New-York tribune., 1877-08-29

thrive in the free Of competition Mt the expense
OF taxation upon the whole people levied partly az the
sought TO he obtained the homemade and protected
article Is policy unsound and so injurious that am
with or with my life should have supposed 1t possible
that should give it my support
The first sentence of that would certainly support
q much wider deduction than Mr.. Bright means
should be drawn from it. Leave but the word
steamboat" which is only illustrative, and 1t EN-
bodies sound doctrine of Protection. Or leave IN
the word; the phrase steamboat enterprise" is
large enough TO cover the building as well as the
running of steamboats,. Moreover, whether the
Government grants sum Of money directly IN aId
Of such an enterprise, OF indirectly, by levying
duties in such form to protect the manufacture
of ships. guns, or iron any other industry of
great service to the country" the result is the same
The process is different, but the money comes IN
either case, according to the Free Traders them
selves, ont of the pockets of the people.
In fact though not in intent, Mr. Brights ilustra-
ton OF concession is all in support of what may
call the political argument for certain forms Of Pro-
tectl0n viz. that it may be eXpedent to foster cer
tain forms Of industry by protective duties because
those industries essential to the independence OF
the State OF rather to its sefdependence and pow
er of defence time of The power to buy with
money is not the same thing; il may not be able to
buy when war comes its ports may be closed, as
those of the South closed IL it is to hight for
its existence against aggression, IL must be able
TO produce for itself the essential instruments OF
warfare, and more in these days than ever before.
To this argument no Free Trader has yet made
sufficient answer. The rest of Mr.. Brights state
ment is open to discussion. but will only point out
that il is based on these two false assumptions that
Protection is meant to be permanent, and that 1T
will permanently increase the prices of the articles
produced under the fostering Influence Of protective
duties or that if it did, the enhanced prosperity OF
the country due to the establishment Of manufact-
ures would not more than repay the cost OF estab-
fishing them by help Of these duties
In the same speech Sir Charles Duffy quotes Mr..
Mill as saying very much the same thing as Mr.
Bright; while Mr.. Carlyle's words were " No coun-
try has ever got manufactures except by spending
the money of the State to plant them. Unless Aus
tralia does that she will get manufactures" Mr..
Bright says the words attributed to him by Sir
Charles are very like in meaning what he thinks
he has seen in some of the writings Of Mr.. John
Stuart Mill. The passage which Mr.. Bright has
dimly in mind occurs in the Political Economy
and Is well known. 1t has long been stumbling
block to the dOctrinaircs of Free Trade. Mr.. Mil
had the courage of his opinions and never hesated
to 90 to the logical end, however bitter the end
might be to men whose interests or prejudces were
bound up in a contrary conclusion. l have stated
before now what Mr. Mill said to me on this point
many years ago at AylgnOn, and repeating the most
emphatic and striking sentence-that he could not
undertake to say, were he then a citizen Of the
United States that he should not be an advocate OF
Protection CIV. 5.