Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verb a magistri. MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1870.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 16, Issue 813, 15 August 1870, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verb a magistri. MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1870.

' Strange as it may seem, there ap- ! pears to lie a movement in Aucki land in favor of protective duties. A largely-attended meeting of mer chants, manufacturers, and traders, we are informed, was held on "Wed- , nesday last, in the Mechanics' Institute, for the purpose of considering ■ the Reciprocity Bill now before the General Assembly. The speakers I generally appeared to be in favor of ' increased duties upon articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of , the Australian colonies, and against 1 the proposals of reciprocity now un der discussion. Of course the old exploded fallacies of the Protective school were reproduced, but still there were found a few with courage enough to protest against them, and this in the face of the manifest feeling of the majority. Mr Clark proposed a resolution condemnatory of the Reciprocity Bill. He .said he was connected with the " making up clothing trade,'' " which had grown up without anv protection whatever against the manufactures both of England and Melbourne,'' but which " would be ruined if Melbourne ' manufactures were admitted duty free ;" and, r ' if cloth manufactured in the Australian colonies were introduced free, the tweed trade iii Nelson would be ruined." A Mr Cater—in Mie boot trade—said that Sydney boots could be obtained at about two-thirds of the price of Auckland-made goods. He would rather duties were increased than goods should come free from the Australian colonies. Mr D. Graham was a free trader (!) to the fullest extent (!!). He should like such a duty on flour as would prevent all importation, and the same in the case of eggs, bacon, &c. He was a free trader in land, but approved of protection on all articles that we can produce. Mr Freer followed in a similar strain. He would prevent the exportation of hides and the importation of boots, &c, so that we should be obliged to manufacture them. Other speakers followed, proposing resolutions in favor of protective duties, and of keepingback Australian competition, winding up with one to petition the Governor in Council to remit no duties on articles of Australian manufacture, except only such as are not—or cannot at present be—manufactured in New Zealand. The principal opponent of the movement appears to have been Mr Eastwood, who said what the people wanted was to get their goods in the cheapest market without caring where they came from. Colonial manufactures had nothing to fear while they continued to be of a superior quality —that was the best kind of protec-

tion, and the only protection that was needed. He, however, could scarcely get.a hearing; though from what we see reported his words were almost the only ones that were not the merest fallacies. We had no idea Auckland vas so far behind the age as to wish for dear food and dear clothing, believing it be a boon.