been possible to make a comparisori that would be favorable to Canada in few lines of agricultural productions. And what was the cause of this. It was be- CMtise last year we had an unprecedented drought in Ontario, which dried up our pastures and caused the country to have a deficient crop ; and as a result of that disaster, potatoes were imported from Manitoba, and Ontario became, instead of a prod\icing country with a surplus to sell, a consuming country which had to purchase supplies of various kinds ia order to meet its wants. Under thes© conditions, for a short time in the history of Ontario, prices were higher in some lines there than in the corresponding markets of the United States, and the hon. gentleman paraded before this House certain facts which were due solely to a great agricultural disaster and upon these facts he felicitated himself on the unduly prosperous condition of' the country. (jjoud cheers.) Another result of the policy of this Government is found at the present moment in the CONDITION OF OUR NORTH-WEST. My hon. friend told us the other night that many Canadians had been en- trapped into going to Dakota. Well, I do not know of any individual in this Dominion who has more tiiectually aided in entrapping Canadians into Dakota than the Minister of the interior, 1 do not know of any cause that has operated more effectually to produce immigration to Dakota than the regulations of the s Department of the Interior. True, they have been modified soratwhat, and for the better, under the aduiintratioii of my hon frif^nd. True, they were very much worse under his predecesaor, but still those regulations to-day — and I wish that I may be able to impress this fact on he mind of my hon, IVieud— are of a chat.icter to aiil most efticiently in en- trajtping 'Janadians into Dakota, because they are less liberal than the laud regu- lations of the United States. Thsy are less liberal with reference to homestead grants ; they are less liberal as regards the prices of land. They charge as much again for laud south of the Canadian Pacific Eailway as is charged in the United States for land similarly situated. Tluy Charge 75 cents per acre more for land north of the Canadian Pacific Rail' way than is churg- d for similar lands in the. United States; and these charges liave operated most powerfully in divert- ing erngration from the Canadian North- West to the new territories of the Ame- rican Union. Anr ther iufiuenco that has operated to entrap Canadians into Dakota is the National Policy, which b^ars with unjust severity upon the )>fO[)le of our Xorth-West. It is a policy which im- poses upon them heavy taxation on the implements they introduce into that country, it is a policy which, while on the one hand taxing them m'rcilessly, denies them on the other hand the means for securing the transmission of the grain that lies piled up in millions of bushels along the Canadian Pacific Kailwa}' at the present moment. I visited Manitoba lately, and was informed there that the duty on agricultural implements often amounted to over 50 per cent, of their actual cost, under the rega- lations of the department. Steam threshers and reaping machines intro- duced at the boundary line at their actual cost, are revalued ; their value is in- creased, and the pui'chaser obliged to pay a duty of 50 per cent or more on their cost. These things — these regulations with regard to land and the operation of the National Policy in the North -West, arc what have driven Canadians into Dakota and Minnesota, and have led to there Vwing more Canadians to-day in the single territory of Dakota than there are in Maintolja and all the territories in the North- West. (Cheers.) So much for this diagnosis of the Canadian case. Now, to come to a direct consideration of the ouestion under discussion, I wish to draw the attention of n>y hon. friends* opposite to one most significant fact. THE QUESTION OF COMMERCAt. OR UX- RE.STRICTED UEC'IPROCITV ' has been under consideration in the counti'y for some time, and a great num- ber of the Fariuer.s' Institutes of Ontario, forty out of sixty, have pronounced une(juivocally and by overwhelming ma- jorities in favor of this pri>iciple embodied in the resolution now liefore the House. (Hear hear.) I liold a list in my hanil of these Institutes, but it is hardly- necessary for me to take u}) the time of the House by read ng it at the present moment. I have attended the meetings of some of those Institutes, and have found that, in all cases, the sentiment in favor of commercial union or unrestricted reciprocity was of the most pronounced cliaracter, and I have found that this sentiment is by no means confined within party lines. ITie president of one ot the Institutes, a meeting of which I attended, was a Ee- former. He took the platform in opposi- tion to the principal of unrestricted reci- procity, in reply to the arguments I made in its behalf. I had the privilege of the closing reply, and the vote that was taken showed there were only three pre- sent, in the whole meeting, who were opposed to the principal of unrestricted reciprocity. (Hear, hear). The people feel instinctively that a change is required. They feel that our interests require us to obtain closer trade relations with the United States, and that every impedi- ment placed in the way of trade "^ith that country is an impediment that re- acts upon all the great producting classes of this 'country. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I Sivitl a few moiuentB a^«o, our relative position in the matter of taxation, our relative position in the matter of ex|)en- diture and in the matter of debt, to tlmt of the I'niuid States i.s a practical ques- tion of the utmost importance to the people of this country. It is a question that will become more anil iiAore im- jiortant to us. It is a question which has a most important bearing upon the welfare of this country, because we have an intelligent people in this Dominion from whmn it is impossible to conceal the true conditio', of affairs, a people who can come to a conclusion themselves as to the meaning of our debt burdens. which ia two and a half limes greater than that of the I nited States per capila, H people who can calculate for theuiselves what the increase of txpenditure four times more rapidly than the increase of j)oi)ulation means, (Hear, hear,) a people who know, in fact, that the course the coun'ry is pursuing is one wliioh threa- tens tlie 1,'ra vest disaster ; and when they compare the condition of this country with that of the ITnited States, they are induced in thousands of cases to abandon Canada and go to that country. In view of that comlition of affairs, I want to point out what lUE DISr.VRITV IK THE BlUDEN'S OF THE TWO COUXTRIES is. and I do that in order to enforce the argument which I wish to impress tipon the House, that the time bag come for re- trenchment and economy. On the lat of -March, this [jresent month, the gross debt t L the United States amounted to $l,20-_',454.7]4. The net debt amounted to $l,092,927,r.l8, deducting from the gross debt the principal and interest due from the Pacific roads, le.ss their sinking funds. The gross })cr ctpita charge in the United Soates was §20. 04, and the net per capita chaige $18.22 (Hear, hear.) But the argi'tnent which will probably be advanced is li^at this is not a fail- comparison, and thut it hi necessary, in order to make tjie com- parison a fair one, tu add tc the debt of the United Spates the debt of the various States, because, while we grant subsidies to our Provinces, the general tJovern ment of the I nited States does not. If we accept that as a correct statement, and include the debts ot the States, fund ed and unfunded, which amounted in 1887 to $228,:547,4G2, less ^00,75:^312 sinking funds and assets convertible into cash, or a net debt amounting to $177,- 589,150, we find that the net debt. Federal and State all included, on the Ist March inst., was ."?!. 270,510,440, or a ])er capita charge of $21.18. Now, what is ours ? On the basis of four and three- quarter mill '\s of inhal)itants, which, I presume, art s many as Mill be claimed, we find that our net debt of !|229, 409,430 is equal to a per capita charge of $48,29, or two and one-third times as nmch as the total inHebtedness of the United State.s, Federal and State, (Hear, hear,) That is a grave state of allairs. It in- volves taxing this people two and one- third tiiues as much as the people of the United States are taxQd for pay- ment of interest. No, it is even heavier, because, while the 8 ])er cents, in that country are at a premium, in this country the 3 per cents, are at a discount. Our credit is not as good, and the relative liabilit V to meet the indebtedness is in the ratio of about two and a half in Canada to ono in the United States. Last year, the Government of the United States reduced the national debt by !# 103, 471,- 097. and the State debts were ' re- duced by $15,260,980, wliilc wo incro^ased our indebtedness and made our jiosition worse than it had been at the opening of the year. (Cheert?. ) If we come to the question of cu^itoms, we find that last vear WE RAISED I'.Y CUSTOMS DUTIES the amount of ir22,400,705, which is a per capita charge of $4.73. In the United States they raised the amotmt of $217,280,'893, or ".^3. 02 per capita. But of that $217,000,000 they applied $103, 471,097 towards the extinguishment of thtiir national d»ide from ap[»lication to debt payment neaily three times as great as that in the niMghboring eonntry, what is likely to be the inevitable result ! ( Hear, hear,) It is not time to call a halt in this country and to cease tins reckless cotnH(* of extravagMiu(\ this piling up of our debt mountains high, this lu.-hin^,' the country at railroad speed into expen- diture, which nuist lead to linancial de- •;truction. (Cheers.) Tiie expenditure of the United States did not reach the pre- sent expend itu re of Canada till that country liad more than 20,000 000 inhabitants". TJie I'nited States never owe! move than luilf of onr present debt until it had •■i2,000,000 inhabitants, e.vcept during two years, IS 16 and 1817, just after the conclusion of the war M'ith England, when its del)t was a trifle more than half our present debt. The practical ililUculty between any commissioners ap- ]>ointed between thic country and the United States to arrange jFor reciprocal trade would be this very (juestion, that to arrange an assimilation of our tarifts it would be neces- sary to do away with the dispar- ity which exists between the countries as to^ the revenue required from taxation to 'iieet the expenditure of the two coun- tries. Wo need to-day to raise almost as much again per head as they to meet our current oxpenFee, and the disparity in this respect is growing every year as we drift wider and widei- a|.art in the matter of debt burden which is resting upon the people. It is undeniable that OrK PROGRESS FOR THE LAST TWEN'Ti' YEARS HAS IJEEN SLOW. It is undeniable that it has been flow as compn'ed with the progress of the United States during that period of their nation- iil existance which ccrre.sponds with ours during the last twenty years. In 17!M>, that country had a population of .i.OOO,- 000,. In l!!<10, twenty years later, its population had increased to 7,2r)0,O00. J^uriiig all that time, it is estimated that the accession to the poiuilatiom from iiit- migration did not reach llO.OOl* souls. Now, have we as satisfactory an exhibit to present as that ? V,''«; would have had, if we had not lost ihe two million people reprfisented by those who left us and their progeny who would have b(ien with us Imt for the exodus. We do not present so favorable a record as that' of the United States at the period mentioned by two or three million souls. Is this pro- gress, this unsatisfactory rate of progress that wo have made, due to inferiority of race] No, it is not. The hon. member from Huron (Mr. Torter) verv truth- fully said last night that our emigrantn to the United States maintained the )«- putatioD of Canada wherever they went. So they do. '('here is not an tslement in the population of the United States more ])rogres8ive, more highly esteemed, more successful than the native Canadian.'^ who are in that country. (Cheers.) We »yo loosing the life-blood of this young coun- try, we are lo.siiig the most energetic of our population, who are going to savpII the resources, to swell the wealth and in- crease the might of that great power which lias already some 00,000,000 of population. We can only regret that we have not those men here. Wo can only deplore the circumstances which have led them away from our soil, but we can seek to arrest the course which has led to this. (Hear hear ) Is it due to lack of natural resources I There is scarcely a country in the world wh'>h is more abundantly blessed by Providence ami nature than ours. Its fisheries, its tinr.ber, its minerals, its agricultural lands, the boundless prairies of the west, show that this country was designed by Providence to be the home of millions of men and to become a great and wealthy power^ and it is failing to reach the des- tiny which Providence and natui-e desi- gned to give it, not because of a lack of BlmTniiiiiriiMiMilH 8 natural resources, but througli the lack of men to develop thoso rr-soinces, who huve been driven from the country to a great extent by the stupidity of the OovornnQont of the day. What is the remedy for this state of thiiiffs ? Wo require various things honeHty in the adminiHtratiou of the country, economy, retrenchment, and we requiie access to our natural markets ; we require CONTINENTAL FREK TRADE, and without continental free trade, with- out access to the niarketH of 60,000,000 of people to the south of us, we cannot progress satibfactorily. Our geographical affinities are no^. with the nations across the Atlantic, but with the kindred com- monwealth to the south of us. The Maritirae Provinces have followed the uiotiites of nature and geo- graphy: they export their potatoes, their fish, their iunilier, tlieir coal and their various other productions to the sea board cities of the Atlantic, and they bring back from those seaboard cities such articles as tliey may be able to buy at advantage in that country. It is their natural trade. (Geographical affinities say they fihalltaadeiTi thnt diiection, and it s only artificial barriers that prevent their carrying on a lucrative trade with those «eaboard cities. Ontario and (Quebec, lie right alongside the great markj^ts of the American Union, the great centres of populatitm and wealth along- side the State of New York, with nearly 6,000,000 of inhabitants within its borders, and the great metropolis of this continent possessing three times cho wealth of the whole Dominion of Canada, — there is our natural market. G;ographical afiiuitieK say we Khould trade there. Our railway liius lead to that country, every- thing invites us to trade there except taritls, which prevent our availing ourselves of the advantage that nature designtnl we should reap. (Hear, liear.) Manitoba h naturally a portion of the IVIissisaippi Valley, and would naturally trade with St. i'aul, and Minneapolis, and Chicago, and SK Louis, and to nbar Manitoba and the Nortii-West from ac- cess to those great markets, and the shortest routes to the great marketfe of the east, is burdening them with restric tions not calculated to })romo<^e their in- terests. British Cobimbia, with its timber, its fish and its coal, finds her natural markets down on the Pacific coast, in Oregon, in California, and the moitnatunil uiarkets th;it province can seek or obtain ai-e there ; but the hostile tariffs between the two countries forbid British Cohnnbia to enjoy the advantages that nature designs she should reap I'roin commercial transaci/ions Avith those Pacific States. (Cheers.) What is the character, Mr. Speaker, of THK UNITED STATES DOMESTIC COM- MliK(;E? [t is a commerce enormous in its magnitude and varied in its char- acter. The coiintry prssei^ses almos* every kind of climate, almo.st every kind of soil, almost eveiy production r^'' ire, and tie oomnu^rcial transacti'" bi^t.veen the several States of that naiioi^ j so enormous that thev would be ' rcely credited, if they were stated i etail. Now, we are shut out from th com- merce, we are debarnjd from participat- ing in that trade Avhich ha^ contributed to the so rapid advancement of that country. In order to participate in that trade, we must have access to those mar- kets, and when we do have access to those markets then we will move along side by side in the steps of progress, abreast of these American States, progressing as rapidly as they do, and unless we do ob- tain that access to our luviural markets, we shall be cribbed, cabined and confined by the restrictions placed upon us h'>,re. Now, as I stated a few moments ago, we have 5,000,000 of people, in round numbers, in the Dominion ; there ai'e, speaking within limits, 60,000,00 in the United States. There will be G.'>,000,000 in a few years hence, and S0,000,0()0 before the end of this century. Now, this people , who will amount to ( 9 100,000,000 in 1910, tli is nation is «-,o- clay the richest nation in the world. Tho uctual value of \tn jiropercy is ??58,000,- 000,000 ; that of Great liritain, $4S,000,- 000,000. The •wealth of the United Statefi is 10,000,000.000 {greater than that of thp United Kingdom. (Hear, hear.) The earnings of the peofde of theople ot the United Kingdom were S2H(),000,000 less : 'the earnirre tr),;i6S),0OO,000 ; in 1882, the iiroduction of the muiiulactures of England were .$1.01):»,000,000, The United States in 18^0, produced $1,279,000,000 more manufactures than Great Britain did in 1882. Now, if it is desnable to have a market, if it is desirable to foster our infant industries at a great cost for the time being in order to create a market for the future, it is not more desirable to take a short cut to a market already crea- ted, created at a great cost, and created through the operation, if my hon. friend's theory is correct, of a protcctiAo tariff during twenty-five years, a market which produces more goods in a year than the n>anufactures of I'lnglaiul do. I say is it not desirable to obtain access tathat mar ket by a short cut, rather than to spend years in a futile endeavor to create a mar- ket here which never can e<[ual in im])or- tanco the mar ket already creatt.-d tuid opened to us there 1 ((Jheers) Now, Sir, the practical (pu'stion is, how shall we reach this market ? The hon. Minister of Ma- rine and Fisheries tohl us last night that we had given the United States tho .sfrt)ngest invitation to recifjrocity that could be given. He asks, what can be a stronger invitation to reciprocity than our standitig oll'i r of lS7'J ( Now, the hon. gentleman is Minister of Fisheries, and I wcmder. Sir, if he is not sutUcient- ly astute as a tishernmn to CMANUE His h.MT when he is fishing for nine years without getting a r)ibl)le. This oiler has been standing sii;ce I'STI) — an inducement 80 strong, he says, that we could not make it stronger ; and yet, time and again., the Americans have spurned the otter, they have told us tho^y would not consider it, Ihtt they would not ' bite,' and we may keep the offer standing until doomsdiiy without their ever consider- ing it (cheers.) Sir, the hon. gontieman is attempting to mislead the country when he asserts that we have made an otter a» strong as can be made, inviting the .\m«rican people to reciprocal trade rela- tions. They known that our ofler is not a deslralJe one ; we have made an ofler that we know tliey will not accept ; and the hon. gentleman is not — well, I won't use the word I was going to use — the 10 1*^-, lion, gentleman is taking a course in this matter that ia not calculated to give the country a pro])ei' impression as to the ■couroe this Government is pursuing. THIS GOVEKNMfiNT IS NOT SKKKIXG RKC'IPKOCITY, this (iovernment does not want reci- procity except on inadinissable terms ; it will not take recipoocity on such terms as it can 1ie obtained, and that is made perfectly apparent by the motion made by thligecl to enter into an arranf:;ement for oodi- inercial imiou unh^ss the arrangemeut is satisfactory — it must be made satisfac- tory, and it does not imply that the pre- sent tariff of the United States will be adopted as the tariff to be levied under commercial union. (Cheers). Mr. WHITE (Cardwell), Will the hon. gentleman allow me, 1" under.stand him to say that I implied that the ])ropo- sition was that the present tarifl' of the United States was to be adopted as com- mercial union. I did not so state and did not so imply. What T did state- was this : I inferred from the state- ment of the hon. gentleman that what- ever was the tariff of the United States, that would be the tariff of Canada ; that is to say, we would have the same tariff, whatever that tariff might be, against all other couutrie.«, with free trade as between these two (-..untries. Is that the proposition new before the House by hon. gentlemen ? * Mr. CHARLTON. No, it is not. I was led to discuss that question from the fact that the hon. Minister had alluded to it ; and if he would add that the tariff would be one consented to by Canada and acceptable to Canada, then he would have made a fair statement of the case. Mr. BOWELL, It would be the rest of the world, would it not. Mr. CHARLTON. Yes. Sir lUCHAKD By mutual agreement. Mv. CHARLTON. I might as well detiue what I understand commercial union to mean. The deBnition read by the Minister of Interior, quoted from the speech made by me in Haldimand, is ex- actly what I do understand couimercial unioa to mean. I understand commercial union to mean an arrangement between two or move powers or as many more as ;hoose to join — for the commercial union of (Germany embraced all tlie Ger- man States —an arrangement made bet- Aveen two or more countries whereby they adopt a common tariff and common e-xciso laws, abolish all commercial res- trictions between themselves, abolish all agiunst CARTWRIGHT. customs lines between themselves, collect a revenue at any point where the gooda may be entered from any country not a member of the union, and throw that whole revenue into one common fjind and divide that fund, after taking out the cost of collection, either upon the basis of a per capita dnision or upon such other division or u|)on such other basis as may be mutually agreed upon by the contracting parties, ' Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). I do not desire to interrupt the hon. gentlemau, but perhaps he will go further and state whether that is the proposition now be- fore the House bv the hon. g'intleman. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT, The hon. gentleman has been told most distinctly, and it has been stated a dozen times on this side of the House, that it is not ' proposition. I can add that the hon. gentleman and his followers must have been even more stnpirl, if that is possible, than is usually the case. Mr. CHARLTON. " I am not so un- charitable as my hon., friend. I do not accuse the hon. gentleman of stupidity,, but he evidently believes that the coun- try is stupid and that he oan mislead the people upon this r[uestion by dragging a red herring across the trail. So much for the (juestion of commercial union arising inlirectly on this question owing to the remarks made by the Minister of In- terior. Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh ' oh ! Mr. CHARLTON. Some hon. gentle- meu says " Oh, oh,'' as if this was a ([uestion we would not dare to discus."* 1 am ready to discuss this (juestion, 1 am not afraid of it. It is not, however, the (juestion under discussion. The resolu-. tion under the consideration of the House is a resolution with regard to unrestricted reciprocity !,ut that is only a means of arriving at commercial relations between two (lountiics that may be arrived at in some other way. . We have adopted that because we consider it preferable to the others simply for that and for no other reason. With respect to unrestricted reciprocity, let us define what we under- stand that to mean. Wo underatand-— 12 at least I understand by unrestricted reciprocity Some hoa. MEMBERS. Oli 1 oh ! Mr. CHARLTON. I do not profess to speak for all men, I speak for myself. I understand by un- restricted reciprocity an arrangement that would admit into the United States 4*11 the natural productions of Canada, a11 the manufactured productions of Canada, all the productions of Canada of any nature, haracter or name wbatever, free of duty ; ftn arrangement which would reciprocally jidmit into Canada all the productions of the; United States of the same character ; that we leave the United States free to impose such duties as they choose upon the productions of other countries imported into that country ; that we leave Canada free to do the same thing, and r/iise its revenue from import duties in such a way as it may choose, on such a scale of duties as it may choose to impose, leaving both <30untries perfectly free to carry out its own arrangements except in so far as re- ciprocal trade between the two countries is concerned in the productions of the two countries'. 1 do not know whether this is sufficiently definite for the hon. gentleman. Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). Is that your proposition? Mr. CHARLTON. Yes, as I under- stand it. Mr. IU)WELL. Do you include ar- ticles produced Ui United States and not produced in Canada vice versa. Mr. CHARLTON. Certainly. The United States produces a good many ar- ticles that we do not, and we produce some that they do not. The arrangement contemplates a perfect reciprocal trade, a reciprocal trade that admits all the pro- ducts of one country into the other. Now, I would aek , Mr, Speaker, can reciprocity, the question which we are discussing, be considered a mere theore* iical question 1 DO WE KNOW ANYTHINr. AUOXTT THE OPERA- TION OF THIS SYSTEM 'i We know that in 1787 thirteen State:) then comprising the American Union entered into an arrangement which was practicall3'^ e(|uivalent to reciprocal trade between those States. Those Stat/is, it is true, existed under a Federal Uuifen, but each one of those States, and all tlie States subsequently admitted to the American Union, retained their distinct autonomy. x!^ach State retained control over its criminal code and its civil code, and, in fact, tho jurisdiction of their LegislaturesUs much wider than the juris- diction of the Legislatures of the Pro- vinces of this Dominion. They were thir- teen nations then — tliey are thirty -eight nations now, handed together for certain common purposes ; and those thirty -eight nations, commencing with thirteen, have existed and progressed since 17B7 with unrestricted trade existing between all. What is the result of that unrestricted reciprocity ? In l8vS+, as my hon. friend at my right informed the House, the internal commerce of that country, according to Mr. Nimmo, amounted to 15)10,000,000,000. Last year the internal commeice it is estimated amounted to $11,500,000,000, bused upon the increase of tonnage transported upon the railways of that country. Now, Sir, how does that compare with the total commerce carried by the total ship- l)iug of the world exclusive of the United States I Do you suppose it equals the seagoing csmmercial transactions of Eng- land, France, Germany and all the Mar- itime States of Christendom, excluding, the United States 'i Sir, the commerce of all those countries last year amounted to i$4,21 3,000,000 as against $11,500,- 000,000 in the United States. Tho in- ternal commerce of the LInited States in reality had two and a-half times the volume of the entire commerce by ship- ping of all the nations of the world, leaving out the United States. (Hear, hear.) That is ^n astounding statement. Including England, including every coun- try except the United States, this latter country last year had a vastly greater volume of commerce than all the others. 149,000 miles of railway have moved last year 4)S'2,24o,000 tons of freight. l: Mv Hon. frifnt ing out tie- shi{)ping of the Uniteil St.ites, sis detrimental ti> our interests as wuidil amounted to ■■^"jiir^jOU' 1,000 , the railways he the attempt, which would be resisted of the United States earned 8287,- by every State iu the Union, to place any 000,000 more last year than all the particular state under similar disahdities shipping of the world, excepting the shipping of the United Stales. (Hear, hear.) Those facts enable us to form some dim conception of the vast volume of that commerce created by one hundred year's experience of the system of rei'i- to those which are forced upon us. (Loud chei*rs,) RECIPROCITY, SIR, IS NOT \ MERK THEOIU; it has worked the most benefioent resuk.-. procity between the commonwealths com- in that great country, it has been chief- posing that great confederation. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, THAT A TARIFF WOULD BE TOLERATEI) ly instrumental in incre:\3ing the population ''rom 3,000,000 to 01,000, 000, and It has produced tho^'^ astounding results in trade and commerce which I have laid before the between the eastern grcup of those House. It has made that country tiie 8cates and any of the other groups, or wealthiest and most powertu! nation in between the middle group and any ot the the world, a nation which in 1802 cou- other groups, or between the southern or tained but a little more than one half the Pacific groups and any of the otl lers ? population and considerably less than one' Do you think that a tariff would be half the wealtii it docs to-day. It enal)li;d permitted by the Sates of the Union that country to place in the titdd two ani I to exist between any cf those a-hidf millions of armed men and to incur groups? No, Sir, it would be de- au expenditure of S'), 000,000,000, which trimental to their interests and ne\er is nearly wiped out to-day. (Ch'jers.) Now, vould be permitted. I would like to ask, notwithst mding artitii-ial lestrictions, !Mr. Speaker, in what doe.T this great natural lawsdo and will assert themselves, northern group, extending from the At- When those artificial restri«^tions were lantic to the Pacific oceans and eml'racing temporarily removed to a partial extent all the Provinces and territories of the in tlie period extending between I'^^l Dominion — in what respect, g''Ograj>hical and 180."», the increase in the commerce or natural, this northern group ditVers of this countiw with the United States from either the southern, the mid- as ex[)lained by my hon. frieiid from die, the westtrn, the eastern or the (-,)ueens (Mr. Davies) yesterday, N\as Pacific grou[t of the great American cnu- [)rodigious. Tl.e total tvads- fefleration ? (Hear, hear). (.Jcograi«hi- of Canada with the Unit' d <• illy we are the same, our inte-rests are States ran ui) from 6_'O,000,'"iCO in 1>"| t exactly the same a> theirs, and to d.bar to .•?^l,000,0o0 iu I'r^Oo. Shice the re- 14 {■J.ric-tions liave heen roiniposed that tra^Jo has fiiUpu back, aiul aftfr a Kap.sc of twenty four years the total trade bstwoen Canada ami' the I'nitetl States is some S-_',000,000 k'.-s than it was in h^G."), showirg the brnciicient results prod'JCf-d by rei.i{>rocity and tlio opposite result by restricted trade measures. Mi*. Speaker, if we weir' to adopt unrestricted recipro- city we woul'" probably have the safiit; ratio of iner ase in our trade with the United States, and if unrestricted reci- procity went into operation this year, by the year 1900 our traih; with the I'nitefl States would be a3-2o,000,000 with the same ratio of increase. You must bear in mind, Sir, that the proposition before this House contenriplates the throwiuLC off" of all shackles which existed during the rteiprocity treaty. That was only a parti il reciprocity treaty, a reciprocity tn'aty merely in natural products : but now the proposition we are discussing contemplates the admission of all the products of both countries, and there is no reason Sir for supposing that under the operation of such a treat"', commerce between the I.'nited States and Canada would not Piiual .S:''00,000,000 in the year of our Lord 1900. (Cheers.) NOTWlTIlSl'ANDIN'r, Tlir: RKSTHICTIONS IM- POSED UPON TRADK there is still a great amount of commerce b-stween the . two countries.. Last year, of the total amount of im- ports into Canada ■t2;;, per cent came from the United States. of the total amount of exports from this country 42 per cent, of all went to the United States. V-'e last vear imported from the United States 8tu,000,nOO in round numbers ami exported S37,00'',- 000 to thf m, with the result that rr. Speaker, of the most practical part cf this question, the one that interests tlie gr« at I)roducing classes of Canada and J would proceed tu the' consideration of thi^ hraneli of the (pi. stioi» by asking what do we sell tu the people of the United Stat.-. \Vc sell rhem horses, cattle, sheep, pcss and On c'. '^e articles a duty of twenty ji-r cent is levu d. We sfU theia ti-.h, and by the United States retiirns, the duty on fi^h last year was 21.72 per ceiit. Wt; se',1 tlieiu barley, rye, oats, and buckwheat, and the duty on each of thes" articl s is 10 cents a buslud. We sell them potatoes, on which the duty is 15 centr, p^r bu.-hel. We sell them hops, on which the duty is eight cents a pound. We sell them wool. on which the d:ity is lO cents a pound; hav. on which tile dutv is 82 a ton ; luiu- her, on which the duty is ^52 per M ; but- ter, on which the duty is four cents a pound : iron ore, on which ';he duty i.s. 7"» cents [)er ton; coal, on whii,';i the duyt is 7o cents per ton ; and salt, on which the duty is 12 cents per cwl.- in bags, and six cents percwt. in hulk. We sell them a!i these articles and many more. The American statistics relating to imports are not kei>t as well as ours, I am sure my hon. frieud the Min- ister of Customs will be glad to liear, and it is impossible to ascertain from the:;i with exactness the amount of duties col- lected on Canadian imp)orts last year or any preceding year. Theygivo the amount in mass, but do not distinguish countries as we do in our statistics, and there has been no change i I heir practice in that re.speot since 182' », But we can arrive with a fair decree of accuracy at the amount of duty paid to the Anuni'.an Govr rnment on Canadian imports, and that amount was last y jar in all about >-'>^ 7)00,000. Now, the practical (pu.^tion that interests the people of this country above all others is, WnO FAYS THIS Dtrv .' If it can he shown that the American cons\imcr pays tlH> duty — that for tlu.M:- articles which wc ex[»ort to the Uni'^d States we get just n:-. mueli as we would if no duly was imposed, I think one 15 rv ?an reason wu ur"-' for ailoiitiiig uii- not tliiiik you can convince the comtnon- rfstrictecl reciprocity wouM cease to sense yeoiiiiuiry of this country that it fxist ; but if it can be shown that in the Would, bei-.uise thi y know that the vo- niajoiitv of cases the prices we received lunie of our exports to the I'nited 8tate> tor tiiese various artielea is just so nuicli is so small coniparel with the vulume oi" less than it would be bv the amount ot the United States producMons, th-it the the duly, then we have a V'M^v practical imposition of the duty has liule or u-^ interest in the ([Uestiou. Now, -we will etfect on the price in that country, consider tills (jUtistiou first, in tlie light ('Jheers.) Upon the.e article-, which I ot the farmer's case r.oxt in that of the have enumei^ated th'Tt; wa.'. collect ti^,herniau's, next in that of the lumber- ed last year in round numbfr.-> man's, and then in tliat of the miner's. 8-,o00,00() of duti-s ; and in addi- I will trouble you with a few tigmes, tion to the articles I have named, we ihowiuL,' the quantities of articles ini- sold them buckwheat, rye, turnips, vege- ported from Canada into the United tables, hop,, flaxseed, seeds, poultry, States la^t year, l^ecause thi.s is a very butler, cheese, nuitton, meats, Ac, i<;c. important ])oint, and I wish to attempt Tht- duties paid on all tlie articles to ('emonstrate the position I take. I sold by the farmers of Canada in the <^ave the quantitit^s of certain articles im- United States last year amounted to ported, and I compare the voluuie of those no less than S3, 000,000, and the pro- imports with the production of the ftiuie portiori these articles bear to the coca! articles in the United States, as shown in quantity iu the I'nited States i.- the census of ISSO, except that in the. very .small. It is prepost.-rous to •case of barley I lake the production of suppose tiiat the renujval of the duty from ihese articles, the ijuantity ot which is so small compared with the total raised in that country, would seriously affect the prices of the bulk of these goods pro- duced in the United States. 1S.S«3, as I was al»le to obtain that : " ' Hate l>utv United States Artiule. (■,iu unity. of .lllt\. Faiil. proilai ti'in. TiArley.. ■.|,J:;:.717 buv 10 L-tX >-04:!.7i:: liii.OGii.OOO Imij. B^aiid lO: 7ii4 '• 10 ■• 2ii,..i,M Pease . 4i».")|:i.">'5 " •20 " r,i;,-.'i.-> Whtiit.. .U 1, 01 IS •' •20 " lis .! i.v.i.'is-i.i:!: •' Malt l.ii,17.i " 1.-. " l'.ll,.(JO li;:i,4.iS,">:'.:i '• Hav .... i>!».4.iO tons S2 l:i-*.'.|(>i :*},2ii5,71'2 tons H'lr^A . 18,^2-2.> •' •20 I. L-. 442 Sii7 Io,:i57,»>^ <.';vtllu . . 4.i,7().'i " •20 " 177 7ol :i5,'.i2.'. 4iil Sheep . . ;!ti:!.iU6 " •20 •• I'.U.VHi :!-..l'.VJ074 Wool.... l,-2;J7,3»KKM1;N S ~^ (.'ASK. Last year we ex}iorted to the United States fish to the amount of $2,717,.')0'..>, the duty on which, estimating it at an These figures show that we .sold them one average ot 20 i)er cent., which is 1^ per bushel of barley to every seven they cent, less than the rata given in the produced ; one bushel of wheat to every United States returns, was §543, ."iOO. 1, 2* >0 bushels they proiluced ; one bushel Now, the United States production of of malt to ever}' 100 bushels they pro- fish in the same year amounted to §43,- duced; one bushel of potatoes to every 046,003. We sold them therefore one 130 bushels they produced ; one ton of sixteenth of the cpiantity of tsh they hay to every ")00 tons they produced ; consumed, and tkey themselves produced one horse to every OOO they rais«.d, one fifteen-sixteenths. It will hardly be Jisad of cattle to every 7<»0 head they maintained that the removal of the 20 raised, one sheep to every 100 they per cent, duty on one-sixteenth of tht- raised, and one pound of wool to every entire product would ati'ect to any q.\)- 130 they produced. (Hear, hear.; 1 do preciable extent the value of t!ie remain- not think any one will say that the re- ing tifteen-si.xteenths. (Hear, hear.) movalof the duties charged by the United .., , ,, ,- \ \ ■ \ ^^\^ WITH r.Kd.VRD TO THE LlMiJEIl.MEN S CASK. ■States on these articles wliich we sold to them would have the efl'ect of reducing we sold to the United States last year the price of their own productions. I do r)0S,y'J 1,000 feet of plank boards and joLst K, thf duty on wliicli ainoiiiit»-:l to sl,l 1''',- »>0S. In ai'litioii %vt; soM to tlu; L'riif.iil Stiito.H lath, hiinhvooil lunil>cr, df'jils, spruce luuibuT, dn il onds, ()i'"kt^ts, staves, iiliinslfs, ttc, and I h;ivo no d^mhi thit thf total iiinouat of dtitv eoll''{;t> I in tli;it country on tho product of our fort'st-: reached 8 1. •200,000. While we sold to the I'nitfd States that ([Uantity of land. "r, tiiey prodiu< d theiii.T Ivf.s. ai'eoi2, and the produc- tion in 18S0 ia the United States a pro- duction which has since largely increased — was 7,4>^0,42tJ tons of coal. Last y ar it must have reached lO.OdO.OOO tons. I doui't very mu'.'h whether the remo\ al of the duty of 400,000 tons would se- riously atlect the price of 10,0o0,00i> tons. Of iron ore we sold last year to the United States, 23,38-3 tons, ai'd the United States, produced in 1880, 7,n'1'.K Last year no doubt the production in that country reached 10,000. OOiJ tons. The trade in iron ore last year from the Lake Superior ports was of vast volume, reaching a value of over S3U,000,UOO. It employed over one-third of the total tonnage on the lakes. You could go to PJrie, Cleveland, Ashtataila, or Butit'alo, and in each port you would tiiulvast tleets cf ore — carrying ves sels. The business was one of enormous niagnitui?e, and one which conferred great advantages on the com- mercial community of all the States bor- dering on the up[ier lakes, and while the volume of that trade amounted to several million tons in thi'se ports, we h.ive tr» sho.v on this side this jKihry tlgure of .S2."'»,38.") tons as thf tutal export of our ore to the United States. .\nd this in face of the fact tiiat tliere is lyinr* at Co' s Mine, at tlie head of the Onta- rio Central Kr. id, over SO.Olio tons of iron ore, whi> i. has Ijeen lying there for the last two years. We have on the Canadian side an enormous quan- tity of ore of the be.-^t ipuility, and but for the restriction placed on the trade, our ex[.)rt would amount to millions of tons annually ; it would gi\e e'in|tloyment to thousands of men and millions of capital and furni.sh traflic tv> new railsyay lines. Inst<'ad of that, wtr have, owing to the restriction impos- J on our e.xport trade but the b<'ggailr show to make of 23,3^0 tons ship[)ed to the United .'States. We pay the duty on what little we do send. If we did not. We would send to the United States vastly more, becau.se there would be an enormous demand for it, the quality of our ore being superior to what is ob- taini'd in the Scates for certain purposes. Let the restriction imposed on our ex- ports of ore be re'uiove'd, and an enormous de'Uiand fur it will s[)ring up. Turning to the article of copi>er ore, I tiiid thai la^t year we sold '>,-■'>' tons to our neigh- bors. We have an immense quantity of this ore on our shores, hut the duty of 21 cents jicr pound on the yield of copper etlectaally bars the trade. Of salt, last year we sold to the United States 10(J,3S.) cwt., wiiile the United States [)roductioa in 18>0 was •i9,8U5.2'J8 cwt. ' Our salt oWtained the .small sale it did in spite of tho duty, and soleh^ on its mevit.s, becau.se it is of a su; lor (piality, anJ if the duty were removed it wou! 1 force its way into American con- sumption. But for the duty an enorm- ous trade wouM siiring up in the salt dis- stricts of Lake Huron. (Cheers.) One of the best deu.onstrations of an increas? in trade whitdi will Ije sure to follow the removal of the duties, Is furnished by THK TRADE IN" ECUS. In 1870 our export to the United States 13 My hon. friend the Minister of Mariup iiiforiut'd lis last night we Ijud moved the same yoar in Canada 16,0()(J,00(I tons, or one-tbirtioth part of the l'.el;4ht moved i\pou tho railways of the United >2,432,000 tons, than one-ijuartei* the on American railways, of the United States were $822,000,000 labt year- whieh is lesa freight moved The earnings railways the earn- ings of all the shipping of tho world, leav- ing out tho shipping of the United States, amounted to !t>r)35,000,000, the railways of the United States earned $287,- 000,000 more last year than fill the shipping of the world, excepting the shipping of the United States, (Hear, hear.) Those facts enable us to form some dim conception of the vast volume of that commerce created by one hundred year's experience of the system of reci- procity between the commonwealths com- posing that great confederation. Do you itiink, Mr, Speaker, THAT A TARIFF WOULD IJE TOLEKATEI) between the^ eastern group of those States and any of the other groups, or between the middle group and any of the other groups, or between the southern or Pacific groups and any of the others '? Do you think that a tariff would be permitted by the S.'atcs of the Union to exist between any of those groups ? No, Sir, it would be de- trimental to their interests andne^er would be permitted. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, in what does this great northern group, extending from the At- lantic to the Pacific oceans and embracing all the Provinces and territories of the Dominion — in what respect, geographical or natural, this n)rthern group differ? from either the southern, the mid- dle, the western, the eastern or the Pacific group of the great j*.nierican con- federation 1 (Hear, hear). Geographi- cally we are the same, our interests are ■exactly the same as theirs, and to debar us from that continental trade enjoyed by all those States i.s to inflict upon us the same injuries that would be inflicted upon any one of those gi'oups of States if they had not their unrestricted internal commercial relations with their sister States. J repeat, Sir, that our interests in thisgreat continental group of Anglo Sax- on conunon wealths are identical with tlie interests of every group of common- wealths in this great constellation, and that to tlebar the States which comprise this Dominion fiom free access to the markets of tho country south of us is just as detrimental to our interests as would be the attempt, which would be resisted by every State in the Union, to place any jiarticular state under similar disabilities to those which are forced upon us. (Loud cheers,) RECJPUOCITY, SIR, IS NOT A MERE THEORY; it has worked the most beneficent results in that great country, it has been chief- ly instrumental in increasing the population from 8,900,000 to 61,000, 000, and it has produced those astounding results in trade and commerce which I havf; laid before the House, It has made that country the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, a nation which in 1S62 con- tained but a little more than one half the population and considerably less than one half the wealth it does to-day. It enabled that country to place in the field two and a-half millions of armed men and to incur an expenditure of $6,000,000,000, which is nearly wiped out to-day. (^^heers.) Now, notwithstanding artificial restrictions, natural laws do and will assert themselves. When those artificial restrictions were temporarily removed to a partial extent in the period extending between 1)^51 and \S6C), the increase in the commerce of this country with the United State.'- as explained by my hon. friend fron Queens (Mr. Davies) yesterday, was prodigious. The total trad< of Canada with the Unitec States ran up from $20,000,000 in 185- to $8^,000,000 in 1865. Since the re 14 ^Irictions have Ixen roimpoHetl that trado has fallen back, and after a lapse of twenty-four years the total trude batwoen IJanada and the I'nited States is some $2,000,000 less than it was in 1S65, showing the benelicienv. results produced by reciprocity and the o))i)nfiit,ft result by restricted trade nieasui'es. Mr. Si)enkcr, if we were to adopt unrestricted recij>ro city we would probably have the sanv ratio of increase in our trade witii the United States, and if unrestricted reci- procity •went into operation Uiis year, by the year 1000 our trade with the I'nited States would bo $325,000,000 with the game ratio of increase. You must bear in mind, Sir, that the proposition before this House contemplates the throwing' ofl" of all shackles which existed durinj? the reciprocity treaty. That was only a partial reciprocity treaty, a reciprocity treaty merely in natural products ; but now the proposition we are discussing contemplates the admission of all the products of both countri(>s, oiul there is no reason Sir for sujjposing that under the operation of such a treaty, commerce between the I'nitiCd States and Canada would not ruiual |r)00,000,000 in the year of our Lord 11)00. (Cheers.) NOTWrniSTAXDINr. THK HKSTUICTION'S 1-\I- I'OSEn i;i'ON TKADE there is still a great amoimt of commerce Vjetween the two countries.. Last year, of the total umount of im- ports into Canada 12,';, per cenc came from the United States, of the total amount of exports from this country 42 per cent, of all went to the United States. Wo last year imported from the United States 145,000,000 in round numbers and exported $37,00",- 000 to thfui, with the result that Uie vol- ume of trade inward is 12,',, per cent and outwiird forty-two per cent of all our trade 13 I have said. THE FARMERS CASE. Now I shall come to the consideration Mr. Speaker, of the most practical part cf this (|uestion, the one that interests the grr at producing das-ses of Canada and [ would proceed tu the consideration of this branchi of the question by asking what do we sell to the people of the United Stata'j. We sell theni liorses, cattle, sheep, pf!?i.s and on those articles a duty of twenty pir cent is levied. We sell them tish, and by the United States returns, the duty on tish last year was 21,72 per i-cnt. We sell them barley, rye, oats, and huckwheac, and the duty on each of these articles is i cents a bushel. We sell them potatoes, on which the duty is 15 cents per bushel. We sell them hops, on which the duty in eight cents a pound. We "cll them wool, on which th(! duty is U- ;ents apounrl; hay, on which the duty is §2 a ton; lum- ber, on which the duty is "S2 per]Nr ; but- ter, on which the duty is four cents a pound ; iron ore, on which the duty is • 75 cents per ton; coal, on which the duyt is 75 cents per ton ; and .salt, on which the- duty is 12 cents per cwt. in bags, and .six cents per cwt. in bulk. We sell them all these articles and nnmy more. The American statistics relating to imports- are not kept as well as ours^ I am sure my hon. friend the Min- ister of Customs will be glad to hear, and it is impos.sible to ascertain from iheiiv with exactne.ss the amount of duties eol- 'ected on Canadian imports last year or oy preceding year. They give the amount in mass, but do not distinguish countries as we do in our statistics, and there ha.s been no change in their practice in that respect since 1820. IJut we can arrive with a fair degree of accuracy at the amount of duty paid to the American Covfrnment on Cansdian imports, and that amount was last y'.^arinall about i^^o, 500,000. Now, the practical 'pustiou that interests the people of this country above all others is, WHO PAYS THIS DUTY ? If it can be shown that the American consumer pays the duty — that for these articles which we export to the I'nited States we get just .is much as we would if no duly was imposed, 1 think one ''% •',<■■ -. 15 rea3on wo ilrgo for adopting uii i-.slricted reciprocity would cease to exist ; but if it can bi* shown that in the nmjority of casos Ihr prices we received for tiicse various articloa is just so -nuicli less than it wouM be hy the amount of the duty, then wh havo'a very practical ill forest in the -luestion. Now, we will considor this (Question first, in tho light <>t the farmer's caH0 tons S2 i;h,'.K>) ;{5,2o5,712toil8 18,'22r) " 20 v c. 442 8(17 10.:167,4SM 4,-..7(>.o •' 20 •• 177 7,51 ;!6,;)2.5.4(ii ao;<.040 " 2(1 " 194,SlHi :i5.192 074 1,297.807 lbs. 10 ■■' 121), 78t; l.t),f>«l.7.''.l His. "i'hese figures show tliat we sold thorn one bushel of barley to e\ery seven they pitxluced ; one bushel of wheat to every 1,200 bushels thoy produced ; one bushel of malt to every 100 bushels they pro- duced ; one bushel of potatoe.s to every l;50 bushels they produced ; one ton of hay to every 500 tons they produced ;_ one horse to every GOO they ra; jd, one ih«ad of cattle to every 700 head they raised, one sheep to every 100 they raised, and one pound of wool to every 130 they produced. (Hear, hear.) 1 do not think any one will say that the re- moval of the duties charged by the Ufnited ..States on these articles which we sold to them would have the effect of reducing the price of their own productions. T do not think you can convince the common- .sense yeomanry of this country that it would, because thi-y know that the vo- lume of our exports to tho United States is so snuill compared with the volume of the United States productions, that the imposition of the duty has little or no ellect on the price in that country. (Oheers.) Upon these articles which 1 have enumerated there was collect ed last year in round numbers $2,mO,0()d of duti.!.s ; and in addi- tion to the articles 1 have named, we sold th(im budawheat, rye, turnips, vege- tables, hops, flaxseed, seeds, poultry, Viutter, cheese, mutton, meats, &c,, itc. The duties paid on all the articles sold Ity the fanners of < 'anada in the bruited States la.st year amounted to 110 less than .$3,000,000, and the pro- portion these articles bear to the total quantity in the T'nited States is very small. It is preposterous tc suppose Ihat tho removal of the duty from these articles, the quantity of whicli is so small compared with the total raisec in that country, would seriously affec the prices of the bulk of these goods pro diiced in the United States. TIIEX WITH l!K(i.\Ul) TO THK IlSHER.MEX"; (ASK. Last year we exjwrted to the Umte( States fish to the amount of $2,717,509 the duty on which, estimating it at a average of I'O percent., which is lij pe cent, less than tbe rate given in th United States returns, was $543,50( Now, the United States production < lish in the same year amounted to $48 O+(i,053. We sold them therefore on sixteenth of the quantity of fish the consumed, and tkey themselves produce fifteen -sixteenths. It will hardly 1 maintained that the removal of the t: per cent, duty on one-sixteenth of tl entire product would atfect to any a preciable extent the value of the remai; ing tif teen-sixteenths. (Hear, heai WITH EKciARD TO THE LrMBKRMENS CAS, wo sold to the United States las't ye 50^,301,000 feet of plank v^oards and jo 16 the duty on which amounted to $1,110,- 008. In addition we sold to the Ihiited States lath, hardwood iumber, deals, 8|>ruce lumber, deal ends, pickets, staves, shingles, Ac, and I have uo doubt thfit the total amount of duty collected in that country on the product of our torestH reached 81.200,000. While we sold to the Unitfd States that quantity of lumber, they produced themselves, according to the census of 1880, 18,000,000,000, feet and tW production last year was undoubtedly much greater. Our exports ti) them, therefore, averaged but. one thirtj-sixth part of their total produce of lumber. [ do not think that the removal of the duty on our small percentage of one thirty- sixth would greatly atteufc the price af the balance, and the result is that we pay a good part of the duty on the lumber we export. (Cheers.) LET us LOOK AT THE MINKKS ("ASP:. Last year" we sold to the U. S. 404,042 tons of coal, on which the duty collected amounted to $303,032, and the ])roduc- tion in 1880 in the United States a pro- duction which has since largely increa.sed — was 7.480,420 tons of coal. Last year it nmst have reached 10,000,000 tons. I doubt very much whether the removal of the duty of 400,000 tons would .se- riously affect the price of 10,000,000 tons. Of iron ore we sold last year to the United States, 23,385 tons, and the United .States, produced in 1S80, 7,0G4, 829. Last year no doubt the production in that country reached 10,000,000 tons. The tradi in iron ore last year from the Lake Superior ports was of vast volume, reaching a value, of over $30,000,000. It employed over one-third of the total tonnage on the lakes. You could go to Erie, Cleveland, Ashtabula, or Buffalo, and in each port you would find vast fleets cf ore — carrving ves 'sels. The business was one of mormons magnitude, and on~ which :;onferred great advantages on tiae com- -iiercial community of all the States bor- jlering on the up|)er lakes, and while the Volume of that trade amounted to several million toi'.s in these port <, we have lo showr on this side this pali.ry figure of $23, 38.^) tons as the total export of our ore to the United States. /Vnd this in face of the tact that there is lying at Goes Mine, at the head of the Ontii- rio Central Road, over 80,000 ton* of iron ore, which has been lying there for the last two years. We have on tho Canadian side an enormous t|uan- tity of ore of the best quality, and but lor tho restriction placed on the trade, our exi>ort woidd amount to millions of tons annually ; it would give employment to thousands of m< ii and millions of capital and furnish tratlic to new railway lines. Instead of that, we have, owing to the roMtriction imposed oji our e.xport trade but the bej^garly show to make of 2.'), 885 tons 8hi[>ped to the LTnited States. We pay the duty on what little we do send. If we did not, we would send to the United States vastly more, because there would be an enormous demand for it, tln^ quality of our ore being superior to what is ob- tained in the States for certain purposes. Let the i-estriction imposed on our ex- ports of ore be removed, and an enormous demand for it will si)ring up. Turning to the article of copper ore, 1 find that last year wo sold ^),'J.ij7 tons to our neigh- bors. We have an iniiiu^nse quantity of tins ore on our shores, but the duty of 2^ cents |)er pound on the yield of copper effectually bars the trade. Of salt, last year we sold to the United States 106,3S,> cwt., while the United Stati-s production in 1880 was •21),8u5,2'j8 cwt. Our salt obtained the small sale it did in spite of the duty, and solely on its merits, because it is of a superior quality, and if the duty were removed it would force its way into American con- sumption. But for the duty an enorm- ous trade would spring up in the salt dis- stricts of Lake Huron. (Cheers.) One of the best demonstrations of an increase in trade which will be sure to follow tlie re. -al of the duties, is furnished by THE TRADE IN EGOS. In 1870 our export to the United States )* ' nc o di m G. an <&' CO do pr. as in'. th. of for art i in- CO.- ret art. 17 > < • amounted to8;M 1,000, in 187."^ it reachod ^()31,:'04, and in 13H7, fl,H:il,H6l, That littlo item lia.s grown to W' ono of tho m j.it, importaut urticles of export in Canada, simply bocadso tlie duty was re- moved on the importation ol eggninto the United Statos. So much for tht' ).estion of who f)ays the duty upon what wo ex poit to tiiH Uait».d S.atea. I re[)oat that, in my opinion, the volume of our exports to that country i;! so insi^^iiilicaut in corn- parison wilh th'i vast l)ulk ot the pro- it, cost- ing him $1.20 more than it would liave cost him had there been no duty. The retail merchant, when he places the article upon his shelf, figures his profit of 25 pur cent, o.i .^l.L'O — not on a dol- lar ind the oonsunjcr has to pay tho profit 111 each case on the duty, im woll us on the in voire piico of tho goods. I maintain, tli(u-eibre, that evory dollar of duty levied by the Govornmont implioa a loss to th') cousumpr of ••?l..50, ludess the wh ilesiilc dealer's profit is less than 20 per c-'ut., and the rotail dealer's loss than 2") pnc cent. Mr. i3'J\VELL. Kxccjpt iu the United States. Mr, CriAKLTJN. In all countriea. I am demonstrating tha^ th') duly of $7,21»!1.000 upon our importations iVom the United States last yi'ar, meant more than an enhanced cost, to the consumer to the extent of the duty alone. It mean an additional tax of 50 per cent on th i duty impose 1, and last ;^,ear this t'lx must have reached at least $10,000,000. O ir imports from the United States last year of goods not nuiuufrtcturej— jurhaps tho hou. Minister of Customs will correct if I am wrong — -amounteri, in round fig- ures, to $21,000,000, our imports of coal, corn, hides, tobacco, and settlers' ell'cts, alone being $lo,2oO,000. The impor'.a of manufactured god-!, if that sta'ement be correct, would amount to $2 1,0;J0,000, on which this duty of $7,2'JU,.')01' was imj'CseJ. Now, the question is, WHO PAID THIS DUTY 1 It may be said that if we claim that the duty on exports from Canada ia paid by tho producer in Canada, wo must admit that on imports from the United States into Canada the American producer must pay the duty. But the cases are not analogous. While we export to the United States an amount of our pro- ductions which is scarcely felt in their .iiarket, we buy from the Uuited i^tates an aaiount which is only equal to .'?i in every $223 produced in that country, because the production in the United States in^ 1880 was ^5,36y,571),ll>l, and our ' orts amounted to about $24,000, 000. So, if that trade was destroyed, if we brought nothing from them, it would 18 make very little cliflpLn-ence in the volume of their business or in the prices asked ia the country. (Hear, hear.) If this theory is correc'., and 1 contend it is, and I be- lieve that tlie thinking, practical classes of people in this country will see that it is, then, the loss to Canada from duties which are imposed on the exports from this country and on 'the imports into tliis country amounts, in regard to the produ- cing classes of this country, to at least $15,000,000 a year. In addition to that there is another feature to which I wish to draw the attention of the Elouse. For e\'ery shipment from Canada to the United States, no matter how insignifi- cant the amount may be, the shipper must obtain a consular certiticate, and that involves trouble and cost. In every entry made at custom bouses in the United States, the shipper must run the risk of seizure and trouble with the custom house authorities, and that feature of the trade deters a great number of men who would be buy- ers and operators in the market from en- gaging in the bjisineBb at all, and it de- prives this country OP THE ADVANTAGE OF COMPETITFOX to a marked extent, it deprives us of a class of men who would be our most valuable dealers and would pay the best prices for our productions, but on this account they will not come to this market at all. If either of these bought a drove of hoi-ses or a herd of cattle and entered them at a custom house in the ^Jnited States, and it was claimed that the entry was iinder the amount of the jn-oper value, and the animals were dettiiued there, and the dealer had to suvriUion witnossea to prove that this entry was correct, it is clear that vexatiou detention and cost would prove a serious matter and my practical knowledge of this mat- ter warrants me in saying that in conse- quence of thi tariff we lose half as much from the lack of com petit fon in regard to our commodities aa we do from the duties which have to bo paid on those c^)mmo- dities. (Chee.-s ) If we lose 35,500,000 in duties, we probably lose S.3,000,000 a year by the lack of competition, by the repelling of these competitors who would otherwise engage in the trade, by the custom house restriction. We lose some- thing else besides this. We not only lose the benefit of the competition we would have but for the absurd i estrictionsj^ upon trade, but WE LOSE THE GREAT BENEFIT,. which wo cannot estimate, whicli would ac:rue to this country from the increase of trade. If our trade with the United States last year was $82,000,000, and if the adoption of this policy would run it up in twelve years to ^800,000,000, what amount are we losing '? The loss ia greater in that direotion than the loss from duties or the loss from want of competition, and wo can scarcely uk asure or compute the loss which ' Canada .sus- tains through the duties whioh are im- Dosed, and through the regulations- which hamper the interchange of com- moditios between tb"3 two countries* (Hear, hear). SUMMAUV OF ADVAM AtiEH. I will conclude this branch of my fjubjectj by saying that uDrestri(;t(»d reci|>rociiy, would beyond all question, benefit th© farmer, thai: it would benefit the fisher- man, that it would benefit the lumber- man, that it' would benefit the mine owner, that it would benefit the laborer, and, of the 2<'^7,00O people in Canada who were given by the census as belong- ing to the industrial classes, the great majoiity weie blacksmiths, carpenters, shoemakers, masons.baker.", brickmaker?, and so forth, all of Avhom would be benefitted by this arrangement. In fact, it would benefit ninety-nine out of every hundred in this Doujinion. (Glieers.) In fac\ it would benefit all except the lings and the coinl)ines and the pet industries which have been fostered and pampered by this Government, and have been permitted by this un- just legislation to prey upon their fellow- citizens. I have no doubt that the adop- tion of this policy would increaee the- I 19 value of fdrm p .operty ia a few yenr^ by at least 80 per cent. (Hear, hear.) £ have no doubt that it would increase the value of mine property beyond competi- tion. I have uo iloubt that it would in- crease the value of the timber lands in thia Dominion by at least 50 per cent. I believe the adoption of this pDlicy would stop emigration, that it would bring back to us a portion of the million Cana- ' dians whom we have lost through emi- gration to the United 8t ites. I believe it would lead to a rapid increase of wealth, and would be in every respect an xmmixed blessing to the vast majority of the people of Canadi. (Cheers ) THE manufacturer's CASE. Now, I propose lo consider the question as to whether unrestricted re-. [)rocity would injure the only remaining class that I have not alluded to, I mean our manut'acjturers. I have no doubt that a chinge as radical as this would be would unsettle some lines of business. I have no doubt that it might prove injurious to some manufactures. Common fairness compels mo to say that I believe this might be the cise, but 1 believe that the result ot this policy, the average outcome of it, would be the conferring of great advan- tages on the manufacturing class as a whole of this Dominion, and T shall pro- ceed to give to the House the reasons I have for this belief. There is no doubt that its adoption would rout the com- bines. It would rout the sugar combine and the cotton combine, and all those other combines that our frieiids on the other side of the House have felt com- pelled to Ixave a committee to deal with. Mr. HESSOX. Have they not com- biner, on the otlier side 1 Mr. CHARLTON. I think they have, but they are about to strangle them there, while hero they are the result of the hon, gentleman's own policy, they are his own offspring, and he would hardly attempt to deal wiih them in that way. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE. It would be infan'^icide. Mr. CHARLTON. An hoi. gentle- min says it would he iutauticido, but thise combines are h;irdly infa'its, they are monster.^. (Liughtor.) I wjuld like t> eniiuire,,why our mmufacturer-t in Can- ada cannot succeed Are sve a people ot less intelligence or of less enterprise thirt the Americans 1 A.re we unable to com- pete with them in an open race in a fair- field, with no favor shown ? We will, hardly admit thit. Have we not ai cheap- labor as they have, and have we not aa cheap capital as they have 1 1 hold that we have, and I hold that in any industry in Canada that was adapte I to the coun- try, that was a natural i ulustry, we could compete with the Ar ericans, and I believe that opening the markers of 60, 000, COO people to our inanutacture» would lead to a vast increase in the manufacturing operations of this Domi- nion. WE HAVE UNRIV.\LLED FACILITIES in this country for the manufacture oic" boois and shoes. We have the hemlock bark to tan all the hides of the continent and the cheap labor to corivert tb& leather into boots and shoes for \he> million. . We have also unrivalled opportunities for engaging in manu- factures of wood, and millions ' o£ dollars could be |)ro{ltably employed in that direction. The various produ«K tions of wood in the United States em- ploy over $100,000,000 of capital We- have great advantages in this country for the production of a superior rpialitj- of tweeds, of blankets and of wnollea goods of various 'Kinds. We raise th* best coming wools on this continent, which is a branch that could be indefini- tely extended if we had access to the markets of the United States. We hav» great advantages for the manufacture of pxper and of wood pulji. We have tho* forests, we have the raw material in abuudauQe, and this might become a very important bratch of manufactuie in. Canada if we had the market of the United States open to us for i he sale of these articles. We have unlimited op- 20 I portuiiiUos for engaging in tlio business of niaiiuiactuiing charcoal iron. Wo havethnoK^, we iiave the forests to uonviM-t into cliurcoal, and tlie producing o[ cliiircoal iron iniglit, and would .sitwdily be largt'l} trail.'- fen cd to Canada if the restrictions upon the ti-ade betweeu the two count ries were removed. (Chwns.) We h ive great advantages for eiignging in the b siness of lish canning. Ve Blight do alinoftt all that business for the coutinent. We cjuld supply G",000,000 of people with canned ti h and pro- ductions of our iisheries. I do not need to dwv^ll ujtou the various kind of manu- facturing to which, this cuuiitry is p.ecu- liaily adapt d. I lep^'at that wherever there wa.s found a lino of lumufacturing for \^bich Canada was ada ted, a great expansion iu that paiticular business would speedily follov.^ t ;e adoption of reciprociiy witu the Lnited Sca'oa. Now, a dread seenij? to possess some of our frii-'u is til .t it would be- in the highest degree BANGEROrS TO COME INTO COMPETITION with the manufacturing e^itablishments and with gr-at aggregations of Vv-ealth iu the oldir manufacturing States, iiko Ma.s.-,achusettes, Connecticut, New York •nd Pennsylvania. It is apprehended that great danger wouhl lie in the fac that while our own establishments are com- paratively weak, while we have no great aggregations of capital such as exist in those hUates, we would be brought into competition with enormous e-ttablish' inent.i, with vast capital, with unlimited resources and with perfected jirocesses. Well, there may be something ni this. At first sight it would seem, Mr. tSj)eaker, tliat this was ai .serious objectitni and it •ccui red to me that some light might be tlirown upon thin matter by lorking into the statistics of the progress of manufac- turing in the new<^r Stares of the Ameri- can Union, States similarly situated with Ontario and our Provinces. (Hear, heai). Well, I inv( stigated the manufacturing retuniH of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, 11- Knois, Wiseensin, Iowa, Minnesota and California, and I expected to .find in those new States that the comparison between thcni and the older States wouldbe unfa- vorable to the newi;r State.s, and I was sur- prised to find tiiat such was not the case. Now, the increase of the production of manufactures in th'> Dominion from 1871 to 1881 was 8>< millions, equal to an in- crease of 40 [ler cent. The foUo'.ying table shows tli*; increase b^wettn those date?, in Ontario and several States of the Uaion^ with the percentage : 0/,^mo— 1871 §114,700 00') 1881 l.->7, 089,0,0 J lucrease. . O/i/o- 187) 1880 , 4.3 283,000- .i?200 713,000 . 34 8. 208, 000 38 per cent Increase. . luiliuna — 1870 .... , 78 .")85,000 •= .i^]'H 017,000 . 118,00(3,003 30 per cout ISO Increase. . Michhjaii —\S70 . .. 1880 . . . . 30:180 001=^ .§ 04,710 000 . ioo,7ir),ooo ^36 per cent Increase. . y//mo;.*-1870 18Sv) . 5.). 00!) 000- . $20.-1. 020,000 . 414,804 0.0 ^59 per cent Incn a'e. . WUcormn—\S'!^)... 1880... , 200 224,000. .$ 77 2U000 . 128,2V>,000 101 per cent Incviase. . Minnesota— ISIO. .. 1880, . . . 51,041,000- ..•? 23 110,000 70,06:., 000 = 07 per cent Increase. . /o/m— 1870 1880 . . 52 0."),f!00. .«! 4ti 034,000 . 70,045,000 228^ er cent Increaso. . Ca///br«/rt— 1870., 1880... . 24 511000= S 00,504,000 . 110,218 000 =.'52 per cent ■ ',)■■■ Increa,se. .. 40,024 00.')- Mu6md< uncUs - 1 870. ?").");{, 012, OOO 1880. c;ii,i;r.,o(0 =-74 per cent Ircr ase. . New York-\Hl(\. . 1880 . . 77 223 0= .¥785,1!)4,000 1,080,600,000 --■ 14 per cent Increafie. . Connecticut-— mii). 1880. . 29r),,';o2,roO- .$10l,Otr.,000 . 185 007.000 ^37 per cent Increase . New Jersey- 1870. / 1880. . 24.032,000 $]00 2.'i7,000 . 254,380,000 15 per cent Increase. . , 8.5,143 000= 50 p» r cent J t Pennfyhania—mO .$71 1 ,894.000 J8«0 . 744,818,01)0 Inciease. . . 32,984,000-44 per cent 8o, Sir, we find that in the eight West- ern States 1 have mentioned, iu the period between 1870 and 1880, the in- crease in the manufactured products was $50 1,000,000, or an avonigo of {)2 per cent,, against tlie increase in the Domin- ion of 40 per cent., and an increase in Ontario of 38 per cent. Then, taking the old mauul'actuiiiig Stains which pro- duce more than onetialf the goods pro- duced m the whoh; I'uion, the States of Masaaciiusetts, Connecticut, Now York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 1 find that the increase during the same period WAS $515,000,000, or ahout $50,000,000 less than in the eight n-.'w States T have mentioned, and that the ratio of increase was 21. G per cent, against (U per cent. in the eight Westei-n States. This i.s a striking result, and it demonstrates that the ratio of iuci-ease in manufac- turing is more than as rapid again in thos(! new States, and the newer they are the more rapid the increase; the most rapid dncreaso was in Minnessota, '2'2!< per cent., the increase in Illinois was over 100 per cent., and in California over 74 per cent, (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, is there unyihing in tlie condition of Ontario, or iu , the con- dition of this Dominion, that exposes ua to a more relentless competition with those old manufacturing centres than those new States were exposed to '] AKK WE NOT AS C.VPABLE PHOtaiESS OF MAKIN(i as those western States in the establish- ment, development and growth of manu- facture { I hold that we are, and when I examined the statistics with regard to the growth and development of manufac- tures in the cities of the west, 1 was again struck with the wonderful result I discovered. The following table shows the value of manufactured productions, in 1880, in the principal cities of the west : 21 • Detriit manafactur«;s, 1880 .$30,181,000 Cincinnati do 10."), 259, 000 Cleveland do 48,W4 000 Louisville do .■J6,4'23,000 Chicago do 249,022,000 Milwaukee do 4.3,473,000 St. Louis do 114,333 000 San Praiicisco do 77,824,000 Statis-.icH show that the ratio of in- crease is much more rapid in cities of the west than it itj in the older cities of the east. In view of these facts, I think that wo are needlessly alarmed, that there is no ground for the alarm that exists in the minds of some men. that the manufac- tures of the Dominion are not capable of competing with those old manufactur- ing centres in the eastern States, The results in the westren States give the lie to such an assertion. (Cheers.) We may disabuse our minds of any fears as to our ability to compete with those clintres and to successfully maintain and sustain our manufacturing iuiereats. The fact of it is, Mr, Speaker, that our manufacturers, as well as our lumbermen, our farmers, our fisherman and mine owners, need the blessings of oontinental free trade. They need a •wider, marl^t. Thay arc confined here to a market of 5,000,000 of people. They need the adoption of a policy that will break down the barriers, and open to their access 60,000,000 of customers more, and there can be no doubt that they would derive vast advantages from the removal of those restrictions. So much. Sir, for the (juestiou as regards the benefits that are to be realised by this country from unrestricted free unrestiict- ed free trade. As I said at the com- mencement, it is a (piestion which re- quirts fair treatment. It would be dis, hone.-it, it would be criminal on the part of any public man discussing this question, to seek to delude or mis- lead the people of this country. They have a right to demand of every patriotic citizen that he shall, at least, state what he believes to be true ; and in discussinc: this (juestion, Mr, Speaker, I would Bcorn to adopt a policy that was calculat- ed to deceive my countrymen, for tho M oo purpose of securing a transient political advantage. (Cheers.) Now, .1 pro|)ose, Sir, to e:(^amine candidly all the objec- tions, so far as I a'hi aware, that are urged against this pioposal of unrestrict- ed reciprocity. First of all, it is urged THAT JT IS PiSLOYAL. Well, Sir, to whom is i^ disloyal ? It may be disloyal to Mar'jhester, it may be disloyal to liirmingham, ^ut is it disloyal to Canada V That ^h <"hc question that conserns us. We ar j not charged with the 4j;uardianship of the interests of Manches- ter, of Birmingham, of England ; we are charged with tho guardiansliii» of the in- terests of Cauadii. If we do not guard those interests expressly given to us they will not be guarded. Time and again our interests have been given away to advan- ce Imperial interest'*, and it is our busi- ness to guard our own interests ; and if this policy is loyalty to Canada, if it is calculated to promote the iutereats of Canada, that is as far as i cave to en- quire with respect to the cjuestion of loyalty. (Loud cheers.) Now, there are -4,750,000 people in Canada. What are they ? They are British subjects, and they are just as uiucli entitled to consi- deration as -l,7i)0,000 British subjects, in England. (Hear, hear.) How many I3ri- tish subjects in England are there v/ho can possibly be affected by this proposed change '? We imported from lingland last year !ii;44,4i»G,000 worth of good.s. Suppose the}' were all the products of suppose they were all the the skilled labor of Eng- land, how many men woidd it take to |:roduce that amount of goods ? I statid, in reading over the develop- ment of manufactures in the western States, that in 1880 Mihvaukee produced ^4.'J,i7.'{,000 worth of goods, within a fraction of the entire amount we import from England. How many inhabitants had that city / It had , 1 ir),000 ; and I venture to say that not one-half were engaged in inauufaoturing. (Hear hear.) How many people does it take to produce the 144,4^0,000 worth of goods we im- manufactures, productions of port from England ? In 1880, according to the returns, the production in the United States was $1 .950 jier head for each man, woman and chiltl engaged as factory operatives in that country. Upon this basis the production of that amount of goods means the employment of 25,- 000 operatives, it means • at at the very outside 7r),000 people in England art> dependent upon, the production of the goods that have been exported to Canada and sold in this couu*"ry. (Hear hear.) And we are asked to de what J Ws arc askeil to place in one scale the interests of 75,000 people in England and in the other scale tho interests of 4,750,000 people in Canada, and and to decide that the claims of the 75,- 000 people shall out-weigh the claims of the 4,750,000. That is the kind of loyalty in this connection. I do not care for that kind of loyalty. I am engaged in looking after the interests of my con- stituent.s, and I care a great deal more for them than for nabobs in .Manchester. (Loud cheers.) What do you suppose is the amount of profit.s derived from this business in I'lnglaud ? It mav br; .$4,000,000 or 85,000,000, or even a littb more. How much British Capital is in- vested in Canada 'I T am told there is .|!5GO,000,000 invested. Now the inter- ests of those men who have made invest- ments in Canada are intimately con- nected with the prosperity of this conn try, and even admitting that we weie to sacrifice the interests of tliose people en- gaged in manufacture*, would we not be benefitted ".' How much money is there invested in England to produce the goods sent to Canada. The investment at the outside of .*30,000,000 will produce that amount of ^44,000,00 worth of goods, (Hear, hear.) The ratio in the United States in 18S0 was $'2,700 of capital to $5,309 of products, nearly two of the products to one of capital ; and it is a libei'al estimate to say that $30,000,00 of capital investeil in England is all that is invested to produce the goods sent to Canada, Place in one scale the men having $80,000,000 of capital engaged m producing goods sent wlie a d it lion won I J proi ■ 'cca ihis f-ati peril uectj ''•^lie wh( ' lish iu A \uHtl ofG over 23 ■% ttb in- ■ is uter-' vest- con ooun Me to en- ot be there t the that •roods, Jnited tal to of the it is ii 000 ,W) ,nd is ;e Ihe in one 000 of ds sent to thia country, and place in the other scale the interests of English investors in this country to the extent of $5(>0,000,- 000, besides the interests of all the [>oople of this Dominion, and we are asked to Hay thjit we Will consider the interests of the owners of ^30,000,000 of capital in- vested in manufactures in Eng- land paramount to the interests of the other class who have in- vested $500,000,000 hero, besides the capital of the people of this country. (Loud cheers.) • That is Vor THE KIND OF LOVALTV I intend to stand by or advocate. It is assumed upon this hypothesis on which I have been dealing with this (Question, that unrestricted reciprocity would abolish imports from England . It will do nothing of the kind. It may remporalily check those imports, but the increasetl pros- perity which will be sure to be^ given to this country will lead to increase*! trade. It has ever been so and will everbe so, and the result will he that in a very few years, instead of abolishing English trade, there may be a large increase of Ivnglish imports into Canada. (Hear, hear.) I t&n remember the time, Mr. Speaker, when hon . gentiemen opposite were not sosuperloyal. I can remember when we were discussing the National Policy, and when it was urged that that policy was a disloyal one as regards England, that it threatened Britisli connection, those hon. gentlemen said, "So much the worse for British connection." I rather suspect the motive which prompts hon. gentlemen opposite on this occasion to make such use of this cry of loyalty. There is another feature of this case to which [ might he permitted to allude most briefly in con- nection with the charge of disloyalty. I helieve it is a matter of interest to the whole Anglo Saxon race, to every Eng- Hsb-speaking man, whether he may be in America, or the United Kingdom, or Australia, or New Zealand, or the Cape of Good Hope, or Hindostan, or wher- ever he may be on the face of this broad eartli, for they are scattered over the whole face of it, — I believe it is the in- terest of every Englsh-speaking man that friencliy relations should exist between the two great branches of the Anglo- Saxon family. I believe that any policy that will draw closer the bonds that con- nect the [Jnited States and England, that will INCREASE THE CORDIALfTY EXISTlXa between those two great powers, that will have a tendency to bring those twopowers to act[in a concert and in alliance, is a policy that should receive the commendation and the support of every man, not only in Canada, but in every English-speaking coimtry in the world. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that no (piestion is likely to arise — no ([uestion for many years, except the Alabama question, has arisen between England and the United States, threatening to sever the amic- able relations between those two countries — that has not had some connection with Canada. The tisheries dispute — we can- not say it ceases to exist — which so late- 1}- was an ominous question, threatening the relations between those two countries, was purely a Canadian one ; and if we adopt any policy that brings Canada and the United States into closer commercial relations and removes the danger of friction between this counti-y and the United States, we adopt a policy that is likely to lead to that result which we consider so des'rable, the drawing closer together of these two gi'eat branches of the Anglo l*'axon race. (C'heers.) 1 believe that a powerful argu- ment in favor of unrestricted recii)ro- city can be founded upon that view of the case. I believe we would be justified in entering into negotiations and seeking to draw these two peoples closer together, clo.ser in commercial and closer in social intercourse, it" no other consider- ation had weight in the premises. ( Jlear, hear.) So much for the disloyalty objection. Now, the next objection urged to this propo.sed arrangement is that it would 24 T/EAD TO AXNEXATION. An hon. MEM EiE R. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CHARLTON. I hear somebody say, " hear, hear.'' What does this ob- jection admit — what does it tacitly infer- entially admit ? It admits that it would be such a splendid thing that we would want more of it, that it would work so well wo would not be satisfied with a half measure but would go the entire distance. Some hon. M.EMBB:R.S. Hear, hear. Mr. CH ARLTON. I say that it admits that it would be a good thing. Perhaps it would ; but it would not be a good thing to the extent -ot bringing about annexation. It would have a direct te eucy, on the contrary to prevent an- nexation. Some hon. MEMBEEIS. Henr, hear. Mr. CHARLTON. I repeat it— it ■would have a direct tendency to prevent annexation. I remember when I was a boy that the annexation sentiment in this count rv was rampant. I rememV)er a manifesto issued in LS49 signed by hundreds of proininent Cousevvatives in this Dominion, and it put the argu- ments in favor of annexation svith great power and force. I know, Sir, that annexation was debated and discussed and that the great mass^ of the people in that section of the country in which I live believed in it. What was the cause of it? Was it because they considered the political institutions of the United States superior to those of C!anada i No, Sir, I think not It was becau-ie they desired freer commercial relations with the United Statees and that they saw in annexatic^n the only mode of obtaining it. (Hekr, hear.) Mr. BO WELL. It had nothing what- ever to do with it. Mr. CH A RLTON It had everything to do with it, and I will show you how it ]iad to do with it. In 1854, when we <^'ot freer commercial relations with tlie States, the annexation agitation dieil out. We never heard of it again while recipro- city continued. It was not a d«'sire for annexation on pi)litical gro\inds, but the sentimtuit was created by the desire to obtain free commercial inter- oouise with the United States, and by that desire alone. Now, Sir, we have an annexation sentiment to-day, and it is growing in this country, and i*- is growing because of the mismanagement, the recklessness, the extravagance, and the corruption of the party in power. (Cheers.) If there is any one thing that actuates the public mind and that has a tpndcncy TO SPREAD THIS ANNEXATION SENTIMENT in Canada, it is the desire that is felt by the iiii'mers, and lumbermen, and other producing classes of this country to obtain free trade with the United States. It is that, Sir. It is not because they do not believe that ouv political institu- tions in Canada, if honestly managed, are not as good as those of the United States, for. Sir, nine out of every ten of the people of Canada believe our inatitii- tions are better, as they have a right to be- lieve. It is the desire for unrestricted com- mercial relations that promotes the senti- ment in favor of annexation. Now, Sir, you secure an ari-angement by which we can obtain unrestricted reciprocity with the United Slates, and you will Und as a result of that arrangement that agitation for annexation will die out completely. This would be the inevitable result of such a policy, and it is the way to put an end to the annexation agitation altogether in this country if we can have through a commercial treatj'^ all the material advantages that can residt from annexation. (Cheers.) So much for that objection. Tlien there is , ANOTHER OBJECTION MADE, and so far as I have heard it made, it is made by Conservatives and advocates of the National Policy, and it is this ; it is that it would be a bad thing, because it would prevent our getting as good terms for annexation iuthe future when we want it as we otherwise could. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I have to say to that is, that it may be an objection that will have m the tht- Mit in II Cali heal the I ditij to thoj tho. arkI as meil facd le.l the! tur< disfl tliel in we.'J !l PeniKyh-anhi-lSlO .$71 1,S!U COO ISSO . 744,S1S,000 Incieaae... 3-J,0S4.0DO U per cent So, Sir, we find that in the eiglit West- ern States I have niontioiud, in the period between I'^TO and IS'^O, the in- crease in the manufactured products was 85Gl,0(i0,0u<), or an average of (■)2 per cent,, against the increase in the Douiin- ion of 40 p*;r cent., and an increase! in Ontario of 8'^ per cent. Then, taking :he old manufacturing Statt'S which pro- duce more than one-half the goods pro- duced in the whoh' ''nion, the Statfs of ^Eassachusetts, Connpcticut, N'ew York, New Jersey and Pennaylvaiua, I tind that the increase during the same period Wis 651 5,000,000. or about $.10,00(),(J00 less than in the eight n^^w States I have mentioned, and that the ratio of increa.se was 21.6 per cent., against (Vl- per cent. iu the ei'dit Western States. This -is a striking result, and it demonstrates that the ratio of increase in manufac- turing is more than as rapid again in these new States, and the newm- they are the more rapid the increase ; the moat rapid increase was in ^linnesaota, 22^ per cent., the increase in Illinois was ovi^r 100 per e^nt., and in California over 74 per cent. (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, is there any tiling in the condition of Ontario, or in the con- dition of this Dominion, that exposes ua to a more relentless competition with those old manufacturing centres than those new States were e.\po.sed to ? ARE WE NOT .\S CAPABLE OF PROGRESS MAK[N(i as these western States in the estahlish- ment, development and growth of manu- facture ] I hold that we are, and when I examined the statistics with regard to the growth and development of manufac- tures in the cities of the west, I was again struck with the wonderful result I discovered. The following table shows the value of manufactured productions, in 1S80, ill the principal cities of the west ; Doti'it ni;inufiu,tinos, ISsO .S.'iO, l>^l,Ora Cincinnati do 10."', •-•'.!>, 000 Cleveland do 4S,(;0| OOO Louisville do :r>, f_>;{,ooo Chica-o do 'iV.t.OJJ.dOO Milwaukre dc 4:?, tTii.OOO .St. Louis do II4,h:{:{0i0 Sail Francisco do :7,S-J4,OijO •'". itistics show that the ratio of in- crease is much more rapid in cities of th*^ west than it is in the older cities of the east. In view of these facts, I think th.it we are needlessly alarnind, that there is no ground for the alarm that exists in Me minds of some men. that the manufac- tures of the Dominion are not cai)aV>le ot competing with tho.-e old manutactur- ing centres in the eastern State.s. The results in the westren States give the lie to such an assertion. (Cheers.) We may disaluise our nunds of any fears as to our ability to compete with those centres and to successfully maintain and sustain our manufacturing inierests. The fact of it is, ^Ir. Siieak:'!-, that our manufacturers, as well as our lumbermen, our farmers, our fisherman and mine owners, reed the blessings of .continental free trade. They need a -wider market. Thsy an; confined here to a market of 5,i)00,0(j() of people. Th^-y need the arloption of a policy that will break down the barriers, and open to their acce.«s G'>,000,000 of customers more, and there can be no doulit that they would derive vast advantages from the removal of those restrictions. 8o much. Sir, for the question as regards the benefits that are to be realised by this country from unrestricted free unre.strict- ed free trade. As I said at the com- nif'ncement, it is a .question which re- • piirKs fair treatment. It would lie dis, honest, it would be criminal on the part of any public man discussing this ipiestion, to seek to delude or mis- lead the people of this country. They have a right to demand of every patriotic citizen that he shall, at least, state what he believes to be true ; and in disrussinij this question, ilr. Speaker, I wou'd scorn to adopt a policy that was calculat- ed to deceive my countrymen, for the 0-) r, .ii>o-'- ofs«^curing a transient political a. I vantage, (("'heers.) Now, 1 propose, Sir to examine candiiUy all the ol)jec- tiuns, so f-ir as I am aware, that are urj,'e(l a;,'ainst this piopof-al of unrestrict- fl r.jiprooity. First of all, it is urged THAI IT IS DISLOYAL. Well. 8ir, to whom is it disloyal ? It m.iv !>e disloval to Manchester, it laav be disloyal to I'.irmiiigliam, hut is it disloyal to Canada "? That is the question that conserns us. We are not charged with the tiUiudiansliip of theiutercsts of Mancht.-s- tfr, of lUrniingluuu, ofKngland: we are charged with the guardianship of the in- tt-rests of Canada. If we ilo not guard those interests e\[)ressly gi\fn to us tht-y will not he guarded. Time and au'ain our interots has e been given away to advan- ce Imperial interests, and it is our hu^i- iiess to guard our own interests ; 'and if this policy is byalty to Canada, if it is calculated t(.» [>romote the interests of Canada, that is as far as I care to en- «[uire with res()ect to the ([Uestion of loyalty. (Loud cheers.) Now, there are 4-,7."iO,,000 worth of goods, within a fraction of the entire amount we imi>ort from England. How many inhabitants had that city.' It had ll."), per head for each man, woman and chihl euirusfd as factory operatives in that country. Upon this basis the production of that amount of goods moans the employment of ■2.'),- 000 operatives, it means that at tlie very outside 7."),000 people in England ar^ dependent U[»on the production of tiu! goods that have Vjcen exported to Canada and sold in this country. (Hear hear.) And we are asked to de what I ^\'e are asked to place in one scale the interests of 75,0OO people in England and in the other scale the intc'rosts of 4,7"»0,<)OO peojile ill Canada, and and to decide that the claims of the 75,- 000 people shall out-wengh the claims of the 1,7.30.000. That is the kind of loyalty in this connection. I do not care for that kind of lovidcv. £ am enfrawd in lookin^c after the interests of mv con- stitueiits, and I care u great deal more for them than for nabobs in Manchester. (Loud cheers.) What do you .>iupi)Ose is the amount of profits derived from this business in England ? It may Vje S4,000,000 or 8.').(t00,no0, or even a little more. How muih British Capital is in- vested in Canada .' I am told there is i^5»!O,000,000 invested. Now the inter- ests of those men who have made invest- ments in Canada are intimately con- nected with the prosperity of this coun trv, and even admittini: that we were to sacrifice the interests of those people en- gaged in manufactures, would we not he benefitted ".' How much money is there invented in England to produce the goods sent to Canada. The investment at the outside of S30,000,0ii0 will produce that amount of -S-il, 000,00 worth of goods, (Hear, hear.) The ratio in the L'nited .States in 18.^0 was .$2,71)0 of capital to §5,301J of products, nearly two of the products to one of capital ; and it is a liberal estimate to say that $;50,000,oi) of capital invested in England is all that is invested to produce the goods sent to Canada. Place in one scale the men having s:30,000.000 of capital engaged in producing goods .>>cut ^ 23 to tliii country, aii'l I'Litt^ in tlic oth< i- !"L\ilo tli«' iut(:r«-.~.t.s of Kn^li-^li iiivfstor.^ in tliis cuuutiy to tliocxt'.'Ut of S.">(;i),00o,- OOO, bf-.siil'.'.s the interests of all t\\>- jicopl*' of this I)i(Uiinioii, and wt; are aslcod to h.iy tliiit wo will consirlvr tlu! inttnc^ts of tilt- ownois of c30,000,0li0 of cajntal in- vestf^i in niunufiioturos in Kn^;- latul panuiiount to tlie interests of the oHier class who have in- vested §.'» 00,000,000 here, besides the capital of the people of this country. (Loud cheeis.) That is NOT THK KIM) OI' LOVALTV I intend to stand by or advocate. It is assumed upon this liypothesison whi' h I liave been dealing with this question, that unrestricted reciprocity would abolish imports from England, ft will do nothing of the kind. It may temporalily check those imports, but the increased pros- perity which will be sure to be given to this country will lead to increased trade. It has ever been so and will everbe so, and the result will lie that in a very few year.s, instead of abolishing English trade, there may be a large increa.^e of Knglish imports into Camida. (Hear, hear.) 1 can renif-mber the time, Mr. Speaker, when lion . gentlemen opposite wore not so superloyal. I can remember when we were discussing the National Policy, and when it was urged that that policy was a disloyal one asrc'irds England, that it threatened Britisli connection, those hon. gentlemen said, "So much tlie worse for British connection." I rather suspect the motive which prompts hon. gentlemen oi)posite on this occasion to make such use of this cry of loyalty. There is another feature of this case to which [ might be permitted to alludo most briefly in con- nection with the charge of disloyalty. I b"lieveitis a matter of interest to the whole Anglo Saxon race, to every Eng- lish speaking man, whether he may be in .Xint-iii a. or the United Kingdom, or Australia, or New Zealand, or the Cape of Good Hope, or llindostan, or wher- ever he may bo on the face of this broad earth, for tliey arc scattered Over tlu- whole face of it, — I believe it is the in- t(;re.-.t of every Englsh-siicaking man that friendly relations .should exist between the two great branches of the Anglo- Saxon faiiiily. I believe that any policy that will draw clo.-cr the bonds that cTINLr between those two great powers, that will haveatendency to bring those twopowers to actlin a concert and in alliance, is a policy that should receive the commendation and the support of every man, not only in Canada, but in every English-speaking country in the world. I do not need to tell you, Mr. S[ieaker, that no ([uestion is likely to arise no 4uestion for many years, except the Alabama (piestlon, has arisen betwetm England and the United States, tbreat»:ning to sever the amic- aljle relations between those two countries — that has not had .some connection with Canada. The tish>M'ies dispute — we can- not say it ceases to exist — which so late- ly was an ominous ([uestion, threatening the relations between those two countries, was purely a Canadian one ; and if we adopt any policy that brings Canada and the United States into closer commercial relations and removes the danger of friction between this country an:3ult which we consider so desirable, the drawing closer together of these two great branches of the Anglo Saxon race. (CJheers.) I believe that a powerful argu- ment in favor of unrestricted recipro- city can be founded upon that view of the case. I believe we would be justified in entering: into ne;rotiations and seeking to draw these two peoples clo-er together, closer in commercial and closer in social intercourse, if no other consider- ation had weight in the premises. (Hear, hear.) So much for the dislovaltv objection. Now, the next objection urged to this proposed arrangement is that it would 24 LKAH TO ANNKXAIIMN. An hon. MI:MI;I:I:. (ll.-ur, liPiir.) Mr. ClIAKI/lON. 1 li.;u S0:nfl.0.1v siy, " liOiir, liIpudiil thin;,' tli;it wo woulil vaiit more of it, tli.it it uould \voil< so wt.'ll we would not iif satistleil with a h;ilt' uio^isore Idit would i;r> thcoatirt? distnuue. Somo lion. !M l^^^'. K.K.S, Hi-ui', hoar. :Mr.CllA[iL;rON. I.say that it admits that it would be a good thing. lVih.i[is it would ; but it would not l)0 a ,Mod thin'4 to the extent ot biin-dng about annexation. It would have a tlirect teudt'Uey, on the contiai-y to prt.'vent an- nexation. Some hon. MKMIiEKS. Ht-ir, hear. yiv. CHAlU/rCJlN. I r.peat it— it would have a direct tendcu'-y to prevent annoxation. I remember when I was a bov that the annexation sentiment in this country was rampant. I remember a luAiiifosto issued in l"^ll) signed by hundreds of prominent Conservatives in tlii.s Dominion, and it put the argu- ments) in favor of annexation with i^reat pt)wer and force. I know, Sii', that annexation was debated and di.scussed and that the great mass of the people in chat sectic^n of the country in which I live believed in it. Wdiat was the cause of it 1 \Vas it because tht-y considered the political institutions of the United States sup^naor to tliose of Canada i No, Sir, I tiiink not It was be<'au-:e they desired freer commercial relations with the United Statee.-^ and that they saw in annexation the only mode of obtaining it. (Hear, hcai-. ) Mr. BUWELI,. It had nothing what- ever to do with it. Mr. CHAliUTOX It ha.l everything to do with it, and I will show you how- it liad to do with it. In l.^.")t, when we got freer commercial relation^ with tiu- States, the annexation agitation died out. ^Ve nt-ver luard of it again while recipro- city continued. It was not a d>'sire for annexation on political grounds, but the sentiment was created by the fh'siie to obtain free comm''i'cial int-T- coui.se with the Unite I States, and by that desire alone. Now, Sir, we iiive an annexatifiti .sentiment today, and it is gi'owing in tliis country, and il is glowing ht-cause of the mismanagement, the recklossn^'ss, tiie extra\ agmce, and the corruption of the party in power. (Cheer.i.) If there is any one thing that actuates tiie publii; mind au'I that has a tendency To SPUKAl) TKIS A.VNKWriO.V SKNTl.MKNT in Canada, it is the desire that is felt by tlu! fariiier.s, and lumbernien, aiul otht.'r producing classes of this country to obtaiti free trade with the United States. It is that, Sir. It is not because they do not believe that our politic-al institu- tions in Canada, if honestly managed, are not as good a-s those of the United States, for, Sir, nine out of every ten of thei>cople of Canaiia Ijeliove our institu- tions are better, as they have a right to be- lieve. It is the desire for unre.itrictcd com- mercial relations that promotes the senti- ment in favor of annexation. Now, Sir, you secun; an arrangement by which we can obtain unrestricted reciprocity with the United Suites, and you will tind as a result of that arrangement that agitation for annexation will die out completely. This would be the inevltal)le result of such a policy, aiul it is the way to put an end to the annexation agitation altogether in this country if we can have through a commercial treaty all the material advantages that can result from annexation. (Cheers.) So much for that objection. Then there is AyOTHKli OK.IKLIION MADE, and so far as I have heard it made, it is made by Conservatives and advocates of the National Policy, and it is this : it is that it would be a bid thing, because it would prevent our getting as gooi.l terms foranne.xation i!ith'; future when wewant it as we otlierwise could. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I ha\e to say to that is, that it may Jje an obji.'ction that v.-ill base jfig 25 we NvitU u.s a itiou !toly. •esult to .ation have tilt- from for it is cates oi ; it is cause it ,1 tonus ^ve want ell, Mv. is, that ill have weight with some friends on the opposite wide. We are not looking for terms of that kind and the ob)(!Ctiou haw no weight with U8. Then, Sir, another objection •urged is: " Well, we cannot get it and there is no use talking about it, and besides JTWOl'LI) NOT I»K niGNIFIKn •I'OASICFOU IT." That is what our friend from Huron (Mr. Port.v) said the other night. He Haid that our abject whining and cring- ing mu8t be disgusting to the Araeri- ■cans, as they had refused overtures for free trode. Sir, it is not abject whining, it is not cringing to couie openly and boldly like a candid, truthful man and say to another : "I believe that we can make an arrangement mntually advantageous, and I approach you with a proposition for an arrangement which 1 believe will be advantagf.'ous to both of us." What do tliose gentlemen want '? What would they vsk 1 Would they aak that 60,00(>,000 in the United States should come to 5,000,000 in Canada, because it would not be dignified for f),000;000 to go to 00,000,000 1 (Great laughter.) They must indeed have an extraordinary sense of their dignity when this would stand in their way. I do not see anything undignified or im- proper in either one of those people mak- ing proposals to the other. If we com- plete any arrangements which we, on this side, conceive could be eflfected to our advantage, it is neither undignified nor improper, on the contrary, it is in he highest degree dignifited, to raake approaches to our neighbors and lay before tnem what we believe to be the reasons that ought to accuato and influence us in entering into an arrangement for our mutual advan- tage and benefit. But, 8ir, whether we can get it or not there is one thing we can do, and that is we can try. (Hear, hear.) This word " can't is a word that is not made use of very much by enei'getic business men. The way to ascertain whethev you can do a thing or jiot is not to say " I can't do it, and 1 won't try to do it." The way to do it is to go like men and to try and do it, and see what the chances are. If you fail to accom- plish it you cannot accuse yourself of having lioen false to your own inter- ests, and of not having made the attempt. T ut Sir, there is auother reason which will not warrant any man who is ac- quainted with the chances of success in saying or kdmittiug that wo cannot do it. We are warranted in believing that THE AMERICANS AKE HEADV to make a fair and equitable arrange- ment. We hive, in fact, ofticial assurance from the State De|)artmeut of the United States that such is the case. We have assurances from public men of that country that such is the case. We are, in point of fact, invited to. make our proposition, and we are decidedly assured that this proposition, if reason- able, will be favorably entertained. (Cheers.) Then, the next objection made is, that we cannot make a treaty on advantageous terms. Well, Mr. Speaker, we never need make a treaty that we do not consent to, and we m^ver need consent to a treaty that is not a satis- factory treaty and we cannot tell whetlier we can get a satisfactory treaty or not until we have made the trial. Then, the next objection, is a very important ob- jection. It is, that this arrangement. WILL NOT YIELD US ENOUGH REVENUE. Now, Sir, I do not know whether I had better examine into this question on the basis of both a proposal for unrestrictpd reciprocity and on the thereotical basis also of com- mercial union, or not, for as a thereotical disquisition it might be interesting to tak« up the question on the basis ot commer- cial union. Howcner, Sir, I will proceed to show what would be the pi-obable outcome if we made the arranement con- templated by the resolution now before the House — unrestricted reciprocity. (Here, here.) It would bo admitted, 1 presume, that we would Bacrifice the 26 duties upon Aniericnn importations, amounting last year in round numlnTH to .*7,300,0(iO. Tlie total revenue from excisf and customs last yoar was $28, (;S7,000 : deduct fioiu this tlin collection «)f! dutiable imports from the I'nited States and it leaves a balame of $21,HSS, 000, which wonld be the revenue with the loss of the American duties. No'.v, Sir, in 1880 our revenue from cu^tom8 and exise was j^IS, 17'J,000. On this basis 1 have named, admitting the loss of $7, ."'00,000, we would still liave a revenue of «!2,909.000 more than we had in ISHO. Our rt /enue in 1.^81 was $2:^942,000, and upon the basis I have mentioned our revenue would l)e $2,545,000 short of tlie amount of "evenue collected in 1881, Now, Sh', the revenue in 1881 was 82,- 000,000 higher than the revenue in 1878, and the expenditure in 1881 was actual- ly greater than this country was war- ranted in making or is warranted in making today. The ijuestion, ^ ir, is, can we under this arrange raent go back to the scale of expenditure that existed in 1881 1 : Hear, hear.) If we can do that, Sir, if we admit that we loose from our revemK; iJiT, .300,000, and if wo admit it is not possible to rfiadjust our tariti", and that it is not possible to supplement that loss by increased revenue from other sources which undoubtedly it is possible to do, if we admit that for the sake of argument, we are still warranted in say- ing that it IS po.ssiMe to go back to the expenditure of 1881, and that we would have revenue (uough without any change in our tariff even with unrestricted reciprocity. Now, wou Id it be possible for us to EFFECT RETKEN(;HMENTS ? We who have run up our expenditure from Sl:3,48G,000in 1 868 to 1.35,658,000 in 1887 ; we who have increased our ex- jjenditure on an average four times as last every year as the jjojmlation has increased, is it possible to retrench in this country? (Hear, liear.j Well, Sir, if it is not possible to retrench, it is not possible to avert ruin ; if it is not poKsii'le to retrench, the country' has: got to go to the dogs ; if it ia not possible to retrench in this country, we may as well give up the case — tho whole case. Now, I hold that it i* ])0ssible. 1 will tell you whero you might ertcct some retror chment. S'ou might abolish that sum of all political villany. the Franchise Act, and you would save ?100,000 at one stroke,, and you would also save your char acter and your ronscienees would * tf clearer. (Oreat cheering.) Vou- might get along with a little less on j)ublic works and buildings, f bolievfr that in the I'nited Slates, with all its wealth, there are about 86 cities only where they have public post otlioes. They only give post o^ice l)uililings to large commcrciij cities such as New York and Buftalo Mr. FOSTER. How much do they take to l)uild one post ollice ] -MK. OHAllLTON. It does not matter. They have a good deal of money, and they have to build large ones, 1 e- cause they do not build any in small towns. They do not go into the busines.s. of building little s^O.OOO post oHices in small villages as bribes to the peeple : they have not got as low in the .scale i f humanity as that. Well, we might save very largely in the expenditure on publ'e works and buildings ; \vc might cut it all off, the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel. We could .save by abolishing tho vicious system of superannuation. (Cheers.) Mr. BO WELL. How much 1 Mr. CHARLTON. It amounts to between $200,000 and .♦5300,000 now. We could ."ave on railway subsides, and avoid the enactment of such little scenes as ccurred in No. 8 a few years ago. We could save by putting an end to that system of bribery which consists in giving grants to useless railway lines cf Ig3,200 a mile. We could cut off the whole thing with advantage to our treasury, advantage to our morals, advan- tage to our cliaracter, and advantage to our hopes in the future, not only in this world, but in the world to come. (Loud to get at \ "hirig J'os.sibj 27 Ints to |0 no'"'-'- irn ago. Unes of off the to our |s, advan- Intage Jo (IjO\k\ clieors. ) We have been HpemUuj? mil- lions of dollars for the purpose of carry- in;^' immi.<,'rants to tlif I'nitod Siutf-s tlirough this coiiutry, ami wi- could cut <>H' tlio whole of that approprisitioi\ with advantage to the pnlilic. Mr LISTKK. What would tin. uews- pupera do wii,hout that ? Mr. CM ARl/roN. That is a .luestiou I cannot answer ; I am afraid some of them would rat. Tlu'ii. Sir, wo could reduce somewliat, 1 tliink, the cost of the civil Hervii-e. AVe iiavo a great many in- cumbent'^ iu the service of this country who are most valuable oflicers, who, in fact, are underpaid, and wo liave a great many wlione services are not wortli a t^liilUng a yeai- — a great many useUtss appen a nibble. He caught a gudgeon at Washington, and it was the only hing he got. (Laughter.) Yes, it is possible to redr.ce our expenses by the ■iitire loss we sustain from the American duties. We could leduce our expenses $7,Ot»0,<»(iO a year, with ad vintage to onrselves, advantage to our morals, and advantage t,o the tjixpayt^r, and have a bet- ter Oovernment then we have to-day. We could do it by (rutting off the means of corruption which the Government em- ])loy8 and so lavishly uses in the manage- ment of this country at present. And then you must bear in mind that what- ever policy IXniKASES THE 1 .lOSPEKITV OK THIS COUNT HV will increase the tax-paying resources of th«i people. Whatever policy increasea the wealth and population of this country will inevitably increase the imports; the man who has au ample income will consume more goods than a man who is straitened in his circumstances ; and if we can make the great {producing classes of this country prosperous, and at tho same time vastly increase their numbers, we need have no fears of the revenue more than perhaps a temporary derange- ment of one or two years while we are getting ready to cut down our fxpen.ses. As I said before, I estimate the saving to the producing classes of this country in the mere matter of duties at $15, 000,- 000 a year. I also estimate that a vast amount is lost in destroying competition for the purchase of the goods we export to the United States ; through Custom House restrictions keeping away the befjt class of purchases and a further sum is lost in placing an extinguisher on the growth of the population in this country. Suppose it was neces- saiy to resort to direct taxation, the necessity of which 1 deny ; but suppose for arguni'^nt that it should be necessary, here is a p^'icy by which we propose to save to the people of this country directly $15,000,000, and indhectly as much more. The qut-stion is. can the people of Canada afi'oi'd to give three or four dollars for thirty dollars '.* Can they afford for the sake of gaining advantages amounting to from $15,000,000 to $30,- 000,000 a year, direct and indirect to sub- 28 mit to a direct taxation of $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 a year temporarily I I should say that it th(^ necessity existed, the people would cheerfully submit to the imposition ; but the necessity will not in roy opinion exist, (hear, hear) ' t would be, in short a godsend to the coutitry if we were compelled t<^ retreudi— -lo lop off many of these expenses which arc neither for the good, nor the ]if>nor nor the prosperity of the peoj^le of the Do- minion. (Cheers.) It being six o'clock, the Sjjeaka' left the chair. AFTER RECESS. Mr. CHARLTON — continued — J must apologise for the leu^'th of time I have wcoupied in discussing the resolution before the Hout-e. My excuse is that it is a large question, and I an aot know that I could kave shortened the time very much without failing to deal with some of the questions which I thought were essential to the discussion. I hope the House will not judge me to have been guilty of wasting its time, and I shall not trsspaj-s very nnie:. longer upon its patience in connection with this di^cua- sion. When you left the Chair Sir at six o'clock, I was engaged in discussing the question whether the adoption of unre- stricted reciprocity would leave Canada in a position M'here a sutliciont amount of revenue could be secured to meet oui actual necessities and wants, and I was orideavoring to point out the ul)solute necessity that rests upon this courxtry, entirely apart from all con- siderations In connection with unre- stricted reciprocity to curtail its expendi- ture and diminish its expenses. (Hear, hear.) I had pointed out during the af- ternoon the fact that we aie in many respects competitors with the United States. We, as well as that country, offer homes for immigrants ; we, as well as that country, expect to promote our growth by attracting to our shores people from the continent of Euroi)e, and, in order to enter upon this race v^ith any prospect of success, it is necessary that we should not he handicapped by expen- ses of administratioa and burdens of debt greatly in excess of those resting upon the shoulders of tLe people of the United States; and for this reason I now rej^eat what I said before that it is in the highest degree essential to the prosperity of Canada that we should RETRENCH OUH EXPENSES. I find, after deducting from the taxation of the United States the amount applied by them to the ext;nguishn)ent of their puVjlic debt, that our duties of customs and excise exceeded those of the United States last yt-ar by $2.15 per head. We raised ^(i.O.'i per head and the United States $H.H8 per head, aside from the amount v/hich they applied to extinguish- ing the public debt. We must bear in mind also that the I'nited ^tates are called upon to pro>ide for certain ex- penses from which we are free. They have their diplomatic and consular ex- penses to ])rovide for as a nation, and the only thing in ihis line for which we have to provide is the cost of the High Commissioner in London. Then they hii e to provide for an army and a navy. LaSt year, they expended oii their pension list ^75,029,000 ; upon the armv, S-'iS, 5.51,000 ; ;aid upon the navy, $15^111,000. (Heuf, hear.) Our ex- penses on similar items were !iiil02,000 for pensions;, 31>53''4,000 for the militia and mounted i)olice, and 205, OOt) for ocean and river service, uiaking a totitl ot i?2,281,O0O as against ^128.721,000 in tlie United States, To have made o\ir expenditure on these services equal to theiis in pi0|iO)tion to population, we should h;tve (xpcndcd |0,'l:i;),000 more than we did, and yet our taxation from custon) and excise apjjlied to expenses is !?2. 15 ; ?• capila more than theirs. What- ever liylit welook u])on this question in, \vc niustbeiuipressed with the necessity which rests upon this country to bring down its expenses soniewhcio in the region of thoHt of the United States, ever bearing \\\ H'.iiid that that gri'at country is our com- I etitor ;ind will continue to be our com- petitor, that we lie siido by side of i'. o„ «exj M'ol T iU recirj 'i'hof 29 and that, if we are to spcure immigration to people our great wastes, we must offer inducements to the population of the old world nearly, if not quite, equal to those which are ottered by the United States, In considering the objections tJiat are raised to unrestricted re(uprocity, 1 shall uf'xt refer to the seventh objec- tiion, which is the assertion that is made, that it will RUIN OUR MANUFACTURES. I will refer to this briefly, liecause I have already refeired to it in discussing the question whetho- our manufactures are likely to be able to namppta with tliose of the United Srates, if trade re- strictions are removed. T have pointed out my belief, and I think with reason, that ourmanufactures are able to ocorapcte with theirs, but even if they were not, T say th" country would not be warranted in foregoing the advantages which would be derived from uj]restri(;ted reciprocity in order to promote the interests of so small a fraction of the people of this Do minion {la those engaged in manufac'-ures. Even if the maiuifiutturing industries of Canada would l,e obliterated by the re- moval of these restrictions, which is not the case, still the great mass of the people of Canada would be i>enefitted, and we would be acting in conformity with the principle that Ave should adopt the course which will do the greatest good to the greatest number. (Hear, hear) The next objection made is that this WOULD INJURE OUR SHIPIMNO INTEREST. I deny emphatically that unrestricted reciprocity would have any such effect. Those familiar with the shipping on the great lakes are aware that Canadian whipping on thc'^e lakes is not worth within 30 or 40 per cent, as much as American shipping, becaxise Cana- iliau vessels are debarred from the most profitable trade on these lakes, which is the coasting trade. A Canadian vessel cannot clear fr;>m Chicago for Buffalo, or from Chicago for any other American port on the lakes, and is de- barred from transporting ore, which amounts to a trade of several millions of dollars per annum, Irom Lake Superior to the lower ports. In fact, Canadian boats are debarred from the most lucra- tive trade on the lakes ; and, if we had reciprocity, it would open to them a busincs from which they are entirely precluded now. (Hear, hear). On the sea coast it is the same thing. The most profital)le trade, is the coasting trade from which we are now entirely excluded, and in that matter we would derive enormous advantages from the adoption of reciprocity. The next objection is one which was raised by tuy lion, friend the Minister of the Interior, and it is an objection which has had great weight with some portion of the mercantile classes in the large cities. That is, that the adoption of unrefctiicted reciprocity would INMURE THE WIIOLESALK TRADE in this country, that it would put an end to the diatrioution of supplies to the retail dealers scattered throughout the country by leaving them free to make their purcha- ses in the great marts of th(i United States. I do not know, but I ajiprehend that this objection, like most of the otherfi, would be found to be nearl}' if not entirely groundless. I am not able to say defini- tely and with certainty what the etiect might be on the wholesale trade, but I wish to point out the result in this regard in the American markets themselves. If the result were to be in Canada to compel or to lead all retail dealers to buy in New York, that ought to be the result now in the United States, where no trade res- trictions exist. But that is not the result in the United States. The cities of Buft'alo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Omaha, San Francisco, St. liouis, Nashville, New Orloans^ — all these and many otlier cen- tres seem to supply almost exclusively the country adjacent to them with the goods required. Scarcely a retail mer- 30 chant in a thousand goes oast to New- that we hIho are ready for that- If it were York from the west of Chicago to buy ])08sihle to sucure recipi'ooity in natural ther products, I would bo in favor not only of haviuga standing ofVer to that eRfct on our Statute book, but 1 would be in favor of publishing that offer in every city of t Iki United States, of putting it upon every door post; T would be in favor of making that offer known l)y jiiacing a circular and keep stocks complete. In doing before every voter in the United States, if this it is not to their advantage we could secure reciprocity upon the to go to a distant market. Tlie terms upon which the lion, gentlemen are course of trade leads them to buy either willing to tike recij)r()(ity. Hut we liin- of travellers or to send in their orders not get it, it is futile and usele^a to talk themselves, and the result in the I'nited about it, and when they say : (3h, we States is, that the wholesale trade of are willing to take reciprocity on such goods, and it is found to tner con venience, and to their advantage, to go to a wholesale market quite near to them rather than go to a distant one. The character of the trade now is to buy frequently, to sort up, as irerchants term it, to buy in small quaniities, that country is distributed among the vaiious commercial centres scattered over that country, and these corumercial »;entres supply almost exclusively the retail trade of the country adjacent, Well, if the same rule would hold good in ( 'auada ii\ the case of unrestricted re- ciprocity, trade would not be removed from the commercial centres where it. is now su])plied. (Heai', hear.) The trade of ?'ew ^'ork and the trade of (.'hicago, to a considerable extent. and such terms, it is equivalent to saying: We will not have recijtrocity and do not want it — because they only propose to take it on such terms as they know will not be granted. ((I'heers.) What is the arrangement these gentlemen would be glad to make ? The airangenn iit they would like to make would be an arrangement that could not be called an equitable one ns far as the United States are concerned. The reciprocity treaty which was in ex- consists in tbe supply of jobbing houses, istenoe from If*")! to 18G5 was largely to of jobbing salef, sales to large wholesale the advantage of Canada. We sold to the United States everything that we could desire to sell them, but they could sell to us very little that they had to give us in exchange for the produce we sold to them. They were called upon to pay us largely in geld for the production of our farms, our forests, our mines tmd tirsheries. Now, they said, that is not a to fair system of trade. If we are to buy thei)roductsof your labor, we want to have the privilege of giving you in exchange ''Hear, hear.) The next objection made the products of our labor It is reason- iuthis: Well, we are quite prepared to able that they should have that privilege, t&ke reciprocity, we are anxious to get it, and it is for that reason we cannot get a mercantile establishnnnts in . the interior, and a great number of these extensive New York houses would not care to be troubled with the small business of a great number of sni|t«ll retail houses; they would rather sell to jobbers direct than to supply these houses. And I think for these reasons that the fears eutoi'tained by the wholesale trade in Canada that the business would centre in New Vork, are entirely groundles.s. \\(i have been ready all arc ready now, to have RECIPROCITY IN XAIURAL PRODUCTS. times, and w^ renewal of that treaty. It is for that rea- son we must admit the products of their labor into this country, in return for the ]>rivilege we ask of them to have the pro- ducts of our labor admitted into theirs. (Cheers.) Tho last objection I shall We have had a standing offer to the refer to to-night is, that we can get some United States to that effect since 1879. thing better. We do not need to look Well, Mr. Speaker, I can say truthfully for this at all, it is said, ; it is all useiem / to J tli h,n w: caii . tr; «pij th.;| .'iJai 31 to talk of reciprocity when we can easily secure an arrangement that will be infi- nitely bette)- to Canada. What is it ? Why, we can secure IMl'EKIAI, FEOEUATION, and that will be infinitely better, it is asserted, for the interests of this Domi- nion than unrestricted reciprocity with the United States. Well, Sir, what is implied by Imperial Federation ? What do the advocates of that scheme in Ca- nada propose to secure "? Why, they propose to secure, on the part of Great Britain, the imposition of differential the issue. I am glad the issue is so isfjuarely defined. I may say for rayself, and I think, for the pafty cf this side of the House, that we shall be glad to meet the hon. gtintlemen. on the other side of the House upon tliis issue. The country cannot misunderstand it. The issue is clearly detined. Men may take a position honestly on either one side or the other, and no doubt hon. gentlemen opposite have honest convictions on that side of the question, as we certainly have on the other. We will put the issue befoi-e that great jury, the people, and will leave it to that jury to settle the question which so intimately aflPects their own well being and prosperity. An hon. MEMBER. You may change your mind before another election. Mr. CHARLTON. 1 muHt thank the House for the very great courtesy with which hon. niernbers have listened to me. 1 have to promise tne House, moi-e- over, that the occasions will be very rare when I shall trespass on its patience so far aa I have done on this occasion. I am happy to say, in conclusion, that 1 believe this COl'NTRV HAS GREAT RESOURCES. I believe this country is dest.ined by Providence to have a grand future, and that consummation can only be thwarted by its own folly and misma- nagement. But I believe our autonomy cannot be preserved if we go on in the way we have been going. I believe that t» persevere in the course we have been j^ur- suing for sone years past, to follow that course for a very few years more, would entail irretrievable ruin upon the Domi- nion. I believe our path is beset with difficulties, and I am sorry to .say that the greater number of those difficulties are of our own creating. We have created them, we must btar the consequences of having created tLem, and we can only remove them by energetic method^', only by fcubjecting ourselves to the very un- pleasant ex})erience of relrenchment, of economy, of dismissal of officers, and of reducing the expenses of Government. It was said by Artemus Ward that Brigham Young was a very much married man. (Laughter ) We are a VERY MUCH OFFICERED NATION. We have in every department of the Government about two officers where we require one ; it is the case in the civit service, in is the case in this House. We have Custom house officers,. Excise officers, 'weights and measures officern, you can Bcarbely count the num- ber of officers in the pay of the Govern- ment, and one half of them are useless ones. As I said before recess, a business man or business men organising thin (government on business ])rinciples couhl carry on Lhe public business w^ith greater efficiency at very much less cost than is* now incurred. We have, in addition to maintaining that great number of officers, got into the habit of adopting very cor- rupt methods. Mr. HE8S0N. Hear, hear— on that side. MR. CHARLTON. That is the inno- cent side? 1 was down the other day in the County of Priiice Edward. 1 foimdi 33 tliat there a gentleman, late a member of this House, now thank Heaven a member of this House, who had been unseated for what 1 Because an indiscreet friend had on the night subsequent to the election paid a drunken loafer, who voted against the Reform candidate, a dollar to get rid of his importunities. Mr. BOW ELL. That was only one charge. Mr. CHARLTON. That was the most serious case and all the other charges were withdrawn, he was unseated on that charge. Now, what did I find going on in tliat county 1 The Dominion Government were dangling promises in the shape of bribes to the extent of thousands of dollars before the electors, (Hear, hear.) I found the inhabitants of Picton wrere promised a new post ofHce, and a gentleman who was in the way of the regularly nominated candidate had, as I understood, and it can be denied if it is not true, been promised that he would receive a good snug sum for the site for the post ofHce if he retired from the contest. I see it is not denied. Mr. BOW ELL. Does the hon gen- tleman moan to assert that the Govern- ment made the promise ? Mr. CFIARLTON. The Govern- ment I understand sent an emissary, and I understood that he had made the promise ? Mr. BOW ELL. There is not one word of truth in it. Mr. CHARLTON. Then I should like to know what means were used to retire Mr. McCuaig. There were some means used. (Cheers.) Mr. BOWELL. I am not in his .se- crets, so I cannot iell you. Mr. CHARLTON. 1 found in addi- tion to the post olKce premised to Picton that the people were to have the harbor channel dee[)eneil. Mr. BOWELL. No. Mr. CHARLTON. And a bridge was to be built from Prince Edward across the Bay of tiuinte, to Belleville and an extensive marsh was to be drained and a channel was to be dredged out — all these things were to be done if the people of Prince Edward County would retux-n a supporter of the GoV(U"nment. Those were the influences used there. They were told that they could not have one cent if they did not return a supporter of the Government (Hear, hear. ) that they could not have a new post office, the harbor deepened, the marsh dredged or the bridge built. These methods I condemn. They are having a most ruinous and demoralising effect on the voters of the country. The Goeern- ment are increasing expenses uselessly, and it is time the people turned out of office men who I'esorted to those methods, and many worse, at the expense of the taxpayers. < Mr. HESSON. Explain the Glengarry case. Mr. CHARLTON. When the courts wive their decision the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Hesson) will be enlight on that mattei'. Mr. BOWELL. Then you will tell us it is the cose of a drunken loafer. An hon. MEMBER. He was spend- ing his own money, anyway. Mr. CHARLTON. lii addition to those methods pureued by the Government in elections we have the costly mistakes that the Government have made. No less than S-t 2,000,000 wore expended on the Intercolonial, and the Government has since been engaged in spending more millions to destroy that property by building the Short Line. (Hear, hear.) Then there was the expenditure on the Canadian Pacific Railway ; and there are whispers now and hints that that portion of the road from Sudbury .Junction to Port Arthur is to be abandoned. It might as well be abandoned, possibly but we have expend- ed tens of millions of dollars on its con- struction. Of our total debt of $229, 000,000 no loss than $80,000,000 were thrown away on the different mistakes made by the Government. We have this wildly extravagant expenditure, this mountain of debt, this terrible drain of the exodus, and we stand to-day a young nation in shackles, borne down by this mountain weight placed on its energies 34 and progress, it \h time tlie incubus was removed. The liour is not yet too late, but the hour may speedily conie when it ma 3' be too late, and to remove this incubus recjuires courage and requires determination. The evUs that confront MS are of the gravest character. We cannot remove them merely by willing that it should be done, we must make an effort and it must be a great effort too. We must *' Write upon our doors the saying wife ami old, Iseiiold, be bold and everywhere oe bold ; Udnot too bold, but better the excess than the de- feat. I'.et ter the more than the leas ; l$elter like Hector on thn field to die. Than like a perfumed Paris turn and fly." The resolution, Mr. Speaker, which has l)een placed iu your hands by my bon. friend to my right (Sir Richard Cartwiight) points the way to evtricate this coublry from these difficulties, the admission of Canada to participation in the commercial and business ad^ antages arising from unrestricled reciprocity would mark tJie coramcncement of a new epoch in our history. CGmbined with retrenchment, and economy in th" management of public affairs it will stay the tide of huiiiiliiity now eblting from our shores; it would l>ring back again armies of tho^c who have left us, it would bring iu capital, it would incite enterprise and it would make of this country tliat great nation which the bountiful gifts and the boundless re- sources that nature has placed in its Possession will enable it to become. i..