FREETRADE V. PROTECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7161, 15 March 1887, Page 3

FREETRADE V. PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—l am much obliged to Mr Vincent Pyke for the trouble he has taken to disprove the voracity of “ PrAtectionist’s ” figures as to the imports and exports of England; but were the figures he gives correct it would not in the smallest degree affect the truth of my argument. I wished to prove to *• J.N.” that our excess of imports over exports was not paid for by hard cash-that this excess simply constituted our profits on our trade and our borrowed capital, come to us in tho form of exports. I asked him how it was that England paid for her excess of imports a matter of about L 70,000,000 per annum. I pointed out to him that it could not be in hard cash, as England imported more bullion per annum than she exported by about L 5,009,000. He sensibly replied that this excess was simply the interest on her capital invested in foreign countries, which was transmitted to her in the shape of imports. Now, it is a well-known fact that since 1875 her imports on an average exceed her exports by about L 70,000,000; and were the case reversed last year it would only prove that she had lent largely to foreign countries, ner exports being swelled by these means. It is to be honed that “protectionist” will follow the laudable example of “J.N.,” and “hide himself,” a course which he kindly recommended to me. And I would advise him to keep clear of the platform until he has evidenced greater knowledge of the question.—l am, etc,, P.O. Dunedin, March 15.