Mr Ritchie's Address,

Mr J. M. Ritchie then read the following paper on the question of Freetrade v. Protection:—

In speaking to you this evening upon the causes of our commercial depression and its cure, I should much prefer to avoid altogether the burning question of Freetrade and Protection. I should much prefer that the advantages of the former over the latter could be accepted by all of us as a matter of course, and that we should be free to apply ourselves to discuss and emphasise those practical and economical reforms and correctives of the mistakes which all acknowledge have been made in the past. But, gentlemen, finding that the paper read to you a fortnight ago and the discussion which followed were neither more loss than assertions of the absolute efficacy of Protection to euro all our evils, I was bold enough to respond to the invitation given at the close of that meeting to say something on the other side; and so, by the kindness of your management, and my own rashness, I am hero to-night practically to frame an indictment against Protection, and say what I can in favour of Freetrade as the best policy for our adopted country. I am not sanguine enough to expect that I can convince by anything I say to night, and, indeed, am painfully conscious of having very little that is new to tell you. I have also been not a little embarrassed by the difficulty of selecting from a great mass of materials such information as would be most interesting and effective to lay before you. And first, I wish to clear away any idea which may exist that either in one or other of these opposing policies does there lie an infallible cure, or any quickly acting cure at all, for commercial depression. There does not. You will have this periodically recurring with absolute certainty as well under a Freetrade as under a Protective policy, and varying in acuteness and protraction alike under both systems. But what we Freetraders maintain is that under our policy there arises the "greatest good for the greatest number," and an increasing good as the nation grows in years. To apply the remark of a great Frenchman upon education, we say: "That nation which adops perfect freedom of commercial intercourse as her policy will become the greatest nation—if not to-day, certainly to-morrow." We all know that there are two ways of relief from the consequences of a debauch. When the poor drunkard awakes to the horrors of a recovery he may either obtain relief by resorting to the bottle again—or if he has enough moral courage left, he may endure for a time and school himself to do without stimulant altogether. The latter method is not the most pleasant one, but we all know which in the end is the best for the man himself. Now, in laying down the axiom of the greatest good for the greatest number, as that which we believe Freetrade but encourages, I do not presume for a moment to monopolise it for our side of the argument. I am very sure that not only is it equally acceptable to my friends the Protectionists as an abstract theory, but that they are shrewd enough to know that it will pay them all in the end to carry out that principle. On no other theory can I imagine many of them advocating Protection. I know not a few of them who have successfully established large industries; who have amassed wealth by doing so; who have secured the highest reputation for their manufactures, who can both beat in quality and undersell imported goods; and all this without any help from a customs tariff, and on no other theory can I imagine such men being so rash and imprudent as to agitate for Protection, by getting which they will undoubtedly bring on themselves the fiercest competition, and ultimately seriously harm themselves. I may say I have no preconceived prejudice against Protection on theoretical grounds. The time was when I could not thoroughly understand why it might not really benefit young communities; but a careful study of its actual effects upon those countries which have adopted it have satisfied my mind beyond doubt that ultimately it works the greatest harm. And, mark you, it is getting a bad name. Its own advocates are getting ashamed of it under its old name; and so Sir Julius Vogel wants to rechristen it "Live and Let Live," and the Conservatives at Home, driven to their wits' end for a now battle-cry which is not stolen from the Liberals, want to call it "Fair Trade." It won't do, gentlemen. Far better adopt the method approved so long in the case of all dogs which have got a bad name—hang it. Well, gentlemen, at the outset I would ask yen to think of this little point, that there is a similarity or analogy between the nature of that excess or debauch—which I think we all acknowledge has had much to do in leading up to our present evil state of depression—and Protection. Both are of the nature of stimulus. Both are of the nature of artificial stimulus. The former has no doubt been page break drawn from without, but still at our expense. We must ultimately pay back. The latter we shall have to draw from within ourselves, and pay back too. I do not say that we shall suffer the same effect from these approximating causes; but the comparison is suggestive and as a rule like produces like. Now, gentlemen, so far as I understand, the arguments of our friends the advocates of Protection run in this wise: We must increase local industries, spend our money within our borders instead of sending it away, so that we may have fuller employment for all and better wages. But being a young country we cannot compete with older nations on equal terms. At present we have a pretty general tariff, and we require to keep it up, perhaps even increase it, for purely commercial purposes. We must, therefore, so adjust it as to protect the industries which are suited to our opportunities and requirements, encourage the initiation of them, and give the impetus to them when begun. Now, I am anxious that you should grasp this fact; that the extent of productive power in a country is not necessarily measured by the amount of manufactures produced in it. The term productive power has a wider significance. It is really synonymous with wealth-producing power, and it is not difficult to imagine manufactures produced at a positive loss to a community. I would ask you, therefore, when you think of increasing production, not to confine your ideas solely to the establishment of factories, mills, &c., but rather to consider the means by which the wealth of the whole community is best increased, and this, be assured, means ultimately your own as well. Now international commerce is an absolute necessity to the production of wealth in every State. If another country, by reason of advantages found in the production of various commodities, can sell to you cheaper than you can produce yourself, you must buy from them or suffer loss. And if you produce under such disadvantages that the coat of your manufactures prohibits fair competition with other countries in the export of them, again you suffer loss. You must be able to send away your surplus products, or you will quickly "choke in your own grease." At the present moment America, where the inventive genius and power of cheap production nature to her manufacturers far surpasses those of any country, is notably in this unfortunate condition, and is lagging behind by decades in the race among the nations for want of foreign commerce. This is what Mr Fawcett, who was a good sound Radical reformer, and sincere friend to the working classes, says about foreign commerce: "It increases the productive powers of labour and capital, by causing these in each country to be applied to those particular branches of industry for which the country has the greatest natural advantages. . . . It therefore must exert some tendency towards increasing the wages of the labourer. When labour and capital are economised, an equal amount of national wealth can be produced by the application of a diminished quantity of labour and capital. If this be so, the labourers' wages will be increased without encroaching upon his employer's profits. In fact, since more wealth is produced, . . . profits as well as wages may be augmented." Again, man, we conceive, has an indefeasible right that the wealth which ministers to his wants should be produced with as little labour as possible. This can only be secured by perfectly free commercial intercourse between all nations. I am far from wishing to assert that our manufactures and local industries should not be fostered by every legitimate means, but I should like you to remember that if they are fostered by measures which fence us out from the first intercourse with all the nations around us, the result may be—indeed is certain to be—a loss of productive power to ourselves, and a lower standard of living for our wage-earning classes. This may be a convenient place to give a short explanation of this term, "standard of living." It is easy to understand that comparison of wages in different countries based on the money amount of these must always be unreliable, and in most cases quite misleading. There are the purchasing power of money in the country, the hours of labour, the opportunities for acquiring skill, and for cheapening production, the cost of education, the use of machinery, the comfort of living from climate as affecting health, and various other considerations, which must all be reckoned up on the debit and credit sides before the balance can be struck and the not advantage arrived at. This net balance has been called by an American writer the "standard of living." The same writer asserts that this standard increases "when all agencies have fair play, but decreases under restrictive laws; that when the standard of living is highest, productive power and inventions are fullest, and production consequently cheapest." This is fully borne out by the fact that in England, where the standard is much higher than in France and Germany, production is cheaper than in their countries; and in America, where the standard is higher than anywhere else in the world, except perhaps in these colonies, production is cheapest of all, if the protective tax is deducted. I now pass on to the second point—that we cannot compete with older nations; there is prejudice against local manufactures: we are flooded with the cheap products of low-wage countries. Now it may be very effective on the part of Mr Blair to exclaim: What nation ever became great that confined itself to tending sheep and tilling the soil? But it is, nevertheless, the case that a young country must at first occupy itself chiefly, if not almost solely with agriculture, because the land is cheap, and in that direction lies their first chance of competing with older countries. We must use our opportunities as best we may, and not seek to wrest them by force to uses for page break which at present they may offer insufficient facilities. What hardship is it if we are compelled to use manufactures from England and America at a cheaper cost than we can possibly make here. Surely we can find remunerative employment for our capital in other directions than this very risky one of attempting to manufacture before we are in a position to do so successfully. Depend on it, so long as other countries from whatever reasons can send their products many thousand miles for bur use at cheaper cost than we can manufacture the same, no Protection in the world will enable similar industries to thrive in our midst. It is only a question of time when they will eat their own hearts out, unless they possess the essential principles and possibilities of sucess. If they do they will seek for no Protection, but reject it, as really happened lately among ourselves, preferring in their own interests to grow up with the vigour of unrestricted freedom rather than pampered by artificial nourishment, which certainly induces infeeblement and ultimate decay. And it seems to me that in this Now Zealand we shall much sooner, and more easily than we think, successfully set up large manufacturing industries without any help, if only we are loft alone. With a climate unsurpassed for comfort and health, abundant coal and mineral wealth, plenty of water, a lengthened seaboard, unlimited power of producing all kinds of food at the cheapest prices under the face of the sun; everything tends to prove that Nature has favoured us as no other nation is favoured. And under those circumstances it is difficult to conjecture from what we wish to be protected. Do you wish to be protected from the poorly-fed and ill-paid Germane, ground down by military taxation and service, poorly housed, and having to endure many months of a rigorous winter every year? or from your own countrymen in England, whose conditions of life in every respect are not to be placed in any way in the same category with your own? I think it much more manly and proper, instead of invoking the blessing of God upon a Protective tariff, as the writer of the paper did the other night, that we should one and all recognise that we already enjoy a full share of these blessings, and set to work vigorously to use them, without calling upon all our neighbours to contribute to our assistance. I commend to the thoughtful consideration of all of you the interesting comparison drawn by Mr Stout the other day at Wellington between our industrial state in 1865 and 1885, and to the wonderful progress we have made in these 20 years. Now, it is unfortunately quite true that we require a very general tariff in order to raise one necessary revenue, and this we can hardly ever hope to get rid of. But nevertheless it should not be forgotten that there is this very bad effect always arising out of a high revenue tariff—that it must always raise the prices of everything taxed, and so heighten the cost of living in the country. A customs tariff, therefore, should not be allowed to grow to undue dimensions, even for revenue purposes, but should always bear as equable a proportion as possible to taxes on accumulated wealth, on land, on income, by way of stamps or death duties, or such other as may be fair and convenient to impose. I should always prefer to see taxes on the necessaries of lite lessened, even at the expense of these other subjects of taxation, so as to keep down the cost of living to the great mass of the community, and thus help to raise the standard of living amongst us. When the labourer or artisan thinks of leaving Home to begin life again in a new country, depend upon it, you can offer him no greater temptation to do so than the temptation of cheap living, and no country should be able to do this more easily than New Zealand. If this is right, and if, as I think you will all acknowledge, a high tariff, oven for revenue, only tends to lower the standard of living, what an exaggeration of the evil comes when duties are so diverted and increased as to foster the setting up of local industries which are not possible without it I In the first place, you have a forcible diversion of capital and labour into less productive channels. Then you lose the revenue altogether so soon as the local manufacture supersedes the imported, and must tax something else. You have a double or treble loss; and what do you get in return? Nothing whatever but higher-priced commodities and a burden of vested interests—monopolies created by yourselves at the expense of yourselves, heavier and more permanent than the burden of the old man of the sea on the neck of Sinbad. It may be that to existing manufacturers, and to those who have special knowledge and capital to enable them to set up industrial works, Protection will bring considerable temporary advantages—but only temporary—for in the end, if they but wait for it, retribution will surely come—for "Protection fostering competition to unnatural fierceness becomes self-destructive in time." Still, there may be enough in it to cause a craving for it by this class; but, to the community generally, it must only bring loss. If the farmer gets a little more for his produce, he has to pay more for his necessaries. If owners of land profit as they will, perhaps, more than anyone else, they will lose by-and-bye by a depreciation of value arising out of the burdened land on the whole community. Those who have fixed incomes have absolutely no compensating advantages. And what shall I say of the groat wage-earning class—the bone and sinew of the colony—and if they only knew, the arbiters of our national destinies. Why, the whole system is produced and sustained at their expense. It is they who make it possible. It is they who contribute of their daily wages to build the factories, keep the machinery revolving, the fires burning, and enable the colony to gain the doubtful credit of being a manufacturing country. It is not the few who have saved and pay property tax that will be much affected by Protection; indeed, as I have said, landowners, at any rate, may profit by it materially; and it is likely, that on the top of the wave of apparent prosperity which for a short time might be set in motion, those who have accumulations would be able to add to them; but to those who are dependent upon daily labour for their bread, and who have made page break the colony their home—of whom, fortunately, there is a large and increasing proportion among us—in short, to the working man, Protection means nothing else than more taxation, and a permanent additional burden. Not only so, but it means unsettled wages, fluctuating violently in amount and uncertain at the best; it means a constant, insidious increase of the cost of living, eating into his wages, and reducing them he does not see how. For Protection is a disease of the nature of a creeping paralysis, which never stands still, but gradually and surely takes possession of every member of the body politic, and levies its contribution upon an ever-increasing number of the necessaries of life. The expectation of more employment and better wages they will find to be a will-o'-the-wisp, always eluding their pursuit, or if for a moment apparently caught, only seized to escape as quickly. And, let me ask them, what are these chances of maintaining the rate of wages? Artificial stimulus will cause numerous industries to start up, and an artificial demand for workmen. For a time wages may be fairly good, though never so good as they appear. But the time will come when competition, shut up to a very narrow field, will tell severely, and while wages fall the cost of living will be kept up. Regular work and steady wages have been found impossible in those countries where Protection reigns. Let me ask, again, where is the justice or fairness in the State granting Protection to one and not to all? What right has the manufacturer to be protected, and not his workers? Are they to take their chance for their wages while a small—a very small—proportion of their fellows are to be assisted to make profits by general levy from the rest of the community? Surely there is something very unfair her Have they no equal rights to be protected from an over-supply of their own class, from lower wages, from a raising of the cost of living? I earnestly hope that the working men will think well of it before throwing away their freedom in this way. The matter will be in their hands, and let them remember that, as against them, Protection is "heads I win, tails you lose." Now, gentlemen, let me give you one or two facta and some figures bearing upon what I have been saying to you. They are from America, stated by Americana, and embody some of the results of Protection in that country over a period of something like a quarter of a century. In 1860 there was a moderate tariff of about 19 per cent., and the exports of purely American manufacture were 23,900,000 dol; in 1872, a very prosperous year, but on which the tariff had risen to 48 per cant., 20,600,000 dol. In 1860 the imports into America of goods of the classes of local manufacture upon which the highest duty was levied, ranging from 35 per cent, to 200 per cent., was 163,600,000. In 1872 they had risen to 282,900,000dol—an increase of 72 per cant. In cotton goods the staple of which is purely American, and which America can in some few cases, spite the duty in all oases bar the duty, produce better and cheaper than any other country, England exports, after bringing? the raw material from America, 380,000,000dol against America's 13,000,000dol—or 30 times the value. These figures tell us two facts—that Protection cannot exclude European manufactures from America; that Protection does exclude American manufactures from European countries. Now as to wages. They are on an average about 20 per cent. higher in America than in England, but ate subject there to the most violent fluctuations. Between 1873 and 1877 those of labourers fell from 37 to 50 per cent.; while the fall was even greater in the case of artisans and mechanics. On the other hand, almost every necessary of life was increased in cost fully 33 per cent. since the low tariff period before the war; rent and board rose about 40 per cent., potatoes over 50 per cent., other victuals from 20 to 40 per cent. The higher wages earned are, therefore, much more than neutralised by the higher cost of living; and it is not a question of pence per day extra for the latter, and shillings per day extra of wages, as you were told the other night. The serious spread of discontent and communistic principles in America are also strikingly described in a recent pamphlet. I quote a sentence: "Of late years the workmen of America have been less fortunate than those of England. Employment has been more irregular, wages have been subject to more frequent and violent fluctuations, commercial crisis and industrial depression have not only been more severe in the former country, but the burden of them has fallen in a far greater degree upon the wage-earning class. From this point of view the comparison is enormously to the disadvantage of the American workman. And it is in these facts that we naturally seek the explanation of that bitter discontent, of that more lawless spirit to which we have referred." The tendency in America is all in the direction of great fortunes, accumulated side by side with great poverty, great luxury, and great misery, and great monopolies, which control manufactures and all industries, and suffer not the smaller ones to live. Though the capital invested in industrial pursuits increased 30 per cent, between 1870 and 1880, the number of establishments only increased between ½ and ¾ per cent. Just now 11 great companies monopolise the Bessemer steel production, and maintain the profits from this by force at a most exorbitant rate, to the destruction of the manufacture of the products. Henry George, after describing the great evils arising from this state of things, says they are due, among other reasons, to "the robbery involved in the protective tariff, which for every 25 cents, it puts in the Treasury, takes a dollar—or it may be four or five, out of the pockets of the consumers." Now, gentlemen, it is easy to assert, and prove by numerous isolated examples, that in protected America the working man is well off, while in Freetrade England he is starving; or that in Victoria there are 40,000 thriving artisans, while New South Wales only prospers by the aid of their land fund and borrowed money; or that the products of German pauper labour is flooding the English market because of Freetrade, and to the ruin of the honest English workman—so that I do not place any confidence in the statements of page break the present apparent condition of any country. As in the case of most evil, there is a great attraction in Protection, and an apparent initial advantage in it to the superficial observer, while as in the case of most that is good, there is some faith and self-denial required" at the first if we adhere to Freetrade, as well as patience for the discovery of its great and permanent advantages. But America has tried Protection and pushed it to its extreme limit for now nearly a quarter of a century, so that the effects of it there, as shown by trade statistics, must have great weight with all thinking men And I only wish I could persuade you to read what many of the manufacturers and political economists of that nation have written respecting it of late years. I am sure it will more than fill you with astonishment. Now, gentlemen, if I do not weary you too much, I should like to conclude with a few remarks about the depressed state in which we find ourselves at present, without bringing in either Protection or Freetrade. You have a fair indication of the two views which are held generally of this matter in the speeches lately delivered by the Prime Minister and Colonial Treasurer. Mr Stout refers first to the wasteful expenditure and extravagance prevalent, instancing, as ha well might, the money which is spent by all classes in horse-racing. He then refers to the commercial stagnation all over the world, and consequent enormous reduction in the amounts paid to the wage earning classes, following, as it must inevitably, a decrease of production of wealth, and points out how we can hardly expect to escape, all the more since our products have seriously depredated in value. At the same time he shows, from the savings banks' returns and otherwise, that we are by no means so ill off as we might be, and that if we only economise and take pains to develop our natural resources, we may expect speedily to find ourselves with less cause of complaint. Sir Julius Vogel, in some contrast to this, talks of little else than a vigorous policy; expresses great regrets that the colony did not take up the East and West Coast railway; asserts that it is always safe to borrow for railways; ridicules the idea of screwing down our expenses to the last farthing; asserts that the greater the depression the greater need of work—which, by the context, seems to be defined as borrowing money and making West Coast harbours, borrowing money and pushing on railways, borrowing money and buying district railways. And he always tracks back to the glorious effect produced by the policy initiated in 1870. Mr Stout attempts to reconcile us to the inevitable, and encourage us to practise industry, economy, and self-denial. Sir Julius tells us "to take a hair of the dog that bit us." Let us never forget, gentleman, that over since 1870 we have been living under the artificial stimulus of borrowed money and public expenditure. Under this have grown up both public and private extravagance. Every district—north, south, east and west—has no idea beyond attacking the Government, by foul means and fair, for money, or for authority to borrow. And privately as to our food and dress, notably as to the houses we live in, and our pleasures, we have all been wickedly lavish. We have learned an absolute disregard of the consequences of borrowing. We have all bought land which we cannot cultivate, and the interest on which is draining us to depletion. We have become embued with a spirit of anticipation of the real wants of the colony by decades of years—under the guise of progress. As a result we now find ourselves with an enormous annual drain for interest—a real drain, for our railways do not pay the interest on their cost, and half of our debt has been spent upon what is directly unproductive, and the produce of the soil is insufficient to pay for the debt upon that. Can it be proper or prudent, gentlemen, but we should wantonly increase this unproductive business? Shall we take a bigger overdraft so long as we can get it, and spend money in a progressive policy irrespective of results? Are we to increase our turnover, disregard profit or loss, and merely trust to the extent of our operations to pull us through? Surely this cannot be right. No, gentlemen; we must seek to undo and crush the evils from the result of which we one and all agree that we suffer. As to public matters, we must economise, reduce the cost of government, decentralise, and throw more responsibility as well as work upon the local bodies, so as to bring home to the people what our present system of government really means. We must make liberal land laws, giving every just facility for settlement, and if possible by such means as will make private borrowing on the land more difficult. This has been a curse to all of us, and I despair of a cure for it, except by some method of compulsion. We must stop railways until what we have pay, or unless those undertaken can be shown to pay. Let us never forgot that there has never been even a year's stop to our borrowing, so that we have not had a "washing up," and until we have that in some shape or form how can we judge our position accurately? And lastly, we must encourage immigration of suitable classes of men and women. I trust there are none or few here present who hold to the exploded and dangerous doctrine that immigration reduces the chances of those already in the country. Believe me, it has no such effect. What do we want but more consumers, more people to help us to bear our burdens? In private we must all be more thrifty. It is not only the working man who finds the times to be hard. I can assure him from a varied personal knowledge and much unpleasant experience, that the men who are in greatest misery in these times are those who have been the employers of labour. In food, but especially in nameless dribbling away of small coins, the waste in this country is enormous. Not everyone think more of his small coins. Let us get into habits of paying cash for everything. Nothing is worse than a habit of taking credit, and I hold that those who offer inducements for ready money, and adhere rigidly to that system of business, deserve the support of all of us. It has the quality of mercy. It is twice blessed. It blesses him who gives and him who takes. If we cultivate the habit of looking more closely into small matters, many avenues of profit will be disclosed to us both in town and conn try, and many industries growing naturally from small beginnings and by experimental processes will spring into existence, as indeed page break they have been doing to a most satisfactory extent in the years that are past. It is of the highest importance that capital and labour should go hand in hand in these, and this can be encouraged bub by working on the co-operative principle. Everything which reconciles the divergent or opposing interest of capital and labour should be encouraged. The two are mutually dependent each on the other, and in great industries I think it both unjust and dangerous that the latter should be debarred from some more or less direct interest in the net results. What better plan than that both should combine at the outset and share fortunes all through? Gentlemen, on some such lines as these, I take it, will be found the true cure for hard times, so long as the best qualities of Englishmen—courage, industry, self-command, perseverance, and thrift—can be trusted to produce better results both for the State and the individual than their opposites.

Mr Hallenstein said: If there is one man more than another to whose commercial ability and sound judgment I attach some value, it is our friend Mr J. M. Ritchie, but like many men of good general ability, he has the failing of not being early moved cut of a certain groove, whatever the circumstances may be. I do not know whether he is an Englishman or whether he hails from the land of cakes; but if he is an Englishman I venture to say he would not feel happy if he had not his plum-pudding on Christmas Day, though at that time of the season a lighter food would, in this climate, be more conducive to good digestion. However, be that as it may, like most of us he has no doubt imbibed Freetrade principles from his youth, and the Old World arguments in favour of Freetrade are so engrafted in his mind that the strongest team of bullocks would not pull them out. He, like many others, will not admit that the circumstances of old colonies are not analogous with those of a new country. Mr Ritchie not having given us the benefit of his paper beforehand, I am not prepared to cross swords with him to-night. As to what he has said regarding America, and the statistics he has given us, I would simply ask you as men of common sense, how is it that, year after year, hundreds and thousands of people migrate from Great Britain to America; how is it that thousands and thousands of people of all classes are at the present moment on their way to America? No doubt America feels the depression to a certain extent, but not so far by much as any other country. Mr Ritchie is also very much out if he wishes to convince the working classes that Freetrade is in their favour. Let me assure him that working men instinctively know on which side their bread is buttered. Unfortunately, hundreds of our best artisans are now leaving here for Protective but prosperous Victoria; happily they are better off than our farmers, who cannot so easily move. It is the farming class who have my sympathy. No one is more interested in the question of Freetrade and Protection than they are; unless we have a large population employed in a variety of industries to consume the bulk of the production of our soil, our farmers and present runholders will go to the wall, and the lands to which they have stuck for the last 10 or 20 years will fall into the hands of companies such as Mr Ritchie represents. Gentlemen, believe me, unless for a time we foster and encourage and protect our young industries we shall not become that great nation which I am sure every one of you, be he Protectionist or Freetrader, would like to see, and would like to see it in our own days.

Mr W. D. Stewart, M.H.R., said the question under consideration was one of paramount importance The writer of the paper had indulged in several fallacies which would be apparent to those who had given any attention to this important subject. In the first place, before they could adapt the policy of one country to another they must see that the circumstances of these countries were similar, or nearly so. England did not adopt a Freetrade policy until she had a dense dopulation, and her industries were very well developed indeed. What had been the case in regard to Ireland, for instance? Her industries had been handicapped in every direction, and that had to a great extent been the cause of the poverty and distress which had prevailed, and still prevailed, there. In considering this question, he thought it was a fallacy to place on the one side absolute Freetrade principles and on the other side absolute Protection principles. What was required in this colony was a revision of the tariff, which would foster those industries for which the country was adapted: but to lay down any broad rule for a general Protective tariff would be a mistake, just as it would be to adopt absolute Freetrade. For his part, he was in favour of what the Americans called a Nationalist polioy—that was, to support and foster those industries in the colony which were likely ultimately to succeed. America, perhaps, had a more severe Protective policy than was necessary; its industries had been protected until it could open its ports tomorrow and compete with almost any country in the world, and its workmen were as skilful as those of any other nation. What was suitable to an old country such as England was not necessarily suitable to a young country like New Zealand, and he believed that what was wanted here was not severe Protection, but judicious Protection. Mr Ritchie's suggestions, if followed, would reduce New Zealand to a country of producers and importers, and no country could attain permanent greatness if it did not have a large industrial class. Something had been said with regard to monopolies in America, but he believed that in many repects it would be very much more difficult to start an industry in England than in America, and that the tendency in America was to distribute capital, and to furnish labour to workmen; whereas in England it was to accumulate and strengthen capital, or to adopt Mr Ritchie's language, to create a limited wealthy class, and a very large poor class. Respecting the revision of the tariff, a great deal had been said about the rejection of the tariff proposals of the Government; but the fact was, that if the Government never clearly tested the feeling of the House on that part of their policy. The question raised was whether there should be an extra duty on tea; and though he was page break not a Freetrader he had voted against that, as tea could not be produced here, and the increased duty would tend to raise the cost of living. The question of the duty on spirits and bananas were also raised, but he believed that if the Government had gone on with the different items of the tariff, they would have received much greater support, and that they made a mistake in withdrawing it. A judicious Protective tariff, he believed, was required, for it was of no use bringing working men to the colony if we could not afford them employment, as they would soon leave again he agreed with the general policy laid down by Mr Ritchie, being strongly opposed to extravagant borrowing, or the prosecution of unreproductive works, but he considered that the Freetrade principles advocated by Mr Ritchie would not lead to progress. The stand he took was that they should have a judicious and discriminative protective tariff.

Mr Eunson said that, granting that Protection was selfishness, it was a national selfishness—not an individual selfishness. He could wish success to all who sought by voice or pen or influence to have our colonial industries and productions fostered, so that employment might be given to all who were willing to work. He thought that no one with a well-informed appreciation of what Protection had done for America could advocate for this colony the Freetrade of the so-called political economists. A journal, speaking of what the 20 years of Protection had done for America, said: "Under the present tariff we have grown from a purely agricultural country, largely dependent upon Europe for our manufactures, to a nation teeming with important industries. During 20 years we have added 20,000,000 tp our population; the number of our cities and towns with over 8000 inhabitants has actually doubled, having increased from 141 to 286. The population of our cities has more than doubled, having increased from 5,000,000 in 1860 to upwards of 11,000,000 in 1880. The important industries have developed in the same proportions. The annual product of our coalmines has increased from 14,000,000 tons in 1860 to 96,000,000 now, or nearly sevenfold. Our iron mines in 1860 produced 900,000 tons of ore, but the stimulus of Protection has brought up the annual yield to nearly nine times that amount, or 8,000,000 tons. The various metal industries of the country were in 1860 employing about 53,000 hands, consuming 100,000,000dol worth of material, and producing 280,000,000dol worth of annual product. Today these same industries give employment to 300,000 hands, consume 380,000,000dol worth of material, and produce every year 600,000,000dol in value of manufactured goods. In 1860 about 130,000 persons wore engaged in industries relating to wood and its manufacture; to-day 340,000 are so engaged, while the value of the annual product has increased threefold, exceeding now 500,000,000dol. A judicious tariff has increased the number employed in the woollen industry from 60,000 to over 160,000, while the value of the yearly product of our home mills has risen from 80,000,000dol to 270,000,000dol. In the cotton industry we have practically taken from England our entire home market of 55,000,000 customers, increased the number employed in our mills to 200,000 persons, and in the last two decades doubled the value of the product. Imports of cotton goods have declined from the enormous quantity of 227,000,000 yards in 1860 to almost nothing now, whilst in 1881 we exported 150,000,000 yards. The silk industry shows a like increase. Our 30,000 miles of railroad in 1860 have increased to 120,000 miles, or about equal to the railage of the rest of the world. And whilst all this has been going on to the great benefit of the producer, the consumer has also benefited by a marked cheapening of prices. Before the fostering care of a Protective tariff made us independent of the foreign manufacturer we were subject to such prices, often exorbitant, as he chose to exact. Now, the keenness of home consumption has settled all that. Prices under Protection are wonderfully less than under a low tariff. Millions have been saved to the consumer, hundreds of millions have gone to the wage-earning class, a home market has been secured to the farmer, and whilst everybody has been benefited and nobody hurt, we have rapidly grown to the proportions of a self-sustaining, independent nation. These broad, palpable, and undeniable facts are the envy of the world. History records no such industrial progress as has been made in the United States during the past 20 years. The present popularity and stregnth of our protective system lie in the prosperity it has given the nation; in the great industrial cities it has built up; in the prosperous and diversified industries it has founded; in the profitable home market it has given our farmers; in the varied employment it has given the men and youths of the country. In all that goes to make a nation strong and prosperous; in all that goes to make a country great and independent; in all that goes to broaden the horizon of the labourer, increase his earnings, cheapen the cost of what he buys, and improve his condition—in all this lies the strength of the Protective system." Those facts respecting the marvellous growth of industries in America ought to teach lessons, and he thought that this colony should profit by them. He held that the appeal which had been made to workingmen that night was of no avail. Workingmen had minds of their own and could assert their independence when it was necessary. When the appeal was made to them they would rally around the banner and do what they thought was best for the good of the country. The question as to how employment was going to be found for the boys which were being turned out of our schools would have to be answered. Would importers find places for them in their offices? They were already overcrowded, and clerks' salaries by the competition had been brought down to the lowest level. He had applications made to him daily to obtain admission for boys to local factories, but there was no room for them. Unless they encouraged and fostered and stimulated local industries by all legitimate means, they world not be able to find employment for their boys, and the result would be that they would leave New Zealand and give other colonies the benefit of the education they had got here at such enormous cost. Let them think over these page break facts, and then resolve to do all they could to encourage local industries.

Professor Mainwaring Brown said that it had been assumed by the three speakers who had objected to Mr Ritchie's remarks that a policy of Protection would necessarily make a very large increase to the population engaged in arts and mechanical trades. As to that, he would refer to hard facts. He had been comparing New Zealand with Victoria, and found the following results:—Traders, in Victoria 4.5 per cent., New Zealand 5 per cent.; agriculture, Victoria 31.9, New Zealand 23 per cent; arts and mechanics, Victoria 7.2, New Zealand 9.7 per cent. How much, then, did they expect to gain in their producing population in arts and mechanics by a policy of Protection?

Mr Bradshaw, M.H.R., said he did not come there to speak—he came there without making a note and without a note in his pocket.—(Laughter). With regard to Mr Hallenstein's statement about people leaving Ireland for America, the reason of that was that they had not a home in Ireland, whereas they could take up laud in America. Had it not been for the enormous number of people who were on the soil in America, the industries of that country would have been ruined. Out of 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 of people in America, 8,000,000 were freeholders, which meant that about 36,000,000 of men, women, and children were living on the soil and producing wealth. That was what made America a great country. At the present time in America there wore 2,000,000 people out of work, and recently 100,000 were on strike in the iron trade. In six years in the most prosperous district of the States 78,800 women and children were killed from overwork, and there were 150,000 lying sick in bed at the same time from the same cause. England was in a similar condition under Protection, and in Belgium and France now, while there was cleanliness and prosperity in the industrial parts, there was immorality and poverty. Of 14,000 conscripts taken from the manufacturing centres of France only 500 were fit to serve, while of a similar number taken from the agricultural districts only 300 were rejected. Was an agricultural or an industrial country then the best? All this cry about Protection arose from selfishness. He was a Freetrader in principle, but was a Protectionist so far as it concerned himself. As a broker he would go in for Protection, but it would be proper Protection. He wanted a monopoly, and he was prepared to pay for it. There were about 15 brokers in this town, and if the Government would get a law passed sending about 14 of them to Heavon—that was about the best place he could wish them to go—and leave him here here he would pay them handsomely for the monopoly; he would give them £2000 a year. He did not want Protection without paying for it. It was perfectly absurd talking about Protection in a country like this.—(Cries of "Time, time.") He did not come there to speak to them, and if they did not like what he was saying he could not help it. What were they going to do with their labouring men; the boys were working the men out. There were boys working fifteen hours a day in this place for 12s a week.—(Cries of "No, no," and "Name.") He would not give them the name, but the statement was in the inspector's report, If boys worked 15 hours a day only half the number world be employed that should be. (The speaker on resuming his seat was greeted with cheers and counter hisses.)

Mr A. Rennie thought Mr Ritchie had delivered a very excellent address. Protection appeared to him to be absolute nonsense. If they wanted to progress they would have to face a reduction of men's wages, and a less margin of profit to employers.

Mr O'Connell (Bamingham and Co.) scarcely thought that Mr Ritchie had laid down any principle in his paper, and Professor Brown had simply submitted an arithmetical riddle. A State schoolboy, no doubt, could easily solve the riddle, but practical men world look at something more practical, and if they saw that the colony was importing all classes of goods that could be made in the colony they would come to the conclusion that there was plenty of work here to furnish employment. Mr Bradshaw seemed to blow hot and cold with the same breath. He announced himself as a Freetrader, and yet from his acts in Parliament, and even his speech to-night, he proved himself to be a Protectionist. He interfered with the law of Freetrade—that supply and demand could always regulate themselves, &c.,—and he brought forward an Act to regulate the employment of labour. That was protection for labour, and what Protectionists also required was protection for labour against the underpaid labour of Germany, England, and other countries of a lower grade of civilisation.—(Applause.)

Mr C. S. Reeves would ask any Freetrader to name any article that had increased in price since the introduction of Protection in Victoria. New Zealand had for years a Protective tariff, but it was not a reasonable one, as the heavy duties were not imposed on the proper articles. To prosper they must have great manufactures as well as agriculture.

Mr T. Baldwin, who spoke from the body of the hall, remarked that the meeting had apparently taken the turn of canvassing for support at the next general election. Protection must result in a reduction of wages, and he hoped that working men would not be led away by any sentimental expressions, but that they world calmly and quietly consider the matter.

Mr Hogg a argued at length that the country was over-governed, and opposed Protection.

Mr Shelton advocated the adoption of Protection, aguing that Freetrade was calculated to benefit the distributors, and Protection to benefit the worker and the producer.

The proceedings concluded with votes of thanks to Mr Ritchie and the chairman.