Importation of Colonial Wools.

Lyttelton Times, Volume III, Issue 118, 9 April 1853, Page 7

Importation of Colonial Wools.

Total Bales. 158,558 163,988 148,478 * Many New Zealand Wools are shipped vid Sydney, and appear on the above report as Australian—exact quantity not known. C. and J. D. Jacomb." "In consequence of the activity that has existed for some time in all the manufacturing districts, the attendance throughout has been very large. The competition, for all descriptions, has continued to the close, and an advance of-Id. to \\d. per lb. was cheerfully and eagerly given. There will be no more public sales until February, and the present stocks being low, with a large and increasing demand, there is every probability of higher rates ruling next year. There was rather a more numerous attendance of Foreign buyers, and more wool taken for export than at last sales, but purchasers on French account not being prepared to give the advance, they declined to act, and left early in consequence. The market was never known to remain so firm and uniform throughout the whole lengthened series of sales. Marsh and Edbnborough.

The Sydney Papers are singularly deficient in subjects of local interest. Considerable ill-feeling, however, appears to exist at the diggings owing to a recent act of the Legislative Council, which imposed a double license fee on Foreigners at the mines, and compelled store-keepers and other non-dig-ging persons to take out licenses also. This has been strongly protested against, and numerous meetings have been held, characterized by violent harangues. Many diggers have sloped to the neighbouring colony of Victoria, where no such impolitic law prevails. A deputation waited on the Governor General on the 16th March, to present a petition, setting forth the obnoxious and oppressive nature of the enactment, and praying for its repeal. His Excellency has referred it to his Executive Council, and no doubt the act will be modified. Its object was to realise a larger income from the Gold Fields, but the act was framed rather to kill the Goose with the golden egg, than to realize the auriferi ous desideratum. The Australian and Neio Zealand Gazette makes the following remarks upon the indifference manifested by many Immigrants towards their relations in not writing and announcing their arrival and prospects "in their new homes :—" There is a point connected with New Zealand which we wish the local press would point out. Scarcely a week passes in which we have not numerous letters from the friends of parties in the colony, who cannot ascertain whether they are dead or alive, from their neglect in not writing home. Some of these cases are distressing, and the conduct of the heedless colonists cruel in.the extreme. The local press could not do a more philanthropic act than to urge on such a duty, which, if they have any right feeling, ought not to require urging at all." Mr, and Mrs. Godley embarked at Sydney on board the " Anglesea," of 1,018 tons, for London on the 2nd March. The ""Anglesea" landed her pilot on the 3rd, and proceeded. Mr. Caverhill has arrived from the Nelson district at his Station, on the Hurunui, with 462 head of Cattle, and 975 Sheep, the only casualty being the loss of 2 Sheep.

To the Editor of the Lyttdton Times, Ship "Hashejit," at Sea, Jan. 13, 1853. Sir, —There are many points connected with the New Zealand Constitution, which I have been compelled to leave untouched in the lectures which you have published. But there is one topic on which I am anxious to express my opinions, and I therefore venture to request that you -will give the inclosed observations a place in your columns. I trust that the unfavourable circumstances under which they have been, in a great measure, written, may be taken as an apology for their crude and imperfect character. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, John Robert Gobley. Perhaps the most valuable clause in the whole Constitutional Act, if it be carried out iv good faith, and agreeably to the spirit in which it has been drawn, is that which empowers the General Assembly to make regulations for the disposal of the waste lands of the Colony; and the Colonists will find no part of the task on which they are about to enter more important or more difficult to deal with. The question of the disposal of waste lands in New Zealand resolves itself naturally into two heads : Ist, the sale of land; and 2nd, the leasing of land for pasturage. Again, the first head involves a consideration both of the mode of sale (i.e. whether it shall be at a fixed price, or by auction ; and if at a fixed price, whether that price shall be uniform, or variable according to the estimated value, of the land;),and of the amount of the fixed or minimum upset price. The second head involves a variety of minor considerations which will be treated of in the sequel. It is not necessary, indeed it would not be possible, for me to enter here upon a systematic inquiry into the arguments for and against the i "Wakefiekl system," of which the basis is a ; high fixed price. I shall content myself with I referring my readers, on the one side, to Mr. Wakefield's published works; particularly to the evidence given by him before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1836, to his " Art of Colonization," and to a pamphlet published in 1850, in the name of his brother, Mr. Felix Wakefield ; on the other side, to the evidence of Mr. P. Scrope before the same Committee, and to the able Eeport of the Committee of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, presented in 1847, and understood to be from the pen of Mr. Robert Lowe. I will just add that those who intend to take a part in the decision of the questions connected with this subject ought seriously to consider and study them beforehand ; as most assuredly it will be found that they are neither easy of solutibn, nor to be satisfactorily solved by what are called the rules of common sense alone. I have said that I do not intend to enter at large into these questions; but I think it may be worth while to contribute towards their elucidation the results of whatever practical experience I may have acquired by managing for two years the waste lands placed at the disposal of the Canterbury Association, and by observing the management of the neighbouring lands during the same period under a different system. The first point which f wish to insist upon is the essential importance of a preliminary survey. Nothing that Mr. Wakefield has said upon this point is too strong ; any system which involves the disposal of land, either in fee-sim-ple or by lease,' without a survey, not onlymakes every transaction which takes place under it a mere* gambling speculation, but lays the foundation of frauds, litigations, and disappointments, to an absolutely interminable extent. The first and principal advantage which we have had over the New Zealand Government in disposing of land, has been our survey. Not that ours has been carried so far as I could wish, or as would have been done if means had been available for the purpose; but still it has been carried far enough to place in a very striking light its immense utility, and to preach, trumpet-tongued, the necessity of making its prosecution a matter of primary importance to the well-being of the colony. The next point to be noticed is a comparison between the mode of selling land at a fixed price, which was adopted by the Canterbury Association as regards rural land, and that of auction, which was adopted in the case of town land. Upon this puint experience has

confirmed ray previous convictions. In the first place, I advocate a fixed price, for the security which it affords against jobbing. I will explain what I mean, a little farther. It is, of course, a truism, to say that the market value of land, as of everything else, depends on the ratio which the supply bears to the demand. Any person, therefore, who possesses the power of altering the amount of either the supply or the demand, can pro tanto command, or at least influence, the market price. Nor according to the usual plan of selling waste lands by auction, the Executive Government has this power of commanding the land-market, by determining at what time, and in what quantities, land j shall be put up for sale. In the Canterbury Settlement J possessed that power, as regarded town land and, on a small scale, of course, might have used it, if I had thought fit, for the | purposes of peculation and jobbery. By throwing land into the market at a time when I knew there were few buyers, and keeping it ' back when there were many, I might myself liave. made, or enabled others to make, a certain profit. This is a very serious objection to the system. The Head of a Government or of a Land Office may be above suspicion, but we all- know that the Heads of- Departments are very much in the hands of .their subordinates, and that these are often men on whom public opinion has little hold; of .whom, indeed, the i public knows but little; and at any rate, whether jobbery be practised or not, it is pretty sure under such circumstances to be imputed, and the imputation cannot fail to be injurious to that public confidence which is the strength of the public service. If auction be adopted the best plan for working it is, I think, that which I adopted, namely, the plan of putting up every section, and only those sections, of which the upset price shall have been deposited. At the same time this plan has inconveniences of its own, and while it guards against dishonesty on the part of the Government Authorities, it leaves a wide scope for the operations of private laud-jobbers. There are many other objections to auction, which I forbear to enumerate ; they are fully set forth in Mr. Wakefield's works above referred to. The chief argument urged by those who object to a fixed price is, that it is unjust in its application to lands of unequal value. Of course, such a use of the word " unjust" is merely conventional, for the question is evidently one, not of justice, but of general expediency; and I see little practical evil in the alleged inequality. The effect is that the most valuable lands are soonest sold, and that those which are at first ■worthless, acquire naturally and properly additional value as the demand increases and the supply diminishes. But it must be remembered, that a fixed price does not necessarily mean a uniform price ; if the above objection be strongly felt, it may be met, in some degree at least, by having different prices set upon different districts^ according to an estimate of their value. This estimate should, however, invariably be made before the land is purchased or applied for, for nothing- can be more objectionable than to allow a public officer to fix the price which a certain individual is to pay. Undoubtedly such a valuation, unless made witli great care and cost, approximates but imperfectly and roughly to the desired equality, and it would be found difficult I think to keep it clear of jobbing. The plan, however, appears to me worth considering-, and it is applicable either to the fixed price, or to the upset price under the auction system. Whether, however, it be adopted or not, that is, whether the price be uniform or various, I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion that ifc ought to be fixed. ° When the mode in which the waste lands are to be sold shall have been determined upon, the next point will be to settle the price, whether it be a fixed or an upset price. It is not for me to suggest what that price shall be ;—that will of course be fixed by the colonists themselves after careful deliberation. If a uniform price be named for the whole colony, it will probably be lower than that which the people of Canterbury would fix for the lands of their own province. There is however, I think, reason to believe that the General Assembly will transfer their jurisdiction over the waste lands to the Provincial Legislatures. Assuming this to be the case, I will offer some remarks upon the question of price, as it applies to the waste lands of the Canterbury Settlement. The chief objects aimed at by the advocates of what is commonly called a high price of

land are, Ist, To secure combinable labour, by throwing a certain amount of difficulty in the way of the purchase of land by labourers, before they have the means of making profitable use of it. 2nd, To check dispersion, and thereby to promote the civilization of society. 3rd, To discourage the acquisition of land by speculators, who have no intention of occupying or turning it to account, and who are frequently absentees, not residing in the colony. Now I wish to draw attention to the fact, that if the adoption of a high price in Canterbury has not produced the results above enumerated, it has at least been accompanied by them. Ist, There has always been in Canterbury an ample supply of labourers for hire, while not only have wages not been unduly depressed, but they have ranged higher than in the neighbouring Settlements. At the same time I am bound to say that I do not think the high price has had much, if anything, to do with this result, for I do not think that under any circumstances, labourers would, except in very rare instances, have invested in sections of Crown Land, 1 shall have to allude to this point below. 2nd. The concentration of people in the agricultural part of the Settlement has been veiy remarkable, and the good effects of it are so obvious as not to require enumeration. 3rd. There is no instance on record of a new Settlement, in which there has been a large sale of land, in which so small a proportion has been sold to absentees as at Canterbury. Of what is called land jobbing, there has been absolutely none. That branch of speculation has been quite unknown among us. On the other hand, it can hardly be said that an undue check has been placed on the appropriation of land, when we find, that in a community of less than 3,500 persons, nearly 40,000 acres of land have been appropriated. It may be said that unless a low price be established, very little, if any, public land will be sold for some time to come. This is very likely, but I do not see that there is anything to deplore in it. The community has appropriated already ten times as much land as it has cultivated or fenced in; a great deal more probably than will be cultivated or fenced in, ten years hence ; I do not see any public advantage in having an additional belt appropriated and not used outside the area already appropriated, of which so little is used. It is a mistake to suppose that the effect of a low price would be to promote the formation of small farms, owned by peasant proprietors. My experience convinces me that such persons almost always buy suburban land ; or at any rate, land in the very best situations, close to markets and to communications, such land, in short, as was very early selected and has to be purchased from the first selectors. I am convinced that hardly a single labourer or small farmer will henceforth, whatever be the price, purchase lands of the Crown in the Canterbury Settlement. Those who will purchase, generally speaking, if the price be materially reduced, are large capitalists. They will purchase either as a speculation, trusting to a future rise in value, or with a view to pasturage. It would pay perhaps to buy our best pastoral lands at ss. an acre for sheep-feeding alone. But as those lands are fully occupied and will continue to be occupied without the alienation of the fee-simple, and as the pre-emptive right will give security to those who wish to make permanent improvements, I see no public advantage in effecting that alienation, sufficiently great to counterbalance the evils of throwing vast tracts into the hands of individuals. I purposely avoid considering this question as one of finance; i. c., of taxation ; because I conceive that to be a point of very inferior importance. If it be alleged that by establishing a low price, you will increase sales so much as materially to benefit the public revenue, I answer that, if so, the community will have less money in its pockets to pay other taxes with If.a high 2)1-506 of land should diminish the revenue, the only effect would be that the State would have to raise what money it wanted by other means. On the whole, the question of high or low price resolves itself (with me) mainly into this further question—whether it be for the advantage of the public that the appropriation of land should be largely in advance of its profitable occupation— i. c , of course, that kind of profitable occupation which cannot exist unless the land be appropriated 1 advocate what most people would call a hi«»h price, because I hold the negative of this

proposition, and because, therefore, I think it would be no misfortune, but the contrary, that no more land should be sold in Canterbury until its population and its capital shall have very considerably increased. I now proceed to discuss the subject of pastoral regulations. , Of course those now in operation must be altered. In framing them I knew that I was only making a shift to get rid of the worst parts of the system established by Act of Parliament. It was impossible for me to frame, consistently with the Act, regulations which should be perfectly satisfactory. For example, the exceptional right of pre-emption, now enjoyed by land-purchasers alone, will, I suppose, be extended to all pastoral leaseholders; and the whole of every run will be secured against alienation to any but purchasers of the freehold. No doubt, also, the law will be altered which now requires a rent of £1 per 100 acres to be nominally imposed on all pastoral runs, and which has involved us in the necessity of either evading its provisions, or allowing our pastoral lands to remain unoccupied ; arid in other less important matters experience will suggest improvements. As regards the main points in deciding upon which I was enabled to act on my.own judgment,—l mean, the amount of rent; the principle of assessing it according to acreage, and not according to stock ; and the requirement of a deposit from applicants, as a, guarantee for their stocking the runs—as regavds these points, I say, I have not seen reason to alter my opinion;.and I am happy to find myself supported in my views by men of all parties at Wellington who have considered the subject; especially by those who have been practically engaged in working or rather endeavouring to work, the New Zealand Government regulations. As regards the amount of rent, it is impossible to lay down any fixed rule, or to argue the question a priori. I despair of even approaching to a settlement by calculations of expenses and profits, on which no two men will agree. I fall back, therefore, on the broad, undeniable, fact, that, while no one, I believe, alleges that the existing rent is too low, and while it is undoubtedly higher than those fixed in New South Wales and in the remainder of New Zealand; on the other hand, it has not tended in the slightest degree to discourage the occupation of land. I venture to assert, and lam convinced the assertion will not be disputed, that not one man otherwise inclined and qualified to tatea run, has been deterred from doing so by the fear that he will be unable to pay the rent. Every body knows that land is taken up as fast as stock can be got to put upon it, and allwho take runs undoubtedly believe that, notwithstanding the rent, they are entering upon a most profitable business. Whether they are right in their belief is not for the Government to decide, or even to consider ; all that it has to look to is whether its terms of lease be such as to prevent the most rapid and extensive occupation of land and production of stock; if they are not found to be so, then the Government may rest satisfied that those terms are not inconsistent with the "fair profits" of the Stockowners, who, we may be perfectly sure, will look to that part of the matter for themselves. I adhere strongly to the principle embodied in the present regulations, of charging pasturage rents according to the area occupied, as contra-distinguished from that adopted by the New Zealand Government of charging an assessment on stock. If a man occupies a large run, and keeps other people out of it, he ought, in my opinion, to pay the full value for it, however he may use ifc. If from want of capital, or skill, or enterprize, he does not stock tne land so rapidly as he might, that should be his loss, not the public's. It seems to me neither just nor wise to mulct the man who imports largely, and breeds successfully, while we spare him who lets his run lie comparatively idle. There is no point on which the New Zealand Government officials admit more distinctly y ie defects of their system than this. They say (IIS is indeed obvious) that they have absolutely »<> check on fraudulent licensees, and no i»eaDS whatever of enforcing accuracy in the returns; so that the Government is not only defraud^ of its dues, but also holds out a temptation ana a premium to dishonesty. I have heard it sai« that people will not run the risk of losing JMii runs for so small a gain as is involved in 'fllsl' fyiug a return. But the risk is in reality »«| nominal, aad as a matter of fact people do i«u it. The difference between the returns of stou

made for the purposes of the Census, and of assessment respectively in the Southern Province of New Zealand has <been so -great as to cause surprise even to those who thought most unfavourably of the system, and jk was found hopeless to take any notice of the discrepancy. On the other hand,'l have never been able to see the disadvantage of the acreage principle, except to the dishonest. I have heard it objected that an acreage rent is unequal, because the quality of the land varies. But Ido not see how this bears upon the question now under consideration. An acreage rent need not be a uniform rent. You may, if you please, vary it indefinitely according to the quality of the land, and yet adhere to the principle for which I am now contending, of charging according to the productive capacity of the land, and not according to the quantity of produce actually raised upon it. . If the object of the assessment be to levy a kind of income tax, by making a man pay according to his means, I deny that it is attained, even apprbximatively, by the system which lam opposing. There is as great a difference in the quality of stock as of land. There is no equality, for example, in charging the same tax on a picked herd of dairy cows as on a lot of rough yearlings just landed, and not worth £5 a-liead. And the difference is even greater with sheep; I have known large flocks to be productive of nothing but expense for a series of years. If the assessment principle, as adopted in the New Zealand Government regulations, be defended, it must be on other grounds than that of its especial fairness; I will add that I think it most objectionable to leave in the hands of a Commissioner or a Surveyor the power of determining how much stock a run will carry, after that run has been applied for. Any amount of favouritism.and jobbing may be practised under cover of this power, and as no two persons will be found to agree about the capability of a run, it would be impossible to bring a charge of malversation home. If different rates of charge are to be fixed for different districts, according to their presumed value, it is essential that they should be fixed before those districts are laid open to applicants, so that there may be no means of { knowing who will occupy the runs. I It is, I think, after the experience of the last I two years, needless to argue in favour of the I deposit. There is no clause in the present resgulations which was more strongly condemned |at first, or of which-the propriety is more uniI vertably recognized now. Of those who have I applied for and secured large runs under the 1 Local Government in the Southern Province, a I very small proportion had the bond fide intenI tion of stocking them. They took the runs on i speculation ; to do so cost them nothing, and it | seemed possible that they might dispose of the i " good will" on favourable terms. But in the ■ meantime bond fide pastoral settlers were shut [ out. As an illustration of the working of the ; two systems, it will be instructive to compare I the rapidity with which the Government lands, I and the Canterbury Association's lands were I taken up respectively, and then to compare the I extent to which they have been stocked. But, I as I said before, this point does not require, or \ admit of, lengthened discussion. j Ido not think it necessary to enter upon the \ question of the duration of pastoral tenures. ; I do not know that in New Zealand any one I lias advocated a pastoral tenure which shall seI cure the stockowner against purchasers of the ; fee-simple, andj that being granted, I see no I objection to a lease of unlimited length, provil ded the State have the power, at stated periods, \of reconsidering the question of rent. That : was the only object I proposed in granting licenses for seven years only; I was not sure, i *vitli the experience which I then had, whether \ I had sufficiently guarded the interests of the ; public in fixing the amount of rent, or not. ; -But I d 0 no t think it would be desirable to I disturb existing holders at all, so long as they aye ready to pay the rent which may be fixes | upon as just by the proper authority. In conclusion, I would earnestly, though in \ the most friendly spirit, exhort the stockowners, i at this critical period, to be reasonable and mo- ] derate in their demands. By adopting a con- ; tfavy couvse they may possibly obtain somewhat ■ better terms for the moment, but they will in- | ftllibly lay the foundation of a class-contest, ■ such as is even now beginning in the Australian colonies; a contest which will probably end ! Jn their being discomfited and oppressed, but which, at any rate, cannot fail to lead to the most injurious political consequences.

Import, Import, Import, to 10th Nov., 1850. 1851. 1852. Australia 51,463 48,564 42,624 Victoria ...... 55,378 63,427 54,067 Tasmania 17,468 17,278 18,050 *"•"•• ».822 "H'SjSSijSi Swan River I r *New Zea.-\ 2,548 2,7831 1,019 land J I 1,705 Cape 19,879 19,668 18,700