The point has been raised that the matter that the hon. gentleman is introducing is not relevant to the amendment. I fear I must rule, in so far as I can judge of it, that it does not appear to be relevant to the amendment that is in my hands.
I quite agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia. I happen to live within 25 or 30 miles of this famous St. Laurent wharf, and I have been more than once on the ground there, or I should say as near the ground as one can safely get with a due appreciation of the value of his life. Under the terms of the resolution, which is more or less general, as to the system or lack of system employed by the administration, this wharf properly comes into contemplation. I stand to say this, that if members of the government who had to do with the planting of $20,000 of public money there, and with the leaving of it there to rot until it now is worthless, had a due appreciation of what they owe to the people of the country they would return that money to the public treasury out of their own pockets. That wharf stands in shallow water. It cannot be reached by water because it is too shallow, and it cannot :be reached by land because the land is too moist and soft. It stands out in solitary and dismal isolation, a monument
to the criminal wastefulness of the Lau-rier administration. Why was it built there? There is a long stretch of lake which protrudes southward into the municipality of Macdonald. There is a lagoon near that protruding lake. The government with its dredge dug a ditch between the lagoon and the lake. The lake lies on the sand, and the sand is close to the surface everywhere near the southern shore of Lake Manitoba; in fact, one can walk out sometimes half a mile into the water. The dredging was done between the lagoon and the lake to a fair depth, but it was never dredged beyond, and the consequence is that never could any vessel get to it at any time during the existence of the wharf. The wharf is built along the line of the ditch wheTe the dredging was done, and the only way it can be reached is for one to hire a horse and plough through sand a foot to a foot and a half deep for a mile and a half, and it will take an hour and a half to do it. The wharf is used by nothing to-day except the mud hens and gulls that frequent the southern shores of the lake. It is a mockery to any administration that acknowledges it as its work. I would like to test hon. gentlemen opposite; I would like a resolution put to this House deprecating the expenditure on the St. Laurent wharf, and I wonder if the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) would not respond to the party whip, and vote for that wise and provident expenditure.
They hope if possible to satisfy the Liberal workers in the constituency, and reward them for sending a Liberal to parliament, and possibly to conciliate a certain proportion of the Conservatives, and for this purpose they commit the country to an expenditure of $1,000,000. The defence of the Minister of Finance this afternoon is equally applicable to the numerous and heavy expenditures all over his own province of Nova Scotia. He knows that by playing the game in Nova Scotia as it was played at Newmarket, he has been enabled to gather around him a cohort of supporters from his own province. He has seen the long record of supplementary estimates which, year after year, and especially in a year preceding an election, are brought down for Nova Scotia. No wonder that the first thought that springs to his mind when justifying an expenditure, is to endeavour to show that it will meet the [DOT]avaricious intentions of certain residents of the locality. Never did we hear the Minister of Finance, and never did we hear the Minister of Public Works attempt to defend an expenditure because the people of Canada got commensurate 'benefits from it. If the Minister of Finance had risen to defend the notorious steal on the Gaspereau river he would have used the same argument as he did this afternoon. If he attempted to defend the sawdust wharf purchase, he would have done the same thing, and no doubt that if next week mayhap he should defend the Bathurst wharf he will look in vain for any other footing on which to place himself than the voracious appetite of certain supporters. Let my last word be as to what has occurred close to my home. I ask the Minister of Finance to come to western Canada. I do not know that he has ever been there except on a rambling tariff commission, but I do know that he has never entertained friendly feelings foT our great western country. I know that only twenty years ago, he stated in the legislature of Nova Scotia that the western provinces were of no use to confederation, and criticised the policy of endeavouring to add to the grandeur of confederation the provinces of the west. He has always had a jealous eye on the expenditures in that country, and western Canada has never had reason to look to him as a friend. I ask him to come to the west and to see the present condition of the St. Andrew's rapids with a landing place standing 30 feet from ithe ground that no one can use. Let him come a few miles further west and see the St. Laurent wharf, a resting place for gulls and mud-hens, standing out a mile and a half from human access; let him see rotting to waste the expenditure of $25,000 of the money of the people on that wharf. There may have been traffic there to justify a Mr. MEIGHEN.
reasonable expenditure on that wharf, but there is nothing in the ingenuity of an honest mind to defend the spending of $20,000 of $25,000 of the people's money there and leaving it to rot 'in the water for seven years, until now, even suppose they continue the work, no value can be received from the expenditure already made. Will the Minister of Finance dare to say that that is not to be marked against his government with a black mark, if you could see black marks on it now? There is not a member of the Liberal party in this House -watch and see if what I say is not correct-there is not a member of the party in the House now, and they cannot gather one in from room 16 and the corridors, who will attempt to say that the people of Canada have got one dollar's worth of benefit from the $20,000 expended on the St. Laurent wharf.
That is a great state of affairs. Is that a credit to the Laurier administration? Was it the fault of the engineers? We do not need an engineer to find out that if the sand comes within a foot and a half of the surface of the water you have to dig through that sand before you can sail a schooner there. You do not need an engineer to tell you that if there is a lagoon or a marsh, you must put a road across it before you can reach the other side by walking. These abuses cannot be laid to the charge of any officials; they rest on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and the government, and they cannot get out of it simply by changing cabinet ministers.
counted from the bottom up to the top. A space was left, and some eight feet of brush piled in, then the sand was put on top o-f that. To-day if you go down there with a team of horses you will bury the team in the holes where the brush has rotted out. It was the money of the people of Canada that went to pay for that wharf, and it is the Department of Public Works which is responsible for it. I say the Department of Public Works, but, perhaps the primary responsibility must rest on the rotten administration of the Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, the day is not far away, and we will welcome it, when the people of Canada will have a chance to say that they will not stand for that sort of thing.
I had intended to speak for perhaps a couple of hours', but I understand my Liberal friends are anxious to get home to the bosoms of their wives and families, therefore, I will cut my remarks short; but at the same time let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I could stand here for hours-, and detail the crookedness, malfeasance and incapacity of this administration in dealing with the money of the Canadian people. Let us take the case of Ri-chibucto wharf, passed upon by Mr. Stead, the resident engineer of the Department of Public Works, as being worth $700, and inside of two or three weeks passed upon by him, when the people of Canada had to pay for it-as being worth $5,000. When be said it was' worth $700 who was going to buy it? A great party heeler of the lowest description. When he valued it at $5,000, who was going to pay for.it, inside of two months? The people of Canada-the suckers.
Let us look at the case of the Bathurst dredging. The contract was illegally awarded to the friends of the government-in fact one of the partnership was a person allied very closely in relationship to a member of this House. $30,000 of the people's money went into it, and that is what brings *him here-his part of that $30,000.
The Guysborough Marine and Constructing Company-$34,000 of the" people's money illegally given by way of a contract again. Mr. Speaker, .do you think the people of Canada are going to stand for this wholesale robbery? Then, there is a little lake called Lake Maquoit. The dredging there cost about $48,000. Did it benefit the people of Canada? Not for one second. Their money was expended in digging a hole in the ground. Again $36,000 of the people's money was handed over to George Mc-Avity as a rake-off in consideration of his political influence with hie side partner the hon. Minister of Public Works. Thousands of dollars were expended to dredge for the Dalhousie Lumber Company, and no one has ever denied that the hon. Minister of Public Works, is at least, a sleeping partner in that company.
I would like to refer to one other point, and that is the fact that a certain gentleman who three or four years ago was adjudged by the courts- as unfitted to occupy a seat in this House has had more public money spent in his little constituency than we have had expended for public works altogether in the province of Manitoba during the -course of the last year. If the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) were here, where he ought to be, I would have referred to another matter._ However, seeing that I am on my feet I will speak of it in any event. It is a matter pertaining to the people of my constituency. I refer to the dredging of the Mossy river. For years before I had the honour of representing that constituency we had what we called the * political dredge ' at the mouth of the Mossy river. On various occasions I pointed out to the hon. Minister of Public Works- that this was, in fact, a political -dredge, and was of no- use in the world. On every occasion I got a distinct pledge from him that he would reconsider his ways, and be wise in the expenditure of the people's money, and that he would spend the money in a proper manner. To this day there has been no- money expended there. But, at the last election he found that this political dredge was no good, and for the first time in the history of the place, the Conservative candidate got a majority; therefore, he -discarded the dredge and. dismissed his- men, as being of no use to the people of Canada, and more particularly to the Liberal party.
I wanted to ask the hon. Minister of Public W-orks (Mr. Pugsl-ey) some questions about this matter.
Unfortunately, he is not here. He should be here. Why is he not here? I wanted to ask some questions about Swan Creek dredging. The -dredge worked there up to the day of the election, and no man could work on that dredge five minutes unless he promised to vote for Theodore A. Burrows. The day after the election, what happened? The dredge was put out of commission, everything was thrown aside, the people's wants were overlooked. The only object, so far as it applies to Manitoba and the Northwest as far as I have -seen it, of the Public Works Department is to- use that whole department and its employees as a political partisan department, and the -machine for the furtherance of the crookedness of the Liberal party.
I am not at all astonished to hear members on, this side of the House criticize this Government for their -actions in regard to the Newmarket canal. It is only the old old story told over and over again, and it is the only oldltory that we have, especially
in the newer parts of this Dominion. I have the honour to represent a great deal of waterfront along the Georgian bay, the Sault Ste. Marie river and Lake Huron, and during the last election they employed dredges at different points to dredge out rivers and streams. Immediately after the elections the dredges were withdrawn.
I wish to speak in regard to a matter nearer my own home. In the town of Thessalon during the last election this government were very busy constructing a breakwater that is much needed at that point and which was very much needed at that particular time for the Liberal party. The people of Thessalon who needed that breakwater very much believed the government to be to a certain extent sincere. They went so far as to buy the timber and stone from their farms near the town, and the stone and timber are still piled near the wharf, with a man watching to see that the stones are not stolen and the timber does not rot iainy more than is possible during the time between the last election and now. Thus the Newmarket canal is only one of manj instances. The people of the town of Thessalon are, no doubt, going to be told again that they are going to have this breakwater. I notice that they are very busy already and very anxious that the people of Thessalon shall get this breakwater. All along the shores of Lake Huron and Georgian bay you will find wharfs that are very much needed, which are getting no repairs and no attention from this government. You will find wharfs sitting out miles in the lake, that are not needed at all, but have cost the people of this country a great deal of money. Not one boat has ever reached them or ever will, they are simplj monuments to the Laurier government, to the Laurier humbug, to the Laurier fraud, that is being perpetrated on the people of this Dominion.
I am paired with the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment. While I am on my feet I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is not a single representative from the province of Quebec present on the opposite side of the House. I trust the Montreal ' Gazette ' will take notice of it.
Mr. Speaker, the reciprocity proposal before the House to-day, I consider, is a most dangerous one for this country, and if [DOT]carried out will prove disastrous to -Canada. I -believe it has -been concocted by shrewd United States politicians, thinking and believing in the end it might lead to the annexation of this country to the United -States. For the past three months I have observed the remarks of almost all the senators, as well as the papers -of the United States, and I think without exception all desire -closer political relation with Canada.
With respect to the commercial aspect *of the question, let -me here quote an item that was sent from Toronto yesterday to the Montreal ' Star ':
Nearly every day live stock from the United States as brought into Toronto, the Canadian duty paid thereon, and then sold against Canadian animals.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Yesterday 289 sheep from the States were sold on the Toronto market at 5J cents a pound. They weighed 640 lbs. and brought $3.52 each. The duty was 88 cent6. Canadian sheep brought 16 cents less.
American 6heep can be brought into Toronto, pay freight, the 25 per cent duty, and compete with home animals.
With the duty off, and Reciprocity will take the duty off, the Toronto live stock market would be flooded with American sheep, and prices would drop about a dollar a head. What is true of sheep is true of hogs and cattle. It is up to the Ontario farmer to hear this in mind.
When this -question of reciprocity was introduced into tbis House, I at once pronounced it the old policy of commercial union revived under the new name of reciprocity. At that -time I stated my opinion of -it to the press of the -city of London. I -condemned it then -as severely as I could, as being injurious to -Canada. And, from that time until -the present day I have heard nothing from my friends -but commendation of the views I then expressed. About the year 1866 the late reciprocity treaty which had been in existence for some fifteen years was Te-peal-ed. In the same year there was a large convention in the -city of Detroit, Michigan. The principal speaker was Senator -Chandler, and w-hat -did he say? He -said: ' We will starve those Canadians until they will be obliged to knock at the door for admission into our union.' That was largely applauded by all present. I believe that was the general feeling throughout the United States; and, the same feeling exists to-day.
We have -been told that the President of the United -States offered our Canadian delegates absolute free trade in manufactures. That, I did not consider very clever on President Taft'-s part. To me, -Sir, it looks like the offer of a full grown man to wrestle with -a Canadian lad of fourteen in -short pants, because he knows -he -can down him. I consider th-e offer of free trade in manufactures to Canada, if the Word is parliamentary, a very -cowardly offer, knowing we could not accept, -and it would seriously injure our Canadian manufactures, which are yet in their infancy. Canada is not knocking to get into the American union to-day. The United States is knocking to get into Canada. I hope they will not 'Succeed, on their terms. If they want to get into our markets, let them take down -their tariff (oars, come into Canada and buy all they wish.
After forty-five years, the United -States has discovered that they made a great mistake in repealing the late treaty, and are now -most anxious to renew it on much broader lines. In fact they -offer much more than we. dare accept unless we wish to injure many of our infant industries. Let us be very careful; it -is their own
welfare they aie considering, not Canada's. Ever since the repeal of the late reciprocity treaty, the United States Congress has raised their tariff bars so high that very little of Canada's natural products could enter the United States, and only at great disadvantage. Canada, to-day, is quite independent of the United States or any other country, except the mother country, Great Britain, and no persons know that better than President Taft and his people. I say to the government, is it not better to leave well enough alone?
The United States' politicians are very clever and are now trying to repair the injury they did themselves by getting us back in their net again. But, to me their net is too transparent, it is like the spider's web, 'nice to look at,' but, like the fly discovered, Very dangerous to be caught in.
About the time the late treaty was repealed Canada was tied up to a large extent with the United (States. Much of our exports were being shipped through Boston and New York ports; not so to-day, our own ports are doing the business. But, now Mr. Speaker, we have our own splendid ships, none better sailing, from any ports. And, last Sir, but not least, the great Cunard steamship Company, having discovered the importance of the Canadian business, has decided to enter the St. Lawrence river, and that company coming after Canada's business speaks volumes for our trade. The people of the United States have not got their eyes shut, but have them wide open, and are watching Canada's great development, and I know are somewhat jealous at our success; I remember the day when they sneered at the name of Canada; now the name of Canada in the United States is respected.
Mr. Speaker, after the repeal of the old treaty Canada was in low water for some time, when Sir John A. Macdonald boldly adopted a 'remedy, and obtained from the people of this country a mandate to create a National Policy for Canada, which he did. Ever since that time Canada has prospered as she never did before, and will continue to prosper if that policy is let alone, and I trust it will be. I have been told some of the present cabinet, after Sir John A. Macdonald had the mandate from the people for the National Policy, said he dare not carry it into effect; he did carry it into effect, and from that date until the present time Canada had been prosperous, and if let alone will continue to prosper. There is one thing I must give the present government credit for, that is having the good judgment to let the National Policy of the late Sir John A. Macdonald remain pretty well the same as he left it. That is what they may thank for the prosperous times .since they have
been in office. Will any member in this House state one single act of the present party in power that has contributed to the prosperity Canada has enjoyed during the past fifteen years?
To my mind there are just two reasons why Canada has been prosperous, and has advanced in the past few years, and without those two things she would have reremained where she was forty years ago. First of all, I think the National Policy commenced Canada's prosperity; I do not think any man in this House will deny that statement. The second was the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. We, Canadians, should ever feel grateful to that company of wealthy Canadian gentlemen who got together and took their commercial and financial lives in their hands and carried that great work to a satisfactory completion, after being told it would never earn money enough to oil the wheels. I consider it made the west; it largely assisted to make this country prosperous. It advertised the Dominion far and wide; it is a credit to Canada; it is a credit to the empire; every British subject should be proud of it.
I wish the Hon. E. Blake was, to-day, able to express his opinion on this question. This was the self same question that dTove him from political life in Canada. The Hon. Mr. Sifton, Mr. German, Mr. Harris, are only following the lead of Hon. E. Blake, and I am told there are many others in the Liberal ranks, but have not the nerve to speak out their minds as those gentlemen have done. In 1903, I find the right hon. gentleman who leads this government expressed these sentiments during the Grand Trunk Pacific discussion:
I have found in' the short experience during which if has been my privilege and my fortune to be placed at the head of affairs, by the will of the Canadian people, that the best and most effective way to maintain friendship with our American neighbours is to be absolutely independent of them.
Evidently the hon. gentleman has changed his mind. Now, Mr. Speaker, why should the Canadian wheat crop be sent to the United States for manufacture into flour? Why should it not be ground in this country? This would be one of the prices for Canada to pay under the proposed agreement. What further price must be paid? The admission to our markets of the farmers of Argentine, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Venezuela. Many of these countries are large exporters of animal and agricultural products which are produced in this country. Under the proposed treaty these twelve countries are entitled to receive, and will receive the same right of entry to our market which is conceded to
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
The editorial -explains that reciprocity not -only will preserve the future of tb-e export trade of -Great Britain in wh-eat as well as flour for both the -producing countries, but it will give the miller-s of Canada -and the United States a common ground of operation whereby they will be al-e to meet the -competition of British mill-s which now bav-e -a monopoly of the flour trade in Great Britain.
H. M. Kinney, general manager of the Winona Wagon Company, Winona, Minn., recently read a paper before the Winona Merchants' and Business Men's Association, stating his position on the question of Canadian reciprocity. After the close of Mr. Kinney s remarks, the association adopted resolutions favouring the ratification of the proposed agreement. Ml*. Kin-ney read his paper following a banquet which was attended by more than a hundred members of the association, many of whom took part in a general discussion of the question following Mr. Kinney's statement of the proposition. His address was in part as follows: , ,
' Let me say right here that if I thought the consummation of this agreement would he disastrous, or even at all injurious to the farmers of this country, I would not favour it for a moment. I believe, on the contrary, that it will not only do no harm to our farmers, but will eventually be of great benefit to
th*The facts are that the Minnesota millers need some No. 1 hard Canadian wheat in order to use the softer variety grown in Minnesota. If they cannot get the Calnadian, they cannot use our wheat; therefore, why not bring in the Canadian wheat free of duty to enable the millers to use more ot our own?
' Another argument in favour of admitting Canadian wheat is that it will enable the large mills in Minnesota to make -a flour suitable for export and thus largely increase the output of their mills. The additional offal, with such farm products as it should be mixed, will make a perfect dairy preparation for over 6,000,000 head of cattle or stock. Germany and France offer inducements to the millers for securing this offal for their dairy farms. '
' The Canadian provinces are not adapted to the growing of live stock, but are distinctly a wheat country. Their packing houses now in -operation at Winnipeg, Calgary and other places will be obliged to buy our live stock, thus affording the farmers a new and excellent market for it. We find by examining the proposed treaty that the duties cancelled by both countries cover 116 products, but that there is a much larger number of duties reduced.
' I met a Canadian on the train a short time -ago and had quite a discussion with him about this reciprocity question. He was decidedly opposed to the treaty, saying in reply to my statement that the farmers of Canada were anxious to market their wheat in this country. "You will have to buy our wheat in a few years, anyw-ay, and pay the duty and also our price. Your consumption is overtaking the production and it won't be so very long in getting there; then what are
you going to do?" The gentleman was right, and maybe we had better be making this bread and butter trade while we can. Let this fact be borne in mind-and I want to make it most emphatic-should that treaty prove unsatisfactory, it can be terminated at any time.'
At six o'clock, the House took recess. .
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. Chairman, since the visit of the farmers' delegation this great question has been brought to the attention of the Canadian parliament and people. I refer to the reciprocity compact with the United States, Certain gentlemen in this country who are strongly opposed to protection and who apprehend danger from trusts and combines urge with great force and apparent sincerity that we can obtain relief by entering into commercial union with the United States, the .most highly protected country in the world.
Common sense naturally impels one to inquire how it is possible that relief from the evils of protection can he .achieved by interlocking our fiscal system with that of a country which maintains the highest tariff wall in the world.
We are said to be suffering from oppressive prices imposed under a protective tariff and we are urged to fly for relief to a country which maintains a tariff nearly twice as high. To avoid the danger of trusts and combines in Canada we are pressed to merge our fiscal system in that of a^ country wherein trusts and _ combines wield a power and influence which fortunately are unknown in Canada up to_ the present.
I may say that we have given the impression in the United States that we are anxious for union with that country. I received a letter to-day from the state of Virginia in which a man has the impertinence to tell me that
Annexation has already set in and nothing can stop it.
Fancy that coming from a gentleman who is the principal of a school for young men. It shows the impression that has gone abroad. I have another letter here which I received last night and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall read it:
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Hon. Sir,-I beg to advise you that while I have a very high opinion of Qir Wilfrid Laurier, I am absolutely in opposition to reciprocity with the United States.
I am a farmer's son, and for some time I have been making considerable effort to unload my city holdings for a good sized farm in southwest Ontario in .exchange, so that I am certainly interested.
I have a number of relatives who are actively engaged in farming; my late brother's boys are the owners of farm lands to the extent of about 1,500 acres, and I do not know of a single Grit or Tory relative engaged in farming who is in favour of this proposed measure. Of course, a Grit political follower is not >so outspoken as I usually am, being an out and out independent, I am free; but I know the silent opinion of. my relatives. They say that they cannot entertain for a moment any chance for the unloading of American horses and other farm products against their home productions, particularly in that territory which has cost the good people of Ontario so much to put into being, that is our great Northwest.
Of all markets, the most cherished and best is always the home market.
Now, when we had no Northwest, so to speak, and it was then a desirable proposition to have a trade arrangement with onr neighbours, how were we treated?
I have not forgotten it, even if Mr. Fielding or Sir Wilfrid never knew from actual experience what it meant to us who have helped do the building and the ploughing. We were turned down bard, and why? Simply with the hope that some day we could be coerced into American bidding. Now that we have shown Hncle .Samuel what a great people we could be under trial, and now that our broad acres look tempting for the purpose of feeding his hungry workmen, he would like to get access to onr resources in order that he might the better compete in his manufactured products. In other words, we have our dear old uncle 'beaten to .a finish; and in so far as I can do it there will be no chance for his proposed measure being adopted by Canada.
Mr. Taft, a business man representing a business people, now sees the great mistake they made in the past.
Let ns as true Canadians hold fast to what we have so hard earned. We have no time to divide this great wealth with a people who have never done anything for ns. Taft and taffee may suit the politicianbut for a Canadian business man, I would if I could place an injunction on the whole plot.
That is from a veTy good man whom I know very well, and I thought it was worth reading.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
I know the man very well. A great many people have the idea that a high tariff makes high prices. 1 believe that a high tariff makes low prices when it gets fairly started. No man will invest his money in any business if he is not sure that he is going to succeed. Unless you give that man some chance of making a success of his business he would be very foolish to put his money into it. A
The tariff of 1842 made the minimum duties on cotton fabrics six cents per square yard on plain, and nine cents per square yard on printed or coloured cottons. These duties were about equal to one hundred per cent on the importer's valuation of their goods. A few months after the adoption of that tariff, Mr. Horace Greely, editor of the New York ' Tribune,' made an inquiry as to the prices on cotton fabrics in Lowell, Mass., the principal cotton manufacturing centre of 1 the United States at that time, and published in his, paper the average prices for the three months after the new tariff was imposed. The prices were as follows:
Thus, though, according to free trade theory, the prices should have been doubled as a result of the high duty, they were actually reduced. Later on still further reductions were made as new factories were built in the United States, and home com-petiton increased. We might fill pages with similar illustrations of the fact that a protective duty is not usually added to the price except temporarily, but it will not do to weary the House with too many figures.
Those who believe that all Great Britain's progress has been due to the adoption of free trade should read the speech made by Henry Clay before the United States House of Kepresentatives when the protective Bill of 1824 was being discussed. Mr. Clay, who has been called the father of protection in the United States, made a statistical comparison between Great Britain and other countries of Europe, showing how greatly the British people has prospered under protection.
Britain at that time had a higher protective tariff than any other country, and Mr. Clay's comparison shows that it was the most prosperous country in the world, that the earnings of the people were greater in proportion to the cost of living, and that the wealth of the country was increasing in a most extraordinary way.
In conclusion Mr. Clay said:
The committee will observe that the measure of wealth of a nation is measured by its protection of its industry, and that the measure of the poverty of a nation is marked by that of the degree in which it neglects and abandons the care of its own industry, leaving it exposed to the action of foreign powers. Great Britain protects mo-st her industry and the wealth of Great Britain is
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.