in the clothing factories, and certainly free-traders never said anything more severe of protectionists than did the protected clothing makers of the protected cloth makers. On the 17th of July, last year, a crowded meeting of clothing factory operatives was held in Melbourne, the chair being taken by the President of the Chamber of Manufacture. In the course of a strong speech he said, "The proposed increased duty would not raise the wages of the operatives in the woollen trade, but would simply put more money into the pockets of the mill proprietors.' It is refreshing to hear protectionists affirming that wages do not rise with increase of duties. Another speaker proposed a resolution condemning the proposals, and declaring that the woollen mills were suffering from want of enterprise, especially in the matter of the latest machinery. This, too, is refreshing; for it is one of the standing contentions of free-traders that protection is a blight on energy and self-reliance. Another resolution, which was carried, affirmed that cloth was simply the raw material of the clothing factories, and that to tax it more heavily would throw thousands' of hands out of employment. Here, again, a standard free-trade contention received endorsement. To complete this picture of conflict between protectionists we now give a copy of a circular sent to members of the Victorian Parliament, and which had been adopted at a meeting of the representatives of the clothing operatives :—

6

The clothing factory operatives of Victoria appeal to members of Parliament to consider the proposed increase of woollen duties from both sides of the question, and not to allow their sympathies to be excited by the begging appeals of the woollen millowners. Wishing to further the prosperity of the woollen industry as far as possible, we have carefully examined the probable effect of increased duties on our trade, and we assert positively that more than 20 per cent. ad valorem will deprive us of the intercolonial business, as manufacturers will not risk paying a higher duty on a chance of selling in outside markets, but will abandon the trade altogether, and at least 2,000 females will be thrown out of work. What the consequences will be we dare not attempt to describe. The clothing and mantle trades now employ fully 8,000 hands, turn out goods to the value of 1,250,000l. annually and pay 400,0007. in wages, and export nearly 300,000l. worth to the other colonies. We ask you if this is a business to be disturbed for other than the weightiest reasons. If the duty of 1s. 6d. per lb. on woollens were imposed, the mill operatives would not earn one penny more wages, and at present there are not any hands in the woollen trade out of employment. If you do not desire to see thousands of unemployed walking through the streets clamouring for work or bread, you will vote for the Government proposal of 20 per cent. ad valorem (instead of the higher rates asked). This is no romance, but positive and sober truth.

Have free-traders ever more emphatically condemned the restrictive influence of Customs duties on employment? Here we have one band of protectionists earnestly imploring for the imposition of bigger duties to save their industry from destruction, and another band of protectionists with no less earnestness imploring that the request may be refused on the ground that the industry by which they gain

a living would be wrecked were the request granted. Is there not something wrong in a policy under which such contradictions and personal enmities become possible?

Leaving the woollen mills and clothing factories, we will turn to other incidents that came to light during the time the Victorian Budget of last year was under consideration. It is well known that the conditions of gold-mining in Victoria are deteriorating, and an instance was given of the way in which protection oppresses the mining industry. Mr. McIntyre, in the course of a speech in the Assembly, said:—

A company he was interested in required to bring out a machine known as a blower, the price of which in London was 140. Before landing in Melbourne it would cost the company close upon 2007., and then the Customs department would require them to pay 381. as duty. Was not that article sufficiently handicapped by the cost of bringing it from London to Victoria?

An appeal was made to the Treasurer for the removal of the duty on hessian cloth on the ground that it would stimulate employment in the sock-making industry. The reply was that there was a manufacturer of hessian cloth in the colony, and that 'he strongly objected to the removal of the duty.' The Minister added that the Government could not 'assist one industry at the expense of another.' It does not appear to have struck the Minister that by retaining the duty he was assisting the cloth maker at the expense of the sock maker. One night several hours' discussion took place on a proposal to grant protection to some individual who was engaged in the dressing of ostrich feathers. The Assembly was assured that, if only protection were granted, 'a very large business' would be done.

The Government were literally beset by deputations asking for favours. With reference to boots and shoes, one deputation asked that the import duties might be raised by 30 or 40 per cent. A second deputation asked that a specific duty might be levied in place of the ad valorem. The leather trade sent a deputation to urge that steps should be taken to keep out East Indian kips, unless they paid a big duty; and the Minister was able to gratify his visitors by stating that the Customs had taken the extreme step of seizing a cargo of leather,' which was invoiced as calf-skin, but which be 'believed' to consist of kips. 'It was a very difficult matter,' said the Minister,' to distinguish the kips from calf-skin, owing to the thinness of the hides from which the kips were made.' Yes, the deeper a country sinks in the meshes of protection, the oftener is it found a very difficult matter' to decide the classification of goods. Then a deputation of iron-safe makers urged that a duty should be imposed on strong-room and safe doors, on the ground that complete safes were subject to duty—a proof that certain duties always compel the imposition of others. Gas-engine manufacturers sent their deputation to explain how first-class their engines were, and to assert

6 that the manufacturers are entitled to the advantage of the protective policy of the country.' The Master Printers' Association sent their deputation to protest against the free admission of Christmas cards, birthday cards, and Sunday-school cards. Protection makes war even on the fine arts. Let protection triumph, even if Victoria be deprived of the enjoyment of the artistic works of all Europe. It is unnecessary to pursue these deputations further; one other point in this connection only need be referred to. This is what is known as' gristing in bond.' Under this arrangement Victorian millers could import wheat from other colonies, and make flour for their intercolonial trade. This permission meant very little, so long as there was plenty of wheat in Victoria; but in occasional times, when Victorian wheat was scarce, the millers could keep their export trade together by obtaining wheat from, say, South Australia. Wheat having become scarce in Victoria last year, an outcry was raised against gristing in bond,' it being apparently thought better to stop the milling trade than to run any risk of holders of Victorian wheat being unable to obtain scarcity prices, and, under the influence of this cry, the Government were willing to suspend or abolish the regulation. Here, again, was evidence of readiness to sacrifice the interest of one class to promote that of another.

Looking over this picture of the protected industries of Victoria, noticing the eager cry for more protection, as well as the angry charges brought by protectionists against protectionists, remembering also the degradation that has been proved to accompany the Customs system, it is not possible to think that the position of the manufacturing industry in that colony is at all satisfactory. If more evidence were wanted, the following extract from the speech of Mr. Mount, the President of the Melbourne Chamber of Manufacture, at the recent annual meeting of that body, would be useful:

As regards protection for this colony, I think it incumbent on its manufacturers to lose no time in impressing upon the Government the urgent necessity of revising the tariff so as to afford adequate protection to such waning industries as are threatened with extinction by the inundation of cheap stock from Europe.

Waning industries!

To sum up, the protective colony is behind in growth of population; behind in wealth; hehind in revenue; behind in imports and exports; behind in shipping; behind in number of manufactories; behind in horse-power of machinery; behind in value of plant and machinery; behind in number of letters, telegrams, and newspapers conveyed through the post; behind in wages; behind in consumption of luxuries; has more insolvencies and a greater pressure of taxation, and, finally, nearly the whole body of Victorian manufacturers are dissatisfied with their personal position and are eagerly looking for an increase in the amount of the protective duties.

EDWARD PULSFORD.

CO-OPERATIVE STORES FOR IRELAND.

WHEN the land question is settled, and at the present rate it soon will be, Ireland may be quieted, but no one thinks she will then be prosperous. Foreign competition has ruined her agriculture. Every year, if this competition does not increase, its permanence becomes more assured. Reduction in the cost of carriage and improved processes of preserving perishable products in transit yearly lessen the last advantage which is left to us, viz. nearness to market. So we are told to look in a new direction. Irish manufactures must be encouraged. If capital is shy, legislation must be bold; and if we have not an artisan class, if we have neither coal nor iron, we must rely upon the ingenuity of our law-makers to save us from the disappointment of going into the markets of the world with commodities which can be produced more cheaply and better elsewhere.

Whatever hopes Englishmen may entertain, it is now becoming evident that the Irish themselves are getting sick at heart. They are beginning to doubt whether much more can be done for them than has been already done. The young and strong who have life before them no longer indulge in golden dreams, but are wisely going to see for themselves whether there are not better opportunities in those countries whose overflow of wealth has ruined us in our home markets. It is truly discouraging to see the life-blood of Ireland drained by the daily exodus from Queenstown. But while it is no use regretting the inevitable, and it would be criminal to chill the enterprise of those who go, it becomes the more important to inquire whether the large number of minds which have struggled with the Irish problem have left untried any practical means to raise the condition of those who remain. I believe they have.

There is one feature of Irish poverty which has generally been thought to admit of no possible remedy. Not being amenable to legislation, it has attracted little notice, but it is in my opinion one of the heaviest burdens under which Ireland groans. In the belief that a remedy can be applied, I earnestly commend to the consideration of those who now hope to see some improvement in the condition of Ireland the following pages on a strangely unrecognised evil, and a simple, effective, and wholly inexpensive cure.

A vast majority of the country population of Ireland are extremely poor in the sense that their earnings are insufficient. But their

case is made far worse-and this is the evil I refer to-by the fact that they are not able to obtain a fair exchange in commodities for what money they expend. They are very badly supplied with the necessaries of life and the few luxuries they enjoy. Yet in spite of the wretched quality of their goods, they pay unheard-of prices for them. I think these facts will be admitted. I have had a large correspondence on the subject and many conversations with people from all parts of Ireland, and I have never heard them disputed.

It is hardly necessary to describe at length the retail dealings of the poor. It is worth while, however, to take a look into the shops of the poorer districts and see how far we come under the reproach of being a 'nation of shopkeepers.' In number they are more than could be desired. But here competition seems to do no good. They are kept by people who have no qualifications for the mystery—and it is a mystery-of retail dealing. The houses, often, more correctly, hovels, have no additional accommodation for the business being carried on. If it were not for the few clay pipes lolling their heads against the window sashes as a sign that even luxuries are supplied, you would pass many a roadside house without knowing that you were leaving behind the emporium of a universal provider. If you go in, you may not be able to see for awhile, but on the threshold another sense reminds you that there is more than meets the eye. A delicate nose will at once detect the presence of tea, sugar, and tobacco in the turf-laden atmosphere, while an odour of fatness may be traced to the too long defunct 'rent-payer' or the tallow luminant. If you note dirty meal moulding in rotten bins, a few loaves for those whose style of living demands scientifically whitened bread, a few jars of peppermint or sugar-stick, and a heap somewhere of rapidly fermenting dried fruit, and then make an entry of sundries, you have made a fairly correct inventory in the market of the poor. In winter the damp moulds and destroys all the commodities, while in summer their sweetness is largely given up to wasps and flies, who, if it were not for the profusion of cobwebs, would hold undisputed possession of the store.

But why, it may be said, are high prices charged in such places? For three reasons.

Firstly, because the goods are badly bought and carelessly stored, no proper accounts are kept, business correspondence is unknown. Without knowledge or enterprise the country shopkeepers do not establish business relations with wholesale houses, but buy often from larger retail shops in small country towns, or from itinerant hucksters. Many of the shops are public houses as well, and it is easy to see that the family at home are none the better off because the parent drinks the health of the shopkeeper over every purchase.

Secondly, the poor buy on credit, and it is impossible to exaggerate the degrading and pauperising influence of this abuse. I am