once, rolls down the mountain side to the base. Its destiny, whether it shall go to the east or to the west, depends upon the direction in which you move it in the beginning.

Let us suppose a republic situate on one portion of a great continent, and the dependency of a kingdom, lying along its frontier, separated only by a political line on another portion. The republic is in the full strength of its manhood, and has made vast strides in the arts and manufactures. Millions of dollars have been invested in the manufacture of wool and cotton, and boots and shoes, and agricultural implements, and iron and wooden wares. But in the other territory, this state of progress has not been attained. The population is sparse, while the territory is rich in all the natural objects required for the highest ends of civilization. The soil is fertile, is visited by kindly rains in proper season, and produces not alone in great abundance, but in wide variety. It has vast domains of forest, unlimited stores of economic minerals, and abundance of coal, while mighty rivers of unconceived power wind through it. But the people are little better than in a pastoral state. They have settled upon the territory, some possessing goodly sums of money. There are yet no towns or cities, only here and there a village, the rest living apart from each other, each one a distance equal to the extent of his farm, from his neighbour. The inhabitants raise grain of every kind, garden produce, etc.; cut timber and saw it into boards, raise cattle and sheep, and oxen and horses, and of all these, more than they need for their own use. The surplus they sell to the manufacturers of the republic, who come up to their doors with farming implements, cottons, woollens, and all the domestic wares, selling these in exchange for the surplus products of the farm. Thus the process goes on, and as population increases over the new territory, so does the market for the republicans'

manufactures also increase. But here and there in this new territory is a farmer who has some capital, in money, which he does not need in his agricultural pursuits. He has become thoughtful from seeing the republican manufacturer selling his wares from year to year at his own and his neighbours' doors, and he says to himself, 'I have $20,000 to spare; why should I not manufacture the ploughs and the harrows, and the reapers these stranger people sell at our doors ? There is plenty of iron to be got in our own unworked mines, and plenty of wood in our forests: why should I not smelt the iron and prepare the wood, making those implements our farmers need? But having supplied these things, how would I fare? I might send two or three agents among our farmers, but from across the line there are that many hundred agents. Would the farmer then purchase my articles, because home-made, in preference to the foreign? No; I think it would be the other way. But there is a greater obstacle than this I put a capital of $20,000 into this manufactory. I must compete with a long-established manufacturer, who has a capital of half a million dollars. In a contest, he brings against me a power nearly thirty times greater than mine. With my $20,000 dollars capital I shall require a marginal profit of ten per cent.; he doing thirty times as much business, can make more by a profit of eight per cent., by reason of the better division of labour in his larger establishment. He can undersell me by two per cent. Therefore I will not enter the contest; I will go on with my farming, and let my money lie out at interest.' What is true of this farmer-capitalist is true of scores of others, who, for similar reasons, will not establish cotton or woollen mills or wooden-ware factories. Under such a state of affairs, the development of the higher and more important manufactures is a plant of slow growth.

'But,' some one says, 'the conclu

sion from your argument is that without protection by the State, development of native manufacture is impossible. Yet manufactures have grown up in unprotected States, and flourished in them, too.' Granted, but what I here endeavour to show is, how Protection could aid manufacture, and develop the nation's wealth, and how Free Trade, under the given conditions, can, and does seriously, check and injure these. Cities, towns, and villages are no less the natural product of increased population than a certain class of manufactures are the outcome of the clustering together of the people. The process of towngrowth is very simple. Here and there a blacksmith will come and put up a smithy, and the farmers coming there from round about, it occurs to some enterprising person that it would be a good place to build a store. This is the nucleus of a village. For the one store is no sooner built than the second is in contemplation. Then the salesmen must have houses, and so must the carpenters who build the stores and the houses; and so the accumulation takes place till there is a full-flown village, with a post-office, and gradually a little town. But beyond being, in a manufacturing sense, an unimportant town, under the conditions I have pointed out, it rarely can become. There always will be, must be, in the centre of fertile farming districts, supplying points where the farmer can buy the necessities of life; but there will not always be in those towns, there rarely will be, the manufactories-except to a limited extent, and these the least important-from which the merchant can obtain the articles for his ware-rooms. In other words, such a city is only an intermediate station between the farmer and the foreign manufacturer, where the country's wealth of raw material passes through only, but does not remain. The meat and the hides, and the fleeces of wool-the beeves

and the horses, the surplus corn and grains of every kind, the deals and the boards, all pass through on their way to the foreign market, where they are needed for the maintenance and the occupation of the foreign labourer. It is true there are a few exceptions to this rule, these being, formed generally under certain geographical conditions, such for example as at points to which freights from the foreign market are high, and routes difficult and tedious. Under such circumstances the moderate capitalist is encouraged to invest in manufacture. But clearly the capitalist must be protected, it not statutably, then geographically or otherwise.

But it may be objected-' Then since the inadequacy of capital is the original cause of this state of affairs, the cure must be, not in protection by the State, but by adequacy of capital, by putting home dollar against foreign dollar. One dollar is as powerful as another, and there should be no State interference.' Let us examine this proposition, by supposing that in a town in the foreign State-say Hartford-there is a woollen manufactory, with a capital of a million of dollars. In Hamilton, in the young State, there is another like manufactory with an equal capital. This is home dollar for foreign dollar,' but it is not equality nevertheless; for the Connecticut manufacturer will spread a swarm of his drummers through Canada-the Free Trade State-while the Hamilton manufacturer finds his travellers' confronted by a tariff wall on the American frontier.

I have shown what takes place in a country rich in all the natural objects needed to civilization's demand, where such a state lies adjacent, or convenient, to a foreign state, the latter in its manhood and having its native industry protected by the Government, the former in its early youth, and not having protection to its home industries. I have shown that in the trade

contest between the two the struggle is as that between the boy of ten and the man of thirty.

Having seen the causes for the failure of manufacture in natural objects, we are in a better position to talk about the remedy. Had the State said to the farmer with the $20,000, This country of ours is rich in nature's materials; we have all the economic minerals, wood, coal, and unexampled water-power; we have a practically unlimited area of fertile land, and our climate is most favourable to our needs; we have all we want of our own, as good as that which our neighbours beyond the boundary have. But most of our wealth lies untouched, while that which we develop we send out of the country, for that which we might have from our midst. The Government shall, therefore, aid you to establish your iron works, and it shall aid your neighbours to establish their woollen and cotton, and other works; and, by these means, we shall keep at home such of our population as, not caring for farming pursuits, and who cannot find skilled labour here, go to manufacturing cities abroad to seek it. We shall compel all foreign manufactures coming into this country to pass through our custom-houses and pay there a tax, which, added to the price of their goods, will enable you to compete with them. The adoption of such means as these will set capital and energy of our own smelting our own ores, weaving our own wool, and fashioning out of our own forests such articles as we need for our domestic uses.' This would have effected the cure.

But those who grant all this will cry out, Yes-you have developed home manufacture, but you have developed taxation as well. You have shut the cheaper foreign article out, and you compel us to buy the dearer, because made at home. It matters not to us whose goods we buy, so long as the article suits us. The quality being equal, we want the

cheaper, let it be made in China or by our next-door neighbour. We think this tax wrong; let us hear you justify it.'

Now, in answering this questiona question involving the entire charge made by Free Traders against Protectionists-I must be permitted to state that the end sought by the policy of Protection is not the enrichment of the capitalist with the $20,000, or the woollen or the wooden manufacturer, but the establishment of manufactories, the manufacturers themselves being only the means to that end; for the establishment of manufactories includes the development of the country's natural resources. The national benefits of the development of native natural objects are plain, and they are many. The mines, hitherto of no more use than the mountain rocks, at once become valuable to their owners and to the community; while the money used in the manufacture of deals and boards, minerals, wool, hides, &c., all of which were hitherto exported for manufacture, will be kept in the country, instead of being sent abroad. Let me make this plain by example. A. lives in Canada, and he is an extensive dealer in carriages, farm waggons, horse rakes, ploughs, mowing machines, harvesters, &c. Before the era of State Protection he bought all these things from American manufacturers, paying to the latter each year half a million dollars. When Protection became law Canadian manufacturers began to make these articles. A, therefore, each year, under Protection, paid that half a million dollars to B, who is a Canadian manufacturer. Canada, by that one transaction, is half a million better off in the year under Protection-that is, the sum named has given employment for the year to over a thousand Canadians, instead of to a like number of Americans under Free Trade. But still we hear the question, 'What has that to do with my tax -with my being compelled to buy a Canadian article in

preference to a foreign? Justify the tax.' I have stated that the enrichment of manufacturers is not the end sought, neither is taxation, but home manufacture. Now, then, since home manufacture is the end sought, it is the state of affairs under the accomplishment of that end we should examine. Trees do not bear blossoms and fruit on the same day we ought, therefore, to dismiss time-the time between the blossom and the fruit, the time between the adoption of an impost tax and the development of manufacture-and what we deem the hardships of that time, from the question. I need not stop here to argue the matter of 'questionable means to an end be it never so good,' for I judge that those who would suffer permanent malady rather than submit to a temporary physic are not very many, nor, indeed, very wise. I shall, therefore, glance ahead to a period when Protection shall have been employed a sufficient time to encourage capital into all the branches of manufacturing possible or needful in the young and protected State. I say at this period the cry of discontent against taxation will have been generally stilled. person who asked me to 'justify this tax' will have found events pleading, 'trumpet-tongued,' its full justifica

tion.

The

There will be little left of the complained-of tax, except upon the Statute books.

But the incredulous one asks, 'How has this come to pass? We have either to import certain articles or to buy them of the home manufacturer. But the latter will sell as nearly up to the foreign price plus the duty, as he dares.' This is the point I deny. Where monopoly does not exist, trade always goes on regulating itself, till, settling upon a correct basis, it accords to every commodity its proper standard value. Nothing is more impossible under Protection than monopoly, for the protection of the State is afforded to the capital, and the form of the enterprise rather than to the

individual. Let me illustrate by example: 'A. establishes a sugar refinery as soon as the protective tariff has been proclaimed. He makes money "hand over fist," in the current slang, by selling his sugar only a "shade" lower than the imported article. B. has half a million dollars to invest, and he says: 'A. is amassing a fortune by making sugar, yet he is not able to supply all the market; so I shall also establish a sugar refinery.' Then if these two continue in their good luck, a third capitalist starts a refinery. Thus a wholesome competition is established; Greek has met Greek; one cuts into the other and down comes monopoly' and sugar to its absolute standard value. Then the sugar made at home is sold as cheap as the sugar made and sold abroad, and for this reason none of the foreign article is imported, and the tax exists only upon paper; while the country is enriched to the extent of the value of the refining companies' property, and thousands of workmen who otherwise would have been obliged to go abroad for a livelihood, obtain it at home. What is true of sugar manufacture is true of cotton, woollen, iron, wood and the hundred contingent manufactures.

But still some one is found to say, 'This is all well upon paper; but will not one set of manufacturers adopt a tariff of rates, and not sell their articles below that?' Will, Thomas Jones, I answer, keep half a million dol lars' worth of goods upon his shelves that he cannot sell at a profit of forty per cent. owing to his rivals having been longer in the trade and better known among cotton buyers than himself; will he, I ask, refuse to sell these goods at twenty-five per cent. profit, which would be fifteen per cent. lower than his rival's, or for the sake of ' good faith' to a ring treaty will he prefer to let the auctioneer sell them for what they will bring? Why it is only a few weeks ago since two newspapers in Toronto adopted a common

tariff of prices. Everyday since, the one has been cutting into the other and violating the compact made.

THE TEST OF PROTECTION.

The state of affairs which I have endeavoured to point out as existing in the theoretical state, under the policy of Free Trade, was almost exactly the condition of Canada previous to the general elections in 1878. Various causes had been in operation for some years before, bringing about a state of depression in trade, that had been unparalleled in the history of the colonies. Many of the leading mercantile houses, regarded as towers of strength, had come toppling down, involving numerous dependent establishments in a common ruin. Capital had become timid, for public confidence was gone. Thousands of work. men were out of employment and clamoured for bread, but the Dominion had none to give them. Those who could leave the country went away to seek employment in cities in the New England States. It was then the enervating stream of emigration, which even under a changed state of affairs proved so hard to check, began to flow broad and deep. Surely,' said some of those who saw the hungry and fleeing workingmen, 'the Government ought to be able to do something for these people. If legislation is ever potent to do public good, it ought to be when such a crisis comes as this. Our country has vast, unlimited resources, and if these were only turned to account, our suffering and emigrating people would be provided for. Is there no way,' they asked, 'to set yonder half-idle factories employing labour to full capacity? No means of establishing new factories where our suffering people may get work? Is it not a shame to see the agents of the foreign manufacturer sitting upon the door-steps of our idle factories selling their goods, and our willing and able labourers crying for work?' Then it was represented to the Government

that they should endeavour to solve the problem. It was told them that Canada's mines and forests were practically unlimited; that she was wondrously wealthy in natural objects; that she had sufficient energy, capital, and intelligence to develop these, and at once build up her own greatness as a commercial State, and satisfy the cravings of her hungry people for work; that all this could be accomplished if the Government would only grant State Protection to home industry. How will that better the country's condition?' said Mr. Mackenzie, the Premier of the day. It will protect our home industries from the competition of more powerful foreign industries; it will protect our infant national energies from the full-grown energies of a powerful neighbour State. Let the Americans make no longer all the articles in wood and iron that we need, nor the woollens, cottons, boots and shoes, ready-made clothing, hats and caps, and the thousand other things that we buy every year from the agents of foreign manufacturers. As we can make all these things at home, as the making of them will enrich our country and employ our people, we beseech of you to aid us by legislation.' Could lesser request have been made at such a time, the country being in such a state? Could we have expected a lesser granted? And to this, what said the Canadian Government? Said Sir Richard Cartwright-' We see Toryism under the mask again asking us to do these things. The genius that gave England her Corn Laws is loose in Canada. I tell you, working-men, the belief that the Government can help you in your straits is a delusion. Governments confronted by such questions of trade as these -conditions above and beyond the influence of Government-are as flies on the wheel.' That's my policy too,' said Premier Mackenzie, and all the Liberal party along the line re-echoed these sentiments. The plan you propose to make affairs better,' said they