Our Commercial Depression

At a public meeting under the ausplces of the New Zealand Manufacturers' Association, held lest evening in the Chamber of Commerce Hall, Mr Charles Daring read a paper on "Manufactures: their relation to Agriculture." There were about 70 persons present.

The President of the Association (Mr G. P. Farquhar), who occupied the chair, regretted that there was not a larger attendance. The Association had chosen that evening for the meeting with a view of reaching the country people who are in town for the agricultural exhibition.

Mr Darling said:

Sir Julius Vogel, speaking recently at Christchurch, is reported to have said; "That any representations tending to show that the fostering of local industries was detrimental to the agricultural interests were not only mischievous, but ill-founded." This, although to many a self-evident truth, is nevertheless a timely recall to our remembrance of a most important fact, and one to which too great an attention cannot be given, as it is upon its truth or falsity that the question of a Freetrade or Protective policy, so far as this colony is concerned, mast decided. Already a loading organ of the Press has declared that the agricultural interest has nothing to gain and everything to lose by a higher tariff; nor are there wanting signs that this question will be used to create and foster a feeling of hostility between town and country. Sir, the object of this paper will be a humble endeavour to show, I hope clearly, but with no pretence to originality, and in no dogmatic spirit, that there can be no possible antagonism of interests between the manufacturing and agricultural industries, but that they are mutually dependent one upon the other, and that whatever tends to the increase of our industrial centres, and the enlargement of our manufacturing population, must react beneficially upon the agricultural community.

I do not think it is possible to refer to any purely agricultural nation that has risen to wealth and power. Agriculture—the tilling of the soil—is necessarily the first occupation to which men tarn in a new country. But the very attempt to rise above the more level of "hewers of wood and drawers of water" also necessitates the introduction of some manufactures upon however rude or humble a scale. Unless men are content, as they have been in the past, and still are in some countries, to rest satisfied with the simple gratification of appetite and the wearing of apparel of a most modest description, manufactures are imperative; without them there will be found a people steeped in poverty and ignorance. Such countries have not even learnt the use of those improved implements modern ingenuity has brought to bear upon the soil in moro advanced communities. The United States Consul at Rio de Janiero, in writing to his Government a description of one of his journeys inland, says:—"The soil is a fertile red clay mixed with gravel, the fences ditches like rifle-pits or rails laid on crotched sticks, not a twentieth part of the land under cultivation, and some worn out and abandoned. The hoe is the sole implement of field cultivation, and woodon-wheeled ox carts drawn by mules are farm waggons. The Louses are huts of unburns brick, having wooden shutters, but no glass windows.", This is an instance of the condition to which it is possible for a nation to sink uninvigorated by the activity and stimulus of manufactures.

Turkey, a nation once dreaded and powerful owing to the vastness and strength of her armies, is gradually becoming effaced from the map of Europe. Utterly without inventive genius or manufacturing skill, content to grow wool and grain, importing far more than she exports, and complacently plunging into debt for the balance of trade. But it is unnecessary to cite the further examples of India and Egypt, as it has long since been fully recognised, more especially daring the present century, that not only can no nation become great which devotes its energies entirely to pastoral or agricultural pursuits, but that manufactures are absolutely essential both to the nation as a whole and to the farmers individually. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States of America, writing in 1816, said: "He who is now against domestic manufactures must be for reducing us either to a dependence upon Great Britain or to be clothed in skins and live like wild heasts in the field." Later on John Quincy Adams, the sixth President, stated in a message to Congress: "The great interests of an agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing nation are so looked in union together that no permanent cause of prosperity to one of them can operate without extending its influence to others." Similar sentiments to these wore uttered by the great Sir "Robert Peel, and that at a time when all England was agitated by Mr Cobden and his fellow-workers in the Anti-Corn Law League. Sir Robert made a speech at Tamworth in 1843, in concluding which he said "that the interests of agriculture and manufacturers were inseparably united, and that whatever supports the vigour of manufactures must open markets and keep up the demand for agricultural produce. But not only have statesmen clearly expressed their convictions as to the interdependence of agriculturists and manufacturers, but we have further evidence in the writings of the German political economist, Herr Friedrich List. This author, who, page break in the interests of his fellow countrymen, advocated a Protective policy in respect to manufactured articles, Bays: "Under the influence of manufactures agriculture itself is raised to a skilled industry, an art, a science. Agriculture, which hitherto merely supported landowners and their servants, now furnishes the commonwealth with the most independent and sturdy defenders of its liberty. In the culture of the soil, also, every class is now able to improve its position. The labourer can raise himself to become a farmer, the farmer to become a landed proprietor. The capital and means of transport which industry creates and establishes now give prosperity to agriculture everywhere." I think we may fairly assume, without undue presumption, that both agriculture and manufactures are necessary to a nation's prosperity, and that their interests are not opposed or divergent, but indissolubly bound together. I would, however, here venture to remark that whilst no nation purely or largely agricultural has attained a high position, on the other hand, neither can a people devoted almost solely to manufacturing pursuits so continue save at the expense of their agricultural interest. This will be made apparent when I refer to England. The position taken by List is that there should not be a preponderating influence either one way or the other, but without drawing any impossible hard-and fast line, there should be such a judicious proportion as would result in, the mutual benefit of both. When thou are some of the most apparent advantages the agriculturist will derive from his proximity to a manufacturing centre? In the first place, it will manifestly increase the value or his land. The smaller the industrial centre, or the greater the distance from that centre, so in proportion will be its effect upon land values. A non-agricultural population in all countries has the effect of raising the land values of the agricultural portion of the community. It would be needless to do more than refer to the enormous price to which agricultural land has risen in England owing to the marvellous growth in late years of her manufacturing towns. Suffice to say that from 1853 to 1878, a period of 25 years, the agricultural rental of England had increased by £10,408,822, or fully 25 per cent., and in Scotland, during the same period, it had increased by £2,254,908, or nearly 42 per cent. But take by way of illustration the various land values of the United States. Now many of the States are, as you are aware, devoted principally to manufactures, whilst others are given to the production of corn, wheat, and cotton, and it is established upon reliable testimony that those farms nearest the centres of the non-agricultural population are infinitely higher in value owing to this favoured position, although the land in other States is often superior, and the moans of transport and communication equally advantageous. To show this is no mere assertion I will give the figures as furnished by Mr J. R. Dodge, statistician of the Department of Agriculture, Washington. This gentleman, taking the census of 1830 as his basis, divides the entire acreage under cultivation in the States into four classes. First, those States having less than 30 per cent. of their population engaged in agriculture. Second, those having 30 per cent., but less than 10 per cent.; third those having 50 per cent, and less than 70 per cent.; and fourth, those having over 70 per cent. so engaged. What is the result? Why, that in the first class, where only 18 per cent. of the population are engaged in agriculture, the land value per acre is 38dol 65c; in the second class, with 42 per cent, engaged, the value is 30dol 55c; in the third class, with 58 per cent, engaged, the value is 13dol 53c; and in the fourth class, with 77 per cent, of the population engaged, the value is only 5dol 18c per acre, clearly showing that the advantage accruing to the agriculturist from his proximity to a non-agricultural class is in the important item of land values, comparing first with the fourth class, as eight acres to one. In other words, the fortunate farmer in these States has, and that from no merit of his own, reaped his full share of the benefits arising from America's industrial progress. He is, in fact, the possessor of an "unearned increment" of at least 20 dol per acre. Nor can it be said that this high value is due solely to the excess of population in those States. All classes of population are not advantageous to a country. Paupers, tramps, and sun-downers are population, but I do not think they enhance the land values either of farm or city. No! Farmers would not benefit either by such an invasion nor from an undue proportion of their own class. The men wanted are those who, by their skill and ingenuity, will be not alone consumers, but wealth producers—in short a largor manufacturing population. But Lot only will the farmer reap the full benefit of an increased land value, but his land, under the stimulating influence of a greater demand for its products, will yield an increased amount of those products. Professor Thorold Rogers has said that 5 0 years ago nearly the entire population of England were engaged in agriculture, and yet they only succeeded in producing an average yield of eight bushels of wheat per acre. The additional stimulus, however, of large industrial centres has wrought such a wonderful effect upon the productive power of the land that it now yields 28 to 29 bushels to the acre. Herr List, in his "National System of Political Economy," recognises this fact. He says: "The demand which now springs up for milk, butter, and meat adds a higher value to the existing pastare land, and leads a to the breaking up of fallows and the erection of works of irrigation. The demand for fruit and garden produce converts the former bare agricultural land into vegetable gardens and orchards." So, too, in the United States. Taking the four classes as previously given, we find that although he States, boasting a larger industrial population, cannot boast the possession of more fertile land. The yields stand thus: States of the first class, 15 bushels par acre; of the second class, 16.4 per acre; of the third class, 11.1 per acre; and on the fourth class, 5.8 per acre; or, in other words, so great is the effect upon the farmer of a large demand, a near market, and an increased price for his pro- page break ducts that, though the owner of the comparatively poor soil of the first class, he stands as three bushels to one against the class which boasts such fertile States as Alabama, Georgia, and the Mississippi. It will, I believe, be dearly seen that among many or the welcome advantages accruing to the agricultural interest from a fair proportion of the non-agricultural element are—an increase in land values, increased production, and that groat desideratum, a home market. But another point has yet to be considered, All agriculturalists are not proprietors, nor have, all farms of their own. What about the agricultural labourer? Does he reap any benefit or participate in the enhanced profits of the farmer? Undoubtedly! In fact, if the position of the owner has improved, the labourer also has shared in his improvement. There is prodably no more wretched being upon earth than a laboured in a purely agricultural country. Florence Nightingale, as quoted by Mr Henry George in his "Progress and Poverty," has said: "The saddest sight to be seen the East—nay, probably in the world—is the peasant of our Eastern Empire." Contrast, therefore, the condition of the Indian agricultural labourer, the man who toils for 6c a day the man who is likely to become not only America's, but the New Zealand farmer's most formidable competitor in the world's corn market; contrast his condition with that of the labourer in lands whore an industrial and manufacturing population have been found necessary to their greatness, and there you will find that the advance in his wage and his well-being has been commensurate and concurrent with the rise and developement of their great industries. Forty years ago the cash wage to agricultural labourers in the United States averaged l3dol 25c per month. In 1866, owing to an inflation of the currency, values were high, and his wage was 26dol per month. Then followed a time of depression, bringing the inevitable fall in prices, and the wage paid was only 16dol 16c in 1879. The reaction speedily came, and in 1888 the average wage was 18dol 58c per month, or an increase of 40 per cent, during the period of America's industrial progress. But statistics bearing more immediately upon the relation of agriculture to manufactures are to be found in the fact that the wages paid for farm labour are always highest in those districts near the industrial centres. The wages paid in the Eastern States in 1882 were 26dol 61c per month, in the Western states 23dol 63c per month, in the Middle States 22dol 24c per month, and in the almost exclusively agricultural States of the South only 15dol 30c per month—a difference in favour of the manufacturing States of 11dol 31c. Now let us examine the condition of the English agricultural labourer. He has not reaped, like his American toother, the full advantage of his country's progress, but for all that his present condition, bad as it is, will bear out the position assumed. In 1770 Arthur Young, the well-known traveller and agricultural writer of the last century, gives the wage of the farm labourer at that date as 7s per week. After a lapse of 80 years—viz., 1850, when England's manufactures were using rapidly, Sir James Caird states the labourer's wage to have been 10s per week, although the Right Hon. John Bright gives it somewhat lower. However, the increase in the labourer's wage is the more noticeable upon comparing the northern, or manufacturing districts, with the southern, or agricultural counties. In the former the wages had risen to 11s 6d per week, in the latter to only 8s 5d, or, in Sir James Caird's own words, "The influence of manufacturing enterprise is thus seen to add 37 per cent, to the wages of the agricultural labourers of the northern counties as compared with those of the south." "Nothirg," he adds, "could show more unequivocally the advantage of manufacturing enterprise to the prosperity and advancement of the farmer." Coming down still later, we have it upon the authority of Professor Lene Levi that in 1867 the agricultural labourers' wages averaged 12s per week, and in 1884 they wore 13s 4d per week. Not a groat sum it is true; and why? England is essentially an industrial nation; and no nation, either purely agricultural or industrial, can continue so unless at some great sacrifice. England, the first to reap the advantages of nineteenth century invention and the power of steam, has become the world's market, but she has paid for that position at a cost which has virtually ruined the British farmer. To supply the world with her manufactures she required cheap labour; but labour, however cheap, must be fed—bread was imperative; meat, a luxury, might be dispensed with. Now, inasmuch as the British farmer, crushed down by the most iniquitous land system the world has ever known, could not meet the demand for cheap bread, the ports were thrown open, and the vast fields of America, where the men not only "till the soil, but own the soil they till," were placed in competition with the English farmer, and he, so heavily, handicapped, has been well nigh driven out of the market. The agricultural classes of England are decreasing rapidly. Professor Levi gives the number in 1867 as 2,700,000, and in 1884 as only 1,900,000. Her proportion of population engaged in industrial pursuits is 57 per cent., against 12.4 per cent. engaged in agriculture—a figure altogether disproportionate to England's need. In the United States the proportion is 22.1 per cent, in industrial pursuits, against 44.1 per cent, in agriculture, and this latter figure is considered by some as disproportionate. America is now turning her attention to diversity of employment. The honour of "feeding the nations" may be bought at too high a price, and with the serious competition of India "looming up," the outlook is not pleasant. States, such as Minnesota, which once devoted their energies entirely to wheat-growing, page break are altering their procedure. She is diversifying her industries. She is recognising the truth of that 203 earned in a home market is a better, surer, and as equally profitable transaction as 20s earned in Liverpool, and which latter 20s have to undergo the unsatisfactory but highly necessary process of deduction for commission, cost of transport, &c. It is stated, and it can easily be verified, that the entire food products of the States, less the products now supplied her by other nations, would only give a surplus of 3 per cent, over and above her own home consumption. The tendency in America appears to be a lessening of those engaged in agricultural pursuits, and the increase of those engaged in manufactures. It has been said that manufacturing depression can have little or no effect upon the agricultural community. This assumes the complete independence of the one from the other. But we have seen they are not so. A large industrial population means a floarishing and prosperous agricultural community. The Hon. Alexander Del Mar, writing from Chicago, under date September 1, to the editor of the Pall Mall Budget, says: "The crops are good, but the prices of wheat and other farm products have been steadily falling." Why? The writer himself gives the answer in his next words, which are: "Manufactures are greatly depressed." No, gentlemen; it is impossible to separate the two. Their interests are one, and indivisible; no line can be drawn between them. The agriculturist cannot say to the manufacturer "I have no need of thee," nor can the manufacturer say to the agriculturist "I am independent of you." And he is no true patriot who, in deference to his pro-conceived opinions, and in opposition to the history and experience of other nations, endeavours to create an antagonism between these two great sources of their prosperity. Gentlemen, what policy is it desirable we should pursue in order to establish native manufactures? Will that policy which says "Leave capital and labour alone to discover the best and most profitable means of investment do" it? Can you, under your present tariff, induce capital to your shores and expect it to build factories when you place that capital in competition with the greatest, wealthiest, and cheapest-paid white labour markets in the world? Capital is proverbially a shy bird. Its first necessity is security, its second an adequate remuneration for its investment. Can you guarantee either one or the other? This colony is not concerned as to the soundness or unsoundness of Freetrade so far as England may be affected. We have nothing to do with that view of the question. What concerns us, as a young colony, is: Are the same economic laws which govern England's commercial policy applicable to our own condition? if not, by what policy shall we be governed? What is the evidence as furnished by other countries? I will not refer to the older nationalities of Europe, but to those who are at one with us in language and sympathy. Take the oft-referred to example of the United States. Those whoso opinions are in favour of Freetrade have a remarkable way of giving prominence to all the weak points of America's commercial policy, and concealing the marvellous results to which that policy has led. With the English farmer they are doubtless disposed to exclaim, "I wish your cursed country had never been discovered." I am not here, however, to defend the tariff of our American cousins. I believe that under such a tariff there has been, and still is, room for the creation of rings, monopolies, and unions, whoso sole object, under the sheltering œgis of the needlessly high duty, it is to keep up the price and pocket enormous sums of money. It is not a tariff which will permit of such doings we require here. But, making full allowance for the evil, unscrupulous, and dishonest men may indict upon a community by such combinations, the benefit conferred upon America generally by her tariff is plain and undeniable A century ago, in the words of Lord Chatham, "America was not permitted to make so much as a horseshoe for her own use." At the present day her manufacturers and their rapid growth are the astonishment of the civilised world. Excluding gas and petroleum refining manufactures, her increase in the ten years from 1870 to 1880 has been very large. Seventeen hundred and four new establishments have been erected, £220,000,000 is the increased capital invested; the value of additional materials used is £281,000,000, the increased output £397,000,000, and the additional number of hands employed is 679,000. Here then we have progress of a most satisfactory character. Nor were the States favoured with continuous prosperity during this decade. On the contrary, from 1873 to 1879 was a period of the most severe depression, arising chiefly from a depreciation of the currency; commerce was disorganised, great distress prevailed, and large numbers were thrown out of employment; but America as a ration never for a moment contemplated adding to her misery by the opening of her ports and flooding her markets with foreign manufactures. You are continually being told that America's present depression is the outcome of her Protective tariff. Such a statement is far from being within the limits of strict accuracy. A Freetrade policy might with equal justice be charged with the over-existing deplorable condition of England's lower classes. Man for man, the American worker is in an infinitely superior position to that of his English follow. What are the facta as furnished by English statisticians? Mr J. S. Jeans in a paper road recently before the Statistical Society on the comparative earnings of labour at Home and abroad, arrived at the following conclusions:—"That in a number of selected occupations which may fairly be regarded as typical of the whole, the wages paid in the United Kingdom are 45.4 per cent under these paid in the United States; also, that from 1850 to 1883 the wage-earnings in a number of typical occupations advanced by 40 per cent, in the United Kingdom; and that between 1860 and 1883, ten years less, the average wages ascertained to have been paid in the United States to all occupations (except professional) page break increased by 39.9 per cent." Another gentleman, Mr D. Pigeon, in January last read a paper before the Society of Arte upon "Labour and Wages in the United States and Great Britain," in concluding which he stated that the result arrived at, from a study of his tables, was "that a workman earning £60 in Great Britain would receive £99 for the same work in the United States, from which amount he estimated £17 would have to be deducted for excess cost of living," thus leaving a balance of £22 per annum in favour of the American, Again, how does America stand in respect of paupers? According to the census of 1880 there were 67,000 indoor, and 21,600 outdoor paupers—or a grand total of 88,000 in a population of 51,000,000 people. How does England stand in this matter? Mr Goschen, in his speech to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, stated the number in 1883 was 798,000, out of a population of 26,750,000. So that, with a little over half America's population, England has nine paupers to America's one. But, gentlemen, statistics of this kind have always a largo element of unreliability about them. I believe America has far more, and I am equally certain that in England the numbers are understated. The proportion, however, will not be altered to America's disadvantage. Miss Edith Simcox, speaking at the Industrial Remuneration Conference, held in January last, under the presidency of Sir Charles Dilke, estimates, and her statement has been borne out in a recent speech of Mr Chamberlain's, the actual or virtual paupers in England, in the year of grace 1885, at 5,000,000, Gentlemen, can we wonder at the working man leaving Freetrade England for Protective America?

Let us now look for a moment at the industrial progress of Victoria. Twenty-one years ago, under a low tariff, Victoria did not possess a single woollen mill, boot factory, waggon factory, or hat factory. In 1884 she boosted seven woollen mills, 165 boot and shoe factories, 132 coach and waggon factories, and 22 hat factories. During the last decade—that is, from 1874 to 1884-974 new factories have boon established, £5000,000 additional capital invested, and 22,500 increased number of hands employed. Paupers, I am thankful to say, are not, as vat, indigenous to the soil of these colonies; but we have, unfortunately, large numbers of "unemployed." How does Victoria compare with New South Wales in this respect? Mr Hayter, taking the census of 1881 as his basis (and he states no fresh cause has arisen to alter the relative position of the two colonies), gives the number in Victoria at 4500, and in New South Wales at 9800; or one man unemployed in every 76 of the population in New South Wales, and one in every 191 in the population of Victoria. At the present time upwards of 109,000 are engaged in agriculture in Victoria, and 47,000 in industrial pursuits, the latter "turning out" in the year 1881 goods to the value of £13,500,000. In Canada we find additional evidences as to the effect a judicious tariff has upon native manufactures, and the advantages accruing to the agricultural community from their establishment. Prior to the year 1859 the tariff of this country was low; her manufactures, of necessity, poor, feeble, and scattered; but in this year the tariff was increased to 20 per cent., with the result that young industries grow, thousands of additional bauds wore employed, and the first to reap the full advantage of this revival were the farmers. Their land rose in value, their products increased, and they obtained a higher price for them. Although, for political reasons, the tariff in 1868 was lowered to 15 per cent., Canada was still under the protection of a high tariff to all intents and purposes. And for this reason: A fierce and sanguinary war was raging in the States of America, all trade was in a state of chaos and confusion, prices were high, and the commerce of the nation paralysed for a time. America's weakness was Canada's opportunity, but when the manufactures of the former country began to revive and rise on every hand, then poor 15 per cent. Canada was flooded with American products. She could not stand against it. Farmers threw up their land—many became bankrupt, or worse—and her manufacturers were actually compelled to pay the Americans either a lump sum or a heavy percentage upon their sales to keep them out of their market. How did England prosper in this transaction? Statistics show that protected America." beat her all along the line." England could not compete with her. In 1873 Canada's total imports amounted to 127½ million dollars. England's share was 54½ per cent.; America's only 37½ per cent. Take the year 1878: Canada's import trade in this year was only 91¼ million dollars, of which England's share was 41 per cent., and America's 53½ per cent. The positions had changed. Clearly, then, a protective tariff against America was not only Canada's, but England's gain. This can be proved. In 1882, after five years of a 30-per-cent. customs duty, England again held the premier position, she then exporting to Canada. 50½ millions' worth of goods against America's 48½ millions of dollars. Nor did Canada adopt her 30-per-cent. tariff without full consideration. I would refer you for a short history of the contest leading to the return of those who advocated this increase to a work recently issued entitled "Imperial Federation," by the Marquis of Lome. Who is the Marquis of Lome? Well, gentlemen, he is not a "selfish manufacturer," but one who, not-withstanding his high birth and connections, belongs to that body of men called "advanced liberals;" and as a late Governor-general of Canada, he may be allowed to speak with some little authority. At the end of six years the Finance Minister, Sir Leonard Tilley, in the course of his financial statement of March last, thus briefly summarised the effect of a high tariff upon Canada's progress:—"The number of new factories established was 595, the increased capital invested was 29½ million dol, the increased output 79¼ million dol, increased yearly wages paid 10½ million dol, and the additional number of hands employed 84.500. Add," continued the minister, "50 per cent, to those figures, and a reliable estimate of the total result will be obtained" Nor has the! total yearly volume of trade, either in the page break States, Canada, or Victoria, been decreased by the operation of their tariff—on the contrary, it has largely increased, save with rare exceptions, arising from causes universally felt throughout the civilised world. What, then, are the objections raised to the adoption of a policy capable of producing such beneficial results? It is not within my province, nor indeed would time permit me, to examine them all. To one only would I refer. It is stated, and very frequently stated too, that the cost of an article to the consumer is its imported cost plus the full amount of the Protective duty, and which amount must therefore be taken from the consumer's pocket and slipped into that of the manufacturers'. This statement has always appeared to me to be a fundamental article of a Freetraders' creed—the "diapason of their policy." Do facts bear out this assumption? It follows that if an article in a protected country is increased in value to the extent of the duty imposed, that it manufacturer cannot hope to compete in the open market with the unprotected manufacturer. How then do we account for the enormous exportation of manufactured articles from America right into the heart of Freetrade England? American cutlery is sold in the very streets of Sheffield; boots are exported in large quantities. Yankee clocks and Waltham watches are sold in Dunedin at prices equal to, if not below, those of English make; agricultural implements, axes, wringers, mangles, and the hundred and one clever products of American industry are imported into these colonies at prices which cannot be competed against. In 1853 iron of American make cost 36dol 12c per ton; owing to the enormous advances made in its manufacture in 1883 the same iron could be bought for 22dol 37c per ton. Bessemer steel rails in 1867 cost 166dol per ton, in 1884 they could be purchased at 34dol per ton. Take an example from our own experience. There is a 15 per cent, ad valorem duty upon drapery. The consumer, so we are told, must therefore pay 15 par cent, more for his goods than he would wore drapery goods admitted free of duty. I do not think, Sir, there is a business housewife in Dunedin who has been accustomed to London shopping but what will tell you that she can purchase those articles in every day use as cheap, sometimes cheaper, but solcom higher than the same articles would cost in the Old Country. Competition will always reduce prices to the lowest possible point at which a business can be successfully conducted, if then manufacturers do not want high prices, what do they want? The question was asked ten years ago, and the answer appears dear and conclusive. It is: "The manufacturer is not interested in the percentage of profit exclusively which he makes, but in the aggregate amount of it, and a largo trade may be more profitable to him on a small percentage of profit than a small trade on a large percentage. Production on a large scale gives opportunity for more effective division of labour, and hence to economy of production; and to this may be added the lessened proportionate burden upon fixed expenses.

Yes, gentlemen, the tendency of the age is to largely supersede human labour, and to a lower level of prices for the product of that labour. It is for you to say, in view of such competition, what policy shall be pursued in order that this colony, so bountifully endowed by nature, may be enabled to establish her industries upon so solid a basis, and under the combined influence of a healthful and vigorous manufacturing and agricultural people, eventually attain a prominent position among the great civilisations of the earth.

Discussion was invited, but the invitation page break not being responded to,

The Chairman proposed a vote of thanks to Mr Darling, and also made a brief speech touching upon some of the arguments advanced by Freetraders against Protection.

Mr M. Sinclair seconded the motion, which was carried by acclamation.