South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2602, 23 July 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1881.

Already there are signs of an agitation in England in favor of Protection. A Home journal received by the last mail states that Free Trade is far from popular just now amongst the working classes. There was an election held at Preston, in Lancashire, a few weeks back, and it is said Protection had very much to do with the return of the successful candidate. It is about three years since the out and out Free Trade policy of England began to be questioned. That was a time of great depression in all manufacturing industries, As the depression passed away, the movement did not assume any large proportions, Still it did not die out. Able writers in first-class magazines and newspapers boldly declared that. the Free Trade policy of England was a mistake. Facts and figures were adduced in support of their contention, and in the discussion which ensued the Protectionists by no means had the worst of it. At any rate they succeeded in inducing a considerable section of the English people to consider the subject dispassionately That in itself was an important point gained. Ridicule is a powerful weapon, and it had been freely used against the advocates of Protection. It is, however, not a convincing one. It did not prove so in Victoria. For years the Melbourne “ Argus ” ridiculed the Protectionist party of that colony—held them up to the scorn of all “ intelligent ” men. People got surfeited with the abuse which took the place of argument. Shrewd observers in Victoria are of opinion that the virulence of the “ Argus ” drove the majority of the people into Protection. It is surely a matter for calm reflection that some of the leading communities of the world are imbued with Protectionist ideas. Free Trade may be, and doubtless is, in the main most conducive to the prosperity of England, but it does not necessarily follow that the adoption of that policy would be advantageous to all nations. The Free Trade party have not been content with proving the adaptability of their theories to any particular country, but insisted that they should be applied all round, irrespective of circumstances. The political economists of the. Mother Country regard themselves as the apostles of great and true principles, and as man is an imitative animal, the political economists have many followers in the colonies. The latter, as a class, are feeble in argument, but particularly loud in denunciation of those who differ from them.

The question of Protection in England has a very important bearing upon these colonies. The recent action of France in imposing prohibitory duties on foreign manufactured goods has aroused the Home people to a sense of their position. The United States and Germany have legislated to keep English goods out of their markets. Of all the principal nations of the world Great Britain alone clings to Free Trade ideas. The question arises, will she be forced by the action of others into a modified Protection. Mr Herbert Gladstone, a son of the Premier, lately advocated that England should take retaliatory measures, and place a heavy import duty .on French wines. Of course, that would simply increase the Customs duties. There is no local production in that line to be fostered. But levying a high duty on French wines would benefit immensely the vinegrowers of Victoria and South Australia. Colonial wines, though pronounced by connisseurs to be equal to the products of France and Spain, have not yet obtained a footing in England. The taste has to be acquired, A differential duty in favor of the Australian article would be the most effective means of rendering the British palate more accommodating to the article produced by their fellowcountrymen South of the Line. But France is not the only country that has made enactments to shut out English goods. Our American cousins are sinners in the same direction, From thirty to forty per cent, is levied upon all foreign manufactures landed at the ports of the United States. What wonder is it that the trade between England and the United States shows a very appreciable balance in favor of the latter. Great Britain buys a great deal more than she sells to America. The English farmer is almost ruined by the competition of the American agriculturist. The manufacturer’s turn may come next. If it does, not it will be through no fault of the Government of the United States in not sufficiently handicapping his goods out of the New World. Americans must laugh in their sleeve at what they regard as the Free Trade craze of England, The people of the United States are doubtless of opinion that there is not the slightest chance of England adopting retaliatory measures. The country which has preached Free Trade to the whole world surely would not go back on its principles, and adopt Protection in any degree. Even in the eyes of the great majority of Englishmen the nation is regarded as everlastingly committed to a policy of Free Trade. But majorities are often converted into minorities, though in this particular matter in all probability the process will be somewhat slow, if it takes place at all. England is America’s best customer. She draws the bulk of her imported food supplies from the United States. If Great Britain were to put a duty of Is per bushel on American! grain, it would have _ a wonderful effect upon the greatest industry in the States. In fact it would result in an exceedingly bad state ot affairs for the agriculturists of the Great Republic. It would most certainly retard the progress of settlement

in that country. The measure would be exceedingly popular with the British farmer, who has been as much ruined by American competition as the white workmen of the Pacific slope, who, in the words of Bill Nye, were “ ruined by Chinese cheap labor.” It may be argued that England would suffer by thus cutting off her food supplies. A sliding scale might be adopted when the price of wheat reached a certain point. If the English manufacturer is handicapped by American, legislation, there would be no injustice in English legislation handicapping the American farmer. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There need be no fear of Great Britain running short in obtaining supplies of food. The grain-producing capabilities of these colonies are illimitable. A duty levied in England upon American grain would do .more to develop the resources of New Zealand that fifty Public Works policies. It would be the beginning of an era of great prosperity for the farmer of South Canterbury, Reciprocity is not a visionary project. It is a question which is rapidly coming to the front.