MR GLADSTONE ON “FAIR TRADE."

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2736, 28 December 1881, Page 2

MR GLADSTONE ON “FAIR TRADE."

Daring his recent visit to Leeds the English Premier spoke as follows on “ F&ir Trade ” :—“ An institution has been formed in England bearing the imposing name of the National Fair Trade League. What in the world, you will ask, does this mean ? Well, gentlemen, I must say it bears a suspicious likeness to our old friend Protection. Protection was dead and buried 30 years ago, but he hag come out of the grave, and is walking in the broad light of day ; but after the long experience of the atmosphere under ground he endeavors to look more attractive than lie used to look after he acquired it, and in consequence he found it convenient to assume a new name. If you were to meet him and say, “ Oh, Mr Protection, how do you do ?’* he would answer, “ I bog your pardon, lam Mr Fairtrade ; I know nothing of Protection.” But to speak more seriously, an article appeared in the ‘Nineteenth Century,’ written, and I have no doubt in all good faith, by Mr Protection himself. The antidote was, however, contained in an article which followed it, but I must be fair to it. The article I speak of was written by Mr Ecroyd, the member for Preston, who writes under the name of Fairtrade, The name of Protection, as I said, is left out, and Mr Ecroyd, in the simplicity of his heart, utters a serious complaint and expresses a grave apprehension. He says be is very much afraid that Fairtrade will be mistaken for Protection by those whose object is to confuse the issue. He wants a good lump of duty to be put upon foreign manufacturers, and a duty of 5s a quarter upon corn. All this he says he wants not as protection, but in the name of Fairtrade, only he is greatly afraid that the Liberals will represent him as wanting it under the head of protection. Mr Ecroyd thinks that we should tax foreign manufacturers in order that foreigners may untax our manufacturer. That is his first proposition. Well, now, gentlemen, that appears to be a very considerable exaggeration. There is a great Christian precept that if a man strikes you on one cheek you should turn him the other. But the precept of Mr Ecroyd and others is this : That if somebody smites you upon one cheek you should smite yourself on the other. That appears to me to be a needless exaggeration ; but let that pass and let us see whether the thing is practicable. We are to smite ourselves and others, but we are to smite ourselves in order to produce something for somebody else, and we are to force him to do it by hitting him. Well, it is, I think, a good old English maxim that if you are to strike you ought to strike hard : and can you strike the foreigner hard by retaliatory tariffs? What manufactures do you import from abroad ? In all £45,000,000. What manufactures do you export ? Nearer £220,000,000 —over £200,000,000. If you are to make the foreigner feel, you must make him feel by striking him in his largest interests : but the interest he has in sending manufactures to you is one of his smallest interests, and not one of his large interests, and you are invited to inflict wounds upon yourself on a field measured by £45,000,000, while he has got exactly the same power of inflicting wounds upon you on a field measured by more than £200,000,000. Well, the case that we should feel most is the case of America. The Americans hit us very hard in their duties, and there is a great reduction, no doubt, ia our exports to America. But still, how do they stand ? America sends to us less than £3,000,000 of manufactured goods; we send to America, what between our own manufactured goods and the foreign produce which we have got for our manufactured goods, between £30,000,000 and 40,000,000 of manufactured goods, notwithstanding ; and now the advice of these Fairtraders is that we are to endeavor, by hitting America through this £3,000,000 which she sends to us, to make her cease from hitting us through the £30,000,000 odd v e send her. It is impossible that absurdity can further go-