MR SCOBIE MACKENZIE ON PROTECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7189, 18 April 1887, Page 1

MR SCOBIE MACKENZIE ON PROTECTION.

Xu the course of his Naseby address Mr J, fS. Mackenzie, M.H.R., said: I suppose, like so many others, you are under the impression that a great fight will take place over Freetrade and Protection. In that you may take my word for it you are mistaken. The time has gone past for playing with a costly thing like Protection. Yon cannot protect with excluding imports, and you cannot exclude imports without losing revenue; and at the present time we are losing revenue enough in other directions without the aid of Protection. Hence it Is . that Sir Julius Vogel pronounces himself only half a Protectionist. A trifling attempt will be made to adjust some duties just to keep the Protectionists amused, and there the matter mil end. It may be worth while to allude to the remarkable Inconsistency of Ministers on this question. Sir Robert Stout has always called < himself a Freetrader. Sir Julius Vogel declared la a recent communication to the ‘ Daily Times ’ that he was only half a Protectionist, while Mr Reliance, as you know, is an out-and-out Protectionist. Of course there is the desire of genuine popularity at the-bottom of it aIL In my miod&jye. _ I can see Sir Robert Stout drilling his r

Cabinet and studying popularity something In this ways “I’U be a Freetrader; you, Sir Julius, are half a Protectionist; and Mr Ballance is an out-and-out Protectionist. I’ll catch the Freetraders ; Sir Julius will get the half-and-half Protectionists; and you, Ballance, will catch the out-and-onts.” —(Laughter and applause.) There is a story told of Lord Melbourne when he was Prime Minister, which gives a reversal of this picture. At the time the corn duties were being discussed in the Cabinet, Lord Melbourne, after a meeting, is reported to have placed his back against the door and said: “ Now look here; what are we to do ? Are we to raise the corn duties or lower them ? It does not matter what we do, but when we get out we must all say the same thing.”— (Laughter.) That was perhaps excellent policy, but it was not very good principle. It seems to me that our Cabinet exactly reverse that process. They make their arrangements so that each shall say and do something different from the other. On an important question like Freetrade it certainly is an extraordinary position to take up. Protection is a thing that belongs to prosperous times, when men can afford to throw money away. _ But you all know my opinion on the question, and I don’t intend to depart from it an inch. You remember the principle I laid down last year. By the admission of all parties we are suffering under a deep depression through the fall in the price of our oy/n products. Was there ever a madder notion conceived in this world than to cure that depression by increasing to ourselves the price of the products of other countries ? It is exactly as if a butcher should say to a shoemaker: “I can get so very little for my mutton that I am determined to give you more for your boots.—(Laughter.) You understand enough of trade to know that this is not the way to make a fortune. There are a number of fallacies that cloud the question just now in New Zealand and hide the real issue. It is perfectly vain for Freetraders and Protectionists to point to this country and that country and say “ See how it flourishes” or “See how it suffers.” If any two countries ivere alike in population, soil, and climate, and Freetrade and Protection were the only causes operating for good and evil, there would bo some sensein the argument. But all the Freetrade in the world won’t save a badly-governed, a reckless, or extravagant country from suffering, and Protection won’t debar an otherwise sound and careful country from some degree of prosperity. It is precisely the same with individuals. Virtue is an excellent thing, but it won’t make a foolish man prosper. Vice is bad, but it won’t prevent a shrewd man from prospering. Protection simply wastes so much capital that goes in payment of wages. Sometimes a country can stand the waste easily; at other times such waste is the last straw that breaks the country’s back. Do any of you think New Zealand could stand any such waste at the present time ? Let me tell you of another Protectionist fallacy. They would make you believe that the issue is Shall we have manufactures or shall we not ? It is nothing of the kind. The real question is: 4< Shall we have forced, artificial, tottering manufactures bolstered up by public robbery, or shall we have them growing up healthily, as all your businesses have to grow, on a solid basis of natural profit ? ” I use the word “ robbery ” advisedly, gentlemen, because it is the only word applicable. And I tell you that the manufacturer who cannot live by the natural profit of his business, but only by virtue of being allowed to dip his hand in the pockets of his neighbors, I say that man is neither more or less than a legally-qualified thief. (Laughter and applause.) And if a country is fit for manufactures at all, they will grow up healthily if trade is only left alone. The best and soundest manufactures of America, Canada, and Victoria have grown up under Freetrade conditions. (Loud applause.) New Zealand at the present moment cannot be called a Protectionist country. But if you'take the effective working population of New Zealand and compare it with that of Victoria as given by the Victorian Government statist, Mr Hayter, you will find that there was in 1882 a larger percentage engaged in art and mechanic productions in New Zealand than in Victoria. The figures are—New Zealand, 9.7 per cent.; Victoria, 7.2 per cent. And if you come to persons supported by the community, such as criminals, paupers, and so forth, Victoria had 2.5 per cent,, while New Zealand had only 1.1 per cent. And the Victorian statist also mentions the curious fact that in 1881 Victoria had 37,000 fewer persons between the ages of twenty-seven and forty-three than she had ten years previously. As to whether manufactures will grow up naturally in New Zealand, you have the example of the cement works near Dunedin the other day. The Government had been urged for years to give bonuses, to put on heavy duties, and indeed to run the works themselves, but without assistance of any sort Mr M'Donald started them himself. And what have you farmers.and miners to gain by Protection? Do you know that a threshing plant costs the Victorian farmer Ll2O more than it does the New Zealand farmer? You saw that most of the barbedwire factories had broken down. There is nothing in the world to prevent us keeping them afloat by screwing the money out of you farmers. But is that the way to increase settlement and promote progress ? For myself, I stand on clear ground, gentlemen. The question does not individually affect me. The principal articles used on a station are meat, tea, sugar, and flour. These, at any rate, you cannot protect. I give you my word that I fight the battle of Freetrade, and mean to fight it, in the interests of the working classes. Working men and struggling settlers are most affected by the question. It is bad enough for any one to support a protective policy in this enlightened age, but in a country representative I hold that it is nothing short of a base betrayal of his trust. But of course you are aware that Protection is one thing and the raising of Customs revenue quite another. I am not disposed at a time like this to put factious difficulties in the way of the Government raising revenue. If they can show that the money is absolutely required, and that they have exhausted all efforts at retrenchment and economy, I think they ought to have the money.