The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1872.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3570, 27 June 1872, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1872.

THB'great political economists—Stuart Mill,Ricardo, and the rest—must look to their laurels. A. formidable mai is gradually, but surelv, attracting the devoted worship of all who believe in free trade and pin their faith to the maxim which enjoins them to buy in the cheapest Add sell ill the dearest market. The rival to whom we refer, ind who is now so frequently quoted as a final authority in such matters, is Mr David A. Wells, special Commissioner of Eevenues for (he United States. It appears to be his duty to write an annual report ohlhe condition and prospects of American commerce, and as we have before pointed out, he considers it consistent with, or perhaps part of, this duty, to glorify free trade and condemn protection/ He starts from a foregone conclusion, or from a cast-iron theory, and as he has the command of an immense number of facts, he loses no opportunity of using these for the express purpose of illustrating and supporting this same theory. He is, in short, a most thorough-going free-trader, and he has contrived to make America the “frightful example ” of the evils which flow from and are incidental to protection. From what we have said, it will be readily understood that Mr Wells is the darling of what is usually called the Manchester school of politicians apd politico-economists. One of his annual reports has been reproduced by the Cobden Club with a great flourish of trumpets, and care has been taken to disseminate it as widely as possible, so that the gospel of free-trade with all its socalled blessings may be carried to the uttermost ends of the earth and cherished in every nook and corner whence grist can be drawn to the great English mill. The Otago Daily Times has received a copy of this report, for 1869, and our contemporary has fallen down in reverential, childlike adoration. “This important and “ in every respect remarkable produc- “ tion,” he remarks at the very outset, “proceeding from an official source “ and written with a directly practical “ purpose, deals with topiss and en- “ forces principles that are of general “ interest everywhere, but of special “ interest to all who regard the per- “ manent well-being and progress of “ Hew Zealand.” This opening sufficiently indicates the style and tone of the articles in which the limes has discussed Mr Wells’ report, but there is a good deal more in even a warmer strain of admiration. We are told, for instance, that the deductions drawn from the statements and figures presented are apparently as inevitable as they are lucidly and tersely put; that there might be culled from tnem what would form a politician’s handbook of warning and suggestion; and that they form a new “ Wealth of Nations,” with much that Adam Smith never dreamt of in bis philosophy. The report which the Otago Daily Times thus eulogises has been prominently before the public for something like three years, and it has been quoted over and over again by the advocates of free trade with great jubilation. On a recent occasion, when commenting upon a discussion in the principal Auckland papers on this vexed and vexing question, we pointed out that Mr Wells could not be fairly cited as a decisive witness against protection as a principle, nor even against protection as it bad been applied in America. Almost every word he has written on the subject, nearly every deduction he has made from the enormous array of facts and figures at his command, has the same object in view —the advancement of free trade and the demolition of protection. Before the principle of protection and its application in America can be fairly judged and safely taken either as a guide or a warning, the other side of the case must be stated with equal patience, industry, and ability. Another Mr Wells, on the protectionist side is, in point of fact, required, and we think it highly probable that he would be able to make out an extremely good case. He would be able to show that, if protection has in some instances neutralised the progress and dislocated the industrial economy of the United States, it has at the same time been the direct and indirect means of establishing several manufactures which are now out of leading strings and able to fight their own way among the everincreasing crowd of competitors in all parts of the world. This, we think will not be denied, unless by those who are so very blind that they won’t see, even if they were furnished with the double-million magnifying spectacles which Sam Weller introduced to the notice of a discerning and appreciative public. We can quite understand why the Cobden Club, in issuing Mr Wells’ partisan report, should express an earnest hope that “ the days of protection in the “ United States are numbered, and “ that free exchange, like free labour, “ will at no very distant time be among “ the chartered rights of the Ame- “ rican people.” These are brave words truly, and though that was not intended, they indicate the anxiety with which English manufacturers and capitalists view the growing manufactures of America. Let all the world produce raw material, let the peoples of every clime be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and let England have the privilege of supplying them with everything they require in the shape of clothing, implements, and tools. That is what the English advocates of free-trade mean in every homily they preach on the beauties, bounties, and blessings—and Christianity even—of their beloved doctrine. And, taking a purely selfish view of the question, they are perfectly right. Free-tiade is unquestionably the best and moat beneficial principle for England, but it does not follow, though its advocates constantly tell us it does, that the principle can be universally applied with the same satisfactory results.