for Public Works was $1,700,000; and the actual result received from that source of revenue was $1,479,000. The hon. gentleman was again out in his calculation, and on this occasion the amount was $220,000, or nearly one quarter of a million short. On the other hand, the hon. gentleman had estimated that other sources of revenue would produce about one one million dollars; but so far was he astray, even in these times of depression, that these other sources of revenue had produced $1,391,000, so that his estimates were $391,000 too small in one case, and about three millions too much with regard to the other two items of revenue. This statement showed that the hon. gentleman was eminently qualified to fill the position of Finance Minister, and was gifted with that foresight and prescience which the hon. gentleman claimed for himself so loudly on all occasions, while he (Mr. Cartwright) denounced his predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Tilley, who, he stated, had been so far out in his financial estimates. He would now take the next year. There might, with relation to the preceding year, be some excuse for the hon. gentleman's inexperience. They knew that the hon. gentleman had desired to be Finance Minister many years ago, and that he had then quarrelled with his leader and deserted his party.

MR. CARTWRIGHT: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to state his authority for that statement ―a statement which I have informed the House was false.

MR. MCCARTHY said he did not know what the hon. gentleman termed false; but he knew that the hon. gentleman did desert his party. He knew that the hon. gentleman did desert it at the time when Sir Francis Hincks was made Finance Minister, and he knew that the hon. gentleman then claimed to be an Independent; and he knew that the hon. gentleman then balanced himself upon that pole

until he fell into the arms of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who were the first to offer him an office. When the hon. gentleman had interrupted him, he was on the point of making another reference to this prescience which so eminently fitted him for the position 35

he filled. In the following year, the hon. gentleman estimated that the revenue from Customs would be $13,500,000; but, unfortunately, he fell short on this occasion also by nearly one million. There was a slight improvement exhibited in this respect, it was true. He did not know what the hon. gentleman would have developed into if he had been made Finance Minister in 1869, because they saw what the hon. gentleman was in 1874, when he was out about three millions in his estimates, showing a decided degree of improvement with the experience which he had gained in office. As to the other items, he did not know that there was much room to assert any claim for improvement, or much to boast of. For Excise, the hon. gentleman's estimate was five and a-half millions, and that fell short after two or three years' experience in office, when surely the hon. gentleman ought to have been able to arrive, with some degree of accuracy, at the probable amount of revenue which was to be derived from that source, by $538,000, or something over half a million. On Miscellaneous, the hon. gentleman was again too short in his estimate; the estimate was $1,200,000, and the receipts under this head head $237,000 more than that, or, in other words, $1,439,327. Of course, a great deal of excuse was to be made for that hon. gentleman, because they all remembered that this large estimate was based upon the fact that the Georgian Bay Branch of the Pacific Railroad was to be built, and that the country between Ottawa and French River was to be opened up; and from that source the hon. gentleman anticipated that the revenue would so largely exceed what it turned out to be in the result. These were facts which they ought not to disregard at this period in the history of this country, because a good deal must necessarily depend in the appeal which was about to be made to the people, on the wisdom and judgment and knowledge that had been displayed by the hon. the Minister of Finance. He now proposed to invite attention to what, after all, was a more important question that the comparative statement of expenditure between the two

years that had formed the subject of so much controversy. He proposed to draw the attention of the House to what appeared to him to be a most remarkable state of the trade of this country. He found that, in the year 1872, we imported from Great Britain $63,148,736 worth of goods, and from the United States during the same year, something over $35,000,000 worth; the difference in favour of the Mother Country being over $17,000,000. He also found that, for the year ending the 1st of July, 1877, our imports from Great Britain had fallen off from $63,000,000 to $39,000,000, the exact figures being $39,572,239; and that our imports from the United States had increased from $35,000,000 to $51,000,000; or, in other words, that while in 1872 we imported $17,000,000 more of goods in value from Great Britain than from the United States; in 1877, we imported $11.000,000 more in value

from the United States than from Great Britain; showing a difference of about $30,000,000 in the course of trade. This was a startling exhibit. The manufacturers of this country had been complaining that, during the past three or four years, this country had been made a slaughter market of by American manufacturers; and one of two things must be true-either that the Americans, notwithstanding their system of Protection which was so much decried in some quarters, were able to compete successfully in this country with the manufacturers of the Mother Country, or else that the Americans poured their goods at slaughter prices in upon this country and destroyed in that way the national industries of this Dominion. To show that this was true, he asked their attention to the figures concerning our exports. In 1873, we exported to Great Britain $1,603,000 worth of manufactured goods, in round numbers; and in 1877, we exported to Great Britain $2,179,000 worth. In other words, our exports to Great Britain had increased during these four years over half a million. But how was it with the United States? If our power of competing with the Mother Country had been progressive, did they find that this was the case with the country

which was represented to be burdened by such an enormous system of Protection. The figures in the Trade and Navigation Returns showed the contrary. They showed that in 1877 $1,601,000 worth of manufactured goods were exported to the United States, against $1,774,000 in 1873; in other words, our exports to the United States to-day were nearly half a million less than they were in 1873; while our exports to Great Britain were nearly half a million more than they were in 1873; and, altogether, our exports to Great Britain had advanced in value from thirty-one millions in 1873 to forty-eight millions in 1877, while our exports to the United States had fallen from forty-two millions to twenty-five millions; and we had increased our exports to the Mother Country by over two millions-very nearly three three millions-mainly, of course, with reference to the large item of lumber. while our exports to the United States had decreased to the tune of sixteen millions. What he particularly directed attention to was this: That our exports of manufactured goods

not of lumber, or of natural products-to the United States had fallen off, while exports on the part of the United States to this country, had largely increased. What did this prove? Did it prove that our manufacturing industries were in a proper or fair condition? He had heard the argument, and been met by the statement on frequent occasions, that the Administration of Sir John A. Macdonald had not put on Protection; that they were content with a 15 per cent. tariff; and that it was now merely an electioneering cry when it was said that protective duties ought to be imposed at this period.

Some HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. MCCARTHY said he was glad to hear hon. gentlemen say "hear, hear," but he wanted to know to what these figures pointed? If we were able,in 1873, to export to the United States, goods to the value of $42,000,000; and if we were then able to send manufactured articles there to the value of very nearly $2,000,000; and if we were not able now to send these goods to the

value of more than $1,250,000, was not this because the United States were now flooding our markets with their goods; and he wanted to know whether, under these circumstances, remedial legislation was not required, and whether some protection should not be offered, or whether we were to remain as flies on the wheel-that was to say: not to take any steps to do now what was unnecessary to be done in 1873? The accusation which the Opposition made was that these circumstances pointed conclusively to the fact that either this country had been made a slaughter market of, or that the protective system in the United States was a success; and he did not think it made any difference upon which horn of the dilemma the hon. gentleman chose to be impaled. The result was that this country required, in 1877, a different system of legislation from that which it required in 1873. By the census of 1871, he found that, of a total population of nearly three and a-half millions, there were engaged in industrial pursuits 187,942 persons, who were mainly heads of families. He had looked to see how many were engaged in farming pursuits, because the industrial and agricultural pursuits were said to be opposed to one another, and he found that 369,279 were engaged in latter. In 1871, $77,000,000 were invested in industrial pursuits, and the annual wages paid amounted to $40,000,000. He desired to know if the people who had invested their capital in an industry to enable them to pay such an enormous amount

per

annum were not entitled to protection against the foreign manufacturer south of our line. He contended that an industry, which was sufficient to induce people,in 1871,to invest their money in it to the extent of nearly $80,000,000, and to induce 187,000 people to settle in this country, ought to be protected by such legislation as might be found necessary. But what had been the course of the hon. gentlemen opposite? They could not tell the extent to which the manufacturing industries had been endangered because there had been no census since 1871, but they knew the manufacturers were complaining, and that bankruptcy prevailed to a great extent, though

was

they were not able to place figures against figures, and to show accurately what the loss had been. On some subjects, however, they could make a comparison, and to those subjects he proposed to invite attention. If they took the tea trade, which was mainly built up during the Administration of the last Government, and compared that trade to-day with that trade in 1873-74, they found that in 1873-74 they were importing altogether of green, Japan and black tea 12,364,485 pounds; while, to-day, We were importing 13,374,035 pounds, a slight increase. But where that coming from? A great portion of that tea had been formerly imported direct; but, now, whence did it come? In 1873-74 we imported direct of the two classess of teas 4,570,757 pounds, according to the returns from China and Japan; but to-day, we were importing from those countries, 1,251,296 pounds; or our direct trade with those countries had fallen since 1873-74 from four and a half millions of pounds to cne and a quarter million,-a loss in the direct trade of three and a quarter millions of pounds. Where had this trade gone? It had been alleged that the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite was to make Boston and New York the markets for our merchants. He thought these returns conclusively proved that statement. They found that in 1873-74 Canada was importing, through the United States, 1,715,904 pounds of tea; but, to-day, we were importing, through that country, 6,170,402 pounds; so that we were taking four and a half millions of tea more from the United States, which did not grow it, and where it was not a product, but was brought from China and Japan. The United States became, in that sense, the middleman, and so supplied our people. He thought the statement of his hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Tupper) the other night, was, beyond all question, true, that the policy before 1873-74 was to open a direct trade between Canada and China and Japan, and that since that time the policy had been to destroy that trade and to give the profit, which we ought to have been making, to the people of the

United States. The Finance Minister had said that was the trade of one vessel. That was one way of being witty, but it was being witty at the expense of the country. If they took up the sugar question, they would find the same result. He did not propose to weary the House with all the figures he might quote, but the result was that, in 1873-74, we imported of the higher classes of sugar 78,491,708 pounds; whereas, now, we imported 97,000,000 pounds of that class of sugar. Of the coarser kinds of sugar, including melado, cane juice, etc., we imported 23,000,000 pounds in 1873-74, and now the importation had fallen to something over three million pounds. The statements, therefore, which had been made by the members of the Op. position, were borne out by the returns made by the Government itself. Now, he would ask, What policy ought to be pursued? There was a distinct issue between the gentleman on the Treasury benches and those on the Opposition side, in reference to this question. To use the language of the Minister of Finance, the Government were prepared to fight to the death, in order to leave matters as they were, and the hon. gentleman was aware that on the Opposition side they were prepared to stake their political fortune on a different policy. The Ministers were prepared to hold that there was not to be a different policy pursued from that which was adopted during the years of the American war, and the period which succeeded that war. But the Opposition contended, that what was quite sufficient protection, and what those accounts showed to have been sufficient, up to 1874, had ceased to be a sufficient protection; and they claimed that the tariff ought to be so readjusted that the industries of this country would be protected. Perhaps no greater flattery could be given to the late Administration | than had been given, practically, by the hon. gentlemen on the Government benches. In effect they said: "Your tariff from 1867 to 1873-the tariff which we found in force when we took office-was so wise that it needs no amendment; that it does not need to be altered; that it shall be kept like the laws of the Medes and Persians." It

was unfortunate that the Opposition could not accept the same view. They were Reformers. They claimed that the circumstances of the country required reform in this direction, and they were not going to say that the tariff of 1873 must suit the country for all time. As to the farming industries, while so much could not, perhaps, be said in regard to them, still they, also, were entitled to protection. They were entitled to have their products protected, for they did not get fair play. They were entitled to get reciprocity of trade or reciprocity of tariffs, and that was all they wanted. If they could send their wheat, their barley, and their coarse grains into the United States, they were prepared to compete with the Americans, and to allow the latter to send their products here. They had every reason to complain of the Chinese wall which was raised against them by the American Government, while our Government took no steps to protect them since the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty. It had, however, been said that we had nothing to offer; that there was nothing left; that such had been the conduct of the right hon. member for Kingston (Sir John A. Macdonald), when,as an Imperial Commissioner, he signed the Washington capitulation, as it had been called, that we could not hope to have reciprocity. That was an argument which would not bear investigation. Why, if that were true, was the Hon. George Brown sent to Washington? He (Mr. McCarthy) believed that the hon. Senator was desirous to show his fitness for a diplomatic mission, and it had been said— though he had no means of knowing the truth-that Mr. Brown had left the Government before because he was not entrusted with a similar errand. Well, Mr. Brown went to Washington. He (Mr. McCarthy) believed he had converted a clerk in the Statistical Department. Five thousand dollars had been spent, and the only convert that had been made had been this clerk, who, when the hon. Commissioner went as an ambassador from Canada, was hostile to reciprocity. The result was that we had no reciprocity, that the hon. gentleman's scheme proved so utterly unsatisfactory to the authorities on the

other side of the line, that they were not prepared to entertain it. But what was the effect of the Washington Treaty? We had had a value placed upon that we now knew exactly what our fisherieswere worth. Our own Commissioner, after full and patient investigation, had signed an award that our fisheries were worth five and a-half million dollars for ten or twelve years, and that was over and above the right which we had obtained to fish in American waters. We were, therefore, entitled to about half a million dollars per annum. We imported from the Americans $51,000,000 worth of goods. Did any hon. member mean to say that, if we shut out the American goods to that extent, we could not compel them, notwithstanding that we got half a million dollars a year for our fisheries, to agree to reciprocal trade with us? It was idle, therefore, to say we had not got it in our power to protect our farmers, miners, and manufacturers against the Americans, and could not

force the American manufacturer into reciprocal trade with us.

MR. CHARLTON: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the export of manufactured goods from

the United States to Canada $51,000,000?

is

MR. MCCARTHY: We imported that amount, whether manufactured or not; and on that amount, whether the goods were manufactured or not, there was a profit to the American exporter considerably more than the half million dollars which our Commissioner had held to be due to us, as the annual value of our fisheries. As far as the fisheries were concerned, the treaty was only for ten years. It might have been a capitulation, as the hon. the Finance Minister had mentioned, but he would ask him to look around him and see who were the gentlemen who voted in favour of that treaty, and whose names were recorded in the division list. He found there the name of Burpee - could it be that that was the Minister of Customs? He found the name of Smith, of Westmoreland-was it possible that that was the present Minister of Marine? He found the name of Holton-was that the hon. gentleman who was so

active in aiding the Ministry on points of order in this House, who was, in fact, a sort of outside Minister? Yet, the hon. the Minister of Finance called this a disgraceful capitulation. He was also told that one of the gentlemen who voted for that capitulation was a gentleman named Coffin, though he had really forgotten that such a gentleman occupied a seat in this House. Was that the present Receiver General ?

MR. DYMOND: The hon. the Minister of Customs was not a member of the House at that time; it was another gentleman of that name.

MR. MCCARTHY said at all events, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burpee) was a member of the House now, and supported and endorsed the Ministry of the day; and he thought it would only

be decent if the Minister of Finance would refrain from throwing dirt at his colleagues in speaking of this as a disgraceful capitulation. So much for the Washington Treaty. It might be put an end to at the termination of ten years and then we would be as we were. He had never pretended that, looked at in a purely abstract light, a system of Protection was to be preferred to one of Free-trade, and that it was wise, or would be good statesmenship for the country, to build up against the laws of nature manufactures which could not exist in the Dominion without such aid. But what was the difference between the northern part of the United States, and Canada? In regard to manufacture, our climate and natural products were, to a great extent, similar to theirs, and were we not in so good a position to manufacture north of the line as our American cousins on the south of the line? We could not, however, hope to compete against such an unfair system as we were now competing against. It was absurd to pretend that our manufactures could exist when the American markets were shut against us, while ours were open to them. What we wanted was not to inaugurate a sys tem of Protection, but to initiate such a system as would remedy the mistakes made against the doctrines of Free-trade, by our friends south of the line.

If they were doing violence to