away by a treasury department ruling; because their boom duty order would have been ruled by the treasury authorities at Washington to be, pro tanto, an export duty. After having been instrumental in securing these things, and having the fruits of my efforts appropriated by the government, I have been persecuted and traduced by that government and by its followers. I here record my assertion that in all the discussion relating to this matter, the course of the government and its supporters towards me has been unfair, petty and malignant, and utterly devoid of the first principles of political honesty, in regard to this matter.

NATIONAL SELF-PROTECTION

THE propaganda which I carried on in Canada and the United States in favour of better trade relations between the two countries was not confined to the platform. I declared my opinions and policy from my place in the House of Commons. This speech was delivered on March 20, 1902, in the course of the budget debate. This is the Hansard report, with some slight revision.

House of Commons, March 20, 1902.

MR. CHARLTON-Mr. Speaker: The fiscal relations of Canada with other countries and especially with the United States at the present time excite very great attention and interest in the public mind. It is a question which deserves and calls for our careful consideration and deliberation. It may not be, sir, that revision of our policy at the present time, or definite action of any character, is desirable or called for; but some action of that character is inevitable in the near future, and it is in the highest degree important that the facts relating to our fiscal relations with various countries should be discussed, and should be made generally known to the public.

I propose, to-day, Mr. Speaker, at the outset, to make a few references to some events in the past history of the legislation of this country which I think are pertinent to the condition of things that exists to-day. I had a great deal of pleasure in listening to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), and I can endorse most fully his encomiums upon the administration of the

Mackenzie government, and his speculations as to what would probably have been the outcome of that policy had that government continued in power. There is one thing in connection with that administration which I think the present administration may profitably take into consideration. We had, in Canada, in the early years of the Mackenzie administration, a strong protectionist feeling. That was a question which was discussed to some extent when I first entered politics in Canada in 1872. It was a question which received a good deal of attention in the years 1874, 1875 and 1876 in this Canadian House of Commons. There were in the Liberal party, among the supporters of Mr. Mackenzie, a number of members who believed that the duties should be advanced, and that the government should adopt a protective policy moderate in character and limited in extent. Among those supporters of the Mackenzie administration who supported that policy were representatives from Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal, the present Minister of Customs (Hon. Wm. Paterson) then representing South Brant, and myself. The rate of duty upon the great mass of our importations then was seventeen and a half per cent., and the request made by the supporters of the government who represented this demand for some advance in the duties, was that the duties should be advanced to twenty-five per cent. But it was well known that an advance to twenty-two and a half per cent., would have been acceptable, and it is even probable that an advance to twenty per cent. would have allayed the protectionist feeling that existed and would have been accepted-with some grumbling-as a solution of the question by those who were demanding an increase of the duties. These demands, it is hardly necessary to say, were of the most moderate character. There were good reasons for adopting this policy. The revenue of the country was insufficient to meet the expenditure even with the careful and economical administration of Mr. Mackenzie. It was an era of deficits, and it would have been the most proper thing in the world to increase the revenue to a degree sufficient

to cover the absolutely necessary expenditure. This would have been done, and very little more than has been done, by the increase of the duties that was asked for.

I do not know what the actual desire of the Mackenzie government in reference to this matter was. I suspect however-and I think I have good reasons for the suspicionthat the Mackenzie government was willing to advance the duties to twenty per cent. or even to twenty-two and a half per cent. But the Minister of Finance of that day (Sir Richard Cartwright,) was waited upon by a delegation of the members from the Maritime Provinces headed by the Hon. A. G. Jones, then member for Halifax, and was informed by that delegation that if any advance in the duties was made it simply meant that there would be a bolt of the supporters of the government in the Maritime Provinces. Well, the members who advocated this policy, and who were the supporters of the government in the West, hardly felt justified in taking so extreme a position as to threaten the mackenzie government with their displeasure if it did not Meet their wishes, and consequently the government, if it had any intention of advancing the duties, abandoned that intention and surrendered to the threats of the Liberal members from the Maritime Provinces.

At that time we were on the eve of a re-arrangement of party issues. If the Liberal party had advanced the duties even by a bare two and a half per cent. on the seventeen and and a half per cent. list, we have reason to suppose the then Opposition would have met that advance by a denunciation of the adoption of a protective policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS-Oh!

MR. CHARLTON-Yes. We have reason to suppose so. The advance of the duties, however, was not made. The Minister of Finance in his budget speech in 1876 set at rest our doubts, our aspirations and our desires by announcing -as has been announced on the present occasion—that there would be no change in the tariff. That speech was made in the afternoon. The Finance Minister closed his remarks

just a little before six o'clock, and during the recess between six o'clock and eight o'clock-unless the Opposition had deliberated upon this question before, and had resolved what they would do in case the government did increase the duties, and had also made an alternative resolve as to what they would do if the government did not increase the duties, which I doubt-in the space between six and eight o'clock the Opposition had decided upon its policy; had decided to strike out in a bold course; had decided to adopt a policy of protection; had decided to denounce the position taken by the Finance Minister and the Mackenzie administration, and were ready with a resolution calling for a readjustment of the tariff of Canada upon protectionist principles.

Well, sir, we all know the result. The chance of the Liberal party had been thrown away. I had fought for an increase in the duties, for I believed that the salvation of the Liberal party depended upon the government taking the course that my friends and I then advocated. We failed. The duties were not increased. The policy outlined by the resolution of Sir John Macdonald became the policy of the Conservative party. We went to the country upon that issue and we sustained a crushing defeat.

Now, sir, the leader of the Reform government of that day, and the ministers of his administration, in my belief, had not the slightest belief that they were in danger. They had not realized what the public opinion was on this question. I felt it. I went to my constituency and held meetings for the two years that elapsed before the elections. I held twenty or thirty meetings in each year, because I felt that my position was in danger, and that as a supporter of the Mackenzie government I was liable to be defeated. In June, 1878, I wrote to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. I had previously implored our friends to go into the field, to hold meetings to combat this new principle, and I had warned them that if this were not done they were in danger. I wrote as I say, to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in June, 1878,