THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILEY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, JULY 11, 1879.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3293, 11 July 1879, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILEY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, JULY 11, 1879.

Home papers at present are filled with articles, speeches, and debates upon a question everyone considered to have been settled years ago. When Sir Robert Peel so entirely altered his political position and advocated what he formerly con-, demned, it was confidently supposed that England had heard the last of Protection, save from a few old-fashioned economists, and that Free-trade would henceforth be the commercial motto of Great Britain. It seemed to meet the demands of the time, it supplied remedies for old and very grievous sores, and its establishment was considered to have advanced the trade of England a hundredfold. Now all the beatific state of affairs is changed, both economists, capitalists, and operatives are beginning to question whether Free-trade is such a panacea as its advocates would assert it to be, and whether circumstances may not have so altered the case that it is advisable to attempt an amendment. This view of the matter was first mooted in the colonies, where Protection is absolutely a necessity to encourage the native industries. It was cautiously debated in the political assemblies, all argument! both pro and con were carefully sifted before the Governments came to the decision to differ from the Mother Country on this point. The unvarying march of commercial progress, its healthy development, and the'beneficial effect a nursing policy has produced, fully demonstrate that Freetrade is not the balm for every sore, but that there are cases where it is absolutely a necessity to adopt a protective policy, in order to maintain and encourage the energies of a land, which might be crippled by an overwhelming competition. Not only, however, has '^England been ■erioualv eousideriug the great question,

but in the German ltcicbstag Prince Bismarck has been submitting a tariff to the members, and the Lyon9 Committee of the Association for the Defence of freetrade has published tin exhaustive statement, which meets many errors which are current both amongst' Protectionist and Free-traders, and offers solid conapen.sation for the abuses it would abrogate. Germany has likewise suffered from the unirersal trade depression that has brooded over the entire commercial world: her mills are stopped, her manufacturers have their stock unsold upon their hands* and now she feels inclined to doubt the theories of Kraus and Schon, and desires to substitute a tariff which will be more exclusive to English produce. Bismarck was originally a rabid Free-trader, as he evinced by his attitude in 1862, but now his views are becoming more modified by existing circumstances. He judiciously taxes many articles, which although of prime importance to the community, yet were really destructive of native industry. He appeases the landed interest by taxing the import of grain find live stock ; also the iron trade by taxing pig>iron, which up to this date has eutered ' free. The Germafc textile industries are roused by abandoning the former system of taxation by weight, and proceeding on a principle which will make the importer uncertain what his goods will be charged. In a word, everything is. for the producer and against the importer. We feel assured that this new tariff will be acceptable to tho largo body of German merchants who have viewed with apprehension the yearly increase in the import trade. Franco has also been led to question what she formerly advocated. Trade is by no means flourishing in France: bad harvests and phylloxera have depressed it, and now distress looks! to protection as a means of relief. England, as the great producer of Europe, has poured her products into France every year, until the native industries have almost been dormant, and total reliance placed upon foreign import. This, the statement of the Lyons Committee admits, and it is an almost fatal objection against the entire adoption of Free Trade in the country. And what has been exemplified in these two countries may also be taken to heart by the Colonies as confirming the action taken by them, and demonstrating the beneficial nature of a moderate protective tariff. Apart from the necessity which a new country has of protecting} any native industries it may have from external competition, there is the argument of the best article never being exported. Home demands swallow up the best of any produce, and it is therefore merely second or third rate specimens of any exported article, and that comes into a foreign market. Yet, of course, this is run after because cheaper. We are convinced that a protective policy will more generally be adopted; in Europe when the subject is more extensively debated, notwithstanding* the elaborate rejection of it by Adam Smith and his Free Trade disciples.