FREETRADE AND PROTECTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7563, 30 May 1885, Page 6

FREETRADE AND PROTECTION.

TO THE BDITOE. Sib, —When two women contended for the maternity of a certain child, the apparently heartless, hut really kind, king said : “ Let us solve the difficulty by cutting up the child.” By a similar process I seem to have discovered, by accident, not indeed the parent, but the friend and sympathiser of a recent distinguished lecturer on political economy. Permit me to thank you for having yesterday supplied us with an article that may be fitly answered by a short and easy letter. lam not, however, to be understood to say that I think that a journalist, in his articles, might not possibly sometimes exaggerate that particular quality that makes the appropriate answer short and easy.

In reply to your question, it will perhaps be enough, for the purposes of the argument, to say that England and (in a smaller way) New South Wales are prominent Freetrade countries, which have, by consequence, established, and now maintain, “ flourishing manufactures.” On the other hand, in Protectionist countries, such as the United States, Canada, France, Germany and Victoria, I am not aware that, for purposes of argument, any “ flourishing manufactures” can be said to have been established by Protection. In these latter countries, I know that by the aid of Protection factories have been built and are worked for the benefit of a limited number of persons, under a system of State aid or semi-pauperism, taxes for providing funds for affording such aid being levied on the whole population. You take comfort in being with the “ 19-20ths.” Do you really then prefer "'volume” to “light?” Are you still satisfied with arguments whose proof rests solely on the tale of heads? Supposing your figures ;to be correct, the “ 19-20ths ” once supported an inhuman slave trade, the “ 19-20ths ” howled against the repeal of the utterly stupid navigation laws, and the same “19-20ths” howled still more loudly against the repeal of the foolish and wicked com laws. From the analogy of history, I leave you to draw the inference for your present contention. Then, have you lived so long, and remain convinced that “ 19-20ths ” of men are not selfish, that “19-20ths” of franchise-holders are not unenlightened, and that “ 19-20ths ” of legislators are not time-serving ? Now, you will perhaps allow me in turn to ask you a question. You are a metaphysician. You are accustomed to the process of reasoning by deduction. How comes it, then, that the protected industrial infant cannot be made to obey the universal law that operates in the case of all other young creatures, plants and new powers ? And not only so. Why is it that the protected industrial infant invariably progresses even in the inverse order from all natural analogy? Just contemplate, for example, the history of the protected industrial infant in the United States. At his birth there in 1789 his artificial nourishment, or natural helplessness, was measured by 8i; now, after nearly a century has elapsed, it is measured by an average of 40. And the history of this' hapless nursling in America is just his.history in France, in Germany, in Canada, and, by and bye, I fear will be in New Zealand. The longer the infant livc-s the limper grow his legs, and the louder his outcry for the fostering care of his nurse. A philosophical dissertation from you on the raison d’&tre of this very unprofitable child cannot fail to greatly interest us. This dissertation may serve all the purposes of a supplementary lecture from your lucid coadjutor, in common cause, Mr Holmes.—l am, &c., * W. CHRYSTALL. .TO THE EDXTOE. Sie,—As a searcher after truth, I have endeavoured to learn the fatfe of those

tection, and fully contemplated that I shbuld find them in a fearful state of disaster. I need hardly say my ideas were formed by reading Mr Chryatall’s lugubrious epistles. I find Yictona in a state so flourishing that in this country we can only dream of at present. I turn to Canada, in the hope that at least there I should find balm for my Preetradc soul, and to my disgust, the following statement, from a recent English paper, met my view, which perhaps you will be good enough to publish : “ The Finances of Canada.—Sir Leonard Tilley, the Finance Minister, occupies a very enviable position in these days of national deficits, as he has not only_a surplus for the current fiscal year, but is able to promise a larger one for the next, whilst the taxation necessary to meet the expenditure is steadily diminishing, although about five and a half millions sterling have been spent since 1879 upon railways, canals, &c., and the national debt has been reduced. Canada is Protectionist, and exporters on this side should be informed that duties on the following articles have been increased 5 per cent: —Cutlery, chinaware, winceys, pickles, sauces and carpets. A Commission has been appointed to enquire into the effect of the new policy in encouraging manufactures in Canada, with the following results, after visiting two-thirds of the factories : New factories since 1879, 595 ; additional hands employed, 34,500; increased yearly wages paid, 10,562,000dol; increased output, 79,360,000d01; increased capital invested, 29,473,000d01.” , . , , If Mr Chrystall and his friends do not hurry up and ruin some of these countries, they will find a number, like myself, beginning to think that there is something in it.—l am, &c., _ A DISAPPOINTED ONE. FEEEDOM OF CORRESPONDENCE. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Please allow me to hope that, so long as you are yourself satisfied with your correspondents, you will not trouble about such advisers as “ Victorian,” but adhere to the rule of Freedom to them who would read, Freedom to them who would write ; There’s none ever feared that the truth should be heard, * But they whom the truth would indict. I am, &c., EEADEE.