AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 110, 10 May 1902, Page 3

AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURES.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Because of the great public importance of the question, may I crave a little more space in your valuable paper to deal with another _«pect of Mr Napier's political address ? As one of "The Sovereign People" who has to pay the piper, T hope I shall not be deemed to exceed my privilege in criticising the tune to which 1 am expected to dance. Mr Napier claimed the increase in the number of factories as a proof that the labour legislation is good for the colony, fie said: "It has been said that' the labour legislation had throttled industry. That was contrary to fact- In 1890 there were 2,254 works, industries and factories, and in 1900, after ten years of Liberal Government, there were 3,163." Let tis now see the reverse side Of the shield which Mr Napier did not show. What are. factories and how are they multiplied in New Zealand? By the Factories Act, 1894, a "factory or work-room means an office, building or place in which two or more persons are engaged, directly or indirectly, in working for hire or reward in any handicraft, or in preparing or manufacturing articles for sale, including all bakehouses." In this colony there were about that time 227 bakehouses in which no hired labour was employed, the owner and his family doing- all the work, but nevertheless they became "factories" and "manufacturers."

If boot factories close up, as several in and around Auckland have done, or if gold mining- companies close, and tbe men thus thrown out of work cannot get employment, and their wives and daughters, who' had never before had to work to earn money (to keep the wolf from the door and maintain fathers and brothers), start needlework, they then become "manufacturers," and their cottage rooms "factories." The same Act also practically compelled needlewomen to register, because if they did not register they had to affix an obnoxious label on their needlework, stating that it was made by so-and-so in an unregistered workshop. Rather than submit to that, every woman registered and became a "manufacturer."

So far from its being correct, that the multiplicity of factories proves prosperity, it may simply imply that more poor wives, mothers and daughters have bad to start sewing to maintain husbands and brothers who try in vain to get work- If, for instance, one factory employing 100 men were closed, and only 50 men o-ot work or went away, 50 wives or mothers starting needlework in couples to maintain the others would represent 25 new factories instead of the former one that employed 100 hands.

But, sir, here is another aspect of the question. This is essentially an

agricultural country, and cannot become a competitor with the great manufacturing countries of the world. Nature or Providence seems to have designed it otherwise. Por instance, all Australia and Tasmania have only 867,113 acres of sown grasses, but New Zealand has 10,853,302 acres- So that our colony, only one-thirtieth the size of Australia and Tasmania, has got more than twelve times its area in sown grasses. Nature is against Australian agriculture, and Australia will, owing to unfavourable climate, always be a good customer of ours. Australia will need Zealand foodstuffs.

But we are neglecting to foster agriculture in which pursuit Nature would liberally help us, and we are unwisely trying to turn the colony into a manufacturing colony, which we cannot do even with our excessive protective tariffs. Economic and natural laws cannot be resisted or controlled by political laws. Mr Napier made no allusion to the fact that our futile efforts to bolster up manufacturing industries, for which the colony is unsuiteel, injures agriculture b\- making farmers pay more than is necessary or fair for their commodities, preventing their getting adequate labour at reasonable wages, and: inducing- young men to stay in town.*' Any country which unduly fosters manufactures, and props them up with artificial supports like protective tariffs, Injures agriculture by sinking tbe real value of produce and abnormally raisingprices and wages for manufactures. According to Mr Napier's own showing, the value of agricultural produce has increased only 25 per cent-, and the value of manufactures has increased over 100 per cent. Tliat, together with the abnormal increase of factory hand1.., indicates that manufactures here have grown, or rather been artificially raised, out of proportion to agriculture. Such a thing in such a country as this will work mischief. And further, this being an agricultural country, young farmers will need wives who are fond of or used to rural life, and if an undue proportion of girls be brought up to city factor}' life, they will not elect to settle in country districts where they cannot get close neighbours and the customary excitements. Moreover, a factory life will not afford young women the requisite knowledge of cooking and general household management which is essential in happy, vigorous domestic lifeFinally, the over-growth of the manufacturing industry keeps girls in towns where their competition reduces wages so low that until this Government passed a law compelling employers to pay girls something, they had to work for nothing for a year or more. But worse, the multiplicity of factories with their noises, sme'i'is, work' necessitating one's standing hour after hour, is going to prejudice healthful, joyous, competent wifehood and motherhood; and the employment of females in factory life is going to displace more and more males, and thus have another badsocial effect, the full force of whioh we cannot contemplate with pleasure. Hence I repeat that the mere multiplicity of factories is not iv itself a thing for any Government or Government supporter, to boast of, unless it can be shown that agi.cultural interests are encouraged and benefited thereby.—l am. etc., F. G. EWINGTON. ■