Government which could not only protect industries, but also limit production. I hold that a protective policy on the contrary runs through the whole legislative system of any country. To afford protection of life ad property is the duty of Government, and armies are raised and navies built to protect the nation. Prisons are erected for the pro-enabled to buy four yards of cotton with his tection of the public, and free grants given for the purpose of increasing the public wealth and adding to the population. It may be safely assumed that no nation has attained to greatness in commerce or manu factures without having in the course of its history imposed exactions and contributions. This has been notably the case with Great Britain herself; and I think the assertion, that the development of various industries is necessary to the cultivation of the selfdefensive power of a nation, is incontrovert * able. We have had an illustration of it in the neighbouring nation. The Southern States were without manufacturing industries, while the Northern States were filled with them, and the advantage this gave them resulted in the suppression of the rebellion. Then again the possession of organized and skilled labour is an advantage that the manufacturers in a country where manufactures are established for a long time, possess over a new country. But although it may be conceded that protection is to the advantage of manufacturers, unless it can be shown that it is also an advantage to the other classes of the community and the nation at large, all arguments in favour of protection fall to the ground. It must be shown that the agriculturists are to be benefitted by protection before it is incumbent upon the Government to adopt a protective policy. I believe that the interests of the nation at large would be promoted by judi cious protection; I believe that the agricul tural interests of the Dominion would be promoted by protection, and that the manufacturer being brought to the door of the farmer would afford a market for a great many articles of produce that would not be saleable if the market were three thousand miles away." He thought the hon. gentleman had forgotten those sentiments when he sneered at the remarks of his hon. friend from Niagara (Mr. Plumb), on his referring to the low price of oats purchased last year in the Western States and brought into Canada to compete with the oats raised by our own farmers. The hon. gentleman continued: "With a home market of this kind estab lished by protection to manufacturers, the agriculturist can benefit his soil by producing a rotation of crops. The purchasing power of money is not a correct measure of the purchasing power of labour. A farmer raises a bushel of corn which he sells for fifty cents in a foreign market, and with the That proceeds he can buy three yards of cotton; but supposing the manufactures are brought to his door, and the better market which it creates increases the price to 60 or 70 cents per bushel, and although impost duties are levied on cottons from Manchester so as to add largely to its price, still he may be bushel of corn, instead of three yards it was able to purchase before, as the purchasing power of his labour is increased. We have at our own doors all the illustrations and experience of protection and its benefits required for our government and guidance. The United States have adopted a protective policy under which their manufactures have been fostered and promoted until in 1870 their products reached the sum of $4,253,000,000, giving employment to 2,000,000 operatives, and disbursing over $775,500,000 in wages. It has been charged that protection has prevented the extension of foreign commerce in that country. may be true, but it is estimated that the domestic commerce of the United States last year reached the enormous proportions of 200,000,000 tons, valued at $10,000,000,000. What is the foreign commerce of that country compared with the vast domestic trade that goes on increasing without the fluctuations or risks of foreign trade. Look at the progress of the cotton trade in that country. Previous to the import duties on foreign cottons in 1825, British manufactures crushed out all efforts to establish factories in the Republic; but the imposition of 25 per cent. duty on foreign cottons had the effect in a few years, not only of building up manu. factories, but led to the production of an article better in quality and lower in price than the Americans received from British manufacturers before their own industries were established. In 1860 the United States were exporters of cottons, exporting nearly 10 per cent. of the whole amount manufactured. The same way with the iron trade. attempts to establish iron industries were crushed out by foreign competition, and high prices were maintained at intervals-higher on the average than the percentage necessary to produce them in the United States at a profit. But when a protective duty was imposed, iron manufactories were established; and in a short time the price of iron was brought down several dollars per ton, and it is now sold cheaper than the British ron ever was offered for on that market.' All This, he thought, was a sufficient auswer to the theory indulged in by Freetraders that the imposition of a protective duty raised prices so enormously as to make it a burdensome taxation upon the people. The hon. gentleman said further that "The shipping interest of the United States was one of the most signal illustrations of the benefit of a protective policy that could be produced. Under a protective tariff the He could go on and read page after page of this speech which was delivered by the hon. gentleman before he (Mr. Charlton) found it necessary to place himself in accord with the Cabinet which he was supporting, were it necessary; but he had read sufficient to show that the hon. gentleman was very much like, in that respect, an eminent statesman in this country who had delivered a very able speech against the Union of the Provinces, and who afterwards at the request of those with whom he was acting, delivere l another speech in favour of Union; and when he was complimented upon the latter speech replied: "Ah! You did not hear my speech on the other side." MR. CHARLTON: I must object to the hon. gentleman making garbled extracts from a speech of mine delivered three years ago. The ex tracts read are calculated to give an impression different from that given by the entire speech. I rise to make this protest against an advantage so unfair being taken by any hon. member of this House, and submit that the whole speech be read. MR. BOWELL said perhaps the hon. gentleman would be kind enough-as he doubtless had the official debates in his possession-to point out to the House any portion of that speech which contradicted what he had read, or explained it in any other way than that in which he had read it. He would be very glad to accommodate the hon. gentleman by reading the whole speech, and though it might be flat tering to him (Mr. Charlton), if he did so, it would not change the meaning of a single sentence in it. MR. CHARLTON: If the hon. gentleman will permit me to say so, he will find on continuing the perusal of that speech that it takes the ground that the duties imposed by the present Government of 17 per cent. are ample MR. BOWELL said he had neither garbled the hon. gentleman's speech or given an incorrect interpretation of the sentiments which he had there uttered. He knew there was a paragraph in it in which the hon. gentleman referred to the 175 per cent. duty; but if his recollection served him correctly, the hon. gentleman made this statement-that he had believed 17 per cent. would not be ample protection; but after hearing the Budget Speech of the hon. the Finance Minister, when moving the House into Supply, he considered that 173 per cent. would be sufficient protection, but that did not affect the general principle of protection and free-trade, as Protectionists might differ as to the amount of duty necessary to accomplish the end desired. Why, the hon. gentleman actually advocated a retaliatory policy towards the United States. He said: "With regard to the resolution, I confess I would bring the United States to terms, and would like to see a retaliatory policy which would at least protect us against the slaughter market." MR. CHARLTON: I again protest against this as unfair. MR. BOWELL: Of course, the hon. gentleman protests. There is no doubt of that. The sentiments of 1875 being so much at variance with those of 1878, that to hear them makes the hon. gentleman wince. MR. CHARLTON: If the hon. gentleman makes a quotation from the speech, let him give the whole of it. MR. BOWELL said he had no objection to do so, as So, as the whole speech was an admirable and unanswerable defence of protection, He would be delighted to have the whole of the speech, which the hon. gentleman delivered in 1875, published broadcast; and that particularly to have it placed in the hands of every voter in the hon. gentleman's own constituency, then at least they would have an opportunity of comparing the sentiments which the hon. gentleman uttered in 1875 with those which he delivered last year and repeated today, in order to show his devotion to the party, at the expense of principle. It would be the best possible evidence of the vacillation of the hon. gentleman's opinions, and form the best possible antidote to the speech he had made in moving the answer to the Speech from. the Throne. He had no doubt it was unpalatable to the hon. member to have his former arguments brought to his memory and the memories of the other members of the House on the present day, and particularly before the younger members who had not heard him; this might be very unpalatable, but when a man changed his opinions every twenty-four hours, or at least, every year, to meet the political exigencies of his party, he must not expect that those who did not so change their views were to accept his dictum even on the trade policy of the country. The answer to the Address from the Throne contained very few points to which a reference was necessary, and though the Opposition did not intend to move any amendment to it, he was not prepared-neither did he think that any one on either side of the House, who had taken a calm view of the state of trade and of the country, commercially, at the present moment, would be prepared to accept all that was contained in this answer as either correct or probable. He took particular objection to the following paragraph: "That we receive with much pleasure His Excellency's congratulations on the abundant harvest reaped in all quarters of the Dominion, and that uuder this and other influences there has been some improvement in the Revenue returns, thus indicating, as we trust with His Excellency, that the commercial depression that afflicted Canada in com: mon with other countries, is passing away." He did not believe, though we had had, comparatively speaking, an abundant harvest during the last year, that the commercial depression was passing away. If they turned to the city of Montreal and other commercial centres at the present moment, they would find that instead of the depression passing away, failures were continually taking place, and that the artisan and the labourer were out of employment. And if they went into the towns or picked up the Official Gazette, or turned to the advertisements in the columns of the local journals, they would scarcely find an issue in which there were not instances of bankruptcies following bankruptcies continuously. It might be said that these were the results of the past depression; this might be true to a certain extent, but it was more than that; and the depression existed still, and the want of labour and employment was driving our people out of the country. To make the assertion, therefore, contained in this answer to the Address, was to assert that which certainly was not borne out by the facts. There was another paragraph, which referred to the independence of Parliament. The hon. member who seconded this motion said that the experience of the past had been such as to justify the Government in amending the law. But when the House and the country reflected, they must come to this conclusion: that if the law was too strict in its present provisions and operations, this was in a great measure due to the hon. gentlemen who occupied the Treasury benches at the present moment. These hon. gentlemen had forced upon the late Government those restrictions and stringent clauses, which now exist in that bill; and although the operations of the Act. might have been detrimental to some members of the House, and though it might to some of them have caused the loss of their seats, one thing was certain that one hon. gentleman, at least, had profited by it; a Minister of the Crown had been compelled to go back to his constituents for violation of this law. He (Mr. Vail), had lost his seat; and another member, his partner, in violating the law, now occupied his seat in the Cabinet. So that if that hon. gentleman had lost the profit arising from $10,000 to $12,000 a year of Post Office printing, he had gained at least $7,000 a year as a Cabi net Minister; and he, at least, (Mr. | Bowell), ventured to say, would have no cause to regret the operations of the Independence of Parliament Act. When the bill to which reference was made, came before the House, they would be better able to discuss it; but he candidly confessed he feared that any tinkering with this law would be detrimental rather than beneficial to the independence of the House. If, by amending its clauses, loop-holes were left, they would find that these would be taken advantage of whenever opportunities for so doing presented themselves, and gallons of liquor. He considered that there was an omission in the answer to the Address. The Government had referred in the Speech from the Throne to Sitting Bull, a very important personage no doubt, for he was considered of sufficient importance to be given a place in it. MR. MILLS: He whipped the United States army. MR. BOWELL: He did, eh? If he did it was a great pity that he had not stopped there, and enjoyed the fruits of his conquest. It was to be regretitted that he (Sitting Bull) should have come to this country, and put the hon. the Minister of the Interior to the great trouble of going to the unnecessary expense of proceeding to Washington to negotiate terms, either of surrender, or as to the disposal of this conqueror. But they had no explanation of the causes which led to what was probably equally important to the country-and it certainly was much more important to the hon. gentlemen who occupied the Treasury benches-this was the granting of the amnesty to O'Donoghue, which they had refused upon every other occasion. The hon. the First Minister had said that the decision of the Cabinet upon this question, had been arrived at a long time before it was promulgated. If this were so, why was it not promulgated previously? Why was this announcement of amnesty left to the very eve of a certain election? The reason, no doubt, was to be found in the past, that the Government desired to influence a certain vote at the election in Quebec East; and they thought the best way to do it was by issuing a proclamation, granting that which before they had decided O'Donoghue was not entitled to. He thought that the hon. gentleman who formerly occupied so worthily, and performed, he had no doubt, the onerous duties of President of the Council (Mr. Blake), should have given the House some explanation as to the reasons which led him to change his opinions on this question so rapidly. In 1875, the hon. gentleman ̃(Mr. Blake) had spoken very strongly upon that point; and they knew that in 1876 and 1877 this hon. gentleman repeated those sentiments. But neither would become almost a dead letter. If, with the present restrictions, Ministers of the Crown conferred patronage upon themselves, and their relations, and their partners in business, to the extent of from $10,000 to $12,000 per annum, what would they not do if the law was so amended as to enable them to put their hands into the public chest without any fear as to consequences? The temperance legis. lation referred to was, he thought, misnamed. There was nothing in the Address that referred to what they understood as temperance legislation. It was true it was stated that the Government were prepared to submit a bill dealing with the liquor traffic, but in what way he did not know. It might be by prohibition; it might be by extending the operations of the Dunkin Act to the whole Dominion, and making it more restricting, and less difficult to operate. For many years he had been in favour of that Act, but having seen its operations in many parts of the country, he had come to this conclusion: that the passage of the Dunkin Act meant very little more than, and very little less than, freetrade in liquor; for wherever it had been put in operation in any part of the country of which he had any knowledge, liquor was as freely sold as ever it was, without the restrictions which follow the licensing system; and it was done publicly, because no one would be. come informers. The result was that little whiskey shops could be found at nearly every corner throughout the different townships, and in almost every little shop where the person keeping it could raise enough money to buy five the House nor the country, he supposed, was to receive any explanations as to the causes which led that hon. gentleman to change those views. For fear that there should be any who were not aware what those sentiments were, he (Mr. Bowell) would read a short extract from a speech of the late Minister of Justice and late President of the Council, in order that the country might be reminded what strong opinions regarding this matter that hon. gentleman had held a few months before he became a party to the granting of that which he previously declared should not be granted. In 1875, the hon. gentleman said, in the debate upon the motion for enquiry made by the member for Victoria, (Mr. Costigan: "There was a ground existing in reference to Riel and Lepine which did not exist in O'Donoghue's case. In fact, O'Donoghue was largely responsible for the extreme conditious of affairs which led to the outlawry of Riel and Lepine. He (Mr. Blake) always believed that O'Donoghue was one of the principal actors in that crime." In the year following, the foregoing sentiments were considered not suf ficiently strong, so the hon. gentleman gave utterance to the following expressions of opinion :- "What was the attitude of the three chief actors at the time? On the one hand they found O'Donoghue leading an insurrection against Her Majesty's subjects, while the others were found on the opposite side. The act of O'Donoghue on that occasion was such as precluded the House from taking a favourable view of his case. The House is bound to consider the whole position and attitude of any person to whom it was prepared to extend the prerogative of mercy. I maintain that the conduct of O'Donoghue was such as to disentitle him to any favourable consideration at the hands of this House, or of the Crown. I do not think the House would be disposed to say that it would be the duty of the Government to institute an inquiry into the facts alleged by O'Donoghue in his letter, in order that justice might be done." * These were his opinions in 1876. In 1877, the hon. gentleman expressed sentiments equally strong, and yet, a few months afterwards, they found this hon. gentleman advising Her Majesty's representative in this country to grant an amnesty to O'Donoghue, though but a few months before he refused even an investigation to ascertain whether such amnesty should be granted; but neither the House nor the country would be surprised or astonished at the course of the hon. member for South Bruce on this question. He would here repeat what the hon. member for Cumberland had said the previous evening, so well and so ably,-that there was not a principle which this hon. gentleman or his colleagues ever advocated when in Opposition, that they had not directly violated since they had been in power. As early as 1867, the hon. member for South Bruce had moved a resolution in this House, condemning the acceptance of an executive office without emoluments or salary attached thereto; and yet he was the first man, both in the Ontario and Dominion Governments, who accepted sich a position, though he had condemned such a procedure in the strongest possible language, not only by his voice, but by resolution, which stood upon the records of Parliament. The hon. gentleman also said that the Cabinet was not only too large, but ought to and did, accept, in both the Provincial be reduced; yet he was prepared to, and Dominion Governments, a position which added to the number of the Cabinet. True, in both cases, it was without salary; but that only added to his inconsistency, because he had, but a short time previously, condemned such a course in a public man. Another important declaration of that hon. gentleman was-that the Cabinet Ministers ought to be paid only in proportion to the labour which they had to perform; and the country supposed that when the hon. gentleman accepted a position in the Cabinet (the Presidency of the Council), to which it was generally understood there were no very arduous duties attached, that they should have a measure recommended to this House upon the subject, and that he would be prepared to advocate that the salaries attached to the office he held should be reduced, and that he, with his high sense of honour, refuse to take as high a salary as his colleagues. But they had heard nothing of the kind. They found that those utterances of his, and that the principle advocated in his pic-nic speeches. and his speeches to the House, were altogether forgotten by him. The |