[To TEE EDITOR OF TEE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—In your editorial footnote to the letter of "Open Mind" in the Spectator of July 4th you say "that it is an eternal law that he who will not buy neither shall he sell." May it not equally be an eternal law that he who cannot sell neither can he buy ? To put a case, perhaps not immediately imminent, but within the bounds of practical possibilities. Suppose two of our staple industries, the iron and steel and cotton trades, to be on the verge of ruin through the competi- tion of protected countries, notably Germany and the United States ; you will no doubt admit that such a state of affairs would have the most serious effect upon our coal and shipping, besides numerous subsidiary, industries. Would you still iu these circumstances feel it your duty to oppose any attempt at Protection P and if so, from what sources do you suggest we should obtain the necessary products wherewith to pay for our cheap imported food-stuffs, manufactured articles, &c. ? This is only one of the questions which are raised by Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. To minds somewhat more diffident than your own, therefore, it seems that the bare enunciation of so-called eternal truths, such as that I have quoted above, affords but little assistance in the solution of the problem now presented to us.—I am, Sir, &c., [No protected industry will, we believe, ever be able to kill a home industry, though it is possible that the home industry may be deflected into a more profitable allied channel, as in the case of sugar-refining and confectionery. Though the destruc- tion of home industries has been prophesied over and over again during the last twenty years, we doubt if any sound instance can be produced. Will our correspondent supply us with a case in which an industry has been killed by competition from a Protectionist country ? The tinplate industry is often cited as an example, but as a matter of fact that industry is, we believe, still alive in spite of American competition.— ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
