The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4050, 18 February 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1876.

It would be well if the ‘Daily Tuned’ would speak out boldly, say at once in whose interest its wily articles regarding pastoral leases are penned, and what course it proposes to adopt in the future occupation of the lands of the Province. If it were possible for that journal to free itself from class pressure, suspicion as to motives might be disarmed. There appears in fact to be yeryremoieconnection between classifying lands and handing over the runs in perpetuity to the pastoral lessees, yet this seems to be the end that our contemporary proposes. We gather this from the scattered inuendoes dispersed intervals in the course of the misty article that adorned its leading columns yesterday. There is not the semblance. of a principle laid down, but plenty of statements and disclosures that point to the article referred to, and to one or two on a like subject a few days ago, being the beginning of an attempt to create a public opinion in favor of a particular class. By implication, the ‘ Daily Times’ assumes that injustice has been done to the pastoral tenants, who, we are informed, will have a chance of “ real justice ” being done to them when the leases fell in some three or four years hence. The world has always some persecuted ,set with whom it is called upon to sympathise, to the neglect of others whose interests are overlooked and forgotten, in the earnest desire to right their wrongs. Truly the pastoral lessees have much to be pitied for. They have been allowed to occupy the waste lands of the Province on terms that have enabled most of the original lessees to sell their grazing rights at prices that have given them princely of selecting valuable freeholds of the very finest agricultural land in the Province on easy terms, and even when any portion of their runs has been required for settlement, they hav& been allowed compensation for detens jmationof their

leases. In the arrangements under whicii- these terrible pastoral grievances havsf arisen, the pastoral tenants were thief actors. They stood man to man against the agriculturists, who wanted to combine their advantages of: feeding stocky v cereals witfiout manure, and in die pitched fdrejnsic battles between these two classekkthe public while ing* the fight,' and ‘appeared to think the combatants only were interested. The ‘ Daily Times ’ is looking forward to a renewal of this strife, and, as a preliminary, puts in a plea for the squatterei' thus ‘ We do not believe that there is a single one of the pastoral tenants who does not desire to - ee the best class of settlers increase in number. If is owing to theinextricable confusion of ’the land laws that we have so ingeniously contrived to set class against class, and rendered it impossible to open land for settlement without causing crying injustice to the tenants.

We really do not see the injustice dbne to a tenant who accepts to occupy land on conditions clearly . specified and known to him beforehand. He knows the terms on which he holds the land, and the risks he undertakes, and if it is needed for settlement before determination of his lease, he has convenanted to relinquish it. It is clearly a question on taking the run for him to consider whether the probable profit is equivalent to the risk. The * Daily Times ’ does not believe “ there is a single one of the pastoral tenants who does not desire to see thefiestf class of settlers increase in number.” Very likely: they would be great fools if they desired otherwise ; but then who are the beat class in the opinion of the squatters 1 Who in the opinion of the ‘Daily Times 1 ’ We do not see this defined. Are they the best who combine farming with grazing, and, as in England, increase the quantity of corn and wool produced on a given area; or those who muddle on year after year, exhausting the soil and letting the squatter continue to hold his princely domains, yielding only half the wool and mutton that could be grown upon them were capital and attention concentrated upon improving a smaller area? It is not merely the squatter or the agriculturist that has to be consulted in this matter. The country owes much to both, but both have reaped a greater reward than they bargained for, and now the people must put the inquiry to themselves: “ Is the national estate so managed that the largest possible produce is obtained from its occupation, or can any system be devised by which its capabilities can be fully developed ?” The present pas toral tenants, from their experience, should stand well in prospect of this competition, which, it must be remembered, is a public, not a merely private question. It is evident, the ‘ Daily limes’ has opened it on the special behalf of the pastoral interest, with what wisdom remains to be seen.