Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1885. Mr Montgomery's Speech.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XVIII, Issue 1692, 10 June 1885, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1885. Mr Montgomery's Speech.

PeopljE had been looking forward to the speech of Mr Montgomery, the member for Akaroa, with expectation and interest, because in the past, he, for a time, held a prominent position in Parliament. Now that the speech has been made, it is rather disappointing. Mr Montgomery does not take up a decided position. He talks of supporting the present Minis* try, but at the same time reserves to hnusplf the right of opposing any of their measures which he does not approve of. On the question of the Local Government Bill to bo introduced by tbo Ministry, Mr Montgomery “’hoped it would not bo a Bill merely to tinker with the pn sent system, to make a slight change pleasing by the giving of subsidies to last only for a time. Ho hoped the Bill would settle once for all the vicious system of having, as had hitherto been the ease, to go to the General Government, for the money for everything wanted, that it would entirely separate colonial from local finance, and would be something that for the first time since the abolition of the provinces would really establish local government throughout the length and breadth of Mew Zealand. Knowing the constructive ability cf tho Premier and the Treasurer to be quite equal to the task, he awaited that measure with the utmost confidence that it would be well carried out and comprehensive, and would carry with it the good opinion of :ho people of Mew Zealand.” Verily, Mr Montgomery i.i the most sanguine of men to export that the Local Government Bill will achieve such great objects and confer so important benefits. We shrewdly suspect that when Mr Montgomery has carefudy examined the forth' coming Bill,’ ho will find it by no means comes up to his expectations, but that it will only be a tinkering bit of legislation after all, _ We are somewhat surprised to find Mr Montgomery declaring himself to he an out andj out Protectionist, He said, “ that i with protection New Zealand would in ten years have a population of a J million," and of eight to twelve millions in fifty years. Ho did not moan to say that manufactures net suitable to the country should be forced into existence, but that such f lun £ a as could be made profitably bore should be protected from foreign competition.” With the first part of this statement we disagree, A ■ M' ultra protection would not

only be advisable to adopt protective j duties in this colony to a limited extent and for a limited period ot time, with j the object of establishing industries j which were specially suitable to _ the | country. The late John Stuart Mill. ! in his well known work on political economy, gives a decided opinion on this point. Rewrites: “The only case in which principles of political economy, protecting duties can be defensible, is when they are imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation) in hopes of naturalising a foreign industry, in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the country. The superiority ot one country over another in a branch of production, olten arises only from having began it sooner. But it cannot be expected that individuals should, at their own risk, Or rather to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture, and bear the burden of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditions. A protecting duty continued for a reasonable time, will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment. But the protection should be confined to cases in which there is good ground of assurance that the industry which it fosters will, after a time, be able to dispense with it ; nor should the domestic producers ever be allowed to expect that it will be continued to them beyond the time necessary for a fair trial of what they are capable of accomplishing.” That is the measure of protection which could with advantage, be adopted iu this colony, in order to afford fair play to the efforts of those persons who are endeavoring to establish new manufactures and industries. Should the present Ministry attempt to go far beyond this and propose an ultraprotective policy, they will meet with a powerful, determined, and overwhelming opposition from the supporters of free trade principles. Judging by the tone and statements of a recently published letter from Mr Ballance.wo are of opinion that the Ministry really do contemplate adopting an ultra-protective policy. Should they take this course, their defeat is a practical certainty. In the. concluding portion of his speech, Mr Montgomery advocated a scheme of selling three hundred or four hundred acre sections of Crown lands at a cheap rale to practical farmers who would occupy and improve them for a period of ten years, b. fore they get their title to them. That idea, as well as another one, of largely increasing the working and producing population, are both good. The real difficulty is to devise a sound and effective plan for giving such ideas practical effect.