The Blandford and Wimbourne Telegram. — 1885-11-27 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

FAIR V. FREE TRADE. To the Ecittor.  Sir,—There is no question that so fully brings out the difference oetween the two great parties m the State as that of "Bad Trade." Is this, as in most other national questions, they believe the remedy lies in our relations with foreign countries, rather than with our Own social condition. Sir Richard Cross is usually a shrewd, sensible man, but he, too, looks abroad for his remedies when this question is under discussion. Speaking at St. Helen's a few days ago he said—" The tariffs in foreign markets are now so heavy that one cannot compete with them, and other countries are not only supplying their own markets, but are also exporting their products into this country. This is the wvirmiv of our own existence. If we find foreign markets shut to us. what is to become of English industry and enterprise? The leaders of the Liberal party have a great deal to answer for to the working-men of England for refusing to enquire into the reasons of bad trade." Sir Richard Cross goes on in his speech to sneer at Fair Trade, though he has not the conrage to declare boldly for Fair Trade,—Protection in disguise. The leader of the Tory party, Lord Randolph Churchill, has no such scruples. He has over and over again condemned our Free Trade policy, and advocated a return to Protection tariffs. Speaking at Blackpool upon the subject of trade depression, he said "What has produced this state of things? Free imports? I suspect free imports of the murder of our industries, much in the same way as if I found a man standing over a corpse and plunging his knife into it, I should suspect that man of homicide." Again he says "Silk, leather, wool, and iron, are allcomirg into the country duty free, and hopelessly underselling your own products, and driving your industrial population to America, the colonies, the workhouse, or the prison." He goes on to demand a heavy import duty on foreign manufactures, from which he declared a revenue of £20,000,000 every year could be obtained. Lord Salisbury, as usual, is being dragged at the chariot wheels of Lord Randolph. In his speech in South London on the 4th inst. he abandons every principle of Free Trade, and declares in favour of a war of tariffs with other countries. He says—" Under cover of this kind of fetish worship of the set of doctrines which are called Free Trade, you are excluded from legitimate acts of self-defence. I maintain, on the contrary, that so long as we uphold our Free Trade policy our foreign trade is not only in no danger, but must grow steadily in the future, as it has grown steadily in the past; and, further, that we must look to improvement in the condition of our own people for any solid progress in our trade and manufacture. England is one vast factory and shop. Our entire population is engaged in manufacture. The duke and 'squire have food factories, jast as the Manchester and Bradford have cotton and wool factories.  Our customers are firstly and chiefly our own people in the British Isles, and, secondly, our colonial and foreign buyers. We divide these into the "home trade" and "foreign trade." Our home trade spends about 1,200 millions pounds during the year, 200 millions of which is on imported food and manufactures, leaving 1,000 millions to be spent with our own manufacturers, tradesmen, and farmers. Our foreign customers buy about 200 millions from us during the year. The Tories propose to stimulate the depression of trade by stopping the importation of foreign manufactures by a protective duty. To be logical them must rst prot, et thot home Ind ustry ich suffers most from foci Um imports, viz., the manufacture of food. Mr. James Lowther. the most courageous and consistent Tory in Parliament, boldly says the first import duty must be on corn. That is to say ho would tax the people's bread to save Tory landowners from reduction in rent. The leader of the Tory Party is too wise for that. He dare not propose to tax the artizan's bread. He is for raising 20 millions a year on manufactured articles, such as silk, wood, and iron. He does not say what per centage of duty he would put on to get this sum of money ; but a very brief examination of facts (things that dim not concern Lord Randolph Churchill) shows the utter nonsense he talks on this subject  I NI