THE NEW EVANGEL.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2501, 21 July 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE NEW EVANGEL.

11.-THE FREETRADE - PROTECTION WRANGLE. " A great statesman once said that parties wore like fishes (it was snakes, I believe), inasmuch as their heads were propelled by their tails."—Greville's Memoirs, 3rd part, j vol. ii., p. 102. j No doubt jaotanco and bow-wow can temporarily, do much ; and " illusions, although false brothers, are pleasing companions." But "popular enthusiasm is but a fire of straw " —facts, and the inferences which experience teaches, must ultimatcli/ prevail. To facts, therefore, I appeal—to prove that the Freetrade-Protection Parliamentary wrangle here is the wildest nonsense. It is a curious ciroumstauce that, for a philosophy of grave importance, there is probably none so little understood as the philosophy of results — the natural sequence of events. It is the wise only who attribute every result to a natural cause; that is, to accrue (with only most extreme exceptions, if even such there be) from certain fixed, unalterable, laws, whose workings may be unknown; but whose courses and mandates, nevertheless, are as inexorable as tho once unknown, and still apparently (although only apparently) uncertain, doctrine of average. To apply this to Freetrade and Protection—how many talk glibly, and yet how few take the trouble to ascertain what is possible; and what philosophy and history teach must be the result of the adoption of either.

"Obsourity of expression generally springs from confusion of ideas " —to be luoid is as hard as to be brief. And of all subjects —and thit mainly by reason of the side issues involved—l know of none in which it is more necessary to be lucid, and more hard to be brief, than that of Free Trade and Proteotion ; and I know of none where tho difference between assertion and demonstration is more persistently lost sight, of. In order to be lucid and brief, let me first dispose of some side issues which might otherwise befog. First. It is patent that there cannot be Free Trade here so long as out huge debt exists ; because so long must Customs be a main source of income. Therefore, to talk of Free Trade as practicable now is to talk nonsense. Indeed, I doubt whether Freetraders exist in New Zealand; for even the member for Newton does not disapprove of bonuses or bounties, which are as pure Protection as importjduties, for protecting local industries against outside competition. It by no means follows, however, that because there cannot be Free Tradtj, there must be a local-industry Protection. For, of course, a tariff may be so framed as to impose duties for revenue purposes only, without having in view the fosteriug of local industries. But a tariff adjusted with no Protection tendencies would be inadequate hero for revenue purposes. So that our debt makes us universally at least nominal protectionists, whether we will or not. Thus, by force of circumstances, all New Zealand statesmen must be in practice nominal protectionists, and the question of nominal Protection becomes, therefore, one of degree onlyhow much or how little ?

But second. It i 3 not only patent that there cannot be Freetrade here,' but equally patent that it is impracticable to have effective local-industry Protection here. Duty, unless virtually prohibitive, cannot be effectually protective ; and to be prohibitive it must be practically destructive to Customs revenue in respect to the article protected. Indeed, the prime object of protective duties—if imposed for the purposes of Protection — is, of course, to prohibit importation, which must have the effect of abolishing Customs income from the source. Any tariff, therefore, which is less than prohibitive cannot effectively protect local industries, because it cannot have the effect of deterriug importation ; and any tariff that is prohibitive, is impracticable. So that, in view of our financial condition. to talk of Protection in the sense of efficiently protecting local industries is to talk as nonsensically as if we talked of Freetrade here. And how anything less than efficiently protecting local industries—that is, how anything less than a prohibitive tariff—can protect local industries, is a problem entirely beyond my comprehension to understand.

The tariff has been framed for revenue purposes; and, therefore, the Treasurer has necessarily taken good care that it be not prohibitive,- and, therefore, protectionist congratulations aro idle. Increased Customs duties, however, do not necessarily mean incroased State revenue —probably quite the reverse. But they do mean increased cost of living ; and, therefore, spell tax. And to realise what the difference to the individual means between low and high duties, let him buy in George-street, Sydney, and then in Collins-street, Melbourne. To be consistent protectionists we should prohibit immigration of farmers, manufacturers, artisans, labourers, See. Protection is a pure question of principle. Either the principle is right, or it is wrong. Given certain causes, certain effects must follow. If Protection be wrong, the least dash of Protection—for the purposes of Protection—is wrong. If it be right—if the cause must in natural sequence produce good results —let the cause, by all means, be as potent as possible, so"that the results may be as great as possible. It cannot bo a matter for compromise. But, curiously enough, on no subject more than that of Free Trade and Protection are statesmen willows rather than oaks—that is, in the matter of Free Trade and Protection flexibility rather than principle guides our politicians. In passing let us remember that—apart from any question of import duty—there is natural protection here already ; for export charges, freights, landing fees, and insurances, as surely handicap foreign competition as Customs levies. So that if Free Trade were possible here, in respect of duty, local industry would still be naturally protected to a certain extent, as touching material produceable here, and labour. In addition to this the only question available to be discussed for political purposes—as I have already pointed out—is to what further extent ought bastard—perforce—protective duties —to exist here. Protection—yiw-Protection—not nominal Protection for revenue purposes, but effective Protection for the purpose of promoting local industries, is a subject in favour of which I am open to be convinced, just as I am opened to be convinced that the sun does not afford heat. But, meantime, my conviction is that Protection —aB Protection—in any shape is taxing the community for the benefit of only a class in the community ; and that both philosophy and history teach (a) that Protection ultimately causes lower wages and less profits to the manufacturer—natural sequences of a selfish policy; and that thero is one class, and one class only, that can derive advantage from a high level of prices being maintained through Protection. When the price of any article is increased through Protection, the pecuniary value of the land from which the article is produced is proportionately increased. Thus it is the landowner alone aan be benefited by Protection. Having thus narrowed down the Freetrade-Protection issue, aud submitted— 1. That Freetrade is not practicable hero; 2. That, by forco of circumstance*, all Now Zealand statesmen must bo nominally protectionists ; and that the question of nominal Protection becomes, therefore, one of degree only; 3. That it is impracticable to have effective local-industry Protection here; 4. That such Protection is taxing the community for the benefit of only a class in the community ; and 5. That it would ultimately cause lower wages, and less profits to the manufacturer, and could only benefit the land owner. I say, having submitted these

propositions, let. us now examine a larger question, namely, why it ib the wildest nonsense to waste money and time to discuss at prcsont in Parliament, Freetriide and effective Protection, even if they were practical issues for us ; which I have shown they are not.

Tho reasons are simple— First, because tho vital issue is finance and restoration of confidence ; and

Second, because oven were finance and ueep-seated distrust satisfactorily disposed of, the next urgent problem is the development of our agricultural and mineral resources. We must, to obtain permanent prospority, produco wealth. It is (after financo and confidence) land products that wo primarily and pre-emi-nently need.

Even the most rabid Protectionist dare not assert that Protection would be an immediate panacea for us, or that manufactures can take the primary places of finance, confidence, and natural agents. And until we place the colony on a permanently sound financial basis, and in a substantial way to dei lop her agricultural and mineral resour —which would re-establish confidence—to talk of bolster-ing-up local industries is the wildest nonsense, even were Protection practicable or justifiable. Such a course would mean simply living on the savings of each other. There must be tho base for the production of agricultural and mineral wealth before the superstructure of manufactures be thought of. We have yet to provide the base. To chatter of assisting manufacturers, artisans, and labourers, whilst we have no settlement of our lands, no development of our mines, when farmers, for want of cheap labour and transit facilities, cannot make farming profitable, is just about as mad as to encourage—as we do— high-prioed labour, by providing wholesale maintenance (at our cost) of fathers, mothers, wives, children, and sisters, so that husbands and brothers may leave the country at our expense, and elsewhere seek work rather than labour at fair wages here—at such wages as it will pay capital to give. This is, indeed, " nursing the pinion that impels the steeland as applying to both this subject aud Protection, I urge that there is nothing more calculated to exercise a deteriorating influence upon a country than to encourage its industrial classes to be perpetually looking to the State for assistance."

How, in concluding, can I refrain from quoting those eloquent words of Lord -Vlacaulay : "Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its own lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of land, and by observing strict economy in every department of the State. Let the Government do this; the people will assuredly do the rest." R.Lat.shley, L.L.1)., &c. ,