Freetrade v. Protection.

Evening Star, Issue 6915, 30 May 1885, Page 4

Freetrade v. Protection.

A number of events in New Zealand’s poll' tical history have of late pointed to the fact that the battle between Freetrade and Protection will have to bo fought out here in stern earnest at no distant date. Sir Julius Vogel, shortly after his last arrival in the Colony, in addressing the electors at Ashburton, expressed views which smacked very strongly of Protection. The Hon. Mr Ballance, in a letter to the Blenheim Liberal Association the other day, gave vent to similar views. What are the opinions of the other members of the Cabinet we do not know, but we dare say that the Colonial Treasurer, backed by the Minister of Lands, would be able to carry the away in a matter of this kind. If wo except Mr Stout, who is a mere doctrinaire, no member of the Government but Sir Julious Vogel and Mr Ballance has in his public utterances evinced any particular acquaintance with Adam Smith, Stuart Mill, or the other recognised authorities on political economy. The Ministerial barometer on this question might therefore be marked “ dangerous.” Again, Major Atkinson has on many occasions proved that he is iu favor of what is misleadingly called “ modified Protection” ; in fact, he is a heretic of the same kind as Sir Julius Vogel and Mr Ballance. With two of the most powerful members of the Government and also the leader of the Opposition showing decided hankerings after Protection, it surely be hoves all true freetraders to buckle on their armor and prepare for the fight which cannot be much longer postponed. The insidious doctrines of Protection have already gained recognition in the tariff of this Colony, for several of the alterations made in it by the Atkinson Ministry were distinctively of a protectionist character—that is to say, they were made with the avowed object of fostering certain industries Men in high places and possessed of large political influence in New Zealand have showed unmistakeable leanings towards Protection. . . . Surely even such a

“ blatant blatherskite ” as Mr John Holmes, M.H.R., could not have imagined that the farmers were going to be “ had ” by such a transparent dodge as this. Even he must have known that for every shilling that his project would put into the pockets of the agriculturists it would take two shillings out of them. “ A home market ” forsooth ! If New Zealand’s manufacturing population were trebled, what appreciable influence would this make in the prices of wool and grain ? With Protection, the farmer would have to pay a largely-enhanced price for his agricultural machinery, for his clothing, and for several of the articles of domestic consumption, whilst the rise in the price of his staple productions would be infinitesimal The movement is really intended to benefit, notthefarmers, butthe congested populations of the large towns. Yet it would ultimately prove the reverse of beneficial, even to the latter. This is no mere random assertion ; all the evidence of history supports it—in fact, proves it as clearly as Euclid does any of his theorems. We would ask our working men to consider the condition of the workj ing classes in England under the rt'ujinie ot Protection, and compare it with that of the working classes there since the establishment of Freetrade. New Zealand has often been marked out as “ the Greater Britain ” in futuro, but she wil/.isauredly never attain that proud distinction unless she follow in the path by pursuing which the Mother Country has achieved the position of the richest and mos*- flourishing commercial nation that the world has ever seen.—‘ Ran* gitikei Advocate.’