Take 1 one single sentence, from your last uigin's 1-adrr and you will have shown that Mr Rees' colonisation Bchema will mak; enor mous profits to tha shareholders, but take che whole article end you bhow something very different. Now lee us cc« whether "E.W." has arrived ut a legitimate to iclu eion with rcpeot to my views, This is what ho tays, wh-.n Mr Levestam says tbao " woal production can not in auy way uo influenced by fiscal policy," he tsculy implies ' hit an unprotected article can not be affected by the protection of otuers," Sir, if "E.W." knows anything of logic, he must know that no tuoh conclusion follows. All Lht.t he can, legitimately, deduce from the above j proposition, is ihut some unprotco;ed article, j etc. «• E. W." has, in bis former letter, shown ] to his own satisfaction, tuat there cau b 8 but I one reason why Victoria invests capital in I

I N.S.W., namely, " tha f. a Freetrade country offers a better field for investment" Sir, if that is true we may 8-y lb. fc J the question ie sotted, for I a'u>p"se fchc- I "rgaaic t works both w<;ys, and w« fi d tb;;t j the o'ly Free Trado country — Eglmd — j invests oapital largely in protected Am-'rica, in pr-'teoted Russ I',1 ', in protected Germany, i in Now Zoalan's,'find in f<*ot in « v=;ry j.r lIS f fecfc?d country where sho haa a ohanop. I Next, I am blamed for spying tint I 1 avo convicted "E. W." of ignorance; wel, ifc ! migh 1 * be more correct to sr»y that I had ex po-ed his ignor *n ee. And to Bhow that I ' am wrong- " E. W." as* - in quotes one single sentence from "ray first; le'tar, buthn c >n veniently ignores other->, suoh as ' I might multiply thrso tables," &<*, or, "Now let us ne how she fares in thnt other industry for which she is fitted by nature, tho pastoral in .nsiry." Another amusing point in my le"er is said io be found in the race that I differ from all »u f borities by sajiog- that N.S.W. is better fittod by nature rhnn Vic toria for agricultural ;vnd -pastoral pursuits, i Here is ano' her proof of '• E. W. 