Wellington Independent MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3282, 21 August 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1871.

The subject of Protection will necessarily crop up during the sess'on ; and though it has not yet become a party question, it will be sure to excite much angry discussion. People in general are more in danger of losing their tempers when they meddle with matters with which they are not thoroughly acquainted, than when maintaining principles with the truths of which they are familiar. Prejudice is supped to result from ignorance ; but the worst and most pernicious prejudices are not so much the fruits of ignorance as of imperfect knowledge. The half-informed are even the most dogmatic, and are never more positive and unreasonable than when a favorite theory is established, or a class interest endangered. The sensible advice given by Locke to all disputants, " to define their terms," was never more necessary to be observed than when discussing this question of protection. Men before now have even gone to the extreme length of cutting each others' throats from having neglected so simple a precaution. When too late it was discovered that they had been using two opposite words to express the same thing. It would be lamentable to witness any such bowie-knife predilections on the part of our legislators, and perhaps still more so to see the House transferred into a theatre for such seriocomic or semi-tragic exhibitions, when by the adoption of Locke's prudent advice they could be so easily avoided, a paddock, coast defence, &c. The Americans have recently substituted the term " defensive," for the old term " protective" tariff; probably on account of the odium winch English economists have attached to the latter word. The author of the " History of Civilization" has occupied a large space in his work, and used more than ordinary industry, eloquence, and vehemence, to bring the word, and the thing signified, into disrepute. He was unfortunately greatly assisted in this attempt by English public opinion, where the term had long been used to define a policy which the people had boon moot industriously taught to believe was expressly devised and sustained for the purpose of making food scarce and dear, and thus indirectly to aid in swelling the inordinate rent rolls of an idle and bloated aristocracy- So strong had been the feeling excited against the term, on this accouut, that even a New Zealand statesman proudly placed it upon record that he hated the very word " protection," as in nine times out of ten, when used in reference to class interests, it meant the robbery of other classes for the benefit of one. Not apparently seeing that Government itself, which is at best but an organised system of protection, would be condemned for the same reasons, and the very name be made io become equally as objectionable. But however it may fare with the much abused term "protection" — and the name of liberty itself, according to Madame Pioland, has much to answer for, untold crimes having been committed in its name — the fact remains unaltered, that in all Teutonic languages the term freedom is derived from the same root as that for lpgal protection and security. The fact, moreover, when properly :n---terpreted, is full of meaning. Freedom does not mean the doing as one likes, but rather the protection of ourselves against such doings by oihers. Civil liberty is a system of checks and guarantees, which imply restraint and security. Without protection liberty degenerates into anarchy, and without restraint into license. If regulated freedom is found to be so beneficial to individuals and to society, is there any good reason why trade and protection should not be also as carefully and judiciously guarded or fenced ? The fault hitherto has not, as we conceive, been in the thing required, but in the mode adopted for attaining it; not in the object aimed at, but in the means by which it has been sought to be secured. In truth, the protection of trade and commerce is one of the most important duties of Government. It is, perhaps, second only in importance to the duty of protecting life and liberty. Nobody, however, supposed that the imposition of duties on imports would directly afford protection to trade and commerce, but it was supposed that it might do this indirectly, by sustaining and stimulating production, and thus increasing the quantity and value of those commodities, in the interchange of which healthy and honest trade and commerce consist. Without production, without produce, there can be no commerce. The question is, will protective duties on certain foreign articles promote domestic industry ; not one particular industry, but industry generally ? If they will do this they will be the means of augmenting the national wealth, and thus sustaining even foreign commerce. If protective duties will really encourage industry, and at the same time diminish any tendency which may arise to the over-production of any particular commodities, they will

augment the aggregate wealth of the community ; but if they will not do this they must prove injurious, not to commerce merely but to the people at large. As a further illustration of the necessity which exists for a thorough understanding of what we mean by the word " protection," we may refer to the oppo site meanings attached to the word by English and American publicists and journalists. What one calls free trade principles, the other maintains to be a policy in strict harmony with the principles of protection; and the latter are supported in this view by the leading men on the Continent of Europe. It has been asserted, again and again, that France and Germany have been gradually abandoning a protective policy, and arc fast becoming converts to tho principles of free trade. In proof of the truth of these statements we are triumphantly referred to what is called the French Treaty, and to the amended tariff of tho German Zollverein. But neither one nor the other afford any conclusive evidence of the kind. Notwithstanding thai treaty, protection was recognised by France as a principle in the determination of taxes on imports, and the same principle manifests itself still more conspicuously in other forms ; while in tho Germ on tariff special care is taken when admitting most raw materials duty free, to largely and progressively increase the rates on the importation of all articles, the domestic manufacture of which it is considered as desirable to promote and foster. The simple fact that M. Thiers and M. Ponyer-Quertier are avowed protectionists does not say much for the free-trade proclivities of the French people ; and even the London "Economist" admits that France will bo sure to attempt to raise a revenue by augmenting the customs duties. But what we want to point out is, that a reduction of tho duties on raw materials in France, and their abolition in Germany, are events which are claimed in England as triumphs for free trade, and in America as the currying out the protective principle in its most settled and effective form. And if protection to national industry means not so much the imposition of duties on foreign imports as facilities given for its successful prosecution, the American interpretation of those events is the true one. The free admission of the raw materials of manufactures enables the manufacturer to apply the largest amount of homo labor to the smallest value of raw matorial, under such conditions as enables him to place his finished product in all foreign markets at the lowest possible cost. Viewed in this light, it will bo seen that what is called free trade in England is termed protection in America. It is the non-recognition of this remarkable fact by colonial journalists which causes them to full into grave errors when treating of the national policy of the United States. Those members of Congress who advocate the abolition of the duty on foreign wool, and a reduction in other customs duties, have not become converts, as has been asserted, to free trade ; for we find them still holding that a policy of moderate and .iiiriir-.ious protection, under the tariff,' is the policy best suited to subserve the industrial interests of the whole country. Franco, Germany, and the United States are all, more or leis, favorable to the admission of raw materials duty free, and are all in favor of tho imposition of protective duties on the importation of English manufactures. Protective duties are solely do inancled by the American manufacturer to neutralise the foreign advantages of cheap capital and labor. Whilst, however, the Germans, Americans, and French aro alike agreed in supporting a protective system for themselves, they aro also equally agreed in maintaining that England, by the free admission of raw materials and breadstuffs, has likewise adopted the most effective measures in her power for the protection of her manufactures; and that any other policy, in her case, would, by enhancing the cost of food and raw material, raise the price of her manufactures, and thus tend to shut them out of foreign markets. In other words, England's free trade policy is in her case, a protective policy, and this, too, in its most subtle and effective form. Said we not truly, then, that on this question of protection it is necessary to dofino our terms ?