THE PROSPERITY OF CANTERBURY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 679, 11 May 1859, Page 3

THE PROSPERITY OF CANTERBURY.

Is it occasioned by the comparatively high money price fixed upon its Waste Lands ? ' To the Editor of ilie^Lyttelton Times.

Sir, —The query with which I have headed this communication shows that I am about to tread upon tender ground—that I am not going in for popularity—that I presume to doubt the soundness of the principle enunciated, when people either in printer by speech take the affirmative side of the question. '

There has been a dogma put forth and much relied upon in all free trade discussions " that men should at all times buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest markets"-—which if true in all its parts might give some support to the asserted dear market price of the Canterbury Waste Lands. But this said dogma is so formed—apparently for the sake of antithesis and:terseness—as to destroy itself: it cuts its own throat. For if every man complies with the first portion of it, and buys in the cheapest market, where is the dearest market for the sellers to be found ? Now, under the actual circumstances of society, every man does buy at the cheapest market within his reach. lam not going to lead you through the various theories and arguments connected with the question, of supply and demand, and the bearing of this momentous point upon the subject of market prices; for it has nothing to do with the question of^ land price, which perhaps we shall find to be wholly influenced by its cheapness. I may, however, halt somewhat on my road to observe that Adam Smith has nothing in the 'wealth of nations' of this buy-cheap, and selldear dogma; neither; so far as I remember, has Stuart Mill. Something about it. I think may be found in the writings of Ricardo and Historian Mill on Political Economy, mixed up with their blunders in the theories of rent and other matters.

This dear-land theory, if I am not greatly deceived by my memory, was in times gone by intimately connected with the name of Wakefield; upon him or them wjs_jil_.ih.e_.pi>lQajrje_.o£_iij»- i----"of its expected excellencies..- The great point on which the superiority of this dear land system was to be evinced was its preventing the people of the colony which adopted it from spreading and becoming isolated in their persons and undertakings, and its preserving them somewhat closely located; so that the social intercourse .and friendly relations of the people should be secured, while the gradual spread of improvement converted the land into a country of convenience and beauty like their old home, why, in the Canterbury province, with the dear land theory adopted and highly eulogized, the people are spread from one end of it to the other! How is this ? Perhaps as we go on we shall find that it is because the land spread over is to be had excessively cheap. Whether the fixing of a really high price upon colonial waste lands be correct in theory and beneficial when carried into practice, has yet, I believe, to be proved. I mean, that a high market price shall be fixed when compared with the price of a like article in other markets of the world —that the buyers should desert their own interests and go to the dear market to purchase instead of the cheap one. Do they do so in sugar or calico or in anything else ? It is true that refined sugar sells for more than unrefined—that fine calico sells for more than coarse; but the higher priced are by no means the dearest. The buyers still go to the cheapest market. In exposing this fallacy of dear land being the cause of the colony's prosperity, I am merely adverting to what has been said and is said every day in conversation, in speeches, and in print, both here and in England. I have for this view also evidence near at hand in a paper called the ' Lyttelton Times,' published on the 4th instant, in which the Editor in his leading article feels compelled, apparently, to go with the stream in speaking of the wisdom of having fixed high priced land, although his better knowledge obliged him to slip in in a parenthesis—' so called.' If this high-priced waste land was a real panacea, how stupid must all the rest of the British colonies have been in not adopting it. If only to charge eight-fold or four-fold for the land would ensure an influx of population, the spread of prosperity and the increase of exports, how easy—how very easy—aye how very pleasant would be the remedy! The hills overshadowing Nelson would thereby—if there be indeed power in the medicine —be covered with dwellings, and be converted into fields outpouring with joyful sights and sounds, and exchanging: the reflection of their beauty with their pretty little town below. Wellington might have its wide expanse of harbour surrounded with active men even to the hill-tops, arid the teeming wealth elicited from the mountainous soil would give additional employment to its energetic merchants. Napier might have its sterile island converted into the Tye of the Southern Ocean. The steep hills, deep gullies, and stubborn clays of Auckland, peopled with men of sinews so strong and nerves so firm as to deem high payment for that that was not good the ready way to wealth, would become a fairer laud than Italy in her palmiest days, and Vallambrosa's Vale be there a thousnnd times repented; while the fine land which that province contains in common with its neighbour Tarauaki, being cleared by settlers working under the mighty magic spell of paying four-fold for what they got, W3uld soon become a country flowing with wealth find all good things besides. Nay, even the people of Otago would probably, under the influence of this ready road to wealth, forget thoir « |U;ibblort and live in peace. But, sir, none of these provinces, although sonigh, and all fully awuru of what is going on hero, have adopted this hi^h price system —:iml why t*— because they know that it is a mere fallacy to say that high price for the raw material, be it what it may, can .eyerbe advantageous to the manufacturer. Lund is our raw material —meat, wool, corn and roots our manufactures. Then comes the question,—How has Canterbury prospered 'with tho comparatively high price fixed

upon its waste land ? I answer,—Because the land is hero a very great deal cheaper than it is in any of the other provinces. lam speaking upon the broad view of the whole provinces as compared with each other, for it i 3 undoubtedly true that limiti'd spots of equal value might be found in probably any of them. But I speak of the whole. In this province we have an extensive plain, much of the soil being good in quality, and all readily brought into cultivation with very little expense—not more, generally, than tiie cost of a follow on cultivated "lands. It in only necessary to look at the spots ploughed up in the town of. Chmtchurch Cor evidence of this fact. Besides this, all the country is covered with grass, which it not in every respect of the best- quality, is found to turnish nourishing food for cattle, sheep, and horses, lhis land may also all of it hereafter be easily cultivated with two-horse ploughs only, and those not of half the weight of'the ploughs used, if not Squired, in the other provinces. The levelness as well as the friability of the soil has to do in this matter. _ All these advantages are included in the cost price of two pounds per acre. But in Nelson the hills over a large breadth of the country cannot be reclaimed by any strength the settler can command; therefore the purchase money is only for the little natural produce of the soil. Nobody buys the soil for its natural produce here at any price; therefore why should the Nolsonian? In Wellington the same holds good; in this province, as in Nelson and Tlawke's Ba}', there are largo tracts of land equal to that of Canterbury, but theyare not come-at able, and are therefore used as similar land here; what lands are reclaimed near Nelson or Wellington cost from three to probably ten pounds pef acre. In Auckland there is but little fand in its natural state adapted for sheep feeding, nor is there much for cattle; although much of the province when improved will be found to be peculiarly adapted for smallish occupations, and the rearing of all kinds of live stock and the growing of all kinds of grain and of maize. But the improver is never at a less expense than three pounds per acre, and more generally of from five to seven or even ten pounds. But this is not all, he • seldom —excepting where the subsoil is scoria—gets any returns worth speaking of for the first, and fre-"" quently not for the second year. The timbered lands in Auckland and in Taranaki are so expensive to clear that but few settlers venture upon them, although the land when cleared is of the best quality. Many of the Taranaki settlers have had compensation lands awarded to them in the forests, but scarcely any have entered upon them, deterred by the expense of clearing. Many persons calculate the expense of clearing forest land at at least £10 per acre, and it is not less (if not.more) by the time the land is as fit for fanning purposes as the plains of Canterbury. Otago has generally a more valuable indigenous herbage than' the northern provinces, .and is on the whole probably a more advantageous place for the farmer than any of them. But it is by no means equal to Canterbury.

I believe, sir, that I have understated the real cost of land in the other provinces, and it will even so be found to be from double to five times that of the much talked of dear land of this province ; and to meet this great disadvantage the settlers therein must —if not use more energy —yet wait much longer for adequate returns for their labour, their capita], and their time. Suppose fora moment the Wakefield Theory to have been attempted to be carried out in Auckland, is it too much to say that it must have miserably failed ? Thi\ Government of Auckland has been offering land for nothing; and then Canterbury land is much cheaper. Let ;XlSjthank.God-tbafc-wrtt..Ko«r/v-o«v-fi—:-^- T —I—Ax-i^ ;- ---tending that we are prospering through some wonderfully ingenious discovery of our own. We cannot contravene the laws of our Great Creator, whether physical or moral, and it is a physical law that from the best soil only can the most produce obtained. Empyrical schemes of extra charging will not alter it. :

in considering the rapid progress which has been made in this province it is apparently not borne in mind that great care and attention was paid to setting it a going, and a large quantity of capital brought here in comparison wjth other colonies at its first starting. This capital enabled persons to purchase at the high price fixed, and the money thus obtained was most useful in making roads and in opening out the province generally. But has the high price had the effect of keeping the people together ? and might it not probably under other circumstances have had the effect of destroying the prosperity of the settlement altogether ? All the money paid for the land was of course so much capital abstracted from the pockets of the settlers: it so far lessened their means of improving the land which they might purchase. When a settler in a new country intends to live by farming only, he wishes to have a sufficient quantity of lancf for a farm, and indeed will strain his means to effect this object. Nor is ho altogether wrong; for as his family grows up and the reclaiming of his ground goes on he requires more for his care; but, unless he secures it at the fir.st, others step in, and he has not the opportunity. But even to purchase a small quantity at this two (at one time three) pounds an acre, say 40 acres, certainly none too much for a man with, a young family, would usually leave but scant means in the working settler's hands to get in his first cropland live his first year, however industrious he might be ;' and if he met with a bad crop tlie first year—a very usual thing—ruin or dependence upon tha merchant or storekeeper follows—too often the poor settler's doom in many of the colonies—and he likely becomes a struggling and consequently often a careless man for life. The high price also will drive away the capitalist, that is, the man who comes to set up as a master farmer; avid in fact would, in colonies having poor land or land expensive to reclaim, have driven away the people. And. then follows the absurd assumption that the Government of the Province, having got the money paid for the high priced land into their bauds, would lay it out better for the public advantage than the settlers could themselves!—a conclusion well worthy of its fellow, that people will naturally buy ra the dearest market. I beg not to be understood to mean that I think the money of this province has been badly spent as public money. Quite the contrary— I believe that a comparison with some others would show a result in favour of Canterbury. But how has the scheme answered as to keeping the people together ? Why, finding the land, cheap as it is, comparatively too dear for farming on a large scale, the capitalists looked about them and have got the use of it for nothing or nearly ?o; and to obtain this advantage have thrown centralized progress to the do°'s and spread themselves all over the land. Had not°this resource of run-holding offered itself, scarcely one of those who are run-holders only would have been here either in.person or by capital, and for this, dear land would -probably have had much to answer. Canterbury land, taken as a whole, is the cheapest in the New Zealand colony; but this would not have tempted tlxe greater part of the- capitalists who are here. Now, they get the uaelof availableviand for nothing or neaiHy so, and raise aVyei'y'valuable article of. export, and the praise is given to Ijjgh-pricyd land. And bi'ona sense truly; for although., as you observe, the price I "is really trilling for g>>od agricultural land," yvk. it is such aa the straggling settler at his first outset cannot afford, jfroin the quality of tha land and- its levelness the price is cheap; but-had circumstances been as in other provinces the price would have been extravagantly dear. Xhis.is accidental, and by no means arising from the prescience

of the promulgators of the scheme, whoever they were.

T,here is still one point worth discussion relating .to this high-pvieod land. Is it not operating most ■: injudiciously upon the prosperity of the agricultural settlors ? They believe it to bo so, and I rather think with,justice. It is.now operating to raise the price of Jabouv and to interfere with the labour market, if jiot:to the ruin, at least to the -detriment of''the. formers. For evidence see the long draggling harvest through which we have just passed—corn standing out in the fields week after week when ready for housing, and the roads thronged with labourers, certainly not working long-hours.; but out of the farmer's reach. Is there any necessity.that the whale proceeds of this land fund shall bo laid,out; and, if so, is it essential, that the public, .as a. body, represented by the 'Provincial Government, should so act upon the labor marketas to pi'event the real public—the individuals —from entering' into competition, unless at a price which the returns from their produce will not bear ? I am as fully sensible as any man alive of, the necessity of good roads for national progress ; but it is equally necessary that the people should be able to till their lands if there is., to be any use for the roads to ha created. If there be a fear of plethora from the land income, commute some of it into a perpetual rent-charge: it will he extremely useful by .and bye to lighten local taxation. I pretend not .to give-an opinion upon wages further than to ■say. that like every thing else it should be left to find.its own value'in the market, which can never be done while .a certain and a high rate is held out to tall, wet and dry, able or not able, without trouble. Of all classes here the settler depending wholly on his land has perhaps the hardest task to ma-ke two ends meet. A high price has been taken for his land, and circumstances cause him to "give an equally high price for his labour. .1 urn,.sir,:yo.urs, &c, /A NEW CHUM.

OLD GRIEVANCES. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Bear Sir,—Having been for a length of'time so surfeited -^with discussions, starting from every point of view, on railways and the respective and relative merits of the Sumner line and the hills tunnel, I am inclined to fancy that all your readers, save perhaps those who .have m:sde one or other >of those oft discussed routes their -especial hobby, are now at-last nearly tired of the subject, and are fain to sing with the Lord .of Toulouse and his adherents — " Oh dear ! what willbecome of us? Oh dear ! what shall -we do; ? "We shall die of blue-devils, if some of us Can't hit upon something that's new/" —Rut the -difficulty is to all appearances as great with us as with the illustrious individuals whose pathetic lament I have just quoted. What can be more difficult in our matter-of-fact £-.s.-rf.-seelung-community than to "hit on something1 that's new." Meagre offers to sellers, and exhorbitant charges to would (if they could) be buyers are, alas ! nothing new. "The difficulty of procuring required articles of consmnpti hi, especially dairy produce (in a land essentially pnstorol and -agricultural), is nothing new. Scandal is not new, though I suppose the best substitute for news which can be procured; hence its great popularity. Failing.then to discover in the existing state of things that great and universally sought after desideratum " something that's new," we will turn our attention to some things which, under different circumstances, would be new, and, I believe, very acceptable. A. little iTtiove cordiality aiicL freedom Jrp*n. constraint in society generally, with* rather less 6f cliqueism in the soi-clisant upper grades would, I feel sure, be acceptable. Not that I mean to infer, nor do I believe, that there is much, if any, ill-will between any two grades of our community. But I think it will be allowed that hospitality might have a more prominent place amongst our social virtues; and that exclusiveness and the de-haui-en-bas manner (so offensive and irritating to all Englishmen, and yet by none practised so much as by Englishmen) is in some instances carried too far. Another thing which most assuredly would be new and very welcome to nearly all, would be the power- of obtaining the necessaries of life at a price bearing something like a treasonable relation to the cost of their production. Some remarks which lately appeared in your columns on the subject of flour prove that in that, the most important item, such a relation as that to which I allude does not at present exist. Some approach to regularity in our supplies of daily produce would be new. Uniformity of quality and reasonableness of price in the articles of bread and meat would be new and most acceptable. Many more items might be added to my list of desirables, butnoi wishing to fall into the undesirable old error of prolixity, I will here conclude by subscribing myself "NOVITAS."