rect, but that a depression exists, the causes of which should, if possible, be discovered. I must say here that I do not believe, as some gentlemen represent, the country to be in such a deplorable condition. We are at peace with all the world, there is no war or -desolation in the land, and the agricultural community is in a very prosperous condition. Providence has blessed us with a bountiful harvest, and if money is scarce we have the materials which bring money in abundance in the country. I think this House should have all the information that can be collected concerning a matter of such vital importance, and if a policy is to be adopted it will be for this House to consider what it shall be. We have now a policy which is part free-trade and part protective. What would be the effect of a protective policy? Its real object would be to prevent importation, and if so, what would be the effect to the revenue? I ask the Finance Minister, who has to provide for a deficit-if there be one— how is he to supply the revenue of the country if the sources of taxation are entirely removed? The manufacturers urge that they deserve encouragement and protection. I do not understand that there are any hon. gentlemen here who array themselves against the manufacturers, nor that the mover of this resolution had any unkind feeling or so expressed himself with reference to these industries. I think that all industries deserve encouragement, and I believe that the burden of taxation should be generally distributed so as to bear an equal proportion on all interests involved. I do not believe in one interest benefiting itself at the expense of others. it at other times to a greater extent, and it is the result of causes which I have indicated. I am willing to render the Government all the aid and support I possibly can if it is in their power to relieve that distress in any possible way. I will not adhere to any principle as a hard and fixed rule, if I see that by departing from it, and cir cumstances demanded that departure, I believe I could agree to it. the Government as are desirous, as meet they can, to the far wants of the country. I believe that the Finance Minister will do all he possibly can to this end, compatible with the general interests of all. I do not think it is possible for the Government to make people rich or relieve distress to as great an extent as some people think, as the hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House say they are capable of doing and are liable for. Mr. GILMOUR-I have waited patiently for some gentleman from the Lower Provinces to speak on this subject. The debate is nearly closed, and it appears to me that some of these representatives should have expressed an opinion. The debate anticipates the report of the Committee, and it is not the question before the House. The only good I imagine can result from the enquiry is to counteract the impression very industriously circulated in the Lower Provinces that the present Government is responsible for the depressed state of the country. Their predecessors were undoubtedly prosperous, and there has been a very great change. It has been very industriously circulated that the Government is responsible for it, and the masses, without very much reflection, think it must be So. I infer from the statements of some hon. gentlemen during this debate that The cry for help seems to come from they believe it is within the power of the manufacturers only, and they form the Government and this House to but a small portion of the Dominion. relieve the financial depression. II am surprised at it, because they are believe it has been brought about by causes over which this House has no control. We have had a time of ex ceeding prosperity, over-trading has been the result, and the true remedy is economy and industry on the part of the people of this country. This is not the only experience we have had of the same kind. I believe we have had the most wealthy class of our population in proportion to their numbers. How do they expect to get it? The drift of the whole argument in favour of that relief is that the consumer must put his hand his pocket and help them. The depressed state of trade is the result of over-production. Several hon. gentle in : HOUSE OF COMMONS. FRIDAY, Feb. 18, 1876. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Five PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. men have complained that the Ameri- ests in the Dominion-the lumber facture of whiskey. We import This defensive system just means protection. I have confidence that the Administration will do what is fair. I am satisfied they have a policy, and do not depend for one upon this Committee. I do not believe the resolution is a want of confidence motion, but if it is, I will vote against it. I have not yet lost ccnfidence in the Government. I wish to tell the House and country, that the Maritime Provinces are not in favour of a protective tariff, but they are willing to contribute to the revenue, so far as the interests of the country require. On motion of Hon. Mr. POPE, the debate was adjourned. The House adjourned at Eleven p.m. Mr. YOUNG moved that the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ending the 30th June, 1875, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on public Accounts.—Carried. SALARIES OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES. Hon. Mr. BLAKE moved for a Committee of the Whole for Tuesday to consider certain resolutions respecting the salaries of the County Court Judges in the Province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Blake stated that the resolutions were the same as last year.-Carried. ASSISTANT INSPECTORS OF PENITEN- Hon. Mr. BLAKE moved that the House do, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider of the following resolution: "That it is expedient to provide that the Assistant Inspectors of Penitentiaries, to be appointed under the Bill intituled "An Act to provide for the appointment of Assistant. Inspectors of Penitentiaries in Manitoba and British Columbia," shall each receive a salary not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars per annum and travelling expenses, to be determined by the Goveror in Council.” Carried. CRIMINAL STATISTICS. Hon. Mr. BLAKE moved that the House do, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider of the following resolution: "That it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Agriculture, or such other Minister as is mentioned in the Bill intituled "An Act to make provision for the Collection and Registration of the Criminal Statistics of Canada," shall cause to be paid out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for that purpose, to any Clerk, Officer or Sheriff filling up and transmitting the schedules required under the first section of the said Bill the sum of of and the further sum for each com prised in such schedules; and to any officer transmitting the returns required under the second section thereof the sum of Carried. ! Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked when the in not having fixed a tariff to promote our industries. Can you expect capitalists in a land like this, with a comparatively small population, scattered along the line of a country ten times as populous, to establish manufactures, when one year the tariff may be twenty, and the next fifteen per cent.? We have heard hon. gentlemen rise in this House and speak for half an hour, and when they sat down we could not tell whether they wore Free-Traders or Protectionists. It is this incidental Finance Minister proposed to bring protection which has left this country down his Budget? Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-I cannot give my hon friend that information now, but I will give it to him as early as possible. SUPPLY. On motion of Hon. Mr. Cartwright, the House went into Committee of Supply-Mr. Scatcherd in the Chair. Item No. 2, Governor's Secretary's office, $8,150, was passed. The Committee rose and reported the resolution. THE FINANCIAL DEPRESSION. in its present position. It has been said, why should the people of Canada put their hands into their pockets and pay the manufacturers a certain sum of money? I ask do these gentlemen think the manufacturers are beggars? Do they see us petitioning this House for relief? The request comes from the Dominion Board of Trade, not one third of which others are wholesale merchants, farmis composed of manufacturers. The ers, etc. The truth is, our interests must all be blended in one. The hon. member for North York says "if a poll "were taken to-morrow in Ontario and Mr. JONES (Leeds), resumed the "Quebec on this question, the verdict adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. "would be in favor of free trade." I beMills, for the appointment of a Select lieve the result would be very different, Committee to enquire into the causes and that the gentlemen on the Treasury of the present financial depression. He benches who are Free Traders would be said—I think this motion is the most ousted. I represent a farming conextraordinary one I have ever seen. I stituency with 25,000 inhabitants, and don't know what we have been brought though the Globe warns those who here for if it is to be allowed by the represent the farmers in this House Government. I don't know what those against declaring themselves adverse to hon. gentlemen have been doing free trade, I say I am a Protectionist. for the last year, or what the I stand here to advocate a national Blue Books mean, if they require policy, and a tariff which will not be this information. As a manufacturer changed from year to year, as may of twenty-five year's standing, I be thought necessary by those think I may be allowed to make a who favour incidental protection. few remarks with regard to the policy The man who opposed me in my which has been brought into this debate, election, when he saw how the wind not that I believe this to be the correct blew, trimmed his sails accordingly, time to do so. This discussion should and said he was a Protectionist; but take place on the Budget, but since it notwithstanding this policy-of course has not, I may be allowed to say some- I say nothing against him personally thing on the subject. This country-I carried the election in a constit should have some fixed policy, instead of a tariff which changes from time to time. I do not understand what the rulers of this country have been about, not only for the last two years, but for the last twenty years, uency, which the Globe, and other We make all prosperous. It has been said by the hon. member for Bothwell, that the protective principle in other countries is not beneficial, but I suppose that the hon. member wishes to back down on the word "principle." He is a little theoretical, and what we need is more practical and less of theoretical legislation. I would ask him to glance at the old world in a practical way; and he will find that England, under protection, grew to the power, station, and might she has attained; while on the Continent, France, under the same principle, has paid an extraordinary indemnity in connection with the Franco-German war. Again, come nearer home, and what do we see? The United States may not be flourishing at present, but she has passed through a terrific struggle, in which everything was exhausted; she is endeavouring to come back to a specie basis; and yet in the face of all her difficulties, with a high protective tariff in a great many staple articles, she is underselling the whole world beside. As has been so forcibly stated by the hon. members for Hamilton and Montreal West, she is doing so in cotton, hardware, woollens, and in the staples of iron and steel-I am obliged to use a great deal of steel, which for the past twentyfive years I have purchased in England, and still I am forced to go to the United States for a portion of the steel I require. It is an acknowledged fact, that great Sheffield manufacturers cannot supply steel and iron at the same price as Americans. One of the oldest of these houses on November 1st, 1875, writes me : "We see that American fork steel is now much reduced in price; in fact, "lower than we can afford to sell it "for, at present." This shows, Sir, that though they make a speciality of bar steel, and though the houses have been established for centuries, it is acknowledged that in connection with such a staple, even Sheffield itself, under the great Free Trade principles of Great Britain, the Americans are able to undersell in ટી British Colony; and not only is this case in this article, but in many others, such as iron, cotton, woollen goods, &c. Now, how do our neighbours manage their affairs? Do not they give every facility for the prosecution of enterprizes in their country? With regard to their bonded system— Mr. MILLS-I would like to know what that is. Mr. JONES-Yes, possibly the hon. member for Bothwell would. I do not believe that he does know. Under their bonded system, they import from Sweden and Norway large quantities of iron at a very heavy rate of duty; and then it is rolled into sheets, strips, and bars, or very roughly manufactured. They allow this to be done in bond, when the articles are exported to this or any other country, utilizing their labor for the benefit of their farmers and the population generally. So with the drawback system. Regarding every article manufactured in the United States, when sent here, the duties levied on the component parts are returned. I can make a dozen of shovels as cheaply as they can be turned out in any other country, and I ship them to British Columbia in the face of the San Francisco market; and દી great American firm firm which makes the enormous quantity of four hundred dozen of shovels દી day, when they ship them to the Dominion, are paid back the duties received on such exports, obtaining in fact $1 per dozen, actually a fair profit. What have we done during the last twenty years? We have quarrelled amongst ourselves when we should have looked at the great interests of the country. I do not care what party is in power; so long as they are faithful and true to our flag, and so long as they act justly and rightly on the floor of this House, they shall have my true and loyal support. Who pays the great proportion of our duties? You would imagine that the farmers did so, judging from the remarks made in this House; but I contend that this is not the fact-they are not the great consumers, but the great producers. If they buy luxuries, they must pay for them like other people. They produce home-made coats, such as I wear here to-day, and flax, woollens, hides, and everything they require; but they do not pay taxes in proportion to the other sections of the population-the labourers, the mechan instead of the dilly-dallying policy delivering at Windsor to Canadian ics, the merchant princes, the million- | aires, &c. If we only build up our manufacturing industries, and do not shut our eyes to the fact that we have forty millions of people on the other side of the line, with a barricade against us which will never be opened, we will adopt a proper policy. We have been looking for a change during the past ten or fifteen years. I remember in 1865, that I walked down from the back seats of the Parliament in Quebec to Sir John A. Macdonald-selling at $9 gold, which they were the Reciprocity Treaty had been abolished-and said, "Sir John, I think "that this is a good time to prepare "a tariff. which will build up our "industries." What did the hon. gentleman say? "Wait a little. "Wait a year or two, we will get back "reciprocity." It has been waiting from that day to this; and you will be waiting many a long day before you get it from these high-minded merchants of the United States. They have kicked and cuffed and knocked us about in every way, from pillar to post, and have laughed at us in their sleeves; they think that we are fools. Talk of retaliation, and the consequent irritation some think it would produce amongst the Americans. Why, when we adopt a defensive policy, they will begin to think a little of us, and say we are business men, and not before. How have they treated us during the last ten or fifteen years? Have they done what is right, true, or honest? Have they carried out the Washington Treaty in regard to our canals? Do they not charge a duty in regard to fish oils, as well as in that paltry matter of lobster tins? We are similarly situated, as far as manufacturing powers are concerned, to the United States indeed, I think we are better situated. In the Eastern States, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine, they have good water power, but no coal or iron. Yet the East is the great manufacturing centre of the country. How are we situated? In the Lower Provinces, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we have, as at Boston, connection with the sea, and coal and iron lying side by side, and I believe with a proper system, with a true national policy persisted in for ten or fifteen years, The hon. member for Bothwell said he did not see why a duty should be placed on the agricultural products. I don't think there should be a duty on rye, oats, wheat and perhaps upon flour, because we raise good wheat and can manufacture flour to compete with other countries. But, in this connection, we must remember that the Grand Trunk and Great Western Railroads will deliver a cargo of flour from Michigan to Montreal or Halifax as cheap as they will to Toronto, Oshawa, or Whitby. This should be remedied by the legislation which was promised last year in the Railway Committee. The matter should be regulated by pro rata rates, there should be no difference. On the article of corn I think there should be a duty. We grow a considerable quantity in the Western country, but not sufficient for the distilleries, in whose interest the duty of 10 cts a bushel was taken off. If we |