Mr. Bright's denial of the statement of Sir Gavan Duffy
that he had, in conversation with Sir G. Duffy, given some sanction to a protective policy in Victoria, has produced an explanation from Sir Govan, supported by notes taken at the time of his conversation with Mr. Bright, which has been copied into the English papers from the Melbourne Argus. This is the note of his conversation:—" Saturday, April 21, 1866.—Called upon John Bright by appointment at his lodgings, 4, Hanover Street I described the condition of the democracy in Victoria, the large majority for Protection, and asked him what he would do in my place. Ile said he would endeavour, under the circumstances, to come to an arrangement with the Protec- tionists to take an Act imposing a duty of twenty-five per cent. for ten years upon certain articles, upon the understanding that it was then to cease. His free-trade convictions would not hinder him from doing this in the condition in which we found ourselves." This is a substantial justification for all that was said by Sir Govan Duffy on the subject of Mr. Bright's advice according to the Argus report of his speech, and what is more, we cannot see the slightest reason why Mr. Bright or any other thorough Free-trader should not have given such advice. There are undoubtedly prospects of suc- cessful industry in undeveloped countries which the strictest theory of free-trade would not in any way forbid a community, poor in capital, from opening up under artificial advantagee,—arti- ficial advantages intended only to carry it through the immature or swaddling-band stage,—though the difficulty is, of course, to prevent the trumping-up of false cases of this kind in a hundred instances where no prospect of success without permanent protec- tion really exists ; but even if it were not so, it is obvious enough that with an ignorant democracy which takes the wrong view, it always well to make the best terms you can, and this, in effect, was all that Mr. Bright wisely enough advised.
Previous page
