cheese made, $446,054 as the gross value of the cheese; 578,726 pounds of butter made, and $123,052 as its gross value. In 1899 the value of the butter made had been $139,057, and of cheese $376,060. Agriculture in Parliament In reply to an inquiry by Mr. David Henderson, of Halton, the Hon. Mr. Paterson, Minister of Customs, stated in the House of Commons, on March 11th, that the total export of Canadian cattle to Great Britain in 1894-1900 was 735,204 in number, at a value of $48,471,963, and an average price per head of $65.93. To the United States in the same period the number was 233,660, the value $3,718,435, and the average price $15.91. The average price to Great Britain had decreased from $78.43 in 1894 to $66.12, in 1900 and increased to the United States from $14.34 to $17.98. Figures were given of the export of other animal products to Great Britain, and the relative values in 1898-1900, as follows: Butter increased in quantity from 10,000,000 pounds to 24,317,436 pounds, and in value from $1,915,550 to $4,947,000; cheese decreased in quantity from 196,220,771 pounds to 185,627,757 pounds, and increased in value from $17,522,681 to $19,812,670; bacon and hams increased in quantity from 85,208,562 pounds to 134,949,129 pounds, and in value from $8,029,482 to $12,749,175; eggs decreased in number from 10,280,466 dozen to 10,109,383 dozen, and increased in value from $1,244,051 to $1,447,030. On March 15th Sir Richard Cartwright described the advantage to farmers and to Canadians, generally, of trade with Great Britain over trade with the United States. "Man for man and family for family, our trade with the 40,000,000 of people in Great Britain is very much more profitable to us than our trade with the 70,000,000 people of the United States." We sold to the former about $96,000,000 worth and to the latter about $60,000,000 worth per annum-to the one country $2.50 per head and to the other 80 cents per head of its population. Mr. Clarke Wallace, on March 18th, went at length into the tariff relations of the two countries as they affected the agricultural interests of Canada. The best way to live on amicable terms with the people of the United States was to look more closely to our own interests. "Let us make a tariff that will suit ourselves, and if the American people charge high duties on Canadian products let us protect our farmers by charging high duties on their products." He then quoted a large number of items upon which the American duty was higher than the Canadian. They may be tabulated in part as follows: Product. Eggs. Cheese : "As to live stock they charge duties which if not prohibitory are enormously large. On horses their lowest duty is $30 apiece. This is when horses are worth under $150, but if they are over that the duty is 25 per cent. On cattle they charge 27 per cent. on those over a certain age. On live hogs the duty is $1.50 per head. The effect of all these things is to shut the Canadian farmer out of the United States market, while the American farmer has easy access to the Canadian market, and takes advantage of it, too." He urged protection to the market gardeners of Canada, who were crushed by the climatic conditions to the south of us, and instanced the pork and beef industry as one which had been built up by judicious protection against American competition. In the same way the $1,815,000 worth of agricultural implements imported from the United States in the preceding year should have been made at home under a sufficiently protective duty. On March 28th, Mr. Henderson, of Halton, referred to the great expansion in the production of hogs during recent years and, incidentally, to his belief in the value of protection in bringing about this result. In 1889 the farmers were unable to hold their home market against American competition and the duty was increased upon hogs, mess pork, fresh pork, bacon and hams. In 1890 there were 36,000,000 pounds of hog product imported from the United States. In 1900 only 12,000,000 pounds were imported. In 1889 only 4,000,000 pounds of hams and bacon were exported; in 1900 there was an export of 135,000,000 pounds. The home market had thus been preserved, he concluded, and the British market cultivated. The Export of Live Cattle Despite the exclusion of Canadian live cattle from the British market and the necessity of slaughtering them before selling, the trade has continued to grow. The year 1901 showed the largest export of cattle on record, the total to Great Britain being 119,050 in number and $8,028,476 in value. The total export was $9,064,562 in value. Meanwhile, however, as a result of the removal of the quarantine at Washington, enacted as in England from a fear of pleuro-pneumonia, the export to that country had increased from almost nothing in 1896 to 86,989 head, valued at $1,401,137, in 1900. In the succeeding year there was another change and an increase of about half a million to Great Britain, with a decrease of almost the same amount to the United States. In his Report to the Dominion Government, dated at Liverpool on April 20, 1901, the Canadian agent there had anticipated an increase in this trade owing to the Argentine Republic having had its stock scheduled in the same way as Canada. Incidentally, Mr. Mitchell took occasion to say that "it cannot be too strongly impressed upon the Canadian cattle trader that an improvement in quality would be nearly all profit, well-bred animals put on flesh more easily, and all charges, freight, handling and commission are the same in one case as the other." A discussion took place in the House of Commons at Ottawa, on May 9th, regarding the slaughter of Canadian cattle at British ports. The Minister of Trade and Commerce Sir R. J. Cartwright, in reply to questions, stated that the privilege of landing cattle alive and slaughtering them afterwards was not easy to obtain. The Imperial Government were very chary about granting this privilege perhaps because of protests from the British or Irish farmer. Mr. Hughes pointed out that large numbers of cattle were slaughtered at Liverpool and hundreds of tons of meat shipped to Belfast. What was the difference in the end? The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Fisher, stated that he had done his best through the High Commissioner and others but the privilege had been flatly refused. The influences were too powerful to overcome. The scheduling of Canadian cattle had occurred in 1892 and the Amending Act of 1893 required that the cattle should only land at certain specified ports including Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff, Bristol, London, Newcastle and Dundee. Belfast was not included. As to the scheduling matter he had made strong protests against the measure as unjust, almost libellous, against Canadian cattle and exporters. A Memorandum on the subject was now on the way and he hoped to follow it up shortly in person. "We say, and I think I can prove, that there has never been in the Dominion of Canada a case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia. The excuse given for the scheduling of our cattle in England was the supposed finding in 1892 of three cases of what the English veterinaries called pleuro-pneumonia; but our veterinaries in this country took the opportunity of examining the lungs of those animals and they were strongly of opinion, and asserted it strongly, that they were simply cases of what is called transit pleuro-pneumonia and which is not contagious." Such a disease could not have occurred in this way without spreading in some measure at least and yet from that time to this no trace of the trouble has been found in this country or in the 800,000 head of carefully-inspected cattle which have been exported to England and slaughtered there. "It is unfair and improper for the Government at the centre of the Empire to cast such an aspersion upon an important part of the Empire." Mr. Hughes spoke again upon the subject and pointed out that owing to shortness of haulage and cheapness of rates Russian cattle actually entered the British market on better terms than those of Canada. If the present arrangement-limited as it was-applied to British ports, why should it not be extended to those of Ireland? Mr. David Henderson thought that the Government should have obtained the right to export cattle to Great Britain without slaughtering them at the port of debarkation as a return for the Preferential tariff. On the 400,000 cattle which had been sent over since 1897 the loss on this account was probably $15 per head or a total of $6,000,000 lost to the farmers of Canada. Mr. Jabel Robinson referred to the causes of this depreciation in value. It occurred largely from the shrinkage in weight during the voyage. "If the graziers (in Great Britain) were allowed to purchase the cattle and fatten them on their farms, these cattle would bring nearly as good prices as fat cattle." He urged the establishment of abattoirs in Canada where cattle could be slaughtered and the dead meat shipped to England. A great industry might be created and a subsidiary one connected with hides and leather encouraged. Mr. Clarke Wallace pointed out that the existence of this disease in the United States was one of the reasons for the exclusion of Canadian live cattle. When the Hon. Mr. Fisher was in England, later on, he referred to this subject upon several public occasions, and in an interview in the Glasgow Herald of June 21st, stated that since 1892, when the privilege of landing and selling live cattle from Canada was abrogated, there had been complete veterinary supervision of Canadian herds and not a single case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia, nor even of foot and mouth disease, had been discovered. Moreover, out of 800,000 head of cattle slaughtered in British ports under official British inspection, not a single case of disease had been reported. "In view of these facts we consider that the view that Canadian cattle should be excluded in order to safeguard the health of British cattle is untenable. The people of Canada feel that this is a reflection on the health of their cattle, that it is unjust, and that the embargo ought to be removed." He believed from representations made that there was a fairly strong feeling of sympathy with the Canadian people in this matter, and he expressed the strong hope that the restriction would soon be removed. A deputation which waited later upon the authorities in London, in this connection, were, however, positively refused any relief. Between 1874 and 1900 the Canadian export of cattle was 2,582,547 in number, and $141,921,190 in value. Of the total $122,410,984 worth went to Great Britain, and $13,791,975 to the United States. In 1874 the export to Great Britain had been $142,200, and to the United States $724,254; in 1884 it was, respectively, $4,631,767 and $893,759. In 1894 the proportions were $6,316,373 to Great Britain and $3,771 to the United States; in 1900 there was another development and the two countries received, respectively, $7,579,080 and $1,401,137. Of cattle, in 1901, Great Britain took from Canada $8,028,476 worth, while the United States took $891,340 worth. The numbers in 1874 were 63 to Great Britain and 36,671 to the United States; in 1884, 53,962 and 30,593, respectively; in 1894, 80,531 and 256; in 1900, 115,056 and 86,989; in 1901, 119,056 and 46,244, respectively. The Beet During the year the subject of developing a great industry in this connection was widely discussed, especially in Ontario, where a number of meetings were held, and the general question of local bonuses and the co-operation of the farmers in the raising of beets was considered. One important Company was organized in Toronto with a capital of $1,000,000, and men such as Messrs. Robert Jaffray, Hugh Blain, H. M. Pellatt, W. J. Gage and S. F. McKinnon on the Board of Directors. In the Ontario Legislature, on February 21st, the Hon. John Dryden moved a measure granting $75,000 per annum for three years for the purpose of encouraging beet root sugar production in the Province. This amount was to be distributed in specified sums under defined conditions to those who should erect suitable buildings and install the necessary plant for the refining of sugar from beet roots in any part of Ontario. When the third reading of the Bill came up on April 10th, after sundry amendments in Committee, Mr. G. M. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Henry Eilber-both Conservatives -moved that "this House, while approving of the general provisions of the Bill, regrets that it contains no provisions securing directly to the farmers producing sugar beets, a reasonable bonus, or bounty, on each ton of beets produced and sold by them." The amendment was rejected by 46 to 34 votes and the measure then passed the House. On February 25th in the House of Commons at Ottawa, Dr. T. S. Sproule, who for many years had been engaged in farming and milling, as well as in the practice of medicine, and had represented East Gray since 1878, proposed that a bounty should be given to the manufacture of beet-root sugar. In an elaborate speech he pointed out the two methods of encouraging industrial development-a protective tariff and a system of bounties. The former plan had, for instance, promoted efficiently and largely the manufacture of furniture in Canada. The latter had in a similar degree encouraged the iron industry. As to a market for beet root sugar, he said: "I find that last year we imported no less than 312,626,731 pounds of sugar and molasses for home consumption, representing a value of $8,361,000, which was paid in Canadian money for a product which is consumed in Canada and which could just as well have been made by the people of Canada." Regarding the possibility of properly growing beets in this country the speaker pointed out that tests had been carried on along this line for more than a dozen years and had proved conclusively that the climatic conditions and the soil of Canada are admirably suited to the growing of the sugar beet." In Germany where this cultivation had been gone in for extensively, the highest average in twenty years was 1170 tons to the acre; in Ontario last year the average was 20-75. The German ton was 200 pounds heavier than the Canadian but that fact still left a very substantial difference in favour of Ontario. Dr. Sproule then took up the question of profit to the farmer. "With an average crop of 15 tons of sugar beets to an acre, at $4 a ton, the farmer would receive $60 an acre for growing sugar beets," as against $18.25 for growing wheat, $15 for peas and $12.50 for oats. He stated that in the little town of Green Valley, Ill., the 500 population received $35,000 from the neighbouring factory for the beets they grew; and so with other places which he mentioned. Reference was then made to the thirty factories which he claimed should be established in Canada : |