j RASH CRITICISM. ( Investors' Review, March, 1891.) j After quoting in full the text, of the schema as published in the New Zealand Times, and acknowledging its sourco, tho Review remarks: —Tho Government is to traffic in farm mortgages for a commission of ono half per cent as a minimum. In consideration of this commission it would extend to those farm mortgages its guarantee,” so as to cheapen tho rate at which they may bo borrowed upon in the London market. The device is new only in the sense that the Government of a colony wants to adopt it. We fear, though, that New Zealand will not succeed in getting the British public to lend it ten millions or one million upon the security offered. The trick is a trifle too clumsy even for our simple folk. New Zealand is nearly drowned in its national debt now—so nearly that many of its settlers have, for somo time been openly saying that tho best thing which could happen would be a re pudiation. It has therefore no substantial “guarantee” to offer to buyers of these farm mortgages. Where would the guarantee stand ? Before tho national debt or after ? And how is the mortgage to be enforced should tho Government de fault P Will tho creditors hero be at liberty to send bailiffs out to take posses sion of the place, Government, “ opposi tion,” official tax-oaters and all ? Tnero is not even an “ uncalled share capital ” here between tho purchaser of a “ guaran teed mortgage ” and default. On the top cf an intolerable debt yet moro debt is to be heaped. And for what purpose ? Merely, wo imagine, to reliovo the distressed mortgage companies, like the New Zealand Loan and. Mercantile Agency Company, and the banks, now hampered by tho lumps of barren, rabbit-burrowed earth they hold and cannot sell. The money would pass from the hands of tho British investor into those of the New Zealand Govern ment ; thence it would bo conveyed to tho “purchasers” of farms, and by these it would be usod to redeem land, already pledged 50 crops deep, to tho withering joint stock companies. 