THE NELSON EXAMINER. Nelson, February 8, 1845.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue III, 8 February 1845, Page 194

THE NELSON EXAMINER. Nelson, February 8, 1845.

Journals become more neceasary aa men become more equal, and individualism more to be feared. It would be to underrate their importance to suppose that they serve only to seeuW liberty t they maintain civilization. Px TocanzviLLX. Of Democracy in America, to". . 4, p. 203.

The English newspapers which have reached us by the late arrivals contain little matter of interest, except what relates to the \ affairs of New Zealand. The visits of the Czar and the King of the French, however pleasing they may have been to the actual spectators of the pomp and circumstance attendant upon them, are but flat, stale, and unprofitable when retailed in the columns of a newspaper fifteen thousand miles from the place of their occurrence. The admirers of legitimacy have, however, the cheering news of the birth of a new scion of royalty ; while the hungry bread consumer who left his native land in the hope that " seven halfpenny loaves would be sold for a penny,'* may congratulate himself on being where he is, when he reads that the efforts of the League have not yet succeeded in throwing open foreign markets to the half-starved companions whom he left pining in unemployed wretchedness in Paisley or Glasgow.

Indeed for ourselves there are few subjects discussed in the columns! of the EngI lish papers, at present, which have more interest than the last we have mentioned. It is impossible not to perceive that the landed interest in Great Britain has, since the enactment of the Corn Laws, received from their operation graat assistance towards maintaining its social position relatively to the other classes, whose influence in society is increased or diminished in proportion as they control larger or smaller portions of the national wealth. And it must also be perceived by all, and is evidently perceived by the two contending parties, that if the efforts of the League should at any time prove successful, or by any other means the prin- ! ciples of Free Trade should triumph, the weight of the landed interest in Great Bri- 1 tain would be most materially lessened ; not I necessarily because its actual wealth would decrease (which is denied by the Free Traders), but because, by the wealth of the other classes increasing in a more rapid ratio, its proportionate wealth would become lessr. Supposing, then, that such an event should occur, and the ascendancy of the cl&sse> be reversed, it is almost a matter of certainty (regard being had to the contrariety of the opinions, political and religious, entertained respectively by each class) that a great social revolution of some sort must shortly follow. It is not, in fact, a mere question whether a few more mouths shall Be filled with bread instead of curses, or a few more hands employed in honest labour

instead of theft and violence, but great questions of Churcn and State> of extended franchises, of the right* of man in alf^heir varied phases, af* probably petfdirig 1 on the' settlement of the point in dispute; The cessation of the Mark Lane averages may be the knell of the bench of Bishops I And when loaves are made in Yorkshire from Mississippi flour, who will predict what may

be going on in Leeds, Halifax, or Hull

While, therefore, the recollections which stilt bind us to the land of our birth live in our breast, we cannot help looking with deep and unceasing interest to the progress of the great question of the Corn Laws'.

Nor is the interest altogether confined to

the state of the question at home. It is barely a year since our Australian neighbours were engaged in a contention whether the experiment of a corn-growers' protection should be tried among them ; and, if we remember rightly, it was by a very small majority that the Legislative Council (after some very able debates, which would not have discredited the English House of Commons) decided against it. And in our

opinion they decided wisely. Even such as

were in favour of protection looked at it only as a means of relief from the temporary distress of the landed interest ; and surely it would have been madness, in order to cure a temporary evil to create another which, after a few years' growth of vested interests, experience has taught us acquires a hold which can scarcely be shaken off.

It is contended by some that the question of protection assumes a different aspect in a colony from that which it bears in an old country, and the arguments used in support of this view are two. First, that many productions in the new country require fostering ; and secondly, that protection (particularly in the matter of food) tends to keep capital in the colony.

As regards the first argument we are willing to admit that there may be some

few articles of production which, being very gradual in their progress to maturity, can scarcely be undertaken by parties possessed of the moderate capital ordinarily found in the hands of colonists, and which may nevertheless be perfectly adapted to form a staple of the country when arrived at maturity. Such is the production of wine, which we believe cannot be effected in less than six or seven years from the planting of the vineyard ; such also is tea, which requires some years to come to perfection ; during which period the limited capitalist will not be induced to forego his profits unless he has the prospect of something more than an ordinary return on his outlay.

If protection is afforded in such a case, it must stand on the same ground as the legalized monopoly of patents ; and we do not deny that cases might occur in which such a protection might be desirable in a new*country, and, if we remember rightly, Adam Smith excepts them in his condemna-

tion of the principle. It may, however, even in these cases, be doubted whether it is advisable to foster the growth of any particular trade by protection, when we remember that whatever protection is given to it is in fact so much of somebody else's capital applied in aid of it by the Legislature, and, if it be a necessary of life, we may say forcibly applied. This capital thus abstracted would no doubt be profitably employed by its owner, in some way or other, if the protection afforded to his neighbour's trade did not deprive him of it ; and it should be the subject of grave consideration whether the future importance of the trade intended to be protected is such as to justify an interference with the natural employment of capital by its true owner.

As regards the other argument, that protection keeps capital in the colony, we cannot see the use of its doing so if that capital is only kept there to promote a trade which cannot (with reference to the permanent facility of obtaining foreign supplies) he profitably carried on, and from which it must after a few years he withdrawn, or the public continue to buy dear* to keep it in

its forced channel, instead of buying cheap elsewhere. Thff real question i.wnether the protected commodity i* one which the

country can prospectively hops fc grow cheaper than it can import. If it can, let it grow it, and, if protection be necessary for a little while, as in wine or tea, let it have it circumspectly. But, if the commodity is not such, then tha protection can do no real good. It will merely induce capital into a channel where it would not flow without an unnatural inducement, and whence it will retire, leaving many a " scarfed bark " high and dry, the moment that inducement is withdrawn.

If a colony is not capable of producing the necessaries of life as a continuing staple with reference to other markets^ but is capable of producing some other staple which may be exchanged for them, it ought not to be founded without a sufficient supply of necessaries brought from the home country, or of capital intended to be appropriated to their purchase from other countries. Such a course would at once place it ofa a sound footing. The capital beyond that appropriated to the purchase of necessaries would at once find its proper channel, namely, production of the staple of the country ; but whatever capital is forced or induced into unnatural channels, will either remain in them at a continuing loss to the public, or must eventually be withdrawn to the

monopolists' probable ruin.

Suppose that it was intended to found a colony in Australia, of which wool is the natural staple, but where corn cannot be grown for less than (say) twice the cost at which it can be imported fronTValparaiso. The colonists start with a capital of £500,000. Whether will they turn it to most account if they invest £100,000 in

;he purchase of Valparaiso flour, while with

the other £400,000 they are producing wool for future exchanges (which wool, being their natural staple, they will for ever produce and exchange at the best advantage) ; or if they only invest £300,000 in wool and £200,000 (which they must do) in growing the same quantity of protected corn? Is there not in the latter case £100,000 for ever sunk and lost in corn, which might have been for ever growing aud redoubling itself in wool if the corn had been imported ? What better is the colony for its being retained in it ? No better than a man would be whose servants consumed more than they produced.

However, to return to our subject, the progress of public opinion on free trade at home. The League has during the year been making great efforts to disseminate its opinions, holding frequent monster meetings at Covent Garden Theatre, and thrusting its pioneers into the very heart of the agricultural districts. In Parliament the question met with its previous treatment : it was, as before, introduced by Mr. Villiers, who,

like " Thammuz, yearly wounded," again sustained a defeat, by a majority larger than

that of the preceding year ; on which the supporters of the bread-tax sing a poean, while the abolitionists find consolation in

the fact that the minority was also numerically greater, and they see in it that stum-bling-block of stubborn ministries — an increasing minority. The leaders of the League gave dissatisfaction to their party by voting with Sir Robert Peel on the sugar duties question when he made his own followers retract their vote of the previous week. The League has also been unsuccessful in its interference in elections, which it attributes to defective registration, and hopes for better luck next time. On the whole, the progress of public opinion on the free trade question appears to have been considerable, though there is an evident disinclination on the part of many of its supporters to pin their faith to the sleeves of the League leaders.

On the other hand, as might have been expected, the friends of protection hsv» bestirred themselves also, and formed an Agricultural Protection Society, which ha* betaken itself to dining vigorously. Its

operations; however, appear to be chiefly confined to those counties in which political tenancies from year to year exist, where landlords do what they will with their own, and we cad find little mention of it in Ndrth Britain and those districts where, long teases existing, tenants do what they like with their own. From this we infer that it is a measure of the landlords, and that the farmers are not with them on the question, except where they cannot help it. The subscriptions of this society are also not to be compared to those of the League : we find nothing like the Manchester list with which the latter commenced the year.

, We do not think that the struggle is near jits conclusion. The revival of trade has itended to throw' it back a little, and other jcauses have also partially retarded it. At the same time* if Sir Robert Peel continue in office, it is impossible to say when he jmay think proper to carry his adversaries' measure. He is probably no more attached to Corn Laws on principle than he was to Catholic disabilities on principle, and no doubt the moment that he hears the straw moving he will take the hint.

It is reported by Mr. Hopkins, of the Moom-aker, that John Heki has again cut 'down the flag-staff at Russell. Mr. Hopjkins states that he saw a Southern Cross at Kawhia, of an early date in January, which contained an account of the whole affair. The Governor had issued a proclamation, putting a stop to the sale of land by the natives until three chiefs, concerned in the outrage, were given up. The natives, it is said, had also given notice to the Government officers at the Bay of Islands to quit that place within a certain number of days. We give the story as it has reached us, without vouching for its accuracy.

The coincidence between the day of the meeting last year to congratulate Captain Fitzßoy on his arrival and the meeting on Wednesday last, alluded to by Mr. Saxton, the chairman, of the meeting, is more remarkable than was then stated. We find that the last meeting was actually held on the anniversary of the first ; a coincidence which, being undesigned, has, we hope something significant in it. On the next anniversary we may probably be able to congratulate ourselves on the removal of our unpopular Governor.