THE GLOBE. MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1879.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1803, 1 December 1879, Page 2

THE GLOBE. MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1879.

In view of the stock cry that arises at intervals from certain quarters with regard to the terrible evils inflicted in some mysterious manner on the community at large by the squatter of Canterbury, it is somewhat amusing to study the "Return showing the number of sheepowners and number of sheep on the 31st of May, 1879," in the colony. The gentlemen who inveigh against the squatter are apt to treat him as almost indigenous to Canterbury, where by means fair or foul he runs a countless number of sheep on Crown lands, paying a ridiculously small sum for the privilege. Sir George Grey, in particular, is never tired of airing his eloquence in running down these monopolizers. According to his statements, the squatter leads a species of patriarchal existence on the vast areas which he occupies. His countless herds cover the earth like locusts, and the influence he exercises by means of his enormous wealth is always used to the detriment of the community. An Otago squatter is a harmless creature, he is comparatively poor, his flocks and herds are hardly worth taking into account; in fact, he is altogether a different sort of individual from his tremendous confrere who lives north of the Waitaki. The returns we have alluded to above, however, prove that Sir George's imagination has, as usual, rather run away with him. The number of sheep depasturing on Crown lands in Canterbury is 1,356,887, while those depasturing on freehold lands in the same district number 2,015,017. In Otago the number on Crown lands are 2,157,242, those on freehold lands are 1,422,760. That is to say, that in Canterbury the freeholder owns nearly twice as many sheep as the squatter, while in Otago the conditions are exactly reversed. Then again, with regard to the size of the flocks in the two provinces. In Canterbury there are 1036 individuals owning less than 500 sheep, in Otago there are but 529. Of those owning less than 1000 in Canterbury there are 150, in Otago but 97, and so on during the lower numbers. But when the larger numbers are reached, then Otago outtops Canterbury. Of sheep-owners with less than 20,000 sheep there are 58 in Canterbury, but 60 in Otago. Of those with less than 50,000 there are 36 in Canterbury, but 42 in Otago; of those with less than 100,000 there six in Canterbury, and eight in Otago ; and, finally, of those with less than 200,000 there is one in Otago, but none in Canterbury. It is evident, therefore, that if Sir George Grey wishes in reality to discover in the flesh that individual against whom his imagination is so heated, he should search for him, if anywhere, in Otago. But, in point of fact, the whole thing is a complete farce. The squatter and his influence belong to a past period of colonial history. The squatter at one time was no doubt very powerful in Canterbury. To suit certain purposes, Sir George Grey digs him up at intervals, much in the same way as he digs up the gentleman who was hung for sheep stealing in the days ef his youth. The one is as much fossilized as the other. When Sir George Grey exhibits his fossil squatter, and entreats his hearers to notice the ruddy flush of health that mantles in his cheek, his well nourished body, and the exuber-

ance of his animal spirits, audiences hare been known to cheer lustily. Sir George has retired from the platform flushed with success, and half believing in his own assertions; his fossil squatter has been packed up with the defunct sheepstealer and his other effects, and a more has been made to the next platform. Such is the force of assurance in these latter days.