CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 159, 21 January 1854, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

f To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. I Sir,—As an observer, rather than from I practical acquaintance with the question, I | h av e read with considerable interest the [correspondence of "A Tiller of the Soil," I and the replies, or rather the comments, of 1"A Land and Cattle Owner." The latter I would have the world believe that he has S no personal interest in the matter, but is I supremely anxious that the question should j be fairly discussed, and " desires to elicit I matured opinions, and to hear his own aril guments (!) concisely and justly answered.' I Pity that one so honest in his anxiety for 1 the interest of an important class in our cod lonial community should display so little | courtesy and so much temper towards an | antagonist whose tone was mildness itself, > and who seems really eager to draw forth § a fair discussion upon the merits of the t question. One assertion, has, I confess, i startled me at the outset. It is, that in I New Zealand there exists an Ordinance, f framed, I "presume, by the Governor and , Council, which renders the fencing of lands s compulsory for "protection, and defin°s the \ nature and character of a fence. I believe i' I can safely say that few tillers of the soil | are aware of the nature of this Ordinance, !?iand it would be of infinite service to those *of them, who, like myself, are of recent imv | portation, if you would, in your next, favour , t us with a copy of it.* y '' I was foolish enough to believe, when /leaving England, that I was proceeding to ,-a colony in which all the laws which pre- * vailed at home would here be recognised in ? their fullest integrity; while with the addiX tional advantage of a Constitution of its * } own, an intelligent community, such as is . undoubtedly to be found here, would be enabled to work them out for the advantage Aof the people. lam therefore greatly surj; prised at the existence of this Ordinance, ilt surely cannot have reference to land over ■£ which there is an actual right of ownership. I " A Land and Cattle Owner" would have a i law passed to compel men to fence their I land, in order to prevent cattle trespassing thereon and without this fence there * should be no damage. Why, Sir, this is •J returning to the very worst days of home class persecution—that of law-making for I one class at the cost of another. I can I well understand the wisdom of such an j i enactment when all are alike squatters. If < A squats on a fifty acre section, and pays rent nor purchase money, and | chooses to turn his attention to the cultivate tion of the soil; and B locates himself in his I immediate vicinity as a cattle-owner, imi porting stock, and feeding them off the land I where he can: then it is for A and B ei- | ther to agree as to their relative positions, j or for the legislature, if it recognises them j at all, to define where the law of trespass | begins. But the case is a very different one I when you import into the argument the acl tual acquisition of property. " A Land and | Cattle Owner" himself says, " the equity of | the case has alone to be considered," and if Ihe is sincere in this admission, his whole j argument falls to the ground. I, for example, became the purchaser of a section of | land, consisting, we will suppose, of 100 I acres of good grass land ; my intention is to I cultivate this land, and proceed with it as I the labour market on the one hand, and my iconvenience on the other, will enable me. |Now I have a neighbour, let us suppose, ;.also the owner of, or renter of, a like section pi 100 acres, partly under cultivation too ; but his tastes are for the acquisition of cattle, believing, and I think somewhat justly,

that cattle are a good investment. It is manifest that 100 acres cannot graze 10 or 20 times the number of beasts —what is done therefore ? they are driven upon the adjoining unoccupied lands untended, to feed where they can; and as a portion of my land is apparently unoccupied, because neither Jenced nor cultivated, he considers he has a right to the excellent feed of grass that is to b3 found there, and so takes it. Now, Sir, it is here I question this right, and here I question the legality of any New Zealand Ordinance whatsoever—if unaccompanied by the direct sanction of an English parliament. The laws of meum et tuum are at once upset. My grass, upon which he feeds his cattle, 1 have destined for hay for my winter feeding. What right can any man have to deprive me of it anymore than he would have, had in England ? So equally as regards the destruction of growing crops, whether of corn, cabbages, or any other produce, if there is a direct ownership in the land, there should be a direct property in the produce,whether fenced or not. To suppose a right of trespass seems an absurdity ; it is tantamount to the assertion of a right equivalent to that of a freebooter, i The cattle-owner becomes the captain of a gang of desperadoes, for whom he cannot provide ; he drives them from his doors to prey upon his neighbours ; and if the " Land and Cattle Owner's" arguments are worth anything, these desperadoes would be justified in their wanton attacks upon their neighbours, if perchance they found the doors unbarred, or their houses unprotected. Equally might they clear off the growing crops found upon unfenced land. The oats and the barley, the wheat and the hay, left until the golden time of harvest, might be claimed by these newly-born lovers of equal justice. But " a Land and Cattle Owner," more learned in legal lore than his fellows, tells us, " thez'e are many of the English laws which cannot properly apply to the colonies, and such are just the ones which require to be superseded by colonial legislation." I have that confidence and that faith in English law as to believe that, framed, as it has been, with care and discretion, with judgment and careful deliberation, that they are mostly fitted for all places where English rule, and an English constitution prevail. It is only in cases where factions interfere, or from abortive attempts at an absolute authority by a Governor, or from the interference of quibbling and pettyfogging attorneys, that difficulties are created, and laws become abortive. One word more in relation to the last sentence of a " Land and Cattle Owner's " letter : he says, " though the public have no i-ight of pasturage over the said sections, yet it is a reasonable question, whether it would not be more equitable, and for the. benefit of the colony, to allow them this privilege, than to allow the tiller of land, who cannot use the ' run' himself, dog-in-the-manger-like, to prevent others from doing so." Let me suppose that a " Land and Cattle Owner. has an idle balance of some few hundreds at his banker's : would it then be a reasonable question, or tvould it be more equitable, to legalize the appropriation of the money by those who could find immediate beneficial use for it: and that without payment, or in any way recognising the rights of a dog-in-the-manger-like ownership ? I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, A Pilgrim op the Plains. * The Ordinance referred ,to by " A Land and Cattle Owner" is termed the " Cattle Trespass Ordinance," and is printed among the " Ordinances of New Zealand," f. 1, s. xvii. By this Ordinance, compensation can be claimed only from trespass on | " substantially fenced" land, except on those lands occupied by Maories.