The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3644, 17 March 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 1883.

- Sir Fhancis Dillon Bell's paper that was read recently at a meeting - of the Colonial I Institute, has drawn considerable attention [ to this colony. The statements contained in the paper were pulled to pieces in a long i letter to the Times, signed X.Y.Z., and which drew forth an equally lengthy reply > from Sir Francis, who has much tho best of i the argument. His letter concludes with ■ these words ;—lf his criticisms have made ! anything I *-aid ai>pear "rather wild" to the Times, I am more than repaid for this i by the generous judgment wliich accepts as correct " tho general result of my argument i as to Australasia being abundantly solvent." I When the Times says that, it says the one i thing I had set myself to show. Commenting upon the foregoing and on : letters from its New South Wales and Melbourne correspondents, the Times observes: i —" Colonial opinion is peculiarly sensitive to comment at home, not only on sentimental grounds, but because it is to the English money market that tho colonists must come when they want to borrow capital for public works, or other objects connected with the development of the resources of tho colonies. It has been more than once suggested, in quarters where there was the steadiest faith in the elasticity aud the honesty of colonial finance, that the process of borrowing ought to be carefully regulated with a view not only to the immediate solvency of the borrowers, -which nobody questioned, but to their own interests in the future. It is, for example, obvious that in the larger Australasian colonies the construction of railways out of borrowed capital is now paying well, even when the cost per mile has been heavy. New South Wales has spent over £15,000,000 sterling on railways which pay 4i per cent; Victoria, £1G,000,000, paying 4 per cent. ; and New Zealand, £11,000,000, also paying 4 per cent. It is admitted however, that the newly-constructed lines, opening up districts hitherto undeveloped, do not at present j r ield a return equal to the interest paid on the borrowed capital. It may, for all that, be a good investment to submit to an immediate loss in consideration of great future gains. But it must be borne in mind that the overflowing exchequers, of which nearly ull the colonies boast, aro made to overflow by something amounting to the permanent alienation of State property. Tho sales of lands owned by the State constitute in all the coloiues a very large part, in some the larger part, of the public income. It remains to be established by argument that a colony is justified in treating the income from the sale of public land, which is an alienation of the public estate, as ordinary revenue, and at the same time borrowing largely for public works. It ia further doubtful whether immigration ought not to bo much more liberally assisted, bo that these advantages should not bo monopolised by a few. At all eve-nte, look-

ing at the high wages and general prosperity produced in these colonies in part by the rapid alienation of national property, and in part by the expenditure of borrowed capital, it seems a mistake not to divert to Australasia some of the superfluous and unemployed labor of the British Islands. Finally, the fact that at least five colonial Governments—New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Now Zealand—are working practically on the same lines, though without concert, renders the clashing of colonial loans in the market not uncommon, and thus deprives the colonies of a certain part of the credit which is their duo."

Dealing with the same subject, the Economist remarks: —" Those who contend, however that continuous borrowing is a necessary accompaniment of Australasian progress must not be surprised to find their conclusions questioned in the face of the fact that the richest colony is also that wherein the proportion of the debt is lightest. The moral of this is, that time, even more than imported capital, is required to make the newer colonies as rich iv surplus assets as the older ones are now. Granted, not only the wonderful climate of New Zealand, but also the freedom of disease, the absence of pauperism and illegitimacy, and so forth ; nevertheless, such remarkable differences as are shown in the proportions of " natural increase " aro not to be fully accounted for thus. New Zealand has quite recently attracted and assisted a large number of immigrants—men in their early prune, women in their most reproductive period—aud the rate of increase in such a population is very rapid. But, taking the two oldest of Australasian colonies, we find that in Victoria during the decade of 1871 to 1881 the birth rate declined from 37 down to 31 per 1000, while even in New South Wales, despite the large adult immigration, there was a drop from 39i to 3S per 1000. In the same way, New Zealand, when there comes to be a larger proportion of old men, and of women past child-bearing, we find the present birth rate decline and the death rate increase. In the year 1881, the figures of which are just to hand, the birth rate in New Zealand was 38, or barely so much as in New South Wales."