Carolina watchman. [volume] (Salisbury, N.C.) 1871-1937, 1909-06-22
THE PROTECTION THEORY.
Some Utterances on the Subject BY a Well
Known English Historian.

In view OF Jne aSfb1G1On upon
the tariff question which has been
g ling on in the Senate for some
time, and which seems likely to
continue, the following may be
found of interest. The extract quo
ted is taken from the chapter
"Free Trade and the League" in
"a History of Our Own Times" "
bv Justine Mccarthy. THE WATCH.
MAN presents the extract and
leaves It's readers to make what
comment upon it they desire. At,
| tention is called to it more par
ticularly, on account of the con-
else and logical definition given of
protection.
Few chapters of political his
tory in modern times have given
occasion for more controversy
than that which contains the sto-
ry of Sir Robert Peel's admins
tration III its dealing with the
corn laws. Told in briefest form,
the story is that Peel came into
office in 1841 to maintain the corn
laws and that in 1916 he repealed
them. The controversy as to the
wisdom or unwlsdom of repeating
the corn laws has long since come
to an end. They who were the I'M
compromising opponents Of free
trade at that time, are proud to
call themselves its itsuncompromising
zeslots now. Indeed, there is no
more chance of q reaction against
free trade in England than there
is OF reaction against the rule of
three. But the controversy still
exists and will probably always be
in dispute, as to the conduct of
Sir Robert Peel.
"The Melbourne ministry fell,
A. we have seen, in conseG uence
of direct vote of want of conf
denco moved by their leading op.
ponent, and the return of It. ma
jority hostile to them at tie gen.
eral election that followed. The
vote of confidence was yelled
against their fnancia! pol -, es-
pecia1iy against Lord Jonn rus
sells proposal to substitute fixed
duty of eight shillings for Peel's
sliding scale. Sir Robert Peel
came into cffice and he introduced
q reorganized scheme of sliding
scale, reducing the duties and i'm
proving the system, bnt maintsin-
ing the principle. Lord John
Russell proposed an amendment
declaring that the House Of Com
nous, 'condsiderlng the evils
which have been caused by the
present corn laws, and especially
by the fuctuation of the graduat-
ed or sliding scale, is not prepared
to adopt the measure of Her Maj
asty government, which is fonnd-
ed on the same principles, and is
likely to be attended by similar
results The amendment was re-
jected Ivy large majority, no less
than ono hundred and twenty
thrae. But the question between
free trade and protection was moro
distinctly raised. Mr.. Villiers
proposed another amendment de-
claril. for the entire ob!ition of
all duties Oh grain. Only ninety
votes were given for the amend
ment, while three hundred and
ninety three were recorded against
it. Sir Robert Peel's e vernment,
therefore, came into power dis
tinctly pledged to uphold the
principle of protection for home-
grown grain. Four years after
this Sir Robert Peel proposed the
total oblition of the corn duties.
For this. be was denounced by
some members Of his party in
language more fierce and unmeas-
red than ever since has been ap.
piled to any leading statesman.
Mr.. Gladstone was never assailed
by the stanchest supporter of the
Irish church in words 80 vituper-
ative as those which rate Sir Rot
ert Peel for his supposed apostasy
Oue eminent person, at least,
made his first fame as parlia.
mentary orator by his denuncia.
tions of the great minister whom
he had previously eulogized and
supported.
'The history of agricultural dis.
tress, it has been we'll observed
'is the history Of agricultural