MR BRYCE ON PROTACTION

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2669, 9 August 1887, Page 2

MR BRYCE ON PROTACTION

Speaking against the policy of .fro}.', tection at Turakina the other; night, Mr Bryce entered into .details ait length to show that the effect of Protection would be to cause overproduction, and consijqu&it lowering of wages. Turning to" statistics, lie pointed out that the male adults of the population of . Victoria (a protective country) between the ages of 25 and 45, had, within ten years, decreased from 185,418 to 99,495, while New South Wales, a comparatively

freetrade colony, had, within the same period, increased iri ; population from 98,275 to 115,991. As to America, another protective country, he cited figures to., show that - 86 per cent of the population worked more than 10 hours a day. A thing which must strike even a casual observer in the colony-was that in the towns of New Zeajand tjier&'wetfctoo many people in proportion to the producers .in the country. He admitted that the town tradesmen, when proportionally limited in number, ; were fulfilling just as-use-ful functions; and purposes'as the

■country residents, but there were 'at present far too' many townspeople, and protection undoubtedly had the effect of increasing the town population, which could not be to the benefit of the town and country, or to, the benefit of the colony at large. (Ap-

plause.) Mr Ballance,,at Masterton, had said; it was true farmers would have to pay a little more for articles, but the farmers would be able.to. gain increased prices for their produce by the increased consumption of the additional town population, who would be engaged making ploughs and otliei farm implements for the farmers.' But

lie maintained that this colony, being of necessity a largely exporting .country through its great private and public indebtedness, has its prices regulated'.! and determined by the markets to which they had .to; send their produce. to pay off their debt, or rather tiio interest on it. Mr Hutchinson had said lie (Mr Bryc<>) was wrong in saying that: their- price was " fixed" .or " determined whereas the price waa ': only " controlled" by the London rndrket (for that was the markot'to which'

they had to send their produce. . He maintained that'the words " fixed " and "controlled" had exactly the same meaning in this case. It was true, economists made a distinction, which, however, was Only applicable, when a country was. the solo supplier of produce to another country. In this case, therefore, where hardly be said; New: Zealand was comparatively a small supplier of produce to England, th« two words hid exactly the same meaning..