Mr. DYMOND-He went quite far enough for some people at any rate. There is another point. I would just submit to the House as a reason for the appointment of this Committee, that it is excedingly difficult to obtain from any sources at our command, anything like an authoritative statement of what is the state of public opinion on this subject. Now, Sir, everybody who wants an increase in the tariff comes down to the Finance Minister, while those who do not want it stay away; but I have no doubt that if we were to poll the country at the present time-particularly the agricultural population, which is our greatest interest after all--and our riends from the Maritime Provinces, with a great many of our friends in Ontario-and notwithstanding what my hon. friend from Montreal says, I hope many from Quebec also-we should find a large majority probably opposed to protection. Well, Sir, we look then for light on this subject to the meetings of commercial men, and we find them to be almost equally contradictory. In connection with the Dominion Boards of Trade, which have been sometimes mentioned with disrespect, although I consider they are justly entitled to that amount of respect which is due to thirty or forty gentlemen having particular interests at stake when they come together and discuss questions from their own point of view-we observe progressive changes in their line of action. Now my hon. friend from Montreal will not, I am sure, be offended if I quote as a high authority upon the views of the Board of Trade-I think as recently as 1873 a gentleman whom he had the honour of defeating only a few weeks since. A resolution proposed by Mr. Thomas White, Jr., in that year, concludes thus:- "That "this Board of Trade is further of "opinion that permanence in the fiscal "policy of the country is most important, alike to its commerce and its "manufactures"-at that time we had a fifteen per cent tariff-" and "that no change should be made in "the tariff not demanded by the abso"lute necessities of the revenue." That was the opinion of the gentleman who is held in the highest esteem by his friends opposite, who was the recipient | lately of a dinner, and who had in addition to the dinner the delight, the intellectual treat, of listening to the speech to which I have already referred, and whose name, I suppose, will go down embalmed in Conservative history in connection with that remarkable utterance. Well, Sir, we have progressed, it seems, since that time; because a year afterwards the same gentleman appears to have proposed something of this sort:- "That in the "opinion of this Board the principle of "protection to the manufacturing inter"ests of the country should be embodied "in such a revision of the tariff, so far as the same can be carried out consistently with the commercial and rev"enue requirements of the country." In 1873, we were to have a tariff for revenue purposes only; but in 1874 we were to embody in the tariff the principles of protection. Now it may be said that opinions alter, that things have got worse, and that Canada was made, to use a common and popular phrase nowa-days, the slaughter market of the Americans. But a wise man and a great statesman, the hope of the Con servative party, must have been aware in 1873 of what was coming to pass, and I will not insult the gentleman by supposing that he had not all the prescience, all the wisdom, and all the foresight that his friends expect of him and give him credit for. I am bound to suppose, therefore, that he really believed, in 1873, that we only wanted a revenue tariff; and that in 1874, by some strange change of ideas, but without any real alteration in the situation which he could not have foreseen, he came out as a Protectionist, and demanded that we should embody in our tariff the principle of protection. Matters have, however, gone further since that date; for when, in the present year, the Board of Trade met together, they asked, not for incidental protection, and not simply protection for infant industries, but they demanded absolute protection and a retaliatory tariff; they asked that to which my hon. friend from Waterloo alluded when he said that with regard to certain articles which are prejudiced by American manufactures, it was desired to build up a Chinese Wall around us. Well, manufacturing interest, when the House met at the end of that year. Possibly the hon. gentleman had then heard his doom, and thought that, after all, it was not worth his while to take any action. We heard nothing of the kind from the right hon. gentleman when in Opposition in 1874; but the hon. gentleman who sits next to him attacked my hon. friend for increasing the tariff, using every argument that these figures, which my hon. friend from Montreal Centre says can prove anything -and never was there a truer saying with reference to the hon. gentleman opposite-could supply, mlxed-I would not say cooked, because that would be unparliamentary Sir, that may be right and fair, but as I am going to sit on this Committee of the House if granted, and desire to act as an impartial judge in this matter, I shall not say a single thing as to whether the one policy be right or the other policy be right. Again, I come back to this point. Here is a divergence of opinion between wise men and men having the same interests, and a divergence of statement, if not of opinion, among those who are regarded as the exponents of the opin- | ions of large numbers of their fellow countrymen, not only Conservatives but Reformers; and it must be exceedingly difficult for any Government, as it is for any individual, to ascertain what is the truth touching and confused together to show that this matter. Here, too, is the great it was a wrong thing to give our manufacturing interest crying out for suffering manufacturers an additional relief. Well, Sir, I am not very two and one-half per cent. Well, Sir, much surprised after all to find that last year the Government asked us for the right hon. gentleman opposite $80,000 in order to assist the manufacshould have thrown cold water on this turers of this country, the great proenquiry, for there was a time when, if he ducing class, to advertise their goods had all the prescience he is creditd with at the Philadelphia Exhibition, and and if he had kept the pledge he made I remember that the right hon. gentleon the hustings, he would have done man, although I think that he did not something to avert the state of things divide the House, opposed it. I am not which everyone saw was impending very much surprised after that to find, that is, if protection could have averted in spite of all his fondness for the it. In 1872 the right hon. gentleman manufacturers when their votes are stumped the country as the friend of wanted, and all his interest for the the manufacturers, and when he labouring classes, when they were went to convert the people of Hamil- invited to vote for my hon. friend for ton and of Toronto, or other great West Toronto, on somewhat similar manufacturing cities, to his views, he grounds, and in spite of all the universal told them that there must soon be a benevolence which he has felt for re-adjustment of the tariff, and of course every one in this world, not excluding the interests of the manufacturers himself, that he entertains the secret would be considered; and we all know conviction that the attempt to imwhat the interests of the manufacturersport into this country a protective from their point of view meant. He tariff would place him in the absurd went, besides, a little further, and in position he occupied in 1871, of repealopposition to a former member of this ing at the end of twelve months what House, and in favour of the candidate he had passed a year before. As to what whom he was supporting, I remember is the true position of affairs, it will be that he held up to contumely and for this Committee to enquire. I hope scorn men like my hon. friend from that we shall lift the right hon. Montreal Centre, and my hon. friend gentleman and his friends out of a from Centre Toronto, before the difficulty by means of this Committee. elections, as caterpillars, and said I trust that we shall be able to present that merchants simply preyed upon to the House a fair and important the rest of the community. He statement of facts relating to late then espoused the cause of the manu- events, and that while we cannot facturer, but we know, Sir, that nothing expect that the financial arrangements was done in 1873, and we had no shall be suspended at the present time, plodge of a new tariff in the any more than they were in 1874, until we make a report, the evidence | amounted to $525,709; in 1873, to we collect will enable us on all future | $491,809; in 1874 to $905,894; and in occasions to discuss the question of the tariff, and any similar measures affecting the great interests of the country with calmness and deliberation, and with more information than at all times we are able to bring to bear at present on these subjects. Mr. WOOD-I do not intend to discuss the question of the Tariff at I think present. the commercial men of this country have a right to be thankful to the hon. gentleman for the anxiety he is manifesting in their interest. If the hon. gentleman, instead of asking for a Committee, would go among the manufacturers of this country, he would get all the information he requires before the end of the session. If he goes to the hon. member for South Leeds and asks why his manufactory is closed, he would learn that the country is flooded with American manufactures, which are sold at prices that render competition impossible. If he goes to the hon. member for Cornwall and asks why the cotton factory there is idle, he will find that it is because they cannot compete with American cottons. Is the hon. gentleman aware that the Americans are sending furniture into Hamilton and other Canadian cities and having it auc:ioned for what it will bring? And this is not confined to furniture, but in almost every class of goods manufactured in the United States it is the same. I ask the hon. gentleman why it is, if that country has been protected to death, as he says it has, that its manufactures are taking the place of English goods? In 1872 we imported from the United States of cabinet-ware or furniture, $122,070; in 1873, $220,497; in 1874, $311,476; and in 1875, $328,536. And yet this does not represent the amount of furniture coming into the country. The increase is not shown by the values, because there has been a large reduction in prices. A person going to the United States to buy furniture is given a certain price; but when he says "I want to take it to Canada," the manufacturer will take off 25 per cent. I am speaking now simply of the importations from the United States. The imports of cotton into Canada in 1872 1875, to $1,350,308-showing that the we spades, shovels, etc., in which the hon. American manufacturers are doing articles I might ennumerate, but I wish of the causes which led to the present to refer to the balance of trade which the discontent in the country, but if we hon. member for Bothwell spoke of. could glean anything from that speech From his description of the subject, we the cause is the absence of the right must come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Kingston from the more a person spends the richer he is. I Government of the country. I do not would like to read an extract from the intend to follow him on that part of his pen of one of the ablest men of his day speech. The remarks of the hon. memthe late Horace Greeley-who under- ber for North York are well known to stood this question thoroughly. This us all. They are but a rehash of stale is not a hundred years old, like the editorials. He might have saved the extract read by the hon. member from House the trouble of listening to him Both well. It is as follows: if he had simply done like the man who, instead of saying his prayers, pointed to the printed formula and said, "them are my sentiments." If the hon. gentleman had taken a file of the leading Government newspaper of the country, and said "them are my sentiments," it would have been enough. While he had a right to refer to the right hon. member for Kingston, he had no right to speak of another gentleman whose remarks and opinions have nothing to do with the discussions of this House. It was neither fair nor manly to criticize the remarks of the gentleman who opposed the hon. member for Montreal West. “But the fact that there is such a balance is put beyond doubt by the rates of exchange, the movement of specie and stocks, and the negociation of loans. If we were paying Europe in our products (including California gold) for the goods we are buying of her, we should not be sending stocks to London for sale at the rate of millions per month, and sending agents thither to negociate the sale of Railway bonds, State bonds, County or City bonds, and every possible manufacture of paper, which implies payment with interest by-and-by for foreign products eaten, drank and worn out by our people to-day. The correctness of the statement is undeniable, that as a people, we are running rapidly and heavily in debt to Europe, and mortgaging the earnings of our children to pay it off. And the excuse that we are building railroads, &c., does not avail us. Europe is also building railroads; Great Britain is chequered with them; but she does not owe their cost to the capitalists of other countries, because her people produce more than they consume, sell more than they buy, as ours do not. We have labour enough standing idle from month to month, and anxiously looking for employ. ment to make all the iron, cloth, wares, &c., for which we are running giddily in debt to foreign capitalists; yet Our Free-Trade policy tends to keep that labour idle and run our country deeper and deeper in debt for the fabrics we ought to produce. Can this be right?" I shall not trouble the House any further with remarks on this subject. When the question of protection per se comes up, as I presume it will on the tariff, I think the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will be prepared to discuss it on its merite. Mr. KIRKPATRICK--I would not have been tempted to enter into this discussion if it had not been for the wonderfully dignified way in which the hon. member for North York, who admits he is a novice in Canadian politics, undertook to speak of a gentleman. who had not an opportunity to reply to him. He did not tell us anything Mr. DYMOND-I made no mention of that gentleman's speeches. I quoted from the published resolutions of the Dominion Board of Trade, circulated by that body for the information of the public from year to year. The Mr. KIRKPATRICK-He quoted the opinions of Mr. White, who is not in a position to reply to him in this House. I guarantee this-if the hon. member for North York chooses his subject and any platform he likes in the country, that gentleman will meet him and discuss the affairs of this country with as much ability, as much intelligence, and with much more satisfaction to his audience than the hon. member who has assailed him. hon. member for Montreal West says he goes on that Committee on the understanding that the report is not to be a foregone conclusion. I would like to know if he does not think from the speech of the hon. member for North York that his opinion is a foregone conclusion? The hon. member for South Waterloo, in a very glib manner, tells us he knew all the causes of the present discontent and dis tress, and it was perfectly unnecessary to appoint this Committee. It is only necessary to summon him to learn all about it. The hon. member says these periods of depression happen periodically; they had happened before and therefore must happen again. Like Newton or Galileo observing the regularity of the solar system, he regards it as inevitable, and therefore we should do nothing but sit still and see the country struck by the wave of depression. The hon. member told us something about Scylla and Charybdis, and gave us to understand that he could effectually sail the bark between these two rocks. Mr. YOUNG—Oh, no ! . Mr. KIRKPATRICK- Well, matter. He told us that the other no cause of the depression was over-importataion, and he quoted some figures in reference to this. I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that figures are not at all times to be relied upon, as my hon. friend the Finance Minister will be able to tell us. In the figures with reference to the expenditure of the first six months of the financial year, published in the Official Gazette -a fact to which I should like to direct the attention of the Finance Minister -a discrepancy of $2,000,000 occurs when compared with the amended return down to date. This circumstance warrants me in reminding my hon. friend that perhaps the returns he has found in the Blue Books are equally erroneous, and cannot be relied upon altogether. This question of over importation may be looked at in another way. Upon examining the returns it will be found there was an increase in he an increase in he imports of dry goods, silks, &c. Now, we may blink at the fact as we like, but it is known that a great quantity of these goods pass through Canada into the United States and are not consumed in this country. When that fact is taken into consideration, it will be understood that the imports to Canada are not so great as my hon. friend would make us think. We were told that only three interests were suffering from depression. My hon. friend al luded to four interests, and I may mention another, that of shipping, which has not been in such a depressed condition for years as at present. Shipowners and others are looking to the Government for some measure to revive it, and I hope they do not look in vain. The hon. member for Montreal West (Mr. Workman) has told us that he was so busily engaged on the tariff as to give the Finance Minister very little to do, and if this Committee is granted would it not, under the circumstances, be better to place the office of Finance Minister in commission? What use is he if we have to appoint a Committee to collect facts and figures which I am sure, from his known ability and industry, he has already obtained ? Mr. THOMSON, (Welland)-It ocCurs to me that when a man is sick it is better to get him well first, and then discuss the process by which he is to be kept from relapsing. This panic was brought about by natural causes, such as overtrading. It is gradually disappearing, and when trade gets back into a wholesome condition will be the proper time to discuss the causes of our commercial ailment. I think it was Lincoln who said that it was "no time to swap horses when we are swimming for life across the river," and that remark applies to condition. Entering upon this discussion our present here on principles of detail, it occurs to me, is beneath the dignity of this House, which is not a trade establishment, a house of merchants, manufacturers or agriculturists, but a House to make laws for those interests in the I take aggregate. We have to decide upon great general principles and make laws which will do justice to all. ground at once as a thorough FreeTrader. I object to doing one wrong to prevent another; two wrongs will never make a right. If the principles upon which trade and commerce in this country are based make free-trade impossible, it is not reasonable or remedy matters by adopting a wrong proper to try and principle; but if this House legislates in perfect harmony with the laws of nature, free-trade must be possible. We ought to have education and intelligence enough to find out a process by which we can, secure cheap goods, prosperity, and free-trade with |