avalled the best the world can produce. In the sunshine of freedom and carrying always the standard of excellency, she feared not the competition of the most advanced peoples.

But when it comes to the establishment of our secondary or manufacturing industries a lower note has been struck. Certainly after the decline of the early gold diggings, when land settlement and cultivation extended, manufacturing industries of all kinds were established and flourished. Foundries, implement works, breweries, mills, and practically every industry necessary to modern society sprang into being, and that without any protective duties or Government coddling. And there is not the slightest doubt their progress would have continued in proportion to the growth of the primary industries, which alone gave them reason for existence; but the evil weed of "protection" was introduced, and, like all evil weeds, it easily took root and flourished. The cry of the manufacturers was that they could not compete against the low paid labour of the countries, and they required "protection;" and this, notwithstanding that all the disabilities which the primary producer had overcome were reversed in their favour. They had to supply a local and ready market, with a first hand knowledge of its requirements, and raw materials were, for the most part, ready at their doors, or with a minimum cost of transport. Their competitors had a handicap of high ocean freights and charges, the cost of establishing business and a lesser knowledge of local requirements. Everything was in their favour, as everything was against the primary producers in their efforts to secure a share in the world's trade. But to compensate for their inefficiency, small duties were first imposed. The name "protection" and the claim that such protection would save them from the conditions of old world countries made the workers supports of the policy. Politicians and newspaper proprietors traded on this gullibility of the people and "protection" became the policy of most of the States. The restriction of competition from outside naturally encouraged inefficiency locally, and manufacturers made little or no effort to improve the quality to their products. With duties against competitors they were content with old methods, and with machinery which in other countries was obsolete and scrapped. But the world progresses, and with new methods and the latest machinery, outside competitors managed to get over the tariff wall with high quality and under the wall with low priced articles. Our manufacturers then cry to Parliament for more "protection," a further premium on their inefficiency, and so the duties grow. The older the "infant industry" the more support it requires and the weaker it becomes. This was recognised in Victoria, the home of protection, in 1895, when the tariff commission, composed (with one exception) of protectionists, after an exhaustive examination of representative manufacturers recommended to parliament an all-round reduction of duties in order to prevent the extinction of the industries. Reductions were, of course, opposed by some manufacturers, and one witness from the woollen industry states that if duties were reduced their mill would have to close, or they would have to increase their plant, etc. The duties on woollens were reduced from 45 to 25 per cent. The mill did not close, but the owners were forced to get more up to date machinery, increase their buildings, improve the quality of their goods, and the industry is to-day in a prosperous condition. When federation was established the duty on woollens was reduced to 15 per cent., and this brought a protest, among others, from the Ballarat mills. But the industry was not destroyed, instead new life was given it. Their representative was sent to England to obtain the latest machinery and more skilled workmen were secured, with the result that the quality of their goods was improved, and soon company shares, which formerly were valueless, came into demand, and ever since have maintained a good price on the market. With the improved quality came demand for their goods, and altogether though enforced efficiency their industry is to-day thriving and prosperous. Of course it is but natural that men of the "get rich quick" variety will be found to take advantage of the power of exploitation which "protection" duties confer. They can, by the restriction of the competition, make a big profit without embarking big capital, or worrying over improved methods of production, which are constantly being introduced in other parts of the world. Such goods of good quality as are imported, in spite of the tariff, are so raised in price that the majority of the people cannot afford to buy them, and they have to be content with the local article, whatever its quality, or accept the alternative of low priced imported goods of poor quality. Oversea manufacturers naturally cater for the trade which the reduced purchasing power of the people provides for, and as duties rise quality falls, and it is inevitable that complaints should be common, that goods are not of the quality they were in earlier days. No doubt tariffs stimulate the ingenuity of manufacturers in other countries in substituting imitations for the genuine article, and in processes of adulteration, and such ingenuity is met by our local manufacturers with a cry to Parliament for higher duties, which again mean still lower quality and greater relative inefficiency. And even to protect industries, duties frequently act as a boomerang and hit themselves. Should they desire to obtain up to date machinery and appliances to keep abreast of the progress of other countries, high duties make their requirements too costly, and so they continue with world obsolete machines and methods.

When we compare the methods adopted by the primary industries with those of the secondary or manufacturing industries, and the success which has attended the former in establishing themselves in the world's markets, we are forced to the conclusion that "protective" duties, instead of stimulating and building up solid industries, tend rather to their weakness, and lead to national loss and stagnation. Freedom of competition makes for efficiency, restriction proves itself to make for inefficiency.

And now let us consider the effects which protective duties have upon the growth and stability of the primary industries. The farmer, whether he produce wool, wheat, beef, butter or fruit, must pay in kind. He simply exchanges his product for machinery, tools, clothing, finished articles of food or other requirements. His chances of success depend on the quality of goods he can secure with his product, and anything which reduces the quality must tend to his failure. A duty of 25 per cent. on the machines he requires means that while without the duty he could buy the machine for 100 bushels of wheat he has now to find 125 bushels, without considering extra trade profits, which are based on the amount of money involved. In our modern trading methods he sells his produce, and with the money received buys his requirements. In selling he has to accept for his wool, wheat, meat, butter, fruit, etc., what can be obtained in the world's market, less the cost of transporting it there.

He gets no more for his product delivered in London than the local producers, or his American, Danish, Russian or Indian competitors. Distance adding to cost of transport, he is considerably handicapped in his competition with them. This is a handicap we are always trying to reduce by securing lower ocean freights, etc., and a reduction of a few shillings per ton is welcomed as a boon. The farmers sell in the world's market at the world's prices, he buys all his requirements in a market artificially inflated by customs duties. To meet the higher cost of living the worker rightly demands a higher money wage, resulting in a higher cost of production of everything the farmer requires. The artificial inflation of prices has thus gone on until it has become almost impossible to produce profitable, and it is little to be wonder at that farmers throughout Australia aim at securing sufficient land to enable them to engage in grazing pursuits only, since the burden of customs duties and other charges is largely escaped in that industry.

A glance at the income tax returns of the State serves to show how little encouragement there is for men to follow farming. Out of 15,152 persons having incomes of over £200 in 1914 (the latest figures available) only 710 were farmers and orchardists, and part of the income of many of these was made up from other sources. The average income of these 710 was £355.

From the moment the farmer begins work on his land customs duties start to operate and every act in penalised. Should he purchase imported articles the duties go to the Federal revenue. Should he purchase articles of local manufacture the amount of the duty goes to the treasuries of the protected factories. He needs a house