country 26,414,000 feet; entered for home consumption, 12,794,000 feet, and this left, he supposed for export, 13,620,000 feet. The amount of oak exported was $1,501,020 worth, of which $44,414 worth was not the produce of Canada. The value of deals exported was $7,794,393, of which $262,918 was the product of all other countries. The white pine exported was worth $4,211,752, of which the product of all other places amounted to $15,060. The value of staves exported was $396,340, of which the product of all other countries was $2,436. Now, every person at all acquainted with the lumber trade of Canada knew that these statements from the Trade and Navigation Returns were altogether wrong. More than one half of the oak exported came from Michigan, and a far greater quantity of white pine, deals and staves than was here given, came from the same place, and had the effect of making our exports appear larger than they really were. But what our lumbermen next complained of was that foreigners could bring timber into their market, undersell them, shut up their m's and stop their operations, when they could not send a load of culls to the United States without paying $2 per M. duty -we allowing them the use of our canals, harbours and markets, without their contributing a cent to the revenue. The argument used was, Oh, the people of Great Britain, if they do not get them in Quebec, will buy them in the United States." The buyers in Britain were conservative in their habits, and would obtain their supplies through the old channel. Americans would be unable, unless at a far greater cost, to find a market without using The result of the policy adopted | by the Government was having its effect on the country. Gentlemen who had supported them all their lives were now opposing them, as the member for North Lanark (Mr. Galbraith) would find when he appeared before his constituents for re-election. That hon. gentleman represented a constituency in which resided persons belonging to the artizan class, who had emigrated from Scotland, and there had been townships in it in which there could hardly be found a voter our's. who did not support the Reform ticket, but, at the last local election, a Conservative member was returned for it; and it was expected-and he hoped this would be the case--that at the next general election, a Conservative and Protectionist would be elected to represent that constituency in the House of Commons. The only possible reason for this change among people who had inherited Reform principles from their forefathers, and who had been Reformers all their lives until recently, was that the present policy of the Government affected their pockets. They saw that, if they invested the whole of their means in manufactures, they would drag and eke out a miserable existence. They had hoped for better days, but no helping hand had been lent them by the Government. The hon. the Finance Minister asked: "How will you increase the prosperity of the country by adding to the burdens of the population?" But no such idea was entertained. Protectionists did not intend or desire to increase the burdens of the community, in any manner, in the adoption of a tariff. What they desired to secure was such a readjustment of the tariff as would prevent foreign goods coming in here and destroying our manufacturing interests, and that would preserve for these interèsts a steady market. What difference did it make to the community if we had to raise twenty millions, whether it was obtained by the imposition of 25 per cent. on one article and 2 per cent on another? Mention was made of the poor consumer, who, it was said, would have to pay more taxes under a protective tariff. Protectionists did not advocate anything of the kind; and did not intend that the consumer should pay any more taxes than at present. They simply desired to secure such a readjustment of the tariff as would encourage manufactures that would thrive in this country; and the manufacturers said to the Canadian people: "If you will grant us adequate protection, we will not only sell to you as cheaply as other countries can, but in course of time more cheaply." They did not want to impose any burdens on the community; and they said, further, that, when they reached such a stage, they would add to our riches by exporting to other countries. It was a fallacy to say that consumers would have to pay increased taxation under the protective system proposed. This was an absurdity, and an incorrect theory. They wisi.ed to protect our manufacturers from the fluctuations of trade, and no more; and prevent manufacturers in England, the United States, or elsewhere, from selling goods under cost in our country, in order to secure the market for themselves-which, once obtained, would result in prices being raised 100 per cent. The statement which he now made was founded on evidence which had been brought out before Committees of this House, and before a Committee of the Imperial House of Commons, in connection with an enquiry into the relations between capital and labour. The chairman of that Committee, in his report, had stated that, if workmen would only consider the very large amount that the country had lost in sending goods into foreign countries, and selling them below cost, with the view of keeping possession of the trade there, it would surely decrease the tendency to strike amongst them. By such evidence the House would see that a manufacturer, without a protective duty, would have to compete for years with them without a profit, which was impossible for Our manufacturers to do on account of their limited capital. Our manufacturers wished to be protected against anything of the kind; and they said, "Do this and we will not interfere with commerce, or with the amount of taxation levied in the country." Our commerce, under such a condition of things, would be as great as ever; and our shipping interests, etc., as prosperous as ever. They only required sufficient protection to enable them to employ to some advantage their small capital and to make a living in this country. He thought that this would be granted; and that the day was coming when their request would be favourably heard and decided upon by the people. At the same time,they said to the agriculturists, "We will protect your market here against being flooded by American cereals." In Canada, we now consumed more grain than was raised in the country, if we were to believe the Trade and Navigation Returns; and, with protection, we could thus control our own markets. The great and true argument used by Cobbett when he appealed to the agriculturists of Great Britain for support, in advocacy of Free-trade, was that the operation of Free-trade there would secure the expansion of their manufactures; and he said that, when this was brought about, and when plenty of employment was thus applied to the artizans, the class that would most benefit from this state of things was the agricultural class. And the class to which Protectionists must appeal for support in Canada was the agricultural class; and the moment it was shown that they would benefit more from Protection than any other class in the community, which was the case, their support with regard to the protective policy was assured. The farmers would so benefit from the adoption of a protective system, owing to the increase in the price of the commodities which they had to sell that this would cer tainly bring about; the nearness of their market and the diversity of farm produce required would recompense the farmers for their support of this policy; while native goods would be sold them at less rates than was the case with imported articles, and the revenue at the same time would suffer no loss. Protectionists admitted that a revenue must be raised, but it could be obtained through the readjustment he had mentioned. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Macdonald) said, why should we impose extra duties on a country that has done so much for us?" referring to Great Britain; but, while increased duties should be imposed on articles of American manufacture, discrimination could be shown in favour of English goods. American goods could be prevented from injuring our industries by means of such a policy, and at the same time, our trade with Great Britain need not be affected. MR. PLUMB said they had been treated that day to a large measure of oratory on various subjects; but, without attempting to reply in detail to much that had been said on the opposite side of the question, he would briefly notice some of the arguments that had been adduced by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Oliver), from whom they had been treated to a most extraordinary harangue. He could not call it anything else. Some HON. MEMBERS: Order. House. They had sat somewhat late on the evening previous, and had then occupied the time, in his opinion, very unprofitably. MR. LANGEVIN: Hear, hear. MR. MACKENZIE said the hon. member for Charlevoix said “hear, hear." The debate, however, had been very profitable for them, and he would hardly like to inflict upon his hon. friend (Mr. Langevin) a great many nights of the same sort. MR. LANGEVIN: Hear, hear. MR. PLUMB said he thought he was perfectly in order. "Harangue" was a good word; that hon. gentleman seemed to have suddenly found his voice, which had very seldom been heard in the House of late; and he (Mr. Oliver) had MR. MACKENZIE said it was only certainly given them the most extraordinary and discursive speech that consideration for the hon. gentleman they had ever heard in the House almost and his friends that induced him to within his recollection. This speech heartily congratulate the hon. member refrain from doing so. He begged to reminded him very much of a story he had heard with respect to a gentleman for Terrebonne (Mr. Masson) on being of Virginia, who, with his young the leader of the Opposition. Could nephew, had been attending a public the hon. gentleman give them any information as a very quiet of his to the intentions meeting. This was old gentleman, very friends with regard to sententious, and he made very few comments; the continuation of the debate? but, when they got into the wag the debate to close on the next night He felt bound to say that he would like gon and were driving home, the young fellow, who thought he had that it was continued. Of course, he made a splendid speech at the meeting did not wish to hurry those who desired in question, said: "Uncle, I made a to speak on the subject. Every hon. speech?" "Yes, I heard it," and noth- member had an equal right to speak; ing more. Presently the young fellow but, on the other hand, up to the spoke up again: "I spoke to-night present they had spent a very large about an hour." "Oh, yes, you spoke portion of their time in debate; and a for an hour and 43 minutes by the number of their speeches were simply watch,”—nothing more. A pause. a recapitulation of arguments and stateWell, what did you think of ments made on a former occasion. He speech, uncle ?' would like to have some understanding Well," was reply, "I will tell you. A smart man to the effect that, if possible, they would have made that speech in ten should close the debate on the Tuesday minutes, and a very smart man would night following, even if they then sat not have made it at all." This he somewhat late. With that understand(Mr. Plumb) thought was about as fairing he would consent to an immediate adjournment. my the a comment as one wanted to make on the speech of the hon. member for North Oxford, in which there were some points so extraordinary in their nature that he would notice them. MR. MASSON said he would interpose this point. The hour was late, the subject one of serious importance, and the debate could not be finished that evening. He thought an adjourn ment was then advisable. MR. MACKENZIE said he was, of course, desirous of meeting the wishes of hon. members on both sides of the MR. MASSON said he had no author ity to tell the hon. gentleman how long hon. members on both sides of the House had to speak; but the hon. gentleman should remember that the greater part of the evening had been taken up by one of his supporters, which evidently proved that the question was a very important one in which gentlemen on both sides of the House took an interest, and on which they desired to speak. He could not tell how long the debate would continue; but it would last as long as hon. mem 1 bers wished to speak on the matters at issue. He was sure that the hon. gentleman could no more control the members on his side of the House, than the right hon. member for Kingston could control members of the Opposition in connection with a question like this. MR. MACKENZIE: We can control them so far that we could go into committee in five minutes. MR. MASSON: I say that the right hon. member for Kingston, notwithstanding all the influence he has with us, and the respect we have for him, could not pretend to have such control over this side of the House. We heard the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue say the other day, that they had no leaders; but evidently they have a pretty powerful one, when he can make his followers stop speaking at will. MR. PLUMB moved the adjournment of the debate. MR. MACKENZIE: I consent to it, and I hope we will get through with the debate in another night. INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY RETURNS. QUESTION. MR. DOMVILLE: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to know whether, during the recess, which lasted eight months and some days, the hon. the Premier had time to prepare the balance of the Intercolonial papers which I asked for last year. These have not been brought down, and what are brought down are not really what I asked for. I do not know whether he has a right to disregard the Orders of the House with respect to the bringing down of papers. MR. MACKENZIE: As to that, I allowed a number of the motions to pass I so ex with the perfect knowledge that it was impossible to comply with them without employing an enormous mass of clerks. plained at the time, and I told the hon. gentleman that he would have to accept a number of the motions with that qualification. I will make enquiry about those that are still missing, however, and let the hon. gentleman know. MR. DOMVILLE: I am not satisfied Motion agreed to, and Debate ad- with that explanation. journed. DOMINION GRANGE BILL.-[BILL 18.] (Mr. Snider.) BILL WITHDRAWN. Order discharged and Bill withdrawn. House adjourned at HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, 4th March., 1878. The Speaker took the Chair at Three o'clock. PRAYERS. BILLS INTRODUCED. The following Bills were severally introduced and read the first time : Bill (No. 38) To extend to the Province of Prince Edward Island, the Railway Act, 1868, and certain Acts amending, the same.-(Mr. Mackenzie) Bill (No. 39) Respecting the Canada Vine Growers' Association.-(Mr. Smith, Peel.) MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member cannot discuss the matter. MR. DOMVILLE: I am not going to discuss the question; but I wish to say I am informed, and I believe credibly, that information concerning these papers was sent up during recess, which has not yet been brought down. THE ALLEGED PICHÉ LETTER. QUESTION. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the hon. gentleman whether he has made up his mind as to what action he will take respecting the letter read by my hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Masson), and also the letter which was read by Mr. Piché. MR. MACKENZIE: When the hon. member for Kingston was absent, a reply was read by the Clerk, sent in by Mr. Piché, giving the statement that he had to make in reply to the letter in question. I stated on that occasion that I wrote a letter calling his attention to it, under the impres- | ments relating to this matter on the sion that he was appointed by commis- Journals. As I understood it, the sion. I found, however, after having matter was first introduced in rather a written him the letter, that I was mis- conversational way, and the hon. the taken in that, and that he was an First Minister, as leader of the House, officer of the House, amenable direct- was called upon to take action respectly to the Speaker; and, therefore, I ing it. He, after consideration, chose to told him to make his communication refer the matter very much to myself. to the Speaker. It was really addressed The result of this was that I brought to me, but delivered to the Speaker. I down the answer which the party explained this to the House at the accused of having written an improper time. Of course, 1 quite understand letter chose to make to that; and I that, under certain circumstances, it submitted it, not solemnly, as I take it, could become necessary for myself, as but informally, because I intimated leader of the Government and of this my views that it should not be entered House, to do and say certain things in on the Journals, but treated as a paper reference to a matter of general inter laid before the House in the ordinary est affecting the employés of the House, way, unless subsequent action was or, at all events, as leader of the House, determined upon; and that then, if it to bring them under the notice of were deemed proper, all the papers members; but in this case, I con- should appear on the Journals, the ceive it to be pre-eminently the letter which was the groundwork of duty of the Speaker to deal with that the complaint as well as the reply to matter; and I therefore intimated to that letter. However, in that reply, him that I should leave the matter in Mr. Piché has declared he cannot his hands, where it rests at present. believe that the letter published in the letter he ever wrote. newspapers is an exact copy of any Under those circumstances, my impression is that, before any other action is taken, he ought to have the opportunity of examining the original, and comparing it with the letter published. He might then be called upon, perhaps, for some further explanation or reply. I think that, under these circumstances, it is not for me now to make any decision on the subject, as the reply of Mr. Piché declares solemnly and positively that he cannot believe that some expressions attributed to him in the letter published were used by him. MR. MASSON said the hon. gentleman had not at first been ready to decide whether these letters should be entered on the Journals of the House, as he (Mr. Masson) had recommended, and had said that he (Mr. Mackenzie) would take that question into consideration, and, on the recommendation of the Speaker, it had been left over for a day or two until the hon. the Premier should determine respecting the proper mode of bringing it before the House. He thought the hon. the Premier should give them his advice as to whether these papers should be put on the Journals of the House. He contended that it was their duty to require that this should be done. The letters had been read and submitted to the House by the Speaker in the most formal and solemn manner, and read by the Clerk at the Speaker's own request; and he held that, before the Speaker took any action upon it, the matter must be before the House Consequently, he considered that the hon. the Premier should see that these papers were laid before the House, and inserted in the Journals of the House. MR. SPEAKER: If any action of the House is to be invited, I presume it is necessary to have all the docu SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said that the matter could not by any The answer possibility rest as it was. of Mr. Piché did not appear to be satisfactory. As the party who had written the letter was an officer of the House, and unable to speak for himself, he would say no more about it; but, otherwise, he would be inclined to use the very strongest language that would be parliamentary, as to the style of that letter. If Mr. Piché did not write the letter in question, he ought to have an opportunity to exculpate himself. If, however, he (Mr. Piché) did write that letter, literatim | and verbatim, as it appeared, or a |