THE CANTERBURY LANDS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 62, 13 March 1852, Page 3

THE CANTERBURY LANDS.

[From the Australian and New Zealand Gazette, Oct. 18th, 1851.] Our recommendation of reducing the price of Canterbury lands to thirty-shillings per acre, and compensating those who have already purchased land, byjloubling the quantity purchased at 31. per acre, appears to have excited no small attention amongst parties interested in the alteration of the system of the Association. That this alteration will force itself upon that body, unless it is prepared to cease all further operations by adhering to a false principle, is apparent to all: As this latter alternative is one which we should not like to see, we will devote ourselves to a father and broader consideration of the subject; "Siul to comprehend this thoroughly, our readers must go with us into the previous condition of the land question in New Zealand. At present the only settlements in which land can be purchased in New Zealand are those of Canterbury and Otago. The price of land in the former settlement is 31. per acre; in the latler, if we recollect rightly, somewhere about 21. The Company's price in Wellington was 11.; in New Plymouth it was originally the same, but was afterwards raised to thirty shillings; and in Nelson it was thirty shillings. We have here five distinct systems for the price of land in the same country, every one of them fixed by Mr. Wakefield according to the opinions he then entertained. Our purpose, however, is not to inquire into the object of the disparity, but as to what effect this diversity of price will have upon the future progress of the colony ? Let us dismiss for the moment all other considerations. In a short time the Local Government ■will have the sale of lands in the whole of the northern settlements. This sale will, no doubt, take place by auction, though we do not like the auction system, as giving rise to a class of men who live by extorting money from the emigrant who really means to purchase, by threatening him with their opposition at the sale, if they are not bought off. This is a well known colonial trick, and is practised extensively in all colonies where the auction system prevails; and that in spite of laws making such disreputable opposition penal. We would rather see the emigrant pick his own land where he chooses, at a fixed price, even if that were lower than what the land is really worth. This would be a premium for early colonial enterprise, and would entail no eventual loss on the cjS'lony. ' But let this pass. The Government upset price will be one pound per acre, and the land vill be purchased at an advance on this ; —for some time that advance will be slight. Now, how is the Canterbury Association to compete with this ? People will not give 31. per acre to the southward, when they can get land for one-third the price to the northward. • The Government will be placed in this position : either the Canterbury Association will exclaim against the Government for underselling them in the land market, thereby preventing their sales ; —or, if the Government give way to the Association, and raise the upset price of land, the colonists of the older settlements wiil cry out against the injustice of stopping their progress, by demanding more for the land than it is worth, thus deterring purchasers from coming to their districts. This will be the dilemma, and the only possible way of getting out of it, is to make the lands of the Association and of the Government uniform in price ; and this will have to be done in the end, however great may be the opposition to it now. When in our last article on this subject we said that thirty shillings per acre was a fair price for the Canterbury lands, we bore in mind this dilemma in which the Southern Province generally, as we have above stated, is about to be placed; and we make the odd ten shillings, in our recommendation, which odd ten shillings vill cover all additional sums that will be obtained by the Government at their auction sales. This, though not exactly an uniform price, is something very nearly approaching to it, and will be found sufficiently near- in practice to prevent unfair competition on the part of either the Government or the Association. And this must be done, despite Mr. Wakefield's t&sories; —either the colony generally must stand fffeile the Canterbury Association is experimenting, or tjjje Canterbury Association must go the wall from the cheapness of land under the Government system in the northern, settlements. Our mode of obviating this is boch simple and practicable; though if not speedily adopted, it will every day become more difficult in the ratio of new sales ...'..'iv^and by the Association upon their present system. "^if the average price of land in the older settlements should, at the Government sales, yield more than thirty shillings per acre, the Association might then raise the price of its lands to that average, be it what it may. The policy of this, however, would be doubtful, for the Association might command the land market by underselling the Government. Land in colonies is as,much a tnei'chan table article as broadcloth, and we are only

looking at the matter in a commercial point of view ; —the chief difficulty attached to the question in the English mind arises from our notions of the land system at home, than which nothing can well be more preposterous. But the question has a- much wider bearing than the price of land, whether sold by the Association or the Government. The British owners of land in Wellington, Nelson, and New Plymouth have even a more vital interest in the adoption of our views than have the settlers of the Canterbury Association. When, some time since, on the additional grants of land being made to them by the New Zealand Company, we ridiculed the idea that they had received additional value, many were desperately offended with our views. We told them that their additional lands were worth precisely what their original lands, in the majority of instances, were worth, — i. c., literally nothing, in the present state of the colony. We appeal to them, pretty confidently, whether our words were true or not. We are too well versed in New Zealand matters to be far mistaken; and we again tell them that their value will not increase during their lifetime, if they do not urge on the Government some such (uniform system in the disposal of lands throughout the whole of the Southern settlements as shall for ever set at rest all bickerings amongst the various settlements. Who will purchase land in a colony in which are all these conflicting interests, which undecide a man as to where he shall go, and finally drive him to another colony where there are no conflicting interests ? If this reasoning be not clear enough to the absentee owners of lai.d in the old settlements, we will adduce a more convincing proof. Let them look at the millions of sheep, the great prosperity, and the rapidly increasing commerce of South Australia, scarcely older than New Zealand, and then at the pastoral and agricultural condition of.the latter colony. Let them ask themselves what has been wrong. They have been told that the want of progress has been stopped by the absence of Government grants. This is not so: a Company's land-order was as good a title as a Government grant, for which it has all along been certain it would be eventually exchanged. No man ever stopped cultivation in New Zealand on this ground, but thousands have been deterred from going to*the most fertile colony in the empire, because they would not encounter conflicting land squabbles. Men do not emigrate in search of a field for political bitterness —there is only one country in which that can be enjoyed in perfection, and that is our own country. They emigrate for the enjoyment of the fruits of quiet industry, apart from political nuisances. If the plan we have suggested, or something like it be not adopted, as to a common price for lands, the deterring effect on emigrants with capital will be just the same as under the regime of the old Company, and the lands of the absentees will remain valueless, for want of purchasers who will not go to such a state of things. It is of the highest importance to the future progress of the colony that no more squabbles between the Government and colonizing companies shall take place, and the best way to insure this will be to place the land system upon a basis that the one cannot annoy the other; this point the absentee land-owners of New Zealand generally cannot too forcibly urge both on the Association and the Government. Mr. Wakefisld's theories are nothing in the matter —no one cares whether they are right or wrong—as some must be for they are all different. The settlements are there, and the only point worth consideration is how to make them " go ahead." There is no better way for this than to prevent them from going astern ; —and this they will most certainly again do, if any chance remains of renewed disputes with the Government about land. If the colony is to take the rank to which its great capabilities entitle it, neither the hands of the Government nor those of the Association must be tied, or the general prosperity will again be placed in abeyance. As regards the Canterbury Association itself, the question is simple enough, even in a pecuniary point of view. As we stated in our last article upon the subject, all rosolves itself into one point, viz., whether they shall sell abundance of land for what it is really worth, or whether they shall sell small quantities only—at double its market value? One would think the veriest huckster could tell them which is the better policy. If they do not adopt the selfevident course, the o?ie pound an acre system of the Government land sales will soon compel them to adopt it, and it would be to the Association an immense advantage to get the start of the Government. There are those in the Association who may not thank us for broaching the point, but one thing is to us certain—they cannot evade it; and sooner or later they must come to it. We have been informed that there are those in their body who think our views the right ones, and that by adopting them they will be able to swim' boldly, whilst others contend that they, ought to sink onprinciple. If the Association revise its system, there is no danger of sinking at all, but as it is, the small haadway which it is now making is not- progress;" ; /. ■■';■: . ■ . . • : '. „■-'"'

We trust the Association has not committed itself to any squatting regulations which may interfere with its future determinations. We inserted in our last number, an estimate from an experienced Australian sheep farmer, that the country will carry abont six millions of sheep. Now, if this be the case, the quantity is not more than ought in a few years to be owned by the very superior class of emigrants who have a predilection for the Canterbury colony, and who would be increased tenfold if the price of land were reasonable. Squatting should hence be regarded with a jealous eye, lest it prove a stumbling block in a comparatively limited district. There is no necessity to be in a hurry about it, and though we give all praise to the Association for so promptly taking into consideration the wishes of the colonists, yet inconsiderate compliance with those wishes may do harm to all parties.