produce of Canada is now increased in value exactly in proportion to the saving on the cost of delivering it in the market of consumption. “If the aggregate of cost to the consumer remained the same now as it was before the era of canals and railroads in Canada, what possible difference would it make to the British manufacturers whether the excess over the cost in Great Britain were paid to the Government or to merchants and forwarders? It would certainly not in any way affect the question of the protection to home-manufacturers: but when it can be clearly shown that by the action of the Government, in raising funds through increased customs-duties, the cost to the consumer is now very much less, upon what ground can the British manufacturer complain that these duties have been restrictive on his trade? “The undersigned might truly point to the rapid increase in the population and wealth of Canada, arising from its policy of improvement, whereby its ability of consumption has been so largely increased. He might also show that these improvements have, in a great degree, also tended to the rapid advance of the Western States, and to their increased ability to purchase British goods. He might point to the fact that the grain supplied from the Western States and Canada keeps down prices in Great Britain, and therefore enables the British manufacturer to produce still cheaper. But he prefers resting his case, as to the propriety of imposing increased customs-duties, solely on the one point, that through that increase the cost of British manufactured goods, including duty, has been reduced to the Canadian consumer, and that consequently the increase has in its results, viewing the whole trade, tended to an augmentation of the market for British goods.”