The Stockwhip.

Prologue.

A paper written by a farmer in the interests of farmers is, we believe, a novelty. Equally so is a paper written by a mortgagor in the interests of mortgagors. This paper claims to be so written. But we intend not only to advocate the interests of farmers and mortgagors, but the interests of all kinds of producers. And we write not only as a New Zealand colonist, in the interests of New Zealand, but also as an Englishman, in the interests of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of her colonies.

"England expects every man to do his duty." It is the duty of a farmer to enquire into everything which decreases the production of the soil. At the present time there is nothing which does this so effectually as the Spirit of Greediness, which on the one hand, in the shape of Freetrade, wants and gets its daily bread and meat and many other things at less than cost price, and on the other hand, in the shape of Usury, by extortionate rates of interest, or excessive rents, wants and gets far more money than the present prices of produce can possibly justify. The editors and proprietors of newspapers are usually town men, who are either hand in glove with, or dependent upon the bankers, bank shareholders, money-lenders, money-lending agents, lawyers, and merchants, who,

In matters of business
Are just like the Dutch.
They love giving, too little,
And getting, too much.

This fact, we believe, accounts in a very great measure indeed for English newspapers having so long advocated Freetrade, and even refused to admit any Protectionist correspondence to their columns. Many of the interests of the above classes are quite opposite to those of the producers. In the United Kingdom bank shareholders have increased their profits by dealing with foreign countries, by opening foreign branches, by foreign loans, and by commissions on payments to and from foreign countries; money lenders have increased their interest by foreign loans; lawyers have increased their business by the home depression page 2 resulting from Freetrade ("lawyers live by our misfortunes," as one of Sir Walter Scott's characters sagely observes); and merchants have increased their profits by importing com and meat without paying taxes upon them, like the farmers have done upon (or, out of) the corn and meat which they produced. Yet it is not difficult to show that the interests of producers are really far more the interests of the people, than are the interests of the merchants, lawyers, and money-lending classes. The money which is paid to the farmer for the corn and meat he produces is distributed by him amongst all classes in the shape of rent, tithes, rates, taxes, wages, and payments to tradesmen and mechanics. The money which is paid to the home manufacturer is chiefly paid in wages amongst the artisans. But nearly all the money which is paid to the importing merchant is sent away out of the country.

In grasping after the Shadow of Cheapness, England has been and is, sacrificing the Substance of her Wealth. In order to get a Cheap Loaf, she has been and is, sacrificing her Harvests.

Freetrade, by cheapening too much the prices of produce, takes away the employment and lowers the wages of labourers and artisans, for whose sake alone, as consumers, it is supposed to be so desirable to have food as cheap as possible. But if to have everything cheap in a country means prosperity, then at the present time New Zealand should be the best country in the world for the labouring classes. During the past year, best wheat has sold as low as 2s. 6d. per bushel, best beef at 2d. per lb., and best mutton at three half-pence per lb. Owing also to the prevalent depression all kinds of manufactured and imported articles of use and luxury have been selling at far less than cost price. Yet New Zealanders know well that if farmers could get double the present prices for their com and meat, it would mean prosperity lor all classes in the colony, whereas the present low prices mean wide spread distress amongst nearly all classes, excepting the money-lending fraternity and their agents and the lawyers.

There are two sides to every question, and for just the same reason as British merchants object to Protection, because it would tax and lessen their business and their profits, so the money-lending fraternity and lawyers of New Zealand object to the establishment of a State Bank, because it would lessen their business and their profits.

When St. Paul preached the gospel at Ephesus, there was "a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines for Diana, and he called together the workmen of like occupation, and said, 'Sirs, ye know by this craft we have our wealth, ...' So there was a powerful opposition against St. Paul's preaching at Ephesus.

In like manner last session, when the Hon. John Bathgate brought his State Bank of Issue Bill before the Legislative Council, he met with a powerful opposition. This opposition, however, was not so honest as that of Demetrius the silversmith. If it had been, the members opposed to a State Bank of Issue would have said, " Sirs, by this craft of money-lending we have our wealth, and we object to any State Bank legislation because a State Bank reducing the rates of interest, and mortgage, and legal expenses and commissions on loans would decrease our profits. Or, " we do not wish, or do not dare, to do anything which the money-lending fraternity and lawyers of New Zealand would consider to be in conflict with their interests."

Such being the case, it is not surprising that the editors of some of the New Zealand newspapers should consider discretion to be the better part of valour, and should have nothing to say about the establishment of a State Bank, or should refuse to admit correspondence on the subject to their columns.

In March last we wrote a letter to the Lyttelton Times on the subject " National Bank," challenging the opponents of a State Bank to show some better reasons against it than that given by Sir Julius Vogel, namely, that the large companies are very powerful, and that any measure introduced into Parliament which they would consider to be in conflict with their interests is not likely to pass. The Editor of the Lyttelton Times did not even deign to acknowledge the letter. We then wrote him a note, asking if he had received the letter; but he did not answer the note. We then sent a copy of the letter to the Editor of the Press, who published it, but none of the money-lending fraternity accepted our challenge, nor did the Editor have a word to say upon the subject. We then wrote a pamphlet which was published in Christchurch, December 3rd, 1885, entitled, " The Condition of New Zealand : A Challenge to Sir Julius Vogel, K.C.M.G., and to the Money-lending Fraternity and Lawyers—By Lieutenant Farmer, Q.C., late of Her Majesty's Horse Marines, now a New Zealand Settler." This pamphlet contained a copy of the letter refused by the Lyttelton Times and published in the Press, and we also remarked therein that both of these newspapers seemed to be like our representatives in Parliament, afraid to advocate anything which would be in conflict with the interests of the banks and money-lending fraternity.

We think that the Editors of the Lyttelton Times and of the Press place themselves in a very absurd position in having nothing to say for themselves on a question of such public importance as the establishment of a State Bank. A State Bank is either right or wrong. If it is right it means a saving of millions of money to the Colony; an enormous decrease in the rates of page 4 interest and taxation which now oppress colonists, and a corresponding increase in the wealth and taxbearing powers of the colony. If it is wrong there must surely bo some good reasons to give against it.

It appears, however, that the Lyttelton Times does not wish the people to be well informed on the subject of a State Bank, and does not wish them to understand that the right granted to the banks, of issuing their own bank notes to the nominal value of about one million pounds, on payment of a tax of two per cent, to the New Zealand Government, is equivalent to the loan of a million sterling, at two per cent, interest from the people of New Zealand to the banks, the Government holding no security against the notes. This is equivalent to a loan to the banks of nearly £2 per head for every man, woman, and child in the colon). Again, as all the gold and silver coin in New Zealand does not amount to two millions sterling, this million of notes which the banks are allowed to issue, represents more than a third of the entire circulating money of the colony. Meanwhile the people of New Zealand are borrowing money for public purposes, on public security, from and through these banks at 4 per cent, interest and upwards; and for private Purposes and on freehold security, a all sorts of extortionate rates and charges. Yet the money (so-called!) for which the New Zealand Government and people pay these rates of interest, excepting the two millions of coin required for circulation, is simply paper representing other property, and is no more or less money than the debentures, or page 5 title deeds to land, upon the security of which the Government and people of New Zealand get—not money—because they don't want much—but cash credit—from the banks.

We do not want more money in the colony at present, but we do want much lower rates of interest for money lent on freehold security, and much less expensive ways of getting it. These are things which a State Bank could do. But these are just the things which the money-lending fraternity and their agents and the lawyers do not want done. They are like the dog in the manger, they cannot make anything out of their money themselves, and they will not lend it to anyone else at such rates of interest as will allow of the borrowers making any profit. They will not reduce the rates of interest themselves, and they would like to prevent the establishment of a State Bank because that would reduce the rates of interest. They like the idea of a State Bank in New Zealand just as much as a village butcher or baker likes the idea of an opposition shop.

Considering, therefore, the Lyttelton Times and the Press of Christchurch to be the advocates and dependants of the money-lending fraternity and lawyers, we bring out the Stockwhip as an advocate of the farmers, mortgagors, and people of New Zealand.

We challenge the Press which professes to make efforts to keep the people well informed, either to advocate or oppose the establishment of a State Bank.

We challenge the Members of both Houses of the New Zealand Parliament to show " any just cause or impediment " why a State Bank should not be established. Or else to show why, as they are paid by the people of New Zealand, and not by the banks, they should study the interests of the banks, and not of the people.

We challenge the lawyers and barristers of New Zealand to show that the establishment of a State Bank would not greatly benefit the people of New Zealand.

As one of the advocates in the great case impending : State Bank versus The Money-lending Fraternity and Lawyers; and the equally great case, Agriculturalists, Pastoralists, and Manufacturers versus Merchants; we intend to use the lash of ridicule to the best of our abilities. Nature sets us the example of wrapping up good grain in chaff. Having ourself grown many thousand quarters of wheat, we have a considerable stack of chaff yet remaing on hand. We intend to pour it upon the devoted heads of the opponents of a State Bank, and of Protection, in return for the clouds of dust they have been throwing in the eyes of the people. " Joking decides great things, stronger and better oft than earnest can " (Horace x Milton). We therefore add to our reason, rhyme, and to our rhymes, more reasons.