The Evening Star THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1870

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2081, 6 January 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1870

Wfc were treated with an article by the Daily Time* yesterday on what it is pleased to term a reaction against the free trade policy of England. As usual, our contemporary jumps at conclusions from very meagre premises. It is perfectly true that he has a shadow of a reason for what he says, because the Mark Lane Express, notoriously a protectionist organ, has published an account of some meeting of discontented Weavers at Manchester, at which the long-exploded doctrines of reciprocity

were advocated. As usual, the cry begins •with that class that is the most deeply interested in the utmost freedom of trade, and is eagerly seized upon by the agricultural organs, who represent, a class ever,' short-sigh ted as to the true interests of the country so long as they can obtain the highest possible price for their own produce. But it is remarkable that even the Marh Lane Express does not talk such nonsense on the subject as the Daily Times. The Times gives, as the cause for the movement the’depression of trade, and then states, as reasons for that depression, scarcity of cotton and high wages. If the first be true, the simple remedy is to increase the supply, or to substitute some material that will take its place. No legislative alterations can affect that. Free trade, reciprocity, or protection is alike powerless to effect a change, though, if either of the three is calculated to relieve the country from that cause of depression, it is free trade. Under it, the widest possible range is given for import of the necessary raw material. But if that cannot be obtained, nor any substitute for it, ignorant theorists may do their worst, the capital once employed in the cotton manufacture must be turned into some other channel, and the workmen who have hitherto earned a living in that branch of manufacture must seek other employment. But if, as the Solon of the Daily Times seems to imagine, high wages bo the cause, it will very soon bring about its own remedy; or, if they can be maintained, it is a self-evident contradiction of his theory. High wages can only be secured by a steady and constant demand for labor. Manufacturers will not go on producing at a loss; and if it be true, as the Daily "Times asserts, that the Continental manufacturers are superseding England in the markets of the world, the competition for employment will very soon cause “ two men to run after one master,” and wages will fall. The leaning of our contemporary is evidently in the direction of Protection—a very harmless leaning here so far as agriculture is concerned, but a very mischievous one when it is considered that it is false in theory, and, wherever operative, damaging to the mass of people it is intended to protect. So far as Otago is concerned, a protective duty on cereals imported into the country would not sensibly affect prices, for although there are Provinces in New Zealand that do not produce enough for their own consumption as a whole, New Zealand is destined to be an exporting country. The value of its agricultural produce, therefore, is measured by the world's price. But it is just on that account that the freest possible intercourse and exchange with other countries is the greatest boon the agriculturists of Otago could have, as it affords the widest possible range of markets. We have no sympathy with the constant striving of our contemporary to set class against class, nor with his advocacy of theories tending to reduce wages. Why should labor be sacrificed to the interests of any class ? The meddling of statesmen, until the. fetters of protection were shaken oft’, was always to beat down wages, in order that certain industries, conceived by them to be essential to the wellbeing of Society, should be established and prosper. If their views were so narrow as not to be able to include in their grasp the well-being of the masses through whose labor countries become wealthy, what wonder that those whose opportunities of acquiring information are more circumscribed should fall into a like error? The laboring classes of England never were free traders from a conviction of its truth. They felt the oppression of the tax on bread, which in many instances led to wide spread famine and disease, but the whole of their conduct in their suicidal trades unions and other selfimposed restrictions on trade, prove that the principles of liberty are as systematically set at defiance as the Daily Times could possibly desire. These notions they have brought to the colonies with them, and they form the clue to most of the mistakes they have made. They are at the root of the outcry against immigration 3 they pervade our tariffs; they have misled many of our statesmen; they have reduced the rate of wages in Victoria; their tendency is to do so here. Those who advocate protection, by means of fiscal arrangements, are the worst enemies of men -who live by labor, for their theories when carried out raise the prices of necessaries, restrict the demand for labor by preventing accumulation of capital, and produce in an intensified form the very evils they profess to guard against.