FREE TRADE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8082, 24 September 1887, Page 6

FREE TRADE.

[By Bblim.J

The cause of free trade is just now having » sorry time of it in this district. Every candidate for Parliamentary honours is put through ft' cateohiam, and if he oannot pronounce the shibboleth "protection" in the orthodox fashion woe be to him. No matter how honest, how upright, how conscientious ;i no matter if he be a capable administrator, • good financier, bating snob a knowledge of boaineaa as to be able to show how retrenchment may be effected, these all count as nothing; the fiat goes forth and he mast be rejected. Those who believe in free trade, and have been composing themselves in the belief that the free exchange of commodities between the various countries -of the world was synonomons with " peace, goodwill among nations" have experienced a rude awakening by bearing themselves denounced as the most self - seeking, hard - driving cruel race of beings, seeking "to degrade the British workman to the level of the Chinaman or the lowest race of mankind." One of our mottoes, " Live and let lire," which we teaoh, is best attained by a simple and natural division and distribution of the products of labour, has been wrested from us and appropriated by onr opponents. We believe and teach the doctrine of the greatest happiness to the greatest number, and not the robbing of a thousand Peters to enrioh one Paul. We claim for the working man a right in bis own labour, and perfect freedom to exchange the product of that labour where, when, and how he pleases. We meat emphatically protest against any third party, be he a single individual, or the Parliament of the nation, stepping in and robbing him of this great liberty 1 We have often been denounced as unpatriotic and enemies to the commonwealth, but that'shall not deter ua from going on our course in endeavouring to expound economical truths.

Your evening contemporary, in what I venture to think a most intemperate atticle, has conpled my name with that of one of the candidates for Parliamentary honours "as belonging to that aggressive sohool with whom the creed of Cobden is a religion." "There are," the writer says," freetraders and freetraders." What this means Ido not precisely know, nor shall I stay here to inquire. Perhaps on some future occasion, when the tumult of the elections are over, I may expose his fallacies. For the present it is enough to say tbat these directions to electors, for whom to vote are full of inconsistencies because they have no principle to guide them, and savour too much of sporting prophecies to name the winners. Thero are two or three things I should like to say to working men, and ask them to well consider them. HIGH PRIOiIS NOT HIGH WAGES. The generally accepted doctrine of those who write on behalf of protection is, that high prices make high wages, and that low prioesmake low wages." Thiswaß a doctrine much heard of in the freetrade movement 40 years ago. It was tbraiihed out then, but modern writers are too ready to make the assertion again without examining the factß. High prices have often co-existed with low wages, and low prices have often »nd now co-existjjwith high wages in England. This is. the fact with respect to nominal wages, «e,, to wages reckoned into money. It is still more the fact with respect to real wages, i.e., their purchasing power. So true has this become that modern political economists treat it almost as a rule. It may not be amiss to give one or two illustrations from recent writers. Farm labourers and price of oorn 18001878 Professor Thorold Rogers tells us ("Six Centuries of Work and Wages"), that during the first 20 years of this century the price of wheat was on the average 98s a quarter. The average weekly wages of the agricultural labourers who produced the corn were from 1799 to 1803 10s, from 1804 to 1810 12s, from 1811 to 1314, 12i 9d. They then sunk from 1815 to 1818 about 17 per sent., and 1819 and 1820 a further 20 per sent., bringing them down to about 8s per week. Sir Jamas Oaird, writing on the subjeot of prices in 1878, when the Gazette averages of wheat were 46s 6d, or less than half they were at the beginning of the century, the agricultural labourers' wages were 3s fid per day, or 15s per week, the purchasing power of whioh was very muoh grei ier than at the earlier period. WAGES OF ARTIZANS. Professor Thorold Rogers tells us that in 18CO, when the price of wheat was over 100 a a quarter, and when other things produced and consumed by the workmen, the average wages of the London artizans were 18s a week, and the country artizans about 12s. It is almost needless to say that now, in 1887, with wheat at 30*, and the price of all manufactured goods to the consumer is very small compared with the prices of the early part of the century, the wages of the artisan, reckoned in money, are now much higher, and in purchasing power very much higher still. ENGLAND COMPARED WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. It is the common complaint of protectionists in England just as it is here that foreign nations have cheaper labour. The dread of competition from the pauper labour of Europe is the great argument for protection in America. But with all this, ask an American, a German, a Frenchman, or an Italian, what is the competition of whioh they ate afraid, and he will tell you it is the competition of Great Britain, and yet the wages in England are higher than the wages of any of these countries except America. The supremacy of England is more threatened by the growing intelligence of other nations - their technical schools—than by low wages. On another occasion I will deal with the reasons for higher wages in America, and ■how how they ate not so caused by protection. COURSE OF TRADE. I have so frequently in previous articles pointed out the course whioh trade takes, that it 'is not necessary to do more than just state here that all international trade is an exchange of commodity for commodity. Our imports are about £7,000,000 and our exports about the same sum. Oar exports consist of commodities on whioh we have expended our labour to produce. Now, it must be quite clear that had we imported £10,000,000 worth of commodities instead of £7,000,000, we should have required to have exported £3,000,000 extra, and that would have found additional employment here. Some writers are saying there is over-pro-duction, which is nonsense. It is the laws of distribution which have been interfered with by the erection of barriers in the shape of Customs duties, many of them for protective purposes. Europe and America have » great many commodities whioh other countries require, and other countries have commodities these would take in exchange, but laws are passed imposing Customs duties whioh in their operation prevent these exobanges, whioh would be mutually advan-

tageoua. To conclude, I would say that those countries which pass such la wo are responsible for preventing the free exohange of commodities, and contracting the area of business. Our own Government, to meet an extravagant expenditure, sought to impose new taxation to the extent of £300,000, a good portion of whioh was to be on and must be met by further taxation.

The issue is a clear one. Let the electors do their part as wise men, feeling that the fate of the country at an important oriels is in their hands. Above all, do not be swayed by newspaper editors, who will not understand economical questions. This wholesale advice is very inconsistent, as if followed out and the men returned who are named, when they get to Wellington would seldom be found together in the same division lobby.