PROFESSOR FAWCETT ON FREE TRADE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5243, 12 January 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

PROFESSOR FAWCETT ON FREE TRADE.

(From the London Daily Telegraph.) Professor, Fawcett, in a, course of- popular lectures which he has commenced at Cambridge, is usefully endeavoring to show why some people are beginning to .lose faith i in Free Trade. It may be admitted at the outset that the great majority of Englishmen firmly believe in that doctrine. Even many of those Conservatives who used to fulminate against it now figure amongst the most enthusiastic of its advocates! Indeed, at elections, such as the recent contest at Salford, they pretend that they have been all along the pioneer advocates of Eree Trade ideas. In these circumstances it niay be asked wliy does the Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge think it worth while to come forward and lecture on the merits of Free Trade ? Is there any rational person who doubts the advantage of accepting this principle? Is there anyone who wants to return to Protection under any shape ' or form? Does anybody need to be convinced as to the profitableness of Free Trade and the futility of Protected commerce ? Yet there are more sceptics abroad than might be supposed. Last session, in the House; of Commons, one or two members, representing large constituencies, ‘might have been found'sometimes furtively burning a little .incense to the old, false, economic idol, and nervous hints, were oscasionally dropped,' “on behalf of the working men of 1 Birkenhead,” , (regarding so-called Reciprocity.” Nevertheless such ■ speakers merely represented what we regret to say is becoming a growing delusion—that Free Trade is a failure. There are those who argue that Free Trade must surely he of dubious benefit, because, after thirty-five years’ experience of its working in England, foreign countries will have none of it. There must, it is said, be soraeIthing against Eree Trade when nobody but !the English people cares to adopt the system. Yet with equal reason it might be urged that a limited monarchy, or the Protestant religion, or a' free Press were bad things because, after seeing their working in England, foreign countries cared not to acclimatise them. Thus it would be folly to hold that because the world has not adopted our commercial policy that policy must necessarily be wrong. We are told, however, that when we became Free-Traders we thought other nations would soon follow in our footsteps—though, as a matter of fact, it was to enable us to buy dear goods cheaply—but that other nations have not imitated our example. They still keep our merchandise out of their markets by Protective tariffs, we are reminded, whereas We open our ports freely to their products. What certain people are now anxiously asking is, must not this one-sided arrangement'hurt England, by enriching foreigners at our expense. When leading men in Chambers. of Commerce hold talk of this sort, and clamor for protective reciprocity, it is time that such errors as theirs were refuted by those who can speak with authority on the subject. ‘. . . . The Protectionist contends that we must not buy a coat for £2 from a foreigner when we have compatriots Who are willing to sell ns coats for £4. He wants us, in other words, to pay more for our clothes than they are wbrth or than we can buy them for, because the makers of them are our fellow-countrymen; Applied to wearing apparel, the practical working of - this 1 policy would 1 be‘ that ’ men would go about comparatively ill-clad. Ap-

plied to the trade in foodstuffs, it means that they must hunger , and : starve —all for the sake of patriotism. In this simple and rudimentary form nobody would propose to advocate Protection. The upholders of the old false doctrine dare not state the case so plainly. They have, to disguise it under another name, and call it Reciprocity; and Mr. Fawcett is doing a useful work when he comes forward boldly and exposes the imposture. : For what is reciprocity ? It means, so say those who : expound, it, that, as foreign nations will not trade freely with us, we. ought not to trade freely with them; that because they will not let our goods into tlx sir markets duty tree, we should burden theirs by way of revenge. J Because Fi’enchmen, for instance, are foolish enough to pay for our goods their price plus the duty—that is, more than : they are worth—we must compensate ourselves by paying more for French produce than it is worth ! Such is the bare plain presentiment of the Reciprocity doctrine stripped of x-hetox-ic.