I / (g£j < £ , II '///^.ARIFF RE-ADJUSTME^" • ^. ^ »r Jk^^±- TO WWICH IS ADDED AN OPEN LETTER FROM MR. COLBY AND THE AMENDMENT MOVED BY SIH JOHU MiLCDOlTAriD On a (Re-adjuslmerJ of ike (t)ominion Tariff' With the Division Thereon. GovcTLXMBvrra or '^' » • . r Ti- t. i (* f. Mr. OPEN LETTER FROM fi MR. C. C. COLBY, M.P. -♦#♦- Ma. r. II. MACKTXTOSir, Ju/itor Ottawi Cifi:in :— 71/// Dear Sir, — Boliovc; mo, I appi'cciato your kind and conijjlimen- tary letter, more particularly, as I lully cstiinuto the ellortM your journul h;n pit, fortli in'advocK'y of a Natioiuil Fiscal Policy. Tlio sjicuch upon Tariti' lievision, lately delivered by me, in the House ot CommotiH, you ai'o quite at liberty to uso in any way you deem j)i-oper. Had I antici- pated the extensive publication you propose ,i^ivin<^ it, I should have arraniijcd it with. t,n'oater care. You will recollect, I entered the Hold of debate aw a tardy :i;leaner, havinij little reason to expect that I would bo able to gather oven a respectable sheaf. Ah the Tariff question must cxeiTiso a largo influence at the cominff election, J thirdv it important that there should 1)9 an accurate de- finition of respective party belief-!. No one of the Conservative party having dissented from any exposition of its platform, and the Pinanco Idinibtor and the Hon. Mr. ^lille having manifested their assent, ai«, stop, by step, I laid down what I understood to be the Ministerial plankH, the country may, I think, accept my definition a.s substantially cor- rect. 1 cndeavoied lo ])rove that t!io declaration of Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, ** that, if a pai-licular trade or industry were to be protected it could only bo done at the exprnse, of some other trade or inilastrj " is historically, and in ftc.t, untrue. The above declaration is the niajur ])remiscs of the Free 'ft-ado argujnents, as applied in Canada, li it \\\\U, the superstructure ^n^i fall. I ondeavorori to show that the carofnlly stated announcement by tho Iiance Minister, in bis Budget speec'i, of tho mode of taxation, in vindica- n of which ho and his associates arc " propane 1 to fight to tho death" id when analysed, a pointed and emphatic declaration that oven the lldoat form ot Incidental Protect on is '' legalised I'obbory." Neither Finauco Minister, the Hon. Mr. Mills nor any other member of the (lovornmont, m11Iioui;1i challoiiiA-ed, pru.^unuHl to tlcny thai tho I'oUowinp;^ dit^tuin ot Joliii Siuai-t iMill, is u tnio exi»().-,ili()!i ol' tliiMuode ol taxation for tlu^ adoption oC which tho (Jovorninoiit is '• pieparod to fi<,dU to tho death." Mr. Mill says :—•• Custom duties arc, fw/em ;>ar<ftj/-s', niiu-h Io.sh object ioiiahlo than excise, but they must he laid only on ihin^r-s which oilJior cannot, or at least, will not, ho prodiu-rd in tho counti-y itselC, or else tboir production there vmst ht: pro/uhitcd (;is in i'^n.nland is the caso with tobacco) or suf'jectcd to an excise duty of ai- cijuicalriit <imount." I pointed out that there is nothinu" to ]>; event the adoption in ('annda of this mode of raisin;^' revenue— if Ministers are i-etaincd in power and havo the comao-o of their declared convictions — hut that its adoption would cause the immediate oveithrow of nearly all the maniifacturinu- industiios. I endeavored to show that the vaunted Free-Ti-ade i)<)licy of lOo'rland, is a nood and most injcninus form of ProtcrfiDn, and that it was so inten Jed, and that it was <;iven to Kni^lish intuuif.iclurers at a tiino when ((hey havini; entire control of the home marUei) i)rotoclivo duties were nuga- tory, and whon the removal ot duties from raw material and hreadstutlri afl'>>rdcd thom tho most efficient aid and prottction that Parliamant had power to give. I endeavored to prove, that tho lahoi'cd statistics ol' Mr. ('harlton arc utterly valueless as evidence, either of the actual condition of our own manufactures, or of the ti-uo results of a Protectivo ]\)licy in tho United States. I ondouvored to nhow. that an attempt to build up King Wheat in Ontario on Free-Trado toundations would bo as futile and disastrous as was a similar ctVect to build up King Cotton in tho Southern iStatos, and that tho true interests of the farmers would not bo served « y breaking down thoir best mai'ket, diminishing tho number of consumers and increasing tho number of producers of farm products. I pointed to the serious loss occasioned by the inactivity of tho Gov- omment in 187(1 in tiio matter of relroleum duties, and tho inconsis- tency and " legalised robbery" involved in their legislation of 1877. I endeavored to show, tiiat wo stronghien tho hands of our enomifVi and weaken the haiids of our friends in tho United vStates on the liocjiprcv- city question, so long as wo tolerate the existence of trade relations whioh have the efTeet — 1st. To diminish our trade with England; 2nd. To diminish tho ratio of exports to imports in our trade with tho United States; ;jrd. To add ao per cent, in threo years to the value of our importt^ of manufactured goods from tho United States, in tho face of diminished exports and diminishing cost of goods. Siicli is Iho cxiiiliif shown in Iho Tj-udo aivl Xavi;;atioti Roturrn this year. With that exhibit in hand, ovory foo to liocipiocii v liviriir jn tho Ui. 1(0(1 SLatoswill su('co.-i>('aily ui-,i;'o that " thiscoruiition is h^'ttcr than JJcci- prority, \vc? havo our own and half tho Canadian niarkol, while the Cinii- dian has only half his (»wn. and no portion oj" om- market. Wo havo only t<> wait a little until l''i-ee Trade ])rin''i])les take root thei-e, and we will wholly occuny the Canadian market as well us our own." Luniheiinen Bhoiild make a nolo of* this. r holievo, Hir. that Cana<la can tlirivo un'lof (air rcipi-ocitx- with (ho United Slates. It did thrive under (hat yslem tor eleven 3-oars. I further holiove, that Canada can thrive nn !er kucIj a Xalional ]\)liey as would ^ivo our own markets to our own workers. Wo had oxporioiK-o of that from I8(i2 to lS72-(hirir)i,r the period wIhmi Americans wore HO occupied in supphdnuf their homo demand that we had pos>ession of our own markets— an abnormal condition, equivalent in its practical cftoot upon us, to a hii^^h protective tarilK I boliovo a'so, that if hostile ini^renuity woro to ctujtrivo a s\-siom for us ' u-idor which we could not be oxpoctod to pros or, it would verv nearly rof-omblo iho unequal and unfair ouo which now subsists between ns and our noi,£,Hibors, to which the present administration seemsdcvoiedly attached. The C(mditions in 1878, are so ditforont from the conditions which existed in 1808, that a judicious rea<ljustmont of the laritl' .seems to bo a most pro.s.sing necoM.Mty. It was my purpose to touch some other points involved in this oreat question, but 1 could not presume further up)n the indulgence of the Ilou.se at a very lato hour. It was my purpo-o to consider the lais.ser faire, " fly on the wheel " policy, or no policy, so frequently avowed by 31ini.stei-.s, and to ^h.>w it.s inapplicability to a new and <j:rowinijr country like ours. The idea that trade Hhould bo as free as the air, is captivalini^r to many ; but other .atialo- gios are H«.iri;o8tivo of -reat tiaillis. The wise father does not <r\vG l.con.so to the exuberant energies of his son, but strives rather to educate, restrain and guide. Liberty is wisely fettered and it.s choicest blo.ssings are secured toy the restraints of wholesome law. Tho husbandman restrains the wild luxuriance of his vinos and fruit troos and attains the best roMilts by training, prunincr, grafiing, fostering and enriching them— in short, by adopting a moderately protective policy. I intended, also, to consider what 1 doom a grand Fi-eo Trade fallacy, anmoly, that moderate protection iuvariably enhance^ tho cost of goods to tho consumer, and to show that, in most instance^ homo competition •nfficiently reduces price-., and that, woro It otherwise, the numerous Indirect benefits of homo manufactures and hDmo markets would com- -fensato for a very considerable enhancement of price. AVho. for in»<,an('o, can ostimuto tho benefit to tlio farmer, that ho Iww at his door numnfUclories of l)0()t.s and shoos, clolhin"^, furniture, foundry-^jjocxJH and implements, where tho pmiliif'ts are proeurahle without tho a<^ency ot numerous mitUllomen and where they areall a hiple I to his speeial needri? Why is it, that the tarmors of the Western States, where harvest labor irt two to three dolhiis jter (hay, are al^k- lo j)ro luee wlieal, IransporL it a thousand miles hy rail and three thousand nules l»y sea and eompeto in Europe with the water lVei;^hted wiieat of Russia, where htirvest labor in jiroeundjle at (en tents per d;iy? I'ho perfection and inlinito variety of lab )r Havini;- machinery, wlii(di ai'e thedii'ect result of mechanical skill, invention and opporlunity stimulaled and develojied by ])rv>tected nuinu- facture in the country, (the coiKlition and needs of the farmer bein^ thorouj;-hiy understood l»y the mechanic who neives him) larj^ely con- tributo to the Amei-ican and Canadian tarmer's ability to compete in cereals with the cheap farm laboi* of Muiope. If the farmer complains that he i)ays a profit on the needed implements, he should also recollect that, but for the sy,-.teni ol'whi -h 1 speal<, the inipleujents might not havo been produced or bo procurable at any j)rice. Hon. Mr. Mills, at IVr^-us. and ]\[r. Charlton in the Uouko of Com- mons, havo attempted to make Canadian fiinicrs happy by the idea that tho American consumer pays the duties upon farm pi-oducts exported to tho United States. Thev marshal a lon<>- arrav of lii»;urcs, borrowed from United States Custom House returns, which, if correct, show a very con- siderable J) ranee in the prices of horses, h<jrned cattle, sheep, wlieat, wool, bark^ , rye and other cereals, from the abrogation ot the Treaty <lown to the present time. One fact is clearly established, but it is not the one they aim at, namely, that during the j)eriod of high protection in tho United States, tho ])ricos of these articles in the United States markets have very materially advanced — indeed that the}' havo advanced moro than thirty per cent, as will apjxar by adding the United States Customs duties to the prices at which those articles are entered. That the American farmer has had the full advantage of this ro- markable increase of price, is not to l»e disputed. ]iut that the (Canadian exjx)rler has had a similar advantage, is by no means established. On the coi;trary, the Eastern Townships farmer knows that when an ! American drover pays to his neighbor living across tho lino, two liundred dollars for a pair of oxen and ])ays him only one hundred and sixty- seven dollars for a pair of similar size, condition and quality, that tho ditlercnco of S^;] going to the United States Treasury, is a direct loss to him and not to the American consumer. Similarly, the Nova Scotia farmer knows that the buyer of potatoes for the Boston market pays to tho farmer in Maine 1(1 cts. per bushol more tluui lio pay^ to tho tarnuM- in Nova Scot ia for a similar article, froi^liU heiii,'^ (ho Hanio, and that iho loss falls upon liitn and not niton tho Ho.iton purc'hasor. Tho Piimo I'Mward Ihhinder iuiow.s that ho loses tho Amojjcan duty when ho sends oats to Hoston. Ton or twelve years a"-o Bomo linnhoi- manutacturers in Ottawa thoun-lit tho Amerioan oonsnnior paid iho duty ujM)n Canadian lumhor, hut tho hard oxpei-ionce ol recent yeans hiw ooinj)lolely disj)oIUd tho ])loasin<j; illusion. In tho lon<!; list of a,<;ri cultural products. I think of (udy two in which the American consumer ])ays any apprcciahlo part of the Customs duty, Iheso are, comhini^ wool, and barley lor maltini,' purposes. These cxeoptioriH to tho i-ulo, result from an insulticiont home supply of the )»ar ticular ([uality i-eqiiired for a special use. In these instances, the Imvei' is ohli^(5d to seek the rcsiduo in outside markets and pay the prices which prevail in tho market of tho country whore he seeks them. As to tho mass of our *'Xpoi'ts to the United Slates, lari!;e as it appi.-ai-s in tl^ures, il is «0HmalI in com|)arison with tho immense volume so ahundanllv produced iu (,he United Slates, that it no more impresses tho maikets there, than a little trii)Utai'y streamlet .swells the waters ol tho St. Jiawience. Our fri(;nds, tho Freo-Ti-ado statisticians, -omelimes <rel stranirdv mixed and muddled over thoir own figures and uri'ive at very curious i-on- olusions, I intended to ui';;o, as essential to guccess in any industry which rcquii-OH the cm])loyment of lariio capital, that tho ]iolicy <»f a (iovern. motit must bo such as to inspire conlidence and a feelinir of '•ecurily in the minds of cajiitalists. It has been well said that men do r ', i-mbink cither capital or skill in enterprises lial)le at any linie to bo d. tri/Ved by inconsidor-ato or unfriendly legislation. A stable ordi-r of things and a well founded contidence in the future aie all O'^sential conditions of manufacturing hucccss. Such stability and such confidence, the I'lnglish manufacturer lias always enjoyed. Alil<e in jteaco and in war, and under nil administrations, he ha-* boon able to rel}' upon ihe steady and en- lightened co-operation of' his (lovernmenl. To pio;ccl, encourage and extend the manufactures of (ireat l^ndtain, h:is been tlie wise and uniform policy of her statesmen for at least a cetitury. and the result is .-een in a maniifaeluring ])rosj)erity thai is wiibont paialld. AVhat confidence or fiecui'ity can ('anadian manufaetui'ors b*> cxpei-icd to feel when the (lov- ornm.cnt which shapes (ho fiscal jtolicy of I'lc country lacl<s fjiih in tho possible success of their entei-prises, and derlaies ili:,t tjiey "can bi- fostcied only at tho expense of other industiies," and that any form or degree of protection to them is "legalized robbery!" 1 intended also to call attention to the following remai-kable words in tho -lion, tho Finance Minister's speech at Fergus; Mi-. Cariwright said : '•' AHfr all naid and done, tho tliroo i^roa* Hourcos of our weallh are oui' fiirnis and tlioir pi'oductH. our forests airl our <i^hol•ioH and sliipn. I do !iot say that oui" inanufacturcs nhoiild ho aliolisliod. 1 do not. undor value tlicir iniportancc, noi' do 1 say that tlicio arc not valualilo souicos of wi'allli in our niii.es; hut at present the weallh of Canada rnunf, j)ro- cood uiai'dy from tho>e three ^-reat soui'ees named ahovc." If tho Fitnou'o Minister lacks failh in the succe-H of tho (<lher industries, it may be safely assumed that (/tirinrj his jinnncinl adiainistriitam, those, other indusfrii'S wilt not sucacJ in Ccintidd. I will I'oL say that it is unpatriotic^ but surely it is uii\vi>e. !»>• such discouraijiMnent, to ehill tho hoj)0 and oner,i^ie.s of our jn'ople. Such words, even were they true, do not tond to make a nation Lri'oal and pro-jx'rous. Mr. (!.irtwri;^ht seems alwuyH to i;L;noro that fi'uitful soureo of wealth an<l prospcirity which lies in the cnei'^y and «'apahilily (;f a ))e:)ple. if liy any means these forces liavo a fair field for activity and (leveU/jdnent. For illustration, see how the sons of New JMi^land — educated in tho thorou;i-h traininir schf)ols of her diversified industries — havediffused ihoir peculiar cnorLry, itii^enuity, invention, skill, thrift and practical knowlo Igo of att'ai rs, so that it may almost he said that the hlood of Now Eni;-lan I is tho life of the |)ro;jfress of tho United State.s. I'^inally, T thiidc we are h tund to accept reciuit utterances of Mlnistors as declarative not only of their belief in the eflicacy of Frce-Trado for Canada, hu'. also of their intention to j^ive eiVect to tlieir views so far aivl as fast as they can infliienco public o|)iui()n in that direction. Tho collapno of the su^ar retinini;- business, and the embarrassment of various industrioH which thev have refused to fo>ter. clearly indicate what must follow the adoption of such a ])()iii'y. No one having the remotest conlidonco in their honesty and cunsislency, can believe that they intend to practice Protection, while ihvy profess Free-Truih'. Such a belief would be an imputation of insincerity and duplicity. It would, in ctfecl, charii:o them with tho delib- erate ]iur|)!)so of i^iviu'j; counteiiance to Free-Trade views in seotiontt where l-'rce-Trade doj^intis are ])o])ular and at the sam(^ time reserving to themselves the advaiitai'-e of bein:^ able to state in other sections that, as in the past, so in the future, the exi<^euciesof the Uevenuo will neeoHHilato a lii-h TarilV. Tlu'ir Fn^ectionist followers must indeed cherish a dismal hope, \Tii h!i8 no better foundalion than a belief in the insincerity of their leaders. I have the honor to be, sii-, ^'our obedient servant, CilAH. C. COLIiY. IIOUSK OK ('o.MMoNS, ) Ott.vwa, March libih, 1878.) SIR JOHN MACDONALD'S AMENDMENT. [On till' I'Jih oI'Miu'cli, 1S7S, tlio lloiiso rosiinicil (ho Jidjounu'd Drhato on Me. <\irtirri'/ht's inopo-iod motion: — • Tliut .Mr. SjK'iilvor do now Ic.'vvo " tho ('liuir, foi' Till' House to <,'<) jij^uin into CotnniiKci' <tl' Supply," — and " tho Miotion of Sir John A, Mdcdondld in Jimofidtnont tliorcto, that all tho " words after tho \vt)r 1 '' That " bo lelt, out, and tho f'ollowini;- lusortcd " instead thereof: " it he Resolved, That this IFouso is of opinion that, tho '' wolfare of Canada i-equiros the adoption of a Natiotuil Policy, which hy '* a Judicious readjtislinont of the Taritl' will hcnifit and foster the A<;rr ''(ultui-ai, tho Mininj^, the iManufaclurin<j; and other interests of tho " Dominion ; that such a I'oliey will retain in Canada thousund.s of our " fellow countrymen, now ohliii;ed to expatriate themselves in search of "tho employment denied Ihem at home ; will restore j)ro-.peiity to our •* Htiu<j^,if|ini^ industries, now so sadly d('p!-e-i>(>d ; will ])revenL Canada from " boini; made a sacrifice marlcel ; will enc(>ur:i!j;e and develop an active in- '' terpiovincial ti-ado : and moving (;is it oui^Hit to do) in the direction of " n reciprocity of Tarills with our nei_!^hI»oui-s, so far as tho varied intero->tH " of (Canada may demand, will trroatly tend to procure for this Countiy, '' eventu:illy, a reeiproeit}' of Tra<le."' SpeaUm^^ to this amendment Mr. (J. C. Colby, ^^.I^J for Stanstead, delivered the aecoinpanyini^ s[)eech : — ] T.Ir. COLBY said : I dccni it a foi't.unate circumstance, and I think (lu! coutitry will liail with satisfaction tiie fact iliat the two ^rcat political j)arties have at last found aii iin|)'>rtant. livinirand vital issue, upon which they can fairly and honestly di\i(le and -upon whicli they can rest their I'espei'tive claims to puhli(^ confidence. I thiid< I am not wrotii^ in sayiivj;, tliat foi- tlu! lirst time since we bficame a Dominion, lias such an issue arisen. In tlu; main, tlic two i^rcal, political parties liave hecn in unison upon llinsi; <j;reat incastnt!s which have; been initiated and carried on sincethe Confedera- tion of the [Provinces. There wcio diflVrenccs, for instance, with respect- to th(! ciiistruction of tht^ Intercolonird railway, but not with re<^ard to the jirincijile involved, both parties aLn-eein^^' that that lailway wa.s a necessity. 'J'liere were diUVi'eni'cs with I'rgard to the acnui^ition of the Nortli West territories ; hut tliey were diliercnces of <letail, difrerences as to the terms upon whicli they should bo ac(|uired, not as to the policy of tlicir acciuisition. So witli riispect to the acquisition of Jhitish Columbia: tliere were did'er- enees with rej^'ard to the terms ujton wiiicli it should he aitquired, but upon the prir.ciples involved, all parties in tliis country wen; substanti- ..ally in accord. It is matter for re^j;ret tliat the parties which Tiavo. been arrayed a'Minst each other in ]>!)litical waiiaiv, have not 8 found bolter and gi-eator (juestions upon wliich to exorcise their ability As a f'onHofiuenoo of thi.s, our polities often «lescended to persona) issues and to unworthy attacks on the eharaet(!rs of public men, for which neither of the j^reat parties is entirely blanielej^s. The New Parly Issues. But wo have at last a great (question, an economical (piestion, a ques- tion upon the solution of which will largely depend the future of the Dominion. It is not, I believe, as was stated l)y the Hon. the Min- ister of the InUnior, in one of those pie-nic speeches, of which we have a voluminous record, a contest between knowledge and ignorance ; it is not a contest between a generous s[)irit and selfish- ness ; it is not, us had been stated by the flon. the Premier, a qucH- tion in which the views of one party savoured ot barbarism and the l)arbarous age, but it is a (piestion upon either side of which the best minds of all civilised countries have boon, for very many years, engaged. It is a question on which a certain class of thinker.s, able, intelligent, acuto, thouglitful men, I admit them to be, hold to certain theories and views which they btjlieve are applicable to all conditions ot affair,-;, in which I will freely admit they are fortified by the prestige of the great manufactuiing and commercial success ofEiigland, since she started upon the policy which they so loudly applaud. Bui on the other hand, it must be remembered that while the doctrinaires are so strengthened by that illustrious example, they are opposed by the statesmanshij) f)f every country with the exception of England — that the leading public and intlueniial men who controlled the fortunes of France, Cermany. Russia, the United States, and every other civilized country, so far from having accepted the views of those; doctiinaire.s, have acted upon adilibrent policy, ujxm the j>olicy which is recognized as that of the O])position in this House to-day, the poliey which is allirino;! by the amendment proposed by tlu; Right Hon. JMembcr lor Kingston. Sir Jolni ^racdoinild's Ainondniont. It is not true that the pro])Ovition bolore tlio House is, as it has been termed by son)e one, a vague, Uiuueaning pronosi'ion. I maintain tliaf this amendment is a eleav, V)ol(l, distinct and intelligible declaiation cl a positive poliey, and that tlioe who support the views therein expressed <lo so Uiaintain them as the; result of calm and .settled con- viction; that they ai'onot put forward for (/../ Cdpiaiulum purpo.sc8, or for the jnui)ose of getting votes. They have been iterati-d and reit- erated ibr years in tliis House, by thonghtl'ul and })atriotic men. whose views are cntithvl to ;is nuich weight sis any in this conntry. The amendment starts with the a.ssumptiou that the country needs a national policy. IS'ow, it is not denied by either i)arty that a customs tarid' as a mode of raising revenue, i,- a favourite oiu^ with free trad(!i's and ju'otcctionists alike; nor that, largely on the way in which a tarilf is framed, depends the exisLenco and the success of the indu,';:tries to which the iariff applies. A customs tarifl iniijjlit destroy iiulustries, or it uiiglit builfJ u]) industries. Tlii.s fact could not and woulc.l not l)e controvertod. and the projjer solutic n of the (luesLion, as to whether tliev slioidd adopt a customs tariti'that would have the one or tlie other of these eflects, would largely influence the futun' prosi)erity (;f our young country. The Kiiising of Rcvenoe not tlic sole purpose of Customs Tariff. The amendment before the House is comprehensive, tliough concise. It implies that it is the duty of every nation to adjust its (mstoms tariff to its own special needs ; that the impossible task is not imposed upon any country, of looking alter the interests of every other nation, but a duty devolving upon each nation to adjust its own tariff with s])ecial reference to its own f)OCidiar needs, having in view, also, its relations to other countries Kvery customs tariff should aim at devclojiing the maximum of ])ro- duction of which the country is capable. In fiaminga taviti'. we shoidd consider all the resources of the country, all its dormant and umiscd energies and capaliilities ; 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 I -.laber. We should also consider the resourres of the country with reference to its cai>abilitv of l>ecomiii"- a successful manufacturing nati'^n; and more than that, we should consider thf ca[>acity and aptitude of the people, and aim at framing the tariff so as, ni the largest degree, to developo tlie varied ])0\vers of all the [)eople, and giv<! them an ojjportunity of engnging in that calling or de])artment of business to which they nuiy have special aptitude cr inclination. Wo do not believe in the views ])n)pounde.i by gentlemen ()])pi)Site, that it is not the husiness of (Government to care for any of these things, that Government is a mere taxation and revenue distril»uting machine, whif^h should move according to certain fixed laws and ulti- mate |)rinci|)les. The supjoriers of this amendment claim, on th(^ contraiy, that the h'nancial policy of a countrv should not be l^as(Ml on any ultimate principle of iree trade or prot:'cti!m, but tint it should be Rpecially adaptive to the conditions of the country to which it is ap])lied. A True National Poliry l)eflne<l »)y 31 r. Clijirllon in ls7(;. We believe that every customs tariff should have a distiiicfc and f'efbiite ])urj)ose and intelligent aim; tlitit it should be ]>;istj(l upon r, coiTi.ct estimate and appreciation of all t!,e varied resomves and capabilities of tlie country, and sliould sha])e them in the direc- tion of their best possiljli* development. I'he general views afllrmed in this ameiulment, ha\(' been more than once stated in this Housj, by many nl)l , and thoughtful nicndiers, clearly and distinctly ; yet the House will ])ardon me for stating that the exposition of my honoral>le friend the member for North Norfolk (Mr. ('harltonj in l^H'y, then a Pjotectionist but now an avowed Free 'I'lader, was the clearest and be.'^t that has been given. I do not purpose troubling the House 10 ■with a rocifcal of tlin lioii. a;cntl':'in!in's speech, but will .submit an analysis i)t' its main |)i-()j)()sitii);\s iu their consecutive order. I aim ai perCect fairness, aiif] be,L:j tiie lion, j^-entleman to correct me if I make a mis^latement. This reference to the s])eech is not made for the pur- pose of ])laeitif^ niv hon. friend at anv di.sadvanta<j:e, or because he han .since changed his oj)iiii()n. ; but because it is the most careful, the best considered, thi' most clear and concise statement of the views now h .'id by the Oppo-sition, that has yet been given on this much debated bubject The hon. gentleman laiil down as his first proposition (1) that a Government could bo paternal arid yet be free. In this he directly controverted the position taken by his leader, the Finance Minister, in his lUidget speech last year, and vindicated one of the car- <Jiniil ])latdvs in the ])]atform of tlio ()j)])osition. His next proposi- tion (2) v/as, that no nation hnd attained to greatness in manufactures or comir.erce without havit g imposed exactions and rcNtrictions. This was a plain statement of ;mi historical fact, upon which the Oj)position lay great stress, and its trnthluliiess was clearly demonstrated by the hon. gentleman in his speech on the subject Tiie next pro[)osition (.')) was, that protection was especially , ,nece-<sary in a new count) y — ano ours is a new country — to j onaole it to compete with countries where manufactures arp ( established. The hon. member recDgidzed in his aper^ch the fact that 1 the cheap money, the ac([uired skill, and the prestige of oMer manu- g facturing countries wtmld take tlie lead in the race, and, as ad- a mitted l)y John Stuart .Mill and otlier Free Traders, the country that r had the leal, all things being .qual, would keep it ; he held that thisy advantage an old manuflictnring country had, nmst be counteracted by\ restrictions in oi'der to enable the new country to get a statt in thest'h industries. Tiie next [)roposition of the hon. gentleman (4<) was that-w judicious protection bLMielitted the nation at larg(^ and especially thea farming interest ; that it created for the farmer a /co;)ir^ imvih'^, anda that the purchasing power of labour was increased. The Opposiliorc believed equally with the hon. gentlemm that protection did benefito: the agricultui-al interest, and they believed abo that the purchasingn power of the farmer's labour would be vastly enhanced b\^ the creatinrifi and proximity of home mai'kets, as was clearly stated by that honl^ gentleman. Again, he laid down the proposition, (.')) that the experi-tl enc'> of the United States, under a protective j)oliey, wa,s a clear aiulii marked ilhistration of the benefits of protection. If this was trucfcl whi'U the hon. gentlemin s > stated it, it is ecpially true now ; and bet'orcH 1 siL down I will adduce a lew fa3ts in corroboration The hon. g^ntlore man ne.xt said fd) that the ten dmicv of nrotecition was not to increascrK but cheapen piices to thj consumer. This is an incontrovertible |)robi ])osition. Prot.'ction is merely ad jfence of th;- mirket.s of a nitio iboiii tiie people of that nation. It siniiily give a fair fijld to comoetibiviis skill, industry, and eipital, wli;'re ih,' highest prizes are f »r those v/iUT( produce the best and sell the c]ieai)est products. Thti hon. memhtiriii for North Norfolk cited the iron and cotton m inufe.ctnres of them 11 United States jis iiuli.sputaltlo pi oof of tho fact that the toii(h?Tioy of protection is to clieapcn prices. And lie went furtlier even tlian tho anjondment. He .stated tlie fait, whieli I tliink he v. as justified in st.itin<j^. that proteclicni had lieen beneficial to the shijipin^^ inter* st of tlie United States a.s well; so that lie e(jvered the; whole lani^e of iiidusti ii.'s which como undei the tarill' and ho stated so eni|.liat'cally, lucidly and concisely the various propositions u[)oii whieli tliis ameiidinenb is j)redicated, tint his speech was not only the most eDiiveiiieiifc mtthod of {oniiulutin^ these ])ropositioiis, })ut it was more effective reiliaps than 1 could my.^elf have given hut for that memor- able delivery. The lion. gentlLinan has changed his views ; J have nothinij to say in repaid to that at the present moment, hut will refer to it hereafter. I will now state the counter ))ropositions which are supposL'd U) embody the views and policy of the (iovei/uncnt. Tlio proj)ositions embodied in the ame.Kiment are clear and distinct a.s day light. The MiiiMorial Policy. The counter proposition;; are e(pially (iistinct. They are tho ordi(iai-y staj)le free trade dogmas, which mo havii had fre(piently in this House from the iij)s r)f mjii who have thoroughly studied them. One of the first distinct intimations of a new policy with which we have been tavored is in a s])eech deliver d in l.s7() by a gentleman who stood \evy high in hi.s party, and who then ibresaw that these piopo- sitions might become a party issue. I refer to my hon. friend tin; member for North York (.Mr. bymond). lie said in this Mouse in 187(), particulai ly achbessing his hon. friends in this 1 ionse, that the good old word K.dorm had served a good purpo.se in it.s day, but that the time had happily now arrived when there was peiha])s very little to reform; that it was important tor the s'iccess of the Liberal Party that they should take a new ilepirture, and take a new watchword, that they should j)laco lnpon their banner a new motto, and the motto he gave them wa.s one verv dear to liiniself rf»r he was lirou'dit ini at the \ei'V ieet iof Gamaliel, and liad imbibed free trade with his mother's milk ) "J ho ;motto which he proposed tosubstituteforthe word "Reform,"an(l a round iwhich lvefbrmer.s should hereafter rally, was the word " Free-Trade." My hon. frien<l (Mr. ].\vmond i, having uttere<l the word, seemed to -think that perhaps he had gone too far, and that it was hardly titling !in him to hiy down a platform fir the party. Casting his eyes across cthe Mouse he cauglit the anxious look of the hon, member for ('HaTniltt)n, and drojiping his voice to a scarcely audible nnd. rtono, yrepented, " Fi'ec-trade — as it is un(h'r,--tood in Canada."' His clarion riotes, proclaiming Free Tia le, had reached away down to Nova Scotia, vbut his cautious undertone was intended tcir the ear only of the le n. t iieinb'rs for Hamilton nnd theirfi lends the manuractnrers. Tin; ''motto," (OS inixliiied, was calculated to serve the double purpose of rallying tho r.Tee trade jiarty around a f.irand banner and at the same time of([uieting Tiis hou. frieml-; from Hamilton, who were a little re-tive that the free itirade nag should betndtedout .'>*) ju-oininently. That was the lirst note, 12 but my lion. friend was cautious not to place liimself in a position whir it would 1)0 impossible to retract, provided that it should be fouiv he Ind gone too far. But that proposition was followed up by othe hon. gentlemen who spoke with more authority. It would not be fan* t judge of a ])arty platform by the utterances of any of that party's su), porters alone, i am aware that sup])orters of eveiy l)arty differed i their views with regard to these things. Home gentlemen on both sick; of the House told them that the issue b'»tvvecii ))arties was a qujstio of Free Trade or rrotection,and others that it was not a question of Fre Trade or Fi-otection. The Corner Stono laid by the rremier. One would not b^-* justiHed in fixing the responsibility of aii j aot of views u))on a i)arty based upon the utterances of any individu; •upporters of that party, however high they might stand in tl. ; party's ranks. 1 fiml the Hon. the l^remier, however, making uao < these words, and they may be accej)ted as aiithoritive : — " Th(! mciv passage of an Act of P.uliannnt \v.)iil<l n?viT usUblish any trado iin frould ni;vi;r fustcc any industry iinl-ss it \v tc toclian^r^' t'ri)ni oni- pockid to another U i.rociH'ds of tlu- indiistii'S of til' toiintry It' a putiriilar trade or industry were to I • fcstiTcd, it could only ht; dom* at tli.- .sacriti-'i; of som • oth-T trade or industry. Tlu;; wfis DO thcoiy more consonant with the dark ngcs of the world than that which Vt ■ U'ction alVordcd." Now, this was a cardinal princi{)le of Free Trade ; it was tl es,sential principle of Free 'irade. It proceeded u})on the assum|)tiu that if prot(!ction is given to any imlustry, it is necessarily don at the expense of some oth.n- industiy of tlni c mntry.and consequent ■< that, protection nuist be wrong, — wrong in its very essence, for t'^ country must be injured by it. What did this doctrine (inl Preached among the people, it male them bilieve that evori industry in the counti-y was the enemy of every other indui try ; it taught them to l)e jealous of tlie growth of every industry, (/< cept the ])aiticiilar one in which they themselves were engaged. Ti< Op[)ositi()n, on the other Iniiul, believe in the sisterhood of these g)"l industrie.s, they believe that these indtistries are all of the same faini^ co-workers, in(lependently,yet inter-dei)en(lently working out the \)\\^ perlty of the country. Tl'iey do not l.elieve in the ])rineiple that becai:J one industiy j)rospers, it does so nt;cessarily by fattening on auot,li» industiy ; or that the growth of one, involves the destruction ^ another. Here is a point ni>oa which these hon. gentlemen Q the Treasury Benclies, and those wiio do not concur in th(>ir vii<J dilfer essentially. Here is the very point where the vu:^ diverge. Tlie bp])osition believe that the promotion of one i" dustry, betters another. . TJ(MiJaiuiu Franklin's Opinion. When .shrewd old Dr. iSenjamin Fratd<lin was in p]ngland, w!j his countiy was new : when he was concernedwith regard t" .^ future; and when he sought infoiinatiou and was endeavorin;.;g draw wisdom from abroad, which should conduce to the pros[)cu^ 13 his young country, and the adoption of a |)ri>{)er policy in it« mt<3ivst.s, ho wrote from England to Huni|tlii<'y Marsliall in the foUowiuLj lan^^uago, wliii-h T (juoto in ilhistration jukI in cunliniiation of the helit'f of tlic o|>|)o.sitioii in the sistcrliood of tiiu iiuhisli ir.s, and io their hi.'iiii,' unitually lielpful to one anotlior : — " Kvny m.intifiiutiiro rin.'our.ii: ''i in our coiiutry iiriki's put of tlic iiiuiki t for pro- rlrions witlun om ■; •Iv.'H, ;uv\ sav's si> ui ii'li m ui •>■ t<K' tli ■ cimiitry us miisL othi;rwi«t) be expoitid li> p.iy iov tin- nianiil'.ii.turc.s or supplies.'' lie was then .speakiuL^ of liis own ouutry : of England, he .s;mi] : — " If T.: in Knj;liin.l it is wi-ll luDwn aul unl -r-it x)! that wlinvviT a luariiif.ictiiry is esta'ili-iliLMl, wluoi) fin;)! lys aiiuin'ir of lian h, il lais.-sth • valiM' of tlif laud in tho nBiKlil'oriii.:? loiuitry ail aiouni it, partly l)v tlu' .irr 'alT (l.iuind near at liati<l for tlio prorln '" of til ' laii 1 an I pirtly from tlit,- pl-.-nty (»f m >ii -y <lri\vn iiy tiic inariiifai (iirorn to that i)ait of till' oountry. /; ."I'rim, (lierr/drr. the iiir.'sni/i/ of alt uur J.iiviiin and ownfiii of iitiid to ciicoiiraj;c' onr youn^- luaMufactunis in jiruforcnci; to lorcigu oiicg imporlrii among us from distant count lies. " ])r I'lMnklln wis a slirewed man ; lie was an observing man ; he waB in pursuit ot ti'uth ; and this was the deducLion whieli he <Irew 1 from his observations in J- ngland, and v/hich he communicated ' patrldticaily t(i his peojile fn- tluii- giU'iance. This harmonix-d .so prec.iselv with the views which tlie Opposition hold upon this suhjecfc, that 1 have taken the lil>c-rty of (pioting it to the House. The Premier's rroposition Historically, and in iaet, untrtio. When tlie hon. the Premier stated that if a particular trado iior, industry were to be fostered it could only l>e done at tlio I expense of some other trade or industry, he made an assertion, ; which ho will pardon me for saying is unsupported ;( by argument or proof. The hon. gentleman will therefore pardon rme i^', in answer to that asset tion, I make a counter-assertion ; ; it' I declare that it is historically and in fact, untrue. It is not true , that in England during the period which tenninated at tlie adoption j,of what is termed the iree trade jiolicy, the fostering of her great industries or manufaciures whi(;h were fostered by ^he Government iWith all the ability that was within the competence of the 1 Government — which were fostere*! hy heavy protective duties, in '.many instanctes by actual piohibition of im]>orts— which were lifoiStered ])y ex}iort bounties, and in every other possible way — 1 it was not true, I sav, that the success of the manufa(!turinLr in- , iustry was brought about at the expense of the mining industry ■,, or of the agricultuial industry or of any other great industry ,,)f that country. But it is true, contrary to the assumption . i — ^^10 false assumptiim unsup{)oited by proof — made in the hon. the Prtniier's proposition that during all that [teriod of tlu; growth under ihe fosteiiiijj: care of the Uov.Mnment of the mamdacturers in Eno-land, ).Dd in cimseipiencc ot that growth and by reason of it, agriculture ^'' Jltteperod more than it had ever done liefore. It is e({ually truo thai '" !<MdQimerce then prospered there more than it had ever done before. It '■'a.'lqually true that the mining industry ])ros))ered more than it had .'"'''•Vlr done before, and that all the great industries of the country then 14 pro^iperof) tluM-o inoro tlian thoy liad ever (Iddo bcloro, notwitlistandiiif^' the Jissmnptioii of die lion, gentleman to the coiitraiy; yet upon tlial {isssuiii])iioii tlic l.on. irentleman has dioseii to risk tho fortiiru;,-, of his political ])arby in this c >uiitry; ior tliat is thi; very basis and essence of the ])()licy to wliirh the Hon. tlie P'inanec. Minister plcdg-s his adhesion. I will take another instance: Nor i.-s it tiaie as to France, where the special industries of thf country have been nurtured by tlie Government, where tliey liave been protected by the Goverinnent, and been brougl.t to a deu^rec of ])erfeetion and excellence unetjualled in the world — that ihe fosterin^jf care of the Government, in creating thcHo industrii's, has rcsidled in the destruction of other industries T UKiintain that aijjiicailture and all the other industries in France, as in Eu'dmnl, have i-n-own concuirentlv with the growth of the maaufacturinijf industries, and have kept pace with tluun. Tf France has lisen from her ash((s like the I'hdjnix aftei- the late war. and stands out before the woidd a marvel of recuperative enei'gy, it is for the very i-eason that, by a eontiinions policy of that kind, the farmers of that country had been able to hoard their savings, in large sum-^, whioii thev were abh; to iriv^ to the Government in its hour ot need, thus redeeming the himor of France, and saving the credit ol France, and vindicatin*'- the intem-itv of France, notv/ithstandini,' the great blow that had almost stricken hei- to the earth If we apply that rule to Englaiid, it is historically untrue; and if vv'e apply it to Fiance, it is liistin-icaily untrue. If, also, we .'ipply it to Germany, t;) llussia, to the United Stafces, to any other country where the .system had been wrought out, we will find th.it it is historically untrue. This was assertion against as.sertion, but I will give ])roof.->. I will go further. I will give proofs of industries that have ilourished, that have admittedly flour- j ished, that have been buiit up by a protective policy, and have been of , inestimable advantage to the countr}'- in which they existed : < The Bot>t Root Snf?ar Industry in Europe a clear Refutation. , I b^g to refer the tlon. 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 hardlj , venture to attempt to pi'ovo a fact in refutation of a principle so em- i ])hatically, 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 tho } Interior (Mr. Mills) himself. Ihis was his statement with regard to { beet root sugar. This gentleman would not be disputed as a froc trade authority ; he was sound ; he was Gospel in this respect : i "Itbjganin Franco during tho exclusion of Colonial produ.-ts in the roign ol | Napcljun, and recewed a severe clieck at the reluiti of peace bg Ihe admission of }fe»i i 15 liiJin }!)i;/ii):i a' n nuvmnl.lr ifiit!/. It is picl'uMc, irnlci d, (Init it woiilil lorij: sinco liMV(! lii-in t'liliri'ly ixtinyiiislu d Imt for tl,,' </il,hiiu,>. vhih' m ilu- IkiI-h o't cu/niu,,! uu.i fio^niin ,vif)nia in i82(J and 18"J2. At'ti r tin- iiist niciili(iiu<l > podi bftwi-t-ii tl.c \,vo- duiiioii (it li'ft root siiLCiu Ic ;(iiii ia|)i<lly In iiii rr;is •, iimi stiili \vii< its |iri)j,'r.'ss tlmt tlioiuili ill i''^-''^ its proiliicc <ii(l not < xcc. (1 Innr inilliniis <•! hilcgiaiiiMuSj it amuuritud in 18;!S Ui imnv timn tliiity-iiinr iiiillidns oi' kil()i;raiiimis." Ml'. Mc^Culldcli, a fV(M» tra'lo authority, tells us tliat this industry was plauttMl in Piotectioii ; th it it wouM have (li('(l out early, and was dvini;' out altor jNajxileous pohcy liad ])ass('d awav, owiiiif to tiic iVi'c trade i(h'as that were in V():j;ue afcer that time— l»ut tor another measure of protection wliich reviv(Ml its (hoopini^^ lifi' Let -is soo goniethinsj t'urtlier al)Out tlie liistory ol'tiiat in(hi>trv. Th'- Hi.st <M-eat imj)u!so it liad receivcMl was by means of I'rotection under ihe tirsfc Kn|io!eon, and tlie linal impulse wiiitdi resulterl in its assured siwcess took jdaee in the days of Louis Na])oh'on, in lN."i7. ] will now (Mn)to fro].i an ollioial return which 1 ll)iid< may be depended nixm an cono(;t : — In 1»:")7, 111',' piiniuctof sn,i;;ir was iii;ai-iy -40,00i( li.tis. Alioiit this tiiii', N.ipojeori Ao TliiKl turned lii.s atti ntion to tiiis siil j < ( : its proifclian mis wcuwd, and ilte fol- lowivij rt'Sif/li nrrc ul-hnvcd l>y froffiiion : — In !!^G:', IT'i.fiO'i tons of snuar wvrn nnfldc in Kranci-; in 18fi8, 275,000 tons ; in 187.'!, :j'JG,<t(jo tons; in lS7ii, 4t;2,UOO tons or nil imn-iiao of 125 fold." Mr. MILLS, wliat amount of protection was given ? Mr. COLBY — I can not at this moment state the percentao-e, but it was sufficient to accomplisli tlie ])urpose as a strict measnie of protection. It was deemed and recoo'ni.-ed as being hi'di - in fact as an advan/o upon tlie jirotection to which Mr. McCulloch referred. I will give McCulloch again in a moment, with retAird JX) the efiect of protection on this industiy, but: in the meantime Vill quote from another high authority : — In I870-(), Fr.ince prodnci'd as ir.TuIi as 4()2,000 tons of licet snirar annnally. Yet ■ho imported about 200,000 tons anually ofcane and other siiL'ar-i And sh .so i\">iulat' d her taiiiffiH to tlo a r. lininu; Inisiness in foreit^n sn^ais as well as to prodneu and nfitie Wlgars of her own. The whole is refined in France is 22 J, 000 tons, are anualllv corisum- ed iind the balance of about 437,000 tons is exported 'J'iie cariyin;^ trade in suL'ar alon(\ ihoiif/h pro/If-)- pniteclion to this home indu-tr'/, has therefore inert astd in 46 years from ;ir),0()0 tons to HG2,000 tons, this is con itin.LC the importation and exportation of'BUfijar. added to the local consumption. To thi.s enormous trade thus created must lu; adilud thu consumption oftw) million tons of coil ripiirid for tli ; m i nif.i_tiu-,! of beet •agar alone, besides the innumerable beiulits to commerce and stitl i/nater henfits to apiculture obtained by the creation of such a stupendous indu>try In lact it is well •aceitained that Fratno would never have suivived from the di.sasters of her late war had it not been tor the immense ai/ricu/ivrnl icealth created and hoardetl all over tho oountry either through its beet sugar factories or its wine culture." A Well Established Leading Industrial Pni-suit. I will now quote again from Mr. McCulloch, and perha|>s the hon. the Premier will bo able to reconcile it with his assumption to the contrary : — •' Hence it would appear that what was long consideied as a sort of oxolic indus- try, introduced when colonial .sugar was excluded Irtrni the C'ontinmt, and depending m grtat measure on Custom Home Kegulatione, will probably become a icelL estabttsheJ, lead- ing indnstruil pursuit^ 10 Here was tlie caso of an ccotic industry plankid in ])rotecti()n <!ioatLMl anil niiintiiiu'd and ])rcsciV(!d l>y prot(Jction, wliicli had W J "omo, on tin,' atliuis-;ion of a lvco^mi/e I iVfC-trade authority, a wl! esta)>lislied leading indnsh'ial ])ursuit. 1 think the Ilonso niay ^ considiM' tliis a pi"tty fair refiitatiou of th'.3 asscro'oii that oim tralo is noc;'ssarily fostoreu at tlio oxpensc of scmo otln- trade. Indeed Wi- n-vd not go so far as France to liim , other evidenecs. Wis have hail evidences in onr own country ; IJoot null Shop Miinnrju'tnri's-a llrfulalion. ,t We liave the b )ot and sh te in;histry, wliich was ono dj. the industries favored by a lar'j;-er amount of j)rotection tliu'^i nny otlier industry at that tinic, except ono, 1 believe, an the object of tliis hi;^''i ])r "taction \\';is to create this induslivjir and give it a footjiold in Canada. What his V)een the result ? '^''"ta^ ._(])at we now have a b )ot ."iid shoe industry of great iinj)oi't;itii ' in Canada as the re-ult of that protective measure. An industry [j^^ great magnitude and great usefulness has thus grown up in thi.s couiip^, try, under and as the direct resnlt, of protection. It has grown tosinf * dimensions, that, according to the statement of the lion, nieniber ii ^^ North Yt)rk, and also to the statement of the hon. member for Nort'^g. JNorfilk the other evening, boots and shoes arc now made in Canaii^j^ to such an extent that Canada, in this respect, controls her o\v ^^j market, and fears no competition from abroad. True, it was sai,jm that a lew were brought in, but tlhcse were kinds that are nob manu.^^ factured or riUich required in this coutjtry. Here was an industijg^^ that had been ])lanted in protection. It had grown up in ])rot<'.jj^ tion, and it liad succeeded, through protection. I ask au^jj^, practical man in this House— and they all knew something aboii^mj leather, as they all wear boots and shoes — if any gentlemen couIqU^ claim that this industry has been built up at the expense of any othtm^ industry in this country? Is it not true that boots and shoes ar^j^^ as cheaj) in this country as could be reasonably asked 'f Wc iii-)t q told that if ])rotection was entirely removed — if we had Free Traiilieg in this matter — our manufacture is f*f such excellence, and sir ^ cheapness, that it won hi not be injiired by tlic free importation q American boots and shoes. Then, if that were the fact, th y^ result had not been injurious to the coinmunity ; but, on tiitem contraiy, had it not been beneficial '( Had it not done anotliiig • j thing, besides chea))ening the price ^. Were not other industries creabr pi, by it ( L(K)k at the mann'facture of leather. The tanning of leather kj ar grown u]^ side by side with it, as a sisti'r industry, and what did this ii»tec< volve ? it involved a benefit to the farmer ; it involved the purchase <> fig} an cirticle that is only marketable and only has a value for tannirjitrj purp:)ses, that is the bark that grows on the hemlock tree. It fna Wi nishes the farmer with a maik.;t for his hides ; it furnishes work twef a large number of men, and profitable employment for capital, 'fh. #f boot and shoe business and also furnishes employment for many jxieict Hons. Will any gentleman in this House, then, assert that tbtivt 17 protective duty of 2-") per cent., wbicli lias Imilt this iiuhistry, has not bcnetitted the coiisuiner Jiiid the laniuM-, aiid evory other person in this country, either directh' or indirectly :' But T will not dwell longer U])on this. I have endeavoured to make it clear that this assmni)tion, which is the chief corner stono of tlu^ free trade edifice, is historical!}' untrue. The Premier's Proposition at Variaiu'o wUh His I'ast History. But, whether true or false, it is in direct opposition to that jiolicy umler which this country attained its greatest ))rosperit} It i^ in practical o])position to the policy of the hon. the Pieinier himself which he hai carried out during the wliole period of his tenure of oIKce. We ai-e told by tlie hon. the • Minister of Finance that {)eo}de could not he enriched by being taxed. I would draw the attention of the government to tlie canal 'policy of this country. Now what did it mean ^ We have been expend- ing millions upon millions year nfter year, we have been taxing the rate- ' payers of this country, we have been issuing bonds and imposing burdens *.'ipon the |)eoplc, that u'M not be wiped off till a very remote period " )f Canadian history, in order to divert and control the carry- ' ng trade of the West. Still, thai policy has been vindicated by ''ill the public men of this country and by no gentleman '^^ Qore effectively and sincerely than by the hon. the Premier ^' dmeelf. Now what did that policy mean 1 What did we desire to ''"ttittn by it ? If I understand it right, it is a policy intended to ''^'bst^r and ])romote the great commercial industries of this country, t^'nd by artificial means to direct the trade of the great West of the ^^Tnijbed States, through Canadian channels, in order that Canadian >'*"3]^nerce may have the benefit thereof Now, if thac is not a )u!p||By of protection, I do not know what protection means, and if th^iatfe is not done by taxing the people, I do not know what J a^iXjMiion means. If, ttierefore, this enormous expense for canals does 5i^)ti,,(6nrich the country, then the hon. the Premier has to account for rai't^vy sin to the people of tiiis country, for having taken money out tsui' Aeir pockets and piled up a huge national debt without doing n Q nation any service. That policy, though a jirotective one tlv i||ie great connnercial industries of this country, is con- i tlitetotly or inconsistently justified by every free trade member of oth Is 'Hou.se. Why did we build our harbours, our lighthouses and eatr piers away down the coast ? We did so for the purpose of foster- 'X 5j'7 fnd protectiny the commerce of this country. We did so to afford lis H)ti^tion to the lives and property of our fishermen and to foster asc'i rash ing industry. The wliole policy of the Public Works of this nniinjtey is essentially a protective one, and if it is a wrong policy, [t b>a%-e have been doing a great injustice to the people. Why, again, fk t we exempt from taxation those articles required for the manufac- '1 h of ships, down on the sea board i We do it in order to y p*iet5t this branch ot industry, for protection may be given as tt tl^tively by a system of exemptions from duty as in any other manner. , B 18 When thon'f.uv, .mr exponents chava.-tcnse our policy a^ be it^ an ol»solet. i<,nu)rant and Larl.arous one, they are ayin,- Selves open to «dt- eonden.nation for they have been e|.Mslatir.g .u t at ireetio I ever sinee tlu-y took oftiee. Sonie l.j^ht as to the lu urc lolt of t^^ I'as 1-en ,,iven in a port...n ot the speech ol [he hon. the Finance Minister, to Avhieh I ^vlll now reter :- The Finance Minister (!lniraoteri/es Fnelrtental Protection as ** Legalized Robbery." Tlu- I'ina.uT Minister cxplaiiicl the i..ocle by whicl. revenu,. s1,ouM ..■ raiscl l-nr tl.o ,.uMic servioo i.. tonus w „.•!. an' cloar an.l mm ta ,.lu. Ho sai.l tl.at taxation, h„wovor a,s..u,se.l. ,s a los, Z"r 1 at it is tho ,l„ty uf tl,e (lovonnnont t.^ako „nly iron, tl,.- ^oonlo\vl at is ne«.ssarv to t1,o ,.ro,,or disobargo ,.1 tl.o ,mbl,o «>™ cc 17, hat Uuation in an,j olher nunl., issnnply u, ono sbapo or o to •• lo.ra[i/od rubi .orv." Tlie nroposition was clearly stated ami ol tmis. bas a dist m-t and dotinite Inoaning. Tbat nioanrng is, tbat dut.o. Znti variably be iu.pusod for revenue alone tbat no otber co,,- lection tban the bare 'nestion ofrevonno sl.onld 'l^t^l'^X I'bZ • of raisin..- revenue ; tbat wlu-nover a eustonm duty is m tbe sl.ghto. . decree p^tective. and by reason of the pr„te,-t,ou > Save t^rkes fro thSi>coplc indircctiv any nu.ney wbicb does not go into the litaaury y o that extent '" legalized robbery." In vmdieation ol tins pos.- tion which .su6«W. ,he whole .,,s,nn<.{ '".'f'f," «/ /™ 'j'^l'I^",' declares tbat be and bis associates are wdhng '■ to hgbt to tbe death The views of the Hon. tbe Finance Minister are laid down ma eminent free trade work, no less an authority, indeed, than John Stuau Mill who expressed the following opinions, wnich, no doubt would !>.■ listened to with gratitication by gentlemen who entertain his views .. I„ coimtries in which the rrotcction theory is J"''''''J: ,!;"'""' rt If c'ompT .iich as the United States, a iloctrine has come into notice " ''<^'' '* » »°'VS' J""'';,, ^v'enuo'is received only on the quantity imported, but that *'- tax .s paid^^^^ entire Quantity consumed. To make the public pay much that the ^^icasury ma. rec ve a mtlefis not an eligible mode of obtaining a revenue. In tl- case of man • factiledarticleH the doctrine involves a practical inconsistency. "Ih*^ «bJ«^* f ^ dutv as a mmns of revenue, is inconsistent with its afTordrng, even incidentally, ai troLuon It c'x o^ly operate as protection in so far as it prevents importation ; an. to whatever degree it prevents importation, it aiYords no revenue. From their manifestations of assent, I understand that hot! the Finance Minister and the Hon. Minister of the Inteno' accept the foregoing extract from Mill's Political Economy as explana Ly of the position for which they are willing " to fight to the death Mr. Cartwright endorses Stuart Mill's mode of Raising Revenue. Now if they took a high authority to assist them in making « diagnosis, Ministers should have confidence in the same authorit a with r<\Lrar(l to tlic roinedy to he .ij)|)lio(I. I will therefore, aj^^ain (|Uoto tVoiii .loiiri Stuart Mill : — " Cimtom duties are, rutrrm jxirihun^ much \cm olijtv tioTml)lo timn pxtiso : but they must W Idiil only on tliingM wliidi citln r rannot, uv iit h'UHt will not, bo produotMl in the ((Hinlrv itsulf ; or /'/,««• thir fn'oliirli'm Ih'rc must lir prohUnt'd (hh in KiiKland i8 the (;ii8i' witli tobacco), or subjcrti'd to an excisk di'Ty of e<itiivalent iiinonnt.'' It' therefore, after M'hfit lias heeii statcsd hy Mr. Mill, we impose duties on any article; iiiauufaetMrcd in Canada, wr inu8t do one of two lliinL,^s ; we must either prohibit tlie Diainifarture of certain artieles in. the l•ount'■^^ or put on an exci.se (hity ecpial to the euvtonis duty un])osed upon the same. ^ly lion. friend may tiy to j^^et out oi' that dilemma by assertin^^ that rcivenne eould not be raisctl in this way. 1 tell my hon. friend that he eotild do it in that \vav. lie could redtice the customs duties one half, put on an ec[ual amount of excise duty on articles manufaetured in this country, and thuH secure alx)ut an ecpjal amount of revemie, Of {.,'oods pay- ing' 17.V ])<T cent, there are imported into this lountry .*.Sr),()(/(),- 000 worth; on that the ( Jovernment received 17'. j)er cent. But there are goods manufaetured in this country to the value of .*^221,000,000. Those would not all be of the class covered by the 17^- p<!r cent, list, but I assume, and no gentleman versed in these matters would dispute the conectness of the estimate, that one-tifth of the entire manu fact) ires of this country, represented in the census returns of 1871, W.c)uld come under the 17^ r)er cent. list. That would be $^40,(H)(),000. "Would not my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, get as much revenue by imposing one-half of the I7i!r per cent, customs on the $85,000,000, and the other half a.s excise duty on the $40,000,000, as if he imposed the whole on the S35,000,000 ? 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 the 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 N«rth Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) claimed, prosper- ously invested — in the industries of the country. I 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 ia no imsurmoun table difficulty in the way of carrying it out. Hon. gentlemen must do this or they must accept the alternative, which is, that this is election talk ; that they do not mean it ; that it is a T©ry good thing to say in Nova Scotia, where there are free traders. But in that case they 20 jirfi insincere ; they do not mean wlmt they say. Tlien all thiH big talk is inert' ]>ra^'; it nicans nothing ; if it im)KS mean anything they would out down hy one fell blow every industry wliich hat* any start in this country. Otherwiso it is more buncombe. Free Trade still bat a Thorv. I do them the credit of believin<^' that the Hon. the Minister of the Interior is as honest a free trader as ever broke the bread of lif(.' — from John Stuart Mill, or any other .sound authority on that doctrine. Tlie hon. gentleman bcjieves the doctrine, and J think the Hon. the Minister of Finance believes it also, and will (;arry it into cHeet, if the country gives him the opportunity. Now the (Gov- ernment has invited th'scountiy — a new community — to embark 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 iire many able, intellectual men, men df sharp, bright intellect, who have thought out this (piestion very thoroughly. I do not underrate them. They are called theorists, and properly so, because their views at present are theories ; they have not been tried, but they are very able and acute men who were preaching the doctrine in these day.s. Tyndall and Darwin were able ami acute men — none more so — but I am not prepared to accept their views simply on the ground of their acuteness and ability. Swedenh bourg, Fourier, and others were acute men. Many of them were like the inventor of perpetual motion, who ex})lained his theory to mavans. The theory seemed all right, and it was a long time before any one could find out the error in liis «al- culations. They went over his figures and tried them several times, and last 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 is 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 ol 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 free trade, in the sense of being reciprocal trade with any other country. I believe 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- teotion that ever was initiated on the face of the earth. [Some hon. members — " Hear, hear."] Free Trade \n England, is Protection in Disguise. 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 protect and foster 21 tlio manufacturing' imlustrics of EnL;laii<l and to ^'ivo tlwni the .suproniacy of the world. When and why was tlic present systoni in Kn^^lantl introduced, and how lias it worivod out its re- sults i EuLjland never dreamed of Free-Trade, — althou;^di Adam Smith had tau<,dit and writtc.'U ahout it, and others, his disciples, had advociattid it — until she ha<l huilt up manufaoturin;^' industries which were ho etlicient that they Rupj)lied the entire home nuirket, so that no forei;j;n nation could ^o into P^nyland and compete with her on her own ground. Then she wanted to t^o abroad and monopolize) the markets of the world. Tf slic wanted to protect an industry, how could she do it ? Not by the imposition of further duties, bec'ause that would not amount to anythin^,^ If a ^Jhinese wall had been built around En(jflan<l, it would hardly have given additional jtrotection, because no other nation could compote with her in her own mar- ket. JIow, then, could .she })rotoct her indu.strics ? She could not do it by the impo.sition of high tariffs, because they would bti nugatory; but she did it by reducing the cost to the manufacturer, by taking off the duties on the raw material and on the food, so that labour an<l raw nuiterial would become cheaper ; and to that fostering i)olicy her manufacturers were indebted foi- their ])resent position. . maintain that the removal of duties from raw material, and the im- position of customs duties upon manufactured j»roducts, are c<piaily measures of protection. When the T)rotectionist8 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 reli(if, they told the Government that this might bo done in one of two ways, either by a higher ilutyon rotined sugar, or by reducing the duty on Mio raw Diatorial. Either of those means was protective, ai d tl' ■ latter method would have given that industry the greatest advan- tage it could have it competition with the markets of the world. Th(5 great object should bo to foster and protect our industries, and togive them every advantaixe widch the leixislature of the countrv could possibly afford them. Bngland's Policy dcsig:nc(1 to Fo.ster and Protect, Manufactures and Conunerce. The 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 commcrcG all ovei' the world — desitjncd to foster and protect and build the gi'oat douunant industry of the world. The legislature did all tliat 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 s<[uarely 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 lier wisdom, had done from national considerations ; from the same principles that prompted 99 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 d.oiea on their raw materials, and thereby saved them and the country from the loss of an importanc industry. Sugar refining is the key to a trade with. th« 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 l^]ngland 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 j)assage of the free trade Acts, f 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 tarift' reform measure, the total amount of customs revenue derived from articles inanufactui'ed in England was less than seven and a half per cent, of the total duties levied by 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 Robert Peel, in 1S42. It wa,s followed by further legislation in 1845 and 184G, and again by Mr. Gladstone in 1853. Was England a Free Trade nation, infiuenced by Free Trade considerations ■ In 1853, Mr. Gladstone continues Protection to Silk Manufactures. As late as 1853, eleven years after the country was supposed to have embarked on a Free Trade policy, Mr. Gladstone refused to take off the duties on «ilk, because he would not cause distress among the operatives in the silk industry. There was a howl all over the world, England was preaching 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 oi 15 per cent, on silk. But they adhered to it even after they had Win derided by the world ; Mr. Gladstone adhered to it in 1853, and it was not until later that England took the duty from the only article really protected by hei- tarifi', namely silk. This was thf only article in which English manufacturers had competition. The efiect of the removal of the duties on silk was that while th« importations in 1860 were 16 millions ; in 1861 they ran up to 28 millions, and liave since reached 60 millions yearly. The removal of the duties brought disaster. The home market was fiooded with la foreign silks, numerous manufacturers of silk failed, thousands of silk operatives were thrown out of employment, and that once pros- perous irdustry was largely prostrated. That was the record of Entrland as a Free Trade country. Mr. Charlton's Change ot Opinions. Having spokcni of England, I desire to say a few words regarding CUV neighbors across the line and the policy they have adopterl. But before doing so, I will take the opportunity of referring to some ohserva- ti(mH that have been made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). 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 that no member has given to that important question more careful study than the hon. gentleman, and that no hon. member, either as a special student of the subject or as a practical business man is moio competent to arrive at a correct conclusion. The propositions laid down by him in that address, W(;ro the result of thouaht and studv, and thev were, I belieVe, the honest conclusions of that hon. member at that time. We have the best reason to think they were his honest and deliberate opinions, for in expressing them he placed himself in antagonism to the Government which he supported. In 1S77 that lion, gentle- man made another speech from directly the o})posite standpoint. The s])eech to which tlie House had listened this session was not the lirst Free Trade speech which the hon. member lias made. In an address last ses.sion, he expressed practically the .same views which he ■enunciated and expounded with such ability a few evenings since. Between the scissions of l.S7() and 1877 that gentleman's views upon a question with whicli he had been familiar for many years, and which lie had made a special study, changed to the ri(dit about, and from beini; an intelliirent Pi'otectionist, as he was in 1876, he V)ecame an ardent Free Trader m 1877. I would be the last to (piestion 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 justitied his change of position by a comparison which hon. members who heard it, would remember. The hon. gentleman said the child was told l»y its nurse that the moon is made <jf green cheese ami l)elieved it, that when the child grew t(j be a man he knew the moon was not made of m-een cheese, for he iudrjed for himself If that illustration has any point or meaning, the hon. member desired the House to believe that in 1870 he was in the green cheese period and in 1877 the niacr<rot in the cheese had bv 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 iu 1876 he could discern clearly by a different vision to be the moon, in 1877. He could not only tell us the moon was not made of green ■cheese, but he could count the inhabitants, and give us statistical data 24 concerning the industries, trades, occupations, and all the domestic artaii> in that distant planet. That being the hon. gentleman's explanation, 1 suppose the House will, in a Parliamentary 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 intelligence of the lion, member as to think that he desire*! 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 nc^t desire that the House should have such a con temptible opinion of his judgment, as to suppose that in that shon apace of time he had entirely changed the settled opinions and convic- tions which had grown with his growth and strengthened with hi;^ 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 })romulgating his views none so active in promoting the committee relating to depressed industries moved l»y the hon, member for Hamilton (Mr. Wood) and making it a success, Hon. members can not sho\v such contempt for his judgment as to suppose that in su(^li short time, whether by miracle or otherwise, that the scale> fell from his eyes so that he saw things entirely diflferent from what he had done belore that date. The hon, member found himself placed in the same position in which other men had lornd themselves befon' to-day. He was in the position of Alexander H. Stephens, when in 18(11 in Georgia, he made that very memorable and eloquent speech denounc- ing secession and lirought the whole weight of his ability and eloquence upon the people of his State, to keep them from joining tlif secession movement; but the moment that movement wa> 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 the country, to accept the Vice-Precii- 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 LS a bad position for the hon. member I'rom North Norfolk u occupy, yet bad as it is, self-condemnatory as it is, it is a positior he has deliberately chosen, as did the distinguished gentlemai; referred to. The honorable member, no doubt, felt, although ^ his action was grossly inconsistent, it was still preferable, to '■{ the unenviable position occupied by the hon. members from Hamilton * and other protectionist supporters of the Government, from whom he felt it at that time his duty to sever himself If ho 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 vso Mr. Cliarltoii's Special Pleading-. The hon. member having accepted that jjosition, we might expect from him that extraordinary zeal and fervour usually 25 chaiacteristic of new convorts ; and lie lias given marked evidences of it. I do not desire, and would not if I could, follow that lion, gentle- man through the mass of figures which he jnvpared with sueli eare and labour, during many weeks and months of industry, to illustrate the point he desired to make, but will say, if there over wa.s a specious, ingonious and laborious piece of special })leading, the liiiures 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 [)rotection 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 attcunpted to convince the House aud the country that agriculture had been unprosperous in the United States by reason of the high jirotective 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 ' i)int that the farmers had been injured by the protective policy (jf the LTnited States i Did he give instances of sales of farm ])roducts during that period? No. He made the (juantity of products exported from the country a test of the [)ros|)crity within the country, not stating any particulars as to the prices, — a factor whicli he seems to think is of no importance. What period did the hon. member select in order to convince the House and the countrv that agri- culturists liad been unpros})erous in the United States, for the reason that their exports were less during the protection than during the free trade period { He selected the period from lS(i() to 1870. Has hon. members no recollection of what occurred in the United States from 18G0 to 1870 ^ Docs the lion, gentleman think that hon. members in the House and the people in the country have forgotten that during that decade there had Ijeen 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 princi})al article of general export, had l)een 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 ex])orted, for instance, in tho year 1803, and that it drop])ed to an inlinitesimal amount ? Does he forget that for years and years the great ]n'oductive region for ex])orts pwr excellence, the exporting region of the entire Union, was desolate an<l l)lotted 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 tlu^ South, and that for years afterwards the 20 i agricultural products of the West, the wheat and Indian corn of the Western States, had to Ivi sent into that poverty-stricken and starviiii: country to feed the peopl(\and that much of thecorn \vhich,in its natural course, would seek the Euro])ean market, was taken down to feed tlie South ? Does the hon. member for^'et tlie ijreat waste and destruction of war, and the destitution caused by one million men being taken from tlie industries of the country ? Does the hon. gentleman forget that during that peiiod the waste was far in excess of the actual consumption ? And yet he attempts to make the House and tlu country l)elieN'e that the decline of ex]>orts during that decade showed W\o extent to which a^'ricuiture has been injured in the United States by protection. The honorable gentleman was fully aware when giviiiL- those tlauros to the House th:it if he had taken another dec-ado, reaching past some of those disastrous years, it would liave told an entirely ditfercnt story. He well kn >w that in 1807 the exports of the United States were Ji!^41,04"j,0'H, and ran up in tlii following nine years of the ])rotectionist ])eriod, until it readied $75,8,0!),()08 in 1870, and tliat tlie imports of British home produce into * th .'J.dted States decreased from S21,S2.5,7<).'3 in 1807 to $10,833,517 in 1870. Did he not know that during the whole decennial period from 1807 to 1870, the exports from the United States to Great Britain increased at tho ratt of 85 ]ier cent whili^ the imports of Britisli home jiroduce to the United States, though never above half the vahie of the exj)orts, decreased at tlie rate of 25 per cent ? These , are facts which should fairly have been stated, if the exports < v/ere to V)c considered a test. Yet the hon. member for Nortii j Norfolk desired to steal a lavorable verdict from the House by entirely ^ ignoring those facts and retui-n.s, and simply stating the ordinary statis- tics ior tlie decade from IhGO to 1870, without calling attention to the abnormal condition of that jisriod. If the returns provetl anythini: it was that the ex])orts iiad increased 85 per cent and the imports dimin- ished 25 per cent, during ten years of high protection. Thi> is the logic of facts, but it does not suit the hon. member i for North Norfolk. Tiiu hon. membfr lor Centre Toronto (Mr. | Macdonald) in a s})eech wliich was very much admired for tlif \ clearness with which he made his ])oints, declared that Canadians Aveiv < suffering from depression in consequence of the diminution of tho i circulation. That because the discounts had diminished in two | or three years 10 |)er cent., this shrinkage of cuirency pro- <, duced such a startling efi'ect on the countrv as to account, in i: the hon. member's mind, for much of the depression. But ^ did hon. gentlemen, v/hen considering the question of Protection j across the lines, speak in that manner if Did they attribute the present t condition of the United States t(^ the ex{)ansion of circulation and * discounts, the creation of an irredeemable currency, the era of infia- ^ tion and high prices and of sj^eculation, of madness, I might say. b the direct result of that most inordinate overissue and the consequent « depression that must naturally be felt in returning to the noi-^ 27 mal coTidition ? All the ills that have befiillen Canada could be accounted for on that theory, but when tliey como tn consider the tn)ul)lets that have befallen the United States, it v,•.•;^i Pro- tection alone tliat had brought all ill.s upon that country ! Sjieaking of the United States, we have hoard highly colored accounts from sereral hou. u'ontlemen as to the condition of the industries of that country. The hon. the Finance Mini^ster i-ead to the House the other day from a document signed by the Governor of the State o\' New York about the great distress; it Was full of glittering generalitieti. Now, if 1 did not think I was able to throw some light on the condition of the industries of the United States, by reading what 1 am about to read, 1 would not trouble the House to listen, but I have information from a source which all will recognise as trustworthy. (xoveruor Rico upon the Industries of Massaduietts, ]\rassachiissetts is tlie leading manufacturing State in that • country, and the hiofhest functionary in that State, Governor Rice, in his official a<ldress to the Legislature of that State, last month, gave an explanation concerning the condition of manufactures based u{)on official returns. We have heard of the depression in that country, of the wild lawles.sncss, qf the lurid lires of Pittsbiu'g ; and an hon. gentleman has described a jiandemonium and pictured hell on the four walls of this buildino: for our edilication, as illustrating the condition of the United States. But wheat said this sober-minded Governor concerninu' tiio actual condition of the manufacturing industries of his State ^ This is not a highly-colored picture, but a Htatement oii pure facts. The Governor said: — •'fey die result of an inventigation just closed, undertakon by the BurLUU of Statistic of Labour in cities and towns producing,'' (■ight3'-six per cent, of the whole products o the State, we are able to make an excellent comparison of the condition of our large industries in 1877 with that of 1875. In all. there has been a decrease of an average of about nine per cent, in the wages paid ; but there has been an increase of working time in days. The paper made, shows an increast; 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, carpotings aud wool hats, an increase of working time has been made ; while in boots and shoes, heather and agricul- tiind implements, there has been neither improvement nor decrease. In the muimfacture ofmachinery, whips, musi<.'al instruments, and woollen goods, a slight decrease in work- ing time is reported. The great industries of carpetings, paper, woollen goods, worsted goode, cjgars, boots and siioes, cotton goods, leather aud metallic goods, report an increase of the number of hands employed, ranging from one to thirty-live per cent, oyer the number of 1875; while a f<w of the establishments report a sliglit falling off I in ^ number of persons employed. On a gold basis, the value of pro(iucts from the ■ Manufacture of hats, carpetings, straw goods, cordage, jiaper, worsted goods, whips, cigars, boots and shoes, cotton goods, leather, musical instruments and metallic goods, 'has increasfid from five per cent, to thirty-six per cent, over the products of 18 75 ; I while but few industries show a falling off. Tn nearly all, there has been an increase in { the quantity of goods made ; but depreciation in prices, in some instances, places the valne of protlucts on the ruinus side of the account, instead of on the plus side, where ' they belong when considered to quantity. The residts of the investigation lead to ■ belief that there are no great number of mechanics wholly out of employment, and that tour industries are steadilv working back to tlu; "onditiou they were in, prior to the panic of 1873." 28 Now, that is a calm and reliable statement, showing that ai country is gradually and safely settling back to its normal conditi fa I am inclined to "^believe this statement of Governor Rice, ii based upon facts and returns brought in, and made before a nudii ber of manufacturers who were able to refute him had he spok i^ in a tone of exaggeration. I must protest against the introduoti^ into this debate of arguments attributing the whole depression the United States, to the system of protection. The other abnorip^. conditions are such that no reliable data could be given sIiowk^^ the actual eflects of protection. ^^ Mr. Charlton's Statistics utterly Valueless. t« If we accept that proposition, w-e would wipe out ;be results of all the labour and industry which the hon. gentlornvv: (Mr. Chailton) has put forth in order to make out his little special 'V'.h, before this House. If we accept that proposition, the L A^ gentleman's papers are utterly valueless, they are just so iinifr: Wfiste paper, and the days and nights he expended in accuniinto lating them have been in vain. I do not expect the IIoiiQe to receive this proposition upon my individual dictum, but 30 have a high authority to support it. I give as an authority ir,h name of J. E. Cairnes, M.A., late Professor of Political Economy University College, London, who, although seeking to establish by 1: book the principles of free trade, disdained to make use of argunici ^^ similar to those the hon. gentleman uses, and he repudiated their 'i,^ most emphatically. The Professor said : — ,f " And hero we arc oonfronted at once with the difficulty of interpreting an iinl^-l trial experiment. Tlie system of American Protection, in its present exaggerated forj- may be regarded as dating from 1861, when the Morrill tariff became law. If all other conditions of the case liad remained subetantially the same since that time, ^ might now, by a mere inspection of results, pronounce without hesitation on the cilh< of the policy then inaugurated ; but instead of this observe liow the facts stand. Jg the same j'ear tlu* great Civil War commenced, in the course of wliich the destrun ^ of human life and of wealth in every form probably exceeded any thing wliicli i before occurred within the same time in tlic history of human affairs. This was sil followed by the creation of an immense national debt, entailing a large permiin^( increase of taxation, and by tlie issu*; of an incontrovertible paper currency, circn^^ ing throughout the Union, and affecting alike prices and wages in every branch of tn On the other hand, occurrences of a very diff'erent kind marked the course of the porA Bnder review, mineral resources were discovered which are now yielding vast wo;i!f and oil springs wliich have become the source of an entirely new and rapidly inrr-.Q ing trade. Railway enterprise, again, during the same time appears to have taken . a new activity, whilst the progress of invention in tlie mechanical arts lias never i'"^' moment llagged. In presence of intluences so numerous, so novel, and so vast, ■■'a'O affecting industry in its own fashion so powerfully, who shall say what portion of wi.)| we now find existing can projterhi he attributed to any one of them? The problem, ^^ its mere statement, brings into striking relief the utter futility of that so-nni' • inductive method^ which some writers hold to be the proper one in social and econoii''* enquiries — the method, that is to say, which would proceed by drawing general I'O elusions as to the operation of paiticular causes from the aummarised results 0/ stJH Ucal tables." ij The professor protested against the fallacy of the method u> by my hon. friend because there were so many conditions to derail, it. The propositions my hon. i'riend (Mr. Cliarlton) has adopted hf!° 29 and just put before the House he (Cairnes) declares to be entirely fallacious ami unreliable as arguments. He went on to say : — " For, assuming tliat we have taken accurate stock of the present industrial cob- (Iltion o^ tlie United States, as well as of that which was in existence previous to 1861. rto long as we confuK^ our view to the more statistical aspect of the rasf, ichoL warrtmi have w ,/or atfribiitini/ anij portion of the ckanyj that has taken placr to one caua* rather than to another. Manifestlu ivc have none." • .The ingenious compilation of my hon. friend, does not prove a 'single ]X)inl whicli ho desires to prove. His statistical data, according to the high authority of Piofessoi- Cairnes, were unquestional)ly not entitled to weight. We may attempt to mea-<ure and weigh and estimate the forces which have 'been at work in the United States since 18()1, hut if we are candid we 'will confess that they are so contiicting, diverse and vaiying that no 'human mind can grasp them all and extract a satisfactory conchision. Accordinuf to this high free trade authority, Profcs.sor Cairnes, my hon. !&iend's (Mr. Charlton's) summarized statistical data are not entitled I'to any weiglit whatever, as tending to prove what he, in hi.s I'aew born zeal, desires to prove. It is impossible to attribute the ' 3ondition of that country to any one cr"^"". Thus much concerning t'^he hon. gentleman's statistics taken i'rom ». ^ United States. Mr. Charlton's unfairness respecting- Canadian In<lnstries. If the House will boar wtth me I will show equal ground Sf complaint as to his unftiirness in dealing with Canadian 'itatistics. The hon. gentleman came before us with a budget >f letters, which he <lid not read, except two — the contents of |>'vhich we have not seen — but the substance of which the hon. gen- ' Icmacn might have fan-ly stated. The hon. gentleman said he had mtten a number of letters to manufacturers enquiring what they thought (jf the state of trade, and he had twenty-one answers. He l80 informed us that he had written a number of letters ,0 •^hich he had received no reply. Well, on a p )int sif ttiis kind, the man whose business is unprosperouK. "'iroidd not l»e likely to reply and expose the condition of that '"tusfiBtess, and the hon. srentleman miofht have calculated upon this era winding out the letters. Not every man cares to expose the .stat« jii'.f tiliB business in these critical times, and tor aught the hon. '' "entleman has told us, he might have sent three or four hundred t,,3tt«rB to v.^hich he had received no replies. He did not state that (iny one of these letters had been sent to the Province of ^^'iuet^c. 1 do not know any manufacturer in that Province who ',"j3iijj have given information that either he or any of his neighbours loiire hi a prosperous condition. There might be such a vara avis there, • Ut I would not know where to look for him. ^ Agrricultural Implement Manufactures. ^i- ' I notice that about half of these replies sent to the hon. gentleman ere' from manufacturers of agricultural implements. Just look at th» i^^.lnfi^rness of his conclusions and see how protection was illustrated in 30 the condition of tlie agricultural implement manufactures of Westoih Canada. What is protection i" It is merely the preservation t)f the hoini> market for the liome manufacturer. Now, protection, that is the pre- servation of the home market to the home manufacturer, may be tin.' result of tariff legislation, or it may be the result of any accidental cause which produces the same ])ractical effect. Wo had pretty fair protection, a.s against the American manufacturer from 1862 to 1872, owing (mtirely to uiuisual causes, with whicli the tariff had nothing to do. X believe my hon. friend is acquainted with the fact that the over-production in Amcirican manufactures has not occurred in the agri cultural implement branch. I am suie the House will be surprised to learn that a leading American manufacturer has stated that no le.s.> than 1()(),0()0 Jiew harvesting machines per year are rcMiuired to re j)lace old worn-out machines. There have been such great improve- ments in reajiers and harvesting machines of late that new machines are purchased before the old ones are worn out. There is a ma- nufactory in the State of New York, not very far from Upper Canada, where somerhiug like 2o,0()0 machines are made a year ; and another manufactory in which 15,000 arc 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 been able to keep up with the demand in the home market for these implements. They did not send their machines to Canada, and why i because they had better markets there and their own prices. Thus the agricultural implement manufacturers here are in a situation precisely similar to that which existed dur- ing the American war in regard to all our manufactures. These manufacturers, and certain foundrymen, from several of whom replies had been read, had a de facto protection m Canada, because their rivals 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 the 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 when 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. He would then fiad that a protection of 17| per cent, was no where ; and that the United States manufacturer with his larger capital, larger experience, his more skilled hands, with all the facilities he has for manufacturing, and for doing a larger business, would over-ride alT^ percent 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 vadisc ii}) at Oxford, Imving it all to liiinsoll', and conttjiitcd now because ho lias no competition. To select that class of indus- tries to make out a case, that there are no sutferinn- industries in Canada, is unfair. There are sulfcriiio- indu.stries in Ca- nada; industries that the hon. the Finance Minister once had the power to protect and the p(jvver to save from destruction, and from being overwhelmed l)y the unfair (Competition, by the unjust com- petition, b}' the slaughter prices which have been systemati- cally thrust upon us from the United States ; and the fact that the agricultural implement ])usiness and a few foundrym(;n 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 ])articu- lar line or department. When the lion, gentleman selected his men to write about an industry which ho knew was i)rosperous, and an industry which had to-day an adcipiate de facto })i-o- tection, although not a legal protection, and desired this House and this country to draw the inference that the manufaef.urers of Canada were in a happy or pros|>ei'ous or even a to'o'ra- ble condition — he attempted fi 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 the 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 Cairnes, — that reliable results could not be arrived at from these statistical compilations, there are yet general facts conii<Bcted 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- dustries would be benefitted by the imposition of duties upon cotton Jind upon sugar; that the etfect would be the creation of manu- factories in the United States which would consume those raw pioducts, 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 North 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 thi? North would be their spinners and their weavers ; and that the growing trade of the North, the commerce of the North, would be injuriously aflfected ; that this commerce would be transferred to the South, and that the agricultural industries of the South would be built 32 up. But what was the actual ctfect ? A few years' experience showed them very much to their astonishment, as well as to the astonishment of the Avholc country, that the North was grow- ing out of all proportion in wealth, in strength and in population, compared with the South ; that it was ra})idly outgrowing the South ; that manufactures were springing up, that towns were be- coming cities and ihat cities were becoming very much 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 thenceforward, the North and N evs" England were steadily favourable to protection— I am now speaking broadly — while the South has Ijecn steadily opposed to it. These two ideas of free trade and jirotection had a full exemi)lification in that country. It is true that the sam^^ tzriil has governed both sections, but it is also true that the South has been impressed all along with the correctness of free trade ideas ; that it has sha}jcd its policy on free trade dogmas, and that it carried into eftect its free trade beliefs; while the North, on the other hand, has been protectionist in sentiment, has believed that the creation of great industries would directly benefit the Eastern States, and indirectly prove a benefit at large, and it acted on that belief. And what had been 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 poverty of the South, as it was even before the war. Let any one look upon the success which has attended those sections of the country in which various in- dustries, in which all industries, have been cultivated, encour- aged, and promoted. The Southern States favour Free Trade. And again, let any one look at other sections, where the w^hole reliance was placed upon one industry. My hon. friend would tell me that I 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, McCuUoch, to the effect that under slave labour the South was able to grow more cotton and sugar and that mure 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 a the South, were educated, the beliefs they were taufht, and the beliefs upon which they practised. One of their orators, Mr. Garnett, of Virginia, said this : it was sound free trade doctrine : — ", I demand for American genuis and industry that the shackles shall be stricken • ).) Iiom lli«ii' liands ; tliat tliix alis-.ud Cliin»ge policj of restriction, Uiosff worn wnt iclics of barbnri.sm which you call protective tariffs, shall be abandoned, and Amrrioan labor bf left free to choose its own pursuits and to seek its own rewards throughout tin; wide circle of the earth. Let the people of the North follow the bent of their genuis, amazing the world by their feats of mechanical skill, and covering the remotest sens with the argosie of commerce, free as the winds and boundhss as the waves that licar it. We of the South prefer the most ancient of human pursuits, the tilling of the iiilds ; we furnish the great staples of the world's exchanfreg, the bread that strength- < ns man's heart; and the fleecy cotton that clothes him. We ask no peiniliar privil- (■<,'('S, no special benefits; we (mly demand that you shall not tax our industry to sup- port yours ; that tee shall he Irftfree to stll and lu}i whertver our interest leads itx." King Cotton and King: Wheat. Thiswas.tho Ibundatioii «tono upon which the monarchy of Kiii^' ( 'otlon rested. Tlicy believed in KingCotton. Thoy believed in the potency ()[' that great agricnitiiral staple. They believed in cotton ami sugar, their great ex])orts ; thoy believed in tree trade as the true fiscal policy; and this very same doctrine which had been preached, and Avhich led to the delusion of the South, to the destruction of the South, and to the ruin of the South, is now being preached to the farmers of Ontario, who are invited to idolize King Wheat as the men of the South worshipped King Cotton. The free traders of this country arc preaching to the farmers of Ontario that thoy could place their cle])cudence upon the export of wheat and of agricultural pro- (hicts sent to foreign markets. Ontario farmers are being told the same sweet tale, that the orators of the South told to the growers of the sugar and the cotton in the Southern States. This was history repeating itself. AVitness the desolation of the South, the inability of the South to cope with the North in the great wai', and the collapse of the South ; and, on the other hand, the immense resources and wealth of the Nortli, and see how unequal the tight was. Hon. members should look on that picture to-day ; one section of the country rich, one section of the country prosperous, one section of the country triumphant, while the other section of the country ia hlighted, the other section of the country is down-fallen and prostrate and under loot, — just by adherence to that free trade dogma, and carry- ing into ])ractico the belief that they might depend on those great staples of export, cotton and sugar, the same as the Ihrmers of Ontario arc now being taught that they should place their sole reliance in their wheat, in their barley, and in what they exported ; and buy goods whore they could buy them in the cheapest market ! It is true that New .l"]ngland did make money— did accum- ulate wealth by its industries. (ientleraen in this House dis- cussed this ([uestion as if every dollar taken hy the manufacturer was H^ much lost and sunk in the sea, as if every dollar of profit made l)y the manufttcturer was soraething to he mourned over by the rest of the community, something out of which the whole community had Icon 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 NewEngland done ? Tlie prosperity o^' 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 young men, brought up in these training schools of New England ; look C M at the wealth that hftd cjono to rebuild tho dflsolAt* and ourned Chicago; loolc at tlio woiilth that hud gouo to the AVo.st to build its railroadHi. Look at llio woallli tliat was .i^oing down .South, now, to build mills utul taetorios, to biiiUl up that sti-iekon South, that poor poverty Klricken S;>uth, wliich believed in its two ijjo Is — Kin;,' Col ton and Free-Trade. These v;ero the two Kinu'-. which the Soutii had deitiod, and soo.whero that idolatry ot'and lh;it devotion to a lallaey. had led them It had lured them to destruction. The New L'ii;?hui(l Policy, tho Trup Policy lor Cniindn. Tho v.)piiosiuon wanted to see the peo])lo of Canada have amont; thcniscdves, for the devel(»penieut of her resource:'', self- reliant met), bi-ouii;!)! up in tho schools of toil, broui^ht up to di;<riify laboi', and to honor hihoi* in themselves and others. This ])olie3' had ])ro bleed a comnmnily, thaii wliicli perha])s the woi-ld to-day had no iiupei-ior, tho people of the New l'jtn;-|!ind States. The policy which I would lik'o to see introduced into Canada, and which I believe is tho line policy for Canada, is to mako this section of tho country which wo now occupy on this Continent, tho Now Kn^land of Canada, and to plant Ikto those same institutions Avhich have been tho liarbini^ers of success in tho neig-ii boring Stales across the line. Our conditions are ])reciscly the name as theirs. We have tho samo soil, we liavo the yamo facilities for manufactui'inir, w'e have all tho conditions that are kindred to theirs, and wo are shorlly to have what tlicy now have, a ,i;rcat Xoilh-west open- in"' beyond juid boundle-s, which is yet to bo inhabited by niiHifins ot ])cople. i <le>iio to say to tho farmei'S of Ontario — hero is a lesson i<)r yon. consider it. Year after \-'>ar, you are impf)vei'isbin!^ your farms b}- Li-rowinn- your wdieat •: .., :V'^ it to England. Year after year tho Ihcililies jbr entering- 1k< Xori »vesi and brinii-inii; its pro- ducts down to tho ^eaboaul, arc int. • -'•^";, year after year in the future tlicre is i^oin;r to be a sU^adily incieasinL( agricultural population in the ^Ve.>t, who are to be your rivtds in the markets of tho world. While your lands are beino- o;radiially worn out and impoverished, those iields aio bciiii!; brou_<;-ht under cultivation. There is to be the ,i(re.it _ii-ian:iry of tlie continent. Can we believe that 2j or oO years hence the farmer of Ontiirio would lo able to go on competing with tho farmer of Saskatchewan in the raising of wheat or thoso products which had to go to a foreign market? Tho condition of tho Ontario farmer is grov.-ing worse year by year, and tho condition of the Western farmer is boing betteied in the samo ratio. Tho contest is an unequal one and the Ontario farmer will probably find himself in the long run in the same position as those who leliedon Carolina cotton. For the Ontaiio farmer to j-aiso his wheat, to ship it to England and to buy his goods in ihe cheapest market, would just l;o to kill the goose that laid the golden Q<y}x- 1 welcome the day when the West will be opened up, and Avhen Ontario and (Quebec will occupy tho samo posi- tion relatively to that countrv, that New En<i;land doe> to tho £>;reat \\ estern States. Tho Finance Minister opposed to the (.irowlh of Tottiis .iiui Cilios. 1 have been amazed to hear the lion, tho Finance Min- ister, not only in his budget speeches, but also on the btump in Ontario, preaching tho doctrine that the aggregation of peeplo in great cities i» 55 injurious to a coiuitry. Ilow, I would ask, could a,',n'icultural commu- nities l.)u injured Uy the lorinalion of lartju towns ? It is in sucli that thrniors tliid thoir host market. Jt' fai-nuM's tako an int^;lli^'ent view, fiioy niu>t .<eo that flicir succoss ijjroatly dcptMidn on the 'i,'i-owili ot I;u\^u oitio.-. WIumi .Montn-al Itocanic as lari^u as Xow York, and Ti>ront«j as hw^ii as riiilailidpliia, and when otlu'i' lai-i^o cllios liavo ari>on amon/^.st u.->, would it not l»o all tlio boltor I'or tlio tai'niiii_LC connnunilios nil I'oimd about tlioin ? Would it not onhanoc) tho valuo ot lUfms and tlio )uico of farm |)i-odu(ds ? It \< true, as has I)oon indic-alcd l>y the I'uiant'O Minister, that in irrcat centres of j)oi)u!ut ion is lo he io'und a i,'roat deal of wickedness, a ;,n'rat deal that is wron.^•, but much also Ihat is ;,^ood and licnelicent. But if these .i?rout centres woi'e broken down ana t!io po|)iiIati')n thoreoi" disperse I amoii;^: the ay-riciiltui'al pojr.ilations with whom they would enter into competition, tho con^mninj^' po|)ulati(m would be so much docroasel, ati I the produeini,' population <o much in- •Meascd, that the farmer would sustain a two-told injary. There i-, I believe, a necessity for urban population^, ami no class of meti hr.d a i!;reater interest in tho exten^iion of tiiesc, than larni'.>rs. I'ctrokMim Dutios, Before sittinf;- down, I wish to make reference to a matter with which my name has been associate;! in this JTouse — that is. t!u' action of the (Jovern-ncnt on the petroleum duties. The late (rovernment, in ti.\- in.i? tho tariiV of the Dominion in 18(J8, thou/i-ht it wi.-e to -place what seemed to be a very lii^'h duty on oil — 15 cents per ,ij;;i.l!oti, v/ith 5 cents excise duty. ' I do not think that was objec ci to at the time by atiy person in tho House; but .-omo time subsequently, licw and extensive discoveries in oil were made, bcUer means lor extraclini;' it were also adopte 1, and the price had under<;one a change since tho time the dut^'' was imposed, and that duty, which had formeidy been a ve;'y fair one, afterwards beeame a yovy onerous one. Whether the Government at that time acted wisely or unwisely, I do not propose to discuss, but would merely state the fact. Inaction of the (i!;)verumpnt in 1S7<5. In ISTG, I felt it niy duty to pi'0])o<c a reduction of the duly on eoal oil from 15 cents per gallon to 7^ cents, leavini;- the e.xi-iso tax exactly as before. The pioposition, as made and explained by ine, was intendeil to give ])rotection of from 20 to 2^) per cent, upon oil, according to tho current i)rices at that time. It had been staled by an honourable member, in reply to my remarks that there was another charge of a cent which ought to bo added. On calling at the otlico of the Inland Itovcrme, however, I f )und that my hon. iriond was mistaken. Tho proposition to adjust the taritl' was made by mo with a sincere desire to obLain results — not for any iionoui* which might attii'ih to my-clf. I desired that members suj)porting tho • rovornraent, should use all thoir inflaeuce to have the reduction quietly made, and otfered to drop my resolution and leave the matter with them, if thcj' could obtain the consent of the Government. I introduced my proposition to tho House on the ord day of starch, but I left it alono till the olst, a porioil of four weeks, in order that every member might have an opportunity of investigating tho matter. I certainly did not bring i* forvvard with any desire to embai'rass tho Government, or to place the G-'^veroment at a disadvan- 36 a^e; but 1 told them that this high duty had had tlie effect of creating a ring who controlled all oil wells and refineries, and stepped between the producer and consumer ; who dictated what the price should be 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 j)rotec'tive ])olicy were inconsistent, l)ut the Avant of consistency, I fear, belongs to the other side. We who entertain protectionist principles hold tliat the ordinary effect of protection would not ultimately enhance the price of goods to the consumer. And wh}' ? Because, when an industry is protected, those engaged in that industr}- had an opportunity of making money, and the result was that others finding an industry to boa profitable one would embark their capital therein ; thus, com])ctition Avould regulate prices. In this way ringj could not bo formed. Why is it that a ring can not be formed in the boot and shoe trade ? Because leather, which is the raw material from Avhich boots and shoes are made is pro- curable everywhere ; conseqrently prices are reasonable. AVhy could not a ring be tbrmed by those engaged in the manufacture of furniture ? Be- cause the material can be got all over the land and because competition regulates the prices. It is indeed impossible to get up monopolies in such manufacturers as those of boots and shoes, furniluro and agricultural implements. But if there was an exceptional induot.y^ to which the ]U'o- tectivc system did not safely apply, and which was monopolised by a ring, then protectionists would demand that protection be reduced on that industry to a point where competition would fi^irly regulate prices ; to tolerate rings and monopolies is a blot, a stain on the national eharactei', and protectionists are the first to decry it. Of all the indus- tries in Canada, the production and refining of oil is perhaps the onlj' one in which a monopoly is possible — and that is simply because the area of ])roduction is limited, and may, by finesse, be In-ought under one control. There was therefore no inconsistency in their urging the Government to make this reduction. The CJovcrnmont is responsible for the interests of the country, the guardianship of wdiich is commit- ted to it. It is bound to repress injustice and rectily abuses, 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 ])er year. I clearly demonstrated thai by retaining the excise duty there would be no diminution of revenue in consequence of the change I proposed. 3Iy argument and proofs were incontrovertible ; no one attempted to deny a single position taken by me 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. Cartwright admits $2,000,000 loss to the Country. Hince he has reduced the duty and taken all tiie credit of it. The Finance Minister asserts that the country saves two million dollars ])cr year by the reduction ! So it has come to this I In order that this (iovornment may not be disturbed, in order to prevent motions that miglit be troublesome, they, wnth a majority of 00 in the lloupe, able 37 10 open and shut the door us they please, refuse to lift a tingor. to waste a (lay, in order to save the e(mntry two millions of dollars, as they them- selves estimate. Did they think that their devoted followers, who backed their refusal to take otFthe 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 co.st of le^s,Msla- tion for the whole four years they had hecn in power. Five hundred thousand dollars a year about covers the cost of running both Houses of [Parliament an entire session. Yet they could not waste a day of that time to save the countrv two millions. Mr. CAETWEIGIIT— How much must Iiavc been lost by hon. gentlemen opposite ? Mr. COLBY — Some think they can see all about the condition of 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 Eeturns do not show, (freat leakages and losses sometimes occur through the acts or omission of Governments, of which the Blue Book )nakes no mention. Blue books and statistical tables are not infallible. So much for the action or inaction of the Government in the session of 18T(). Legislature of 1S77, "Legalised Kobbery." 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 1 am rightly informed, the oil production of Canada is wholly within t'.io constituencies of the Hon. the I'irst ^Hnister 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 which imposed upon this article a customs duty of from 50 to GO ]yev cent., while no other article is protected more than n^ per cent. This Free Trade Government put on this exceptioaal article in this exceptional ])art of Canada — this article which was the only one which could be abused b}^ rings and combinations- -a duty of from 50 to 60 per cent. When they put on the duty of cents a gallon, oil was worth 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 theorj-, the consumers of oil, which is made in Canada, pay, not to the Government but to the manufacturer, six cents additional for every gallon, or an additional profit of 60 per cent. Was that legalized robbery, or was it not ? In whoso interest was that perjietratcd ? Mr. CARTWRIGHT — It was a revenue tax and a proper one. Petroleum Riug Rc-orgaiiise. Mr. COLBY" — When it was understood that the tax was to be taken ofi', there was no longer an oil ring until the Finance Minister determined upon the policy ho was to pur.sup, and then tho organizors ;*c-argftnized \n Ontario, and an oil ring more danrijeroii?, because more comprehensive than tho old one, has grown up under tho legislation they had pasiiod in consonance wilh their Fieo Trade idea;>. That was an ilhisti-ation of tho views of those gentlemen, and of iheir idea as to what a revenue tari {Fought to bo. Did it put every dollarof the revenue into the Treasury ? Did they not Icnow that every gallon boughtof aCaniidian refiner had ])aid him, not the Treasury, an additional six cents? J)id they not know that two-thirds of tho oil consumed is manufactured in Canada, and that every gallon paid Bix cents more than it ought to pay in consequence of the policy of the liorcrnmcnt ? If they are pi'oud of their inaction in 1S7G and of their legislation in 1ST7, they are welcome to any satisfaction which they fan derive from tho contemplation of it. So much fur the oil question. Keciprocily with tho United States. There is only one other sulject to which I dcsij'O to allude. I should not be doing iiistico to mv own convict ionr, of what mv duty is in addressing the House upon this que.-tion, if 1 did not make reference to the following proposition contained in the amendment: "And moviii":, as it ought to do, in tin; (iiroction of Rociprocity of TarilTs with onr noiuhhors, so far lis tlR- varied intcri'sts of (.'anadii may demand, will greatly tend to Iirocurc 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 no, without very glaring incon- sistcnc}'. On the first occasion tliat it was my privilege to address this Parlijiment as a nevr member, as early as 18g8, the doctrine which is there announced was urged by me upon tho attention of the Gjvornmont of which that right hon. gentleman was then the head, aiid upon Parliament, for consideiation. 1 U'.'goil that a duty of 5 cents a pound should bo placed upon hops. 1 pointed out that while tho American hop growor had free acce.ss to our market, the Canadian hop- grower had to meet a five cent duty in the United Slates; and asked Lho 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 tho Statute Book.* I know something about tho Americans, have lived among them a good deal, was educated among them, and have always lived near them. 1, at that time, expres>od my ^fettled belief, though it had not then tho weight with tho leader of tho Goven.m.ent that I had hoped it would have, that Just so long as we were prepared to p)ermit this unequal sy;>tcm by which we were oxckided from tho American maikets, w'hilo the Americans had access to ours, thoy would consider it better than reciprocity and would not give us reciprocity. That was tho view 1 then took and still hold, and J then made uso of tho expression which had been so much htnued and so much abused — '• reciprocity ol tariffs, if not reciprocity in trade." I believe tho reasons I then urged wore sound. I believe one n'.'od only know tho American character, their shrewdness, their practical way of treating such sub- jects, to bo convinced that so long as they have fi-eo access to our markets, and we are excluded from theirs, they will consider that they have tho best of the bargain. I desire to draw attention to ono thought which eeems to mo to bear etrongly on this question. 39 Reciprocal Dalies are defoaco - not Eotaliatl^n. I know tho idea that wq can cocrco tho xYmerioanj?, that ibui* millions of peopio can coorco 40 millions, is often sneorod at, anil likened *'to tho tail wagging tho dog." Tho Americans had found it necessary for tho n.aintainenco of their credit to put on high duties. That imposes upon us a corresponding necessity to protect our manufacturei-s and farmers, so long as this unfortunate t^;tate of things exists on the other side. There is no necessity for irritation. It will not be considered a retaliatory policy. I think it might safely bo said that to two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the people of tho United States, this question of reciprocity is today a matter of total indifiorenco. If we went below the northei-n tier of Slates, probably if we went to the Middle States, certainly if wo went to tho S )Uthern, tho Southwestern, or tho Pacific States, if we ask<d any man exce|)t a public man, what were the relations between Canada and the United States, he could not tell whether leciprocity or unequal tarilf existed. It does not afiect the mass of the people of tlio United States, who are neutral in i-egard to this matter. But wo havo active interests working against us in tho States of Maine, Vermont and New York, in those sections along our frontier whoso interests are agricultural, and who would be injured if our butter, beef, wool, horses, potatoes, Ac, went to their markets. On that account they are intensely hostile to reciprocity. They want to keep Xova Scotia potatoes and Princo Edward Island oats out of the Boston market, and Eastern town- ships beef out of the the Biiiihton market. They desiro to keep up tho monopoly of tho home inttrket, which alone makes agriculture possible in barren New England. That active influence working upon the inert and indifferent mass of tho nation is what wo have to contend airainst. We have to counterv.'iil that influence, wo havo to create an in- fhience against that. Does the House believe that so long as it could bo idiown that year by year we are taking more and more of their manu- factured products, the manufacturers of New England arc going to join us in tho desiro for a renewal of reciprocity, when it is shown that from 1873 to 18TT, while prices had fallen, while impoi'ts from England had fallen, the only thing that had increased had been the amount of manufactured goods which wo bought from the States — an incrca>e of some 30 per cent.? Does tho House believo that under that i^tato of things we Avill get their co-operation ? Let them, however, feel ihemselves excluded and embarrassed in getting to that market which they had heretofore used as their own market, and then wo would fuid that they havo a little feeling in favor of reciprocity. So long as the Americans continue to possess all tho advantages thoy now enjoy, they will not give us reciprocity of trade. The sound and politic course then, to adojit, is, to put up our duties to whore they were before the Ileci])rociiy Treaty was tiaincd ; to put ourselves back t<) where wo were then, to place ourselves in a position where we can pinch some classes in tho United States and deprive them of some of tho n advantages which tliey now so freely enjoy. I thank tho IIou.^o for the indulgence extended to me, and beg to apologize for this abrupt termination of my tpcech, a circumstance which is duo to tho lateness of tho hour. [The honorable gentleman ronniod his seat amid pro- longed applause.] THE VOTE. The followiiiijj Members voted FOR the Amendment : — Yeas : Messieurs Babv, Flesh er. Mousscau, Benoit, Fraser, Orton, Blaiichct, Cfibbs (Ontario North), Ouiraet, Bolduc, (libbs, (Ontario South), Palmer, Bom beau. Gill, Pinsonneault, Bowell, Ilaggart, Piatt, Brooks, Ilarwood, Plumb, Brown, Ilurteau, Pope, (Compton), Bunster, Jones. (Leeds), Pope, (Queens, P.E.I.) Cameron, Kirkpatrick, Robillard, Caron, Langcvin, Robinson, Cimon, Lanthier, Robitaille, Colby, Little, Rochcstei", Costl^an, Macdonald (Cornwall) Rouleau, Coupal, Macdonald (Kingston), Roy, Currier. McDonald (Cape Breton), Ryan, Cuthbert, McDougall (Three Rivers) ^ , Schultz, Daoust, McKay (Colchester), Short, DeCosmos, Macmillan, Stephenson, Desjardine, McCallum, Thompson (Cariboo), Dewdney, .McCarthy, T upper. Domvillc, McQuade, Wade, Ponahue, Masson, Wallace (Xorfolk), Dugas, :Methot, Wright (Ottawa), Farrow, Monteith, Wright (Pontiac). 77. Ferguson, Montplaisir, The following Members voted AGAliNST the Nays : Messieurs ! Amendment:— Appleby^ Flcinliig) Mclntyi-C) Arclilliahl) Flynuf Mclsaav) Aylmei-) ForlicC) Mc\ab, 41 Duin, BarfUc) Becliai-fl) Dcrniev) Bertram) Biggar, BIniu, Borden ) Boi-roii) Boiirassn) Bowman ) Boyer« Broiiapj Bnellj Biirk) Bnrpce (St, Jolui}) Biu-jice (Siuibiiry)) CarnilchRcI) Cartivright) Casey) Casgrahi) Charltoii) Chcval) Christie, Church) Cockbiiiii) Coffin ) Cook) DavleS) Da^vsou) De St. CcorgcS) DcVeber) Dyinond) PfrrlS) Fisct) Xays : Messieurs. Frechette) GalbrRl(h) Geoffirion) Gibson ) Glllies) Glllinor) Goudge) GrceuM'ay) GnthrlC) XladdoM) Ilagar) Hall) Hlginbothain) llolton) llorton) Huntington) Irving) JettC) Jones (Halifax}) Kerr) Klllnni) Kirk) Laflaniine) Lajoic) Lautlerkin) LangloiS) Laurler) Macdonald (Toronto)) MacDonuell (Inverness)) Macdougall (Elgin)) McDougall (Rcnfre^v)) MacKay (Cape Breton)) Mackenzie) McCraney) McGregor) Malonin) Metcalfc) MillS) NorrlS) Oliver, Fatersoii) Perry, Pettes) Fickard) Ponliot) Po-iver) Ray) Richard) Roscoc) Ross (Durham)) Ross (Middlesex)) Ross (Prince Edward^ , Rymal, Scatclicrd) Scrlver) Shibley) Sinclair) Skinner, Smith (Peel), Smith (Westmorclp.nd)) Snider) St. JeaU) Taschcreau, Thompson (HaUlimond)f Thompson (Wetland), Trow, Wallace (Albert), Wood) YeO) Young,— in. Thu following members "p.nired For Amendment : Agaiust Amenilmcnt ;— White (llenfrew), Hon. P. Mitchell, White (Hastings). Delorme (St. Hyacinthe), D. A. Smith (Selkirk), Hon. E. Blake (S. Bruce). 42 The following members were absent: — Ontario : Messrs. Hlake, .1. Wliilo. P. AVhitc, .Inn., II. lilacUburn < Quebec : Messrs. Mcdiucvy, Workman. Devlin. ]i. I)«.*lorme 4 XitvA Scotia : Mr. C. Cnmi.bell 1 Manitoba : ^res.srs. Smith, Hanalyni" - Xew Brunswick : lIoD.r.Mitdielb Mr. MfJ.eoil. lion. T. An^-iin (.SpoaUor. no vote) :j British Columbia : Mr. Cunnincrham 1 '&' 15 SL^NBfAKY. Tor. Ayiiiust. Ontario :2H 50 Quebec :i.') -'G Nova Scotia 4 1(» New Brunswick •> 10 British Columbia 4 1 Manitoba "-' Pi'ince Edward Island 1 5 i I 114 (iovcrnmcnt majority ."57 MA.IOIMTIES BY Pr.OYIXCKS :— Against. For. Ontario 28 maj. Quebec * i^ Nova Scotia 12 '^ (I New Brunswick T '• British Columbia (» ."J Manitoba (i 2 I'rince Eilward Island 4 '• U Mr. :^[cCrREKVv. M.B., for Quel)cc West, was in favor ot the Ameml- ment ; but his " pair" lapsed before the vote was taken. Messrs. Devlin and Workman, of Montreal, were ab.scnt — the g-reat Commercial City of 3[ontreal being thus virtually unrepresented — Mr. Jette, M.P., for the Eastern Division, voting against the Amendment. Messrs. AVood and Irving, of the great Manufacturing City of Hamilton, also voted ogainst the Amendment. 43 The Mationnl j>olify. as in-oclained l)y Sir John A. ^[ai'douald (7)— New party issues in Canada (S)— Xaturo of Sir John A. Macdonald's motion (S)— IJcvenue not the sole object of a tariff' (0)— National policy, as defined l)y Mr. Diarlton in 1870 (0)— Ministerial policy, Free Trade declared to be the policy of the "Tieform"' Party, by Mr. Dymond in 1S7G (11) — The Free Trade corner-stone of the Premier, and his declara- tion of the evils of Protection (12)— Benjamin Franklin's remarks on tiie necessity of Protection in a young country (12)— The Premier's assump- tions historically untrue (13) — History of Pi-otection and its results in Kngland and France (I'i)— Statistics of the sugar industr}- in Europe- statement of Mr. J. U. McCulloch rU)~Manufacture of boots and shoes ill Canada, its successful growth under protection (10) — The Premier's present attitude and past Jiistory (17) — The Canadian Public Works pol- i<'y virtually protective (17) — Incidental protection declared by tiie Finance Minister to be -'legalised i-ol-.ibery" (IS)— John Stuart Mill's dcti- nition of incidental protection (IS) — His views endorsed by the Finance Minister flS) — Free trade is still but a theory (20; — Free Trade in Kngland is protection in disguise (20) — Pj'otective policy fosters manu- factures and commerce (21) — The tirst Free Trade Act in England. 1842 (22)— In 1S53, Mr. (iladstone refused to reduce silk duties (22)— Mr. Charlton's change of opinions since 1876 (23) — Ilis special plead- ing and arguments respecting United States refuted (24) — Mr. John Macdonald on Canadian depression (26) — Governor Ilice upon the indus- tries of Massachusetts (27) — Mr. Charlton's statistics valueless (28) — Professor Cairues' comments on protection in U. S. (28) — Mr. Charlton's unfuirneas respecting Canadian industries (29) — Agricultural implements. no competition from U. 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 Soutli, cotton and sugar interests, why the Southern States favor Free Trade (31) — Comparison with Canadian situation, "King Cotton " and "King Wheat" (33) — The prosperous manufactui-es 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 (3i) — 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)— Loss of $2,000,000 to the country (36)— Legislation of 1877, legalised robbery (37)— Petroleum rJDge rcoi'ganized (37) — Remarks on Reciprocity, defense not retaliation. J^cciprocal trade or Reciprocal tariff (38—0.) INDEX Agriculture : — PAOR In United States— Mr. Charlton refuted, 25 Implements of — No competition from U. S. manuliictur'jrs, from excess of their home demand 20 Ontario— Future competition of North-west 34 Growth of cities enhances value of farming districts 35 BEtT SUGAU :— History of the industry in Europe 14 Boors AND Shoes : — Manufacture, growth in Canada under protoctioH IG CAinsES, Pnoi". : — Comments on protection in U. S 23 Canada's Policy : — Should be present New England policy 34 Cautwright, Hon. Mil :— See " Finance Minister," CiiAHLTON, Mn., M. P. : — National policy, as defined in 1876 9 Change of opinions since 1876 23 His special pleading refuted 24 Arguments respecting II. S . fallacious 25 His statistics proved to he valueless 28 His unfairness respecting Canadian industries 2U Cities ; — Growth of enhances value of farming districts 35 Coal Oil:— See ««Oil" CoLBV, Mr., M. p. :— Letter to Editor of « Citiaen," 1 Speech on Sir John A. Macdonald's amendment , 7 CoTTOX : — Interests in the Southern States ?} i " King Cotton " and " King Wheat " 33 CrsT0M8_:-^ See << Tariff = ' 45 Dymond, Mn., M. P. :— Declaration of Free Trade rolicy, lS7<j 11 Ekglaxd ; — History of Protection in 13 Free Trade in, is virtually protection .........''.'..''.'.'.. lio Excise : — J. Stuart Mill on customs and cxcist; 19 Duty on coal oil, 18G8, 1S7G, 1877 .........',....., ;J5-7 Fakms : — Sec " Agriculture " 'o' Finance Minister : — Incidental protection defined as '• legalised robbery " IS Endorses views of John Stuart Mill .,., \s His opposition to the growth of cities '. 'M Refuses reduction of coal oil duty, 187G ......... 3'} Admits $2,000,000 loss to the country .' ,'/.'. :x Legislation of 1877, legalised robbery .". .......... .1..... 37 France ; — • llesults of protection in 13 Statistics of Sugar Manufacture 14 Franklin, B. : — Necessity of protection in a young country 12 Frkk Trade : — Declared the Reform policy, (Dymond, 187G) 1 1 The Premier's corner stone 12 Is still but a theory \\\\ 20 In 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. Garnett, of Yirginin ,. ,', 32 (j AUNETT, Mr. : — Of Virginia, his views on Free Trade 32 Gladstone, Mr. : — Refusal to remove silk duties in 18o3 22 Government :— See " Finance Minister " and " Premier " Implemkhts :-^ Agricultural, U. S. manufacturers do not compete ^vith Canadian. Picason . . 20 McCdlloCh, J. R.:— • Statistics of sugar industry in Europe 14 Production of cotton and sugar by slave labor , 32 Macdonald, Sm Jobs A.: — Tariil amendment resolution, 1878 , 7 Tariff amendment — nature of, , , , , , ,,.,.. 8 46 Macdonald, John, M. P.;— His reasons for deprossion in Can.vla '2ii Mackenzie, Hon. A.: — See " Premier.'' Man-lfactures : — Of Massachusetts, Governor Rice on •_> 7 ( >f agricultural implements, Canadian, no conii)etition from U . S 2i) \J. S., success beneficial to whole Repnl)lic ;<,i Of oil, formation of "Rings." 3(5 Ordinary manulactures, " Rings " ImpossiMe 30 Massachusetts: — Governor Rice's report on industries of. 2" Mu,L, J. Stl'art : — Definition of incidcntiil protection ] H Views on Excise and Customs Revenue 10 National : — Policy — See " Policy.'' Oil, Coal : — Duties — Action of lato Government — Comments ;!.'> Refusal of Government to reduce duty in 187G 3r. Facilities for formation of oil " rings " 36 Loss of $2,000,000 to the country :-Jf» Legislation of 1877, legalized robbery 37 Petroleum, " rings " now re-organised 37 Ontario : — Farmer's — future conipetilion of North-west 34 Pauty Issues : — New, in Canada • ■ • • 8 Pktuoleum : — See "Oil"' Policy, National ; — Of Sir John Macdonald 7 Defined by Mr. Charlton in 187(> y Poi.icT, Ministerial — As defined by Mr. Dyinond in J 870 11 PoLiCT, Nkw England : — The true policy for Caua<la . . 31 PoL.'cv, Reciprocity ; — • Reciprocal Trade or Recipiocal Tariff 38 Premier, The ;— The Free Trade corner stone of 1 2 His assumptions historically untrue ] 'i His pr«««nt attitud« and past Uiitory , , 1 7 47 Proteotiox : — Tariff, Sir John Miicdonuld's motion 7 Evils of, as declared by the Premier 1 '_> Necessity of, in a young country (Franklin) 1 j Of the sugar industry in Europe 14 Of b(X)t and shoe manufacture in Canada \r, Public Works, policy is protective 17 I'olicy of, fosters manufactures and commerce -j I 1 842, the first English Free Trade Act 'j'2 185.'J, Gladstone still protected silk interest .• 22 In United States, Prof. Cairncs's comments 28 Is preserving home market for home manufacturer 30 IlcHults of, in United States, North and South 31 Plblic Wohks : — Canadian, polii y of^ is protective 17 IvEOirROCITY : — With U. S., remarks respecting , • ;iS Reciprocal Trade or Reciprocal Tariff ;iS Reciprocal duties arc not retaliation 3'J Kevexue : — Not the sole oliject of tariff 9 Rice, Governor : — Report on industries of MassachU'ctts 2 _ I SuoK.s AND Boots :— Manufacture, success in Canailu, umlor protection Id S[ GAU, Beet : — History of the ludiistiy in Europe II Si(iAn Interebt :— In the Southern States 'M r\j Tariff : — Readjustment — Sir John A. Macdouald's motiou 7 Nature of the motiou 8 Oil, action of late Government, comments 3.") Oil, Govt, refuse to reduce, in 1876 '',:> Legislation of 1877, legalized robbery :j7 Reciprocal, is defense, not retaliation 'is UxiTED States : — Mr. Charlton's arguments respecting, refuted 2.') Gov . Rice upon Massachusetts industries 2 7 Protection in, comments on 28 Agricultural implement manufacturers do not compete with Canadian 29 Protection and Free Trade, North and South 31 "King Cotton" and "King Wheat," 33 New England policy true policy for Canada 34 Reciprocity M'ith, in Trade or in Tariff : < Reciprocity, U. S. have no desire, while unequal tariffs fjivor theiu :',.( / Wheat : — " King Cotton" and King Wheat,'' 3 J NO ONE SHOULD BE WITHOUT IT ! TH E PARLIAIIi'TARV Price, SI 50. If hat the J'rcss S(((/s : 'I'lio rnrllamentiiry Coinpauion irf ail indispensablo racle mccinn lor every stmlcnt of Canadian jtolitics. — Toronto Globe. M(ir(! useful than, ever as a liandl)ook of reference. — London Adicrtiicr, II is far superior to tlie old Companion in tlie extent of its information. — Kingston Whi;/. No man wlio wishes to linve a correct knowledge of public men and public proceeding, can do so, tliornughly, without a coj^y of this invaluable work. It ought to be found everywhere — IMiJaxUerald In its preparation it manifests that tlie utmost care has been taken, and altogether wo recom- mend it to those V, ho debi-e to be posted on a variety of matters, upon M'hich otherwise it is difficult to obtain information. — Montreal Ilerdld. A vast amount of information of a political and general charac- ter is given. — Woodstock Sentinel. No public man can afford to be witliout this last edition of the Companion. — Montreal Star. It is a great improvement over any of its predeces.sors, and con- tains much more and varied in. formation under the usual heads, than formerly. — Hamilton Times. Ad tires 1 .— €. Hi MACKINTOSH, rublisher Companion, P.O. Box, r?or., Ottawa. ' CANADIAN 'C? ('AXA'.)IAN 11 urliam cilia III -() — 1ST8. -()- 420 Pages. Sixteeiitli Year. COMPANION. Price, $1,50. WItaf the J'l'css Sftf/s : A standard authority on Can- adian alfuirs. — (Quebec Mercury. It comprises a vast amount of information relating to public matters and public men, not to be foinid elsewhere, forming a standard authority, witliout which no library or public office can be said to be complete. — London Free Press. Mackintosli's Parliamentivry Companion for 1878 is a valuable book. The issue is greatly su. jierior to any of its predecesaor.s. Some of tlie matter in previous editions thftt was of no pai'ticular 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. — Jfamilton Times. 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, v:"z : 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 shoAving care .ind labor on the part of the editor. — Toronto Globe. Address :— C. H. MACKINTOSH, I'liblishcr Companion, P.O. Box SO."-., Ottawa. ^^ A gents Wanted in every Town and City of the Dominion.