man had referred to the great benefit | ernment seemed to think it proper that which the country was likely to derive from the protection of its manufacturing interests, but there was no class in the community whose interests should be more protected than the agricultural class. While the manufacturer was pro. tected to the extent of 15 per cent, no protection was afforded to the agriculturist, and those in Ontario especially, suffered from the want of that protection. Canadian farmers were to a great extent shut out of American markets, having to pay a duty of no less than 20 per cent. on all produce sent to the States. It seemed to him that the advocates of free trade took a very one-sided view of the matter, and he regretted the Government had not taken a more determined stand in main. taining the protection they had introduced two sessions ago. The member for Shefford had urged that the question should not be turned into political capital, but he knew no one more ready to make political capital of such a matter than that gentleman. During the last ten years the increase of population in Ontario and Quebec had been only 300,000, while it had been double that during the ten years previous, while in his own county the population was very much smaller than it was a year ago, and he attributed this to the want of protection afforded the agri. cultural interests. He said that among the manufacturers of England a strong feeling was springing up in favor of protection, and they found that Sir Robert Peel's prediction that all other nations would follow their example and establish free trade was not fulfilled, and their imports were, to a very great extent, larger than their exports, while in one year the bullion in the Bank of England had de creased to the extent of £4,000,000 ster ling. He deprecated the manner in which everything that could have been offered to the United States in exchange for reciprocity, had been relinquished, and said that now when all the young men of the country were leaving for the States and the whole tide of emigration from the old country was flowing there, it was high time that the matter should be con sidered, and he trusted therefore that his amendment would be accepted. Hon. Mr. BLAKE, trusted that the Minister of Finance would give to the agricultural interests the same consideration that he accorded to the other interests of the Dominion. For his own part, as they were going into the Committee business, he could not conceive a juncture at which it was more important that these questions should be discussed, as the Gov their policy should be determined upon a adhere "Ships, He believed Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said he | sions and sentiments were such in which hoped the committee would not be frightened from doing their duty by the remarks of the hon. member for West Durham, and he trusted they would meet and collect all the information that was desirable for the purpose of being used by the House, and being of service to the country. The hon. member who had just spoken, as well as the hon. member for Chateauguay seemed to think that the House had no power to act or to exercise any opinion except to register the decrees of the Government and that they were not legislative, and could not enter upon any subject except with the sanction of the Government. It was an old saying that information would do no one any harm and he trusted that in this instance full information would be obtained. The member for Hamilton in the interests of his constituents and of the country at large, had moved for a committee for the purpose of submitting to Parliament the information they might collect, and there had been an appeal made by the hon. member for Shefford, that the subject might not be approached as a political question at all, and he had urged that the House should rise above mere political considerations and deal with it as statesmen, forgetting party for the good of the country. That appeal however had been made in vain and had been rejected by the hon. member for West Durham, but he (Sir John) knew the members of the Committee would do their duty, for their names were a sufficient assurance that they would honestly deal with the matter without any reference to political partizanship. The hon. member for West Durham said that he should treat with the silence of compassion the language of the hon. Secretary of State for the Provinces. He (Sir John). regretted that language, but if the offence was marked, the vocation was great. He also regret ted that the hon. member for Chateauguay had not obseved his usual moderation, but had characterized the ex. pressions of the Secretary of State for the Provinces as "indecent," an expression as unparliamentary as could well be made use of. He (Sir John), however, thought the Speaker had used a wise discretion in refusing to interfere until the matter had been talked out, but now it had been fairly talked out, he hoped no more would be heard of it. The hon. member for West Durham had characterized the language of the address of the Secretary of State for the Provinces as disloyal, but let any one read that speech and see whether there was any disloyalty in it. The expres he (Sir John) did not concur, the belief one in which he did not share; but the hon. gentleman had used the language with regret it was the wailing cry of a loyalist fearing that the colony was going to be forsaken (cheers). He (Sir John) believed that the Parliament of England was right and sound in the matter, and that there was no ground for the fear, and that while there was a power in England, strong in intellect, but not in numbers, who thought that England would be safer and more secure without her colonies, that sentiment was not the prevailing sentiment of England, and he was satisfied that on the first appeal to the people of England they would pronounce that they would still to the old maxim of Colonies and Commerce." the hon. gentleman, his colleague, was in error, he himself was more sanguine, but he also believed he was the more correct; and he was satisfied that no ministry in England could exist at the present time or for many many years to come if they laid down as one of the principles of their Government that they were better divest ed of all their colonies, which gave England such position and such moral as well as physical power in the world. The hon, member from West Durham had called the language of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, very dangerous doctrine, but if that honourable member was fairly reported in the columns of the Globe he had stated that the consequence of the Treaty of Washington would be that there must be a reorganization of the Empire, and that the relations of this country must be changed, and this he had not said as a matter of regret, he did not state his opinion with sorrow, but he said it because he considered pro. that, commercially speaking, Canada's rights had not been fully protected by the Treaty. (Cheers) Had any one accused the hon. member of disloyalty because of these expressions? No. No such accusation had been brought against him, though he richly deserved it from the tone he had just adopted. The or ganization of the Empire was to be changed because for a few years the Americans were to have the right to catch fish in Canadian waters (cheers). Canada was to call England to account, and the honourable member for West Durham had almost used the language he had quoted from the speech of the Hon. Secre. tary of State for the Provinces, for he had said that now was the time for Canada and England to meet face to face, and had stated it as his own sentiment and resolve, | because as a leading statesman he was bound to carry his principles into practice, that the Empire was to be reorganized because the mackerel and herring had been handed over to the Yankees for ten long endless_years. The Secretary of State for the Provinces was attacked because he disapproved of the withdrawal of Her Majesty's troops from the country. He (Sir John) shared the belief that it was a mistake in the Imperial Government to withdraw the troops, but the matter was one that had to be judged by Imperial considerations, though his individual opinion was that England would have acted with wise discretion if she had still main tained the troops in Canada as a symbol of her sovereignty, and still manned the old walls of Quebec. Looking to the interests of the Empire alone, it would have been well if the garrison had been maintained there, and he did not stand alone in that view. Great statesmen in England had pronounced the same opinion. He did not speak of the Conservative party, who might from old associations desire to maintain the old state of affairs, the old relationship with the Colonies, but Lord Russell had protested against the withdrawal of the troops from Can ada. Whether England was wise or unwise in doing so it was for her to decide. Canada had no right to insist on her view of the matter, but he regretted that they had not the martial tread of the troops in the streets and the sound of the martial music, but they submitted without one single feeling except of regret that they had lost the symbol of England's sovereignty. He had been induced to make these remarks in consequence of what had fallen from the member for West Dur ham. With reference to the amendment of the member for Leeds and Grenville, there could be no objection to it if it met with the approval of the member for Hamilton who had made the original mo tion. Hon. Mr. HOLTON had not intended to say one word in reply to the "Billingsgate" levelled at him by the Secretary of State for the Provinces, but as the leader of the Government had referred to an ob servation of his as a provocation of the very improper and unparliamentary tirade of the Secretary of State for the Provinces, he desired to say a very few words in ex planation. He denied that the word "indecent" as he had made use of it was unparliamentary. The hon. gentleman had been charged in a former debate with having delivered a speech, the whole drift of which went to | show that the connection between Canada and the Empire should not be maintained because of two grievances. One of these grievances was the withdrawal of the troops. He (Mr. Holton) considered that perfectly justifiable. He might regret it, but he did not think they had any right to find fault with it. The second com plaint was that England had bartered away Canadian interests. He could not forget that the hon. gentleman sat in that House as the colleague and follower of a gentleman who had signed that very treaty, and what he intended to imply was that for a Minister of the Crown to propose the severance of the connection with England on these two grounds was "indecent," and he repeated it. He maintained that he remaining on the same benches the Government assumed the whole responsibility of the utterances of the Secretary of State for the Provinces. to which the Minister of Justice had reHon. Mr. BLAKE said that the speech ferred had been reported substantially correctly, and he was prepared to abide former remarks was that if it was true by it. What he had desired to say in his away Canadian interests for her own that England had recently tried to barter benefit, and that Cabinet Ministers in England were acting in a manner that involved the separation of the country, then this country was at a serious and appalling juncture. Mr. WORKMAN (Montreal), had agreed to second the motion of the member for Hamilton, that he might have an opportunity to examine the evidence brought be fore the Committee, at the same time he desired distinctly to state that he was not in favor of a high protective duty. Some branches of manufacture were not sufficiently protected, but the country was thoroughly prosperous, and if these branches could be protected, the pros. perity would continue. As to the other subject that had been introduced into the discussion. He happened to be in New York when the lecture in question was delivered, and had been accosted on the subject on the Exchange there by parties who said that a Cabinet Minister at Ottawa openly advocated annexation. He had denied this, but had afterwards read the lecture with great regret because the previous life and action of the hon. lecturer had evinced a much higher tone of loyalty. He had, however, listened with great pleasure to the utterances of the Premier, because they had convinced him that the Cabinet were not in favor of a change in the connection with England. He wished to live and die under the old flag. Mr. YOUNG [Waterloo] thought the Government ought themselves to have a policy on the question and should not delegate the matter to a Committee, although he said there might be some excuse for the proceeding as Government seemed utterly unable to frame a com. mercial policy. He referred to changes in the tariff which had been made in almost every session, dwelling on the pro ceedings in the session of 1869, terming the action of the Minister of Finance at that time a summersault. With regard to the duty on grain and flour, he maintained that the farmers did not want any such absurd duty, as they know that it would be no advantage to them and a great injury to other interests of the Dominion. Everyone would admit that it would be a great benefit to encourage manufactures, but other interests should not be forgotten, and he trusted that the Committee would remember that they were acting for the whole community and not for any parti cular portion. Mr. MAGILL (Hamilton) said that the practice of appointing Committees on such matters had been called in question, but he maintained that it was in accordance with British practice and quoted from Mr. Todd's work in support of his statement. With regard to the amendment he considered that the Committee as he had asked for it would have quite enough work on its hands and he could not consent therefore to the agricultural interests being also submitted to it. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS replied to the remarks of the member for Waterloo as to the changes in the Tariff. He explained the reasons that had induced the Government to change its policy in 1870, and said that in 1871 they would have been quite prepared to take off the duties on the articles in question as far as revenue was concerned, and had only hesitated to do so on account of the negotiations thea pending at Washington. Hon. Mr. ANGLIN spoke on the same points, attributing the sudden change in the Tariff to the pressure brought to bear on them by a gentleman now in the Cab. inet who had threatened the Ministry with the opposition of the whole of Nova Scotia if they did not accede to his request. Mr. BODWELL (North Oxford) said the agricultural interests of the country did not require any system of protection. He accused the member for Hamilton of having formerly advocated the interests of the farming population, and now, when it suited his own interests casting them off, by refusing to consent to their interests being considered by the committee for which he had moved. He hoped the amendment would not be withdrawn. Mr. JONES (Leeds and Grenville) regretted very much that the member for Hamilton objected to his amendment, but of course he could only withdraw it and move for a separate committee at another time. The main motion was then carried. WINDSOR AND ANNAPOLIS RAILWAY. Mr. SAVARY moved for copies of all correspondence respecting the use by the Windsor and Annapolis Railway Company of Government Railway between Halifax and Windsor. Carried. DEATH OF ALBERT RIDER. Mr. SAVARY moved for Reports relative to the death by accident of Albert Rider, on the Government Railway be. tween Halifax and Windsor, and for a statement of all accidents on that Railway and their causes. Carried. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE asked whether Government would submit a statement of the affairs of the Bank of Upper Canada: Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS replied in the affirmative. The House adjourned at 5.50. SENATE. THURSDAY, April 18, 1872. The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock. PETITIONS. The following petitions were read: Of the Corporation of the Town of Woodstock, in the Province of Ontario. Of Sir W. E. Logan, F.R.S., and others of the City of Montreal, of Sir Hugh Allan, President of the Montreal Telegraph Com pany, and of the Board of Trade of the City of Montreal. Of Messrs. Jones and Miller, and of Wm. Lewis and others connected with Shipping in the Province of Ontario. Of the Caughnawaga Ship Canal Com pany. STANDING COMMITTEES. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. MITCHELL, that the following be Standing Committees of the House: PRINTING-Hon. Messrs. Aikens, Bureau, Burnham, Carroll, Chapais, Dumouchel, Ferguson, Girard, Hazen, Holmes, Locke, Olivier, Reesor, Sanborn, Simpson and Skead. LIBRARY-Bon. Messrs. Allan, Blake, Bourinot, Chaffers, Chapais, Cormier, Cornwall, Ferguson, Girard, Hazen, Lacoste, Leonard, Locke, Macfarlane, Malhiot, Mills, Odell, Panet, Reesor, Renaud and Steeves. STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS. Hon. Messrs. Aikins, Allan, Archibald, Armand, Botsford, Bourinot, Cornwall, Dever, Dickson, Ferrier, Flint, Girard, Guevremont, Hazen, Letellier de St. Just, Miller, Northrop, Olivier, Panet, Perry, Sanborn, Steeves, and Hon. Mr. Campbell. BANKING, COMMERCE, AND RAILWAYS.Hon. Messrs. Bureau, Chapais, Churchill, Ferrier, Foster, Hamilton (Kingston), Kaulback, McDonald (Toronto), McLelan, McMaster, Maclonald (Victoria), Macpher son, Malhiot, Mitchell, Robertson, Ryan, Simpson, Skead, Smith, Sutherland, Tessier, Wark, Wilmot, and Wilson. Hon. Mr. SANBORN made the following enquiry of the Government :-Whether it is the intention of the Government during the present Session of Parliament, to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to Patents for Inventions, so as to permit citizens of other countries to obtain Pa tents on the same terms as citizens of the Dominion can obtain them in foreign countries; not giving to foreigners in any case better terms than to our own citizens? Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL-It is the inten tion of the Government to introduce a bill making more liberal the existing law respecting Patents; but it will be more convenient hereafter to state its precise de tails. THE FISHERIES, Hon. Mr. MILLER asked:-Whether it is the intention of the Government to maintain a force for the protection of the Coast Fisheries during the coming season, and if so, will the Imperial Government co-operate in the service? Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-It is the intention of the Government to place the usual force on the service to which my hon. friend has referred, and it is also the inten tion of the Imperial Government to give such directions as will ensure the co-operation of Her Majesty's fleet with the crui. sers of the Dominion. Hon. Mr. LOCKE-Is the force to be placed on the service at once? Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-One vessel has already received orders to proceed to the Magdalen Islands in connection with the which requires the most vigilance on our herring fishery. The mackerel fishery will have our vessels on the ground as soon part, does not come on till later, but we as they will be required. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL brought down a message from His Excellency transmitting papers respecting the Washington Treaty. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THURSDAY, 18TH APRIL, 1872. The SPEAKER took the chair at 3 o'clock, p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS. Six Petitions were brought up, and laid on the table. The following petitions were received and read: · Of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Railway Company; of the Western Assurance Company of Toronto; and of the Caughnawaga Ship Canal Company; severally praying for certain amendments to their Act of Incorporation. Of Sir William E. Logan, F.R.S., and others; praying for certain amendments to the Act respecting Patents for Invention. Of the Montreal Board of Trade; pray ing that the Insolvent Acts in force in Canada may not be repealed. Of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada; praying for the passing of an International Bridge Company, and for Act to confirm their agreement with the other purposes. Of the International Bridge Company; praying for the passing of an Act to confirm their agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and to authorize them to make a lease of the said bridge, and for other purposes. Of the Honorable John Hamilton Gray, of the City of Ottawa, Canada, William F. Bruff, George Wells Owen and Charles Eley, of the City of London, England, and others; praying for an Act of Incor. |