The Lyttelton Times. March 13, 1852.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 62, 13 March 1852, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. March 13, 1852.

There are rumours of proceedings before the Commissioner of Crown Lands at Akaroa, of such an extraordinary nature, that we have despatched a Special Commissioner to ascertain their truth, and to bring the matter before the public.

The rumour to which we alluded last week, that the general organization of the colonists was likely to become the subject of discussion at the next meeting of the Land Purchasers, appears to have been well founded. Our readers will find in another page that the Council, whilst considering the question of revising the franchise of the Society, iv accordance with a reso-

liilion moved by Mr. Pollard at the last General Meeting, have come to the conclusion that no mere alteration of the franchise wUl'affeet what is wanted in the settlement. They prortose a plan of action in which all the inhabitants of the settlement may join, and in order that the Society may be fully prepared to deal with their proposal at the meeting advertised for the Ist of April, they have requested us to give publicity to the draft of those clauses in their lleport which allude to this subject. We cordially approve of the line which the Council have taken ; and we do so in the full recollection of the opinions which we put forward in our third number, at the time when the question of the franchise was originally umls*. discussion in the Society. We then objected to*1" the enlargement of the franchise of the Society, for this reason : that the Canterbury Association was under an implied contract to those who had purchased land from it, to consult them in matters relating to the expenditure of the funds, and to place within their control the i•management of their affairs in the colony. So far as the Association were concerned, there were no other colonists at that time, except < those who had bought land: nor could it be saiil that the Association were bound to listen to the recommendations of any other persons. The Canterbury Association, in founding the settlement, had an avowed object in view. They desired to give a certain tone to society. The purchase of land and the contribution of money for the objects of the Association was regarded as a sufficient, indeed as the only necessary test of agreement, to a certain extent, in its original scheme. Those who had not purchased land had been subject to no such lest; and the Association were not therefore bound to defer to their opinion in carrying out their scheme. This was a reason why the Association might have refused to listen to a Society composed of others than those whom it was, in a certain manner, bound to consult: and the formation of a Society to which the Association might have taken exception would have been useless. Now the same view which we have often ex**& pressed, that the whole machinery of the Association was of a temporary and exceptional character, applies equally to such a Society a#. that of the Laud Purchasers. Its duration could be but temporary under any circumstances. It was inevitable that a multitude of interests, besides the land interests, would soon arise in the settlement; and that the disposal of the land fund would become as much a matter of importance to them as to the land owners. Under any circumstances, then, the movement now made must have come sooner or later ; but it has been precipitated by the policy o! the Association. The .Society of Land purchasers have not been placed in the position which our former argument supposed, and which alone could render their prolonged existence desirable. They have not been recognized as having any right to influence the policy of the Association ; and the recent Act of Parliament puts an end to any expectation llial they will be so recognized. If the Association had accepted the theory upon which alone their exclusive franchise could be defended, the Society would have had, at all events, an excuse for maintaining its position. If it had been a question as we supposed, whether the principle of local management should be conceded to a part of the community, or to none, there would have been a great temptation to accept the former alternative. •• But perhaps it is better as it is. Perhaps it will prove better in the end, that the Associarj tion has driven the land purchasers into a union with the other classes of the community^ For the maintenance of a permanent distinction!, between the interests of the landowners and v those of other classes would have been in the end most dangerous to the public welfare. The Council have, therefore, in our opinion acted with political foresight in recommending that this distinction shall be at once put an end to. Of the details of the scheme it would be p£^-"~ mature to say anything. They will, no douKbe fully discussed at public meetings of the inhabitants. Nor can it be necessary for us to call upon the people at large to respond to the proposition of the Council; —to bid them remember that it is idle to complain of evils without resolutely trying to remedy them. If the Colonists really desire to see constitutional government introduced in this settlement, now

is the time to shew that they are fitted to enjoy it. By forming a society, not of one party or sect, but of all parties and all shades of opinion—pilgrims and strangers —Government men and anti-Government men ; —by taking an active, intelligent, business-like interest in public affairs, by discussing all political and social questions affecting their own position, by electing the best men to form a permanent committee to watch their interests —men whom they can trust to represent their views upon minor questions, and to call them together when more important matters require their direct attention; — by such a course they will not only be able effectually to strive for a restoration of their lo^trirtghts and privileges, but they will have Ijji&ituated themselves to their use as soon as that restoration shall have been achieved.

After writing the above, we received the letter which we print on the next page, signed by " A Shagroon." We are very glad to find these questions attract the attention of the Colonists. Shagroon's letter is worth a careful perusal, but we must defer till our next number to reply to his charge of inconsistency against ourselves.

We-publish-in another part of our paper the new pasturage regulations of the Canterbury Settlement, and we think it necessary to accompany the publication of them with some explanatory remarks. It is impossible to deny that these regulations aye in many respects imperfect and unsatisfactory ; they appear to us somewhat complicated, the principles of them are not very easy to understand, and on the whole, they do not offer to stockowners such facilities and attractions as the vast importance of that interest entitles it to expect. We must remember, however, that in framing them Mr. Godley has not had to deal with a tabula rasa, upon which he might inscribe what characters he pleased. He has had to consider and respect the Act of Parliament cHid terms of purchase, with the liabilities which the Association has incurred in 'conformity with those documents. Now the "^Pasturage regulations," (as they were called,) contained in the " Act" and the '* Terms of purchase" amounted in substance to nothing more than this: that all purchasers of rural land should have the privilege of selecting five acres of pasturage for every acre of freehold, with a pre-emptive right; and that 20s. per 100 acres should be the rent of pasturage runs. It is needless for us at present to discuss the policy of these regulations ; they are condemned by every colonist who has ever read them. We believe that not a dozen purchasers have taken .their pasturage with pre-emptive right for purely pastoral purposes, and still less would any one think of paying a pastoral rent of £1 per 100 acres without a preemptive right, except under quite exceptional circumstances, such as taking a very small extent close to the town as outstray for a few cows. For the purposes of that great interest on the extension and success of which the whole material prosperity of the colony depends, that is, of sheep-farm-ing, these regulations were worse than useless ; as they stood, they were prohibitory.' At the same time it has been thought, perhaps justly, that so many contracts have been made under them with purchasers, and such was the difficulty and inconverkience of altering ths Act of Parliament, -^nat.the best course now open is to modify the Conditions of pastoral leases only so far as is consistent with the letter of the " Terms of purchase" and the " Act." Of this decision the regulations now published are the result, and to this is to be attributed, we think, their chief deficiences; vr-e allude especially to the (at first sight) needless' division of pastoral licenses into classes ; the awkward and obscure wording of the clause directing the mode of payment for licenses of the 3rd class ; and, above all, the unfortunate provision that any part of a pasturage run may be taken by a purchaser to the amount of five acres for

every acre purchased. At the same time, it is only fair to say that the difficulties produced by the original error are practically to a great extent removed ; the term of licenses is extended to a reasonable period ; the prohibitory rent of £1 per 100 acres has been indirectly and effectually reduced, although from necessity remaining nominally unaltered; while the privilege granted to purchasers and their assigns of selecting a certain quantity of land with a right of pre-emption, unless as it is for ths purpose originally contemplated, has been turned to account with great advantage for the formation of stations. If the stockowner be not a land purchaser, he may protect his improvements by purchasing a " pre-emptive right," of which there are plenty in the market at a low price, and the only annoyance to which he remains liable, is that of having a comparatively small portion of his run taken by purchasers, either as freehold, or (at a high rent) for pasturage. Now, to the liability of being fairly bought out, no squatter can reasonably object, and with respect to the power possessed by purchasers of taking their proportion of pasturage with pre-emptive right within his run, he will reflect that, no such purchaser could think of forming a station, or feeding sheep for profit on the extent of pasturage to which he is entitled in virtue of his freehold ; so that, if done, it can only be done for purposes of wanton annoyance. On the whole, then, we do think that public opinion, and self-interest combined, will, under such circumstances, pretty effectually protect the stock-owner from intruders, and that our pasturage regulations, though b3' no means what we would wish, will no longer tend, as hitherto, to th; discouragement of pastoral husbandly.