last night. Starch and preparations of starch, instead of being 14 cents, should be 112 cents. Both of these were clerical errors, which I wish to have corrected, so that the discussion may proceed on a proper basis.

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, like my predecessor, I shall feel compelled to crave the indulgence of the House on this occasion if I trespass on their patience for somewhat more than the time I usually require. I fear that it will not be in my power to make my speech as interesting as was the latter half of his speech, but I will do my best, notwithstanding, to relieve the monotony which attends on discussions of a financial character. The hon. gentleman, I observed, divided-and perhaps very properly divided-his speech, which was of very unusual length-although amply warranted by the magnitude of the subject-into two parts. The first portion, portion, consuming about two hours and a half in delivery, was occupied in a eulogy of the late-I suppose I may call it the late tariff. The hon. gentleman pointed out with great force and great unction, the high, noble and patriotic motives which actuated the framers of that tariff. He dwelt with almost equal unction on the enormous benefits which had accrued to the vast mass of the people of Canada under the beneficent influences of the National

I confess

try, to consider what manner of thing was that tariff with which the hon. gentleman dealt so roughly on that occasion. Sir, at least in the hon. gentleman's eyes, I think that tariff should have been entitled to gentler treatment. Was not that tariff the lastborn, best-loved child of Sir John Macdonald ? Was it not tenderly nursed by Lady Tilley-I mean Sir Leonard Tilley? Was it not the tariff to which the great Sir Charles Tupper had been sponser and manmidwife? Was it not, therefore, entitled to better treatment at the hands of the Minister of Finance than it received? I can only liken the treatment it received at his hands, to the story so well related by Victor Hugo, in which he describes how a noble boy of princely parentage, strayed from his home, fell into the hands of an itinerant tinker, and how that tinker did so mutilate and deform that princely child that he made of it a hairlipped, split-nosed, squint-eyed monstrosity, henceforth of no use to any one but the tinker and his friends. In the recent assembly of a body to which I desire to refer in all respect no less important and august a body than the Protective Association of Manufacturers-meeting, I think, in Toronto, I observe that one fervent admirer of the late tariff, intimated, I think semi-officially, that the only way to deal with those who raised sacrilegious hands against the Policy. Nor did he forget to reprimand holy tariff, was, simply, to fasten a hemthose evil-minded men who had dared to pen rope around their necks. speak of that great policy as a blight and I thought for a moment, when Mr. Gurney made that recommendation, it was a curse. But, Sir, whilst I can understand me he had in his mind; but it apthat so far the hon. gentleman may have it pears carried a large number of his supporters but secret traitors, to whom he had referexactly open foes, with him, I do think that when in the succeeding two hours and a half he proceeded to maul and main, and mutilate and mangle, in every conceivable shape and form, this so glorious work of art, the National Policy and the tariff which represented the National Policy, I do conceive that, in the minds of some of his supporters perhaps I fear in the minds of a great many of his attentive listeners—there did appear to be some inconsistency between the first half and the latter half of the hon. gentleman's speech. By the time the hon. gentleman had got through with what I have described as the late tariff, I am bound to say I think that tariff, or rather the tariff which succeeded it, could only be properly described by the language which Lord Byron applied to the man who fooled around a powder magazine : The very mother who him bore she had not known her son." One thing only the hon. gentleman did not do, which he ought to have done he did not succeed in exorcis: ing the demon of protection from the tariff which he otherwise treated so badly. The shell was altered; the outward and fleshy tabernacle was altered; but the spirit of protection remained as before. Now, Sir, I would ask, in all sincerity and kindness, the hon. gentleman and his friends here, and his supporters throughout the coun

was not

ence. I have one question to put to the
Minister of Finance. He knows, and we all
know, that a thing of beauty is a joy for
ever. Has he not told us, time and time
again, almost without number, what a thing
of beauty was the late tariff? And yet it is
his sacrilegious hands that have maimed and
Sir, I can
mutilated that beautiful object.
hardly refrain from expressing the sentiment
which all men ought to feel, when they see
a noble
mutilated by unworthy
hands:

creature

"An eagle towering in his pride of place Was by a mousing owl hawked at and killed." Mr. FOSTER. Nothing personal intended. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Certainly not. Incidentally and in the course of his general remarks, the hon. gentleman did four things. First of all, he was good enough to explain to us the genesis of the tariff. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that was preparatory to its exodus? In the next place, the hon. gentleman enlarged, and I also will presently enlarge, on the innumerable tokens of general prosperity throughout this country due to that tariff. He was then good enough-for my special benefit, I suppose to deal in a small chapter of deficits. And lastly, he gave

us a lecture on tariffs, and explained how all Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. It retariffs were more or less protective, the Bri- quires no corroboration. It was my fortune tish tariff in particular included. Well, with in early life to be exceedingly well acquainted respect to the noble, the lofty, the patriotic with the late Sir John Macdonald. Few men motives which actuated the noble men who among his colleagues knew him better or had founded and introduced the National Policy better opportunities of knowing him than I and the tariff based thereon, it is possible for had; and I know this at least, that while us to obtain a little better evidence than the Sir John Macdonald was in the prime of his Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman life and of his intellectual vigour, on all ocwas not present on that auspicious occasion, casions he spoke of protection as a hollow He did not enter Parliament until many years sham, and intimated to me and many others after the tariff was an accomplished fact. his belief that a revenue tariff was the only Now, we are highly privileged in having in one properly suited to Canada. And, unless this House and I am delighted to see him I am greatly misinformed, the hon. member here to-day-a gentleman who was present on for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), so far at that occasion. He was very high in the coun- any rate, corroborates this in many of his cils of his party. He was, and deservedly, speeches, as to express his opinion, which I a bosom friend of the late Sir John Macdon- believe was true enough at the time, that ald, and I propose to read what that most the protective tariff of 1879 was only adopted, unimpeachable witness had to say as to the according to his understanding, by Sir John lofty, the patriotic motives which impelled Macdonald as a mere temporary expedient. the men who originated and founded the Now, Sir, the hon. Minister of Finance had tariff. Sir, I find that the hon. member for the-well, I must call it audacity, looking at North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), who spoke on all the facts-to rise in his place-he, the the subject, was good enough to inform the man who presumably ought, by virtue of his country: position, to be best acquainted with the true to tell us that Canada at this time was encondition of the people of this country-aud Joying a great measure of general prosperity. This, Sir, was what he said—he hailing from the Maritime Provinces, those provinces which in the last ten years have not added one per cent to their total population, I believe; he, coming from the province of New Brunswick which, in the last ten years, has not added 61 souls to its entire population; he, representing the county of King's which, within the last ten years, putting_together the absolute loss of population and the natural increase which it has failed to retain, has lost well nigh 9,000 souls on a present population of 23,000—this hon. gentleman, though knowing these facts and having them forced upon his notice in every possible shape and way, dares to tell us that this country is in a state of general prosperity. Sir, it is an old and a true saying "Where wealth accumulates, men decay." I will not dispute the fact that in the province of New Brunswick, if we are to judge from the specimens we have on the Treasury benches, there has been a great decadence since the days of Sir Albert Smith and Mr. Isaac Burpee

We became

No doubt in the world the Conservative party were put out of power, and by going in for the National Policy and taking the wind out of Mr. Mackenzie's sails we got into power. identified with the protective policy, and if Mr. Mackenzie had adopted a protective policy we would have been free traders. I am willing to make this confession, that if Mr. Mackenzie had been a protectionist, there would have been nothing left for us but to be free traders. But Mr. Mackenzie was either too honest or too earnest in his opinions to bend to the wave of public opinion, and the result was he was swept out of power and had only a corporal's guard to support him when

the House met.

The House and the country can judge whether the Minister of Finance or the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is a better authority or is likely to be better informed as to the real motives which actuated the founders of the National Policy. But I can add a little, of my own personal knowledge, to the facts bearing on the case. I remember right well in 1876, after having finished my speech on the Budget, that my esteemed friend, Mr. Mackenzie, stepped over immediately to Sir Charles Tupper, then sitting in the place I now occupy, and asked him whether he had not been prepared at that moment with a speech de- Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. nouncing Mr. Mackenzie and myself, had we afraid, however, that if the men have decome down and proposed any addition to the cayed, the wealth has not accumulated, unburdens of the people. And I have Mr. Mac-less, peradventure, so much as may have kenzie's word for it, that Sir Charles Tupper candidly admitted, that had we proposed an increase, he was prepared, then and there, with all the eloquence which fits him so well, to denounce us for placing the iron heel of an Ontario Finance Minister on the neck of the Maritime Provinces.

An hon. MEMBER. Give us the corrobor

ation.

Mr. FOSTER. In size.

I am

flowed into the pockets of fortunate individuals having seats in the judiciary of the province, or of those owning land in the immediate vicinity of some Intercolonial railway station. Then, Sir, the hon. gentleman was good enough to give us a little chapter on deficits. He was good enough to express a very strong opinion, indeed, as to the utter lack of statesmanship-I think that is what he said -which distinguished any government that

practice does not keep pace with his principles. The hon. gentleman is making a deficit inevitable; he has apparently taken no steps to prevent it. The hon. gentleman trusts to nothing except the bare chapter of accidents, to a lucky chance, to relieve him from the very thing which he brought as a reproach against me, an event which has occurred in a very great number of cases in Canadian history, as he well knows, an event which has occurred in the history, even of the very government in which he was a Minister, for I recollect very well, in a former year, gentlemen opposite had a bigger deficit than the whole of mine for three years put together. How was that deficit caused? Was it caused by the overruling act of Providence, by finan ial depression which we could not control, or by any great shrinkage in values? Not at all, Sir; but by the most scandalous and wicked breeds in the North-west, and which ended in goading that people into insurrection. But, Sir, perhaps the crowning effort of the hon. gentleman was the lecture he delivered to us on the three kinds of tariff which, he alleged, were alone possible. Let me say to the hon. Minister that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. The hon. gentleman was wholly in error. He has laid down propositions which no political economist who knows his business would defend for one instant. The hon. gentleman dares to tell us that you cannot have a revenue tariff without incidental protection. I take issue with the hon. gentleman from the start. You can have a revenue tariff without incidental protection; and, more than that, I tell the hon. gentleman that the English tariff to-day is a tariff which gives no protection at all. Sir, the hon. gentleman is fond of looking to English precedents

happened to have a deficit at any time. The hon. gentleman is not a very old member of Parliament and does not seem to be very well acquainted with the history of the Canadian statesmen with whom he has been associated. Was the hon. gentleman aware that, when he made that slightly unguarded statement, he virtually spat upon the grave of his own late chief? Was he aware that of all the statesmen that have ever lived in Canada there never was one who had so many deficits or such enormous deficits in proportion to the income at his disposal as the late Sir John Macdonald? You do not think so? Well, Sir, I will give the hon. gentleman-it is worth while doing it-some proofs on that subject. The hon. gentleman has chosen, as his predecessors have chosen, rather inadvisedly, to refer to deficits incurred under the Mackenzie Administration. Why those deficits were incurred, what caused them, I will have a word misgovernment of those unfortunate halfor two to say about presently. I find that when Sir John Macdonald was Prime Minister of Old Canada, he had in 1858 a deficit of more than 60 per cent on the total receipts. I find that in 1859 he had a deficit amounting to 22 per cent, in 1860 and in 1861 he had deficits of 28 per cent, and so on. Now, Sir, what were the total deficits during the Mackenzie regime? The greatest we had was a deficit of 9 per cent and the last was a deficit of 4 per cent. Why were Sir John Macdonald's deficits incurred? In consequence of his own acts? Why were Mr. Mackenzie's deficits incurred ? Sir, they were incurred because of the enormous obligations left upon this country through the desperate attempt of Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues, by wholesale bribery, to escape the condemnation which was justly meted out to them in 1873. That was the cause of our deficits-that our predecessors went out of office leaving four millions of dollars of annual charge upon the country for which they had not provided one single copper. Let the hon. gentleman, if he chooses, lay down the proposition-I do not object to it, but he may find reason to recall it before he is much longer in officethat all deficits are evidence of gross want of statesmanship. The hon. gentleman bad better be cautious. The statements he has laid before us show that he himself is in very serious peril of having a deficit, and a very considerable deficit to deal with before this country is 18 months older. I have here his statements of the 10th of March. What do they show? They show that the revenues up to that date are half a million less, and the expenditures up to that date half a million more, than they were last year. They show, in other words, that by the 10th of March last past all his boasted surplus of 1893 had vanished into thinnest air. He told us last night that he expected to lose one and a half millions of revenue from the results of the tariff he brought before us. Now, Sir, if that be the case, the hon. gentleman is convicted out of his own mouth; his

An hon. MEMBER. Fond of saying so.

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I accept the correction; the hon. gentleman is fond of saying he looks to English precedents, but very fond of following American ones. The hon. gentleman left it to be inferred that there was incidental protection in the English tariff. I have here the English tariff. I will give the hon. gentleman my place and my time and he may show then, if he can, that it affords incidental protection. Or Í will read the items in succession and I challenge him to show one single solitary item in the English customs tariff which gives incidental protection in any shape or form. The customs tariff of Britain yields a total of about £20,000,000. The first item is £4,290,000 from the duty on foreign spirits. Does the hon. gentleman say that there is any incidental protection there? The next is £1,268,000 on wine. Does he say there is any protection there? The third duty is a duty on tobacco yielding £10,124,000; and he ought to know, if he does not know, that the English excise laws are so arranged that

there is absolutely no protection to the Eng- is that position as compared with 1879? We lish grower there. Then there is the duty find that our national debt is very nearly on tea, cocoa, coffee, chicory, amounting to £3,745,000. It may be known to the hon. gentleman, but it will be news to the House, that there are sections of the British Islands in which tea, cocoa, coffee and chicory can be grown to advantage, and if not, there is no incidental protection there. The remaining duties, and they are very small indeed, are £345,000 from dried fruits, not an article affording much incidental protection, and £33,000 on miscellaneous minor customs duties, which I have not investigated. There is the English customs tariff; and now, and here I defy the hon. Minister of Finance or any of his followers to show one vestige of incidental protection in the English customs tariff as it stands to-day. Mr. MCNEILL. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if there is not incidental protection upon whisky?

means as we know they are sustained ? Is and the most heavily taxed man in Canit needful that general prosperity should be ada to-day is the poor man with a large defended by fraud, by falsehood and by cor- family to support. We know perfectly ruption? Is it needful that general pros- well, as I have said, that the flower of perity should be maintained by subsidizing our youth to-day is not to be found in a part of the press to distort the truth? Is Canada but in the United States, in a great it necessary that general prosperity should measure. We know, I know, if the hon. be maintained by raising a corruption fund at gentleman does not, that in hundreds of the point of the bayonet from protected towns and villages in the province of Ontario, manufacturers, or by gerrymandering the and the same rule applies, I am informed, constituencies by wholesale in such a fashion to places in the Maritime Provinces and that in my own province to-day I can point to the province of Quebec, that there is you to twelve constituencies where the Re- scarcely one in ten of those formerly form party had a collective majority of over prosperous towns and villages in which, 2,000 strong, and yet, of the representatives during the last ten years, the growth of in this House returned by those 12 gerry- population has equalled the natural incremandered constituencies, having a Liberal ment, without taking into account in the majority of 2,000 strong, we have only four slightest degree the immigration we have Liberal members to eight Conservatives. I brought at great cost into this country. The can point you to the other end of the same hon. gentleman knows, or he ought to know, province, where the Minister of Public Works for the census returns have made it plain resides, and I can show you there 12 consti- to any one of the meanest capacity, that over tuencies having a Conservative majority 2,000 all the rural districts, with very few exstrong, from which 12 constituencies there ceptions, throughout the elder provinces of are 10 Conservatives and two Liberals re- Canada, the rural population has been deciturned. So that out of 24 constituencies mated four times over. We have lost more in which the actual vote was equally di- by far than our total natural increase, when vided between the two parties, by grace you come to take into account in these elder of the gerrymander, the Conservative party provinces the number of people imported have eighteen representatives and the Liberal into them as well. The hon. gentleman party six. Sir, is it necessary to maintain knows, we all know, and we all regret it, and defend general prosperity by means of and no man regrets it more than myself, knavish Franchise Acts? Is it necessary to that the stupendous efforts that have been do it by bribing the electorate by whole- made and the enormous sums that have been sale, as we have seen so often done? Let spent in prosecuting the colonization of the us for our part face the situation frankly. North-west have resulted in what I can Let us understand where we are, and let us characterize as no better than total failure, understand what we have to do, before we taking into account on the one hand the decide how far the proposals of the Govern- extent of our exertions, and on the other ment are worthy of the acceptance of the hand the great natural resources of that people of this country. Sir, what is our country. The hon. gentleman must know, situation? Why, in the first place, looking at and if not, any of his friends from the rural the question of the public debt, allowing for districts can inform him, that within these the difference in the rate of interest on our ten or fourteen years the prices of our leaddebt, and on the English debt, which, as the ing farm products have fallen, fallen, fallen, House knows, is considerably heavier for us till they have touched to-day the lowest than for them, our debt at this moment, point known for forty years. The hon. gentlegauging it as it ought to be gauged, by the men disclaim all power to add to the prices amount of interest we pay, is quite equal per of farm products; they now tell us these head as regards the burdens of the people are governed by causes beyond their control. to the great public debt of England, incurred What said the hon. gentleman's friends and during hundreds of years, and in the pro- predecessors when they were preaching the secution of hundreds of wars. It is equal, National Policy in 1878? Why, our I believe, to the debt with which the United were dinned with declarations, that with the States emerged from their great and desper- National Policy the people would have a home ate civil war. Then as I have often market for everything they could raise, and pointed out, if you will take the real taxa- obtain high prices for everything they could tion inflicted by the tariff on the people produce; every village would become a town, of Canada, and not merely the nominal every town would become a city, and all taxation as recorded in our Public Ac- that the farmers could produce would be counts, you will find that per head the wanted for the enormously increased popusum paid by the people of Canada to- lation which the National Policy would bring day quite equals the sum paid by paid by the in. Sir, I think we have not seen the worst. people of England, with England, with this extremely I fear that, low as prices have fallen, there serious difference, that whereas the Eng lish tariff is wisely and justly so distributed that the chief burden after all falls on the shoulders of the upper and wealthy class, our tariff is arranged so that the chief burden falls on the shoulders of the needy,

ears

is danger in some important respects that they may fall lower yet; but of that I shall have a word or two to say later on. Well, Sir, what is our consolation? The hon. gentleman tells us: Take heart; never mind the loss of one-third of our male population,