Free Trade in New Zealand

William Edmund Sadler

First published by Printed at the Evening News Office in 1868

Digitised and made available online by the University of Auckland Libraries and Learning Services and Auckland War Memorial Museum.

Epub © 2015 Early New Zealand Books Collection

ISBN 978-0-947487-44-7

[TITLE PAGES]

[Cover]

[Page ii is blank]

FREE TRADE
IN
NEW ZEALAND.

ANSWER TO THE PUBLISHED ENQUIRY OF AUCKLAND AGRICULTURISTS.
A Pamphlet Essay,

BY
WILLIAM EDMUND SADLER.

"Truth is the most insufferable tiling on this earth." – OLD GERMAN.
"Truth is the supreme necessity; the source of order, &c.; the world was created for truth. Error is irrational." – SWISS.
"Truth is mighty and will prevail." – MODERN ENGLISH.
"Truth endureth; and liveth and conquereth for evermore. Great is truth and mighty above all things." – FIRST PRIZE. SENTENCE – (ESDRAS. APOC.)
"The truth shall make you free." – REVEALED DECLARATION.

AUCKLAND:
PRINTED AT THE "EVENING NEWS" OFFICE,
1868.

[Page 2 is blank]

[PREFACE]

PREFACE.

PRIMA FACIAE, and from title, it is open to question as to which side is here taken, – whether freedom for commerce, or governmental protectionism for New Zealand.

The reported request for the discussion conveyed no definition and nothing definite. It was simply and freely, which of the two particular lines of policy is the better for this country? My determined, peremptory decision was gratuitous, and solely on the responsibility of my own personal conviction. The following treatise is decidedly for Free Trade and Free Ports all the world over, "and no mistake."

A request is above referred to. It was rumoured last July, and hinted before, that a prize was to be offered in this province for the best pamphlet-essay on the question, Should, or should not the agriculturists of New Zealand have government protectionism? Since, it has been intimated that, partly in consequence of hard times, and partly from the belief that probably ordinary newspaper ordinary writing would, the cue having been given, supply all demanded, the prize would not be offered. All was rumour. Albeit, the on dit did service, – it acted as a powerful suggestion. And the suggestion operated. This pamphlet is the outcome. Had there been competition, probably this confident predetermination of the problem would have been a fatal risk.

The only regret for the shortcoming alluded to is, that had a prize been offered, something fuller, more elaborate, and more satisfactory would probably have been presented. – Years ago gossip said that certain exquisite literary productions of renowned men were written eight times over for definitive perfection of touch. This small brochure has been written twice only. The good of free, honourable competition is quite inestimable.

THE RECENTLY ENACTED AUSTRALIAN PRECEDENT BEING CLOSE BEFORE OUR NOTICE MAKES THIS WORK APPEAR NECESSARY.

If Providence – to which is referred its projection – will make the Essay in any degree useful, the object in writing it will be attained, and any mere opinion of its quality must remain a matter of indifference. Only conceit of dissent and affectation of philosophic candour are deprecated.

The short quotations employed here as title-page-mottoes are

worthy of notice by all, but especially by publicists. The leading, professional, working principle of some able writers is bad, – not truth but expediency. With them the constant mental inquiry is, what is the average of public opinion? what will take? and, sometimes, perhaps, what will pay? Often, doubtless, an unswerving adherence to the direct line of truth is unpopular And herein is perceived the signification of the startling, impassioned expression of one of England's greatest men, "God Almighty save me from prudence!" But, as, in the long run, self-seeking is really impolitic and ungainly, so also is there a pseudo discretion. For of course it is the popular, sham thing denounced. It is surely more noble to bring over to the truth. It is difficult to estimate those minds which for years and by fair means and foul oppose a policy, and then suddenly veer round? and, without explanation, premonition, penitence, or apology, praise and advocate it. Conviction docs not appear with them. Of course a case of simple mistake acknowledgment of it is sufficient. But not seldom in such noted cases animus is ostensible. Yet, as a great man has said, with large though not, as I think, entire correctness, "In order that a truth may become our own, it is necessary that we should have begun by disbelieving and disputing it." The reverse, – most certainly, is fact anent one. best class of great minds. – Man's vast interests here and hereafter are couched in truth moral and political. "And the whole constitution of human affairs is based upon some idea of God." Well were we ever prepared to suffer if necessary for truth! "Men should pursue truth for its own sake, and independently of the consequences it may be found to involve." 1 Still it by no means necessarily follows that an earnest lover of truth is entirely free from error. Wrong, error, sincerity, earnestness, have ere now dwelt together. Nevertheless sincere love of truth is a genial soil luxuriantly productive of good. And I most decidedly believe that no former age was better than this.

Lately we have seen a newspaper report of plagiarism, as detected and exposed by an honorable literatus; who, on reporting it, affirmed that it was a gross violation of honesty. I concur in this judgment. Now mentioned because some time since literary theft was gravely alleged against some men in the highest places in New Zealand – parsons and others. I was once literally smitten with astonishment by a similar discovery elsewhere. Every thing, every sentence, and every expression I advance, whether

good, bad, or indifferent, come straight: and immediately from my own head and heart, as is always plainly perceptible to the perceiving. The contrary would be uninteresting, and, through consciousness of waste, disheartening. Self-love and rational aspiration should suffice to interdict such beggary. Here individuality and idiosyncrasy are alike sufficiently apparent. It is deemed generally injurious, and specially opposed to the second side of manly humility, to believe in caste superiors. The chief superiority in our world, as even Isaac Newton himself declared, is that of meritorious industry. – THis averment is doubly necessary because of said detection and the fact that my theme, in its general aspect, is not new. And there is a special private reason. – Plato says, an efficient teacher must be poor. Some will feel forced to do as they like about believing him. A learned sect of a large church is under a vow of poverty. Some feel and affirm the vow superfluous.

I was impelled to write the following, which duly appeared anonymously: –

AUCKLAND AND PROTECTIONISM.

To the Editor of the Daily Southern Crons.

SIR, – Will you allow me to set forth a few words, chiefly as announcement, through the medium of the D. S. Cross? To-day, I read "Anthropos" advocating Tariff Protectionism, gratuitously owning incompetency therein, and inviting discussion. I wish authoritatively to inform him and "all whom it may concern" that some persons are now stripping for the race in competition for the £30 or £10 Otahuhu prize, shortly to be advertised. Further, that they are practising on their own private grounds, hoping soon to "come out strong," and that, "as at present advised," they judge it improper to trespass with their disciplinary gyrations on your domain.

I dislike the strain of to-day's letter upon the problem. – I have, &c.

July 19, 1867.

Scarcely twice a-year have I ever resorted to the anonymous.

To this humorous communication it should just be added that only the first paragraph and a few relative notes were jotted in July: the paper was then stowed in the limbo of oblivion for more than three months. A felt hesitation is accounted for by the first third of this proem.

W. E. S.
Auckland, December 23, 1867.

[Page 6 is blank]

1 Editor – Hugh Miller.

I.

Free Trade:

AFFIRMED ALWAYS RIGHT AND PROPER
CONSIDERED IN ITS ADAPTATION TO NEW ZEALAND.

I.

1. Physiologically to violate nature's laws inevitably entails ill-health. This is indubitably true; and attested by very frequent painful experience. Now, notice, TRUTH IS ONE; though, certainly, we often do sec that its course, like that of "true love, never does run smooth." Intervening circumstances and interfering selfishness frequently interpose obstacles to its benign and fertilising flow, diverting its course into a score ramifications and channels, so as to pose and puzzle the various peoples living on its vast and varied and salubrious banks to trace the source.

2. Nevertheless truth cannot be essentially altered by any possible or conceivable circumstances. And the obvious, certified truth pertaining to human bodily health, holds concerning human commercial intercourse, or trade; viz., to contravene nature's relative laws is sure to occasion disorder in the body politic.

8. It seems a self-evident postulate that "all people that on earth do dwell" – Father Adam's children especially, not now to say anything of the others – should find no actual obstruction in their honest, straightforward, respectable endeavours to trade or even truck together. Evidently, however, as here already hinted, there are many existent obstacles. Some of the principal of these shall be presently noticed.

4. One man grows a surplus beyond own want of potatoes; another grows wheat more than he requires for home. They hence advantageously barter. Or, a middle man is introduced, called a shopkeeper, who buys all such surplusage and sells. The first then sells him potatoes and buys of him bread from said wheat. Here is trade; and the medium thing called money is brought into requisition. This clear arrangement saves much time and trouble. All this is straightforward – natural. Extend the operation of the idea from two individuals to two or to twenty nations. We then have commerce. Head middle man is then a merchant; and there are subordinate middle men – tradesmen. All right. – Tariff now intervenes, and puts a big stone into the delicate organism, – intermeddles with the basis of

"good-will." Sends officers with swords to "board" merchant carrier ships. And soon there are laches and a hitch; and then comes horrid war. – Unimpeded trade, it must therefore be assumed as postulatum, is nature's law; monopoly protection is its infraction. We shall, however, ere finishing this work, have particularly to inquire whether any peculiar conditions and circumstances, here or elsewhere, demand or justify departure from that natural rule of unrestricted liberty in honest trade. And it is just now believed that to such inquiry must be affixed a final negative.

5. During the quarter of a century last past enough on the question of Free Trade and Free Ports has been said and written to stock a library; and were all gathered up, "the world could not receive the books that would be written." And it would certainly be the very easiest thing now to give pages of statistics in demonstration of the truth to nature of the political doctrine of free, unrestricted trade. Indeed, it appears, trade protectionists have not a leg left to stand on. Their very last pretext of artificial circumstances requiring artificial fiscal arrangements proved a poor fly under the ponderous wheel of the car of inexorable necessity. By their own full though constrained consent they are argumentatively done. Aye, done up. Moreover, they have accepted the situation; and have implicitly promised fiducial integrity. Indeed, already, in turn, they have actually administered free trade laws. Truth is more powerful than its great adversaries. Good is often accomplished by those who were opposed to it. The whole old civilised world now laughs at the antiquated political nostrum of governmental monopoly protection to trade and commerce; and, doubtless, would groan at a serious, iniquitous attempt to reproduce it. But still, really, it does appear, we ought to look very sharp indeed devoutly to kick out godless chaps who would feign govern us. They are dangerous men. They are regardless of mental truth, and are not afraid of God.

6. The feeler proposition of governmental protection to traders in Auckland, whether agriculturalists,, smiths, or carpenters, must, therefore, it is shrewdly suspected, be quashed. Under the very best auspices, or the least unfavourable circumstances, it would only come to enriching the left hand trousers pocket at the expense of the right. And plain people who know nothing and care less about the science of political economy, wholly and firmly believe that that would really be no gain. It showed more deep perspicacity in the Otahuhu agriculturalists than they ever yet got credit for, that they laughed at David Graham's public suggestion that possibly monopoly protection was necessary to them. And methinks I see David joining cordially and with wonted bonhommie in that general hearty laugh.

7. It is certainly not the present purpose to give a digest of the potential and extant works alluded to; else, instead of a desiderated pamphlet on a peculiar phase of the question a book would come. To mount the shoulders of Adam Smith, McCulloch, and Mill, in order to a view far away beyond them;

and to present column after column of heavy arithmetical figures would surely be dry, uninteresting, and unacceptable. It is carefully declined. And not only for this believed non-necessity and unacceptableness, but also for the rather different reason that, though often heard of, I never saw them, and they are now inaccessible to me. – The simple fact is, I want just now to give the reader the ripe result of my own independent thinking, as I would do were I to meet him at a Saturday's market, and have a friendly, free-and-easy, leisurely, intelligent chit-chat; and am not at all desirous to give here, what by some persons might possibly be expected of me, pages of extracts from, or a digest of any elaborate works which upon this subject are or may be extant. Present design is to aim at a plain, simple view of the question as it bears on the considerable territory of Auckland, and chiefly as it affects its aratory interests. It is peculiarly, how and what about Free Trade in New Zealand? I would now well-nigh confine myself to this particular aspect. But must, however, just glance at principle, as underlying the question in its every possible application anywhere.

8. It is ordained that every man should love himself. Self-love is divinely implanted in man as fundamental motivity. Deny it, and no place is found for promised rewards and threatened punishments, and consequently for law and government to which these appertain – The vast distinctive difference between self-love and selfishness has never yet received sufficient notice and treatment. Selfishness is self-love under a mistake. It is depraved perversion. It may be safely affirmed that insufficient self-love is the occasion of most of the vice in our world. For instance, if a man duly respected himself be would surely not put into his body that which necessarily, certainly, and plainly injures it, as too much beef or too much beer, &c. Self-love is natural, and the God-ordained foundation of benevolence. Want of self-respect is a sin alike against nature and the dictates of Divine Revelation, which harmonize. Now, our theme receives illuminating illustration hereby, and comes in here with striking pertinency.

9. A shoemaker makes you a pair of shoes. Oh! does he? Yes; but why? because he loves you? No; not a bit of it. Because, rather, he loves himself honestly and righteously, and therefore seeks some money which represents this world's goods. If shoemakers never made shoes except from pure benevolence it is doubtful whether the people would be well shod. If the world's commerce were only legitimate when No. 1 is in abeyance, legitimate commercial transactions would be sparse. And then every man would have to try to grow his own potatoes, and worse, try to live only on them; – a result, by-the-bye, which looks rather like an emanation of malevolence. Self-love and social love have the same end. Now, just trace the operation of this idea throughout the whole community and the whole world, and thereby you will come easily to ascertain whether nature's freedom in commerce should be restricted by artificial regulations, or whether pure and

simple let-a-loneism will answer. And it is specially desired that every man should see the thing clearly for himself, and not through the medium of another – should not believe on mere authority, or because he happens to know some excellent man who believes it. Honorable self-love, it is affirmed, is at the bottom of the commercial fact that a fair demand commonly creates a full supply. 2

10. Were a thousand carpenters wanted immediately to set up a township on the banks of the Waikato (such a likely demand would have made our railway feasible) it would be a violation of the rule of right, and of the principle technically called free trade, to get the government to impose a special tax on every carpenter not belonging to this province; and, as always, so notably and plainly in this case, such violation would be suicidal. -Oh! if that's it, I am for free trade – decidedly. Why, certainly you are, – of course! Well, now, if the carpenters of Auckland province should not have a protective governmental arrangement, ought the agriculturists? Now if a township be not just at present actually in demand, bread-corn is, – always is; and, lately, during the abnormal, extraordinary state of things – 10,000 troops being located among us – it was in very large demand. Actual supply is essential, and of primary consideration; source of supply is a secondary, though not unimportant business. The first thing for the people, we say, is to get food for the keeping together of soul and body. Supply is urgently necessary. Who ought to be able, or enabled to supply the want, though not an insignificant question, is still a problem for more leisurely de-

liberation. Give us something to eat first. After dinner speech is cordial.

11. It was certainly not an evil that California and Adelaide have recently had corn to spare and to sell; and, that we could freely and unrestrictedly buy, was incontrovertibly a good. The evil was, that large tracts of land in this country which could have supplied the demand did not, whereby our hard cash went far away. The burden of present inquiry, then, really is, Why did not this extensive territory of land yield it? Is there not a cause? There is, doubtless. And it should be ferretted out. We are unable, it is alleged, to compete with California in our own corn-market! "How passing strange!!" Considering the many thousands of miles California is distant from us, and considering the high rate of shipping-freight in this South Sea, it might reasonably be supposed that the cost of transit would be ample protection for the home producer. Now, remark, this question is a large branch of politics; and the cause of our defeat and grievance is not alone agricultural but principally political. For one instance: our roads are deficient and defective, and consequently it costs a disproportionate sum for our own conveyance of produce to market. Of this we have all heard and read re-iterated complaints. But, then, even so, how political? who so much obliged to make and mend roads as those who use or want to use them? Certainly this is plausible; but it is irrelevant; for the requisite money, and more, is really paid, and yet the roads are wanting. If half the money which the settlers have been mulcted to pay to our anomalous plurality of governments had been spent upon their own roads, and about various means of transit, this extraordinary evil would not exist as a grievous complaint. And so then it is political.

12. Some men evidently came out to these islands under the impression that the desideratum for this place, containing a few thousands of inhabitants, and the special want for themselves and their nearest friends, was a reproduction of all the institutions of old England, with its many millions of population; and hence we must, of course, have a Custom House, &c., &c., with an army of officials. Were it asked, What is our Post establishment for? the answer (blinking the subsidies) would be prompt and satisfactory. But, were it asked, what is our Custom-house for? the answer would be different and slow in coming forth. What for is the Custom Home in these far-off sparsely peopled islands? In reality, therefore, the question resolves itself into this, Can we, a few thousands here, having such an army of officials to support, produce corn to pay, as well as the Americans, whose officials are economically supported, and so supported by many millions of population.

13. And, again, some people are deceived by a flippant naming of coins. Possibly 5s. in California may represent 9s. of New Zealand necessary articles. Suppose we here were properly to make 4s. 6d. cash next month worth 8s. cash this month: how then? What goods do coins represent? we should inquire. In

300 B. c., the standard price of a bushel of wheat was one penny; of an ox, 3s. 5d.; of a sheep, 1s. 8d. Then money was dear.

14. In England, manufactures demanded free trade, and tithes demanded "protection." Here, Customs' Tariff cripples the people; and they cast about for a redress; and, as a drowning man will eagerly clutch at a straw, so the farmers, (no man at these antipodes should be a farmer: he should cultivate his own), ground down by extraordinary taxation, look askance at a (morally impossible) government fiscal protection as a necessary help.

15. The use of the single word protection is apt to be misleading, for all admit that the grand function of government is to portect – is truly and legitimately the protection of person, life, and property. Often, people, for lack of thought, are misled by words. Tariff monopoly protection expresses the meaning better: i.e. taxing the many solely and only for bounty for the few. And sophistry, it is presumed, is undesired. We do not wish to blind ourselves.

1(5. Suppose that in a country where wheat-growing is so protected the growers of other articles were each, in effect, to say, Well, if your wheat-growing is subsidised by taxing everybody's wheat except yours, I demand that my tea-growing be in like manner protected, by taxing everybody's tea except that which I grow. So, then, Jones would be giving Smith 8s. for his own private pocket for every bushel of corn had; and Smith would give Jones 1s. 6d. extra for every pound of tea bought. And, if men can get rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other, these very intelligent and industrious men, both, would soon demonstrate to the world a confirmation of darkey's deposition, "dat all men do love lazy," – they would retire on their acquired independent means.

17. Oh, but, then, such a thing was never in contemplation we never even dreamed that our beloved brother the tea-grower over the way was to have a tariff protective tax, but only us wheat growers: which gives a fresh face to the thing! – Now, – Jones won't stand it; but he pluckily bursts out, Fair play all the world over. Fair play is a jewel. But then, friend Jones, like Richard Cobden, is a thorough business man, and smashes idle theories evidently devised to cover dishonest practice.

18. Be it ever borne in mind that protective duties, so-called, are not primarily designed for revenue; and in point of fact very seldom make or minister to revenue; the tax is only protective, as it is named; it is to prevent full, fair competition But interested sophisters have sometimes found it very convenient to; forget the meaning of the name. But revenue is designed to be expended on all the people who pay it in, bating a percentage for collectors' salaries – necessary expense, which about 5 per cent, should amply cover. – Query: Is this expense in New Zealand about 75 per centum? or is it 85? – Is any article in Auckland taxed if produced elsewhere, and exempted from the tax if produced as good here? – And even though this be so, bread must always be allowed as an exception to any such bad rule,

for it ia proverbially "the staff of life." And it is really a merciful Providence that supplies of this essential do not fail, although local harvests sometimes fall short. So, legal restrictionism may be to oppose directly Divine Providence. The most enlarged freedom in the wish to buy wheat must not therefore be in the slightest degree interfered with. And the modern invaluable facilities of ocean transit must not be by cunning craftiness counteracted or rendered unavailing. You may or may not have a prejudice against the phrase Free Trade, especially as applied to the article wheat; – possibly you are unable to divest it of the notion of party. Any such possible prejudice cannot be deemed worthy of much notice. And in truth we do not much care about any particular phrase, more especially if ignorantly employed as a "cry." But it is very earnestly asked that no man make any attempt to intervene by coercive law between the buyer and the seller of bread-corn.

19. Well, upon the whole and spite of circumstances, I must think that any return to abolished protectionism is utterly hopeless. The only chance for it would be in a prevailing political ignorance, which we must try to obviate or disperse. The thing had better now, once for all, be tranquilly regarded as defunct; and, like a bad one dead, talked of as a possible helper no more.

20. To talk about, so as to create an expectation of protective monopoly-taxes will be very injurious, in its certain effects, to the cultivators of the soil. If they be induced to anticipate that the people will soon be compelled by law to subsidise them in their work, it will throw off their dependence from themselves; and, to their own very serious detriment, they will be mentally looking for extraneous aid; and retardation of improvements will surely be consequent. And, furthermore, considering the fact that there is not the slightest chance, nay, not so much as the ghost of a chance, of their ever getting such compulsory aid, the case, so, is very much aggravated. This is really no time to hope for the resuscitation of protectionism, or for the promotion of one trade by Act of Parliament at the expense and by the hindrance of every other. If it could obtain, it should not; but surely it cannot possibly; especially where every house-keeper has a vote, In England the thing is dead and condemned, – let it alone.

21. I somehow fancy it is to do immense service to the agriculturists here to clearly point out and exhibit the utter hopelessness of ever putting into operation the protectionist recipe lately prescribed, – hence, these free remarks. It is to contribute to best temporal benefit to force the inference of inevitable self-reliance. What is done for men mostly subtracts from the healthy stimulus to do for themselves, and so entails injury.

22. But is it necessary to set forth the abstract truth of Free Trade, – which very few indeed would now deny to be truth in the abstract, – when it is remembered, that our circumstances altogether are undeniably artificial; and that our laws generally

and Tariffs in particular are founded upon presupposition of this fact? Now, this, in reality and in effect, is the gist of all the plausible platitudes ever advanced by advocates of tariff protection to agriculture. Omitting the consideration of the gross inconsistency of contributing chiefly to the artificial, and then pleading the artificial so produced as main argument for an urged protective enactment by way of reprisal, the following should suffice as reply: – But, bread being a necessity; – bread-eating being universal; – bread-eating being eminently natural; it cannot be legitimately brought under any artificial arrangement, but especially under a law of prohibition for securing monopoly and consequent dearness, without catching instanter the avenging rebuke of nature, and painfully demonstrating that to violate nature is to entail disorder. Trifle with satins and embroidery, and even with "baccy," if you will, but, when you busily set to to concoct and elaborate a cunning, complicated tariff, in the name of God and for the sake of the multitude, let bread alone.

23. Again, the "artificial state and condition" argument is based on the assumption that it is practicable and sometimes proper to overcome evil with evil, which is erroneous. And to do evil that good may come is policy blundering. Good may be educed from our evil by a wise and merciful Providence, and most likely very often is, else, in all probability, we should destroy ourselves; but we cannot possibly by designed direct evil produce good. – Very much in our artificial state, doubtless, is unmixed evil. That which is proved so should be removed. Certainly this seems the unambiguous dictate of common sense, and of plain, simple honesty. Because my neighbour the sugar grower over the way has his business protected by a factitious enactment whereby my sugar costs too much, it is surely not so much an argument for me to get my wheat-growing protected also, as it is that I should sedulously seek the abolition, for the good of all, of the law which has actually conferred on him a monopoly. Doubtless, tariffs often have been artfully partial and unjust. The partiality and the injustice should be expunged. But to proceed to this by way of reprisals, and to labour assiduously to get an additional partiality for another trade or calling, is positively to confound confusion, to the general and grievous detriment of the respectable multitude who consume and pay. – Anyhow to tax trade is egregiously and obviously impolitic. And would surely never have been resorted to by any nation but under the extremest emergency. Such policy is an effect of horrid war.

24. Hence I happen firmly to disbelieve in tariffs altogether, and to believe that the very least of their many hypothetical evils is that they are a clumsy, complicated, difficult "way" of getting the "means." And, apparently, the principal reasons why some great men have advocated them, are, first, they conceal taxation from the public; second, they confer patronage and power by creating lots of good billets to give. Yet, incontestably, whilst standing, law, not touching concerns of "the world to come," must and should be obeyed. Only if bad it is a public

virtue to labour assiduously for its abrogation:

25. Let us now suppose, for example, that two contiguous islands, say in the South Sea, and named A and B, were occupied by 400 industrious immigrants with their families – about 200 men on each. At B a large proportion of the people, knowing well how to grow it, regularly produced more than enough wheat abundantly to supply the two countries. At A the people, indifferently acquainted with that branch of agriculture, produced only a small quantity of wheat; but being good horticulturists, and skilled in handicraft – boatbuilding, &c., it was generally believed to be more mutually advantageous to traffic by regular trade or by barter, than for each man to attempt to produce every necessary article of consumption he wanted. In short, and very plainly, they wisely opined that it was decidedly better "every cobbler should stick to his last." One island country, then, regularly supplied wheat or flour; and the other, fruits and some vegetables, &c., &c.; also well-equipped trading vessels, and clothes, house-furniture, &c. Population naturally and steadily increased; fallen human nature showed its ordinary depravity; temporal government became necessary; courts for disputes, and judges, watchers, and warders, must be forthwith appointed. The few necessary public servants must be paid by the public. Where is the money to come from? There is wealth among them; but how is public revenue fairly to be got, and how appropriated? A few intelligent men are chosen (elected) to arrange these things; the principle of representation, inaugurated to our world by God (the Covenants), is espoused by these two new states. All these simple institutions are working well and smoothly. But, – yes, there comes a but, and a hitch, – depravity, common to all, crops up ostensibly and peculiarly among these simple representative rulers. Selfishness, always impolitic, comes forth to legislate. A wiseacre comes out strong with a mighty fiscal project; he sets it forth fluently and with seemingly intense earnestness; – from his abundant imaginings his mouth volubly speaks; – he knows how to get the necessary expenses of government without any tax on his constituents, viz. tax the products, not the persons; and those products other people's, not ours. (Hear; hear. Loud and prolonged cheers.) Every bushel of corn brought hither from other countries to pay an import tax of 3s. So our wheat-growers, exempt from that tax, will be able to compete in the market; and our people will be spared taxation. (Cheers.) A large landowner present could not see revenue accruing from the policy, but could distinctly see an enhancement of the value of his property, – he was sagacious. He supported it. But the odd 3s. increase of price to the people is very conveniently kept out of view during process of argument. And, worse still, the tight restriction inevitably supervening on trade and barter it is very carefully resolved to forget. Affairs between the two interesting countries get complicated, disordered, factitiously deranged, and tangled. The natural law of nations, – free, unrestricted trade, – is violated.

Some discern this violation to be the secret of the prevailing commercial disorder, and of the consequent public discontent. Others don't or won't see it, – can't see it at all Forsooth, they are "making a pretty penny" out of the corruption, which was both the cause and the effect of the fiscal error. In the name of all that is honest and straightforward, how can it be expected that these most excellent, honorable men should "see it!" The hindrance and entailed impoverishment of many people is surely a wholly immaterial consideration when a few individuals get rich by the fact! Any one who will protest against this must be bad and be branded!

26. I hold it to be bad policy to tax any nameable articles of trade; the certain loss resulting is more in amount than the tax payment. But to tax bread-corn is incontestably iniquitous. And it is deprived of even the color of a plausible pretext when it is a tax on all wheat except the wheat of home growth; for when, by nearly excluding the stranger, which is in reality the chief object of protective taxes, the extra price goes straight into the pockets of the small protected portion of the community who produce wheat, or of their lords, and not into the public treasury for the public service, as do all legitimate taxes. Observe this particularly, corn-laws were never primarily designed for revenue. Any revenue accruing from them was always incidental – merely by the bye; and always a secondary consideration. They have ever been only restrictive, protective laws. Now, the notion that protection by monopoly law is necessary, is exploded and dissipated in all enlightened countries. Relaxation preparatory to abolition, is the order of the day in all the great nations where any such laws yet remain. Shall we, then, the descendants and colonists of Great Britain, which lately set the world such a noble example of freedom, and which the world has not been slow to follow, as witness the liberal international tariff between England and France, shall we go hack to an effete institution which was conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity, and which has been, at instance of the vox populi, extinguished long since elsewhere? Let us rather go forward. The sun never goes back. The thing is manifestly impossible.

27. It is singularly apropos that about three hours after first writingg of this page the following telegraphic paragraph appeared in Auckland prints as a second edition of mail news: – "The King of Burmah, under the advice of the Viceroy of India, has consented to modify his Customs' Tariff, and to abandon monopolies which enriched himself personally, to the detriment of his subjects and foreigners alike." – That the coincidence should powerfully arrest my notice was natural and of course.

28. However plausible a wheat-grower in Auckland may see it or suppose he sees it to be, it is in no-wise feasible that the bread-eaters would allow an exclusion from the market of our brethren and friends and fellow-colonists of Adelaide solely and only to keep up wheat dear enough to satisfy our growers. Does it not now carry unmistakable signs of impracticability on the very

face of it? Here, remember, the bread-eaters are electors as well as the bread-growers. We protest that distance should occasion ample protection: if excessive taxation exactly counterbalance this natural advantage, the remedy is plain to see. Laws for monopoly protection are, I think, for ever impossible to Auckland. And it must be a thoroughly heartless and disheartening job to labour for an object that is unattainable!

29. Unlucky men, ignorant self-seekers, and "bad hands" are of course forward to clamour for protective subsidy. The regular presumption of this should cause inquiring "good men and true" to be very suspicious of protectionism.

30. What, then, is to be done? Agriculture here, owing to numerous drawbacks, is seldom sufficiently remunerative, and is always uncommonly precarious. – I am not careful to deny all of this allegation. Possibly it is a fact. I believe it is so in regard to some products, and that it has been hitherto so in many spots regarding wheat-growing in particular. I think I forsee it will not so continue. But even were the case fifty degrees worse, whatever it might say to such an island, it would certainly not fairly follow that therefore all other workers should be compelled by law to help out.

31. The grand point is this, and I readily and promptly own that it has its seeming difficulties, – there is something that may well be advanced on the other side, – viz., there being here an actual tariff, should not foreign wheat, considering our difficulty of growing, be taxed as well as other articles of daily consumption? The whole thing seems to me fairly to come to this: – tariffs – taxes on articles of trade – being an existent evil among us, should we not fairly be entitled to fight one evil with another? – as tariffs do exist, and as weak imitators in power have made them rampant in order to secure salaries for their sons, cousins, and nephews, who could not or would not go and clear the bush; and as, consequently, we have but a very poor chance at present of obtaining the abrogation of tariffs, would it not be decidedly better for us, helplessly taking the thing as it is, to work the tariff for our own protection – to get on to the tariff a "duty" on every man's corn except ours. As for thereby starving lots of folks, why, we ought not in reason to be looked to as in anywise responsible for that or any such alleged inevitable result; the tariff itself must of course be alone looked to, and the inventors, or introducers, or sustainers of the tariff must be held to be solely responsible for any supposed injury or suffering it induces. – All this supposed special pleading, however, only seems to enforce the idea that tariffs are, especially in a young country, a curse, and of which we here should speedily rid ourselves. That is all. – But –

32. I have used the old-fashioned compound word common-sense. Well, I mean precisely the thing it imports. Personally you and I would not think on removing one bodily evil by the infliction of another. If a thorn were in one finger, a man would try to extract it, but would certainly not think of trying to mend

the matter by inserting a thorn in another finger. Protectionism is affirmed to be an evil – an evil equal and very similar to getting a rate laid on a town for a subsidy to enable its suburban wheat-growers profitably to follow their calling; although rates are usually for the convenience and comfort of the rate-payers; but as – as you suppose – some articles have tariff protection, (I happen not to know which, it is only too well known that too many articles are highly taxed for revenue), therefore your produce should have it too. Cure one disease by superinducing another! – dangerous, extremely! None but the most eminent of the faculty may be suffered to resort to such a dubious ultimate experiment. Perhaps after all it would be better to be without any malady. And better to be without tariffs. Far better, surely, totally to remove oppressive burdens than to shift them on to your neighbours' shoulders.

33. I would not be dogmatical, nor improperly harsh; and would not advance a thought or an opinion with temerity; but such is the strength of my conviction of the paramount importance of this question – my firm belief being that it seriously touches the business and bosom of every man amongst us; that if "the Church of God," in its every section, had arisen en masse in earnest, fervid protestation against tariffs for New Zealand, by which evidently the people here, who have manifested utter inability to get away from these islands, have been dragged down to poverty, they would have done vastly more for the public good than by embarking in factitious relieving schemes of City Missions, &c., &c., which are specially unsuited to colonists. To prevent and to cure poverty are a far higher order of charity than temporarily to relieve. – As I suppose myself to be addressing the intelligent, I cannot descend to disabuse any persons of the ignorant prejudice against the word politics.

34. It is almost always forgotten, when speaking of the late English corn laws, and was cunningly kept out of sight by protectionists, – hence it is worthy of repetition for prominence, – that those laws did not exactly impose a tax on corn, but on all other peoples' corn but ours; – an iniquitous style of selfishness, which, whilst it enriched the great landlords, (but not the farmers, whose rents were reckoned on the basis of that protection), was crushing out the life of English trade; and, not rhetorically, but literally and really, grinding the people down from a "nation of shopkeepers" to a nation of paupers. "He who withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him." By a convulsive effort, aided by special Providence in an opportune, mysterious potatoe disease, the incubus was thrown off and into the depths of the sea; and English commerce arose, like a giant refreshed with new wine; and rejoiced like a strong man to run a race. And a marvellous race it has since run!

35. I do not care largely to avail myself here of any reasoning on the propriety of cosmopolitanism and of universal brotherhood, and of erasing from our vocabulary the word foreigner. No doubt much might come of it; but it is not now my vein. I

suppose the sum would just amount to, We have as much natural right to be free at their market as they; and they just as much right to be free at our market as we. Certainly tariffs are opposed to international amity; and, indeed, have often been wielded as belligerent instruments. It is well known how Napoleon 1st distressed Great Britain by legally touching merchandise with prohibitory law. And a tariff was the single, sole cause of the loss by England of the noble American Colonies. – Enough.

2 About three months after first writing of above paragraph, an excellent preacher delivered a sermon, per advertisement, entitled self-love, and selfishness, &c. It was certainly, and according to confident expectation, a good discourse – spiritual and subduing. I do suppose the subject was suggested by a small polite personal debate I previously had with him on the meaning of the words, which are every day in everybody's mouth, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." I had said, almost every one misconstrued those words, apparently understanding "as" to mean, as much as; whereas I believed the meaning to be exactly according to the saying; "as," or in like manner; and most certainly not as much as. Transacting howsoever, look over at him as being yourself. This excludes the "as much." As you would that men should do, &c., the ellipsis here cannot certainly be filled with, could or would wish, but, would reasonably expect or rationally count. It was protested by several present that the words really do mean as much as. I thought that if the bell had then rung out an alarum of a conflagration, and we had rushed to the door to see the direction and saw two fires, one at my house, and one another way at my neighbour's, I should of course run to mine first. No supposed balance of motives inducing hesitancy would be experienced The grand question now is, would such course be right? By universal consent it would. And here, again, nature and Scripture tally; for, after all, it is "as;" – it is not as much as. God's word is true. Yet, I own, the command is exceeding broad. I should not anticipate success from any human attempt to widen it. But the ride for "brother" differs from the rule for "neighbour." This page or two of running preliminary discussion, which this note finishes, involves my whole present theme. The Royal Law demands equity in human regulations for trade. Only desperadoes deny that we should do to others as we would (rationally count) they should do to us.

II.

II.

1. In a letter extraordinary from the South, the hon. President (or Speaker) of the House of Representatives, bemoans the excessive taxation which he thinks is crushing down the New Zealand Colonists. He pathetically asks for some remedy, and virtuously hopes that truth may prevail. The Premier, also, seriously asks, Only tell us how to reduce! The self-interested anti-separationists so anomalously addressed will not be able to respond. Their preposterous creed of ten legislatures for a handful of people forbids. We Aucklanders have often and in various ways pointed out the only efficient, and, seemingly, the solely practicable remedy, and which was summarily given forth last August, viz., Two central legislative governments in and for these two island countries, with their appendages of district or provincial boards, &c., in substitution for the present ten legislatures. – The hon. Holmes, in a capital speech, the other day in our Upper House, as reported in print, gave in his full adhesion to this particular prescription, as an urgent, clamorous necessity. This, again, I take it, is more clear gain. – If precedent be demanded, we have that (I would never ask it): – Prescott says, "The different provinces of Spain were consolidated into one Empire under the rule of Ferdinand and Isabella."

2. It is painful to iterate and re-iterate a thought, though in varied phraseology, by reason of exposing to the charge of repeating oneself. But verily the suggestion of reduction and consolidation adverted to still demands foremost prominence. The ease is truly urgent: we are really – as a good while ago I had to remind an anonymous writer who inattentively repeated the word "humbug" – we are well-nigh smothered and stifled with numerous different governments here. And to set forth this fact now and here, though it is not directly the question, yet, as it underlies it all, is decidedly the reverse of irrelevent. Nay, it must surely be superfluous to rebut a hypothetical charge of irrelevence; for the least consideration will issue in the conviction that denunciation of our excessive taxation, with an exposure of its unprincipled cause, is a necessary sequence. The

argument, observe, is this, – and it is really plain, – We cannot compete in our own corn market with far-off California! Marvellous premiss indeed! How is it, and why? Why, we are taxed about ten times as much as they; and the frightful excess is owing to the fact that we have about ten times as much so-called government as they. What is the use of your earning good means, if half or more of your earnings go away, imperceptibly and you know not how, but veritably, to the support of so-called governments, in which you positively have but little interest? Cui Bono?

3. Now here is nothing recondite, nothing occult; all is plain, and above-board, – perspicuous, obvious, and undeniable. And it is abominable.

4. The president of the House expressly and properly decries the "sectional" condition of New Zealand political. Of this they all have very painful experience in the House of Representatives. It doubtless took vast power of conscious wrong so to bring out the dignified Speaker.

5. But a hankering is discerned for the substitution of ONE legislature for these two large island countries with their numerous pendent islets, in lieu of the present ten; rather than, according to above quoted proposal, two for the two, instead of the ten. E. W. Stafford evinces the same inkling. Extremes, again, alas! If it be a hankering after large, concentrated power, it would surely soon prove to be going counter to the march of mind and the spirit of the age. Their aim realised would clearly bring them under the just denunciation of true opponents of real, erroneous centralisation. Tampering, tinkering, and splendid trifling are in politics objectionable. It is advisable that they seek for our institutions stability, and aim at the permanent. – Precedent again, if required: – Independent Portugal, – once brought down under the dominion of Spain, a thrall which lasted 59 years, ending A.D. 1640, – it is known, is a successful independent nation, notwithstanding that some statesmen did demand its final amalgamation with Spain. This precedent is decidedly "on t'other side;" whereby we are again thrown on to the via media. Like the pure, life-giving river, which ordinarily selects for its channel the centre of the champaign between the hills, truth is often found at the mean.

6. Maugre, on the whole I rather like the honorable President's letter; and would particularize the evidently earnest spirit that pervades it. And I exceedingly dislike the banter and lame attempt at wit, palmed off and protruded as criticism on that letter, which lately appeared in a Wellington newspaper, and in Auckland as a quotation.

7. A celebrated Swiss philosopher (Alex. Vinet), in his admirable Prize Essay advocating the necessity of ever keeping separate and distinct the two institutions styled the church and the state – the temporal and the spiritual – has the following, pertinent to this present theme, and particularly concurrent with the matter just now touched:

8. "Every thing now tends to abridge the sphere of action of human power, and to reduce the number of its exclusive prerogatives. Government is considered to have under its conduct only that which private people cannot accomplish. The modern spirit of communities is to be governed as little as possible – we do not say as feebly. It desires that the spontaneity of human nature should find opportunity for development; that general interests, apart from public functions, should occupy the minds and hearts of individuals; that society should mould and transform itself freely, under the sanction of general conventions, independently of state interference. This is not an abstract notion, but a part of the principle and instinct of modern communities." – He argues for more spontaneity and less government; more liberty and love and less law. He is a benefactor. – However, I do not intend to enlarge in this place on the specially alleged important method of the absolutely necessary reduction of taxation. That sole method has already been developed elsewhere; and the more suitable media of ephemeral journals may possibly be soon resorted to for amplifying and agitating the question. – I am only sorry that some here having power and influence evidently seem to reckon that the mere mention of undeniable, horrible, retarding abuses qualifies a man to be spoken against. They would appear to think that their own personal interest requires of them so to reckon. But it is strongly felt that if even these abuses directly yielded a man £700 per annum, he should nevertheless feel it incumbent upon him, on principle, to urge and press their removal. Selfishness, we have said, is self-love under a mistake. It is hoped this may not be deemed a novel doctrine. Present deep depression of New Zealand is one proof of its correctness.

9. On this head, finally. We are sometimes forced to hear loose talk about the desirability of restoring to Auckland the seat of government. Maoris were recently put up to making this the burden of their verbose speeches. But all such talk at this time of day is idle vapid vapouring; unless it be accompanied with a like demand for Canterbury – the central important place of the South Island. In a word, above proposal is the only feasible thing out. It is submitted as the means and the only means of reducing taxation, – of lightening the springs of industry, and of a lasting, happy indiscerptibility. 3

10. The Colossal Martin Luther once addressed in behalf of the people the governors of his day, and used the following words, "Now, that you levy and extort money in the way you have hitherto done is no longer to be endured. What would it avail if a farmer's field produced as many florins as blades of grass, or grains of corn, if the rulers only took from him so much the more; and proportionately increased their extravagance, and squandered it away in buildings, &c., &c. Extravagance must cease, and expenditure be lessened, that the people may be able to retain something for themselves." 4 Words, these strictly

and strikingly applicable to a certain place we know other than Germany; and to a time much later than 340 years ago! Recent rate of expenditure in New Zealand would be wholly unwarrantable if we had a population of a million wealthy people, instead of one seventh of a million of plain immigrants.

11. An Episcopalian Rev. author, lately deceased, left in print the following sage remark on general politics: – "The voice of the nation must go along with the nation's law. This law must be the expression of their own feeling, and then it will he obeyed. But if it is only the law of a government, or a law which is against the whole spirit of the people, there is first the murmur of a nation's disapprobation, and then there is transgression; and then, if the law be vindicated with a high hand, the next step is the bursting that law in national revolution by the rising of passion in its giant might, made desperate by restraint." – That this has been the common course all history attests. But a more excellent way was exemplified by the English Anti-corn-law-League with its efficacious, fervid, but peaceful moral suasion, the wondrous success of which for ever abolished the monopoly corn-laws. Had not Richard Cobden manfully and successfully frowned down his opponents the physical force "chartists," commercial freedom for England would not be yet won. – The Southern States of America did not deserve to win their desired independence for resorting, in this more enlightened age, to the arbitrament of the sword. It will come, however; but not for their sakes; and it will come, not by the force of powder and iron, but by the bursting, developing force of truth. The truth shall make them free. – This protruded contrast of results of the greatest Anglo Saxon movements of the latest generation is a Providential illustration of a Divine lesson to mankind, and this will be compensating for its attendant human evil. I carefully point to it.

12. The retrogade movement of democratic Victoria (Australia) may be justly reckoned and written a tentative freak. The people there will doubtless soon get sober. Experienced writers have largely pointed out the injury already brought about by the monopolising attempt. And a plain builder there, writing plainly and well on the matter of depreciation of house property (Argus, Sept. 6, 1867) uses the following words: "The so-called protectionists may certainly claim credit for doing their best to reduce rents – by driving trade from Melbourne.

13. I certainly do not ostentatiously presume to attempt to teach agriculturists their business; it is designed to dilate only or mainly on their special politics. Nevertheless, suggestion as to some of the possibly best things to grow here may not be out of place; it may be in perfect keeping with the main object of this essay, and may peradventure result in useful thought and purpose by more experienced practitioners. I find the following in the history of the colonisation of Virginia (America) of 1615: – "The labour of the Colony had long been misdirected." Things were grown and manufactured which could

not yield the means to "sustain the competition with" the old European nations. "It was found that tobacco might be profitably cultivated. The sect of gold-finders had become extinct; and now the fields, the gardens, the public squares, and even the streets of Jamestown were planted with tobacco. Tobacco, as it gave animation to Virginian industry, eventually became not only the staple, but the currency of the Colony."

14. All the world has during the 150 years last past heard plenty about Virginian tobacco.

15. "It was found that," &c., simply says the historian. Yes, "found" as the result of self-reliant enterprise. I attach vast importance to this quotation from George Bancroft's history of Virginia; and desire to draw best attention to it. Could we not certainly do something in the same line?

16. It is a very great consideration to grow things here that slugs and caterpillars dislike. These constitute an army with which north New Zealanders have proved totally unable to cope, – against whose predatory incursions we can do little more than bite either our lips or our finger-nails. Sometimes, in some places, "the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness." Their surprising cunning has made me asseverate that the devil is their general leader.

17. Well, now, though we be very wise, we – even we – may yet surely "live and learn." Does not this tobacco story from the history of America convey to us an invaluable suggestion? Of course any inquiry about the propriety of the wonderfully general use of tobacco would be quite out of the question.

18. Query: should not two or three American tobacco growers be obtained and retained at any rate, to give instruction in its growth and manipulation?

19. If south Auckland be not quite warm enough for tobacco growing, north Auckland is; especially the extensive territory from Matakana, via Bay of Islets, to the North Cape. But Maoris roughly grow it south, near Waikato. I shrewdly suspect that these have not bought this year of whites a twentieth of the black tobacco they did seven years ago. 5

20. But, adds a protectionist, When soil, climate, and circumstances combine to render a work desirable, legislation can protect the infancy of enterprise against the unequal competition with established experience and skill. – Plausible weakness! – O, pray do not let the child breathe the free air of heaven; its lungs must be tender; it must for awhile constantly wear a respirator!

Bosh! Only adapted to the rickets. Perhaps that doctrine had better at once be written heretical and antiquated; and put with the propriety of 150 yards of broad bandage for the swaddling of a fine infant to "protect" nature, – -the cases are strictly analagous; – it must be put among the doctrines held by professional, cunning old women who can't read.

3 Instantly see Appendix.

4 Pfizer.

5 The excript of a brief Virginian record given above is judged invaluable. Before they grew tobacco the Colonists happened to be in serious difficulties. (A pamphlet was then published entitled "The present sad state and condition of the English Colony in Virginia;" by L. G.) Afterwards they prospered exceedingly. – Were some agricultural association in north New Zealand to undertake to thoroughly test the matter by engaging an efficient agency and selecting a suitable hundred acres for the trial, it would be another work to show the importance of such society to the colony. Already, in small patches the thing has, I know, succeeded hore. These paragraphs on tobacco growing were shown to some principals here and met high approval.

III.

III.

1. It is essential to well-being and well-doing that agriculture should thrive. But farmers by sheer mistake have sometimes formerly frowned on their best friends. The special want for Auckland is successful and vastly increased agriculture. It is believed that Auckland has built up its town to the neglect of its country, – has prepared a fine market-place, as the town may be called, with a miserably insufficient regard to the likelihood of a perennial, unfailing supply of country produce. After all, the way and the order set forth of old by Solomon – strenuously enforced by Dr. Lang as advice to the intending emigrants to Geelong 17 years ago – cannot be improved upon, "Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field, and afterwards build thy house." The contrary brings into exemplification the adage, "One builds and another possesses."

2. I have deemed the 1858 forty-acre scheme altogether a great good to this district of New Zealand. Undoubtedly, however, it might have been worked much better. – I have often had occasion to remark that the fatal omission in the forty-acre Act, and that chiefly which brought odium upon it instead of the highest praise of which it was otherwise decidedly meritorious, was the not demanding a material guarantee that every portion of land awarded for simply coming hither should be occupied, or cultivated, or else at least as much money spent upon it as government demanded for land when selling, ere a Crown Grant could be had. Such a guarding clause alone would have done more for desired occupancy than any other device. Its diversified operation for this end is too obvious to need particularising. And it could not have been deemed oppressive. And had it checked and steadied the tide of immigration, so much the better. During the first three years there was an injurious rush.

8. Again, it was a gross perversion, after having, by that measure, obtained the requisite increase of population, to rest cunningly contented in the one single incidental yet inevitable result of that increase, viz., that the labour market was easier – that workmen's wages were reduced. The natural and due course consequence of such shortsighted selfishness was the gradual draining away of the people, and so the frustration of the project.

4. Possess ye the land and subdue it. Providence, and human politics, public and private, alike urgently demand it. For this every facility should have been previously provided and ostensibly proffered. Neglecting this has occasioned a break, Hundreds of the best forty-acre men desponded before presented impracticability; threw up the concern as a bad job; and become competitors with the townsmen for town work; or else went away from the province or the country altogether. The loss to Auckland will never be fully known, from the crass, stolid neglect by the Auckland rulers of the very simplest provision, viz. accessibility. I know men of considerable capital who had prepared to come out, but were stopped by adverse accurate reports from their friends who came first. – Many scores of thousands in hard cash, have been, during the five years last past, paid away by Auckland to America and to Australia for bread and beef. Doubtless the regular irruption of imperial troops into this island during that period produced a wholly factitious state of affairs amongst us, and did put trade and commerce into an abnormal condition. But it is now showing itself very ill that commissariat expenditure ultimately found its way abroad. Everyone here consequently suffers. One contractor who often dabbled in sums of twenty and thirty thousand pounds lately found himself without so much as one golden sovereign sticking to his fingers. This fact would, certainly, have been a much lesser evil had those large sums been distributed over this country. And a Victorian contracting company, during same rush, located an emissary here (Johnson) who nobly drove his carriage, and shovelled the cash proceeds of his extensive agency out of this country. Now, the best businessmen of Auckland are perpetually using the expression, "There is no money!" All the rest are asking Judge Moore to insist on their creditors squaring up and settling for from 9d. to 9s. in the pound. Cause and effect. Auckland province, with fair play since the famous year 1858, could and would have supplied all, or nearly all the extraordinary, strained demand adverted to. It is a vast district between here and the North Cape, – our peloponnesian peninsular, north of the isthmus, or the line across from Waitemata to Manukau, – and to most of us a terra incognita; – and since the evacuation of the Bay of Islets – for occasioning which the darkies cannot forgive themselves – has been as peaceful as the interior of England. The quiet North could and should be occupied.

5. But irrespective of the adventitious circumstances alluded to, it is no news to state, that with all our vast tracts of land, and our comparatively very sparse population, we have never yet grown even our own daily bread. Oh, but, then, the climate! The climate! Look at Adelaide, the granary of Austral-Asia, with more heat than north New Zealand, and, like it, without snow. Why, Adelaide exports breadstuff vastly. Now, this is not asked for the large province of Auckland. But it is demanded, by every national consideration, that the small population of this

large tract of country feeds at least itself from its own fields. This, as yet, it has never done, by a long chalk. Now, surely, this demand is very small; it is designedly and calculatingly put at its minimum. Of course, every wiseacre will promptly put himself into a bold, forward attitude to tell you confidently that this province won't grow wheat to pay. I don't quite believe it. That the whites have not, as yet, been able to do it, is another and a rather different thing. Seven or eight years of potato and maize growing has perhaps altered the soil for full fitness. Some best agriculturalists believe it has. But, anyhow, settlers might save themselves the expense of carting breadstuffs some thirty miles to their homes. That saved expense should be in effect as a protective subsidy on home growth. So, surely, they may profitably grow enough for home consumption whilst our voluble Utopians are advocating corn-laws to enable them profitably to grow, and desirable but unattainable railroads and canals in order to enable them by easy conveyance lucratively to sell.

G. But, then, after all, even were it granted that the statement is correct that this province cannot be made to produce wheat for sale profitably, – merely suppose it so, – it by no means thence fairly follows that agriculture won't pay here; although many seem to reckon this a matter of course consequence. There are many things other than wheat. There is the variety of animal food. And this country might certainly be one of the best in the world for fruit-growing; and by this alone many countries have got their wealth and do now flourish (wines, preserves, &c.) Again, here is analogy; England consumes more tea than any other State in the world. It grows none. Do these two plain facts condemn its agriculture? Aye, or nay. Clearly, were it proved that this province is unadapted to wheat-growing, it would certainly not therefore be condemnatory. All know it grows beef. And as for potatoes – galores! Not bad prog for a hungry tike!

7. During 1866 New Zealand imported

Grain – cash cost... ... ... £157,834
Flour " " ... ... ... 249,829
Oatmeal " " ... ... ... 6,519
Biscuits " " ... ... ... 5,728

These figures show the terrible shortcoming of New Zealand agriculture! What an import!!

IV.

IV:

1. Well, now; What practical conclusion can we draw from from the whole, additional to our mental and cordial concurrence in the reasoning and the keen plausibilities?

2. This, as a rough summary:

3. First and foremost, remove your legal obstructions. But don't even dream of a balance by interposing, with protectionism or any other ism, obstacles to other people. Wholly put away encumbering burdens. – This thesis is not agriculture simply, or most assuredly I should not have chosen to write on it. But some suggestions are incidentally and relatively advanced.

4. Learn at any rate to grow tobacco, after the experimented example of Virginia, as here quoted; – it will pay best. Also wine and beet sugar. Peaches to sell at Maori price, one farthing each, capital pay. An odd fifty acres of peaches would be first-rate, Remember, this is not England: get out of the rut of English agricultural notions.

5. And as you can and do grow well beef, mutton, and potatoes, choice vegetables, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, &c., &c,, there somehow surely should be prosperity. Try wheat again. And with cheap unencumbered land, agriculture in New Zealand really should and must pay. Remove the obstacles! And ever contend reasonably yet resolutely for unshackled trade and commerce!

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX.

THE portion of this section ending here was sent to the D. S. Cross, a good while ago, with a request for its insertion as a specimen of forthcoming pamphlet. Peculiar circumstances, perhaps pressure of matter principally, prevented its appearing therein, which certainly was one occasion of deferring this publication. Purpose was that every thoughtsman in these islands should have a copy of it ere expiration of 1867. However, that journal is now spiritedly advocating same or similar line of curtailing policy, and this satisfies.

Forsooth, our disproportionately large and correspondingly expensive governmental machinery is not only coming to he generally known as unprecedented, but also to be looked upon as truly monstrous and ridiculous. A costly machinery very much too large for twenty millions, appointed for a struggling population of one-seventh of a million!! So it was not the Commissariat seven years' cash expenditure for 10,000 troops that made Auckland bankrupt, as some weak ones have been, through the newspapers and on the rostrum, trying to teach! Yet, doubtless, the rural districts, being the seat of war, fared ill. There has existed a political vampyre! Now, Providence inquires. – The fact is, people who give nearly all their time to trade, or to music, &c., and none to exercise in wide, magnanimous thought, and who amiably desire quiet above all things, are awfully at the mercy of scheming, designing politicians. It would have obviated vast misery and effected great good had England shown its legal connexion with Colonies by ordaining that ten per centum of the total proceeds of all taxation shall be the maximum of abstraction from revenue for all official salaries. "But, however," we have freedom! But, voluntarily and willingly, we arc not "free indeed." Oh, we don't meddle with politics!! – Let others, for pay, do your politics, and, the chances are, they will do you. Representatives should represent the voters. If a man having only a hundred pounds orders a house which per contract costs £1500, although he may have been very well reputed virtuous, yet he is most certainly a fool or worse. The bouse will be sold by auction for present necessary demand of contractor; will fetch nearly one-third of its cost; and for the large balance the reckless man will be damned. Yet, notwithstanding, who can deny that it is fine to have a fine house!! Is that New Zealand?

Really it is pitiable to see respectable men searching profoundly "for the cause of present distress and disaster, and gravely and in tears fetching up some recondite reason – parsons affirming it is colonial irreligion, &c., &c. I have been annoyed and well-nigh disgusted with this sort of thing. And it is straight in the teeth of the deposition of all history. Why, the whole thing is plain. If we, infatuated by pride which has culminated to

insanity, madly desire and will have the magnific pageantry of 1,500 high-paid officials and can barely afford 100, why, of course, &c.

After all the sham profundities, I really must think that if the most pious man puts his hand in the fire he will be burned. Simply and only New Zealand has put its hand in the fire. That is all. Allegation of irreligion is irrelevant.

An extraordinary curiosity has lately appeared; an anonymous writer, after often feebly cursing the writers who opposed ten separate legislative governments for New Zealand, has just now come out saying, in substance, Well, I now see that everybody thinks my curse causeless, and believes me in political error; as legislative provincialism is very evidently doomed, do now just allow me to tell you exactly how to do the whole thing!! And then there follows the wearisome wishy washy. – But, then, this is only a plain specimen of a score of New Zealand cases. It is somewhat after the manner of the notorious L. A. of 1862. Verily we are often nearly on to the conclusion – better had England not so soon given to New Zealand a constitution! – Newspapers of small circulation must not frequently give strong obvious truth directly in the teeth of subscribers' werk error. Accordingly, some persons sometimes cannot appear therein. No doubt this is a necessity, – an evil incident of small communities.

The grand desideratum for these two large island countries – geographically near but circumstantially remote – is colonial (not national) independence, like that subsisting between Victoria and Tasmania, which are similarly situated. Much has been written for this desired consummation. And there is now a vast concurrence of mind pro. It is on the foregoing page set forth as the way to reduce. the exorbitant taxation, which reduction is affirmed to be the sine qua non of our retrieval and of our agricultural and commercial well-doing. In the race of the colonies we are heavily weighted, and are not "free indeed." Of the scores of papers the writer has had published (since Prize Pamphlet, a thousand copies of which are scattered far) the following are selected as pertinently proper for representation here:

PRECEDENT FACTS ON COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

To the Editor of the Daily Southern Cross.

SIR, – Something fresh has recently turned up in current news bearing on the question of self-government, – a question that has lately moved New Zealand to its heart, and which, it seems to me, demands notice. Reasoners continually cry, Give us facts; these being the solid wood and stone with which they build the structure of argument for the sustentation and protection of correct opinion and right practice. It bodes ill when any one appears afraid of facts. Many talk of the Separation movement

in New Zealand as though it were a novelty, or a thing unprecedented; ignoring the fact that; about 20 years ago the Australians were in a ferment of political agitation which culminated in an indomitable resolve to obtain governmental separation between Melbourne and Sydney; that success crowned that political movement; and that such vast prosperity instantly ensued, – whether related to cause and effect, or whether a mere coincidence, they did not trouble themselves to philosophise about: sufficient that it was a patent palpable fact, – that other large districts in that vast country forthwith engaged in a similar movement, and succeeded; so that now, instead of having "the Australian colony," we have "the colonies" of Australasia.

As to cause, &c.: We coolly estimate the effects of the gold discovery in regard to this matter; and shrewdly guess that if Melbourne had not then achieved separation – had she not then done her own government – the principal benefit accruing from her gold bullion would have been cunningly diverted from her, and that, consequently, there would have been a totally different tale reported from that which the whole world (not excepting China) has wonderingly received concerning her during the fifteen years last past – the era of her colonial independence. So, it appears, we are not afraid, in reference to this question, to look at the distinction between cause and effect and mere coincidence, about which philosophers have for long talked in reference to things in general. If separation was not the direct cause of the wondrous advancement of Melbourne, it was incontrovertibly the indirect cause, or the medium through which the chief cause could operate

Melbourne, or Port Philip, won separation – cut its leading-strings with a Downing-street blade – in the year 1851; and its district was then designated Victoria. Just 15 years before that event, it contained exactly 177 inhabitants. Just 10 years after it, the census gave an enumeration of over half a million (510,322). "The Colony or State of Victoria," says the Times of 1802, "is now as populous, as full of gold, of trade, of faction, of public debt, of railways, of newspapers, of grand ceremonials, of volunteer reviews, as the most anxious parent or the most ardent believer in progress could desire. Victoria is only another Britannia, and is only the counterpart of this huge town."

The anniversary of their Separation is a grand gala day – another fact of significance. Repent, or recant? Nay, nay. Doubtless they would laugh at the idea of a railway from Sydney to Melbourne and a submarine telegraph on to Tasmania being set forth as a good reason for returning to the "glorious old days," when their Government was concentrated in Sydney. Yet such, in parity, is the strain of a London correspondent to a New Zealand newspaper, as per reprint by Daily Southern Cross of 10th current. We are to have a submarine telegraph at the Straits. Well! aye, very well; but is it not rather a reason for increased exertion to obtain independent colonial government for each island as the sine qua, non of concord – a reason for an

earnest motion to guarantee that increased facility of communication between these two countries may be for good, and not, as is so plainly possible, for evil? If two relatives had been for years quarrelling over a disputed right to property, that surely would be a monstrous intellect that would devise and gravely propound, for a specific redress of the grievance, that those relatives come and live next door to each other. Such prescription might be possibly very good after settlement of dispute by proper means, and the consequent return of amity. But it has not about it even the semblance of being, per se, the proper means to this end.

The writer alluded to is no doubt a sincere well-wisher to these colonists; but in his expression of lovingkindness he has evinced a deplorable ignorance of relative antecedent facts and present circumstances. "Give us facts." There is a fanatical spurious love which receives its expression in what common folks commonly call "blarney." This is not asked. We must hold it in disesteem. But to a particular class of susceptible people it is alluring and proves deceptive. This warning is not superfluous, for some are captivated by it. Yet, undoubtedly, the opposite extreme must be deprecated.

That telegraph argument is not new; it is a London reproduction of an old New Zealand reason. Many a man who feels himself drowning in argument will catch at a straw of sophistry. Well, it is really useful to discuss this great practical question; and, in prosecution, it is only candid and fair to face all advanced objections to its affirmation. Surely the desiderated phalanx of the writer in question could be conglomerated better by means of amity or good will, – indeed this is its essential condition, – than by means which from the beginning have proved fruitful of feuds. And all of us well know what those different means are. Precedents are necessary to some for confidence. On this question I could be satisfied with the argument a priori. – I have, &c.,

W. E. SADLER.
Parnell, March 17, 1866.

The following is last three-quarters of a paper headed "Separate aspects of Separation:

I think the entire tendency hitherto of circumstances and events, spite of some time-serving, is to the consummation wished and asked.

Sir, you know, all our Auckland separate constituencies sent each its representative to the Assembly expressly to labour and to vote for the effectuation of independence of the South country, and so to rid us of humiliating and hurtful control and dictation. I dare not now enlarge on this particular; but would remark on the subject in general; and now wish to submit to you some fresh observations, partly as a resume of the past.

When the people of Auckland united as one man to demand Separation, the common reply by Southern anti-separationists of all classes was, that they knew not what they wanted. The de-

mand was couched in such vague terms – leaving that an open question which was absolutely essential to the thing, viz., definition – as utterly to preclude a successful repelling of the unambiguous accusation. Particular definition was carefully declined. It might be either the separation of Auckland from the other eight provinces; or from the South Island only, and leaving the other provinces of this North Island in anarchy and to the condition of cringing for support to Auckland, or else to go across the Straits. No one was informed as to which was meant, and strong separationists condemned both projects, believing that the great question did not at all mean Auckland in particular or exclusively. Manifestly, and as subsequent events have demonstrated, there was a prevalent confusion of ideas, or an immaturity of thought, regarding the problem. No marvel, therefore, that their efforts, though worthily united and strenuous, were unsuccessful. From the remarks of John Kerr, in his electioneering speech on Monday, it would appear that he, too, is at sea on this very question, He as good as says we want Separation; {but only on this condition, that the Southerners resign to us our own Island, and throw into the bargain the worth of a great portion of their country – that they, not share equally, but assume all present New Zealand liabilities. Verily, this is an invaluable thought! and, after lauding the Southerners intelligence, with which, quoth he, "we Aucklanders cannot cope," most strikingly pertinent and timeous!

Lately, the misty vagueness has crystalised. Definitive though different propositions are extant. Three of these are remarkable. First: Constitute two central legislative Governments in and for these two island countries, with their appendages of district or provincial boards, &c., in substitution for the present ten legislatures. Second: Exalt the present Provincial Legislatures by increasing their powers and prerogatives, each having a head Superintendent or Governor and a responsible parliamentary executive; and appoint two central General Governments besides; i.e., in short, eleven actual legislatures instead of the existing ten. Third: Financial without legislative separation; with an addition to the prerogatives of Provincial Legislatures; i.e., each province to appropriate and expend nearly the total of of its own revenue; which means, being interpreted, leave the General Government nothing to do; and worse, especially for such a condition, without any money to spend; or, as was lately naively said, twice in two weeks, on the hustings, "Reduce the General Government to a skeleton;" which certainly does look very like something worse than merely to let it die – it clearly means murder. This third proposition, favoured by Julius Vogel, is more than inherently erroneous in politics, it is ostensibly absurd in itself, and any attempt to carry such an anomalous measure must be necessarily inept and vain. And pity that any influential men in New Zealand just now should waste energy and spend their real strength for nought.

The chief objection to proposition No. 2 – the eleven parlia-

ments scheme – is on the score of expense. We now waive the consideration of its absurdity – eleven legislatures for 170,000 people, the amount of population of a third-rate English town – and, at present, only earnestly protest against the expense. Even, if desirable, (but I submit it is not, under any possible circumstances), New Zealand really cannot afford it. This is undeniable. And it is unanimously demanded that present cost of government here be reduced; which necessarily involves curtailment of political machinery, or at all events cannot admit of the increase adverted to. It does really appear, then, that legislative provincialism, as it is, is incompatible with Separation; and we are therefore shut up to proposition No. 1, viz., two central legislative Governments in and for these two island countries, with their appendages of district or provincial boards, &c., in substitution for the present ten legislatures; and which, moreover, seems alike practicable and proper, simplest, cheapest, most efficient, and, for all and everybody, best. – I am, &c.,

W. E. S.
August 10, 1867.

LATEST.

Writer was extremely interested in the passage quoted the other day in the speech by Hugh Carleton from the Hon. Swainson's pamphlet on colonisation. Its existence was previously unknown to me, never having had the pleasure of seeing the tractate containing it. Is it a fact that that particular passage was penned and printed in 1859?

Not unpleasing coincidence of opinion, apparently, has long existed anent the very peculiar constitution originally awarded to New Zealand. But, as in the human countenance, with the strongest and most striking resemblance there is always, singularly, distinctive variety, so, herein, with likeness there is observable difference.

Opposition, nearly amounting at one time to clandestine puny persecution, against a persistent advocacy of the total abstraction and elimination of the legislative element from our "provincialism" has been experienced. This was unnecessary as well as uncandid. It now appears, besides, such advocacy, was no singularity. Said extract gratifies. The course of the newspapers, by line of policy once regularly marked "ultra provincialism," must not be now commented on. And not much must be now said of an individual who tried to avail himself, for the special benefit of the Bay, of the recent Act for increasing the number of provincial legislatures.

But the ex-General Government attorney, writing before the open demand for governmental Separation, assumes the unity of these two countries, and pleads for (as we do with another reference) one legislature for one country. The salient point to be now noted is, that these two large islands, with their numerous

islets, are not only geographically two countries, but, being circumstantially and extremely diverse, must necessarily and shortly become politically separate. Therefore, to assume continuance of the amalgamation will give erroneous data; and these certainly conduct to a wrong conclusion. The so-called "unity" hitherto subsisting between the two governmentally amalgamated countries has been signalised by one protracted wrangle and an incessant row – a feud which threatens to be interminable or else eternal; or, rather, co-existent with the heterogenous conjunction.

The countries must have two legislatures, as have Victoria and Tasmania – countries similarly situated; and no longer ten legislative governments as now. In short, these countries must be, and must be held to be two, – these countries physically two, must be also (for many reasons) politically two. Main object of present brief note is to point out this difference. Yet, demand for constitutional reformation is nearly unanimous; hereanent disinterested difference is non eat inventus.

FREEDOM for trade, or even freedom for person, cannot well consist with our strangely numerous legislative and political institutes.

After all, and finally, it is really no great marvel that the Agriculturists here should ask whether there be not obtainable some sort of "protection" against the vulture demands of ten confederated legislative governments for a small people

Conditions of Use

By their use of these ebooks, texts and images, users agree to follow these conditions of use:

These ebooks, texts and images may not be used for any commercial purpose without permission from the University of Auckland Library.

These ebooks, texts and images may not be re-published in print or electronic form without permission from the University of Auckland Library. However, educators are welcome to print out items and hand them to their students.

Users are not permitted to download our ebooks, texts, and images in order to mount them on their own servers for public use or for use by a set of subscribers. Individuals and institutions can, of course, make a link to the copies at ENZB, subject to our conditions of use. It is not in our interest or that of our users to have uncontrolled subsets of our holdings available elsewhere on the Internet. We make corrections, add tags, add images, etc. on a continual basis, and we want the most current text to be the only one generally available to all Internet users.

These texts can potentially be used as the basis for additional TEI tagging or for some other etext or ebook project, but we ask that you let us know before you start, so that we can coordinate work on that text and make sure that we are not working on it simultaneously. We would like a copy of the improved text for our collections.

Request for permission form