FC 518 
 T3 
 C6 
 C.2 
 
 \dDED an open letter from MR. COLBY AND THE 
 AMENDMENT MOVED BY 
 
 I JOHN MACDONi^lLD 
 
 -adjustment of the. (Dominion Tariff 
 
 With the Division Thereon. 
 
 SOMS^Lli^lBNTS OF 
 
 C. H. MACKINTOSH, 
 
 :r i. " C^IZEir," dTTAWA, 
 
ex- 
 
 CANADA 
 
 NATIONAL LIBRARY 
 BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE 
 
OPiEN LETTER 
 
 FROM 
 
 MR. C. C. COLBY, M.P. 
 
 -♦«^«- 
 
 Mr. 0. H. MACKINTOSH, 
 
 Editor Ottawa Citizen : — 
 
 My Dear Sir, — Bollovo mo, I appreciate your kind and complimen- 
 tary letter, more particularly as I fully estimate the etioits your journal 
 has put forth in advocacy of a National Fiscal Policy. The speech upon 
 Tariff Revision, lately delivered by me, in the House of Commons, you 
 are quite at liberty to use in any way you deem proper. Had I antici- 
 pated the extensive publication you propose giving it, I should have 
 arranged it with greater care. You will recollect, I entered the field of 
 debate as a tardy gleaner, having little reason to expect that I would bo 
 able to gather even a respectable sheaf. 
 
 As the Tariff question must exercise a largo influence at the coming 
 election, I think it important that there should be an accurate de- 
 finition of respective party beliefs. No one of the Conservative party 
 having dissented from ary exposition of its platform, and the Finance 
 Minister and ihe Hon. Mr. Mills having manifested their assent, as, 
 step, by step, I laid down what I understood to bo the Ministerial 
 planks, the country may,jl think, accept my definition as substantially cor- 
 rect. I endeavored to prove that the declaration of Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, 
 •' that it a particular trade or industry were to be protected it could only be 
 done at the expense of some other trade or industry " is historically, and in 
 fact, untrue. The above declaration is the major premises of the Free 
 Trade arguments, as applied in Canada. If it fails, the superstructure 
 must fall. ^ ' 
 
 I endeavored to show that the carefully stated announcement by tho 
 Finance Minister, in his Budget speech, of the mode of taxation, in vindica- 
 tion of which he and his associates are "prepared to fight to tho death" 
 is, when analysed, 'I a pointed and emphatic declaration that even the 
 mildest form of Incidental Protection is " legalised robbery." Neither 
 the Finance Minister, tho Hon. Mr. Mills nor any other member of tho 
 
Governmont, although cliallongcd, prosumod to deny that the following 
 dictum ot John Stuart Mill, is a true exposition of the mode of taxation 
 for the adoption of which the Government is " prepared to fight to the 
 death." Mr. Mill eays : — " Custom duties are, ca?^ens T^aniw.s, much loss 
 objectionable than excise, but they must be laid only on things which either 
 cannot, or at least, will not, be produced in the country itf elf, or else their 
 production there must be prohibited (as in England is the case with tobacco) 
 or subjected to an excise duty of an equivalent amount." 
 
 I pointed out that there is nothing to prevent the adoption in Canada 
 of this mode of raising revenue — if Ministers are retained in power and 
 have the courage of their declared convictions — but that its adoj)tion would 
 cause the immediate overthrow of nearly all the manufacturing industries. 
 I endeavored to show that the vaunted Free-Trade jDolicy of England, 
 is a novel and most ingenious form of Protection, and that it was so intended, 
 and that it was given to English manufacturers at a time when (they 
 having entire control of the home market) protective duties were nuga- 
 tory, and when the removal of duties from raw material and breadstuffs 
 afforded them the most efficient aid and protection that Parliament had 
 power to give. 
 
 I endeavored to prove, that the labored statistics of Mr. Charlton are 
 utterly valueless as evidence, either of the actual condition of our own 
 manufactures, or of the true results of a Protective Policy in the United 
 States. 
 
 I endeavored to show, that an attempt to build up King Wheat in 
 Ontario on Free-Trade foundations would be as futile and disastrous as 
 was a similar effect to build up King Cotton in the Southern States, and 
 that the true interests of the farmers would not be served by breaking 
 down their best market, diminishing the number of consumers and 
 increasing the number of producers of farm products. 
 
 I pointed to the serious loss occasioned by the inactivity of the Gov- 
 ernment in 187^ in the matter of Petroleum duties, and the inconsis- 
 tency and " legalised robbery" involved in their legislation of ISTT. 
 
 I endeavored to show, that we strenghten the hands of our enemies 
 and weaken the hands of our friends in the United States on the Recipro- 
 city question, so long as we tolerate the existence of trade relations which 
 have the effect — 
 
 1st. To diminish our trade with England ; 
 
 2nd. To diminish the ratio of exports to imports in our trade with 
 the United States ; 
 
 3rd. To add 30 per cent, in three years to the value of our imports 
 of manufactured goods from the United States, in the face of 
 diminished exports and diminishing cost of goods. 
 
Huch is iho exhibit shown in tho Trade and Navi<^ation Koturns this 
 year. AVith tliat exhibit in hand, ovoiy foe to Reciprocity living in tho 
 United States will successfully urge that " this condition is better than lloci- 
 procity, we have our own and half tho Canadian market, while tho C!ana- 
 dian has only half his own, and no portion of our market. Wo have only 
 to wait a little until Free-Trade principles take root there, and we will 
 wholly occupy the Canadian market as well as our own." Lumbermen 
 should make a note of this. 
 
 I believe, sir, that Canada can thrive under fair reciprocity with 
 the United States. It did thrive under that system for eleven 
 years. I further believe, that Canada can thrive under such a National 
 Policy as would give our own markets to our own workers. Wo had 
 experience of that from 1862 to 1872 — during the period when Americans 
 were so occupied in supplying their homo demand that wo had possession 
 of our own markets — an abnormal condition, equivalent in its practical 
 effect upon us, to a high" protective tariff. I believe also, that 
 if hostile ingenuity were to contrive a system for us under 
 which we could not be expected to prosper, it would very nearly 
 resemble tho unequal and unfair one which now subsists between 
 us and our neighbors, to which the present administration seems devotedly 
 attached. The conditions in 1878, are so different from the conditions 
 which existed in 1868, that a judicious readjustment of the tariff seems to be 
 a most pressing necessity. It was my purpose to touch some other points 
 involved in this great question, but I could not presume further upon the 
 indulgence of the House at a very late hour. 
 
 It was my purpose to consider tho laisser faire, " fly on the wheel " 
 policy, or no policy, so frequently^avowed by Ministers, and to show its 
 inapplicability to a new and growing country like ours. The idea that 
 trade should be as free as the air, is captivating to many ; but other analo- 
 gies are suggestive of great truths. The wise father does not give license 
 to the exuberant energies of his son, but strives rather to educate, restrain 
 and guide. Liberty is wisely fettered and its choicest blessings are secured 
 Dy the restraints of wholesome law. The husbandman restrains the wild 
 luxuriance of his vines and fruit troes and attains the best results by 
 training, pruning, grafting, fostering and enriching them — in short, by 
 adopting a moderately protective policy. 
 
 I intended, also, to consider what I deem a grand Free Trade fallacy, 
 namely, that moderate protection invariably enhances the cost of goods 
 to the consumer, and to show that, in mo.st instances, home competition 
 sufficiently reduces prices, and that, were it otherwise, the numerous 
 indirect benefits of home manufactures and h3me markets would com- 
 pensate for a very considerable enhancement of price. Who, for 
 
instance, can cstimiito tho bonotit to the farmer, that ho has at his door 
 manufactories of boots and shoes, clothing, furniture, foundry-goods and 
 implomonts, whore tho products are procurable without tho agency ot 
 Tiumerous middlemen and whqro they are all adapted to his special needs? 
 "Why is it^ that the farmers of tho Western States, where harvest labor 
 is two to three dollars per day, are abli' to produce wheat, transport it u 
 thousand miles by rail and throe thousand miles by sea and compete in 
 i'iUropo with iho water freighted wheat of Russia, Avhere harvest labor is 
 |)rocurable at ten cents per day? The perfection and infinite variety 
 of labor saving machinery, which are thedirectresult of mechanical skill, 
 invention and opportunity stimulated and developed by protected manu- 
 facture in the country, (the condition and needs of the farmer being 
 thoroughly understood by tho mechanic who serves him) largely con- 
 tribute to the American and Canadian farmer's ability to compete in 
 <'ereals with the cheap farm labor of Europe. If the farmer complains 
 that he pays a profit on tho needed implements, ho should also recollect 
 that, but for the system of which I speak, tho implements might not have 
 been produced or Ijo procurable at any price. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Mills, at Fergus, and Mr. Charlton in tho House of Com- 
 mons, liavo attempted to make Canadian farmers happy by the idea that 
 tho American consumer pays the duties ujjon farm products exported to 
 tho United States. They marshal a long array of figures, borrowed from 
 United States Custom House returns, which, if correct, show a very con- 
 siderable advance in the prices of horses, liorned cattle, sheep, wheat, 
 wool, barley, ryo and other cereals, from tho abrogation of tho Treaty 
 down to tho present time. One fact is clearly established, but it is not 
 the one they aim at, namely, that during the period of high protection in 
 the United States, the prices of those articles in the United States markets 
 have very materially advanced — indeed that they have advanced more 
 than thirty j)or cent, as w^ill appear by adding the United States Customs 
 duties to the prices at which these articles are entered. 
 
 That the American farmer has had tho full advantage of this re- 
 markable increase of price, is not to bo disputed. But that the Canadian 
 exporter has had a similar advantage, is by no means established. On 
 tho contrary, the Eastern Townships farmer knows that v-hen an 
 American drover j^ays to his neighbor living across the line, tv> o aundred 
 dollars for a pair of oxen and pays him only one hundred and sixty- 
 seven dollars for a pair of similar size, condition and quality, that the 
 <lifference of $33 going to the United States Treasury, is a direct loss to 
 Jiim and not to the American consumer. 
 
 Similarly, the Nova Scotia farmer knows that the buyer of potatoes 
 for tho Boston market pays to the farmer in Maine 16 cts. per bushel 
 
5 
 
 moro than ho ^jjiys to tho farmer in Nova Scotia for a similar article, 
 freights being tho same, and that tho loss fall« upon him and not upon tho 
 Boston purchaser. The Prince Edward Islander knows that he loses tho 
 American duty when ho sends oats to Boston. Ten or twelve years ago 
 some lumher manufacturers in Ottawa thought tho American consumer 
 l)aid the duty upon Canadian lumber, but the hard exporionco of recent 
 years has completely dispelled the pleasing illusion. 
 
 In tho long list of agricultural products, I think of only two in 
 which tho American consumer pays any appreciable part of the Customs 
 duty, these are, combing wool, and barley for malting purposes. Those 
 exceptions to the rule, result from an insufficient home supply of tho par- 
 ticular quality required for a special use. In these instances, the buyer 
 is obliged to seek tho residue in outside markets and pay the prices which 
 prevail in tho market of the country where ho seeks them. As to tho 
 mass of our exports to the United States, large as it appears in figures, it is 
 so small in comparison with tho immense volume so abundantly produced 
 in tho United States, that it no more impresses the markets there, than 
 a littlo tributarj'- streamlet swells tho waters of the St. Lawrence. 
 Our friends, the Free-Trade statisticians, sometimes got strangely mixed 
 and muddled over their own figures and arrive at very curious con- 
 clusions. ] . . • 
 
 I intended, to urge, as essential to success in any industry which 
 requires the employment of large capital, that the policy of a Govern, 
 raent must bo such as to inspire confidence and a feeling of f-ocurity in 
 tho minds of capitalists. It has been well said that men do ii 'fc embark 
 either capital or skill in entovprises liable at any time to bo dt aroyed by 
 inconsiderate or unfriendly legislation. A stable order of things and a 
 well founded confidence in the future aro all essential conditions of 
 manufacturing success. Such stability and such confidence, the English 
 manufacturer has always enjoyed. Alike in peace and in war, and under 
 all administrations, ho has been able to rely upon tho steady and on- 
 lightened co-operation of his Government. To protect, encourage and 
 extend the manufactures of Great Britain, has been the wise and uniform 
 2)olicy of her statesmen for at least a century, and the result is seen in a 
 manufacturing prosperity that is without parallel. What confidence or 
 security can Canadian manufiicturers be expected to feel when the Gov- 
 ernment which shapes tho fiscal policy of the country lacks faith in tho 
 possible success of their enterprises, and declares that they " can be 
 fostered only at the expense of other industries," and that any form or 
 degree of protection to them is " legalized robbery ! " 
 
 I intended also to call attention to the following remarkable words 
 in the Hon. the Finance Minister's sjjeech at Fergus; Mr. Cartwright 
 
6 
 
 said : " Aftor nil said and dono, tlio three /^roa^ BourooH of our woaltli arc 
 our farms and thoir products, our forests and our tiHliorios and .sliipH. I 
 do not way that our manufactures Bhould bo abolished. I do not undor- 
 vuluo thoir importance, por do I say that there are not valuable sourcon 
 of wealth in our mines ; but at present the wealth of Canada must pro- 
 ceed mainly from those three ^reat sources named above." If the 
 Finance Minister lacks faith in the success of the other industries, it may 
 be safely assumed that durimj his financial administration, thosa other 
 industries tvill not succeed in Canada. 1 vvill not say that it is un]tatriotic, 
 but surely it is unwise, by such discouragement, to chill the hope aud 
 energies of our j)oople. Such words, even wore they true, do not tend 
 to make a nation great and pros))erous. Mr. ( 'artwright seems always to 
 ignore that fruitful source of v/ealth and prosperity which lies in the 
 energy and capability of a people, if by any means those forces have 
 a fair field for activity and development. 
 
 For illustration, see how the sons of New Eiigland — educated in the 
 thorough training schools of her diversified industries — have diffused their 
 ])0culiar energy, ingenuity, invention, skill, thrift and practical knowledge 
 of affairs, so that it may almost be said that the blood of N'bw 
 England is the life of the progress of the United States. 
 
 Finally, I think wo are bound to accept recent utterances of Ministers 
 as declarative not only of their belief in the efficacy of Free-Trade for 
 Canada, but also of their intention to give effect to their views so far and 
 as fast as they can influence public opinion in that direction. The collapse 
 of the sugar refining business, and the embarrassment of various industries 
 which they have refused to foster, clearly indicate what must follow the 
 adoption of such a policy. No one having the remotest confidence in their 
 honesty and consistency, can bolieve that they intend to practice Protection, 
 while they profess Free-Trade. Such a belief would bo an imputation of 
 insincerity and duplicity. It would, in effect, charge them with the delib- 
 erate purpose of giving countenance to Free-Trade views in sections 
 where Free-Trade dogmas are popular and at the same time reserving to 
 themselves the advantage of being able to state in other sections that, as 
 in the past, so in the future, the exigencies of the Hovenuo will necessitate 
 a high Tariff. 
 
 Their Protectionist followers must indeed cherish a dismal hope, if it 
 has no bott r foundation than a belief in tho insincerity of their leaders. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 CIIAS. C. COLBY. 
 House of Commons, ) 
 Ottawa, March 28th, 1818. J 
 
SIR JOHN MACDONALD'S AMENDMENT. 
 
 [On the 12th of Murcli, 1878, tlio IIouso rosumcd tho adjourned Debate 
 on Mr. Cartwright's proposed motion: — " That Mr. Speaker do now leave 
 '* the Chair, for Tho House to go again into Committeo of Supply," — and 
 " tho motion of Sir John A. Macdonald in uraondment thereto, that all tho 
 " wordu after tho word " That " be left out, and tho following inserted 
 " instead thereof: " it be Resolved, That this House is of opinion that the 
 " welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a National Policy, which by 
 "a judicious readjustment of the Tariff will benifit and foster tho Agri- 
 " cultural, the Mining, tho Manufacturing and other interests of the 
 " Dominion ; that such a Policy will retain in Canada thousands of our 
 ''fellow countrymen, now obliged to expatriate themselves in search of 
 " the employment denied them at homo ; will restore prosperity to our 
 " struggling industries, now so sadly depressed ; will prevent Canada from 
 *' being made a sacrifice market ; will encourage and develop an active in- 
 *• terprovincial trade : and moving (as it ought to do) in tho direction of 
 " a reciprocity of Tariffs with our neighbours, so far as tho varied interests 
 " of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this Country, 
 " eventually, a reciprocity of Trade." Speaking to this amendment Mr. 
 C. C. Colby, M.P., for Stanstead, delivered tho accompanying speech : — ] 
 
 Mr. COLBY said : I deem it a fortunate circumstance, and I 
 think the country will hai' with satisfaction the fact that the two 
 great political parties have at last found an important, living a:* 1 vital 
 issue, upon which they can fairly and honestly divide and upon 
 which they can rest their respective claims to public confidence. 
 I think 1 am not wrong in saying, that for the first time since 
 we became a Dominion, has such an issue arisen. In the main, the 
 two great political parties have been in unison upon those great 
 measures which have been initiated and carried on sincethe Confedera- 
 tion of the Provinces. There weie differences, for instance, with respect 
 to the construction of the Intercolonial railway, but not with regard 
 to the principle involved, both parties agreeing that that railway was 
 a necessity. There were differences with regard to the acquisition 
 of the North West territories ; but they were differences of 
 detail, differences as to the terms upon which they should 
 be acquired, not as to the policy of their acquisition. So with 
 respect to the acquisition of British Columbia ; there were differ- 
 ences with regard to tho terms upon which it should be acquired, but 
 upon the principles involved, all parties in this country were substanti- 
 ally in accord. It is matter for regret that the parties which 
 have been arrayed against each other in political warfare, have not 
 
8 
 
 found better and greater questions upon which to exercise their ability. 
 As a consequence of this, our politics often descended to"] personal 
 issues and to unworthy attacks on the characters of public men, for 
 which neither of the great parties is entirely blameless. 
 
 The New Party Issues. 
 
 But we have at last a great question, an economical question, a ques- 
 tion upon the solution of which will largely depend the future of the 
 Dominion. It is not, I believe, as was stated by the Hon. the Min- 
 ister of the Interior, in one of those pic-nic speeches, of which 
 we have a voluminous record, a contest between knowledge and 
 ignorance ; it is not a contest between a generous spirit and selfish- 
 ness ; it is not, as had been stated by the Hon. the Premier, a ques- 
 tion in which the views of one party savoured ol barbarism and the 
 barbarous age, but it is a question upon either side of which the best 
 minds of all civilised countries have been, for very many years, engaged. 
 It is a question on which a certain, class of thinkers, able, intelligent, 
 acute, thoughtful men, I admit them to be, hold to certain theories 
 and views which they believe are applicable to all conditions of 
 affairs, in which I will freely admit they are fortified by the 
 prestige of the great manufacturing and commercial success of England, 
 since she started upon the policy which they so loudly applaud. But 
 on the other hand, it must be remembered that while the doctrinaires 
 are so strengthened by that illustrious example, they are opposed by 
 the statesmanship of every country with the exception of England — that 
 the leading public and influential men who controlled the fortunes 
 of France, Germany, Russia, the United States, and every other 
 civilized country, so far from having accepted the views of those 
 doctrinaires, have acted upon a different policy, upon the policy which 
 is recognized as that of the Opposition in this House to-day, 
 the policy which is affirmed by the amendment proposed by the 
 Right Hon. Member for Kingston. 
 
 Sh' John Macdonald's Amendment. 
 
 It is not true that the proposition before the House is, as it has been 
 termed by some one, a vague, unmeaning proposition. I maintain that 
 this amendment is a clear, bold, distinct and intelligible declaration of 
 a positive policy, and that those who support the views therein 
 expressed do so maintain them as the result of calm and settled con- 
 viction ; that they are not put forward for ad captandum purposes, or 
 for the purpose of getting votes. They have been iterated and reit- 
 erated for years in this House, by thoughtful and patriotic men, 
 whose views are entitled to as much weight as any in 
 this country. The amendment starts with the assumption th^t 
 the country needs a national policy. Now, it is not denied by 
 either party that a customs tariff, as a mode of raising revenue, is 
 a favourite one witb free traders and protectionists alike ; 
 nor that, largely on the way in which a tarifi" is framed, 
 depends th^j existence and the success of the industries to which the 
 
9 
 
 tariff applies. A customs tariti might destroy industries, or it might 
 build up industries. This fact could not and would not be controverted, 
 and the proper solution of the question, as to whether they should 
 adopt a customs tariff" that would have the one or the other of these 
 effects, would largely influence the future prosperity of our young 
 country. 
 
 TIio Bailing of Revenue not the sole imrpose of Castonis Tariff. 
 
 The amendment before the House is comprehensive, thougk 
 eoncise. It implies that it is the duty of every nation 
 to adjust its customs tariff* to its own special needs ; that the 
 impossible task is not imposed upon any country, of looking after 
 the interests of every other nation, but a duty devolving upon 
 each nation to adjust its own tariff with special reference to its own 
 peculiar needs, having in view, also, its relations to otlier countries. 
 Every customs tariff should aim at developing the maximum of pro- 
 duction of which the country is capable. In framing a tariff, we should 
 consider all the resources of the country, all its dormant and unused 
 energies and capabilities ; the wealth which lies below the soil in our 
 mines, as much as the wealth of the s(>il, and the wealth above the soil, 
 in our lumber. We should also consider the resources of the country 
 with reference to its capability of becoming a successful manufacturing 
 nation; and more than that, we should consider the capacity and 
 aptitude of the people, and aim at framing the tariff so as, m the 
 largest degree, to develope the varied powers of all the people, and 
 give them an opportunity of engaging in that calling or department of 
 business to which they may have special aptitude or inclination. 
 We do not believe in the views propounded by gentlemen opposite, 
 that it is not the business of Government to care for any of these 
 things, that Government is a mere taxation and revenue distributing 
 machine, which should move according to certain fixed laws and ulti- 
 mate principles. The supporters of this amendment claim, on the 
 contrary, that the financial policy of a country should not be based 
 on any ultimate principle of free trade or protection, but that it should 
 be specially adaptive to the conditions of the country to which it is 
 applied. 
 
 A True National Policy Defined by Mr. Charlton in 1S7C. 
 
 We believe that every customs tariff should have a distinct 
 and definite purpose and intelligent aim ; that it should be based 
 upon a correct estimate and appreciation of all the varied resources and 
 capabilities of the country, and should shape them in the direc- 
 tion of their best possible development. The general view* 
 affirmed in this amendment, have been more than once stated in this 
 House, by many able and thoughtful members, clearly and distinctly ; 
 yet the House will pardon me for stating that the exposition of my 
 honorable friend the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in 1876, 
 then a Protectionist but now an avowed Free Tiader, was the clearest 
 and best that has been given, I do not purpose troubling the House 
 
10 
 
 with a recital of the lion, gentleman's speech, but will submit an 
 analysis of its main propositions in their consecutive order. I aim at 
 perfect fairness, and beg the hon. gentleman to correct me if I make a 
 misstatement. This reference to the speech is not made for the pur- 
 pose of placing my hon. friend at any disadvantage, or because he has 
 since changed his opinions ; but because it is the most careful, the best 
 considered, the most clear and concise statement of the views now 
 held by the Opposition, that has yet been given on this much debated 
 subject. The hon. gentleman laid down as his first proposition (1) that 
 a Government could be paternal and yet be free. In this he directly 
 controverted the position taken by his leader, the Final, ce Minister, 
 in his Budget speech last year, and vindicated one of the car- 
 dinal planks in the platform of the Opposition. His next proposi- 
 tion (2) was, that no nation had attained to greatness in manufactures or 
 commerce without having imposed exactions and restrictions. This 
 was a plain statement of an historical fact, upon v/hich the Opposition 
 lay great stress, and its truthfulness was clearly demonstrated 
 by the hon. gentleman in his speech on the subject. 
 The next proposition (3) was, that protection was especially 
 necessary in a new country — and ours is a new country — to 
 enable it to compete with countries where manufactures are 
 established. The hon. member recognized in his speech the fact that 
 the cheap money, the acquired skill, and the prestige of older manii-» 
 facturing countries would take the lead in the race, and, as ad- 
 mitted by John Stuart Mill and other Free Traders, the country that 
 had the lead, all things being equal, would keep it ; he held that this 
 advantage an old manufacturing country had, must be counteracted by 
 restrictions in order to enable the new country to get a start in. these 
 industries. The next proposition of the hon. gentleman (4) was that 
 judicious protection benefitted the nation at large, and especially the 
 farming interest ; that it created for the farmer a home market, and 
 that the purchasing power of labour was increased. The Opposition 
 believed equally with the hon. gentleman that protection did benefit 
 the agricultural interest, and they believed also that the purchasing 
 power of the farmer's labour would be vastly enhanced by the creation 
 and proximity of home markets, as was clearly stated by that hon. 
 gentleman. Again, he laid down the proposition, (5) that the experi- 
 ence of the United States, under a protective policy, was a clear and 
 marked illustration of the benefits of protection. If this was true 
 when the hon. gentleman so stated it, it is equally true now ; and before 
 I sit down I will adduce a few facts in corroboration The hon. gentle- 
 man next said (6) that the tendency of protection was not to increase, 
 but cheapen prices to the consumer. This is an incontrovertible pro- 
 position. Protection is merely a defence of the markets of a nation to 
 the people of that nation. It simply gave a fair field to competitive 
 skill, industry, and capital, where the highest prizes are for those who 
 produce the best and sell the cheapest products. The hon. member 
 for North Norfolk cited the iron and cotton manufactures of the 
 
11 
 
 United States as indisputable proof of the fact that the tendency of 
 prot(> ^tion is to cheapen prices. And he went further even than the 
 amendment. He stated the fact, which I think he was justified in stating, 
 that protection had been beneficial to the shipping interest of the United 
 States as well; so. that he covered the whole range of industries 
 which come under the tariti:', and he stated so emphatically, lucidly 
 and concisely th<j various propositions upon which this amendment 
 is predicated, that his speech was not only the most convenient 
 method of formulating these propositions, but it was more 
 effective perhaps than I could myself have given but for that memor- 
 able delivery. The hon. gentleman has changed his views ; I have 
 nothing to say in regard to that at the present moment, but will refer 
 to it hereafter. I will now state the counter propositions which are 
 supposed to embody the views and policy of the Government. The 
 propositions embodied in the amendment are clear and distinct as 
 day light. 
 
 Tho Ministerial Policy. 
 
 The counter propositions are equally distinct. They are the 
 ordinary staple fr^^e trade dogmas, which we have had frequently 
 in this House from the lips of men who have thoroughly studied them. 
 One of the first distinct intimations of a new policy with which we have 
 been favored is in a speech delivered in 1876 by a gentleman who 
 stood very high in his party, and who then foresaw that these propo- 
 sitions might become a party issue. I refer to my hon. friend the 
 member for North York (Mr. JJymond). He said in this House in 1876, 
 particularly addressing his hon. friends in this House, that the good old 
 word Reform had served a good purpose in its day, but that the time had 
 happily now arrived when there was perhaps ve' ylii-tle to reform; that it 
 was important tor the success of the Liberal Party that they should take 
 a new departure, and take a new watchword, that they should place 
 upon their banner a new motto, and the motto he gave them was 
 one very dear to himself (for he was brought up at the very feet 
 of Gamaliel, and had imbibed free trade with his mother's milk.") The 
 motto which he proposed to substitute for the word "RefonTi,"and around 
 whicii Reformers should hereafter rally, was the word " Free-Trade." 
 My hon. friend (Mr. Dymond), having uttered the word, seemed to 
 think that perhaps he had gone too far, and that it was hardly fitting 
 in him to lay down a platform for the party. Casting his eyes across 
 the House he caught the anxious look of the hon. member for 
 Hamilton, and dropping his voice to a scarcely audible undertone, 
 repeated, " Free-trade — as it is understood in Canada." His clarion 
 notes, proclaiming Free Traae, had reached away down to Nova Scotia, 
 but his cautious undertone was intended for the ear only of the hon. 
 members for Hamilton and their friends the manufacturers. The "motto," 
 as modified, was calculated to serve the double purpose of rallying the 
 free trade party around a grand banner and at the same time of quieting 
 his hon. friends from Hamilton, who were a little restive that the free 
 trade nag should be trotted out so prominently. That was the first note, 
 
12 
 
 b\itmy hon. friend was cautious not to place himself in a position where 
 it would be impossible to retract, provided that it should be four.d 
 he had gone too far. But that i)roposition was followed up by other 
 hon. gentlemen who spoke with more authority. It would not be fair to 
 judge of a party platform by the utterances of any of that party's sup- 
 porters alone. 1 am aware that supporters of every party differed in 
 their views with regard to these things. Some gentlemen on both sides 
 of the House told them that the issue between parties was a question 
 of Free Trade or Protection, and others that it was not a question of Free 
 Trade or Protection. 
 
 The Corner Stoue laid by the Premier. 
 
 One would not bo justified in fixing the responsibility of any 
 set of views upon a party based upon the utterances of any individual 
 supporters of that party, however high they might stand in the 
 party's ranks. 1 find the Hon. the Premier, however, making use of 
 these words, and they may be accepted as authoritive : — 
 
 "The mere passage of an Act of Parliament would never establish any trade and 
 would never foster any industry unless it were to change from one pocket to another the 
 proceeds of the industries of the country. If a particular trade or industry were to be 
 fostered, it could only be done ut the sacrifice of some other trade or industry. There 
 was no theory more consonant witli the dark ages of the world than that which Pro- 
 tection afforded." 
 
 Now, this was a cardinal principle of Free Trade ; it was the 
 essential principle of Free Trade. It proceeded upon the assumption 
 that if protection is given to any industry, it is necessarily done 
 at the expense of some other industry of the country, and consequently 
 that protection must be wrong, — wrong in its very essence, for the 
 country must be injured by it. What did this doctrine do ? 
 Preached among the people, it made thera believe that every 
 industry in the country was the enemy of every other indus- 
 try ; it taught them to be jealous of the growth of every industry, ex- 
 cept the particular one in which they themselves were engaged. The 
 Opposition, on the other hand, believe in the sisterhood of these gi'eat 
 industries, they believe that those industries are all of the same family, 
 co-wcvl'ers,independ8ntly,yet inter-dependently working out the pros- 
 perity he country. They do not believe in the principle that because 
 one industry prospers, it does so necessarily by fattening on another 
 industry; a* that the growth of one, involves the destruction of 
 another. Here is a point upon which these hon. gentlemen on 
 the Treasury Benches, and those who do not concur in their views 
 differ essentially. Here is the very point where the roads 
 diverge. The Opposition believe that the promotion of one in- 
 dustry, betters another. 
 
 licnjamin Frauklln's Opinion. 
 
 When shrewd old Pr. Benjamin Franklin was in England^ M'hcn 
 his country was nev when he was concernedwith regard to its 
 future ; and when he sought information and was endeavoring to 
 draw wisdom from abroad, which should conduce to the prosperity 
 
13 
 
 his young country, and the adoiDtion of a proper policy in its 
 
 interests, he wrote from England to Humphrey Marshall in th« 
 
 following language, which I quote in illustration and in cuniirmation 
 
 of the belief of the opposition in the sisterb od of the industries, and 
 
 in their being mutually helpful to one anotl w : — 
 
 " Every mauufactuie encouraged in our country m tes part of tlie market for pro- 
 vieions within ourselves, and saves so much money for t e country as must otherwise 
 b(! exported to pay for the manufactures or supplies." 
 
 He was then speaking of his own country : of England, he said : — 
 
 « Hero in England it is well known and understood that wherever a manufucturj 
 is established, which employs a number of hands, it raises the value of the land in th« 
 neighl»oring country all around it, partly by the greater demand near at hand for th« 
 produce of the land and partly Lorn the plenty of money drawn by the manufacturem 
 to that part of the country. It seema^ therefore, the necessity of all our farmers and 
 tiwnera of land to encourage oiir young manufactures in preference to foreign ones 
 imported among us from distant countries." 
 
 Dr Franklin was a shrewed man ; he was an observing mai^ ; he 
 was in pursuit of truth ; and this was the deduction which he drew 
 from his observations in England, and which he communicated 
 patriotically to his people for their guidance. This harmonized so 
 precisely with the views which the Opposition hold upon this subject, 
 that I have taken the liberty of quoting it to the House. 
 
 The Premier's Proposition Historically, and in fact, untrue. 
 
 AVhen the hon. the Premier stated that if a particular trad* 
 or industry were to be fostered it could only be done at the 
 expense of some other trade or industry, he made an assertion 
 which he will pardon me for saying is unsupported 
 by argument or proof. The hon. gentleman will therefore pardon 
 me if, in answer to that assertion, I make a counter-assertion ; 
 if I declare that it is historically and in fact, untrue. It is not tru« 
 that in England during the period which terminated at the adoption 
 of what is termed the free trade policy, the fostering of her great 
 industries or manufactures which were fostered by the Government 
 with all the ability that was within the competence of the 
 Government — which were fostered by heavy protective duties, in 
 many instances by actual prohibition of imports — which were 
 fostered by export bounties, and in every other possible way — 
 ' it was not true, I say, that the success of the manufacturing in- 
 dustry was brought about at the expense of the mining industry 
 or of the agricultural industry or of any other gi'eat industry 
 of that country. But it is true, contrary to the assumption 
 — the false assumption uiLsupported by proof — made in the hon. the 
 Premier's proposition that during all that period of the growth under 
 the fostering care of the Government of the manufacturers in England, 
 and in consequence of that growth and by reason of it, agriculture 
 prospered more than it had ever done before. It is equally true that 
 commerce then prospered there more than it had ever done before. It 
 is equally true that the mining industry prospered more than it had 
 ever done before, and that all the great industries of the country then 
 
14 
 
 prospered there more than they had ever done Itefore, notwithstiindiug 
 the assumption of tlie lion, gentleman to the contrary ; yet upon that 
 asssumj^tion the hon. gentleman has chosen to risk the fortunes 
 of his ])olitical party in this country; for that is the very 
 basis and essence of the policy to which the Hon. the Finance 
 Minister pledges his adhesion. I will take another instance : Nor 
 is it true as to France, where the special industries of the 
 country have been nurtured by the Government, where they 
 have been })rotected by the Government, and been brought 
 to a degree of perfection and excellence unequalled in the world 
 — that the fostering care of the Govermnont, in creating these 
 industries, has resulted in the destruction of other industries, 
 I maintain that agriculture and all the other industries in 
 France, as in England, have grown concurrently with the 
 growth of the manufacturing industries, and have kept pace with 
 them. If France has risen from her ashes like the Phoenix, 
 after the late war, and stands out befrre the world a marvel 
 of recuperative energy, it is for the very reason that, by 
 a continuous policy of that kind, the farmers of that country 
 had been able to hoard their savings, in large sums, which 
 they were able to give to the Government, in its hour of need, 
 thus redeeming the honor of France, and saving the credit of 
 France, and vindicating the integiity of France, notwithstanding 
 
 ' the great blow that had almrtst stricken her to the earth. 
 If we apply that rule to England, it is histoi'ically untrue ; 
 and if we apply it to France, it is historically untrue. If, 
 
 • also, we apply it to Germany, to Russia, to the United States, 
 
 ' to any other country where the system had been wrought out, we 
 will find that it is historically untrue. This was assertion against 
 assertion, but I will give proofs. I will go further. I will give 
 proofs of industries that have flourished, that have admittedly flour- 
 ished, that have been built up by a protective policy, and have been of 
 
 ^ inestimable advantage to the country in which they existed : 
 
 Tlio Beet Root Sugar Indnstry in Europe a clear Refntatioii. 
 
 I beg to refer the Hon. the Premier, for an instance in confirmation 
 of this view and to the overthrow of the hon. gentleman's own view, to 
 the beet root sugar industry of France and Germany. I will hardly 
 venture to attempt to prove a fact in refutation of a principle so em- 
 phatically, not to say dogmatically laid down, and rest upon any 
 other than recognized Free Trade authorities. I will cite an 
 authority which the Hon. gentleman and every Free trader will 
 recognize as being a good one — the works of J. R. McCulloch, 
 who was as keen a free trader as the Hon. the Minister of the 
 Interior (Mr. Mills) himself. This was his statement with regard to 
 beet root sugar. This gentleman would not be disputed as a free 
 trade authority ; he was sound ; he was Gospel in this respect : 
 
 '* It began in Prance during the exclusion of Colonial products in the reign of 
 l^apoleon, and received a tevere check at the return of peace bg the admittion ()f WeU 
 
15 
 
 Inilia mgars at a reasonable duli/. It is prolmblo, indeed, that it would lonj:: sinot? 
 hftvo been entirely extinguished but for the addition made to the diitien on colonial and 
 foreign sugars in 1820 and i.22. After the last mentioned epoch between the pro- 
 duction of beet root sugar began rai)idly to increase, and such was its ])rogre8H that 
 though in 1828 its produce did not exceed four millions of kilogrammes, it amounted 
 in 1838 to more than thirty-nino millions of kilogrammes," 
 
 Mr. McCullocli, a Tree trade authority, tells us thpt this 
 industry was planted in Protection ; that it would have died out earl3'-, 
 and was dying out after Napoleon's policy had passed away, owing to 
 the free trade ideas that were in vogue after that time — but for another 
 measure of protection which revived its drooping life. Let us see 
 something further about the history of that industry. The first great 
 impulse it had received was by means of Protection under the first 
 Napoleon, and the final impulse which resulted in its assured success 
 took place in the days of Louis Napoleon, in 1857. I will now quote 
 from an ofhcial return which I think may be depended upon as 
 correct : — 
 
 In 1857, the product of sugar was nearly 40,000 tons. About this time, Napoleon 
 the Third turned his attention to this subject ; its protection was secured, and the fol- 
 lowing lesuUs were obtained by jirotection ; — In 1862, 170,000 tons of sugar were 
 made in France ; in 1868, 275,000 tons ; in 1873, 396,000 tons; in 1876, 462,000 tons, 
 or an increase of 125 fold." - 
 
 Mr. MILLS, what amount of protection was given ? 
 
 Mr. COLBY — I can not at this moment state the percentage, but 
 it was sufficient to accomplish the purpose as a strict measure of 
 protection. It was deemed and recognised as being high — in fact 
 as an advanse upon the protection to which Mr. McCullocli 
 referred. I will give McCuUoch again in a moment, with regard 
 to tlie effect of protection on this industry, but in the meantime 
 will quote from another high authority : — 
 
 In 1870-C, France produced as much as 462,000 tons of beet sugar annually. Yet 
 she imported about 200,000 tons anually of cane and other sugars. And she so regulated 
 her tariff as to do a refining business in foreign sugars as well as to produce and refine 
 sugars of her own. The whole is refined in France is 225,000 tons, are anuallly consum- 
 ed and the balance of about 437,000 tons is exported. The carrying trade in sugar 
 alone, though proper protection to this home industry, has therefore increased in 46 
 years from 35,000 tons to 862,000 tons, this is counting the importation and exportation 
 of sugar, added to the local consumption. To this enormous trade thus created must Ixj 
 added the consumption of two million tons of coal required for the manufacture of beet 
 sugar alone, besides the innumerable benefits to commerce and still greater benefits t» 
 agriculture obtained by the creation of such a stupendous industry. In fact it is well 
 ascertained that France would never have survived from the disasters of her late war 
 bad it not been tor the immense agricultural wealth created and hoarded all over the 
 country either through its beet sugar factories or its wine culture." 
 
 A TV ell Established Leading Industrial Pursuit. 
 
 I will now quote again from Mr. McCulloch, and perhaps the 
 hon, the Premier will be able tD reconcile it with his assumption 
 to the contrary : — 
 
 " Hence it would appear that what was long considered as a sort of exotic indus- 
 try, introduced when colonial sugar was excluded from the Continent, and depending in 
 gteat measure on Custom House Regulations, will probably become a well established, lead- 
 ing industrial purtuit." 
 
16 
 
 Here was the case of an exotic industry planted in protection, 
 created and maintained and preserved ))y protection, which had be- 
 come, on the admission of a recognized free-trade authority, a well 
 csta))liHhed leading industrial pursuit. 1 think the House may 
 consider this a pretty fair refutation of the assertion that one 
 trade is necessarily fostered at the expense of some other 
 trade. Indeed we need not go so far as Franco to find 
 other evidences. We have had evidences in our own country : 
 Boot and Shoo Mannfactnrcs-a Rofatatlon. 
 
 Wo have the boot and shoe industry, which was one of 
 the industries favored by a laiger amount of protection than 
 any other industry at that time, except one, I believe, and 
 the object of this high protection was to create this industry 
 and n-ive it a foothold in Canada. What has been the result ^ This 
 
 that Ave now have a boot and shoe industry of great importance; 
 
 in Canada as the result of that protective measure. An industry of 
 great magnitude and great usefulness has thus grown up in this coun- 
 try, under and as the direct result, of protection. It has grown to such 
 dimensions, that, according to the statement of the hon. member for 
 North York, and also to the statement of the hon. member for North 
 Norfolk the other evening, boots and shoes are now made in Canada 
 to such an extent that Canada, in this respect, controls her own 
 market, and fears no competition from abroad. Tmc, it was said 
 that a few were brought in, but these were kinds that are not manu- 
 factured or much required in this country. Here was an industry 
 that had been planted in protection. It had grown up in protec- 
 tion, and it had succeeded, through protection. I ask any 
 practical man in this House— and they all knew something about 
 leather, as they all wear boots and shoes— if any gentlemen could 
 claim that this industry has been built up at the expense of any other 
 industry in this country ? Is it not true that boots and shoes are 
 as cheap in this country as could be reasonably asked ?^ We are 
 told that if protection was entirely removed — if we had Free Trade 
 in this matter — our manufacture is of such excellence, and such 
 cheapness, that it would not be injured by the free importation of 
 American boots and shoes. Then, if that were the fact, this 
 result had not been injurious to the community; but, on the 
 contrary, had it not been beneficial ? Had it not done another 
 thino-, besides cheapening the price ? Were not other industries created 
 by iU Look at the manufacture of leather. The tanning of leather has 
 ij-rown up side by side with it, as a sister industry, and what did this in- 
 volve ? It involved a benefit to the farmer ; it involved the purchase of 
 an article that is only marketable and only has a value for tanning 
 purposes, that is the bark that grows on the hemlock tree. It fur- 
 nishes the farmer with a market for his hides ; it furnishes work for 
 a large number of men, and profitable employment for capital. The 
 boot and shoe business and also furnishes employment for many per- 
 sons. Will any gentleman in this House, then, assert that tlie 
 
17 
 
 • 
 
 protective duty of 2") per cent., wbicli lias built this industry, 
 lias not benofitted tho consumer and the farmer, and every other 
 person in this country, either directly or indirectly ( But I will 
 not dwell lon<,'er upon this. I have endeavoured to make it 
 clear that this assumption, which is the chief corner stone 
 of the free trade edihce, is historically untrue. 
 
 The Premier*!* l*ropo.sltlon at Variance with His I'ast History. 
 
 But, whether true or false, it is in direct opposition to 
 that policy under which this country attained its ]L,'reatest prosperity. 
 It 1-4 in i>ractical opposition to the policy of the hon. 
 tho Premier himself which ho hai carried out iluriniL,' tlie whole 
 perio<l of his tenure of otlico. \Yg are told by the hon. the 
 Minister of Finance that people could not be enriched l)y being 
 taxed. I would draw tho attention of the government to tlie canal 
 policy of this country. Now what did it mean 'i We have been expend- 
 ing millions upon millions year after year, we have been taxing the rate- 
 payers of this country, we have been issuing bonds and imposing burdens 
 upon the people, that will not be wiped off till a very remote period 
 of Canadian history, in order to divert and control tlie carry- 
 ing trade of the West. Still, that policy has been vindicated by 
 all the public men of this country and by no gentleman 
 more cfiecdvely and sincerely than by the hon. the Premier 
 himself. Now what did that policy mean ? What did we desire to 
 attain by it ? If I understand it right, it is a policy intended to 
 foster and promote the great commercial industries of this country, 
 and by artificial means to direct the trade of the great West of the 
 United States, through Canadian channels, in order that Canadian 
 commerce n.ay have tho benefit thereof. Now, if that is not a 
 policy of protection, I do not know what protection means, and if 
 that is not done by taxing the people, I do not know what 
 taxation means. If, therefore, this enormous expense for canals does 
 not enrich the country, then the hon. the Premier has to account for 
 a heavy sin to the people of tiiis country, for having taken money out 
 of their pockets and piled up a huge national debt without doing 
 the nation any service. That policy, though a protective one 
 to the great commercial industries of this country, is con- 
 sistently or inconsistently justified by every free trade member of 
 this House. Why did we build our harbours, our lighthouses and 
 our piers away down. the coast ? We did so for the purpose of foster- 
 ing and protecting the commerce of this country. We did so to afford 
 protection to the lives and property of our fishermen and to foster 
 the fishing industry. The whole policy of the Public Works of this 
 country is essentially a protective one, and if it is a wrong policy, 
 then we have been doing a great injustice to the people. Why, again, 
 do wo exempt from taxa,tion those articles required fbr the manufac- 
 ture of ships, down on the sea board ? We do it in order to 
 protect this branch ot industry, for protection may be given as 
 effectively by a system of exemptions from duty as in any other manner. 
 B 
 
18 
 
 When, thoroforc, our opponents cliamcteriso our poliry a.s 
 being an obsolete, ifjnorant and barbarous one, they are laying 
 themselves open to fielt-condenination for they liavo been legislating in 
 that direction ever since they took office. Some light as to the futun; 
 policy of the Government lias been given in a portion of the speech of 
 the lion, the Finance Minister, to which I will now refer : — 
 
 Thft Finance MInlNtor Characterizes Inrldontal Protection m *^ Leg^alixed 
 
 Robbery," 
 
 Thf; Finance Minister explained the mode by which revenue 
 nhould bo raised for the public service in terms which are clear and 
 unmistakeable. He .said that taxation, however disguised, is a loss 
 per 86 ; that it is the duty of ^he Government to take only from the 
 people what is necessary to tlie proper discharge of the i)ublic service ; 
 and that taxation in any other mode, is simply, in one shape or other, 
 " legalized robbery." The proposition was clearly stated, and of course 
 has a distinct and definite meaning. That meaning i.s, that duties 
 should invariably be imposed for revenue alone ; that no other con- 
 sideration than the bare question of revenue should determine the mode 
 of raising revenue ; that whenever a customs duty is in the slightest 
 degree protective, and by reason of the protection it gave, takes from 
 the people indirectly any money which docs not go into the Treasury, 
 it is to that extent " legalized robbery." In vindication of this posi- 
 tion, which subverts the whole system of incidental protection, he 
 declares that he and his associates are willing " to fight to the death." 
 The views of the Hon. the Finance Minister are laid down in an 
 eminent free trade work, no less an authority, indeed, than John Stuart 
 Mill, who expressed the following opinions, which, no doubt, would be 
 listened to with gratification by gentlemen who entei-tain his views ; 
 
 "In countries in which the Protection theory is declining, but not yet given up, 
 auch as the United States, a doctrine has come into notice which is a sort of compro- 
 mise between free trade and restriction, namely, that protection for protection's sake 
 is improper, but that there is nothing objectionable in having as much protection as 
 may incidentally result from a tariff framed solely for revenue. Even in England, 
 regret is sometimes expressed that a '' moderate fixed duty " was nol preserved on corn, 
 on account of the revenue it would yield. Independently, however, of the general 
 implicity of taxes on the necessaries of life, this doctrine overlooks the fact, that 
 revenue is received only on the quantity imported, but that the tax is paid on the 
 entire quantity consumed. To make the public pay much that the Treasury may 
 receive a little, is not an eligible mode of obtaining a revenue. In the case of manu- 
 factured articles the doctrine involves a practical inconsistency. The object of the 
 duty as a means of revenue, is inconsistent with its afording, even incidentally, any 
 protection. It can only operate as protection in so far as it prevents importation ; and 
 to whatever degree it prevents importation, it affords no revenue." 
 
 From their manifestations of assent, I understand that both 
 the Finance Minister and the Hon, Minister of the Interior 
 acv.fcpt the foregoing extract from Mill's Political Economy as explana- 
 tory of th'o positi(m for which they are willing " to fight to the death." 
 
 Mr. Cartwriyht .endorses Stuart Mill's mode of Raisin? Revonae. 
 
 Now if they took a high authority to assist them in making a 
 diagnosis, Ministers should have confidence in the same authority 
 
.19 
 
 with regard to tlio remedy to be applied. I will thoreforc, again quote 
 fron\ John Stuart Mill : — , 
 
 " CuRtom dtitius are, eixtartt paribus, much Iobh nbjoctionablo thiin exoiHc : but 
 they must bo laid only on things which either cannot, or at leaat will not, bo prodiicod 
 ia tli« country itRcIf ; or che their prodndion there munt be prohibited (as in England 
 ia tho canu with tobacco), or subjuctod to an nxoisi duty of equivalent amount." 
 
 If therefore, after what ha.s been stated by Mr. Mill, we 
 impose duties on any article manufactured in Canada, we 
 muBt do one of two thin<^s ; we must either prohibit the 
 manufacture of certain articles in the country, or put on an 
 excise duty equal to tho custom.s duty imposed upon the 
 same. My lion. friend may try to get out of that 
 dilemma by asserting that revenue could not be raised in thin way. 
 I tell my hon. friend that ho could do it in that way. He 
 could reduce the customs duties one half, put on an equal amount of 
 excise duty on articles manufactured in this country, and 
 thus secure about an equal amount of rerenue. Of goods pay- 
 ing 17J per cent, there are imported into this country $35,000,- 
 000 worth; on that the Covernment received I7i per cent. But there 
 are goods manufactured in this country to the value of $221,000,000. 
 Those would not all bo of the class covered by the 17J per cent, list, 
 but I assume, and no gentleman versed in these matters would 
 dispute the correctness of the estimate, that one-fifth of tho entire 
 manufactures of this country, represented in the census returns of 1^71, 
 \lQu\d come under the 17^ per cent. list. That would be $40,000,000. 
 Would not my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, get as much 
 revenue by imposing one-half of the 17j^ per cent, customs on the 
 $35,000,000, and the other half as excise duty on the $40,000,000, as if 
 he imposed the whole on the $35,000,000 ? We have many articles upon 
 the free list which might be taxed on free trade principles. There are 
 many articles upon which we pay a specific duty which are not pro- 
 duced in this country, upon which it could be made out to the satis- 
 faction of every hon. gentleman that there is ample oppor- 
 tunity to levy taxation upon free trade principles — taxation 
 which should have t)»e blessed result of not giving pro- 
 tection to one industry in this country, — and that is 
 the logical result of the principles which hon. gentlemen on 
 the Treasury benches ask the country to accept with favour though 
 it will involve the loss of millions of dollars now invested — and as 
 my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) claimed, prosper- 
 ously invested — in tiie industries of the country. 1 do not approve of 
 such a method of raising the revenue. I protest against it. I say it 
 would ruin the country. But it is the method which should be 
 adopted, if the Finance Minister's reasoning is sound, and there is no 
 insurmountable difficulty in the way of canying it out. Hon. gentlemen 
 must do this or they must accept tne alternative, which is, that this is 
 diection talk ; that they do not mean it ; that it is a very good thing to 
 say in Nova Scotia, where there are free traders. But in Uiat case they 
 
30 
 
 are inaincoro ; thoy do not mean what they .say. Then all thiH big 
 talk is nioro l>raj^' ; it means nothing; if it doks moan anything they 
 would out down by one fell blow every indu.stry which lias 
 any^Htart in this country. Otherwise it is mere buncombe. 
 
 Free Trade NtiU bat a Tlicorv* 
 
 I do them the credit of believing that the lion, the Minister 
 of the Interior is an honest a free trailer as ever broke the bread 
 of life — from John Stuart Mill, or any other sound authority on that 
 doctrine. The hon. gentleman believes the doctrine, an<l I think tho 
 Hon. tho Minister of Finance believes it also, and will carry it into 
 effect, if tho country gives him the opportunity. Now the Gov- 
 (jrnmenthas invited this country — a new community — to e!iibark upon 
 the sea of experiment. No two nations in the world have ever accepted 
 this view. 1 am quite willing to admit that among the doctrinaires 
 of Free Trade, there are many able, intellectual men, men of sharp, 
 bright intellect, who have thought out tliis question very 
 thoroughly. I do not underrate them. They are called theorists, 
 and ;)roperly so, because their views at present are theories ; they 
 have not been tried, but they are very able and acute men who wero 
 preaching tho doctrine in these days. Tyndall and Darwin were able 
 and acute men — none more so — but lam not prepared to accept their 
 views simply on the ground of their acutenoss and ability. Sweden- 
 bourg, Fouri«r, and others were acute men. Many of them were like 
 the inventor of perpetual motion, who explained his theory to 
 savane. The theory seemed all right, and it was a long 
 time before any one could find out the error in his cal- 
 culations. They went over his figures and tried them several 
 times, and la^st some one blundered upon the fact that he had omitted 
 the element of friction in his calculations — a very important thing 
 to omit, as all must admit. In the same way, there may be some- 
 thing lacking in the calculation of these gentlemen. It is claimed 
 that free trade is the adopted theory in England and very great 
 capital m made from that. My hon. friend, the Minister of the In- 
 terior, nodded very approvingly when I said that free trade was 
 claimed by the free trade schools generally, as the rule ot 
 the commercial policy of England. Now, if the commercial policy of 
 England is free trade, I do not understand the meaning 
 of terms. It is not tree trade, in the sense of being reciprocal 
 trade with any other country. I beliii'k'"e that this boasted free 
 trade of England, of which we have heard so much, is the most 
 ingenious, the most thorough, and the most effective system of pro- 
 tection that ever was initiated on the face of the earth. 
 
 [Some hon. members — " Hear, hear."] 
 
 Free Trade in Engrland, is Protection in Disgaise. 
 
 Yes, it is protective, and I will endeavor to convince 
 my sceptical friends that it is an effective system ot 
 protection, and as such — designed to proiiect and foster 
 
21 
 
 tlio manufacturiuj^' iinlustrics of Eii^'land and to give them tlio 
 Nupremacy of tho world. When and why wan tho present .systoni 
 in Kngland introduced, and liow has it worked out itn re- 
 sults ? ° England never dreamed of Free-Trade,— although Adam 
 Smith had taught and written ahout it, and others, his disciples, 
 had advocated it — until she had huilt up manufacturing industries 
 which were so efficient thai they supplied the entire homo market, ho 
 that no foreign nation could go into England and compete with her 
 on her own ground. Then she wanted to go abroad and monopolize 
 tho markets of the world. If she wanted to protect an industry, how 
 could she do it ? Not by tho impOKition of further duties, because 
 that would not amount to anything. If a C'hinese wall had been built 
 around England, it would hardly have given ad»iitional j)rotection, 
 because no other nation could compete with her in her own mar- 
 ket. How, then, could she protect her industries ? She could not do 
 it by the imposition of high tariffs, because they would bo nugatory; 
 but she did it by reducing the cost to the manufacturer, by taking 
 off the duties on tho raw material and on the food, so that labour 
 and raw material would >)ecome cheaper; and to that fostering 
 policy lier manufacturers were indebhed for their present position. 
 I maintain that the removal of duties from raw material, and the im- 
 position of customs duties upon manufactured products, are 
 equally measures of ])rotoction. When the protectionists were ask- 
 ing the Finance Minister to protect the sugar interest in this 
 country, — when they represented that it was on the verge of 
 peril, unless the Government did something for its relief, they told 
 the Government that this might be done in one of two ways, either 
 by a higher duty on refined sugar, or by reJucing the duty on the raw 
 material. Either of those means was protective, ai d tli^ latter 
 method would have given that industry tho greatest advan- 
 tage it could have it competition with tho markets of the world. 
 The great object should bo to foster and protect our industries, 
 and to give them every advantage which the legislature of the country 
 could possibly afford them. ■ ■. > •'. -^ 
 
 England's Policy designed to Foster aiid Protect Manufactures and Commerce. 
 
 Tho vaunted free trade policy of England is essentially 
 a selfish policy. I do not say that offensively, but it is 
 a national policy in the interests of the nation and designed 
 to give her supremacy in manufactures and commerce all over 
 the world— desierned to i foster and protect and build the 
 great dominant industry of the world. The legislature did all 
 that it could do. They did not say that legislatures wore helpless, 
 that they could not do anything to help them, that they were flies on 
 the wheel, but they met the condition squarely in the face and 
 said that by legislation they could help this industry, give it an 
 advantage in the world and lighten the burdens tkat rested 
 on it. That was what England, in her wisdom, had done from 
 national considerations; trom the same principles that prompted 
 
22 
 
 us to endeavor to build up our industries by legislation. 
 Those interested in the sugar trade would have been content 
 if the Finance Minister had taken a lesson in protection 
 from England's policy, and lessened the duties on their raw 
 materials, and thereby saved them and the country from the loss of an 
 important industry. Sugar refining is the key to a trade with the 
 West Indies in our manufactures, lumber, and farm products, and 
 the blow which struck it down inflicted a serious injury upon these 
 other interests as well. When England adopted this policy 
 of so-called free trade, she had already gone as far as she 
 could in the other direction. We know that before 1842 the policy 
 of England had been a most rigidly protective one. She had even 
 gone the length of prohibiting the exportation of machinery. Pro- 
 hibition of machinery for the manufacture of flax had been continued 
 long after the passage of the free trade Acts. I said it was not 
 in the power of England to assist those industries by the imposition 
 of duties, because she already had control of her own markets. 
 In 1842, the date of the first tariff" reform measure, the total amount 
 of customs revenue derived from articles manufactured in England was 
 less than seven and a half per cent, of the total duties levied hj 
 customs, so that the importation of articles coming into competition 
 with English manufactures in the home market was practically of no 
 consequence whatever to the English manufacturers, as a class. I 
 except the duties upon silk goods, concerning which I will speak in a 
 moment. The imposition ot higher customs duties would there- 
 fore have done the manufacturers very little good, even if 
 duties had been prohibitory. The first of the so-called 
 Free Trade Acts was that of Sir Robei-fc Peel, in 1842. It was 
 followed by further legislation in 1845 and 1846, and again 
 by Mr. Gladstone in 1853. Was England a Free Trade nation, 
 influenced by Free Trade consiaerations ? 
 
 In 1853^ Mr. Gladstone continues Protection to Silk Manufactures. 
 
 As late as 1853, eleven years after the countiy was supposed 
 to have embarked on a Free Trade policy, Mr. Gladstone refused 
 to take off" the duties on silk, because he would not cause distress 
 among the operatives in the silk industry. There was a howl all 
 over the world. England was preachinjj Free Trade for the United 
 States, and France, and those countries asked why, if Free Trade 
 was so a wise policy, the English Government retained a duty ot 
 15 per cent, on silk. But they adhered to it even after they had been 
 derided by the world; Mr. Gladstone adhered to it in 1853, audit 
 was not until later that England took the duty from the only 
 article really protected by her tariff*, namely silk. This was the 
 only article in which English manufacturers had competition. 
 The effect of the removal of the duties on silk was that while the 
 importations in 1860 were 16 millions; in 1861 they ran up to 28 
 millions, and have since reached 60 millions yearly. The removal 
 of the duties brought disaster. The home market was flooded with 
 
23 
 
 foreign silks, numerous manufacturers of silk failed, thousands of 
 silk operatives were thrown out of employment, and that once pros- 
 perous industry was largely prostrated. That was the record of 
 England as a Free Trade country. 
 
 Mr. Charlton's Change ot Opinions. 
 
 Having spoken of England, I desire to say a few words regarding 
 ourneighbors across the line and the policy they have adopted. But 
 before doing so, I will take the opportunity of referring to some observa- 
 tions that have been made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. 
 Chariton). In 1876 that hon. gentleman made a speech in the House on 
 the Tariff question, and it is no flattery to the hon. member to say 
 ttrnt no member has given to that important question more careful 
 study than the hon. gentleman, and that no hon. member, either us a 
 special student of the subject or as a practical business man 
 is more competent to arrive at a correct conclusion. The 
 propositions laid down by him in that address, were the result 
 of thought and study, and they were, I believe, the honest 
 conclusions of that hon. member at that time. We have the 
 best reason to think they were bis honest and deliberate opinions, 
 for in expressing them he placed himself in antagonism 
 to the Government which he supported. In 1877 that hon. gentle- 
 man made another speech from directly the opposite standpoint. 
 The speech to which the House had listened this session was not the 
 first Free Trade speech which the hon. member has made. In an 
 address last session, he expressed practically the same views which he 
 enunciated and expounded with such ability a few evenings since. 
 Between the sessions of 1876 and 1877 that gentleman's 
 views upon a question with which he had been familiar for 
 many years, and which he had made a special study, 
 changed to the right about, and from being an intelligent 
 Protectionist, as he was in 1876, he became an ardent Free Trader 
 in 1877. I would be the last to question any one's undoubted 
 right to change his opinions upon any question, however much 
 he might have considered it. The hon. member for North 
 Norfolk justified his change of position by a comparison which hon. 
 members who heard it, would remember. The hon. gentleman said 
 the child was told by its nurse that the moon is made of green cheese 
 and believed it, that when the child grew to be a man he knew the 
 moon was not made of green cheese, for he judged for himself. If 
 that illustration has any point or meaning, the hon. member desired 
 the House to believe that in 187G he was in the green cheese period and 
 in 1877 the maggot in the cheese had by some miracle changed into a 
 butterfly, that was ranging the heavens ; that the scales dropped from his 
 eyes between 1876 and 1877, whether on his way to Damascus or 
 not we are not informed, and what had appeared to be green cheese 
 in 1876 he could discern clearly by a different \ision to be the moon, 
 in 1877. He could not only tell us the moon was not made of green 
 cheese, but ho could count the inhabitants, and give us statistical data 
 
24 
 
 ooncerniug the industries, trades, occupations, an 1 all the domestic afiaiiw 
 in that distant planet. That being the hon. gentleman's explanation, I 
 suppose the House will, in a Parliament.'uy sense, be bound to accept 
 it, and to believe that he was under lunar influence when he favored 
 us with that formidable array of figures. But I will not so far dis- 
 parage the intelilgence of the hon. member as to think that he desired 
 the House to believe that in so short a period of time, from a well- 
 grounded and thorough Protectionist, he had entirely changed his whole 
 views and become a settled and confirmed Free Trader. I am sure the 
 hon. member would not desire that the House should have such a con- 
 temptible opinion of his judgment, as to suppose that in that short 
 space of time he had entirely changed the settled opinions and. convic- 
 tions which had grown with his growth and strengthened with his 
 strength, and which were honestly entertained when he made his 
 speech in 1876. The hon. gentleman was not a silent Protectionist 
 then. There was no one so active in promulgating his views, 
 none so active in promoting the committee relating to depressed 
 industries moved by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. 
 Wood) and making it a success. Hon. members can not show 
 such contempt for his judgment as to suppose that in such 
 short time, whether by miracle or otherwise, that the scales 
 fell from his eyes so that he saw things entirely different from what 
 he had done betore that date. The hon. member found himself placed 
 in the same position in which other men had ioimd themselves before 
 to-day. He was in the position of Alexander H. Stephens, when in 1S61 
 in Georgia, he made that very memorable and eloquent speech denounc- 
 ing secession and brought the whole weight of his ability and 
 eloquence upon the people of his State, to keep them from joining the 
 secession movement; but the moment that movement was 
 determined upon, he, who had fought so strenuously against secession, 
 felt it to be his duty to the party of secession to draw the sword in 
 favor of the party and against tha country, to accept the Vice-Presi- 
 dency of the Confederacy, and to give all the weight of his eloquence 
 and influence to a cause which he had just previously denounced. It 
 is a bad position for the hon. member from North Norfolk to 
 occupy, yet bad as it is, self-condemnatory as it is, it is a position 
 he has deliberately chosen, as did the distinguished gentleman 
 referred to. The honorable member, no doubt, felt, although 
 his action was grossly inconsistent, it was still preferablf to 
 the unenviable position occupied by the hon, members from Hamilton 
 and othor protectionist supporters of the Government, from whom 
 he felt it at that time his duty to sever himself If he was 
 to serve his party at all hazards, he determined he would serve it 
 in the livery of his party, and that he would sail under his true colors, 
 and take the consequences of that first break ; and he has done so. 
 
 Mr. Charlton's Special Pleading. 
 
 The hon. member having accepted that position, wo might 
 expect from him that extraordinary zeal and fervour usually 
 
25 
 
 cliaracteristic of new converts ; and he has given marked evidences of 
 it. I do not desire, and would not if I could, follow that hon. gentle- 
 nip.n through the mass of figures which he prepared with such 
 •aie and labour, during many weeks and months of industry, to 
 ili.^strate the point he desired to make, but will say, if there ever 
 was 0, specious, ingenious and laborious piece of special pleading, 
 the figures which that hon. member had massed together and directed 
 to a particular end, was a most noticeable instance. What was the 
 character of the figures which the bon. member for North Norfolk gave 
 to the House ? I assume for the moment that the figures are all 
 correct. The hon. gentleman, although he told the House in 1870 
 that protection was beneficial to a whole country, and especially to the 
 agricultural interests, found it necessary, inasmuch as that was a very 
 potent interest, to reconsider and reverse his views upon that 
 question. The hon. gentleman attempted to convince the House 
 aud the country that agriculture had been unprosperous in the United 
 States by reason of the high protective duties which had been adopted 
 there. And how did he test it ? That is one of the points respect- 
 ing which I will show that the hon. member by the sj'stem of special 
 pleading which he adopted, had attempted, I will not say 
 unfairly, but ingeniously, to steal a favourable verdict from the House 
 and country. How did he attempt to make the point that the 
 farmers had been injured by the protective policy of the United 
 States ? Did he give instances of sales of farm products during that 
 period? No. He made the quantity of products exported from the 
 country a test of the prosperity within the country, not stating any 
 particulars as to the prices, — a factor which he seems to think 
 is of no importance. What period did the hon. member select 
 in order to convince the House and the country that agri- 
 culturists had been unprosperous in the United States, for the 
 reason that their exports were less during the protection than 
 during the free trade period ? He sslected the period from 1860 
 to 1870. Has hon. members no recollection of what occurred in 
 the United States from 1860 to 1870 ? Does the hon. gentleman think 
 that hon. members in the House and the people in the country have 
 forgotten that during that decade there had been a civil war in the 
 United States ? Does he think they have forgotten that during part 
 of that period the cotton export, which formed the principal article 
 of general export, had been almost nil ? Does he forget there was a 
 desolate South, and that instead of billions of pounds of cotton being 
 exported, only six million pounds were exported, for instance, in the 
 year 1863, and that it dropped to an infinitesimal amount ? Does he 
 forget that for years and yeai-s the great productive region for exports 
 par excellence, the exporting region of the entire Union, was desolate 
 and blotted out entirely, as an exporting section ? Does he forget 
 further, that not only did the exports of the great staple 
 cotton practically cease, but when the war terminated there was a 
 desolate country in the South, and that for years afterwards the 
 
26 
 
 agricultural products of the West* the wheat and Indian com of the 
 
 Western States, had to be sent into that poverty-stricken and starving 
 country to feed the people.and that much of thecorn which, in its natunu 
 course, would seek the European market, was taken down to feed the 
 South ? Does the hon. member forget tlie great waste and destruction 
 of war, and the destitution caused by one million men being taken 
 from the industries of the country ? Does the hon. gentleman forget 
 that during that period the waste was far in excess of the actual 
 consumption ? And yet he attempts to make the House and the 
 country believe that the decline of exports during that decade showed 
 the extent to which agriculture has been injured in the United States 
 by protection. The honorable gentleman was fully aware when giving 
 those figures to the House that if he had taken another decade, 
 reaching past some of those disastrous years, it would have told 
 an entirely different story. He well kn)w that in 1867 the 
 exports of the United States were $41,046,034, and ran up in the 
 following nine years of the protectionist period, until it reached 
 $75,899,008 in 1876, and that the imports of British home produce into 
 the United States decreased from $21,825,703 in 1867 to $16,833,517 in 
 1876. Did he not know that during the whole decennial period from 
 1867 to 1870, the exports from the United States to Great Britain 
 increased at the rate of 85 per cent, while the imports of British 
 home produce to the United States, though never above half the 
 value of the exports, decreased at the rate of 25 per cent ? These 
 are facts which should fairly have been stated, if the exports 
 were to be considered a test. Yet the hon. member for North 
 Norfolk desired to steal a favorable verdict from the House by entirely 
 ignoring those facts and returns, and simply stating the ordinary statis- 
 tics ior the decade from 1860 to 1870, without calling attention to the 
 abnormal condition of that period. If the returns proved anything 
 it was that the exports had increased 85 per cent and the imports dimin- 
 ished 25 per cent, during ten years of high protection. This 
 is the logic of facts, but it does not suit the hon. member 
 for North Norfolk. The hon. member tor Centre Toronto (Mr. 
 Macdonald) in a speech which was very much admired for the 
 clearness with which lie made his points, declared that Canadians were 
 suffering from depression in consequence of the diminution of the 
 circulation. That because the discounts had diminished in two 
 or three years 10 ppi- cent., this shrinkage of cuirency pro- 
 duced such a startlinsr effect on the country as to .account, in 
 the hon. member's mind, for much of the depression. But 
 did hon. gentlemen, when considering the question of Protection 
 across the lines, speak in that manner ? Did they attribute the present 
 condition of the United States to the expansion of circulation and 
 discounts, the creation of an irredeemable currency, the era of infla- 
 tion and high prices and of speculation, of madness, I might say, 
 the direct result of that most inordinate overissue and the consequent 
 depression that must naturally be felt in returning to the nor- 
 
27 
 
 inal condition ? All the ills thnt liave befallen Canada could be 
 accounted for on that theory, but when they come tu consider 
 the troubles that have befallen the United States, it was Pro- 
 tection alone that had brought all ills upon that country ! Speaking 
 of the United States, we have heard highly colored accounts from 
 several hon. gentlemen as to the condition of the industries of that 
 country. The hon. the Finance Minister read to the House the other 
 day from a document signed by the Governor of the State of New 
 York about the great distress ; it was full of glittering generalities. 
 Now, if I did not think I was able to throw some light on the condition 
 of the industries of the United States, by reading what I am about to 
 read, I would not trouble the House to listen, but I have 
 information from a source which all will recognise aa 
 trubtworthy. 
 
 Goreruor Rice upon tlie Industries of Massachuetts. 
 
 Massachussetts is the leading manufacturing State in that 
 country, and the highest functionary in that State, Governor 
 Rice, in his official address to the Legislature of that State, last 
 month, gave an explanation concerning the condition of manufactures 
 based upon official returns. We have heard of the depression in that 
 country, of the wild lawlessness, ^f the lurid fires of Pittsburg ; 
 jind an hon, gentleman has described a [)andemonium and pictured hell 
 cm the four walls of this building for our edification, as illustrating the 
 condition of the United States. But what said this sober-minded 
 Governor concerning the actual condition of the manufacturing 
 industries of his State ? This i.« not a highly-colored picture, but a 
 statement of pure facts. The Governor said: — 
 
 " By the result of an investigation just closed, undertaken by the Bureau of Statistic 
 of Labour in cities and towns producing cighty-si.K percent, of the whole products o 
 the State, we are able to make an excellent comparison of the condition of our large 
 indnstries in 1877 with that of 1875. In all, there has been a decrease of an average 
 of about nino per cent, in the wages paid ; but there has been nn increase of working 
 time in days. The paper made, shows an increase of nineteen days over the working 
 time in 1875 ; the manufacture ot worsted goods, twenty-seven days ; and in the manu- 
 facture of cordage, cotton goods, carriages, straw goods, carpetings aud wool hats, an 
 increase of working time has been made ; while in boots and shoes, leather and agricul- 
 tural implements, there has been neither improvement nor decrease. In the manufacture 
 of machinery, whips, musical instruihents, and woollen goods, a slight decrease in work- 
 ing time is reported. The great industries of carpetings, paper, woollen goods, worsted 
 goods, cigars, boots and shoes, cotton goods, leather and metallic goods, report an 
 increase of the number of hands employed, ranging from one to thirty-five per cent, 
 over the number of 1875 ; while a few of the establishments report a slight falling off 
 in the number of persons employed. On a gold basis, the value of pro<luct8 from the 
 manufacture of hats, carpetings, straw goods, cordage, paper, worsted goods, whips, 
 cigars, boots and shoes, cotton goods, leather, musical instruments and metallic goods, 
 has increased from five per cent, to thirty-six per cent, over the products of 1875 ; 
 while but few industries show a falling off. In nearly all, there has been an increase in 
 the quantity of goods made ; but depreciation in prices, in some instances, places the 
 value of products on the minus side of the account, instead of on the plus side, where 
 they belong when considered as to quantity. The results of the investigation lead to 
 belief that there are no great number of mechanics wholly out of employment, and that 
 our industries arc steadily working back to the condition they were in, prior to th« 
 panic of 1873." 
 
28 
 
 Now, that is ii calm and voliablo .statement, .showing that the 
 country i.s gradually and .safely settling back to its normal condition. 
 I am inclined to believe thi.s statement of Governor Rice. It i.s 
 based upon facts and returns brought in, and made before a num- 
 ber of manufacturers who were able to refute him had he spoken 
 in a tone of exaggeration. I nuist protest against the introduction 
 into this debate of arguments attributing the whole depression of 
 the United States, to the .system of protection. The other abnormal 
 conditions are .such that no reliable data could be given showing 
 the actual etiects of i>rotection. 
 
 Mr. Charlton's Statistics utterly Valueless. 
 
 If wo accept that proposition, we would wipe out the 
 results of all the labour and industry which the hon. gentleman 
 (Mr. Chailton) ha.n put forth in order to make out his little special case 
 before this House. If we accept that proposition, the hon. 
 gentleman's papers are utterly valueless, they are just so much 
 waste paper, and the days and nights he expended in accummu- 
 lating them have been in vain. I do not expect the House 
 to receive this propo.sition upon my individual dictum, but I 
 have a high authority to support it. I give as an authority the 
 name of J. E. Cairnes, iM.A., late Professor of Political Economy iii 
 University College, London, who, although seeking to establish by his 
 book the i)rinciples of free trade, disdained to make use of arguments 
 similar to those the hon. gentleman uses, and he repudiated their use 
 most emphatically. The Professor said : — - 
 
 " And here wc are confronted at once Avith the difficulty of interpreting an indus- 
 trial experiment. The system of American Protection, in its present exaggerated form, 
 may be regarded as dating from 18G1, when the Morrill tariff became law. It' all the 
 other conditions of the case had i-emained substantially the same since thai time, we 
 might now, by a mere inspection of results, pronounce without hesitation on the effect 
 of the policy then inaugurated ; but instead of this observe how the facts stand. In 
 the same year the great Civil War commenced, in the course of which the destruction 
 of human life and of wealth in every form probably exceeded any thing which had 
 before occurred within the same time in the history of human affairs, Tliis wiis soon 
 followed by the creation of an immense national debt, entailing a large permanent 
 increase of taxation, and by tlie issue of an incontrovertible paper currency, circulat- 
 ing throughout the Union, and affecting alike prices and wages in every branch of trade. 
 On the other hand, occurrences of a very different kind marked the course of the period 
 under review, mineral resources were discovered which are now yielding vast wealth, 
 and oil springs which have become the source of an entirely new and rapidly increas- 
 ing trade. Railway enterprise, again, during the same time appears to have taken on. 
 a new activity, whilst the progress of invention in the mechanical arts has never for a 
 moment flagged. In presence of influences so niimerous, so novel, and so vast, each 
 affecting industry in its own fashion so powerfully, who shall say what portion of what 
 we now find existing can properly be attributed to any one of them ? The problem, in 
 its mere statement, brings into striking relief the tetter futility of that so-ccMed 
 ' inductive method ' which some writers hold to be the proper one in social and economic 
 enquiries — the method, that is to say, which would proceed by drawing general con- 
 clusions as to the operation of paiticulur causes from the summarised results of ttatis- 
 iical tables." 
 
 The professor protested against the fallacy of the method used 
 by my hon. friend because there were so many conditions to derange 
 it. The propositions my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) has adopted here, 
 
29 
 
 and just put before the House he (Cairnes) declares to be entirely 
 fallacious and unreliable as arguments. He went on to say : — 
 
 " For, aasuminp: that we have taken accurate stock of the present industrial con- 
 dition of the United States, as well as of that which was in existence previous to 
 1861. So long as we confine our view to the mere statiitical aspect of the caiie, what 
 warrant have we for atlribntiiuj any portion qf the change that has taken place to one cauu 
 rather than to another. Mani/estlt/ we have none." 
 
 The ingenious compilation of my lion, friend, docs not prove a 
 single point which he desires to prove. His statistical data, 
 according to the high authority of Professor Cairnes, were 
 unquestionably not entitled to weight. We may attempt 
 to measure and weigh and estimate the forces which have 
 been at work in the United States since 1801, but if we arc catidid wo 
 will confess that they are so conflicting, diverse and varying that no 
 human mind can grasp them all and extract a satisfactory conclusion. 
 According to this high free trade authority, Professor Cairnes, my hon. 
 friend's (Mr. Charlton's) summarized statistical data are not entitled 
 to any weight whatever, as tending to prove what he, in his 
 new born zeal, desires to prove. It is impossible to attribute the 
 condition of that country to any one cause. Thus much concerning 
 the hon. gentleman's statistics taken from the United States. 
 
 Mr. Charlion^s unfairness respecting Canadian Industries. 
 
 If the House will bear wfth me I will show equal ground 
 of complaint as to his unfairness in dealing with Canadian 
 statistics. The hon. gentleman came before us with a budget 
 of letters, which he did not read, except two — the contents of 
 which we have not se^tn — but the substance of which the hon. gen- 
 tleman might have fairly stated. The hon, gentleman said he had 
 written a number of letters to manufacturers enquiring what they 
 thought of the state of trade, and he had twenty-one answers. He 
 also informed us that he had written a number of letters 
 to -which he had received no reply. Well, on a pjint 
 of this kind, the man who.se business is unjirosperous, 
 would not bo likely to reply and expose the condition of that 
 business, and the hon. gentleipan might have calculated u})on this 
 in sending out the letters. Not every man cares to expose the state 
 of his business in these critical times, and tor aught the hon. 
 gentleman has told us, he might have sent three or four hundred 
 letters to which he had received no replies. He did not state that 
 any one of these letters had been sent to the Province of 
 Quebec. I do not Icnow any manufacturer in that Province who 
 could have given information that either he or any of his neighbours 
 are in a prosperous condition. There might be such a rara avift there, 
 but I would not know where to look for him. 
 
 Agrlcultni-al Implement Manufactures. 
 
 I notice that about half of these replies sent to the hon. gentleman 
 were from manufacturers of agricultural implements. Just look at the 
 unfairness of liis conclusions and see how protection was illustrated in 
 
30 
 
 the condition of tho ajjfiioultural imj)leniont manufactures of Western 
 Canada. What is protection / It is merely the preservation of the home 
 market for the homo manufacturer. Now, protection, that is the pre- 
 Hcrvation of the home market to the homo manufacturer, may bo tl»o 
 result of tariff legislation, or it may bo tho result of any accidental 
 cause which produces the same practical effect. Wo had pretty fair 
 ])rotection, as against tho American manufacturer from 1862 to 1872, 
 owing entirely to unusual causes, with which tho tariff had nothing to 
 do. I believe my hon. friend Is acquainted with the fact that the 
 over-production in American manufactures has not occurred in tho agri- 
 cultural implement branch. I am sure tho House will be surprised 
 to learn that a leadini^ American manufacturer has stated that no less 
 than 100,000 new harvesting machines per year are reijuired to re- 
 place old wo''n-()ut machines. There have been such great improve- 
 ments in reapers and liarvesting machines of late that new machines 
 are purchased before tlio old ones are worn out. There is a ma- 
 nufactory in the State of New York, not very far from Upper Canada, 
 where something like :i5,000 machines are made a year ; and another 
 manufactory in wliicli 15,000 are made a year ; and others in 
 which 10,000, 12,000 and 15,000 are made each year, and yet alto- 
 gether they have not boon able to keep up with the demand in the 
 home market for the.se implements. They did not send their machines 
 to Canada, and why ? because they had better markets there and their 
 own prices. Thus the agricultural implement manufacturers liere 
 are in a situation ])reciHely similar to that which existed dur- 
 ing the American war in regard to all our manufactures. Theee 
 manufacturers, and certain foundrymen, from several of whom replies 
 had been read, had n de facto protection in Canada, because their rivaLi 
 in the United States at present have an ample field in their own 
 market and in new markets which have been established in England 
 and on the continent of Europe for a certain class of reapers and 
 mowers that are made in the United States. I can tell my hon. friend 
 this — that whenever the consumption overtakes the production in 
 th^ United States, Mr. Noxon, had better look out for his business ! 
 That gentleman would not be coming to this Legislature and 
 saying he had protection enough whbn implements made by the 
 manufacturer in the United States, who made 25,000 machines 
 a year, and who had systematized his business by a 
 division of labor so that he could make these machines at the slightest 
 possible cost, giving to every man a particular department of work to 
 do, came in here to compete with him (Mr. Noxon) in Canada in this 
 class of implements. Ho would then find that a protection of 17| 
 per cent, was no where ; and that the United States manufacturer 
 with his larger capital, larger eAperience, his more skilled hands, with 
 all the facilities he has for manufacturing, and for doing a larger 
 business, would over-ride a 17^ per cent duty as if there were no duty. 
 It would then require 30 or 33 per cent to protect this happy 
 Mr. Noxon, who now is contentedly enjoying his little pa- 
 
31 
 
 radiso up at Oxford, Imvinj^ it all to himself, and contentod 
 now because ho lias no competition. To select that cIohs of indus- 
 hies to make out a case, that there are no suffering induHtries 
 in Canada, is unfair. There are suliering industries in Ca- 
 nada ; industries that the hon. the Finance Minister once liad 
 the power to protect and the pow '" to save from destruction, and from 
 boing overwlielmed by the unfau competition, by the unjust com- 
 petition, by , the slaughter prices whinh have been systemati- 
 cally thrust upon us from the United States ; and the fact that the 
 agricultural iniplement business and a few foundrymcn in Upper 
 Canada, who have written like letters, have not been so overwhelmed, 
 results from reasons I have just explained, i.e., that in the United States 
 the production has not, as yet, exceeded the consumption in that particu- 
 lar line or department. When the hon. gentleman selected his men 
 to write about an industry which he knew was prosperous, and 
 an industry which had to-day an adequate de facto pro- 
 tection, although not a legal protection, and desired this House 
 and this country to draw the inference that the manufacturers 
 of Canada were in a happy or ])ros])erous or even a tolera- 
 ble condition — he attempted {; most deliberate fallacy. It 
 was an attempt to prove what did not exist by a condi- 
 tion of aftairs that does not truly represent or by any means re- 
 present, the general condition. 
 
 Protection and Free Trade in tlie United States. 
 
 I have not yet got through with the United States. While 
 persisting in the statement 1 first made, corroborated by the 
 extract read from Prof. Caimes, — that reliable results could not 
 bo arrived at from these statistical compilations, there are yet 
 general facts connected with the condition of affairs in the United 
 States that have some bearing on the question we are discussing. 
 I believe it is an historical fact that the earliest protectionists 
 in the States were from the South — that the cotton interest and 
 the sugar interest of the Southern States believed that their in- 
 dustiies would be benefitted by the imposition of duties upon cotton 
 and upon sugar; that the effect would be the creation of manu- 
 factories in the United States which would consume those raw products, 
 and that the earliest efforts made in the direction of protection in 
 the United States, emanated from the Southern States. What was the 
 result ? The same social repulsion which has always existed between 
 the two sections of that great country existed as far back as that 
 period. The same jealousy of the JNorth against the South and of the 
 South against the North then existed. What was the result 
 of the protective policy thus inaugurated by the South ? The 
 expected result was that tht? North would be their spinners 
 and their weavers ; and that the growing trade of the 
 North, the commerce of the North, would be injuriously 
 sheeted ; that this commerce would be transferred to the South, 
 and that the agricultural industries of the South would be built 
 
82 
 
 up. But what was tlu^ actual effect ? A few years' experience 
 .sliowcd tlieni very inuch to their astonisliment, lus well as to the 
 aHtoniHhincnt of the wlioh; country, that the North waw grow- 
 ing out of all proportion in. wealth, in strength an«l in population, 
 (rompared with tiie South ; that it was rapidly outgrowing tlio 
 South ; that njanufacturcs ^Vere sju'inging u}), that towns were be- 
 coming cities and that cities' were becoming very nnv^h larger, and 
 more wealthy, so that some cities in the North were more wealthy than 
 some States in the South. From that moment, the South changed 
 its policy. When they discovered this, ))arties changed sides on 
 that question, and thonceforwanl, the North and New England were 
 steadily i'avoui'ablo to protection — I am now speaking broadly — 
 while the South has l»oen steadily op])osed to it. These two ideas of 
 free trade and ])rotection had a full exem])litication in that country. 
 It is true that the same tarill has governed both section.s, but it is also 
 true that the South has been impressed all nlong with the eorrectnesa 
 of free trade ideas ; that it has slmjied its policy on free trade dogmas, 
 and that it carried into eftect its free trade beliefs ; wliilo the North, 
 on the other hand, has been ])rotectionist in sentiment, has believed 
 that the creation of great industries would directly benefit the Eastern 
 States, an<l indirectly prove a benefit at large, and it acted on that belief 
 And what had l)een the result ? Let any one look at the condition of 
 the North and of the South. Let any one look at the rapid accumu- 
 lation of wealth in the North. Let any one look at the ])overty of the 
 South, as it was even before the war. Let any one look upon the success 
 which has attended tho.se sections of the country in which various in- 
 dustries, in which all industries, have been cultivated, encour- 
 ao-ed, and promoted. 
 
 The Southern States favour Free Trade. 
 And again, let any one look at other sections, where 
 iiui whole i-elianco was placed upon one industry. My hon. 
 friend would tell me that 1 am unfair, if I forget the element of 
 slavery, and that this element has affected the conditions there. 
 Doubtless the element of slavery has to some extent affected 
 these conditions, yet I have the authority of that great free trader, 
 McCulloch, to the eflect that under slave labour the South was 
 able to grow more cotton and sugar and that more cheaply than it 
 has ever been able since, or ever will be able to do, by free labour, 
 so that so far as the economical problem, (saying nothing about the 
 social or moral question) is concerned, it is believed by the highest 
 authorities that cotton and sugar, the great staples of the South, were 
 produced more cheaply under slave labor than they would be under free 
 labor. Permit me to show to what views those people, the planters, 
 the agriculturists at the South, were educated, the beliefs they were 
 taught, and the beliefs upon which they practised. One of their 
 orators, Mr. Gai'nett, of Virginia, said this : it was sound free trade 
 doctrine : — 
 
 (; I demand for American geuuis and industry that the shackles shall be strickea 
 
33 
 
 fron Mieir hands ; tliat this a))iurd Cbinetfl yolicj of restriction, those worn «iit 
 iflicR of Imrlmrism wliich you call protective tariffs, shall ba abandourd, and American 
 labor In; left free to choose its own pursuits and to scok its own rewards throughout 
 tho widi- circlo of the earth. I<ct the people of the North follow the bent of their 
 (jenuiH, anuizing the world by their feats of mechanical skill, and covering tho remotest 
 scaH witij the arjjosioof cunnnerce, free as tho winds and boundless as tho waves that 
 bear it. We of the South prefer the most ancient of human pursuits, the tilliuK of tho 
 lieldK ; we furnish the great staples of tho world's exchanges, the bread that strength* 
 ens man's heart ; and tlio lleecy cotton that clothes him. Wo ask no peculiar privil- 
 eges, no Kpccial bonetUs; we only demand that you shall not tax our industr)' to sup. 
 [>ort yours ; that we ahull be left free to stll and buy w/ieriver our inUreit hadi it»." 
 
 King Cotton and King Wheat. 
 
 Thi.-. was tho foundation stone upon which tho monai'chv of Kiny 
 (.'olton routed. Thoy holiovod in King Cotton. Thoy bolioved in the potency 
 of that great agricultural Ntaplo. Thoy holioved in cotton and sugar, 
 ihcir great ox]>orts; they uelieved in free trade ns the truo 
 liscal policy; and this* very same doctriuo which had been preached, 
 and which led to tho delu.sion of the South, to tho destruction of tho 
 South, and to tho ruin of tho South, is now being preached to tho 
 farmers of Ontario, who are invited to idolize King Wheat as the men of 
 tho South worshipped Jving Cotton. Tho free traders of this country 
 arc j)roaching to tho furmors of Ontario that thoy could place their 
 dcpeiidcnco upon tho export of wheat and of agricultural i>ro- 
 ducts sent to foreign markets. Ontario farmers are being told tho same 
 sweet talc, that the orators of the South told to the growers of tho 
 sugar and the cotton in Iho Southern States. This was history repeating 
 itself. Witness tho dC'iolation of tho South, the inability of the South to 
 copo with tho Xorth in tho great war, and the collapse of tho South ; and, 
 on tho othor liand, tho immense resources and wealth of the Nortli, 
 and SCO how unequal the fight was. lion, members should look 
 on that picture to-day; one section of iho country rich, one section 
 of the country prosperous, one section of the country triumphant, 
 while tho other section of tho country is blighted, tho other section of 
 tho country is down-fallen and prostrate and under foot, — 
 just by ndheronco to that free trade dogma, and carry- 
 ing into practice the belief that they might depend on 
 those great staples of export, cotton and sugar, the same as the 
 farmers jf Ontario are now being taught that they should place their 
 sole reliance in their wheat, in their barley, and in what they exported ; 
 and buy goods where thoy could buy them in the cheapest market ! 
 It is truo that Now England did make money — did accum- 
 ulate Avoalth by its industries. Gentlemen in this House dig- 
 cussed this question as if every dollar taken by the manufacturer 
 was s^ much lost and sunk in the sea, as if every dollar of profit 
 made by tho manufacturer was something to bo mourned over by the rest 
 of the community, something out of Which thtf whole community had 
 been robbed, and as if it ought to be regretted if the manufacturers were 
 prosperous and making their 10, 15 or 20 per cent. But what have the 
 manufacturers of New England done ? The prosperity of the United States 
 to-day resulted largely from the fact that these manufacturers had accumu- 
 lated wealth and had judiciously invested it. Look at the magnificent 
 schools of the North ; look at the young men these schools have educated 
 and sent abroad into the Union, active, intelligent and practical 
 youHg men, brought up in these training schools of Now England ; look 
 
 C 
 
S4 
 
 at th« wealth that had gone to rebuild the desolate and oumed 
 Chicago; look at iho woalth that had gono to tho West to build 
 its railroads. Look at tlio woallh that wa.s going down South, now, 
 to build milU and factories, to biiild up that btrickcn South, that poor 
 poverty Hiriekon South, which bolieved in its two goU— King Cotton 
 and Froc-Trado. Those wore tho two Kings which tho South had deified, 
 and see whore that idolatry oCand that devotion to a I'ullacy. had led them 
 It had lured them to destruction. 
 
 Tho Now KoHrhiiul Pollcj, tho Troe rolioy lor Canada. 
 Tho Opposition wanted to see tho people of Canada have 
 among themselves, for tho devclopoment of hor resources, Helf- 
 reliant men, brought up in tho schools of toil, brought up to 
 dignify labor, and to honor lal)or in themselves and others. This ])olicy 
 had produced a community, than which perhaps tho world to-dny had 
 no superior, tho people of tho Now I'jiigland States. The policy which 
 I would like to see introduced into Canada, and which I believe is tho 
 true policy for Canada, is to mako this section of the country which 
 wo now occupy on this Continent, tho Now Ecigland of Canada, 
 and to plant hero those same institutions which have boon tho 
 harbitigers ot success in tho noigiiboring States across tho line. 
 Our conditions are precisely the same as theirs. Wo have tho 
 samo soil, wo have the same facilities for manufacturing, wo have 
 all tho conditions that aro kindred to theirs, and wo are 
 shortly to have what they now have, a great North-west open- 
 ing be^'ond and boundle-s, which is yet to be itduibited by 
 millions of people. 1 (le>iio to say to the farmers of Ontario — hoio 
 is a lesson for you, consider it. Year after year, you are impoverishing 
 your faims b}' growing your wheat and hcnding it to England. Ycir 
 after year tho facilities for entering tho Northwest and bringing its pro- 
 ducts down to tho t-eaboaid, are increasing; year afier year in tho futuro 
 there is going to be a steadily increasing agricultural jwpulation in 
 the West, who aro to be your rivals in tho markets of tho world. 
 While your lands arc being gradually worn out and impoverished, 
 those fields aro being brought under cultivation. There is to bo 
 tho groat granary of the continent. Can we believe that 25 or 30 years 
 hence tho farmer of Ontaiio would bo able go on competing with 
 liio farmer of Saskatchewan in tho raising of wheat or those products 
 which liad to go to a foreign market? The condition of the Ontario 
 iarmer is giowing woise year by yeai', and tho condition of tho 
 Western farmer is being bettorod in tho same ratio. Tho contest is 
 an unequal ono and tho Ontario farmer will probably find himself in 
 tho long run in tho same position as those w'io relied on Carolina cotton. 
 For tho Ontaiio farmer to raise his wheat, to ship it to England and to 
 buy his goods in tho cheapest market, would just bo to kill the gooso 
 that laid the golden egg. I welcome tho day when the West will bo 
 opened up, and when Ontario and Quebec will occupy tho sam.o posi- 
 tion relatively to that country, that New England does to the great 
 Western Srates. 
 
 The Finance Minister opposed to the Growth of Towns and Cities. 
 
 I have been amazed to hoar the Hon. tho Finance Min- 
 ister, not only in his budget speeches, but also on the stump in Ontario, 
 preaching the doctrine that tho aggregation' of people in great cities i» 
 
86 
 
 injurious to a country. How, I would asic, could agricultural comma* 
 nitios ho injured hy iho formation ot' lar^o towns 1 It is in sucli that 
 fai^iors find ihoir host market. If fnrtnorM laho an intylligont view, 
 tiiey ^nn^t 80o that their Nnct'osf< greatly depondH on the /,nowlh ot 
 largo citioH. When Montreal hecunie us largo \\^ Now York, unJ Toronto 
 as hirgo as rhilailolphl:!, and when other largo eitios have orison 
 amongst us, would it not l>j nil tho hotter for tho farming conimunities 
 all round ahout thoin ? Would it not onhanco tho value ot farms and tho 
 
 I)ri('o (»r farm j>roduc'ts ? It is true, as has heen indicated In' tho 
 *'inanco Minister, that in great centres of population is to bo found a 
 great deal of wickedness, a groat deal that is wrong, hut tniich also lha» 
 is good and boneticent. Ikit if these great C(Mitr'os wore broken down auU 
 the pop'jiation thereof disperse I ammg tho agricidlural pop ilations with 
 whom they would enter into competition, the cot)»umitig population 
 would bo so much decrease I, Jin I the j)rodu('iiig popuiaiion so iiuudi in- 
 creased, that the farmer would hustuin a twodold injury. There i", I 
 believe, a necessity for urban populations, and no class of men hud 
 a greater interest in tho extension of those, than farmers. 
 
 PotroloiiiH Diitios. 
 
 lioforo sitting down, T wish to make reference to a mnttcr with which 
 my name has been a.^sociatcd in this lloiiso — that is, tho action of tho 
 Govcrnmont on the petroleum duties. The late (iovornmont, in tix- 
 ing the taritV of tho Dominion in 1H(J8, thought it wise to phico 
 what seemed to ho a very high duty on oil — 15 cents por gallon, 
 ■with 5 cents excise duty. I do not think that was objectod to at 
 tho timo by any person in tho House; but some time Hubscquently, new 
 and oxtensivo discoveries in oil were made, bettor means for extracting it 
 wore also adoptc J, and tho price hud undergone a change since tho time 
 the duty was imposed, and that duty, which hud f )rmorly been a very ftiir 
 one, afterwards became a \Qvy onerous one. Whether the Government at 
 that timo acted wisely or unwisely, 1 do not propose to discuss, but 
 would merely state the fact. 
 
 Inaction of Iho GoToruincnt in 1870. 
 
 In 1870, I felt it my duty to propo-;o a reduction of tho duty 
 on coal oil from 13 cents per gallon to 7i cents, leaving tho excise 
 tax exactly as before. Tho pioposition, as made and explained by 
 mo, was intendod to give protection of fiom 20 to 25 per cent, 
 upon oil, according to tho current prices at that timo. It had been 
 stated hv an honourable member, in reply to my remarks that 
 thoro wu "^nother charge of a cent which ought to bo added. On 
 calling at ti office of tho Inland Revenue, however, I found that my 
 hon. Iriond was mistaken. Tho proposition to adjust the tariti' was 
 made by me A ^ith a sincere desire to obtain results — not for any honour 
 which might attach to myself. I desired that members supporting the 
 Govornmont, should uso all their influence to have tho reduction quietly 
 made, and offered to drop my resolution and leave the matter with them, 
 if they could obtain the consent of the Government. I introduced 
 my proposition to the House on the 3rd day of March, but 
 I Icfc it alone till the 31st, a period of four weeks, in order 
 that every member might have an opportunity of investigating the 
 matter. 1 certainly did not bring it forward with any desire to 
 ttmbftrrass the Government, or to plaoe th« Goveramant at a diiadvaa- 
 
36 
 
 age; but 1 told them that thin high duty had had the effect of 
 creating a ring who controlled all oil wollg and xcfinerios, and stcppctl 
 between the producer and consumer ; who dictated what the price |ihould 
 bo and compelled the consumer in Canada to pay just what American oil 
 would cost, with the duty added. It was said by a gentleman on the 
 other side of the House the other night that those who advocated a 
 protective j)olicy were inconsistent, but the want of consistency, I 
 fear, belongs to the other side. AVe who entertain protectionist 
 principles hold that the ordinary effect of protection would not 
 ultimately enhance the price of goodw to the consumer. And 
 why ? Because, when an industry is protected, those engaged 
 in that industry had an opportunity of making money, and the 
 result was that others finding an industry to be a ])rotltable one would 
 embark their capital thereiti ; thus, competition would regulate 
 prices. In this way rings could not ba formed. AVhy is it tliat a ring 
 can not be formed in the boot and shoo trade ? Because leather, which 
 is the raw material from which boots and shoes are made is pro- 
 curable everywhere ; consequently'' prices are reasonable. AVhy conld no( 
 a ring be formed by those engaged in the manufacture of furniture ? Be- 
 cause the material can bo got all over the land and because competition 
 rdgulates the prices. It is indeed impossible to get up monopolies in 
 such manufacturers as those of boots and shoes, furniture and agricultural 
 implements. But if there was an exceptional industry to wliicli the pro- 
 tective system did not safely apply, and which was monopolised by a ring, 
 then protectionists would demand that protection bo reduced on tiiat 
 industry to a point where competition Avould fairh' regulate prices ; 
 to tolerate rings and monopolies is a blot, a stain on the national 
 character, and protectionists are the first to decry it. Of all the indus- 
 tries in Canada, the production and refining of oil is perhaps tho only one 
 in which a monopolj'- is possible — and that is simply because tho area of 
 production is limited, and may, by finesse, be brought under ono 
 control. There was therefore no inconsistency in thoir urging the 
 Government to make this reduction. The Government is responsible 
 for the interests of the country, the guardianship of which is commit- 
 ted to it. It is bound to repress injustice and rectify a])uses, and it was 
 the duty of the Government, in that instance, to make the reduc- 
 tion sought. I claimed that the country was suffering loss to the extent 
 of 81,200,000 per year. I clearly demonstrated that by retaining the 
 excise duty there would be no diminution of revenue in consequence of 
 the change I proposed. My argument and proofs were incontrovertible ; 
 no one attempted to deny a single position taken by mo except an hon. 
 gentleman who spoke in the interest of the ring. The sentiment of the 
 whole House was with me, and yet the Hon. Finance Minister, while 
 admitting all I claimed, declined to act. And why? Because, forsooth, 
 as he deigned to explain last year, it might have given rise to trouble — 
 some motions. 
 
 Mr. Cartwrlght admits $2,000,000 loss to the Couutry. 
 
 Since ho has i*educed the duty and taken all tho credit of it. The 
 Finance Minister asserts that tho country saves two million dollars 
 per year by the reduction ! So it has como to this ! In order that 
 this Government may not be disturbed, in order to prevent motions 
 that might be tronblegome, they, with a majority of 60 in tho Houee, able 
 
o 
 
 7 
 
 lo open and shut iho door as Llioy please, refuse to lift a tinger, to waste a 
 day, in order to save the country two millions of dollars, as they them- 
 selves estimate. Bid they think tliat their devoted followers, who backed 
 their refusal to take off the duty, would have hesitated to vote a reduction 
 of the duty ? They could not waste a day of their precious time in order 
 to save country from a loss which was equal to the entire cost of leijfisla- 
 tion for the whole four years they had hccn in power. Five hundred 
 thousand dollars a year about covers the cost of running both Houses of 
 Parliament an entire session. Yet tliey could not waste a day of tiiat 
 time to save the country two millions. 
 
 Mr. CAETWRIGIIT— How mucii must have been lost by hon. 
 gentlemen opposite ? 
 
 Mr. ('OLBY — Some thiidc they can see all about the condition cf a 
 country by looking at columns of figures ; but there are conditions 
 working to the good or ill of the country which the Public Accounts and 
 Trade Returns do not show. Crreat leakages and losses sometimes occur 
 through the acts or omission of Governments, of which the Blue Book 
 makes no mention. Blue books and statistical tables are not infallible. 
 So much for the action or inaction of the Government in the 
 session of 1870'. 
 
 Legislature of 1S77, "Legalised Robbery." 
 
 If they are satisfied with the course they took they arc quite welcome 
 to all the comfort they can find in it. At a cost of $2,000,000, this 
 government had taken a year's respite, in order to consider, as they said, 
 and bring in a bill to meet the entire conditions of the case. They brought 
 in a bill which embodied their own views. They were not tramelled by 
 anything, but commenced de nov), and remodelled the whole thing. If 
 r am rightly informed, the oil production of Canada is wholly 
 within the constituencies of the Hon. the First Minister and the 
 Hon. the Minister of the Interior, so they had all the knowledge 
 necessary to guide them to the right conclusion the following- 
 session. And what did they do ? — with all this knowledge, with this 
 year's respite and leisure to frame an Act to meet the conditions of the 
 case, purchased as they told them at a cost of $2,000,000 ? What was this 
 bill ? It was a free trade bill Avhich imposed ujion this article a customs 
 duty of from 50 to GO per cent., while no other article is protected more 
 than lY^ per cent. This Free Trade Government put on this exceptioial 
 article in this exceptional part of Canada — this article which was the only 
 one which could be abused by rings and combinations — a duty of from 50 
 to GO per cent. AYhen they put on the duty of G cents a gallon, oil was 
 Avorth 10 cents a gallon ; they swept away the whole excise duty and 
 recouped the country by putting it on tea ; but to favour this industry, 
 the only one which could be abused by protection, they levied a customs 
 duty of from 50 to 60 per cent., making, according to their theory, the 
 consumers of oil, which is ma<:le in Canada, pay, not to the Government 
 bat to the manufacturer, six cents additional for every gallon, or an 
 additioual profit of GO per cent. Was that legalized rob1)ery, or was it 
 not ? In whose interest was that f)ei*petrated ? 
 
 Mr. CAETWEIGHT — It was a revenue tax and a proper one. 
 Fetrolenm Ring Re -organise. 
 
 Mr. COLBY — When it was understood that the tax was to be taken 
 »ff, thtre was no longer an oil ring until the Finance Minister dettrmiied 
 
I 
 
 upon tho policy ho waste pursue, and thon tho organizers re-organized in 
 Ontario, and an oil ring moro dangeroup, because more comprehensive 
 than the old one, has grown up uuder the legislation they had passed in 
 consonance with their Free Trade ideas. That was an illustration of the 
 views of those gentlemen, and of their idea as to what a revenue taritfought 
 to be. Did it put every dollar of* the revenue into the Treasury ? Did they 
 not know that every gallon boughtof a Canadian refiner had paid him, not 
 the Treasury, an additional hx cents? Did they not know that t\yo-thir{|H 
 of the oil consumed is manufactured in Canada, and that every gallon paid 
 Bix cents more than it ought to pay in consequence of tho policy of tho 
 Government? If they are proud of their inaction in 1876 and of Ihoir 
 legislation in 18T7, they are welcome to anj' e^atisfaction which they 
 can derive from the conteniplaiion of it. So much for the oil question. 
 
 Reciprocity with the United Slates. 
 There is only one other subject to which I desire to allude. I 
 should not bo doing justice to my own convictions of what my duty is in 
 addressing tho House upon this question, if I did not make reference to 
 the following proposition contained in the amendment: 
 
 "And moving, as it ought to do, in the direction of Reciprocity of Tariffs with onr 
 neighbors, so far as tho varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to 
 procure for this country eventually, a reciprocity of trade." 
 
 If every Other member of this House should go back on tho proposal 
 contained in this amendment of tho right hon. member for King- 
 ston, I certainly could not do so, without vory glaring incon- 
 sistenc}*. On the first occasion that it was my privilege to address this 
 Parliament as a new member, as early as 18t8, tho doctrine which is 
 there announced was urged by mo upon the attention of tho Government 
 of which that right hon. gentleman was then the head, and upon 
 Parliament, for consideration. I urged that a duty of 5 cents a 
 pound should bo placed upon hops. I pointed out that while tho 
 American hop growor had free access to our market, the Canadian hop- 
 grower had to moot a five cent duty in tho United States; and asked 
 the House on every consideration of fair play to grant the imposi- 
 tion of 5 cents a pound on hops. It is not done at that session, but it 
 was at a subsequent session, and it is now on the Statute 
 Book. I know something about the Americans, have lived among 
 them a gootl deal, was educated among them, aiid have always lived 
 near them. I, at that time, e.\prest>od my settled bclii'f, though 
 it had not then the weight with tho leader of the Goverrim.ont 
 that I had hoped it would have, that just so long as we were prepared 
 to permit this unequal system by which we were excluded from the 
 American markets, while the Americans had access to ours, they would 
 consider it better than reciprocity and would not give us reciprocity. 
 That was the view I then took and still hold, and I then made use of 
 the expression which had been so much lauded and so much abused — 
 '• reciprocity of tariffs, if not reciprocit}'' in trade." I believe the re.isons 
 I then urged were sound. I believe one need only know tho American 
 character, their shrewdness, their practical way of treating su«-.h sub- 
 jects, to be convinced that so long as they have freo access to our 
 markets, and we are excluded from theirs, they will consider that they 
 have the best of the bargain. I desire to draw attention to one thought 
 which seems to me to boar strongly on this question. 
 
Reciprocal Dallei ar« defoneo-notRttaliAtlan. 
 
 X know tho idea that we can coerce the Amopicans, that 
 four millions of people can coerce 40 millions, is often sneered at, 
 and likened "to tho tail wagging tho dog." Tho Americans had 
 found it necessary for tho u.aintuinenco of their credit to put on 
 high duties. That imposes upon us a corresponding necessity to 
 piotoct our manufucturora and farmei's, eo long as thiss unfortunate 
 state of things exists on tho other eldo. Thero is no necessity for 
 irritation. It will not bo considered a retaliatory policy. I think 
 it might safei, lie said that to two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the 
 people of tho lj..itcd States, this question of reciprocity is today a 
 matter of total inditference. If we went below the northern tier of 
 States, probably if wo went to the Middle States, certainly if wo went 
 to the S)uthern, tho Soulhwestern, or tho Pacific States, if wo aslod any 
 man except a public man, what were tho relations between Canada 
 and the United States, he could not tell whether reciprocity or 
 unequal tariff existed. It does not afreet tho mass of tho people of 
 the United States, who are neutral in regard to this matter. But wo 
 have active interests working against us in tho States of Maine, Vermont 
 and Xow York, in those sections along our frontier whoso interests 
 are agricultural, and who would be injured if our butter, beef, wool, horses, 
 potatoe."), &c., went to their markets. On that account they are intensely 
 hostile to reciprocity. They want to keep Nova Scotia potatoes and 
 Prince Edward Island oat- out of the Boston market, and Eastern town- 
 ships beef out of the the Brighton market. They desire to keep up the 
 monopoly of tho home market, which alone makes agriculture possible in 
 ban en New Enjrland. That active influence working upon the inert and 
 indifferent mass of tho nation is what we have to contend against. 
 Wc have to countervail that influence, wo have to create an in- 
 fluence against that. Does the House believe that bO long as it could be 
 shown that year b}' year we are taking more and more of their manu- 
 factured products, the manufacturers of New England are going to join 
 us in the desire for a renewal of reciprocity, when it is shown that 
 from 1873 to 1877, while prices had fallen, while imports from 
 England had fallen, the only thing that had increased had been the 
 amount of manulactured goods which wo bought fr<»ni the States — an 
 increase of some 30 percent.? Does tho House believe that under that 
 state of things wo will get their co-operation ? Let them, however, feel 
 themselves excluded and embarrassed in getting to that market which 
 they had heretofore used as their own market, and then wo would 
 find that they liave a little feeling in favor of reciprocity. So 
 long as tho Americans continue to possess all the advantages they 
 now enjoy, they will not give us reciprocity of trade. Tho sound 
 and poliiic course then, to adopt, is. to put up our duties to whore they 
 were before the lleciprocily Treaty was fiaiucd ; to put ourselves back to 
 where wo woio then, to place ourselves in a position whore wo can pinch 
 some classes in the United States and deprive them of some of tho'^ 
 advantages which tliey now so freely enjoy. I thank the Houae 
 for the indulgence extended to me, and beg to apologize for this abrupt 
 termination ol my ("Speech, a circumstance which is due to tho latenosa 
 of the hour. [The honorable gentleman resumed bis seat amid pro- 
 longed applause.] 
 
THE VOTE. 
 
 The followin',' 
 
 Momi)Crs voted FOU the Amendment : — 
 
 
 Yeas : 
 
 
 . 
 
 Messieurs 
 
 
 -Baby, 
 
 Flesher, 
 
 JMousseau, 
 
 Benoil, 
 
 Fraser, 
 
 Orton, 
 
 Blanchct, 
 
 (libbs (Ontario North), 
 
 Ouiraet, 
 
 Bolduc, 
 
 (ribbs, (Ontario South'), 
 
 Palmer, 
 
 Bouil)Gau, 
 
 dill, ' . 
 
 Pinsonneaull, 
 
 Bowell, 
 
 Ilaggart, . \ ' 
 
 Piatt, 
 
 Brooks, 
 
 JIarwood, 
 
 Plumb, 
 
 Brown, 
 
 llurtoau, . . 
 
 Pope, (Compton), 
 
 Bunster, 
 
 Jones, (Leeds), 
 
 Vo^e, (Queens, P. EJ.) 
 
 Cameron, 
 
 Kirkpatrick, 
 
 Eobillard, 
 
 Caron, 
 
 Langevin, 
 
 Robinson, " ' 
 
 Ciraon, 
 
 Lanthier, 
 
 llobitaille, 
 
 Colby, 
 
 Little, 
 
 Eochestei', 
 
 Costi^an, 
 
 Macdonaltl (Cornivall) 
 
 Eouleau, 
 
 Coupal, 
 
 Macdonald (Kingston), 
 
 Roy, 
 
 Currier, 
 
 McDonald (Caj^e Breton) , 
 
 llyan, 
 
 Cuthbert, 
 
 McDougall (Three Rivers), 
 
 , Schultz, 
 
 Daoust, 
 
 3IcKay (Colchester), 
 
 Short, 
 
 DeCosmos, 
 
 Macmillan, 
 
 Stephenson, 
 
 Desjardins, 
 
 McCallum, 
 
 Thompson (Cariboo), 
 
 Devvdncj', 
 
 McCarthy, 
 
 T upper. 
 
 Domville, 
 
 McQuade, 
 
 AYade, 
 
 Donahue, 
 
 Masson, 
 
 AVallace (Norfolk), 
 
 Bugas, 
 
 Mcthot, 
 
 Wright (Ottawa), 
 
 Farrow, 
 
 Mouteith, 
 
 Wright (Pontiac).—Ti 
 
 Ferguson, 
 
 Montplaisii', 
 
 
 The following 
 
 Members voted AGAINST the 
 
 Nays : 
 Meesiours 
 
 ! Amendment : — 
 
 Appleby) 
 
 Fleuiiug) 
 
 Mclutyre) 
 
 Archibald, 
 
 Flynu) 
 
 HIcTaaaC) 
 
 Aylmcry 
 
 ForbcS) 
 
 McNab, 
 
41 
 
 Daln, 
 
 BartliC} 
 
 Bechard) 
 
 Bemlerf 
 
 Bertram} 
 
 Blggar) 
 
 Blain, 
 
 Bordeii) 
 
 Borroii) 
 
 Bonraaaa^ 
 
 Bofvman) 
 
 Boyery 
 
 Bronsef 
 
 Bnelli 
 
 Bnrk, 
 
 Bnrpee (Sti John)) 
 
 Biu-pce (Simbiiry)} 
 
 Carmichaely 
 
 Cartivright) 
 
 Casey} 
 
 Caagralii) 
 
 Charltoiif 
 
 Cheval) 
 
 Chrlatle, 
 
 Church) 
 
 Coekbiuii) 
 
 Cotntkf 
 
 Cook) 
 
 DavIeS) 
 
 Da^vaou) 
 
 Dc St. GeorgcSf 
 
 DeV^ber) 
 
 Dymoiul) 
 
 Ferriay 
 
 Flaet, 
 
 KATg: 
 MeisUari. 
 
 Frechette) 
 Galbralth) 
 OeoA-lonf 
 GIbaoii) 
 
 onut», 
 
 OUIaior) 
 
 GondgC) 
 
 Greenway) 
 
 Gnthrle) 
 
 HaddoiT) 
 
 Ilagar) 
 
 Hall) 
 
 Hlglnbothaiii) 
 
 lloltoii) 
 
 llortou) 
 
 Huntlngtoii) 
 
 Irving) 
 
 Jotte) 
 
 Jonea (Halifax}) 
 
 Kerr) 
 
 KiUaiU) 
 
 Kirk) 
 
 Laflamme) 
 
 liaJoiO) 
 
 Iianderkiii) 
 
 Langlola) 
 
 Lanrlcr) - 
 
 Macdonald (Toronto) * 
 
 BlacDonnell (Inverness]) 
 
 Macdougall (Blgin)) 
 
 HIcDougall (Renfreiv)) 
 
 AfacKay (Cape Breton}) 
 
 MackcnEle) 
 
 MoCraney) 
 
 McGregor) 
 
 Maloiibi) 
 
 Metcalfe) 
 
 MillS) 
 
 NorrlS) 
 
 Oliver) 
 
 PatersoH) 
 
 Perry) 
 
 PetteS) 
 
 Fickard) ~ « 
 
 Poullot) * 
 
 Power) 
 
 Ray) 
 
 Richard) 
 
 RoscoC) 
 
 Ross (Durham)) 
 
 Ross (Middlesex)) 
 
 Ross (Prince EdMaid)) 
 
 R ymal) 
 
 Scatcherd) 
 
 Scriver) 
 
 Shibley) 
 
 Sinclair) 
 
 Skinner) 
 
 Smith (Peel)) 
 
 Smith (Westmoreland)) 
 
 Snider) 
 
 St. JeaU) 
 
 TasehereaU) 
 
 Thonipaon (Haldimand)) 
 
 Thompson (AVclIand)) 
 
 Tro'iV) 
 
 W^allacc (Albert)) 
 
 IVood) 
 
 TeO) 
 
 Young.— 114, 
 
 The following members "paired " : — 
 
 For Amendment :— 
 
 Againit Amendment :— 
 
 White (Bonfrew), 
 Hon. P. Mitchell, 
 White (Hastings). 
 
 Delorme (St Hyacinthe), 
 D. A. Smith (Selkirk), 
 Hon. B. Blako (S. Bruce). 
 
42 
 
 Th« following mtmbers wero absent: — 
 
 Ontario : 
 
 Messrs. Blako, J. Whito, P. White, .Tun., R. Blackburn 4 
 
 Quebec : 
 
 Messrs. McGreovy, Workmtin, Devlin, L. Dolorme 4 
 
 Nova Scotia : 
 
 Mr. C. Campbell 1 
 
 Manitoba : 
 
 Messrs. Smith, Banalyno 2 
 
 New Brunswick : 
 
 H»n. P. Mitchell, Mr. McLcod, lion. T. Anglin (Speaker, no vote) 3 
 
 British Columbia: 
 
 Mr. Cunninocham 1 
 
 SUMMAEY. 
 
 For. Against 
 
 Ontario 28 56 
 
 Quebec 35 26 
 
 Nova Scotia 4 16 
 
 New Brunswick 3 10 
 
 British Columbia 4 1 
 
 Manitoba 2 
 
 Prince Edward Island 1 6 
 
 Ti 114 
 
 Government majority 37 
 
 1ft 
 
 . , , MAJOEITIES BY PEOVINCES :~ 
 
 Against. Foi'. ' 
 
 Ontario 28 maj. • <. 
 
 Quebec 9 .<•/,,* 
 
 Nova Scotia 12 " , ,. 
 
 New Brunswick T " 
 
 British Columbia 3 
 
 Manitoba 2 
 
 Prince Edward Island 4 " 
 
 Mr. McGreevy, M.P., for Quebec West, was in favor ot the Amend- 
 ment ; but his " pair" lapsed before the vote was taken. 
 
 Messrs. Devlin and Workman, of Montreal, were absent — the great 
 Commercial City of Montreal being thus virtually unrepresented — Mr. 
 Jette, M.P., for the Eastern Division, voting against the Amendment. 
 
 Messrs. Wood and Irving, of the great Manufacturing City of 
 Hamilton, also voted against the Amendment, 
 
 
43 
 
 Tlio National policy, as proclaimed by Sir John A. Macdonald (t) — 
 New party issues in Canada (8) — Nature of Sir John A. Macdonald's 
 motion (8)— Revenue not the flolo object of a tariif (9) — National policy, 
 as defined by Mr. Charlton in 18*70 (9) — Ministerial policy, Free Trade 
 declared to be the policy of the "Reform" Party, by Mr. Dymond in 
 18*76 (11) — The Free Trade corner-stone of the Premier, and his declara- 
 tion of the evils of Protection (12) — Bonjamin Franklin's remarks on the 
 necessity of Protection in a young country (12) — The Premier's assump- 
 tions historically untrue (13) — History of Protection and its results :n 
 England and France (13) — Statistics of the sugar industry in Europe? 
 statement of 3Ir. J. R. McCuUoch (14) — Manufacture of boots and shoes 
 in Canada, its successful growth- under protection (10) — The Premier's 
 present attitude and past history (17) — The Canadian Public Works pol- 
 icy virtually protective (17) — Incidental protection declared by the 
 Finance Minister to bo "legalised robbery" (18) — John Stuart Mill's defi- 
 nition of incidental protection (18) — His views endorsed by the Finance 
 Afinister (18) — Free trade is still but a theory (20) — Froo Trade in 
 England ia protection in disguise (20) — Proi ective policy fosters Ui^nu- 
 factures and commerce (21) — The first Free Trade Act in England, 1842 
 (22) — In 1853, Mr. Gladstone refused to reduce silk duties (22) — 
 Mr. Charlton's change of opinions since 1876 (23) — His special plead- 
 ing and arguments respecting United States refuted (24) — Mr. John 
 Macdonald on Canadian depression (26) — Governor Rice upon the indus- 
 tries of Massachusetts (27)— Mr. Charlton'g statistics valueless (28) — 
 Professor Cairnes' comments on protection in U. S. (28) — Mr. < arlton's 
 unfairness respecting Canadian industries (29) — Agricultural implements, 
 no competition from XJ. S. manufacturers, their home demand exceeding 
 supply (29) — Protection the preservation of home market for home 
 manufactures (30) — History of protection in the U. S., North and South, 
 cotton and sugar interests, why the Southern States favor Free Trade 
 (31) — Comparison with Canadian situation, " King Cotton " and " King 
 Wheat" (33)— The prosperous manufactures of the North beneficial to 
 the whole Republic (33) — The policy of New England the true policy for 
 Canada (34)— The farmers of Ontario, future competition of the North- 
 West (34) — The Finance Minister's opposition to growth of cities (34) — 
 Growing cities enhance the value of farming districts (35) — Coal oil, 
 refusal of Government to reduce duty in 1876 (35)— Lobs of 82,000,000 to 
 the country (36) — Legislation of 1877, legalised robbery (37)— Petroleum 
 rings reorganized (37) — Remarks on Reciprocity, defense not retaliation, 
 Reciprocal trade or Reciprocal, tariff (38—9.) 
 
INDEX 
 
 AenrcDLTCRi : — 
 
 In United States — Mr. Charlton refuted,. . . . , , 25 
 
 Implements of — No competition from U. 8. manufacturers, from excess 
 
 of their home demand 29 
 
 Ontario^Future competition of North-west , 34 
 
 Growth of cities enhances value of farming districts , 35 
 
 But SuaAU : — 
 
 History of the industry in Europe U 
 
 Boots and Shois : — 
 
 Manufacture, growth in Canada under protcctiom 10 
 
 Cairnks, Prof. :— 
 
 Comments on protection in U. S , 28 
 
 Canada's PoMOY : — 
 
 ' Should be prisent New England policy 34 
 
 Cartwright, Ho;f. Mr. : — 
 
 See " Finance Minister," 
 
 CiiARLTOX, Mr., M. p. : — 
 
 National policy, as defined in 187« 9 
 
 Change of opinions since 1876 23 
 
 His special pleading refuted 24 
 
 Arguments respecting V. 8 . fallacious 25 
 
 His statistics proved to be valueless 28 
 
 His unfairness respecting Canadian industries 29 
 
 CiTucs : — 
 
 Growth of enhances value of farming districts , 35 
 
 Coal Oil: — 
 
 See "Oil" 
 
 Colby, Mb., M. P. :— 
 
 Letter to Editor of "Citiaen," 1 
 
 Speech on Sir John A. Macdonald's amendment , , 7 
 
 Cotton :— 
 
 Interests in the Southern States , , 31 
 
 " King Cotton " and « Kiag Wheat " 33 
 
 Cl'stous: — 
 
 Sm «« Tariff" 
 
45 
 
 » 
 
 Dtmoxd, Mr., M. P. :— 
 
 Declaration of Free Trado Policy, 1876 11 
 
 I 
 
 England : — 
 
 History of Protection in 13 
 
 Free Trade in, iu virtually protection 20 
 
 Excise : — • 
 
 J. Stuart Mill on customs and excise 19 
 
 Duty on coal oil, 18C8, 18T0, 1877 35-7 
 
 Fahms: — 
 
 See " Agriculture " 
 
 FiNANCK MiNISTEB : — 
 
 Incidental protection deiined as " legalised robbery " 18 
 
 Endorses views of Jolm Stuart Mill 18 
 
 Ills opposition to the growth of cities 34 
 
 Refuses reduction of coal oil duty, 1876 35 
 
 Admits $2,000,000 loss to the country 30 
 
 Legislation of 1877, legalised robbery 37 
 
 4 
 
 FuANCB : — 
 
 Results of protection in 13 
 
 Statistics of Sugar Manufacture 14 
 
 Franklin, B. : — . , 
 
 Necessity of protection in a young country 12 
 
 Free Trade : — 
 
 Declared the Reform policy, (Dymond, 1876) 11 
 
 The Premier's corner stone 12 
 
 Is still but a theory 20 
 
 lu England, is protection in disguise , 20 
 
 In England, first Free Trade Act, in 1842 22 
 
 Why the Southern States favor it 32 
 
 Views of Mr. Qarnett, of Virginia 3 
 
 <> 
 
 Garnett, Mr. : — 
 
 Of Virginia, his views on Free Trade 32 
 
 Gladstone, Mb. : — 
 
 Refusal to remove silk duties in 1853 22 
 
 Government :— 
 
 See " Finance Minister " and " Premier " 
 
 Implements : — 
 
 Agricultural, U. S. manufacturers do not compete with Canadian. Reason . . 29 
 
 McCuLLOOH, J. R.: — 
 
 Statistics of sugar industry in Europe 14 
 
 Production of cotton and sugar by slave labor 32 
 
 Macdonald, Sn Joh> A . :— . 
 
 Tariff amendment resolution, 1878 7 
 
 Tariff amendment— natur* of. t 
 
46 
 
 llACDOMALD, JoHir, M. p.;— 
 
 His reasons for depression in CAnnda 20 
 
 Maciinzii, Hon. A.:— 
 
 Sec •« Premier." 
 
 MAMUrACTDRKS :— > 
 
 Of Massachusetts, Oovornor Rice on 27 
 
 Of agricultural implcmentB, Canadian, no competition from U. S 29 
 
 U. 8., success beneficial to whole Republic -JS 
 
 Of oil, formation of "Rings." 30 
 
 Ordinary manufactures, " Rings " ijnpossiblc , . , 30 
 
 Massachusctts :— 
 
 Governor Rice's report on industries of . , , , , 27 
 
 Mill, J. Stuart ; — 
 
 Definition of incidental protection 18 
 
 Views on Excise and Customs Revenue , ] 
 
 National : — 
 
 Policy— See " Policy." ' 
 
 Oil, Coal : — 
 
 Duties — Action of late Government — Comments , . . 35 
 
 Refusal of Government to reduce duty in 1876 35 
 
 Facilities for formation of oil " rings " 36 
 
 Loss of $2,000,000 to the country 36 
 
 Legislation of 1877, legalized robbery 37 
 
 Petroleum, " rings " now re-organised 37 
 
 Ontario; — • 
 
 Farmer's— future competition of North-west , 34 
 
 Party Issues : — 
 
 New, in Canada • • • • 8 
 
 Pktrolkum : — 
 
 See « Oil " 
 
 PoLicv, National : — 
 
 Of Sir John Macdonald 7 
 
 Defined by Mr. Charlton in 1870 9 
 
 Policy, Hinistibial — 
 
 As defined by Mr. Dymond in 1876 11 
 
 Policy, N«w Enoland : — 
 
 The true policy for Canada . . 34 
 
 Policy, Rkoifrocity :— 
 
 Reciprocal Ti'ade or Reciprocal Tariff 38 
 
 Prkuibr, Tbi :— 
 
 The Free Trade corner stone of l2 
 
 His oflBumptions historically untrue 1 3 
 
 Hi« present attitude and past history , , l7 
 
47 
 
 pROTiOTioir : — 
 
 TnrifT, Sir John Mncdnnftld'g motion 7 
 
 KvilH of, n8 declared by the Premier 12 
 
 Nccosity of, in a yoimg country (Franklin) 12 
 
 Of the sugar industry in Europe 14 
 
 Of boot nnd shoe manufacture in Canada 10 
 
 Public Works, policy is protective 17 
 
 Policy of, fosters manufactures and commerce .... 21 
 
 1842, the flrst English Free Trade Act 22 
 
 1853, Olndstono still protected silk interest 22 
 
 In United States, Prof, Cairncs's comments ••• 28 
 
 Is preserving homo market for homo manufacturer 30 
 
 Results of, in United States, North and South 31 
 
 POBLIO WOHKB : — 
 
 Canadian, policy of^ is protective * 17 
 
 Rbciprocitt : — 
 
 With U. S., remarks respecting , 38 
 
 Reciprocal Trade or Reciprocal Tariff 38 
 
 Reciprocal duties arc not retaliation , 39 
 
 Revxnuk :^ 
 
 Not the sole object of tariff 9 
 
 Rick, Govibkor : — 
 
 Report on industries of Massachusetts 27 
 
 Shoes and Boots :— 
 
 Manufecture, success in Canada, under protection 16 
 
 StjaAR, Bott : — 
 
 History of the Industry in Europe 14 
 
 Sugar Ihtirbbt : — 
 
 In the Southern States 31 
 
 TAriFF : — 
 
 Readjustment — Sir John A. MacdonaKl's motion 7 
 
 Nature of the motion , 8 
 
 Oil, action of late Government, comments 35 
 
 Oil, Gtovt. refuse to reduce, jn 1876 35 
 
 Legislation of 1877, legalized robbery 37 
 
 Reciprocal, is defense, not retaliation , 38 
 
 Unitbo States: — 
 
 Mr. Charlton's arguments respecting, refuted 25 
 
 Gov. Rice upon Massachusetts industries « 27 
 
 Protection in, comments on 28 
 
 Agricultural implement manufacturers do not compete with Canadian 29 
 
 Protection and Free Trade, North and South :; ! 
 
 " King Cotton » and " King Wheat," 33 
 
 New England policy true policy for Canada , 34 
 
 Reciprocity with, in Trade or in Tariff 38 
 
 Reciprocity, U. S. have no desire, while unequal tariffs favor them 39 
 
 Wheat : — 
 
 " King Cotton" and King Wheat," * 33 
 
NO ONE SHOULD BE WITHOUT IT ! 
 
 THE 
 
 PARlIAMiTARV 
 
 Price, SI. 50. 
 
 H'hat the Pvess Says : 
 
 The Parllnmentury Conipftnion 
 Is tin indispcnHublo viuU viecum 
 for everj stiulont of Ciinndimi 
 politics. — Toronto Globe. 
 
 More useful than ever as u 
 liandbook of rcforencc— /,o«'/o« 
 AdL'trtiier. 
 
 It is far superior to the fild 
 Companion in the extent of its 
 information. — Kingston Whir/. 
 
 No man who wishes to have a 
 
 correct knowledge of public men 
 
 and public proceeding, can do so, 
 
 _ thoroughly, without a copy of thia 
 
 ' invaluable work. It ought to bn 
 
 found every where — Iluli/axllerald 
 
 In its preparation it manifests 
 that the utmost caro has been 
 taken, and altogether we recom- 
 mend it to those who desi-e to be 
 posted on a variety of matters, 
 upon whicii otherwise it is difficult 
 to obtain information. — Montreal 
 Herald, 
 
 A vast amount of information 
 of a political and general charac- 
 ter is given. — Woodstock Sentinel 
 
 No public man can afford to bo 
 without this last edition of the 
 Companion. — Montreal Star. 
 
 It is a great improvement over 
 any of its predecessors, and con- 
 tains much more and varied in- 
 formation under the usual heads, 
 than formerly. — Hamilton Times. 
 Address .— 
 
 C. H. MACKINTOSH, 
 
 rublisher Companion, 
 
 P.O. Box, son, 
 
 Ottawa. 
 
 ll:lCKL\TOSirS 
 
 CANAI)L\N 
 
 i](trliamculari{ 
 
 -() — 
 
 18V8. 
 
 — ()- 
 
 420 Pages. 
 
 CANADIAN 
 
 Siileenlli Year. 
 
 COMPANION. 
 
 Price. $150. 
 
 What the Press Snys : 
 A standard authority on Can- 
 lulian affairs.— y««itfc Mercury. 
 
 It compriseK a vast amount of 
 information relating to public 
 matters and public men, not to 
 bo found elsewhere, forming a 
 standard authority, without which 
 no library or public office can bo 
 said to be complete. — London Free 
 J'reis. 
 
 Mackintosh's Parliamentary 
 Companion for 18T8 is a valuable 
 book. The issue is greatly su- 
 perior to any of its predecessors. 
 Some of the matter in previous 
 editions that was of no particular 
 value has been expunged, and an 
 improved running index, a sketch 
 of the general routine of the Elec- 
 tion Courts, rulings on legal 
 points, history of the Halifax 
 Fishery Commission, amended 
 digest of Parliamentary procedure 
 and the decisions of the Speaker 
 during the session of 1877 added. 
 — Hamilton Timet. 
 
 The Parliamentary Companion 
 for 1878 has been issued, and 
 fully sustains its established char- 
 acter as a sessional handbook. 
 Two useful additions have been 
 made this year, viz : a Summary 
 of the Fishery question and a 
 digest of the award. Also an 
 elaborate digest of Election Trials 
 and practical points connected 
 with Parliamentary practice, all 
 showing care and labor on the 
 part of the editor. — Toronto Globe. 
 
 Address ;— 
 
 C. H. MACKINTOSH, 
 
 IViblislier Companion, 
 
 P.O. Box 305, 
 
 Ottawa, 
 
 t^Agenfs Wanted in every Town md City of the Dominion. 
 
''•''rrt-r**,!-* 
 
 Ljiis^'iSSr'