PROTECTION v. PREJUDICE.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 109, 5 November 1895, Page 2

PROTECTION v. PREJUDICE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sib, —My last letter has brought Farmer Holdfast " out in his true colors, and, instead of skipping my letters, has divulged the fact that these letters are the chief obstacles in the way of his advocacy of so-called Liberalism. As for what " Holdfast " calls " shoals of poor in England who require help and protection," as an argument against England's policy, he takes a very narrow view of the question, because he must know if he studies historical events that England has not only to support her own poor, but the poor of highly-protec-ted Continental States, where wages are lower than in any other part of the world. This demonstrates the fact that England, being more prosperous than other countries through her Freetrade policy, attracted the poor from those countries who, in some cases, claiming part kinship to the English, cannot consistently be debarred from coming. In the alliance of England and Scotland both countries were benefited, especially tbe latter in a pecuniary sense, and from one of the poorest, Scotland bas become one of the richest of countries, a large amount of those riches having been obtained in London and other parts of England, and, therefore, it is no wonder that " intelligent foreigners " laugh on visiting her shores as "Farmer Holdfast" says, nor that those Scotchmen who have prospered m England should have a perpetual smile, ltecently, through Dr Barnardo, the Salvation Army, etc., we in this colony know a great deal about London's poor, but very little about the poor of Berlin, Paris, or large cities, and from the tenor of " Holdfast's" arguments in alluding to the extremities of rich and poor in England, lam led to suppose that he has never heard of the United States, or of New York. John Barns, tbe Liberal-labour leader, in his visit to America, said on his return to England that he saw more wretchedness and degradation among the poor in New York than he ever saw in London. "Holdfast" also says that my English patriotism is insulting to tbe Celtic Fringe, and that England has neither Queen, Parliament, nor coin. I must say that this, and much more in his letter, I cannot comprehend, but I have been led to believe, of late years, that part of tbe Celtic race, the Scotch Highlanders, were among the most powerful and loyal subjects of the Queen, always ready to defend the rights of Her Majesty and the British Empire, and this is the most natural view to be taken by all British subjects. " Farmer Holdfast evidently cannot rid himself of tbe thoughts of my last lettsr, and alludes to it again after replying to " Fishmonger." He is afraid I will attempt to capture the ladies, which attempt, he says, he will spoil, so I would advise him to " holdfast " to all that remains as he has given up the signature of Farmer, because if his attempt to spoil in his next letter has no more effect towards that object than bis last, then he will soon have nothing to hold on to. I am, etc., A Colonist. [The MSS of the above letter was accidentally mislaid, otherwise it would have appeared in Monday's issue. — Ed. F.S.j