tion which the Liberals declared to be politically insoluble. It was in this increased manufacture, that the thousands of hungry working men who clamoured around the hustings on the eve of the general elections got their work. How the working-man has fared in Canada with respect to the employment which he could not find when we had Free Trade, under the Protective policy of the Government, will be best shown by the following figures. Since March 1879, up to October 1881, it is estimated that ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY new industries, developed by the Protective policy, have been established. The number of men employed in these one hundred and forty factories, is put at 10,000. Allow four persons as depending upon each hand employed in these industries, and we find that the Government by their policy have created in this item alone, a livelihood for 40,000 souls. Of these industries, twenty-nine have been established in Toronto, giving employment to 1,678 persons. In Montreal, thirteen industries have been established under the government policy; and in Hamilton five.

In addition to these, there are now in progress of construction cotton factories, which will be in operation within the next twelve months, giving employment to three thousand persons.

Besides the facts stated, four hundred factories established under Free Trade have been visited, and it has been found that under Protection these employ an average of seventeen per cent. more hands than they did under Free Trade. So that it will be readily seen that the employment given directly and indirectly to the labouring classes by the application of Protection is enormous. As I stated in the beginning of this paper, the commercial system of a nation may be compared to the works of a clock, one wheel of which put in motion sets all the other wheels in motion, whilst a clogging of the one wheel will retard the motion of all the rest. It is demon

strably certain that over 10,000 persons have directly obtained employment by reason of the National Policy. I have put the number dependent for bread upon these at about 40,000 persons, What then with respect to this item alone in results has the National Policy done? Has it merely given bread to these 40,000? Well, if it did only that, it would have done a good thing, a great thing, a something well worthy of new and revolutionary legislation. But it has done more. The shopkeepers of the country have, as a consequence, gained 40,000 more customers, so have the shoemakers, the carpenters, the tailors; so has every one who has anything to sell. In creating these producers of manufacture, theGovernment at the same time created consumers of manufacture; and the consumer is as necessary to the producer as the arm is to the body. As a very searching writer has put it, 'They are both in the same boat, and must sail or sink together.' So that when the Government aided the working-men, to a like, to an exactly equal, extent did it aid the whole community.

As the Conservative party predicted that prosperity would follow the National Policy, and as the Liberals maintained that commercial ruin would follow it; and as prosperity has come, and as the 'ruin' has not come, it rests with the Liberal politicians, first to confess that they were false prophets in 1878, and next to explain the forces which stopped the out-flowing tide of prosperity, and sent it back again upon this country in all its force. I believe there are few thoughtful men in this country to-day who do not inwardly believe that Protection is good for Canada, and that those results we see are its legitimate fruits.

FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND.

The chief argument the Protection party had to meet on the hustings in 1878 was the cry, 'Are we wiser than England? Can we hope to be more

prosperous than England? Yet England's greatness has been derived under Free Trade. She declares Protection to be bad.' Now, I cannot stop to prove my contention that it does not follow because Free Trade is the best policy for England that it must also be the best policy for Canada, or because Protection would be an evil policy for England, that it must also be an evil policy for Canada. I will simply deny this, and then I shall show that Free Trade even for England is not a boon. Figures from her Trade Returns will serve me.

The commerce of the world has increased 36 per cent. in ten years.

In the same period, the commerce in the United States, under Protection, has increased 68 per cent.

Under Protection, in the same period, the increase of commerce in Holland and Belgium, of France and of Germany, is 57, 51, and 39 per cent. respectively.

But, under Free Trade, the commerce of England has increased 21 per cent. in ten years!

Under Protection, America is accumulating annually £165,000,000 sterling; under Protection, France is accumulating annually £75,000,000 sterling; while, under Free Trade, England is accumulating annually £65,000,000 sterling. Indeed, experts say, since 1875 she has been losing money instead of accumulating it.

Under Protection, America now exports more than she imports; under Protection, France annually exports £4,000,000 more than she imports; while Free Trade England IMPORTS annually £130,000,000 sterling MORE than she exports!

During the past ten years, in England, over a million acres have gone out of wheat cultivation. During the same period, the capital of the agricultural classes has depreciated by £500,000,000, and their income by £21,000,000; and the process is going on. A million acres will supply wheat

enough for 3,500,000 people. In ten years England's population has increased by 3,000,000, and in the same period a million acres have gone out of cultivation; so that she is in a position now to feed 6,500,000 people less than she was ten years ago. England's importation of corn, meat, dairy products, and vegetables, averages £45,000,000 annually more than it did ten years ago. In the ten years between 1870 and 1880 England produced in wheat annually to the value of £13,000,000 less, and imported annually to the value of £15,000,000 more than in the years between 1850 and 1870. The reasons for this state of affairs are many, and most of them are the children of Free Trade. Whilst the importation of manufactured goods into the protected countries, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, and America, are each year diminishing, the imports into Free Trade England are annually increasing. That is, while each year those countries named are learning to manufacture what they need for themselves, instead of importing them from England, they learn also to manufacture more than what they need for themselves, and export their surplus, among other places, to England. Thus, while the foreign market is closing against the English manufacturer, his own market is disputed with him by the foreign manufacturer. If we are to be damned, let us be damned for a good cause,' is what the English Free Traders say. 'If bankruptcy is to come, it cannot come for a more noble doctrine than Free Trade.' The vendor of the shoddiest of goods comes from every point of the compass to sell his wares in England. The English workman must compete with the shoddies or go to the wall. What takes place? An able writer in one of the magazines says:

Thirty years of Freedom of Trade' have in many cases ruined the quality of English products. Too frequently we hear complaints of inferior quality, of adultera

508

tion, of slovenly work. It is a fact that it is more difficult to buy good silk, good cotton, and good steel in England now than it was twenty years ago. This is the result of unrestricted foreign competition. England has been made the market for the shoddy of all nations, goods made at the lowest possible cost, and sold at the lowest possible price. Every influx of these goods drives the English manufacturer to lower prices. In order to lower his price he must lower his cost, must employ cheaper material and cheaper labour, is obliged to 'scamp' both labour and material, and produce an inferior article.

Beside the large number of British operators out of work, a large, the larger, proportion of the rest have not an average of more than four days work week. For seven years they per have been consuming their savings, and one rich trade society alone in the past six years has paid out in relief and aid over £200,000. It has less than £100,000 remaining. So much for Free Trade in England.

If the capital, labour, and skill of England need protection, how much more so does not Canada need it? But I am not one of those who believe in protecting a full-grown extensive and powerful State by legislation against competition by foreign States.

If the manufacturers in the

State full-grown cannot stand in the contest with the foreign manufacturers, then let them fall. I believe that Protection can only serve a certain terminable term of usefulness, as the parent protects its offspring till it is able to take care of itself. In a

given time, after enterprise and capi

tal shall have established manufacture solidly in Canada, then let the tariff be abolished. If our 'cotton lords' and sugar kings' cannot then maintain themselves let them go to the wall.

6

Α