PROTECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7188, 16 April 1887, Page 1 (Supplement)

PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—l would strongly urge on the Otago Protection League the advisability of cooperating with the New Zealand Industrial Association, and both coming to a distinct agreement as to what manufactured goods they consider the duties should be increased on,and towhatextent. It is quite certain that the Auckland Association will not be asleep when the tariff is being arranged. They are sure to lay their recommendations before the House. Possibly the Otago League will do the same ; and if there is not. some unison in them it will look ridiculous to the best wishers of the cause. There are some industries in Dunedin that many thousands of pounds are invested in. Some of the goods used in their business come into this port manufactured and duty free. These industries do not exist in Auckland, consequently they will have no recommendation to make on this head, and great injustice would be done to the owners of these manufactories if their ease was not laid before the House for favorable consideration.

Although feeling much diffidence in my ability to do justice to the above iniporj tant subject,. yet I feel it my duty'just now, when Protection is receiving the assaults and abuse of its enemjes on all to raise my' voice, However Humble, in its; defence. Protection 'is the law of nature

underlying all animate creation, and its dictates must of necessity be obeyed to the letter; and by its application as a State policy its advocates propose to elevate the people to a higher level by fostering native industries when and where, and by every legitimate means, in order to attract population, which is the only true test of a nation’s greatness. Sir Robert Stout, in addressing his constituents on the 25th of January last, is reported to have said : “ If I thought that aid to local industries would prevent the settlement of people on the land, and would tend to crowd the towns and depopulate the country districts, I should say better to have no local industries at all,” Sir Robert is a man of extensive knowledge, as he should be, from the position he holds. I would like to ask him if he can point to one single instance, from the dawn of modern civilisation (say the twelfth century) down to the present time, of a nation rising to greatness through agriculture. Not one, and I can tell him of nations rising to great eminence through manufacturing alone. Of all the mercantile States of Northern Europe in the middle ages Flanders was at the head. The Flemish woollen manufacturers hadjattained such celebrity in the thirteenth century that Matthew Paris declared all the world was clothed in English wool wrought by Flemish weavers. Ghent and Bruges vied with each other in manufactures, commercial energy, and enterprise, but the latter surpassed her rival. In 1321 Bruges was fixed on by Robert Earl of Flanders as the grand emporium for trade in his dominions. It soon became a mart for the commerce of the world. The Venetians and Geouese conveyed thither the treasures of the East, and there bartered them for the coarser but more useful productions of the north. “The manufacturers and merchants of seventeen kingdoms had their factories and domiciles at Bruges, besides many from unknown lands, who flocked within its walls” (‘Meyer Annales, Flandrica,’ a.d. 1385). While the merchant frequented the mart the weaver was busy at his loom in the production of silk and linen fabrics, as well as woollen clothes. Still costlier manufactures than these were produced; the tapestries of Bruges were the pride of Flanders, and in high repute throughout Europe. I have not space to tell of the greatness that this nation achieved through its manufactures and commerce first, then agriculture rising in its wake; a new impulse was given to the peaceful arts of agriculture. The town improved the country first, says Adam Smith, by affording a great and ready market for the rude produce of the land; and, secondly, by encouraging the purchase of large estates, large parts of which were at the time uncultivated (‘ Wealth of Nations.’) The Netherlands, too, once covered with swamps and forests, became a rich agricultural country. Farms and gardens surrounded the factory and mart. Other advantages, too, followed in the rear of commerce. It gradually introduced order and good government, and with them the liberty and security of individuals among the inhabitants of the country, who before had lived in a continual state of war with their neighbors. Such was the progress made in commercial industry and wealth in the south and north of Europe during the thirteenth and two following centuries, that no one can look into the history of that period without discerning evidence of the beneficial effects of manufactures. Italy assumed a very different appearance after the revival of manufactures and commerce from what it had worn before. The prosperity of the merchant inspired and rewarded the industry of the farmer. The granaries of the city must be Riled. lam well aware of the great importance of the land question; but I think it has had sufficient attention for a good while to come. Almost every politician has a land law, each trying to raise the nation to greatness through the land, and utterly neglecting its commercial policy, which I humbly submit should be based upon that which will attract and sustain a much larger population than we now have. —I am, etc., J. H. Richardson, St. John’s Wood. Dunedin, April 14. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— lt is simply idle chatter on the part of Mr J. Mathews to term his letter in your issue of the 12th an answer to the statements in my last letter. He of course cannot get away from the fact that 75,000 people had left Victoria during the period mentioned —viz., the ten years ended 1881; but as an attempted explanation of this exceedingly unpleasant development of a protective policy, he states that the protectionist policy, good or bad, could not show its results before that time; this is ten years after its initiation. The working men in Dunedin, therefore, must understand that, on the authority of Mr Mathews, if Protection is established in New Zealand, it will be ten years before good or bad results can be achieved. I venture to say that a more silly statement was never penned. I observe that Mr Mathews ignores my statement that as many people paid their passages from protected Victoria into New South Wales during the last ten years as entered it under the free immigration scheme. This clearly shows that Victoria is still unable to retain her population; kind it is equally certain that her industries are protected as they arc by a high tariff. The Victorian Government last year received applications to the number of 300 for new and additional duties ; and during the last twelve months, in eight of the industries in Victoria, a decrease of over 900 employes is registered. I ask any sane man what this teaches us. After fifteen long years of Protection the industries are clamoring for still more assistance from the Government—still yelping about the competition of the “pauper labor” of Europe; and Mr Hayter, their own statistician, clearly shows that for the past fifteen years the working men have been steadily and surely leaving the Colony. A delightful result, truly ! In a petitition presented to the Victorian Ministry a short time ago, by the railway employes in Victoria, they complained bitterly of the rate of pay, and stated emphatically “ that it was absolutely impossible under the present rates of pay for married men to eke out more than a bare existence.” If the Railway Department there need men at the ruling rate, 5s and 6s per day, they are overwhelmed with applications, and I confidently submit that this certainly does not prove Victoria to be the Paradise that Mr Mathews and his friends would have us believe. Men do not rush after 5s and 6s per day if constant employment at better wages is to be had.

Mr Mathews asks: How is it that the working man of protectionist Melbourne can feed and clothe himself and family so much cheaper than he can in freetrade Sydney ? I answer that he can do nothing of the kind. Wages are no higher, if as high in Melbourne as in Sydney, and living is higher; consequently it is no wonder that 25,000 men have gone to Sydney from Melbourne since 1881. And they do not go back again. He asks also : How it was that during last winter 1,000 men were fed daily at the public expense in Sydney ? I answer that if but 10 per cent, of the working men who have left Victoria during the past few years would only go back again there would be none to feed, Mr Mathews. can verify this statement if he chouses by consulting statistics. His third question is an absurdity, as the conditions' implied have no existence. And lastly, ho asks me to sign my proper name. I submit that my name is of no moment whatever to either Mr Mathews or any other Protectionist. Let them disprove what I say, not indulge, as is their custom, in bald statements having no foundation in fact. I will, with your permission, reply to “ J.L.” later.—l am, etc,, Australian. Dunedin, April 16.