THE SPECIAL SETTLEMENT CLAUSES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1246, 25 May 1886, Page 2

THE SPECIAL SETTLEMENT CLAUSES.

The following article, dealing with the above important subject, appeared in our .ocal contemporary this morning: The question opened up by the member lot Waimate on Friday afternoon is one ot the greatest possible interest to the people of tins provincial district, as a few words of explanation will suffice to show. Canterbury is in a stagnant stale so tar as set dement is concerned, and the causes for this slate oi things are not iar to seek. They are simply that those wno wou'd willingly lake up holdings are not able to obtain them unless at a pi ice altogether beyond their value, and under conditions unsuited to their requirements. All the best agiieullural laud nas long aeo been bought from the Crown or, what has practically the same effect, the keys to it have been bought, and future purchasers effectually blocked from access to roads and streams. There, however, remains a large quantity of land ot second class quality which, if only it could be obtained in sufficient areas and at a reasonable puce with easy terms of payment, would, we are persuaded, be rcadi.y taken up to tue advantage ot the settlers themselves and to the country generally. I'iie land to vvhicu we retells to be found m different parts ot the provincial district on the runs ol pastoral tenants of the Crown, and consists of country adapted for what wc will term pastoial fanners j that is to say, farmers whose operations would be mainly pastoral, yet partly agricultural; farmers whose chief dependence wouid be their Hocks of sheep, but who also would always have a larger or smaller proportion of their holdings under the plough. Land of this kind, situated for the most part at considerable elevation, can not be profitably divided into 200 or goo or even 500 acre allotments, but would require to be held m areas of from 1000 to 2000 acres according to situation an J quality. Tut il it could be obtained in blocks of tins size, such holding would support a settler and his family in comfort. now, not withstanding that the land may be under pastoral lease, any person who chooses may under the Canterbury Land Regulations lake it up for cash, but must pay down L2 per acre, and there are very fewpersons indeed able to find so large a sum as from L2OOO to L4OOO, wh.le those who are able to do so, certainly would not, seeing that the land is not worth more than half the money. .But, in addition to the difficulty of finding ready cash to so large an amount, there is the further difficulty that if the land be sold on deterred payment the total price is raised by 25 per cent., i.e., to 50s per acre, and even then under this system the area of each lidding is restricted to the altogether insufficient hunt ot 320 acres. An attempt to meet these difficulties was made last session by Mi Steward, who carried in the House the addition of clauses to the Bill which provided that in the case of secondclass land, certified to be such by tire Survevor-Ceneral, the Governor might, by proclamation, declare it open for sale on deferred payment, at any price from 10s to gos per acre, and in blocks of any size (not exceeding 2 000 acres), named m the proclamation. Those clauses were thrown out in the Upper House, and Mr Steward then made the discoveiy that nearly all he desired to accomplish might be effected in another way, viz., under the special settlement clauses. Clauses 162 and 163 of the Act give power to the Governor to set apart, out of any “ rural lands,” such blocks as he may think lit as special settlements, under such conditions as to price, area of holding, and terms of payment as he may think lit, the only limitations being tnat the price shall not be less than 20s per acre, and that not more than one hundred thousand acres shall be so set apart in any one year. Hence it follows that if the term “ rural land” applies to lands under pastoral lease, then, notwithstanding such lease the land could be offered for sale on deterred payment in the area de.dred, at a total capital cost of one pound per acre, payable in instalments extending over a series of years. Mr Steward's contention was that the term “ rural lands” does so apply, and when it is remembered that clause 85 enacts that all lands of the Grown shall be divided into three clauses, viz. ; (1) town land ; (2) suburban land; (g) rural laud, being lands not reserved lor towns or villages, or other public purposes, it is clear to any one who understands the English language that this is the case. Now, it is important to remember that these provisions are no new thing. T hey did not appear in the Act of 1885 for the first time, but are to all intents and purposes identical with those of clause gS of the Land Act, 1577, and clauses 24 and 25 of “ T he Land Act Amendment Act, 1579.” Further, it should be borne in mind that the influence ol the pastoral tenants of the Crown, obtained for them under the Act of 1877, an extension of their leasts then obtained to expire in 1880 for 10 years, and it must be held that when only two years later the power was given (sections 24 and 25, Act of 18S7) to declare special settlements on “any rural lands,” Parliament gave that power of extension, and that from that date the lease or licenses have been held subject to this right on the part of the Grown. Now, it appears that all this was set out by Mr Steward at the close of last session, in a memorandum to Ministers, and the object of his question on Friday was to ascertain (1) Whether Ministers had taken the opinion of the law advisers as to whether the Crown possessed the powers alleged, and (2) if so, whether Ministers proposed to exerciser that power by opening up blocks for application under the conditions we have indicated in Canterbury and Otago, The reply of Mr Ballance was as to the first question, that the advice had been taken, and was confirmatory of Mr Steward’s contention, and as to the second, that Ministers were not clear as to whether Parliament intended to confer such a power, and, therefore, were not sure as to their duty in the matter. He would “recommend the hon. gentleman to submit the matter to the Waste Lands Committee.” This is, verily, a most lame aud impotent conclusion j for the merest tyro in parliamentary practice knows first that neither the Waste Lands Com

mitlee nor any other Committee of the House of Representatives has any

power to report . upon a matter not referred to it by direct resolution of the House] and, second, that even were this matter so referred, the Committee would

inevitably report that it is not its function to interpret the law as it stands, much less to say what Parliament intended when the law was passed nine years ago. The fact is, the question has been simply shirked, and it would have been more manly to say at once that Ministers did not intend to exercise the powers by law conferred upon them. It is, however, well that the public should know that the law confers these powers upon the administrators of tin public estate, and it must be neld both that the law intends what it expresses, and that what is expressed is intended to be acted upon. Had Mr Bal'ance suggested that the Waste Lands Board should be asked to indicate whether any blocks could be advantageously opened up under these conditions, and if so in what areas and on what terms as to price and payment, we could have understood it ; but to suggest the reference of the matter to the Waste Land] Committee of the House is simply shuffling, and wholly unsatisfactory on the part of a Government which professes to be in earnest for the promotion of the profitable settlement of the colony. As the matter stands, we would recommend those persons who are anxious to take up land in the areas and under the terms we have mentioned--and we know that there are such —to approach the Waste Land Board with a request that it will recommend the opening up under the conditions desired, of such blocks as may be indicated by the memorialists ; and is necessary, that petitions should be ad dressed to Parliament to the like effectOne thing is clear, namely, that the law provides for the land being thus upened up, and no Government can long refuse to pul the law into opera tion, it there be anything like an earnest demand on the part of the people.