ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 147, 26 December 1846, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

Sih, — In expressing your approval of the Customs Ordinance recently passed by the Legislative Council, you most assuredly have not expressed the opinion of the Settlers. Ask any one in the slightest degree acquainted with political economy — ask those conversant with mercantile affairs — ask the retail dealer — nay, ask any one ■whom you niay happen to meet, and they will one and all condemn the ordinance in question. And how can it possibly be otherwise? For -while- (as Lord Dalhousie stated) the principle up«n'which the Home Government has proceded for several years past, has been to repeal the duties on articles of food and of first necessity; and upon all articles not of first necessity, hut •which enter largely into the consumption of the people, more especially of- that of the poorer classes, to reduce the duties as much as possi-ble;—-our Legislators have gone completely on the opposite tack, and have imposed high and vexatious duties upon the very lirst necessaries of life. Although the Home Government have, hy a series of experiments, proved beyond dispute, that reduction of custom duties has invariably been followed by an increase of the customs revenue, our Legislators have determined, with a most perverse and unaccountable pertinacity, to cling to the exploded system of the most ultra protectionists. Before the rejoicings in England, occasioned by the repeal of the corn j law, hare ceased — before the splendid tribute, raised by a nation's gratitude to him who has achieved to great and glorious a triumph, has been presented, our Legislator* have insidiously inflicted upon this colony a corn law immeasurably more iniquitous and burdensome than that which has so recently, amidst the acclamations of the people of England, received its deathblow. And yet these things are enacted without the press taking' tiny further notice of them, than simply to express a passing approval ! But, Sir, however imperceptible indirect taxation may *t first be — however blind the great bulk of the people may be to the inevitable results of such taxation as that levied by this ordinance — the time cannot be distant when the shoe •will pinch them , severely, and then they will give vent to their dissatisfaction in terms all the stronger, because those who ought to have sounded the alarm, neglected their duty. Let us, however, prove our assertions. By theformer ordinance, a dutyof five percent, "was levied upon all imported goods— the value of the goodrbeing taken at the invoice price ; — by the present ordinance, a duty of 10 per cent, is levied" (with certain specified, exceptions) upon all British goods — the value being estimated, not at before, at the invoice price, but at the market -value of the goods at the port of import — that is, the duty oflO per cent, is levied not merely upon the original cost of the goods, but also upon the freight, insurance, and other expenses, and also upon the importer's profit. Upon all foreign goods a duty of 12J per cent, is charged, the value being estimated in the same way. Assuming ior the present, that an additional duty of only 5 per sent, upon British, and 7£ uyon foreign goodi it charged by this ordinance , I mutt contend that i uch an increased duty ii

not only a retrograde step in that liberal commercial policy which for many years has received the sanction of, and been carried out by all the leading statesmen at home, but also is calculated most materially to interfere with the comfort and well-being b<*th of the colonists and the natives, while at the same time it is extremely doubtful whether in the long run it wilPadd to the revenue. ' During the years 1842, 3, 4, 5, reductions were made in the customs duties in England to the amount of £4,214.000, and yet the customs revenue amounted in 1845 to £19,800,000, while in 1842 it amounted only to £19,600,000; or in other words, while there had been a reduction of custom duties of £4,214,000 in four years, the custom's revenue was larger in the last year than in the first by £200,000. Now, if such results were obtained in an old and wealthy country — if reductions of custom duties in England have increased the consumption, improved the revenue, and diffused comfort amongst all classes in England, may not similar results be reasonably anticipated in a country like New Zealand, the resources of which are undeveloped, and the population confessedly poor? Some may perhaps plead, that an increase of 5 per cent, on British, and 7£ per cent, upou foreign goods, will not have the effect of diminishing the consumption ; but Sir Robert Peel in his speech in introducing the income tax in 1842, proved most satisfactorily, that the previous imposition of 5 per cent, on the Customs and Excise had failed to create any addition to the produce of the revenue. If 5 per cent, had such an effect in diminishing consumption in England, is it not fair to expect that it will produce the same effect in a still greater degree in New Zealand? But in taxing such a colony as this, other considerations besides those of revenue ought to influence our legislators. For however desirable and just it may be to make the natives contribute to the revenue, yet it is of infinitely greater importance, (hat every possible inducement, especially at the outset, should be held out to them to adopt the food and clothing of civilisation. Amongst the many causes of the rapid decrease at present taking place in the native population, most unquestionably two of the chief are, bad food and deficient clothing, and until these causes are removed, all other remedies can have little or no effect in preventing their extinction as a race. Cheap food and cheap clothing are then indispensable to the native race, but neither can be obtained with such duties as those levied by the present ordinance. If, on the other hand, these articles by means of low duties, could be supplied at such a cheap rate as would place them within the reach of the natives — as would tempt them to become purchasers, there cannot be a doubt but that the increased consumption would add much more to the revenue than the present duties. But, Sir, the increase of duty imposed by this ordinance is much more than 5 or 7J per cent. Owing to the value of the goods being estimated, not as before, at the invoice price, but at :heir market price at the purt of import, the increase in the duty will generally be at least 15 or 20 per cent; for example, suppose a chest of tea in Sydney costs £4, by the former ordinance the duty on it would be 45. ; but. by the present (the value here being, say £6) the duty charged will be 155., oi a duty of almost 20 per cent, upon the cost of the article in Sydney. And the same hods good with respect to all similar goods. This, however, is not the worst feature in the ordinance ; the duty is a sliding scale turned upside down — the scarcer and dearer the article in the colony, the greater the duty demanded by the Government; and This, remember, upon the first necessaries of life. For example, flour would, its value here being £15 a ton, pay (if the produce of English colonies) a duty of 305. ; but let there be a scarcity, and a consequent rise in the price, and the duty will also increase; if flour here be £30 a ton (and it was £26 the other week), we must pay a duty of £3, or of £3, 155., if it be the produce of a foreign state— in fact, instead of the sliding scale hitherto in operation in England, according to which the duty diminished as the price of the article advanced, we have a sliding scale exactly the reverse. The Home Government endeavoured to prevent a famine by lessening the duty on floui when the price was high; but the nearer we approach to the starving point, the greater the effort of the Local Government to make us reach it ! Perhaps some may urge that this will prove a protection to the farmer; but this is to advocate the establishment of a coin law. Such, Sir, are some of the effects of this ordinance. The space I have already occupied in your paper prevents my detailing at present other objections equally strong. I am, Sir, Your most obedient servant, Akti-Pbotbctionist. December 24, 1846.

On Wednesday the 23d instant, a very spirited match at Cricket was played on Te Aro flat between two elevens selected from the Britannia Club, consisting- of civilians and the navy and military stationed at Wellington. We must confess that we were rather surprised at the result of the score as we conceived the two sides to be well matched. The majority in favour of Mr. Clout's side was 82, as will be seen by the details below.'^ The bowling of Mr. Clout excited great praise, which was well deserved, as did also his batting, getting 44 runs in the first innings and carrying his bat out. Waring also played remarkably well, scoring 47 runs in his second innings and also carrying his bat out. Lieut. Beresford scored 24 in his second innings; their fielding was generally good. On the other side, the bowling of Mr. Catchpool was not so steady and effective as usual, though two catches he made apparently beyond his reach called forth great commendation. Mr. Cator was not so fortunate as we have before seen him, still he contrived (notwithstanding he had in the early part of the game received a severe blow on the ankle, and another on the hand while keeping wicket) to make a very res-

pectable score, carrying his bat out with 1 6 runs in the first innings, and 1 1 in the second, when his wicket was bowled down on his missing a long hop. Mr. Deignton, Lieut. Page, and J. Herbert, also made good score. Mr. Lardner played well and made an excellent catch off point from Mr. May's bat. G. Baker, Esq., and Sergeant Dodds officiated as umpires, and their decisions gave general satisfaction, It is in contemplation to play the same side on a future occasion, and we hear that several bets are pending the issue. We shall give due notice when it is to come off. Ist. Innings. 2nd. Innings. Mr. May, st. Cator 0 Ct. Lardner. . 11 Lieut. Beresford, R.N. Struck wicket bd. Page 0 d0wn...... 24 Mr. Moore, run out 0 Bd. Herbert. . 5 Dr. Galbraith, b. Catchpool 0 Std. Cator.. 0 Benge, c. Catchpool 2 Ct. Cator .... 1 Winteringham, c. Yates 19 Bd. Yates.... 9 Brown, struck bails off. . 2 Run out v 2 Waring, R.A.b.Herbert 28 Not out '. 47 Ashmore, run out 15 Ct. Catchpool *2 Clout, not out 44 Ct. Yates .... 0 (D. Wallace) Mr. Goode, run out 4 b. Yates.. 6 ~114 107 Byes 11 Byes 7 No balls 3 No ball.. 1 Wide ball 1 128 116 Total 244 Mr. Lardner, b. Clout.. IS Bd C10ut.... 2 Lieut. Page, b. Clout .. 1 Bd. C10ut.... 17 Mr. Cator, not out 16 Bd. Waring.. 11 Mr. Catchpool, 'b. Clout 0 Ct. Ashmote 1 Mr. Deighton, run out.. 5 Bd. Waring.. 20 Lt.Kanell.N.c.Brown.. 0 Ct. Beresford 0 Lieut. Yelverton, R. A. run out 1 Bd. Waring.. 5 Major Baker, b. Clout 0 Not out 1 J. Herbert, b. C10ut.... 21 Ct. Ashmore 16 Randell, b. Clout 0 Run out 3 Yates, 99lhreg.b. Clout 0 Bd. Waring.. 5 ~59 81 Byes 11 Byes 11 70 92 Total 162