criticised the Finance Minister's statement last year I ventured to say that the accounts at the end of the year would show an expenditure of $22,933,800. By permission of the House I will read the following extract from a report of my speech: "The hon. Finance Minister had fallen into one or two grave errors in estimating the financial affairs of the country. In page 32 of the Estimates it would be found that there was a sum of $766,200 which the hon. gentleman declared would required to be re-voted. This was upwards of three-quarters of a million which according to the hon. gentleman's own showing would be unappropriated up to the 1st July, 1874. Then he wished to draw attention to another point. He maintained that the hon. gentleman had made a mistake in the statement of expenditure which had been laid on the table of the House of nearly

half a million of dollars. In one item the hon.

gentleman startled the House and the country with the declaration he made as to the expenditure and deficit that would exist in regard to the working of the Government railways. He (Dr. TUPPER) might say that he had watched the operations of those works in regard to the receipts they would give the country, the expenditure upon them, and everything connected with them in the most narrow manner for fifteen years, and he would pledge himself to prove the mistake in the hon. gentleman's figures if he would bring down a detailed statement showing how he made up the $1,488,607 charged against the operation of the railways for nine months. The expenditure for the same service in 1873 was only $791,326, although it was well-known that, owing to the severity of the winter, the roads had been worked at unusual cost. He had no hesitation in saying that this was a mistake, and he would undertake to show before the Public Accounts Committee that there was $500,000 charged here to current expenditure which in all previous years had been charged to capital account. The addition of the sum of $776,200 to this error of at least $400,000 made a total of $1,166,200 as the sum of unexpended money which would enable the Finance Minister to meet any possible deficiency in any possible demand which might arise before the 1st July, 1874. By subtract ing these errors from the amount of $24,100,000 the sum remaining would be $22,933,800, which would give him a clear surplus of $966,202 at the end of the current fiscal year." Dr. TUPPER continued :-The Finance Minister placed the expenditure at $24,100,000. I have the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Dr. TUPPER continued) in reply to the criticism I offered, in which he states that no more than twenty-two millions of dollars could be collected during the year.

for that is precisely the point to which I am going to address myself. The hon. gentleman stated that the expenditure for the year would be $24,100,000, and it was upon that statement that he felt warranted in asking the House to resort to the extreme course of levying three millions additional taxation on the country. It will not do for the hon. gentleman to come before the House with an excuse, because if he believed they were only figures on paper, and did not represent the true position of affairs, he was not warranted in resorting to such an extreme course. Deduct the actual expenditure of $22,867,204 from the estimated expenditure by the Finance Minister, made by him with all the documents in his possession, which would enable him to ascertain the correct financial position of the country, and the hon. gentleman was proved to have been $1,232,806 astray. I mention that fact to the House because I feel that, after the manner in which the hon. Finance Minister dealt with the statements which I offered to the House last session, it is not improper that I should remind the House of how the statements I offered have been borne out by the Public Accounts laid on the table by the Minister of Finance himself. I stated that the actual surplus of revenue over expenditure was $1,722,21541. I will deduct from that in the first instance the amount received from new taxes.

The hon. gentleman has not told us what they amount to, but I think I have taken a sufficiently wide margin when I state that the amount received from the new taxes-that is to say, the taxes that were received for the two and a half months previous to the end of the year, was $546,000. Then I find that a very talented gentleman -the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, Mr. BRUNEL, who has come to the assistance of the Finance Minister, and I do not blame him for seeking any extraneous aid which he can find-has treated this House to a very able and ingenious argument to show the amount of duties paid in before the 1st July, 1874, in consequence, not of the new tax, for I have already included that in the $546,000 that I have already mentioned--but in consequence of the proposed change of tariff. And let me here make a single remark upon Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Without the that point. I ventured to say to the new tariff. I wish to bear that in mind, hon. Finance Minister last year, when he

Mr. CARTWRIGHT-Without the new tariff?

Hon. Mr. Tupper.

and it leaves a surplus for 1873 without
change of tariff of $649,604.41. Now, the
"What
hon. gentleman will ask me
about the Customs? If you credit over
$500,000 for Inland Revenue what are you
going to credit for Customs paid in before
the end the year which otherwise would
have gone to the next year?" I tell the
hon. gentleman nothing. I will prove to
him by his own argument that he cannot
claim a single dollar as paid in before the
first of July, 1874, over and above that
which would have been paid in under
other circumstances. I will show the hon.
gentleman that all that was discounted
must have been discounted before the end
of the year. The hon. gentleman tell us
that instead of the trade of this year
having increased it has decreased. The
hon. gentleman has been kind enough to
send me over-and I thank him for the
courtesy a statement which makes the
whole imports entered for consumption
for the six months from the first of July,
1874, to the first of January, 1875, and
what does it show? A large increase
in trade? If these figures are correct-as
I am bound to admit they are they
establish a falling off in imports entered
for consumption during the past six
months of one million and a half. Now,
I wish the hon. gentleman to tell me if
there was a falling off in the trade of the

was describing the amount of revenue that, has been received during the last six months. was received during the last quarter of the Add these sums together the amount year, that it was owing to the fact that derived from new taxes, and the amount the country was excited by the change of received from enhanced inland revenue tariff. What was the result of that? If which ought otherwise to have fallen in taxation is required at all every person 1874-5, and we have $1,072,611 in all. knows that wherever constitutional, Parlia- | Deduct that from the surplus as it existed mentary Government exists, the Government considers itself bound to preserve the strictest secresy in reference to any proposed change of tariff, and for obvious reasons-first, to prevent trade being disturbed; and, secondly, in order to obtain a revenue that would otherwise be lost. But in this case the Government made no secret of the proposed change in the tariff, in fact drew the attention of the public to the subject in the speech from the Throne long before the new tariff was proposed to the House, causing the greatest possible derangement in the trade of the country, and also a loss to the revenue. But I am happy to relieve the hon. gentleman from the obloquy that would rest upon him for taking such a course by stating that the amount thus lost to the revenue is not nearly so large as he himself appears to suppose. However, I will take the estimate of Mr. BRUNEL of the enhanced inland revenue received on account of the change in the tariff, namely, $526,611. I may state in reference to that, a glance at the figures as they now present themselves will show that this is a very extravagant calculation on the part of Mr. BRUNEL, although he is a gentleman in whose judgment and entire honesty of statement I have the most unbounded confidence. A glance at the receipts of the Excise Department for 1873-74 will show that during six months from the first of July, 1874, the six months from the first of July, 1874, to the 1st of January, 1875, $152,662.50 | more were received in 1874 than in 1873. I quite admit that there was a large amount of revenue in the Inland Revenue Department discounted that would have been paid in 1875, but not so much as claimed by Mr. BRUNEL, because the Hon. Minister of Finance stated that all he proposed to obtain from Excise was $750,000 per annum, and the last quarter gives $234,837 more than the last quarter of 1873. With these figures before them, the House can see that in accepting Mr. BRUNEL'S statement we have accepted the outside statement, which can be sustained when you come to examine the amount which Hon. Mr. Tupper.

to the first of January, 1875, of one million and a half, how he can show a single dollar discounted previous to the first of July? I will now draw the attention of the House to the statement of the Customs returns for the six months from the first of July, 1874. Bear in mind the Hon. Minister of Finance assured the House and country when he was levying these new taxes a year ago, that he was only taking three millions additional revenue out of the pockets of the people. Now I invite his attention to this statement. I hold in my hand the Customs returns for the six months from July to January, 1875. I have admitted the soundness of Mr. BRUNEL'S argument because he has

The

shewn that there is not a corresponding of no less than three millions. increase in the receipt of 1874, as com- Minister of Finance did not go quite so pared with the receipts of 1873, notwith- far as that, but the paper to which I referstanding the new taxes. But if you had the shamelessness-I say the word accept Mr. BRUNEL's argument, and if you advisedly to state on the first January, come to consider that half a million 1875, in reviewing the events of the year, additional revenue went to the Treasury that there was a deficit of three millions. before the 1st of July, then you are Let me read the language used by that bound to accept the same principle paper-"A deficit of three millions. The as applied to the Customs Department. legacy of the former administration, having What does it show? It shows that in to be provided for, after much discussion July, 1873, we received $1,383,539.48 and a very full representation of the from customs, and in July, 1874, no less a views of all classes interested, by raising sum than $2,147,652.76, an amount infi- the 15 per cent. duty on imports to 171 nitely larger than the application of the per cent.; by re-imposing a small duty on new tariff to the sum received in 1873 tea and coffee; by increasing the excise would give. That, you may say, is but a duties, and in some other particulars single month. In August, 1873, $2,093,- re-adjusting the tariff." The same paper, 978.15 were received, and in August, in reviewing the budget speech, further 1874, $2,352,768.97; in September, says :-"In 1874-5, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, 1873, $1,974,513.75; in September, 1874, who has, omitting Mr. TILLEY'S short $2,471,814.18; in October, 1873, $2,687,- rule, virtually succeeded Sir FRANCIS 519.02, and in October, 1874, $3,127,- HINCKS, finds the revenue still 166.77; in November, 1873, $1,814,- growing and nearly $3,000,000 ahead of 885.55, and in November, 1874, $2,230,- 1870-71, but an expenditure so enhanced 540.74; in December, 1873, $1,586,449.90, and in December, 1874, $1,640,006.13—making a total revenue during these six months from July to Januarywhen the hon. gentleman has shown that a larger amount by one and a half millions was entered for consumption than during the present year-$11,540,805.85 in 1873, and $13,969,949.52 in 1874, or an increase in the six months of $2,429,143.67. Now, I ask the hon. gentleman to explain to this House how it is he can obtain the amount of revenue which he could only get from the heavy levy of nearly five millions of taxes per annum upon the people of this country, provided that a million of Customs Revenue was discounted before the first July, 1874. I say that it is impossible for any gentleman who regards the argument addressed to the House by the Finance Minister in this matter, to come to any other conclusion than this-that the hon. gentleman was obliged, drawing upon his imagination for his facts, to put down such a charge to enhanced Customs as was necessary in order to establish his imaginary deficit. Now, let me tell the House do they say? Why, basing their remarks what that imaginary deficit was. I hold on the speech of the honourable in my hand a paper that professes to be gentleman they say :-"There is now well informed in this country-the Globe a serious deficit, involving the necessity —which states that there was a deficit in for much new and disagreeable taxation, the current expenditure of the past year with every prospect of a still more serious Hon. Mr. Tupper.

that he has to provide by fresh taxes to
cover a deficit of three millions.' But
what does the Finance Minister himself
say ? I hold in my hand a London Econ-
omist containing an account of the speech
which he delivered to this House; and it
was fortunate for the House and fortunate
for the country, in view of the fact that
the hon. gentleman was going to England
to negotiate a large loan, that there was
an Opposition in this House; it was of
value to the country that these statements
were not allowed to go unchallenged and that
the result of the analysis to which we sub-
jected the figures and statements of the
hon. gentleman a year ago induced one of
the most influential journals in London to
disclaim the deficit-
disclaim the deficit-a pretended one
and if it had not been that a friend of
Canada was then in England to take up
and controvert these mischievous state-
ments reproduced from the speech of the
Honourable Minister of Finance, his story
to-day, respecting the loan-although I
shall show that it requires some qualifica-
tion before I sit down-would have been
a different one from what it was.

What

as

gentleman might have allowed his prede-
cessors to have escaped his denunciation
as to the past financial management of
this country. When we were able to show
that the revenue of this country had risen
under our administration from $13,687,928
in 1867-68 to $20,813,469 in 1872-73, an
increase of $7,125,541 in five years, I
think the honorable gentleman might
have felt that something was to be learned
from examining the financial policy of his
predecessors, rather than cast the unde-
served obloquy on them that he did. And
when it is considered that that enormous
increase of no less than seven millions of
dollars per annum was obtained, in con-
trasting these five years, the first with the
last; when it is remembered that that was
not due to increased taxes as will be to the
honorable gentleman's increased revenue
which he will be able to flout in our faces
a year hence, but had been accomplished
while at the same time we had made the
great staples of tea, coffee, &c., free and
had reduced the taxation to the measures
of the people, no less than two millions
per annum, we have every reason to court
the fullest.investigation of the policy of
my right honorable friend who now sits
beside me.

deficit in the future unless the past policy | 801,203, or an increase in five years of
is reversed and great care is otherwise $86,773,671. I think that the honorable
taken." They then give the figures from
the Public Accounts, as submitted by the
Hon. Minister of Finance and the state-
ment contained in the Budget speech, and
thereafter put down a deficit of £472,000
sterling as that which the Hon. Minister
of Finance had declared to the people
of this country would fall upon the year
1873-74. Having stated that much with
reference to the question of the deficit, I
will now show the hon. gentleman how
the figures really stand. As I have said
before, I have proved to the House that
the surplus that exists
the
actual surplus of the year, irrespec-
tive of any change of tariff, would have
stood $649,604.41, and I may state that
that is only $123,000 over what I stated
to the House a year ago would be the
surplus at the end of the year. But that
is not all. I ask the hon. gentleman where
is the surplus that we left in the Treasury,
due from the year 1872-3. We showed
to the House that we left in the Treasury
a surplus of $1,638,821 on the previous
year, and if you add that to the $649,604
of surplus for 1873-4 that would have existed
on the 1st. of July, 1874, provided this mis-
chevious meddling with the tariff had been
avoided, the surplus in the Treasury
now, without new taxation or any change
in the tariff of the country, from the two
years it would have been no less than $2,288,-
425.40. And yet with our affairs in that
position-with our affairs in such a posi-
tion that on the 1st of July, 1874, by
following the policy of their predecessors
there was in the hands of the present
Government a sum of over two millions
and a quarter we were compelled to
listen to denunciations hurled at us from
the Treasury benches, on account of our
having, as was alleged, created a deficit,
and to have it heralded in London and over
the world that this deficit was owing to
the manner in which public affairs were
administered by the late Government.
Now, let me draw the attention of the
House for a moment to what the condi-
tion of affairs inherited by the hon. gentle-
men, opposite, was, and under which they
complain so bitterly. When we were able
to show the House and the country that
under our administration, the trade of
the country had increased in five years
from $131,027,928 to no less than $217,-
Hon. Mr. Tupper.

Hon Mr. CARTWRIGHT-How much does my honorable friend say he reduced the taxes. Two millions?

Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Over two millions per annum in the two years preceding 1872 and 1873. Now, I have shown the honorable gentleman that he was wrong in his impressions with reference to the trade of the country, and which I do him the justice to say he has frankly and fairly admitted in the speech with which Parliament was opened this session. I have shown the honorable gentleman that he was wrong in reierence to the revenue of the country to the extent of something like two millions of dollars, and in reference to the expenditure of the country to something like a million and a quarter; and the honorable gentleman himself was compelled to admit that he was seriously wrong in the means by which he proposed to deal with what he conceived to be the financial position of the country a year ago. Every person recollects that the measures which were proposed to this House, and proposed with severe strictures