No, Sir, I am not; I want to disabuse your mind of that. When I was running in Pontiac, my opponent was an English Protestant. I said to the people : Mr. Levecque-who was speaking on
my behalf-has appealed to your sympathies on account of the school question and Sir Charles Tupper's action in that connection: Mr. Brabazon, my opponent, is an English Protestant: do not vote against him on account of his religion: vote for him or against him on the merits of the question before you -on the merits of the national policy if you like-but do not vote against him on account of his religion. I have never appealed to my co-religionists on the ground of faith. Why, I would not put myself in the power of any elector to say that I appealed to him for sympathy or support on such grounds. I am a Canadian and I want to meet all men on equal grounds and to do away with these prejudices to fight them down-and I think if any man in Canada has done his part in fighting them down, I have. I have been elected in a constituency in Ontario which is largely Protestant. My opponent tried to take advantage of me on account of my belief. When he was nominated for the next election, I said to him: You have endeavoured to prejudice the electors against me in a former election, and this time I had hoped .to avoid a contest with you: do you object Mr. MURRAY.
to me yourself on these grounds ? When I cornered him thus, he had to say: Yes; it was bom in my bones. Do you see the point ?-if he had said that he did not object to me, on these grounds, he could not have appealed to the electors to vote against me on those grounds, because the answer would at once have been that he himself, when asked, had not objected to me. But when I met him before an audience that was largely Catholic, I said : This gentleman
has made certain statements against me, but, so far as religion is concerned, your interests are as safe in his hands as in mine. That is the way I dealt with him. I need not tell the House who the man was, I merely cite the case as showing the course I have taken in trying, as a public man, to put down these prejudices.
My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who is smiling at me now and with whom I had the pleasure of sitting in a council of the united counties, stated in his speech the other evening that he stood by the national policy and was going to appeal to the country on that policy; and he said that all enlightened countries favoured protection. That was paying but a poor compliment to free trade in England. For my part, I have fought the national policy. And I will fight this motion. I want to see it buried, never to be resurrected. I am in favour of a revenue tariff as it was in Mackenzie's time. I do not take any stock in protection at all. Some of our hon. friends, even on this side of the House, talk protection. But I do not believe that there is a single man who listens to me now but will say that had Mackenzie's revenue tariff still been in force in this country, we should have enjoyed as much prosperity, perhaps more than we have had. But, Sir, the death knell of protection has been sounded. My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) may appeal to the country as he has done time and again. But I say as 1 have already said that the friends of the national policy never appealed to the country on the merits of the national policy. They appealed to the country in the last two elections on all sorts of issues. But the verdict of the people has been given, and they ought to be satisfied. Let us get down to business. There should be less party animus than there has been. Hon. gentlemen will not allow that anything good can emanate from the present government, but would have us believe that prosperity and every good thing came from the national policy and the great Conservative party. And yet when they last appealed to the country, they could not agree among themselves but were fighting like the Kilkenny cats. I say again, let us get down to business, let us get down to work. Let my hon. friend the leader of the opposition propose the abolition of the Senate, let him propose to reduce the representations of this House, and I will join him. Let us have cheap government,
let us have honest government; let us have men who will look to country before party; let us do something for our common country.
Mr. Speaker, at this very early hour in the morning, I do not think it will be at all becoming- in me to take up very much of the time of the House. I did not intend until this afternoon, speaking on this motion. But, representing as I do the *electoral district of Cornwall and Stormont in which is situated the town of Cornwall, known in eastern Ontario as ' the factory town,' I felt that it was incumbent upon me, even if I only said a few words, to give my reasons for supporting the amendment so ably spoken to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and the other hon. gentlemen who have supported it. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray). He says he is not a very old man, but he lias been in polities for a great number of years. He *says that in 1878, when the Right Hon. Sir John Macdonald went through the country advocating the national policy, he did not know what it was and had to ask his opponent what it meant, because he had never heard of protection. Well, if the hon. gentleman, in 1878, had never heard of protection, he had not followed the political history of the different countries. He complains that no manufacturing industries have reached the county of Pontiac, and then he tells us that the county is entirely j undeveloped and that they have no railway communications. I have no doubt that manufacturing industries will reach the county of Pontiac within a very short time, if the national policy is adhered to, and that these valuable water-powers will be used to drive the wheels of manufactories. He refers to the Conservative party having been hurled from power in 189G. It is quite true that they were defeated in 1896, and they were defeated upon pledges given by the hon. gentlemen opposite, not one of which they have fulfilled to the present day. He referred to the speech of the non. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) in which the latter had made some statement about the enlightened countries favouring protection. I would like the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray) to name one country which has not framed and which Is not now framing its commercial regulations in such a manner as to guard its own interests against the encroachments of its rivals. He cannot name one that is not adopting such a policy. The only statement a free trader can make is that Great Britain to-day is a free trade country. But they do not tell you of the years and years of protection in Great Britain which built up the industries of that country until they felt they were able to control the markets of the world, and then they threw down the walls of protection.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the race question, and I for one hope it will be the last time that it is referred to in; this House. I cannot understand why hon. gentlemen opposite are continually getting up and talking race and creed. You do not hear it on this side of the House, we don't want to hear it in this House, and we don't want to hear it in the country. When a motion is made in this House in favour of a policy of adequate protection, and encouragement to the labouring, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other interests of Canada, why should a gentleman speaking on that motion give us a long tirade about race and creed ? Why should he get up and say to hon. members who did not see fit to vote as he voted on some motion in this House, that the constituents which elected these men were fanatics and bigots?
Well, the hon. gentleman may rest assured that he is not able to drag me into a controversy on the race and creed cry. I think, Mr. Speaker, among the greatest questions of legislation, there is probably not one which bears more directly on our future welfare than that of the national policy, and the tariff which we adopt in this country. To all theories and all reasonings against protection stands opposed the. unanswerable fact that experience has been always and every where is in its favour. Our government is made for all. We are not asking for any special protection for any one class in this broad Dominion ; we are asking for ample protection to be given to every class, and the class that requires it most is the labouring class. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speech delivered the other evening by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and I was a little struck at some of the remarks that he made. One of his remarks especially attracted my attention, in which he said that Sir John A. Macdonald, for^ the purpose of obtaining power, did not hesitate to introduce a tariff which was anti-British. Sir John A. Macdonald gave fifty years of his life towards building up the empire of which we form so important a part. You never heard Sir John A. Macdonald ad-
vocating unrestricted reciprocity, or commercial union ; but you did bear bim, in that manifesto which be published just prior to that election, use these words :
As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die. With my utmost efforts, with my latest breath, will I oppose the veiled treason which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to allure our people from their allegiance.
The people of Canada responded to that appeal, and they buried for all time to come that policy which was so strongly advocated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and by other ministers who sit before me to-night ; and we did not hear any more of commercial union or unrestricted reciprocity.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) I want to ask the hon. gentleman if he has taken cognizance of the cablegram which is published in this evening's papers containing a declaration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England that the policy which is now advocated by the opposition will not he countenanced in England ?
I am not accustomed to pay much attention to all these telegraphic *despatches that we find in promiscuous newspapers. Now, the hon. memebr for Bonaventure says that this tariff is nothing more than a repetition of the old policy. But I will do him the credit to say that he stands up in this House and says that he is in favour of protection. He is on record in the ' Hansard ' as saying that he is in favour of moderate protection. But he goes on to say that this country has made no progress during the regime of the late Conservative administration, that it remains stationary.
I would like to take him down to that little factory town of Cornwall, where, in 1881, we had a population of 4,408, and, according to the census of 1891, we had a population of 0,805, an increase of 2,337 in ten years, or about 52 per cent. I want to tell him that from 1891 to 1896 our popu-; lation increased until, counting the town : and the suburbs, built up largely by the manufacturing industries established under the national policy, we have a population now of between 9.000 and 10,000. Without1 going into a number of items that I could mentiou, showing the great prosperity of the country between 1878 and 1890, I will only take the deposits in the savings banks. In 1877 there were 24,074 depositors, and the amount deposited was $2,639,937 : in 1890 the number had increased to 126,442
The increase has been practically nothing from 1896, because the manufacturers of this country had no confidence in the administration of the hon. gentlemen. I do not hear of any new manufacturing industries started iu that town since 1896. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) says that the United States have not prospered under a protective tariff. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) said that the protective tariff is injurious to the labourers of any country in which it is enforced ; that it creates strikes, and he cited the United States as an example. But he did not say anything about the strikes in free trade England, and I could point him to the town of Valleyfield and other places in Canada where strikes have occurred during the regime of the present Liberal government. If protection injures the United States and if the labourer is not successful in that country, why should we find that 448,572 immigrants went into the United States in 1900 with the expectation of having their labour rewarded, and we know that the United States never had a higher protective tariff than it had that year. I am glad that the hon. gentleman referred to the United States because there is no country that gives to Canada the object lesson that that country does. Let me glance for just a moment at the commercial history of the United States. We can go back to the report which that great statesman, Alex. Hamilton, made in 1789, in favour of a protective tariff ; we can go back to 1813, after the protective tariff had come into force, and we can see how in that time the manufacturing industries of the United States took root. We find that in 1815 there were 140 cotton manufactures in the vicinity of Rhode Island, operating 130,000 spindles, and that many places such as Pittsburg sprang into existence as manufacturing centres. Five years after the protective tariff had been introduced into the United States the number of cotton spindles in operation was estimated at 500,000, employing 100,000 men, having a capital of $40,000,000 and paying about $15,000.000 in wages. That was the inception of protection there. We find that every time a party opposed to protection has been elected in the United States that country has gone backward ; business has become