where many holdings had narrow frontages. These roads ran back through these holdings, and were the width made 1 chains little would be left comparatively speaking. Under these circumstances the change suggested would be impolitic. He was speaking in the interest of the occupants of these lands. Mr. SCHULTZ said as regards the first clause in the Bill he was surprised to find the width of the proposed road allowance fixed at one chain, when all the other Dominion road allowances were one chain and a half. He believed that roads less than one chain and a half would be found practically useless, and he trusted that the hon. Minister of the Interior would alter the resolution to that effect. When the question of the system of surveys for the North West was under discussion in the House three or four years ago, he had himself represented that it was found in a prairie country that when roads were only one chain in width and the country became settled and fenced, that the snow drifted the road full and rendered it useless for purposes of travel. The original Hudson Bay Company survey had made the main road allowance two chains, for the reasons he had stated, and therefore it was not well to make a road which was parrallel with this, and might be very much used, less than one chain and a half in width. He would strongly urge that this should be done or else the road would be useless. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said his hon. friend for Lisgar had stated that one-chain roads were too narrow and ought to be at least a chain and a half. He thought the suggestion of the hon. member should be adopted. Land could not be so valuable as to necessitate the spoiling of the road, and a chain and a half was not very wide. Mr. SMITH (Selkirk) thought it would be a great hardship on some people if the outer roads were not more than a chain. Mr. BANNATYNE said a road less than a chain and a half would be useless in their country. Mr. LAIRD saw no objection to making the rear roads a chain and a half, but he would object to the en largement of the other roads. The land was valuable, and it did not seem advisable to take up any more of it than was necessary in the construction of these roads. On the suggestion of Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD the resolutions were amended so as to make the width of the outer roads one chain and a half, the width of the longitudinal roads remaining unchanged. Mr. SCHULTZ, in speaking on the first clause of the Bill, said before he had only looked at it from a public point of view, and the latter part of the first clause made him look at it from the standpoint of the present owners of the land from which this road allowance was to be taken. He felt that the power proposed to be given to the Government to take this land at a fixed price of one dollar and a half an acre was most unfair. In scarcely any part of Manitoba, on the River Belt, was land so low in value as one dollar and a half per acre, while near Winnipeg and elsewhere it was worth twenty or thirty times as much. He would like to see the latter part of the first clause left out entirely, and a fair value to be fixed in a manner fair to the Government and to the individual. He thought that any other way would be a great hardship, and he (Mr. Schultz) begged the hon. promoter of the Bill to reconsider this point of the first resolution before the matter came before the House again. Hon. Mr. LAIRD said the roads would be a great convenience to the farmers, and especially those whose farms the roads ran between, and the Government did not regard it as advisable to change the amount of compensation fixed upon. The resolutions as amended were adopted. resolutions as amended. The report was concurred in. Hon. Mr. LAIRD, after a brief discussion, introduced a Bill founded on the resolutions. AFTER RECESS. Bill to amend the Act incorporating "Le Credit Foncier du Bas Čanada was read the second time. SUPPLY. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved that quite clear from the opinions formed and inferences drawn by intelligent. men who understood what they heard, the House go into Committee of Sup- they left the hon. gentleman with that ply. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-I rise to move the amendment of which I gave notice the other night. In making this motion, as a sense of duty compels me, I do it without any hope of being able to secure the expression of a majority of this House in support of it.' The declared policy of the Government and the support which it has received from the House utterly precludes me from having any expectation of success with my motion. The course of the Government and the declaration of its policy compel me to believe that no resolution in favour of the protection of any of the great industries-be they manu facturing, mining, or agricultural-will meet with the sanction of this House. In the first place, the country and this House had a right to expect that a different course would have been pursued. It was announced by the newspapers supposed to be in the confidence of the Government, that Government, that there would be a change in the tariff. In the Globe, which if not the avowed organ is the confidential supporter of the present Government, it was announced a new tariff would be introduced and to what extent the change was to take place. Then we had the statement of the hon. member for Montreal West, who was of the opinion that the Government had authorized him to make the declaration to his constituents that there was to be an alteration of the tariff in the direction his constituents desired and required, in the way of increased protection to manufacturing industries. We had the statement of several delegations that waited on the members of the Administration, and especially the financial member of it, that they left him with the belief and on the understanding and expectation they were promised an alteration of the tariff to the protection of their manufactures. I do not mean to sayit would be unparliamentary for me to do so after the statements made by the Finance Minister and the Premierthat such promises were made, but it is belief, and the country generally had a right to expect this subject was to be fully dealt with this Session. All those expectations have been, however, set aside for ever. All hope has been lost. The manufacturers of this country now know their fate. They know they have no hope of aid in their distress or encouragement for the future. The Head of the Government also contributed unwillingly, no doubt · to confirm the belief that the tariff would be increased. His bringing out the hon. member for Montreal West to be the candidate for that constituency; his speeches at Sarnia, Halifax and Montreal itself; his allowing, without immediate contradiction, my hon. friend from Montreal West in his candidature (he being the avowed and favoured candidate of the Premier) to make such statements as he did--the country had a right to expect there. would be a change. I say all hope is gone after the declaration made to the House by the Premier and the Finance Minister. The hon. leader of the Government diminished the importance, and denied the alleged direction and. scope of his assurances, and he returns in this House to his original. and long-declared opinion, pronounced. in the most formal manner in his speeches in England and Scotland. He returned to his first love, and not only announced there was to be no alteration in the tariff and no assistance given to our manufacturers, but he assailed the very ground upon which they fairly applied for relief and almost ridiculed their pretensions; and while he treated their application for assistance with opposition he treated those of the agriculturists, I might almost say with contempt; added to this, we heard the rapturous plaudits with which the pronuncia-mento of the hon. member for North York was greeted. The whole Ministerial party cheered him to the echo, when he announced that the Reform party, the Liberal party, of which the Government are the exponents and administrators, had nailed their colours to the mast, to the principle of free-trade, absolute, unconditional free-trade, under alı circumstances, connecting it with the other great principles of which this party are the avowed champions in this country, in England and elsewhere. Then our manufacturers and agriculturists knew perfectly well that under no circumstances could they, or had they any right to expect any assistance, any countenance, any encouragement, any support from the present Administration, or from those acting with them, giving them their support and adher ence. However, I felt it to be my duty to bring this subject once more before this House and the country. I have no hope that there will be a vote of the majority in favour of the proposition I shall submit; I have no hesitation in saying that the resolution will be lost and defeated by a considerable majority; but it will be on the records of this Parliament, and it will be for the country hereafter to judge between the two parties as to whether the principle of coming forward and aiding, under the particular circumstances of this crisis, our manufacturing and commercial interests be the correct one, or whether it be the principle the Ministerial | party has proclaimed-that of treating their claims for assistance with neglect and with indifference, so that they can have no hope for aid from this Government or this Parliament, but must trust to their own efforts to meet all their difficulties as best they may, unencouraged, uncountenanced and alone. The motion I make will have at least another great advantage; it will enable, for instance, my hon. friend from Lincoln another opportunity of showing his great interest in the development of the mannfactures of the Dominion. My hon. friend from Brant will also have another occasion for establishing how profoundly he is interested in the welfare and encouragement of these industries and the interests of our farmers and agriculturists. My hon. friend from Lincoln made an admirable speech. I cannot refer to its details, but I may allude to the fact that he did make a speech, and an admirable speech it was; it convinced me. An old Scotch baronet, a friend and life-long supporter of William Pitt, who was asked if he had ever heard a speech in his life that had changed his opinion said "I have heard many a speech which changed my opinion, but I never heard a speech that changed my vote." My hon. friend has improved on the old Scotch baronet, because although he himself spoke for the purpose of convincing others that the Government were wrong in failing to protect the various interests he mentioned, his affection for the Administration, his desire to keep them in power, and his warmth of devotion towards the hon. gentleman at its head, made him--though he convinced others by unanswerable and unanswered arguments, that a reasonable protection to our manufacturers ought to be given-vote against the proposition that the Government ought to have done so. I can well understand the difficulty of the hon. gentleman between Polly and Lucy-between comedy and tragedy-and like Hogarth's picture, between Protestant and Catholic Doxy. The hon. gentleman yielded, however, to the seductions of my hon. friend the leader of the Government, and having spoken one way, voted another. Perhaps the hon. gentleman was expressing his own candid opinion; perhaps not. That hon. member made a speech at a par ticular time, just before the local elections for the County of Lincoln, and perchance it was not so much for the purpose of announcing his own views as of endeavouring to avert from himself the fate of the late lamented Mr. Neelon. However that may be, Sir, we have yet to deal with these questions, and I shall propound this resolution. I did not intend to occupy the attention of this House very long, because this subject had been discussed at some length, and a great many hon. members on both sides of the House have expressed their various opinions upon it. I remark sir, with respect to my resolution, which has been printed, that the Globe states it is not specific enough, that it is vague, and that it is too general. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that an able and experienced journal should be so ignorant of constitutional principle, constitutional practice, and constitutional propriety, as to expect the Opposition to assume the functions of the Government of the day, and counter-tariff. prepare a If, Mr. Speaker, the Administration had come down with a revision of the tariff, and made certain propositions, then it might be proper, possibly, and expedient, perhaps, to present counter proposals; but when the announcement is made that the tariff is not to be interfered with, and that we are to go on as we were before, then no opposition could take such a position, unless they had access to sources of information which can only be found in the Departments-in the pigeon holes in the office of the Minister of Finance--and with full knowledge of these circumstances and connaisance de cause, could they present to the House and the country a well prepared scheme to meet the existing condition of the country. So Sir, I-as my hon. friend from Montreal West did the other day-have been obliged, in obedience to constitutional and Parliamentary propriety, to assert the principle which is involved in my resolution, in the general terms in which it was expressed. I stated that while the Government seemed to treat the claims of the manufacturers with indifference, they treat the claims of those who urge the claims of the agriculturists with actual conMy hon. friend tempt and ridicule. at the head of the Government stated that he heard no requests on the part of the farmers of Ontario, and especially those of the County of Lambton, for any reciprocity of tariffs with the United States, and he said that was because they were an intelligent constituency. I have no doubt of their intelligence, Sir; they have shown that by selecting and supporting my hon. friend, and to their credit it is that they elected him as their representative, and enabled him to obtain the position he so worthily holds, but which he would infinitely more worthily hold had he other opinions as to the necessity of coming forward at this moment to the relief of the country in its exigency and need. I should like to say a few words about the agriculturists, because the previous discussions were principally on the manufacturing interests. Ishall not assert on their part that they come here in forma pauperis, or that they are suffering from distress or I am not going pecuniary difficulty. to say anything of the kind; no man could truthfully say that the farmers cannot live in comfort or happiness under the present tariff. But the question is this, whether they have not a right under the circumstances to such an alteration of the tariff as will place them on the same footing with their neighbours on the other side of the line. Let us look back at the circumstances of this country before the Reciprocity Treaty was granted. There was a cry in the old Province of Canada, in Upper and Lower Canada, for a treaty with the United States which would enable the free interchange of the natural products of the two countries. For years and years it was pressed upon the Government of the day, which in turn pressed it upon Her Majesty's Government, and the latter upon the United States. That agitation was commenced under Mr. Baldwin's Reform Administration, continued under Mr. Hincks' Administration, and finally under the Administration of Sir Allen Macnab, of which I was a member. But during that Administration we never claimed any credit for the negotiation. Our part in its consummation was a mere formal one. The treaty had been made, concluded and perfected before we had anything to say about it. So beneficial to the country was this measure in promoting the interests of the farmers that the Government paid £20,000 and more for the expenses of its negotiation. There was such an increase in the prosperity of the country in conse quence of that treaty that the greatest apprehension of ruin fell upon us on its cancellation. We were anxiously looking forward for relief, and every effort was made by the Canadian and Imperial Governments to effect a renewal, and every possible concession was made, consistent with self-respect, and perhaps that border was overleaped in our anxiety to effect that object. When the American Government refused to renew the Treaty it was a great blow to the various agricultural interests, but the gloomy apprehensions of ruin were happily not realized. Blessed with a fertile soil and a good cans from our markets do? But "largely from the United States, and It is perfectly true that this is a great advantage, but it is a different question altogether. The putting of a duty upon the agricultural products of the United States will not injure this trade, unless we chose to shut down our canals. But, it is said: "We buy "Indian corn; they grow it cheaper "in the United States." I believe they do grow cheaper, as in the case of Indian corn; if you put a very small duty on it, it can still be brought in to be used by the people of this country. It is only required for our distillers; and thus not only would very considerable revenue be created, especially in a time like the present, when we have a deficiency in income, but at the same time it would also encourage the growth of coarse grains by our farmers; and as long as we have distillers, I think even my hon. friend from South Ontario will admit that our farmers ought to obtain a good price for their rye, peas, and other coarse grains used in distilling liquor, as well as the Americans. (Voice-What about barley?) our climate, they survived and overcame the great losses which fell upon the country in consequence of the cutting off of that great source of trade—that constant and valuable market. There were three reasons why the renewal was refused. One was a feeling of hostility," through our waters and canals. perhaps a natural one to some extent, in consequence of heart-burnings arising between the mother country and the United States, on account of the unhappy events of the civil war. This feeling of hostility towards England and her dependencies was one moving cause why the treaty was not renewed. The second cause was an unfounded idea that shutting out our farmers and the mass of the people from the profitable trade they had enjoyed for the previous ten years would force them to favour annexation, to cast in our lot with the United States, and thereby obtain a free market. The last cause was that American farmers along the frontier, the producers of the various natural products of the United States, declared it was for their interest and good that we should be excluded from their markets. I will not yield to my hon. friend the Premier in my respect for the intelligence and common sense of the farming population. I believe as reading and thoughtful men, and as men who understand their own interests, they are equal to any other class of the commuity. If the the agriculturists of the United States say that Canadian products should be excluded from the American markets, surely it is not unjust or unwise for our farmers to say: "If you show hostility towards the Government to "which we adhere, or any desire to keep your markets to yourselves to "influence you, we will be quite justi"fied in adopting the same course in regard to you. It is a natural and a true feeling, and one belonging to humanity, that fair play is bonnie play. To be sure, if it can be shown that the adoption of that policy would be injurious to our farmers we ought not to pursue it; but I cannot understand the statement of those gentlemen who say that it would be injurious in one breath and tell us in the next that we have a surplus of agricultural products to sell. If we have a surplus, what harm could excluding the Ameri The hon. gentleman says what about barley. We do sell our barley to the United States, and we do pay a duty on it. Hon. Gentlemen-No! No! Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-We sell our barley to the United States, and bushel, but our farmers export barley, it is subject to a duty of 15cts. on the notwithstanding, and if we put on 15cts on every bushel coming into this country, it would not diminish by a single bushel the barley we sell to the United States-not if we put on, 5cts. or 25cts. or 100cts. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It would not increase what they send to us either. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-It is of importance, and of growing importance to this country, that we should encourage and protect the growth of coarse grains in the Dominion. It is |