CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 98, 20 November 1852, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times, Sin, —" H," in his last letter, likens the replies drawn forth by his first one to the buzzing of "a hornet's nest about his ears." I think he has a little exaggerated the consequences of his own challenge. The bear, who sought to upset a hive in order to plunder the industrious bees of their honey, appears to me a more apt simile. It is very natural that any one placed in such a predicament should get rather confused, dance with pain, and call the bees very hard names. He is very likely to echo the " shrieks and groans" of one assailant, and to flounder into a mess instead of answering what he calls the " didactic letter" of another. Mr. Stoddart is both "plucky" and "jolly" enough to fight his own battle, so soon as " H's" new challenge shall have reached the gorge of the Itakaia. I shall not presume to take up the cudgels either for him or for the '• Committee-man." But it is absolutely necessary to point out to " H," that he is in complete ignorance of the views held, and published, by my father, Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, on the subject of the best tenure of land for pastoral purposes. So far from controverting or opposing my father's opinions thereupon, I am glad to say I that they have been entirely confirmed in my

mind by personal observation, and by constant communication with men of experience in pastoral enterprise. Indeed, I used very nearly my father's own words, in the letter which " H" says I should not have written because I am my father's son. But I did not use them all. If " H" will turn to Letter 64, at page 418, of the "View of the Art of Colonization," published in 1849, he will find the same opinions stated by my father at much greater length, and much more forcibly, than I was able to do in condensing them for a newspaper's columns. I have a copy of the book, Which I shall be happy to lend " H," or any one else who may care to know what my father's views on the subject really are. I hope "H" will read the Chapter, which I have pointed out to him, attentively from one end to the other. He will then be able to draw the distinction, which he has hitherto totally lost sight of, between the price of freehold land, and the cost of natural pasturage. I will quote but a few sentences, as it is easy for anyof your readers to.ascertain, that the context only strengthens the argument. " The theorists of 1830," says Mr. E. G. Wakefield, " never thought of compelling settlers to pay for the use of natural pasturage. According to their view of the matter, it is the extreme cheapness, not of natural pasturage, but of land for cultivation, which occasions scarcity of labour for hire." " According to their view of the matter, the words l a sufficient price for the use of natural pasturage' are unmeaning or nonsensical." " What shall we say of the policy of the Colonial Office and its official instruments in the colonies, who put a price upon the use of the natural pasturage for no purpose but that of getting money out of the settlers?" "They cannot help paying whatever their government chooses to .require. This absolute necessity of paying in order to preserve the staple business of the colony, renders the putting of a price on the use of natural pasturage a remarkably facile and pleasant sort of taxation: facile and pleasant, that is, for the officials of a government which has no sympathy with its subjects. As regards the subjects, this is a most unwise and oppressive tax." "According to the principles of their theory" (the theorists of 1830) " the natural pasturages of a colony, which nature has freely given, the colonists should, use without let or hindrance of any kind from their government; and, moreover, their government ought to afford them every facility in its power for making the most of that natural advantage." Even in these few lines, "H" may recognise much of my " didactic letter." On some other points it is in vain to argue, as " H" and I shall never agree about them. I still think that you do not give up the public estate for ever, or for an indefinite time, by authorising the use of natural pasturage at a rent equal to the cost of regular distribution among those willing and able to use it. As soon as the laud will fetch the price of freehold land, the public will receive that price, either from the stockowner or from some one else. Nor can I see the justice of grudging to the occupier, who may have spent seven, ten, or fourteen years in conferring value on the land, the continued use of the natural pasturage thereon only, until it be wanted as freehold, instead of exposing him to the competition of ten, or even a hundred fresh capitalists, who will be able to run him up because they have not expended capital. " H's" notion of a protectionist puzzles me. I had always understood the term " protection" to mean, the favour shown to one set of produ- . cers, by exempting them from a tax imposed on another set of producers of the same article ; whereas " H" calls me a protectionist because I object to a tax imposed exclusively on the producers of one article, in such a manner as to discourage its production. I do not advocate i" the exclusive encouragement of any one class; but I deprecate the discouragement of one class exclusively by means of a tax. Let the public, i I say, obtain its necessary revenue by some means pressing more equally on all. lam not i necessarily a protectionist because I agree with s the protectionists of England so far as to desire an equalization of burdens. ) I proposed that the stock-owner should pay i the interest only of the mopey laid out in sur- . veying, because that is an operation absolutely f necessary to the final sale of" the land as freehold, and the principal can be paid but of the urchase money. ! The Government runs " outside the block," I j am ready to admit, have not been stocked more

rapidly than the Association's runs inside ; and pastoral enterprise has not been more successfully encouraged there. This is, however, not because a fourteen years' lease is given, and no rent paid. I should attribute it rather to the well known fact, that no lease whatever has been granted of any land " outside the block" in this settlement. The stock-owners there have been mere squatters, without tenure or security of any kind, exposed, to the caprices, delays, inconveniences, uncertainties, and other obstacles thrown in their way by an incapable commissioner living at jm. out-of-the-way place called Akaroa. Whatever may be the objections to the Association's regulations, they do at least confer a tenure of some kind, and their office has been easy of access. Thus, the system " inside" the block, and not, as " H." assumes, that " outside," has been the more favourable to the stock-owners. I should not at all wonder that they have preferred to work, and that they have made more progress, under it, even if the greater nearness to shipping and markets, of all the land taken up within the block, had not furnished another point of superiority. In my former letter I paid respect to the literary incognito of " H.," and made no remark upon " officialism." But as he has challenged discussion on that subject, I cannot refrain from begging him not'to confuse "the public service" with the service of a Government carried on in opposition to the wishes of the great majority of the public. As a general rule, I firmly believe that employment under such a Government has hitherto, to every right minded man, " implied degradation rather than honor—the mistrust, and not the confidence of his fellow colonists." The exceptions, such as " the liberal feeling hitherto manifested in this settlement" towards officials, only occur where amiable private qualities have" enabled the holder of an office, however unpopular in principle, to discharge its duties with unwonted consideration for the public to whom he is in no way answerable. Liberal institutions, if carried on by an executive responsible to the representatives of the public, will produce a general respect for all men holding office by the wish of their fellow colonists ; and that feeling is in no danger of being, weakened by the tin" disguised expression of the prevailing sentiments as to abstract "officialism" under the present system. I am not aware that the want of " H's" name stirred up my bile; but he seems to forget that arguments, if sound, cannot be overthrown by suggesting that the writer is actuated by the wish to "parade his name at length." For my own part, I have no particular reason for using any other than my usual signature, and therefore I remain, Your very obedient servant, E. Jerningham Wakefield. Christchnrch, Nov. 8, 1852.