FREE TRADE V. PROTECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 3491, 1 May 1874, Page 3

FREE TRADE V. PROTECTION.

The export and import returns of Victoria for 1873 are remarkable forthe expansion of business and trade which they indicate rather than otherwise, hut still the private, accounts of the state of Melbourne and of Victoria generally are not satisfactory, as they speak of stagnation and depression—of scarcity of employment and contraction of: opportunities, pot a, little extraordinary.' The -effect • of the protective- policy of; the country, indeed, has been to realise the idep expressed by Mr George Higinbotham—; one of the ablest men in Parliament, and a leader of the bar—of the operation, of the fiscal and land laws of the Colony, before the era of protection, as tending to make “ the rich richer and the poor poorer.”' Sir J. McCulloch only became a protectionist when he was controlled by the stronger will and more persistent force of his col-, league, Mr Francis. Ho has since aeen : “the folly of his ways.” It is pretty well' known that he retired from Parliament for a season to escape from the influence of his friend and colleague. If he is elected it will mean that the free trade party are likely to rise once more into the ascendant. The challenge to the protectionists has been thrown) down on more than one huntings, but nowhere more strongly than in West Mel-; bourne, represented by Mr Langton, the) I’reasurer— who, a thorough-going and at; one time an uncompromising disciple of free* trade, the secretary of the party, and the editor of (he organ, the ‘ Spectator,’ they

maintained for some years—so far subjugated his opinions to those of Mr Francis as to join, as Treasurer, a Protectionist Ministry. Kis opponent in West Melbourne now is Mr ichel, the managing partner in the house of Messrs Joshua and Co. Mr Sichel has long been a leading merchant of the City, and he has been forced into the contest, apparently, >nly because the present tariff has been found co operate so greatly to the disadvantage of the commerce of Melbourne : —if not to the business of the country at large—that the imposition can no longer be borne patiently. Addressing the electors of West Melbourne at a late meeting, Mr Sichel charged the protectionists as being, in every country, the aristocrats. As to how the tariff worked he remarked “In Melbourne he paid 35s for his boots, while he could buy the same in Sydney for 21s, •, The secretary of the V.R.C., recently had occasion to purchase a lot of towels : in Melbourne the estimate of the cost given him was L 32, and he bought the goods in Sydney for LlB. The woollen mills here • only made tweeds. Tweeds were fancy articles, which could not.be sold at all.times. If those mills had no protection, they could import cotton warps, make their own wefts, and sell their goods at 15 per cent, less than the English price. Camlets and other goods, for which there was always an unlimited market, could then be turned out instead of fancy articles, for which there was only a limited market;” ; Should- Sir ' James M'Culloch be returned to Parliament as the leader of the free trade party, and a thorough-going frOe trader replace a deserter f rom his flag in* West Melbourne,' Victoria is likely to return to her’ old policy, and so interfere not a little With the pretensions of Sydney. Sueb a change—if ;: it occurs—will be all the more strange in the face of the fact that under a policy of protection the imports of Victoria were 116.533,856 in 1873, as compared with L 13,695,322 in 1872; while the exports were valued at L 15.302.454, as compared with L 13.409,635. ‘lndependent.’ ■