THE CANTERBURY RUNS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1621, 28 July 1887, Page 3

THE CANTERBURY RUNS.

» The Parliament about to be elected will m all probability have to deal with some very important questions. Not the least important to the community of this Provincial District will be that of the Canterbury pastoral leases. These all fall m m 1890, when they must come absolutely under the consideration of tbe Government of the Colony. All claims cease m the year mentionedj and the runs will then be free to be dealt with as may be fonnd to be most desirable for the benefit of those concerned on the one hand and of the community at large on the other. It is no small matter, as Sir Julius Yogel observed when speaking at Christchurch last week, as they comprise an area of 27,000,000 acres, now m the hands of 92 runholders, averaging over 293,000 acres for each holder. The total rent is .£47,000, or one farthing and twothirds — not quite a halfpenny— per acre. In this vast area there must be a large quantity of arable land cr land fitforfarraing purposes. Wedonot know the amouttt, and at the present moment cannot lay our hands upon any work that will afford tbe desired information. We think, however, we shall be under the mark it we put it down at about 1,000,000 acres. This, at a time like the present, when the Government, are requiring land for their Special and Village Settlements shemes, this million of acres would prove a nice little field of operations, and it is extremely probable that the present Government would not consent to the leases being renewed under existing conditions. Against the Government's resuming possession of the agricultural lands on these runs, it is objected that such a course would render the remaining portions of each run unworkable. This objection, we think, might be overcome by a judicious system of survey on the give-and-tak^ principle — giving a portion of good land here, and taking a portion of inferior land there. But whether this could be satisfactorily accomplished or not, certain we are that the present Government would refuse to renew the leases on existing conditions, as the settlement of population on the land is one of tbe main planks m their platlorm. What would be the result should any other Government be m office when the subject comes on for consideration, it is easy to foretell. At the present time there is only one recognised leader of the Opposition — the ever aspiring Major Atkinson — and his anti-settlement procivilities are unfortunately but too well known. He would be associated with Sir John Hall, of gridironing reputation, and Mr Ormond, perhaps the greediest of greedy land monopolists. Whichever of these three gentlemen should unhappily come to the front, he is bound to be associated with the other two, forming a worthy trio deadly opposed to settlement of tbe people on the land. Sir George Grey is the only other possible leader. His cry has always been " the land for the people," but unfortunately he has no following except his shadow. What we have already said will show very plainly the reason why these wealthy runholders and huge land monopolists have been making such strenuous efforts t» oust the present Ministry, and have resorted to every political trick — false charges, misrepresentations, mis-statements, and distortion of facts — to compass their 1 selfish ends. But now that the hollowness of their trickery has been exposed, and the re-action has set m, m favor of the Government — which has done twice as much m the way of iand settlement m their three years' reign as the Continuous Ministry did m the previous decade— the runholders see that the game is up j their hey-day past and gone, and the chance of their again leasing their 300,000 acres each at less than a half-penny an acre has for ever vanished. ,